Comments on: Airports Are Getting Warmer

By: kitfox

kitfox — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:34:31 +0000

Wish I could remember the website where a retired meteorologist/astrophysical dude was keeping a photo log of all the changes over the decades of quite a number of official monitoring stations. The urbanization is simply an utterly undeniable modifier of the data. Makes it useless for tracking climatic trends, like it or not. And this is reinforced to me every evening when I drive home from town through miles of vast agricultural fields in my non air conditioned car. You do not need a thermometer to tell you the difference, although it certainly will confirm the truth of this matter. And the difference is even more stark at night when town continues to retain the heat.

By: AnonyMoose

AnonyMoose — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:49:42 +0000

brazil84: GISS might be agreeing with other temperature measurements because it uses their results. Similarity is hardly surprising, but it also might not be particularly informative. Claiming that A is like B therefore they both are good is weakened when A is made from B.

By: hunter

hunter — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:34:48 +0000

Hunter/sockpuppet/rude poster,
You are not faring so well by your arrogant, reactionary style.
AnonyMoose is asking a good question on behalf of more than himself. So keep your editorial advice to yourself, and just try for once to not be a compleat troll.
A typical AGW believer argument posits that scientists who are skeptical of AGW, but have at some point taken ‘big oil’ money, are corrupt along with their ideas.
Why should not the same standard be applied to GISS, whose leader has received money from groups that use AGW as a fund raising tool?, or otherwise thrive on promoting belief in it?
The problem with GISS is that it is well documented their US surface record data is not reliable. The reasonable question is why should the other components of their data be considered reliable?
But you are not really reasonable, are you?
But you do help convince people that AGW is just a social mania. Please continue doing everything you do.

By: brazil84

brazil84 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:16:19 +0000

“Certainly not. If you have any scientific training at all you would know that throwing away good data is incredibly stupid.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “throwing away” data. I’m simply proposing that we ignore the GISS temperatures for purposes of debate. If GISS agrees with the other temperature measurements, you should have no objection to this as it will not affect the outcome of the debate.

Let me ask you this: I can find an argument or paper by Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen which does not make use of the UAH series (or the RSU series), you will agree that such conduct by Mann or Schmidt or Hansen is “incredibly stupid”?

By: hunter

hunter — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:57:58 +0000

AnonyMoose - there are four widely used temperature data sets. Three agree very closely. If you think that GISS is the outlier, you are blind, stupid, or both. If you want to know more about GISS data, I suggest you look at their website. And try not to say "we" when you mean "I". It makes you look deranged.

By: AnonyMoose

AnonyMoose — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:18:17 +0000

Hunter: Are you not wanting to throw out GISS because it is data? Can you please explain what that data is measuring, and how? We need to know what it is data of. And believe me that you’ll get an entranced audience to an explanation.

By: AnonyMoose

AnonyMoose — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:13:43 +0000

Hunter: You say that GISS has not diverged from satellites, then post graphs which show that it does. So is your point that satellites have diverged from GISS, rather than GISS diverging from satellites?

By: hunter

hunter — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:27:01 +0000

GISS has become, under Hansen, a political organization. It is no longer credible scientifically.
Its ‘data’ only makes sense as a sales tool for the gullible.
Heck, Hansen is still peddling positive feedbacks and tipping points.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Hansen_1.html
And Hunter is stupid and slow enough as to probably still actually believe him.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:01:14 +0000

Certainly not. If you have any scientific training at all you would know that throwing away good data is incredibly stupid.

By: brazil84

brazil84 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:35:16 +0000

I’m not sure why the debate needs to be so nasty over whether GISS is diverging or not. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that GISS not NOT diverging. In that case, you should have no objection to using the other 3 leading measurements ONLY and ignoring GISS.

Agreed?