Re: [asa] Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' per Newsweek Editor

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 14:05:11 EDT

Just showed how these 'findings' are highly contrived especially since
these data points are corrected for.

Sigh... So much flawed understanding and little effort to learn.

On 8/13/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At 01:15 PM 8/13/2007, PvM wrote:
>
>
> Faulty sources? ....Finding fault with some of these data sources ignores
> the process that is used to correct these data for biases and trends not
> related to climate.
>
> @ Ahhhhhhh - exactly what IS that "process" they use to "correct the data
> they ignore" and the faulty data they choose to include? Do they do it
> monthly when the AlGoreRhythms are made available to them? Hahahahahaha ~
> Janice
>
> Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations
> on land..... [snip] Pictured here:
> http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
>
> More inconvenient truths:
>
> "...but I just learned the other day that the Urban Heat Island Effect
> (which I had always naively assumed was taken into account) is not even
> factored into any of these data sets. I was blown away by that. The IPCC
> considers it to be a non-factor. ..." 16 posted on 08/13/2007
>
> ...recent findings that 1934 is the hottest year in the last 107 years...
>
> And think how much more thermal mass we had sitting around in 1998 vs 1934
> in the form of highways, parking lots, bldgs... When I lived in the SW, I
> learned that a good rule of thumb in gauging summer temps is that it was
> approx. 5 degrees hotter in town than it was out in the country because of
> all the accumulated heat from structures, pavement, etc. Plus the heat from
> a lot more internal combustion engines.
>
> And, then there are all the a/c condensing units displacing indoor heat to
> the exterior. When you're dealing in the minutia of tenths & hundredths of a
> degree, this stuff adds up & makes a difference. And, still, 1934 was
> hotter. A LOT hotter, I suspect. 15 posted on 08/13/2007
>
> In California, the warming rate is much increased by UHIs and land use
> measurements. In fact, it may be doubled according to a study by Patzert and
> LaDochy.
>
> "The scientists found great variations in temperature patterns throughout
> the state. Average temperatures increased significantly in nearly 54 percent
> of the stations studied, with human-produced changes in land use seen as the
> most likely cause. The largest temperature increases were seen in the
> state's urban areas, led by Southern California and the San Francisco Bay
> area, particularly for minimum temperatures. Minimum temperatures at some
> agricultural sites showed increases comparable to some urban areas. Rural,
> non-agricultural regions warmed the least. The Central Valley warmed
> slowest, while coastal areas warmed faster, and the southeast desert warmed
> fastest.
>
> The only area to cool was a narrow band of the state's mainly rural
> northeast interior. While few stations overall showed decreases in average
> and minimum temperatures, 13 percent of the stations for which sufficient
> maximum temperature data were available showed a significant drop in average
> maximum temperatures, including some urban sites."
>
> From
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070330221144.htm
>
> Until GISS corrects for these non-climatic effects in California and other
> states, the temperature increase in the US will continue to be
> overestimated.
>
> Posted by: Douglas Hoyt | August 9, 2007 01:27 PM
>
> Here is my real world example of the Global Warming effects on Policy. The
> State of California just passed legislation based on the Global Warming
> hysteria that has forced electric bills to be billed by customer usage of
> kwh in "usage tiers". Any usage over a certain mystery amount, that the nuts
> in the state legislature determined would reduce Global Warming, results in
> a penalty rate being charged to the customer.
>
> My bill this month was $400 higher than last month due to the fact I
> consumed electricity into the penalty range of the "usage tier" they call
> "energy hogs".
> My electric bill went from $200 to $600 even though most days were in
> excess of 100 F last month and I set my thermostat at 82 F. I live near Palm
> Springs, Kalifornia.
> I want a refund! This is the kind of crap the global warming nut jobs are
> using to say we are wasting energy and increasing the temperature of the
> planet with fraudulent research by NASA and others.
>
> My local barber said his bill was in excess of $1000, a $600 increase
> because of bogus science. This is a real world example of consensus science
> run amok. My barber will have to pass the cost along as well as all the
> other businesses in this state. This is Pure insanity. How do I as a
> homeowner pass the cost along? We all are going to the City Council Meeting
> next Tuesday and are going to protest the new electric rates. I am going to
> bring in the new data from NASA to debunk their arguments about Global
> Warming.
>
> You all should be outraged that public policy is based on junk science. You
> are going to be paying too. Like they say, California is usually the leader
> in liberal policies. If California passes something, so goes the nation.
>
> Posted by: ScottyDog | August 11, 2007 12:46 PM
>
> MORE:
> http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 13 14:05:35 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 13 2007 - 14:05:35 EDT