EPA, Energy Dept. chiefs to appear at House climate hearing
Energy companies preparing for life without the Keystone XL pipeline
Rep. Issa, ex-EPA chief Jackson to square off over email allegations
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 09/05/2013 12:18:59 AM PDT by neverdem
The Second Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's climate-science panel (IPCC-AR2, 1996), invented the Hot-Spot in the tropical atmosphere about 10 km above the earth's surface and assumed, mistakenly, it was proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). But the hotspot has never been demonstrated observationally. The Fifth IPCC Report (AR5, to be released on Sept 27, 2013) conveniently ignores this inconvenient fact...
--snip--
Returning to climate science: How to interpret the lack of consistency between models and observations of the hotspot? There are three basic choices:
1. The atmospheric measurements could be in error -- favored by climate alarmists. This is very unlikely since radiosondes and independent satellite observations agree that the tropical atmospheric warming trends from 1978 to 2000 are essentially zero.
2. The models could be in error -- favored by most skeptics. This is also unlikely. While climate models are certainly far from perfect, they do follow faithfully the instructions given to them. Also, independent research indicates there is amplification shown (as expected) by atmospheric trends of short-term surface trends -- with the former up to double of the latter.
3. This leaves the possibility that the reported surface trends (covering the period 1978-2000) have been greatly over-estimated, and are in actuality close to zero. After all, if the atmospheric trend is ~zero and represents an amplification factor of ~2, then half of zero is still zero.
It turns out then that this third possibility is the most likely. Such near-zero surface trends are supported by independent ocean data and by 'proxy' data of tree rings, ice cores, stalagmites, etc...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Years ago, I used to jog around Reid Park in Tucson, AZ. It’s a good long three-mile circle. At the end....there’s the weather trailer that the university runs....collecting data for the national map.
The trailer was a late-1960s trailer, with a AC unit on one end. About three feet from the AC unit....was the temp collection unit. The trailer? It was laid out on a stone surface...then ten feet away was a concrete surface, and twenty feet away....a four-lane intersection with tons of pavement.
Heat-magnet? Yeah. I would guess that the gauge was picking up an extra four degrees on any given July day. Who picked this location? That would be an interesting question to ask. Valid data? Absolutely not. Corrupted planning? Yeah.
That was back in 1992. I have no idea if the trailer is still there or if they moved it. As for reliability of this data going into a national database? It’s zero. Anything collected from this trailer over the past couple of decades.....is worth zero in reliability. That’s the sad part about this whole mess....real scientist are absolute about clean data. These guys? Fake is good enough. That’s why you can’t believe anything.
Anthropogenic Imagined Global Warming (AIGW).
The hot spot — if it exists — is 10 km above the earth’s surface. I’ve never understood how the heat was supposed to flow down to the surface from such a great height. Doesn’t usually work that way, does it?
Radiation. It works well with heat from the sun.
EPA, Energy Dept. chiefs to appear at House climate hearing
Energy companies preparing for life without the Keystone XL pipeline
Rep. Issa, ex-EPA chief Jackson to square off over email allegations
Global Warming on Free Republic
Watts Up With That used to have pages devoted to weather recording stations that were situated in violation of the guidelines. I remember one right above a bunch of big window AC units, another was next to a bbq grill, another surrounded by pop up sprinkler heads and almost all of them too close to asphalt and concrete. Very few were found that were right.
I remember that.
What always amazed me....these are scientists (at least on paper) who put the measuring units where they were, under the curious nature of inaccurate readings, and few of them ever questioned reliability.
It’d be like some GM engineer who puts some enhancement onto the speedometer that reads your speed eight miles per hour more than what it actually is. Or having some toaster development guy make a toaster that burns your toast on all fourteen positions. You’d fire both guys, and insist on quality.
The scientists in charge of the weather measuring stations? They just stay on and on. There’s something wrong here....but most folks have real jobs and real lives, and don’t have time to waste jerking the chains of scientists to get accurate.
Yes, that is where Anthony Watts got started as a CAGW skeptic. An interview with Anthony Watts discusses this. Scroll down and click on his picture at
http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/#prettyPhoto/4/
to watch the interview, which lasts about 50 minutes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.