Brett Anderson - Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...rrage_o_1.html

"In his response, Hansen explains why these
ideas about sun and climate change are wrong
and that speculation that we may have entered
a solar driven long-term cooling trend must be
dismissed as a pipedream as the solar signal
in shorter term global temperature is too weak."

To reinforce,

Solar Forcing Explanation Debunked
Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert
http://climate.weather.com/blogs/9_13005.html

"Global warming skeptics have often looked to
the sun for an explanation to rising global
temperatures. A new study published in the
Proceedings of the Royal Society puts this
argument to rest, hopefully for the last time."

David Christainsen - meteorologist

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:59:52 -0700 (PDT), David
wrote:

Brett Anderson - Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...rrage_o_1.html

"In his response, Hansen explains why these
ideas about sun and climate change are wrong
and that speculation that we may have entered
a solar driven long-term cooling trend must be
dismissed as a pipedream as the solar signal
in shorter term global temperature is too weak."

To reinforce,

Solar Forcing Explanation Debunked
Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert
http://climate.weather.com/blogs/9_13005.html

"Global warming skeptics have often looked to
the sun for an explanation to rising global
temperatures. A new study published in the
Proceedings of the Royal Society puts this
argument to rest, hopefully for the last time."

David Christainsen - meteorologist

All this at a time when even NASA (read Hansen) is being forced to
re-evaluate downwards its estimates of temperature rise over the last
century. It is futile to try to reach conclusions from correllations
(or lack thereof) with a curve which has not yet been established with
a reasonable degree of confidence.



Eric Stevens

On Aug 18, 5:47*pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
All this at a time when even NASA (read Hansen) is being forced to
re-evaluate downwards its estimates of temperature rise over the last
century. It is futile to try to reach conclusions from correllations
(or lack thereof) with a curve which has not yet been established with
a reasonable degree of confidence.
...

I say the Smith and Reynolds analysis has already established
the curve with a reasonable degree of confidence -

Brett Anderson - Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...temperatu.html

"Keep in mind, the Smith and Reynolds analysis
takes into account record that go back 128 years."

David Christainsen

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT), David
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:47*pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
All this at a time when even NASA (read Hansen) is being forced to
re-evaluate downwards its estimates of temperature rise over the last
century. It is futile to try to reach conclusions from correllations
(or lack thereof) with a curve which has not yet been established with
a reasonable degree of confidence.
...

I say the Smith and Reynolds analysis has already established
the curve with a reasonable degree of confidence -

Brett Anderson - Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...temperatu.html

"Keep in mind, the Smith and Reynolds analysis
takes into account record that go back 128 years."


Over which period urban heat islands have grown to swallow the sites
of weather stations; buildings have grown up around the weather
stations to shield them from the wind etc.

Its only in the last 10 years that serious corrections have started to
be made for these effects and the historical data has had to be
significantly amended. See the comments to the article in the URL you
have cited in which e.g. the effect of omitting Siberia from the data
is discussed.

Then there is
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b..._the_serious_d
which includes the graph at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg which demonstrates the
divergence between climate models and actual temperature. I've
actually seen better and longer term analysis than this but that's not
really relevant. My point is that we cannot determine whether or not
the climate is significantly warming or not while there is still so
much uncertainty about the historical record.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:20/08/2008 00:46:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT), David
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:47 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
All this at a time when even NASA (read Hansen) is being forced to
re-evaluate downwards its estimates of temperature rise over the last
century. It is futile to try to reach conclusions from correllations
(or lack thereof) with a curve which has not yet been established with
a reasonable degree of confidence.
...
I say the Smith and Reynolds analysis has already established
the curve with a reasonable degree of confidence -

Brett Anderson - Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...temperatu.html

"Keep in mind, the Smith and Reynolds analysis
takes into account record that go back 128 years."


Over which period urban heat islands have grown to swallow the sites
of weather stations; buildings have grown up around the weather
stations to shield them from the wind etc.

Its only in the last 10 years that serious corrections have started to
be made for these effects and the historical data has had to be
significantly amended.

That simply is not true.

[...]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:55:54 +0200, Peter Alaca
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:20/08/2008 00:46:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT), David
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:47 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
All this at a time when even NASA (read Hansen) is being forced to
re-evaluate downwards its estimates of temperature rise over the last
century. It is futile to try to reach conclusions from correllations
(or lack thereof) with a curve which has not yet been established with
a reasonable degree of confidence.
...
I say the Smith and Reynolds analysis has already established
the curve with a reasonable degree of confidence -

Brett Anderson - Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...temperatu.html

"Keep in mind, the Smith and Reynolds analysis
takes into account record that go back 128 years."


Over which period urban heat islands have grown to swallow the sites
of weather stations; buildings have grown up around the weather
stations to shield them from the wind etc.

Its only in the last 10 years that serious corrections have started to
be made for these effects and the historical data has had to be
significantly amended.

That simply is not true.


Even ignoring the infamy of the 'hockey stick' you will find that in
the last few years NOAA, GISS and the Hadley Centre have all been
correcting their previously published data for the above effects,
among other things. NASA of course, under Hansen has been trying to
wind the data the other way but their statistical fumblings were
detected by the indefagitable Steve McIntyre and they are now being
forced to correct themselves. See
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05..._thermometers/

This site is interesting also.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm



Eric Stevens

On Aug 19, 6:55*pm, Peter Alaca wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:20/08/2008 00:46:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT), David
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:47 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
All this at a time when even NASA (read Hansen) is being forced to
re-evaluate downwards its estimates of temperature rise over the last
century. It is futile to try to reach conclusions from correllations
(or lack thereof) with a curve which has not yet been established with
a reasonable degree of confidence.
...
I say the Smith and Reynolds analysis has already established
the curve with a reasonable degree of confidence -

Brett Anderson - Accuweather
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...july_global_te....

"Keep in mind, the Smith and Reynolds analysis
takes into account record that go back 128 years."

Over which period urban heat islands have grown to swallow the sites
of weather stations; buildings have grown up around the weather
stations to shield them from the wind etc.

Its only in the last 10 years that serious corrections have started to
be made for these effects and the historical data has had to be
significantly amended.

That simply is not true.

* [...]

By now I have evaluated all of Eric's links.

They disturb me; they ought to disturb you.

For now I recommend that interested NGers
thoroughly evaluate Roger Pielke on climate
change. I think his observations are very
worthwhile -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A...climate_change

David Christainsen

On 18 Aug, 18:59, David wrote:
Brett Anderson - Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/08/hansen_responds_to_a_ba...

What has this got to do with quakerism?

Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:20/08/2008 18:06:
On 18 Aug, 18:59, David wrote:
Brett Anderson - Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/08/hansen_responds_to_a_ba...

What has this got to do with quakerism?

Ian

And what has it to do with archaeology?
Nothing of course, but he is The Carl.

On Aug 20, 12:42*pm, Peter Alaca wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote:20/08/2008 18:06:
On 18 Aug, 18:59, David wrote:
Brett Anderson - Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/08/hansen_responds_to_a_ba...

What has this got to do with quakerism?

Ian

And what has it to do with archaeology?
Nothing of course, but he is The Carl.

And yet, Eric posted links that are enough
to disturb thinking people around the world.

Of course, those links don't disturb the misguided
sniper that is Peter Alaca because he did not
examine them. I hope Peter turns over a new
leaf.

If Peter does, he can answer his own question.

David Christainsen