Another reason to take global warming stories with a grain of salt

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1273

To summarize, seems a move of the weather station in Los Angeles resulted in a one-degree increase in average temperature since 1999, and skewed all sorts of meterological data. Wonder how many other cities have had similar moves and effects?

 

Batman --
I have no idea if you're normally this dumb, but the effects of metropolitan areas on temperature are well documented.

This has as much effect on the large body of work regarding global warming as my posts on this message board have on the writings of Ernest Hemingway.

 

Well-documented? Only if you're reading the documents that support your side.

 

Sorry, they're pretty well documented despite your claims to the contrary, Hondo. Check out JPL's web site for some more information on that weather station shift and the impact it had. But don't try to claim global warming isn't real.

It never ceases to amaze me those anti-global warming people who point to a cold front and say, "Look! There's proof that global warming doesn't exist!"

 

But metropolitan warm domes don't have a cause-and-effect connection to global warming, do they? Wouldn't the urban dome be in effect regardless of whether we were in a warming, cooling or neutral phase?

 

I can be quite dumb sometimes but, to use the vernacular, go fuck yourself.
Now that the insult exchange out of the way, your comment actually does segue into my point. We always hear that the temperature has risen X degrees in X years as part of the supposedly irrefutable evidence of global warming -- facts that are, no doubt, based on historical averages from official readings.
Well, over the last seven years, just by taking the official readings in a different part of the city, they've basically manufactured proof of it. Inadvertently, of course, but it's still happened.

I'm not necessarily saying global warming isn't happening. There are other things that point to it being so. What I am saying is there are plenty of ways that slightly different official readings -- whether it's from better and more accurate equipment, or moves in the weather station -- can skew long-term data.

 

the use of salt is actually a leading cause of global warming

 

Seems a lot of pro-global warming folks point to a 70-degree day in January or a July heat wave in New York or Chicago and say, "Look! There's proof that global warming DOES exist!"
On thing that both baffles and ticks me off at the same time is that scientists say the end result of global warming is an ice age. I can understand the science behind it -- global warming would heat up the ocean currents, causing different weather patterns. But at the same time, it looks like they're covering their bases either way.
If an ice age happens, the explanation is "See, this is what we said would be the end result of global wamring would be!"
If it gets hotter, the explanation is, "See, this is a direct result of global warming!"

 

Meat --

Exactly. They are completely independent of each other.

There are many, many reasons for the metropolitan warm domes.

These calculations have little to no effect on the overall increase in temperatures across the globe.

 

The sun rotates around the earth!

The earth is flat!

Micheal Vick is a good NFL quarterback!

A $250 billion budget deficit is great especially after inheriting a $250 billion budget surplus!

Greenhouse gases don't have any impact on the environment!

 

That global warming (or climate change) exists is not debated by any respectable scientists. The debate is what is causing it -- whether it's humans and our greenhouse gases or a just a normal warming that occurs every few thousand years.

To deny that the Earth has warmed up over the last few years is like saying that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago -- junk science.

 

Scientists hate America.