[Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean
Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>  
> What are you saying?!

I am saying that there is a valid basis to question some of the data. 
(See below.)
> Two sites.  Not even real sites?  Annual average global atmospheric 
> temperatures are not measured merely from two sites that are in urban 
> areas.  The variation from two sites taken in total cannot add any 
> statistically significant variation to the mass of data that has been 
> compiled from sensors all over the world, operated by diverse people 
> all over the world.

The pictures are indeed real sites. One is a "good site" and one is a 
"bad site". If you read the referenced URL's you would know this. You 
should read the referenced URL's before you go jump to conclusions
> Your posting say nothing USEFUL.

I can see how you would come to that conclusion, not having not read the 
referenced websites.
>   Your claims are weak, ill-founded, and always wholly or nearly 
> wholly unsupported.

I can see how you would make that claim, in that you  didn't read the 
referenced web sites.
>   Show me the paper that says 1500+ qualified, Nobel prize winning 
> scientists, will back up, and agree wholly with your assertions?

That is an impossible ask. They don't agree among themselves, hence the 
need for a "consensus report."
>  
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

That is a "pro IPCC site." For balance, see: 
http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2007/11/ipcc-dissent-by-roger-helmer-mep.html 
When you have both sides of the story, chances are you can have a better 
understanding of the problem.

They have a neat little survey there... "


    Do you accept that CO2 is the main cause of climate change?


Take the Survey, and see what the Survey reports that most people think.
>  
> Back it up.  Or, shut up, and make some cooperative contributions to 
> this discussion.

You don't demand absolute agreement within the IPCC, yet you harshly 
demand that I agree with your views. That seems to be unfair and 
inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

Kevin
>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>     *To:* Greg and April <mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net>
>     *Cc:* 'terra pretta group' <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     *Sent:* Saturday, April 26, 2008 4:16 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?
>
>     Dear Greg
>
>
>
>     Greg and April wrote:
>>     Are they?
>>       
>     There would seem to be a rational basis for questioning the
>     credibility of the reported data.
>
>>     < shrug >
>>
>>     How accurate were the instruments that made the measurements?
>>
>>     I wouldn't trust anything made prior to WW2 for anything other than a 
>>     general guide and that is hardly what scientific findings should be based 
>>     on.    For all practical purposes only the last 60-70 yrs have instruments 
>>     been sensitive enough ( in mass quantities ) to consider the readings to be 
>>     reliable, and even then there still have been readings from instruments with 
>>     a 5* F scale from 15-20 ft away at the closest ( and that is assuming that 
>>     the person doing the job actually went outside and just didn't fudge the 
>>     reports to stay inside ).
>>       
>     The Stevenson Screen  Weather station has been in use for more
>     than 100 years. Mercury Thermometers are quite accurate. However,
>     when the Stevenson Screens were originally designed, they called
>     for Whitewash as the paint. Changing to latex paint changes the
>     temperature response of the Stevenson station. The circumstances
>     surrounding the stations can change over time. Some can be placed
>     in very bad locations.
>
>
>
>     See: http://www.surfacestations.org/ to find out all about Weather
>     Stations and their locations.
>>     In order to be credible, all the instruments used would have to have the 
>>     same accuracy and precision - if not, then you can be anywhere on the grid 
>>     and not know it.
>>       
>
>     This site suggests manipulation of some weather data...
>     http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2991#more-2991
>
>     The devil is in the details.
>
>     Best wishes,
>
>     Kevin
>
>
>>     Greg H.
>>
>>
>>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>>     From: "Doug Clayton" <dnclayton at wildblue.net>
>>     To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>>     Cc: "'terra pretta group'" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>>     Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 13:22
>>     Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?
>>
>>
>>       
>>>     The "credible measurements" are in.  That's why the GW majority (not
>>>     just on this list) is a little freaked out. 
>>>         
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Terrapreta mailing list
>>     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>>     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>>     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>>     http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>       
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Terrapreta mailing list
>     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     http://info.bioenergylists.org
>