quote:
Originally posted by xman
As a contractor for NOAA, I do wish you all would acquire more knowledge before you speak. I’m not going to go into it here, because it will not change any minds. But there are significant flaws, biases, and assumptions made in the above quoted article.
15’ Ocean Kayak Scupper Pro
Also, used to be a contractor for NOAA that worked for years on a system to make ocean data (temps, current, salinity, bathymetry, etc.) available real time (IOOS). I was hip deep in this stuff for years.
I know from those years of experience and from the work done by surfacestations.org, that there is no possible way to predict climate, as many have claimed to do, in the climate models.
Sat across the table from Tom Karl et. al. in conferences and know exactly what their data looks like.
I will reiterate, NOAA/NWS understands that their surface temps record includes a lot of crappy data. This is clear when you realize they created the Climate Reference Network which excludes all the surface stations that don’t meet the NWS’s own specifications for station sighting and maintenance.
When you look at the population of data that includes the crappy data (near A/C outlets, sited in airport jet wash areas, in the middle of parking lots, etc.), there is warming. But, that warming is the result of those sites having been pristine when installed and then subjected to encroachment from suburbia over decades.
When you exclude those crappy sites, as the Climate Reference Network does, nearly all of the warming goes away. NOAA knows this and it NEVER makes it into a press release. Why? If climate change is not a HUUUGE risk to the planet, then NOAAs budget shrinks. It is that simple.
The good, solid, unmolested data shows the climate models to be useless. Understanding that sente