Climategate

[leo9]

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

This is true. Like the bad debt crisis, we've kept an unsustainable system going for a long time by borrowing more and more, and it's when things go wrong at once that the juggling act gets impossible.

[steelish]

So far as the economy and my advanced age allows, I do.

But see, this is the other important thing about scientific propositions: testability. There is no way to test a proposition based on prophecy... unless the innumerable previous predictions of the End can be counted as tests of the general principle of fortelling the world's future from An-Cie-Ent Prophecies, in which case it's well and truly exploded.

But a proposition based on a simple mathematical relationship can be tested by seeing whether the curve goes on heading the way it's predicted to. And if it does, you're entitled to extend it into the future with some confidence. Same as the rogue economists who extended the curve of unsupported debt and warned, a couple of years in advance, that the economy was heading for a cliff. If governments had dared to listen to them and do something about it, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But it was probably politically impossible for anything to be done: both the rich frauds and the suckers who thought they were getting rich would have rebelled. Any government that saw where things were heading probably judged that it was safer to just let things go smash, then nobody would blame them. And that's the method most of them are applying now.

You do realize I was being facetious, right?

[leo9]

You do realize I was being facetious, right?

Yeah, but I already had worked out that essay on testability, with end-times prophecies as my example, so when you gave me the cue it seemed a shame not to use it.

[steelish]

lol

[DuncanONeil]

The basic theory of greenhouse gas driven global warming does not depend on “secret” data or complicated formulae. The data are all in the public domain, and anyone with the patience can crunch the numbers and see what comes out. And over the decades a great many people have, and got the same answers, which is why they believe it. No politics, no conspiracy: it just works.

Sorry! You can not say that. Sure temperatures exist outside the scientific community. However, there is a huge but here.

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.
Now as to also creating a program that results in the same conclusion. Since the data points are being "selected" and the formula to "process" the data is being "created" drawing the conclusion you want is an essentially forgone conclusion.

The revelations regarding Manchester have done nothing more than to call their conclusions into question. And to reveal that the models are largely contrived.

Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history? Why is the issue of the quantity of solar radiation escaping from the planet at levels greater than the alarmists postulate, based on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Seems like the planet is cooling itself!

[DuncanONeil]

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

I take it you missed the comment that the entire population of the planet could live within the borders of the state of Texas and be no more crowded that the island of Manhattan?

[denuseri]

And this would reduce the ammount of unrenewable rescources they are consuming how?

[Thorne]

I take it you missed the comment that the entire population of the planet could live within the borders of the state of Texas and be no more crowded that the island of Manhattan?

Space isn't the issue. Food is. And farm land. Regardless of how packed people get, you still have to get them the food from the farms. So that means oil, as well.

[Thorne]

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.

This is so much like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts: "All those engineers and explosives experts are hiding the truth, they all work for the government, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, climate models are based on complicated formulae. The atmosphere is a complicated place. Yes, if the author hides his data and procedures his results are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps one or two groups have done this. The vast majority of scientists working on this are open and above board. Because they know that their results are meaningless without peer review and reproducibility.

Now as to also creating a program that results in the same conclusion. Since the data points are being "selected" and the formula to "process" the data is being "created" drawing the conclusion you want is an essentially forgone conclusion.

Any scientist who cherry picks his data had better be able to come up with a valid reason for doing so. Such reasons do exist: this station's instruments weren't calibrated as required, that station's readings are too infrequent to be usable, any of a dozen possible reasons for discarding suspect data. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can explain it.

As for "creating" a "process" "drawing the conclusion you want", apparently you don't understand climate modeling. You create your model, using historical data, and adjust your model (sometimes using programming "tricks") so that when you run the program it gives you historically accurate results. Only then can you run your model into the future, extrapolating data from historical records. If your model can't post-dict the past, it cannot predict the future.

Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history? Why is the issue of the quantity of solar radiation escaping from the planet at levels greater than the alarmists postulate, based on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Seems like the planet is cooling itself!

Temperatures do not just go up. There are many cycles, all of which must be taken into account, some of which cause dropping of temperatures. These cycles will cause temps to rise again, too. The problem is that the high temperatures reached at the peaks of the cycles are higher than previously, while the low temperatures reached are not as low as previously. Overall, the trend is upwards. Specifically, we are just seeing the end of a sunspot minimum cycle, which historically produces lower temperatures. As the sunspot cycle ramps up we will undoubtedly see higher temperatures returning. And the problem is that all the data points to temperatures higher than historically.

As for the issue of solar radiation escaping, I'm not familiar with this, and it sounds to me like you may be misreading it. Solar radiation does not escape form Earth. It can be reflected by high cloud concentrations, certainly. But once it reaches the surface it's absorbed, heating the ground, or reflected as infrared radiation, which is absorbed by many gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. So please cite your source for your statements, as I'd like to read it.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists can't be trusted to provide us with valid data and accurate conclusions, what makes you think those providing you with these temperature and radiation data are any more trustworthy? And if all the data is hidden, how are we getting the data which says these things are happening?

And let's also remember that any satellite data has only a 30 years or so history, far too short a time span to be able to say conclusively that anything is happening, without being tied to planet-bound data.

[DuncanONeil]

And this would reduce the ammount of unrenewable rescources they are consuming how?

Well many people would have less far to get anywhere. The ugly wind farms that people do not like in their backyard won't be even close. The whole state of Nebraska and the Benelux can be solar collectors. Huge portions of land can be used for farming, thereby removing significant amounts of CO2. The rest can go forest doing the same thing.

But that was not why I said what I said. It was related to your comment that sounded a light like a reference to the "population bomb".

In addition the vast majority of the worlds population is regulating itself!

[DuncanONeil]

Space isn't the issue. Food is. And farm land. Regardless of how packed people get, you still have to get them the food from the farms. So that means oil, as well.

Since we would not need so many roads to get people around to large numbers of various place, why not turn much of that infrastructure into vacuum tubes for the transport of commodities. How much farm land is there if everyone is living in Texas?

[DuncanONeil]

Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.
Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?

This is so much like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts: "All those engineers and explosives experts are hiding the truth, they all work for the government, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, climate models are based on complicated formulae. The atmosphere is a complicated place. Yes, if the author hides his data and procedures his results are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps one or two groups have done this. The vast majority of scientists working on this are open and above board. Because they know that their results are meaningless without peer review and reproducibility.


Any scientist who cherry picks his data had better be able to come up with a valid reason for doing so. Such reasons do exist: this station's instruments weren't calibrated as required, that station's readings are too infrequent to be usable, any of a dozen possible reasons for discarding suspect data. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can explain it.

As for "creating" a "process" "drawing the conclusion you want", apparently you don't understand climate modeling. You create your model, using historical data, and adjust your model (sometimes using programming "tricks") so that when you run the program it gives you historically accurate results. Only then can you run your model into the future, extrapolating data from historical records. If your model can't post-dict the past, it cannot predict the future.


Temperatures do not just go up. There are many cycles, all of which must be taken into account, some of which cause dropping of temperatures. These cycles will cause temps to rise again, too. The problem is that the high temperatures reached at the peaks of the cycles are higher than previously, while the low temperatures reached are not as low as previously. Overall, the trend is upwards. Specifically, we are just seeing the end of a sunspot minimum cycle, which historically produces lower temperatures. As the sunspot cycle ramps up we will undoubtedly see higher temperatures returning. And the problem is that all the data points to temperatures higher than historically.

As for the issue of solar radiation escaping, I'm not familiar with this, and it sounds to me like you may be misreading it. Solar radiation does not escape form Earth. It can be reflected by high cloud concentrations, certainly. But once it reaches the surface it's absorbed, heating the ground, or reflected as infrared radiation, which is absorbed by many gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. So please cite your source for your statements, as I'd like to read it.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists can't be trusted to provide us with valid data and accurate conclusions, what makes you think those providing you with these temperature and radiation data are any more trustworthy? And if all the data is hidden, how are we getting the data which says these things are happening?

And let's also remember that any satellite data has only a 30 years or so history, far too short a time span to be able to say conclusively that anything is happening, without being tied to planet-bound data.

[denuseri]

Well many people would have less far to get anywhere. The ugly wind farms that people do not like in their backyard won't be even close. The whole state of Nebraska and the Benelux can be solar collectors. Huge portions of land can be used for farming, thereby removing significant amounts of CO2. The rest can go forest doing the same thing.

But that was not why I said what I said. It was related to your comment that sounded a light like a reference to the "population bomb".

In addition the vast majority of the worlds population is regulating itself!

Is it? Just becuase Europe and the United States have negative/ homeostatic natural birth rates thanks primaraly to people waiting until later in life to have children and abortion (imigration not withstanding), does not mean the Worlds population is dropping. In fact if anything its still growing. To further the problem, new industrialized nations are emerging like China and India, with imense populations. Just imagine the drain in rescources a single country 5+ times the size of the USA and Europe combined (the two most rescource consuming areas of the world at present btw using as much as 60% of the worlds rescources at present all by themselves) will bring to the world when it gets going.

Couple that with the fact that peak oil aquisition and production was all ready reached back in the early 80's and we have a serious problem looming on the horizon.

And this is without even getting on how fast fresh water soruces will dimminish. Look at how fast lake mead allready continues to drop every year.

As for moving the entire world population to the state of texas...smh, lets attempt to be somewhat realistic here shall we.

I am totally against the liberal left democratic parties position that "global warming/ pc climate change" is our fault per say. The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase. But any doofus with a computer or access to one can look and see for themselves how the numbers are starting to stack up conserning the loss of our glaciers through the world. Something is warming up the planet, which in some ways can be a good thing, the only problem is we dont know exactly whats doing it yet, nor do we know how hot its going to get, or when it will plateue and or stop, or swing back to cooler temperatures.

[Thorne]

Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.

If Manchester has behaved in this manner then they won't maintain their preeminence for long. This is the very antithesis of good science. However, that does not negate the good science being done elsewhere.

Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?

Any properly designed experiment relies on properly calibrated instruments for the detection of data. These instruments should be calibrated on a specific schedule. If, for some reason, a stations instruments are not properly calibrated then their data is suspect and should be discarded. This does not say that the data is necessarily wrong, just that you cannot be sure it is right.
Tweaking of results is done to correlate data from differing environments. For example, if you are measuring the air temperature near your home and you use one thermometer which is in shade all of the time, another thermometer which is in sunlight most of the time, a third thermometer which is near the black top of the street and a fourth which is closer to a pond, you will get greatly differing results, solely due to local variations in the environment. You need to eliminate those variations to gain any meaningful results, which is done through tweaking. Contrary to what it may sound like, this is not done to force results, but to clarify them.

[leo9]

While I was away dealing with Real Life (TM) Thorne has answered most of this better than I could, but since I had the answer in my head, I'll dump it anyway...

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.

I don't know if I have failed to explain my point clearly, or if you're simply dodging it. I'll try to make it more clear.

The basic theory of AGW is not based on a "complicated formula": it's a simple statistical relationship, and anyone with Statistics 101 can do the math and see if the results fit the theory. The data you need are atmospheric CO2, which is the same everywhere, and average global temperature, which you get from the public records of weather stations in a suitable number of locations around the world. You don't want just one, because it may not be representative (for example, the UK has been warming up over the past decades like most places, but it lags behind the global average because of the well documented weakening of the Gulf Stream,) but you don't want an impossible number; fifty or a hundred chosen at random should give a good first approximation.

None of this is hidden or difficult. One reason the vast majority of climatologists have come around to AGW is that it's so easy for them or someone they know to replicate the experiment and find it gives the same answer. It doesn't take a global conspiracy to make people believe what they can see for themselves.

The complicated fomulae come in when you try to give policy makers useful advice on what to expect year on year and country by country. Averages are not much help here, because everyone acknowledges that the effects will be very different from place to place; so we get into the field of long range weather forecasting, with all the uncertainties that this implies. BUT - and this is the important point - none of this complication affects the overall global picture, and none of the questions about it affect the fact of global AGW. Even if it were to be proved - which it certainly isn't so far - that one centre had commited outright fraud in their modeling, that would have no more bearing on the truth of AGW than the fact that the movie "Day After Tomorrow" is rubbish science.

Let me explain another way. There is a river called the Severn with a dramatically powerful tidal surge, and for decades people have been arguing over plans for a tidal power project there. Trying to predict the effect of the project on the tidal and current patterns calls for complex models and masses of data, and it wouldn't surprise me if people on both sides of the controversy had tweaked their models to predict what they want. BUT, whatever the accuracy of these models, the tide will rise and fall: the tide is a fact regardless of how its local effects are expressed or predicted. Likewise, AGW is a demonstrated fact regardless of how accurately its detailed effects have been modelled.

Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history?

Since the actual recorded temperatures have been rising for decades, I guess this is about cycles again.

Every climatologist knows about climate cycles: they've been studying them for most of a century, which is why they get so annoyed when people suggest that it's a new fact that changes everything. And as you say, the long term trend up till the last century was that the world is in a cooling phase, which is why people are so worried about the fact that the actual global temperature has been going up when the cycles should be pushing it down. It means that if we haven't got a grip on global warming by the time the cycles trough out and go into a warming phase, we'll be in real trouble.

[leo9]

But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment.

The "source" of climate data is weather stations all around the world. If you believe in a conspiracy big and powerful enough to destroy or tamper with all those records, there isn't much point trying to have a rational debate.

[leo9]

I am totally against the liberal left democratic parties position that "global warming/ pc climate change" is our fault per say.

You do realise that you have to add NASA and the Pentagon to the list of liberal lefty organisations that believe in AGW?

The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase.

That depends whose data you use, climatologists' or Big Oil's.

Basically there are two possible scenarios. (Three if you count the one that says nothing is changing, and all the stuff about melting icecaps, rising temperatures etc, is a fraud by the international communist conspiracy who've suborned all the meteorologists, naturalists and geographers in the world.)

Either the world is warming for simple physically explicable reasons which are theoretically controlable, so we could survive if we have the guts to do what's necessary.

Or the world is warming for some mysterious reason (which by a strange coincidence began when we started burning vast amounts of fossil fuels and wiping out forests) which nobody can explain or do anything about, and we might as well live it up, drive our SUVs and turn up the heating, because we're doomed anyway.

Even if the science didn't convince me, I am not a natural fatalist. We may not be able to save ourselves, but I'll always want to go down trying.

[DuncanONeil]

News souces indicate that all "other" sources are basing they data on the work done by Manchester.
As for the thermometer issue I must disagree somewhat. All of thos individual data sets produce an average on their own. Hence no need to tweek. Similar issue is Ozone days. Why are all the sensors placed in places known to have naturally higher levels of ozone. The result is higher reports of ozone over the entire area.
If it really were for "clarification" why then hide the "fudge factor"?

If Manchester has behaved in this manner then they won't maintain their preeminence for long. This is the very antithesis of good science. However, that does not negate the good science being done elsewhere.


Any properly designed experiment relies on properly calibrated instruments for the detection of data. These instruments should be calibrated on a specific schedule. If, for some reason, a stations instruments are not properly calibrated then their data is suspect and should be discarded. This does not say that the data is necessarily wrong, just that you cannot be sure it is right.
Tweaking of results is done to correlate data from differing environments. For example, if you are measuring the air temperature near your home and you use one thermometer which is in shade all of the time, another thermometer which is in sunlight most of the time, a third thermometer which is near the black top of the street and a fourth which is closer to a pond, you will get greatly differing results, solely due to local variations in the environment. You need to eliminate those variations to gain any meaningful results, which is done through tweaking. Contrary to what it may sound like, this is not done to force results, but to clarify them.

[denuseri]

None of the above Leo, it is not an eaither or situation.

I am not in the "it isn't happening" camp.

I am in the "it is happening but the reason why is more complicated than just human population growth and industrialization" camp.

Not all of the data supports the theory of human advancement as being the SOLE cause. The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.

Do we as a species effect the enviroment around us?, of course we do, we have been since before we had language. Are we the sole perpetrators of global warming? No I do not believe we are alone responsibile, I believe our own contributions are just part of a much larger climatic / solar cycle.

Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.

The planet has been both much much warmer and colder at different times during our time upon it and we survived those times with little to no technological inovations at our disposal but we also had a far far exponentialy smaller population back then.

The small changes our climate is making currently if continued along current trends in and of themselves isnt such a big deal alltogether until you add in our ever increasing populations rescouce demands vs the dwindeling unrenewable rescource supply, and when you factor that in then we are going to be in a very very bad pickle soon enough.

But then even if the climate stops changing along current trends, we are still going to have a problem if we dont change sooner rather than later.

[leo9]

News souces indicate that all "other" sources are basing they data on the work done by Manchester.

While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?

And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.

[leo9]

Not all of the data supports the theory of human advancement as being the SOLE cause.

Climate cycles are on a downward trend and should be cooling the planet. The sunspot cycle is likewise in a phase that should be giving us less droughts and blizzards, not more. What other causes did you have in mind?

The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.
...
Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.

Population pressure and oil exhaustion are already a problem, but to be brutal, we in the rich nations have so far managed pretty successfully to make them someone else's problem. Attempts to convince the majority of Euopeans and North Americans that the rest of the world's troubles are our reponsibility as well have met a blank stare.

But we can't pay the weather or the sea to go somewhere else. So this is a problem we can't dodge, we either solve it or suffer along with the poorest.

The fact that the solutions to it will, if sensibly applied, also help with the other problems is a bonus.

[Thorne]

Similar issue is Ozone days. Why are all the sensors placed in places known to have naturally higher levels of ozone. The result is higher reports of ozone over the entire area.
If it really were for "clarification" why then hide the "fudge factor"?

I think you're confusing normal atmospheric ozone, such as the ozone layer, with man made ozone, that you get from the burning of fossil fuels. "Ozone days" are, I presume, a measure of air pollution, generally caused by weather conditions holding such pollution close to the ground. You place your sensors where the pollution tends to accumulate, not out in the countryside where it will generally be always low. These measurements are for local consideration only, and are not of global interest.

[DuncanONeil]

[/QUOTE]While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?[/QUOTE]I suppose I would find myself point a finger at AP. Since all the other news outlets seem to take their reports from there verbatim. Thing is when I listen to or read news reports I do not takes notes in order to convince, or lead others to that source. If that becomes necessary that the pleasure of said reading or learning becomes seriously weakened.

[/QUOTE]And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.[/QUOTE]
Unlike certain people I have never denied that the planet had been experiencing a warming. However since that pronouncement has as its start date the end of a period called the "Little Ice Age" hardly seems like man could be the source. When the proponents of Global Heat Disaster dismiss the fact that the planet itself has done this before makes it hard to accept the edict that we puny humans are the sole cause, or even the proximate cause. When the aforementioned disasterites dismiss every bit of evidence that the planet has begun a cooling as an aberation and not worthy of consideration again tends to weaken their position.
Personally I make every effort to avoid the term conspiracy. However I will admit an agenda for the AGW crowd.

[DuncanONeil]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count, and yes I mean O3. This issue is closely related to AGW.

I think you're confusing normal atmospheric ozone, such as the ozone layer, with man made ozone, that you get from the burning of fossil fuels. "Ozone days" are, I presume, a measure of air pollution, generally caused by weather conditions holding such pollution close to the ground. You place your sensors where the pollution tends to accumulate, not out in the countryside where it will generally be always low. These measurements are for local consideration only, and are not of global interest.

[Thorne]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count, and yes I mean O3. This issue is closely related to AGW.

As I said, when measuring the ozone levels of pollution, that's the best place to put your sensors. Those places would be the first to show a change, either up or down, and would give you time to put out a warning. But again, these are fairly localized phenomena, more pronounced in cities with large numbers of internal combustion engines. This ozone tends to stay close to the ground and accumulate in low spots. And ozone is highly reactive, so it will "degrade" fairly quickly, especially when spread around by winds. The ozone located in the ozone layer around the planet, while chemically identical, is formed by different processes and actually performs a beneficial function. That ozone never reaches the ground, though, so I don't see how these "ozone days" that we hear about would be of any value to AGW proponents.

[leo9]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count

When you are testing for something dangerous, you put the detectors where it is going to happen first. Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire. If they wanted to be calmed and reassured, they would place the detectors wide spread around the house. The detectors wouldn't be a bit of use for warnings of fire, but they would keep people happier.

, and yes I mean O3.

Well, yes, that's what ozone means. Stuff that comes from car exhausts etc. and causes asthma. Do you know of another meaning?

This issue is closely related to AGW.

The only connection I can see is that there is an industrial lobby, similar to but much less powerful than the no-AGW one, devoted to persuading the gullible that ozone pollution is harmless. Was that what you meant?

[steelish]

Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire.

On the contrary, smoke detectors are placed outside bedrooms so that the occupants might hear the alarm in the middle of the night, when most home fires occur.

Not that this has anything to do with the original thread...but because it was being used as an argument, I thought I would clear the air. I am a member of both a CERT and a DART team and have had fire and disaster training. During our training it was explained why smoke detectors are placed in those locations.

[DuncanONeil]

At the water's edge and not inland? Here one is on the great lake and another is placed on anther body of water. Water is naturally higher in O3 regardless of pollution. Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?

As I said, when measuring the ozone levels of pollution, that's the best place to put your sensors. Those places would be the first to show a change, either up or down, and would give you time to put out a warning. But again, these are fairly localized phenomena, more pronounced in cities with large numbers of internal combustion engines. This ozone tends to stay close to the ground and accumulate in low spots. And ozone is highly reactive, so it will "degrade" fairly quickly, especially when spread around by winds. The ozone located in the ozone layer around the planet, while chemically identical, is formed by different processes and actually performs a beneficial function. That ozone never reaches the ground, though, so I don't see how these "ozone days" that we hear about would be of any value to AGW proponents.

[DuncanONeil]

See #178!

When you are testing for something dangerous, you put the detectors where it is going to happen first. Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire. If they wanted to be calmed and reassured, they would place the detectors wide spread around the house. The detectors wouldn't be a bit of use for warnings of fire, but they would keep people happier.

Well, yes, that's what ozone means. Stuff that comes from car exhausts etc. and causes asthma. Do you know of another meaning?
The only connection I can see is that there is an industrial lobby, similar to but much less powerful than the no-AGW one, devoted to persuading the gullible that ozone pollution is harmless. Was that what you meant?

[DuncanONeil]

It appears now the the prime arbiter of Global Warming data admits that the data does not exist!
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia, says the data used to create his assessment of Global Warming is lost!
Further, he states that there has not been a single case of Global Warming since 1995.

Wonder what that is going to do for the Goreites?