"The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."
"Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry shows that presently, sea level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr−1 with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt."
To "protest too much" is to insist so strongly about something not being true that people begin to suspect maybe it is true. Example: "You do like that girl, don't you?" Answer: "No! I don't! Not at all! Why do you think so?" Reply: "You protest too much." #"Protest too much" comes from Hamlet by William Shakespeare; the Queen speaking: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Note: people do not usually use the word "methinks" when they are speaking English today.) To "protest too much" is to insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what you are saying. Example: "Do you think he is telling the truth?" Answer: "I think he protests too much."
Originally posted by avengador1: To "protest too much" is to insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what you are saying.
I don't expect anyone to blindly take my word for it. I expect them to do their own research and make up their own mind.
That's the difference between those of us championing the science and those pledging political allegiance, like yourself, Arn, and fierobear.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: That's the difference between those of us championing the science and those pledging political allegiance, like yourself, Arn, and fierobear.
So, the "science" is 100%, and shows that global warming is happening, caused by man, and the oceans are rising?
When I was in school "science" was questioning things, and testing theories, not blindly following and accepting people's theories as truth. You ask others to find out for themselves, "Use science" and then you get upset when they find an answer that doesn't fit yours? How open minded and progressive of you.....
So, the "science" is 100%, and shows that global warming is happening, caused by man, and the oceans are rising?
When I was in school "science" was questioning things, and testing theories, not blindly following and accepting people's theories as truth. You ask others to find out for themselves, "Use science" and then you get upset when they find an answer that doesn't fit yours? How open minded and progressive of you.....
Brad
It's one thing to question theories and do your own homework. Its another to deny them outright no matter the evidence. The former is healthy, the latter isn't.
Originally posted by Fats: You ask others to find out for themselves, "Use science" and then you get upset when they find an answer that doesn't fit yours? How open minded and progressive of you…
Can you do me a favor, go back through the last 50 pages or so of this thread and find an example of them 'using science' to support this claim. Just one. Not trying to drag you into this thread or give you a homework assignment, I'm just curious if you can actually justify this claim.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: That's funny, because Australia is DROPPING their global warming tax.
Australia to scrap carbon tax for emissions trading
They're trading one climate change policy for another climate change policy. Odd you would get big headed about that. From your link: "Australia will drop its carbon tax and replace it with an emissions trading scheme sooner than had been planned."
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: ... And, it will drop electricity prices.
Carbon tax repeal will cut electricity prices immediately, Environment Minister Greg Hunt says
Do politicians have their hand up your back or do you willfully believe everything they say?
Originally posted by Fats: So, the "science" is 100%, and shows that global warming is happening, caused by man, and the oceans are rising?
When I was in school "science" was questioning things, and testing theories, not blindly following and accepting people's theories as truth. You ask others to find out for themselves, "Use science" and then you get upset when they find an answer that doesn't fit yours? How open minded and progressive of you.....
Brad
2 out of 3. Global Warming IS happening. The Oceans ARE rising. caused by man? unsure. and that is the real root of the debate - not wether or not it is happening, but WHY it is happening, and if any effort is actually needed or even feasible. because if it is man made - doubtful there is ANYTHING to be done. and - what is so bad about the middle east becoming uninhabitable? sounds like a bonus to me. I dont put much value in the "greenhouse theory". I am more believing this is a normal cycle - happened before. it'll happen again, it is about time for it to happen. could "man made" junk be making it happen faster? sure. it could. much of the "science" makes sense. fossil fuels are after all just stored solar energy, and we are expelling in 100 years, millions of years worth of stored solar energy. so, yeah - maybe. but - bit late now - the train has left the station. better luck next time. and there will be a next time.
what is really interesting about this topic is the motivations of the debaters.
Can you do me a favor, go back through the last 50 pages or so of this thread and find an example of them 'using science' to support this claim. Just one. Not trying to drag you into this thread or give you a homework assignment, I'm just curious if you can actually justify this claim.
Page one, post one. I know, it doesn't fit your agenda, since he links scientific articles and such. I could continue, but you and I know that it doesn't matter what I say, you've already made up your mind, as have the some others here. As a matter of fact, the guys you are "blasting" are the ones actually questioning things...
2 out of 3. Global Warming IS happening. The Oceans ARE rising. caused by man? unsure. and that is the real root of the debate - not wether or not it is happening, but WHY it is happening, and if any effort is actually needed or even feasible. because if it is man made - doubtful there is ANYTHING to be done. and - what is so bad about the middle east becoming uninhabitable? sounds like a bonus to me. I dont put much value in the "greenhouse theory". I am more believing this is a normal cycle - happened before. it'll happen again, it is about time for it to happen. could "man made" junk be making it happen faster? sure. it could. much of the "science" makes sense. fossil fuels are after all just stored solar energy, and we are expelling in 100 years, millions of years worth of stored solar energy. so, yeah - maybe. but - bit late now - the train has left the station. better luck next time. and there will be a next time.
what is really interesting about this topic is the motivations of the debaters.
I agree, global warming, and cooling happen all the time. It's a natural thing, and one would be a fool to think otherwise. The Oceans are also rising, they have been at a very slow rate for a very long time. Before that I would assume that they were falling. . .
It's all natural occurrences, and man effecting it is very unlikely IMO.
It's one thing to question theories and do your own homework. Its another to deny them outright no matter the evidence. The former is healthy, the latter isn't.
It's not very healthy to blindly follow either.
Both sides of the debate seem to have issues here.
If the Middle East becomes uninhabitable, d'ya think that some other currently populated parts of the globe might also become uninhabitable? Like maybe Texas, for example..? The Los Angeles basin..? Although I'm not sure you'd consider that a bad thing, either.
I've always liked your posts (since I started here, just a few years ago), because you're an out-of-the-box thinker, but you seem a little whacked out on this one point: about (MM)GW and the Middle East.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-15-2014).]
Page one, post one. I know, it doesn't fit your agenda, since he links scientific articles and such.
I asked for something in the last 50 pages since that is about the time I joined this thread.
However, the first link contains dozens of obviously biased items that have been completely discredited many times on this forum, 'climategate' for instance: "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." Source.
The second link is the infamous political lobbyist organization, the Heartland Institute.
Recently they mailed out thousands of marketing packets to schools that were doctored to look like an authentic scientific report from the IPCC in order to spread misinformation.
Isolated and anecdotal incident? Nope.
They did it again with a survey of members from the American Meteorological Association that showed inconvenient results. The email they sent was made to look like it came from the AMS, used the AMS logo without permission, and 'reports results from the study far differently than I would' according to the executive director of the AMS.
Third link is also Heartland Institute.
In his opening post he cites a biased political lobbyist organization with a history of denying cigarette smoking risks. And this is your example of him "using science"? It's him using politics, plain and simple.
The fourth link is to Climate Audit. Hardly any scientific work goes on there. The sole purpose of the blog is to raise questions endlessly in order to breed doubt. The last time fierobear cited CA as evidence, he claimed the link "debunked" a study I posted. But the link couldn't even tell you if the 'error' mattered!
quote
Originally posted by Fats: I could continue, but you and I know that it doesn't matter what I say, you've already made up your mind, as have the some others here.
I'm biased towards legitimate evidence. There is no scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the findings of human induced effects on climate change. Politically biased/conspiracy theory blogs with zero scientific integrity (WUWT) and the 'we-make-money-if-an-asteroid-hits-us' institutes are not legitimate sources.
If you actually review the last 50 pages you will see dozens of examples of me completely discrediting common myths about climate change. I'm here to learn. Others are not, and they're having a terrible and embarrassing time.
Climate science denial is a short term game and it's coming to an end. Take Exxon Mobil for example. They support a tax on carbon. Why? Exxon Mobil: "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-15-2014).]
The second link is the infamous political lobbyist organization, the Heartland Institute. ... Politically biased/conspiracy theory blogs with zero scientific integrity (WUWT) and the 'we-make-money-if-an-asteroid-hits-us' institutes are not legitimate sources.
I don't think it's been mentioned here before that WUWT has received some of its funding from the Heartland Institute, as belatedly acknowledged by Anthony Watts himself.
quote
I'm biased towards legitimate evidence.
As am I.
quote
Take Exxon Mobil for example. They support a tax on carbon. Why? Exxon Mobil: "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."
I certainly don't know for sure, but I'll speculate "Why?" anyway. I think Exxon/Mobil expects that the business they are in (oil and natural gas) will fare better in a carbon-tax world than will their primary fossil-fuel competitor, coal. It's purely a business decision for them, and I don't think either concern about climate change or concern for world ecosystems are significant components of that decision. Of course, that's just my opinion .... one that I really hope I'm wrong about.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-15-2014).]
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I don't think it's been mentioned here before that WUWT has received some of its funding from the Heartland Institute, as belatedly acknowledged by Anthony Watts himself.
Ha! Cherry on top.
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I think Exxon/Mobil expects that the business they are in (oil and natural gas) will fare better in a carbon-tax world than will their primary fossil-fuel competitor, coal. It's purely a business decision for them, and I don't think either concern about climate change or concern for world ecosystems are significant components of that decision. Of course, that's just my opinion .... one that I really hope I'm wrong about.
That's an extremely valid assessment. Natural gas replacing coal was a big contributor to emissions falling last year in the USA. This trend will continue especially in light of climate change. Regardless, they have publicly embraced the science that says greenhouse gases 'pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.' It's the foundation of their profit strategy. They could have rode out this denial stint for 10 or 20 years more before the evidence was just too overwhelming. But they didn't. It gives me hope. For now, it's enough. And it really throws a wrench in the denial engine.
Page one, post one. I know, it doesn't fit your agenda, since he links scientific articles and such. I could continue, but you and I know that it doesn't matter what I say, you've already made up your mind, as have the some others here. As a matter of fact, the guys you are "blasting" are the ones actually questioning things...
Brad
Looking at his post, the main page he referenced listed a bunch of opinion pieces that were put on (mainly right wing) media outlets. Heartland institute, fox news, newsweek, the blaze, yada yada yada. NO scientific papers, just opinion pieces. It would be akin to starting an internet blog, writing an article on why eating lead paint is overall good for you, and touting it as scientific evidence. So after some digging I FINALLY found a link referencing some sort of scientific papers; http://www.populartechnolog...pers-supporting.html
Lets dismiss the fact that again, the name of this website tries to mimic other reputable publications (popularscience). . .and their webmaster's email ends with "@gmail.com". . .
Looking at the papers, lets start. . .
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v10/n1/p69-82/ Sherwood Idso (Asoil scientist) wantonly cherry pics of the most extreme data to drive a conclusion. His reasoning? He believes certain values to be better. What was his conclusion? "We have no-where near enough data to make a conclusion. . . but I conclude AGW is irrelvant."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley....007.48118.x/abstract Svenmark (A physicist) attributes GW to cosmic rays/the sun. Describing it as such, "Natural events in our Galaxy and on the manic-depressive Sun decide whether the Earth’s cloud cover is letting the Sun heat or cool the surface of the Earth." So now our climate is determined what emotional state our sun is in. . . He has also made claims that the earth has stopped warming since 1998, which is flat out false.
http://bellwether.metapress...nt/6024h28209l41257/ Willie Soon (an aerospace engineer/astronomer) who's received over a million bucks from exxon & coal lobbies and is also a speaker at the heartland institute, has been caught deliberately misrepresenting climate scientists who even offered a rebuttle for such So basically 12 scientists rebuke what Soon did. . . but in your mind, its Soon that should be trusted.
http://www.degruyter.com/vi...pp.2010.1.1.1004.xml Ross McKitrick (an economist. . . I'm sensing a pattern here), another heartland institute speaker, states that it isn't warming because of AGW or natural factors. . . but now its because of surface station location. Too bad Anthony Watts tried this and NOAA crapped all over the same argument. McKitrick also wrote a paper with the title "...An Evangelical Response to Global Warming"
http://www.degruyter.com/vi...pp.2010.1.1.1004.xml So what does Nicola Scafetta (physicist), another heartland institute speaker, say is responsible for global warming? The orbit of Saturn and Jupiter. Scafetta launches the huge red herring that somehow the Chinese sexagenary (60 year) calendar (could be) based off of climate observations because of this cycle even though we know the calendar is based off their religion. (So does that mean warmer years are 'rabbit' years and cooler years are 'goat' years?) Regardless, this an article I actually like. It has tons of info in it. I don't like how Scafetta simply dismisses the breaks of trend outlined by his theory. When his theory completely falls apart from 1940-1970, he simply dismisses it as volcanoes. Scafetta also did some cherry picking in his data and referenced outdated data. The biggest and most glaring issue of the paper? He attempts to attribute a really long cycle (millions of years) to explain a trend that's been around since the mid 1800s. When it simply can't, its a ton of stuff they don't know about (but its definitely not AGW!) End result? "Its the sun!"
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2148 First - why are they publishing a paper on climate science in a remote sensing paper? Anyway, John Christy is a climate scientist! Yay! Christy no doubt well more versed than me in the subject, has unfortunately, made some pretty big blunders which is why he wrote this paper in the first place. A vague explanation can be found here. In regards to his paper, this is something that popped out on page 19 "...the pitfalls in model evaluation created by the randomness of natural, inter-annual fluctuations." So its hard for models to predict climate because of how random and complex it is. . . Yet the entire preface of his article is that the climate is dependent on a single value, the SR (scaling ratio) number. So which is it? Is it too complex or is it as simple as one number? Christy has also displayed his bias in other publications with statements like "which is then erroneously attributed to the effects of increased CO2 concentrations". . .so if it isn't settled, how do you rule out co2 concentrations as a factor? He's also seriously dragged his feet on correcting his errors, leaving plenty of time for the deniosphere to circulate it as undeniable proof.
http://www.scirp.org/journa...ID=3217#.UtcvpLQcTng Syun-Ichi Akasofu, (a geophysicist) a guy that admits he's not a climatologist and another heartland speaker, makes several critical errors in this paper. The first, he attributes global warming to 'bouncing back' from the previous ice age. No explanation on why or how, but that it just is. Its the most simplified non-answer ever; that somehow a solar forced hookes law describes our climate more than all the other factors.
http://projecteuclid.org/DP...clid.aoas/1300715170 Blakeley B. McShane (a marketing professor. . .this is getting ridiculous), nevermind that this paper is essentially "There's no-where near enough info to know if AGW is real" again, does NOT support your side. Saying "we don't have enough data for an explanation" is not a conclusion that AGW isn't real. Regardless, this paper thoroughly debunked over. . .and over. . .and over. . . HERE, HERE, HEREHERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. . .
I could keep going. . .
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-15-2014).]
As I said, it wouldn't matter if I posted a picture of Al Gore himself professing everything to be a scam, you would find a reason to discredit it since it doesn't fit your agenda.
Originally posted by Fats: As I said, it wouldn't matter if I posted a picture of Al Gore himself professing everything to be a scam, you would find a reason to discredit it since it doesn't fit your agenda.
As I said, it wouldn't matter if I posted a picture of Al Gore himself professing everything to be a scam, you would find a reason to discredit it since it doesn't fit your agenda.
Brad
You're obsessed with Al Gore for some reason. Are you man-crushing? Why do you insist that we all accept AGW because of what some politician says rather than the mountains and mountains of evidence? I think Al Gore is a political dunderhead. Want proof? Watch: http://youtu.be/14kNtnJgXXM - I pay that man no mind as he's a politician and not a qualified scientist; he completely lacks credibility.
But you want to know a key difference? Where I (and venture to say anyone ony my side) would quickly denounce Al Gore when he says something stupid, exaggerated, or misleading (to the point of lying), your side doubles down. Anthony Watts has been caught numerous times lying and should be devoid of all credibility, but that hasn't slowed down the deniers from propetuating those lies and touting him as the absolute authority.
If we're referencing fierobears first post, I doubt a single scientific paper was fully read by anyone in this discussion on your side. You guys pay no mind that those papers all contradict eachother. Its not warming, its warming because of the sun, its warming because of natural 'rebound fluctuations from the last ice age', its warming because of planetary orbits, its not warming as much because they should have used this value, its warming because of clouds, we're warming the planet but that's a good thing, etc. Your side can't get its excuses straight, but you know its ANYTHING but AGW. It goes perfect for the saying, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with bullshit. Your side throws everything it possibly can against the wall in the hope that something sticks.
Fierobears first post is again, proof of the unabashed, utter hypocricy your side utilizes. "Its not a head counting game on scientists who agree. . . but here's a head count of scientists. . ."
You're obsessed with Al Gore for some reason. Are you man-crushing? Why do you insist that we all accept AGW because of what some politician says rather than the mountains and mountains of evidence? I think Al Gore is a political dunderhead. Want proof? Watch: http://youtu.be/14kNtnJgXXM - I pay that man no mind as he's a politician and not a qualified scientist; he completely lacks credibility.
But you want to know a key difference? Where I (and venture to say anyone ony my side) would quickly denounce Al Gore when he says something stupid, exaggerated, or misleading (to the point of lying), your side doubles down. Anthony Watts has been caught numerous times lying and should be devoid of all credibility, but that hasn't slowed down the deniers from propetuating those lies and touting him as the absolute authority.
If we're referencing fierobears first post, I doubt a single scientific paper was fully read by anyone in this discussion on your side. You guys pay no mind that those papers all contradict eachother. Its not warming, its warming because of the sun, its warming because of natural 'rebound fluctuations from the last ice age', its warming because of planetary orbits, its not warming as much because they should have used this value, its warming because of clouds, we're warming the planet but that's a good thing, etc. Your side can't get its excuses straight, but you know its ANYTHING but AGW. It goes perfect for the saying, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with bullshit. Your side throws everything it possibly can against the wall in the hope that something sticks.
Fierobears first post is again, proof of the unabashed, utter hypocricy your side utilizes. "Its not a head counting game on scientists who agree. . . but here's a head count of scientists. . ."
So...... You start out by attacking me and insinuating I'm gay....
Then make everything a one side versus the other, instead of a discussion, you want an attack party where one side wins. You apparently don't see that.
Sure, seems like a great discussion to me.
No, no, I agree, man is certainly causing global warming, yep. You did it, your attacks, especially the one where you hinted I may have issues with my sexuality won me over. Where do I sign up? Do I have to be a douche right off the bat, or shall I warm up to it?
So...... You start out by attacking me and insinuating I'm gay....
Then make everything a one side versus the other, instead of a discussion, you want an attack party where one side wins. You apparently don't see that.
Sure, seems like a great discussion to me. No, no, I agree, man is certainly causing global warming, yep. You did it, your attacks, especially the one where you hinted I may have issues with my sexuality won me over. Where do I sign up? Do I have to be a douche right off the bat, or shall I warm up to it?
Brad
Lighten up Francis. . .
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-15-2014).]
Can you do me a favor, go back through the last 50 pages or so of this thread and find an example of them 'using science' to support this claim. Just one. Not trying to drag you into this thread or give you a homework assignment, I'm just curious if you can actually justify this claim.
Science research uses data to establish facts and those facts to make projections.
Flyinfieros posts allot of projections and opinion, and lots of graphs and pics but does the data support the theory?
I posted this graph which shows the data collected to 1998 and has lines imposed over the data to emphasize a point
I posted this graph from 2006 which shows altered data.
Flyinfieros brought up the supposed "rationale" for why the scientists were wrong in 1934
The point is irrelevant though, because both sets of data show the same trends
They show the historical data which indicates the North American continent had cooling from 1880 to 1920, warming from 1921 to 1959, cooling from 1960 to 1979 and back to warming from 1980 to1998. We know now from NASA that they cannot explain the lack of warming form 1998 forward.
In other words, there is a net cooling from 1880 to today of about .14 degrees.
Now the chart was taken off the graph and it could be out by a small margin, so even if you take it as flawed, the net warming and cooling is neutral within the margin of error.
No amount of machinations can change the facts. There is nothing in the data to give any relationship between co2 and the weather. You can argue how hot it is today in Australia, how cold it is in Canada and Russia, or how one glacier recedes while another grows, or even worry about meteorites striking earth. It does not change the fact that there is no evidence to support the projections.
Science research uses data to establish facts and those facts to make projections.
Flyinfieros posts allot of projections and opinion, and lots of graphs and pics but does the data support the theory?
I posted this graph which shows the data collected to 1998 and has lines imposed over the data to emphasize a point
I posted this graph from 2006 which shows altered data.
Flyinfieros brought up the supposed "rationale" for why the scientists were wrong in 1934
The point is irrelevant though, because both sets of data show the same trends
They show the historical data which indicates the North American continent had cooling from 1880 to 1920, warming from 1921 to 1959, cooling from 1960 to 1979 and back to warming from 1980 to1998. We know now from NASA that they cannot explain the lack of warming form 1998 forward.
In other words, there is a net cooling from 1880 to today of about .14 degrees.
Now the chart was taken off the graph and it could be out by a small margin, so even if you take it as flawed, the net warming and cooling is neutral within the margin of error.
No amount of machinations can change the facts. There is nothing in the data to give any relationship between co2 and the weather. You can argue how hot it is today in Australia, how cold it is in Canada and Russia, or how one glacier recedes while another grows, or even worry about meteorites striking earth. It does not change the fact that there is no evidence to support the projections.
Arn
Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.14°F per decade (1.4°F per century) (see Figure 1). Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.36 to 0.55°F per decade). Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the on record for the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1998, and 2012 was the warmest year on record. http://www.epa.gov/climatec...ate/temperature.html
Have to say I don't know why the temps recorded only in the U.S. are so significant to you.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-16-2014).]
That's an extremely valid assessment. Natural gas replacing coal was a big contributor to emissions falling last year in the USA. This trend will continue especially in light of climate change. Regardless, they have publicly embraced the science that says greenhouse gases 'pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.' It's the foundation of their profit strategy. They could have rode out this denial stint for 10 or 20 years more before the evidence was just too overwhelming. But they didn't. It gives me hope. For now, it's enough. And it really throws a wrench in the denial engine.
Wow, you warmists really are this naive. For YEARS, folks like you have been accusing Exxon of "funding the denial machine", but now suddenly they are the poster child for corporate belief in global warming because of a Web site and some press releases? Holy fracking WOW, that's all it took to woo you?
Do a Google search on "exxonmobil funding global warming skeptics" and see how may accusations you will find. At MOST, all this means is they are playing both sides of the issue. But you go right ahead and believe that Exxon is suddenly a believer in global warming. Thanks for the hearty laugh, captain gullible.
Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.14°F per decade (1.4°F per century) (see Figure 1). Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.36 to 0.55°F per decade). Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the on record for the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1998, and 2012 was the warmest year on record. http://www.epa.gov/climatec...ate/temperature.html
Have to say I don't know why the temps recorded only in the U.S. are so significant to you.
First off when you look at the decade compilations you don't get 0.14F increase per decade, you get a variety.
Second, I have not found good data for Asia and Africa and South America to post.
Third, you cannot look at the peaks and judge, you have to look at the average. For instance, look at 1934. and the other years in the 1920's Surely they thought they were into Global Warming, but yet a cooling off period followed. It always does.
When you average out the increase/decrease figures, they do not reflect 0.14F increase per decade, that would compile to in excess of 1.54 F increase since 1900 by your chart. That is simply inaccurate.
Also, they appear to claim in excess of 3.0 F increase last year which is more than 1.0F above 1934. This just isn't so.
I smell political interference and political agenda again
and - what is so bad about the middle east becoming uninhabitable? sounds like a bonus to me.
Hmmmmm.. Well if that did happen, and the middle east became uninhabitable, all those millions of people (mostly muslim) will have to go..... Somewhere... Id rather they stay right where they are.
First off when you look at the decade compilations you don't get 0.14F increase per decade, you get a variety.
No. Have some disinterested third party who knows what they're doing calculate a simple least-squares fit to those data sets (all three of them!) and let us know the results.
quote
Second, I have not found good data for Asia and Africa and South America to post.
Translation: Either you don't recognize such data sets when you see them, or they don't seem to match your conclusions, or (more likely) the denier web sites where you get most of your information don't post them. The mere fact that you "have not found" such data sets does not mean that they don't exist.
Third, you cannot look at the peaks and judge, you have to look at the average. For instance, look at 1934.
You are correct about long-term trends being the important thing in climatology. But why do you then immediately fixate on a single data value to make your point?
quote
When you average out the increase/decrease figures, they do not reflect 0.14F increase per decade, that would compile to in excess of 1.54 F increase since 1900 by your chart. That is simply inaccurate.
That's what the data says (see thematic map posted below), whether you agree with it or not.
quote
I smell political interference and political agenda again
When all else fails, you invoke conspiracy. Why am I not surprised?
From the same source as the previous graph, worldwide temperature data for the same time period:
... and long-term U.S. temperature trend data for the same period, presented as a thematic map:
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-16-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: If the Middle East becomes uninhabitable, d'ya think that some other currently populated parts of the globe might also become uninhabitable? Like maybe Texas, for example..? The Los Angeles basin..? Although I'm not sure you'd consider that a bad thing, either.
I've always liked your posts (since I started here, just a few years ago), because you're an out-of-the-box thinker, but you seem a little whacked out on this one point: about (MM)GW and the Middle East.
having Michigan as the new Florida? c'mon - bring it!
anyways - yes - I know there is way more to it than just that. but, I cannot see ANY proposed plan which could in any way prevent what is already past the point of no return. unless we go ahead and decide what segment of the population we want to dispose of - tho, I am sure everyone has varying ideas on that. and that is a heavy thing to do based on what at this point is just a very good assumption. but - we will never actually know, will we?
it is a self feeding circle, and it has already gone past the point of no return. I can understand wanting to hold back the inevitable. but that train is coming. we have released millions of years of stored solar energy in the last 100 years. it aint going back. the ecosystem will do what is has always done - flush itself. it will heat up. we will get an ice age. and it will all begin again. better luck next time. it is by no means an extinction event. tho - the majority would probably wish it were. not one person here will have surviving relatives that make it to the next dawn off Mankind.
All those nice colorful charts and graphs aren't worth anything if they are based on faulty data. I posted a link to an article like this one somewhere near the beginning of this thread and in another thread recently. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3535
quote
"We can't know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the data," said Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado-Boulder.
The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings, previously reported in this column, were alarming.
They found 89 percent of stations "fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements" that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.
"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat," Watts reported.
Stations also had added more sensitive measuring devices, heat-generating radio transmission devices and even latex paint to replace original whitewash, resulting in greater heat retention and reflection.
At one location, Watts said when he "stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot zone ... and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents and masonry."
These influences produce readings higher than actual ambient temperatures, Watts said.
Moreover, the research revealed "major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors."
These inflated, error-prone, tinkered-with temperature recordings are one of several measurements cited by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as evidence man-made global warming is a threat. But the Heartland study concluded, "The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."
Before devastating the economy to fix a problem that may not exist, we ought to get the numbers right.
Any data obtained from those stations cannot be fully trusted or corrected. It shouldn't even be used.
The authors present their statistical analysis of the errors introduced by poor station siting (as observed by Watts) and conclude with this:
quote
...we find no evidence that the CONUS (continental U.S.) average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
"Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States" The Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change Muller et al (2012) http://static.berkeleyearth...n-quality-may-20.pdf
quote
A histogram study of the temperature trends in groupings of stations in the NOAA categories shows no statistically significant disparity between stations ranked "OK"... and stations ranked as "Poor"... A more detailed temperature reconstruction performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method indicates that the difference in temperature change rate between "Poor" and "OK" stations is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The absence of a statistically significant difference indicates that these networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have nominally poor quality rankings.
Now, though, a new study by Matthew Menne and other scientists at the National Climatic Data Center, the federal office charged with tracking climate trends, directly challenges the underpinnings of arguments that Bad Weather Stations = Faulty Climate Conclusions. In essence, the paper, On the Reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record, concludes that the instrument issues, as long acknowledged, are real, but the poor stations tend to have a slight cool bias, not a warm one.
Although the pending paper and antecedents have been debated before, the firmness of the new findings came to my attention via Jeff Masters’ excellent Wunderblog. There’s more useful analysis of the new paper on the Deltoid blog and Skeptical Science.
The findings are robust enough that a frequent critic of climate overstatement, Chip Knappenberger, has provisionally endorsed the findings and thrown cold water on the idea that bad weather stations undercut the picture of a warming continent.
"I’ve seen a lot of Anthony Watts’ presentations and pictures of poorly sited thermometers, but never an analysis to conclusively show that there is a warm bias in the adjusted U.S. temperature record as a result. Yes, many sites are poorly situated and the temperature they read is impacted by things other than the larger-scale weather — but also, such things are being corrected for (or at least an attempt is being made to correct for them) by the various producers of a U.S. temperature history (i.e. Menne et al. at NCDC). So, while the raw data are undoubtedly a mixture of climate and non-climatic influences, the adjusted data presumably have more of a climate signal..."
I consulted Mr. Watts and with David Easterling at the National Climatic Data Center, who supervises the researchers who wrote the new paper, to get added perspective on the new paper. Here’s what they had to say:
Dr. Easterling of the climate center said, among other things, that Mr. Watts had been invited to participate in writing the paper, given that it drew on his weather-station data. “We invited him a number of times to participate in the work,” he said. “He declined.” Dr. Easterling said that the new analysis shows that the adjustments that are made to account for shifting patterns of climate-data collection (the same adjustments are among the targets of those challenging global warming evidence) are robust.
“I don’t want to disparage Watts,” Dr. Easterling added. “He did do us a service by highlighting the fact there are a lot of issues with some of these stations. We are trying to address these issues.” He said that, going forward, the evolving Climate Reference Network will largely eliminate the need for such adjustments in any case...
The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the nation changed over the past 50 years? These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards, and are calibrated on an annual basis. In addition to temperature and precipitation, these stations also measure solar radiation, surface skin temperature, and surface winds, and are being expanded to include triplicate measurements of soil moisture and soil temperature at five depths, as well as atmospheric relative humidity. Experimental stations have been located in Alaska since 2002 and Hawaii since 2005, providing network experience in polar and tropical regions. Deployment of a complete 29 station USCRN network into Alaska began in 2009. This project is managed by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and operated in partnership with NOAA's Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division.
So how serious is the problem of poorly-sited stations for the overall historical climate record? And does it have implications about the extent of manmade global warming?
Watts says it does, and that if one looks only at pristine stations, they show a temperature increase of 1.1° Fahrenheit over the years 1979 to 2008. That is noticeably lower than the government estimate of 1.7° Fahrenheit, which includes readings from all stations, including those with potential problems, which it tries to adjust for statistically.
But many scientists concerned about global warming say that the statistical adjustments work, and they point out that many other measurements of temperature match closely with NOAA’s historical data.
“Watts' analysis is an outlier… Analyses by several groups using global land temps, ocean temps, and satellite-inferred temps (no thermometers there!) show very similar warming rates [to the NOAA data],” Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at SUNY Suffolk, said.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-16-2014).]
But many scientists concerned about global warming say that the statistical adjustments work, and they point out that many other measurements of temperature match closely with NOAA’s historical data.
Something smells rotten in Denmark. Introducing erroneous or faulty data will have an effect on the final calculations. The more faulty data that is introduced the larger the error.
quote
They found 89 percent of stations "fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements" that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.
Because the data gathering is one of the best and most complete data sets, at least before they adjust it to death. Tell you what, before you think you can facepalm me, YOU do the research and show which raw historical temperature data set is better than USHCN. If you can't, you have no right to facepalm me. Put up or STFU.
Because the data gathering is one of the best and most complete data sets, at least before they adjust it to death. Tell you what, before you think you can facepalm me, YOU do the research and show which raw historical temperature data set is better than USHCN. If you can't, you have no right to facepalm me. Put up or STFU.
You miss the point yet again.
As stated the records for the U.S. and the argued update are negligible to the records for Global Temperature.
[QUOTE]]In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.
