Posted on 02/12/2004 1:24:31 PM PST by cogitator
Excerpt:
"Spencer’s and Christy’s satellite record, with the collection and analysis of the data for November 2003, celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary. What we’ve learned in that time is that the MSU data show global-averaged temperature in the lower troposphere to have warmed by about 0.19ºC (0.34ºF). Much of that warming has come since the El Nino of 1998 and is confined to latitudes north of 30ºN. There appears to have been little to no warming in the tropics and southern latitudes.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 are extracted from a recent report by Spencer and Christy. They depict both the 25-year-long global temperature history from the satellites (Figure 1) and the spatial pattern of the 25-year observed temperature trends (Figure 2).
Figure 1
Figure 2
Now that "global warming" has been exposed as a hoax, the enviro-NAZIs will simply move on to claims such as Man is causing "extreme" weather...
What we’ve learned in that time is that the MSU data show global-averaged temperature in the lower troposphere to have warmed by about 0.19ºC (0.34ºF). Much of that warming has come since the El Nino of 1998 and is confined to latitudes north of 30ºN. There appears to have been little to no warming in the tropics and southern latitudes.
Works out to be around 0.76 degrees per century, with a standard error of about 0.2oC
Note that linear trend in temperature can only be maintained if greenhouse gases were to rise at a continual exponential rate under the Greenhouse gas theories for the source of atmospheric warming.
The actual measurments of CO2 concentrations through several decades now indicate a leveling off of rate of increase in temperature to be constant, (a linear or lesser progression leading to a declining rate of increase in temperatures.
A scenario, even with realistic Business as Usual (no changes in efforts to control CO2 emissions), substantially lower than the lowest of UN/IPCC "storyline" projections.
Yes, and notably Spencer and Christy's trend is the lowest of the three currently available trends derived (by different methods) from the same data. There is currently considerably give-and-take regarding who's most accurate and who's least accurate here.
Most notably, Spencer and Christy report in increasing tropospheric temperature trend after years of not reporting any significant trend. That's due to a couple of factors; one, refinements to their data analysis methodology, and two, significantly warmer years in the last few years of the record.
I make one fun prediction: the next round of scientific assessments leading to the FAR (Fourth Assessment Report) are going to have a LOT to consider.
(I've still got you on my mind for a longer reply (on the previous thread), but there's been too much worthy of comment recently, both on global climate change and other issues. You're not forgotten.)
Yes, and notably Spencer and Christy's trend is the lowest of the three currently available trends derived (by different methods) from the same data. There is currently considerably give-and-take regarding who's most accurate and who's least accurate here.
That trend is what you get with a linear regression on the raw temperature data. No attempts to "reduce" the effects volcanic action reducing temperatures at the beginning of the temperature series, vs the high temperatures induced by the exceptional el-nino of 87-88, and elevated temperatures of the current el-nino were are passing out of.
I am very skeptical of attempts to clean up data, it rapidly becomes a very subjective process highly dependant upon the statitician's presumptions and biases.
The 0.76 is stongly biased to upward trend, by those events and why even a quarter of a century of data is shakey grounds for measure climate trends.
I make one fun prediction: the next round of scientific assessments leading to the FAR (Fourth Assessment Report) are going to have a LOT to consider.
Something that should have happened with the first, the rush to publish and push the agenda seems to be more the dominant priority with the UN than quality of science and assessment.
The UN/IPCC's established record on their summaries and assessments is abysmal so far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.