Replies

After my short comment indicating that further discussion is pointless, I then checked on one quote from my references, specifically the GHCN reference. Turns out that the reference you quoted is from this:

The Colonial Era Archive Data Project

which contains the quote you provided. It was not from the link I provided, so you must have searched for it. Did you even read the whole thing, or only chuckle triumphantly when you read the introduction? Because you should have read further (and I will note that my reference was from 1997; they've done a lot more since then).

Here's what we read further down:

"As of July 1995, we have digitized data from approximately 200 stations in Africa. The average period of record is 40 years. The data start in the late 1800s and end with independence from the European colonial power. We have located almost all relevant publications in the major meteorological libraries of the world, and we have commenced digitizing of data from Asia and South America."

So they have been adding data to cover the period of record from other continents for almost a decade.

Now let's read this from the link I provided:

"Despite the problems we encountered with various source data sets and individual time series, we repeatedly see evidence, in both the digital archive and in old documents such as the 1894 Deutsche Ueberseeische Meteorologische Beobachtungen in Deutsch-Ost-Afrika (Peterson and Griffiths, 1996), that weather observations were generally made very meticulously. There are 4.7 million station months of temperature data in GHCN starting in 1701 and continuing to the present."

So I don't see that your argument against statistical validity is well-supported - and plus, you didn't argue fairly, as I had to find the Web page with the quote you provided. Most of your other points don't have anything to do with science, and I'm not interested in diatribes about politicians or the media hyping global warming. That adds too much noise to the discussion. Furthermore, scientists never state anything with absolute certainty, and skeptics always make a great deal about the expressions of uncertainty, when most of the time the scientists are a lot more certain than the way they sound. What you term "speculation" is usually much, much, much more an expression of well-defined knowledge with only some ambiguity remaining to be investigated.

Do you, or your paleo-climatologists have sufficient data to show that such a rapid rise has not occurred in one or more of the past cycles?

From the Eemian to the present, yes. As an example, the end of the Younger Dryas, which was a very rapid warming when the normal mode of oceanic circulation was reestablished, is known to have occurred in a period of decades or less.

The Younger Dryas

The deeper the layers are recovered from an ice core, the more the layers are compressed, but since here the actual data is subannually resolved for an event occurring about 11,000 years ago, it is possible to resolve decadal-scale events going back significantly further than that. Surprised?

Further info:

High-resolution record of Northern Hemisphere climate extending into the last interglacial period

The caption indicates 50 or 10 year resolution, 10 years for the oxygen isotopes which are the standard temperature proxy.

My Dear Cogitator, I do hope that you have not slipped beyond the “debate” stage wherein the facts and logic of the issue is that which is the sole topic of our discussion. (I bring this issue up as I seem to detect a note of “frustration” in your posts lately.) Let me reassure you that I am interested in informative and persuasive debate driven by facts and logic. Turns out that the reference you quoted is from this: … (…you didn't argue fairly, as I had to find the Web page with the quote you provided…)

If I inadvertently quoted from a link of a link that you cited, please forgive the oversight. I assure you that there was no intent to mislabel. Nonetheless, the quote is valid and the point remains and you have steadfastly ignored it. Address it straightforwardly.

Did you even read the whole thing, or only chuckle triumphantly when you read the introduction?

Actually, I did read the whole thing. However, nothing in the remainder of the article refuted the statement in the introduction, which was the point.

There are no comprehensive, continuous, global temperature data that can be contemporaneously linked comprehensively, precisely and accurately with potential cause factors that are older than the 1930’s or 1940’s, at the earliest. To drive home the point, I invite you to provide any accurate and precise global measurements (not estimates, extrapolations, assumptions or inferences, etc.) of stratospheric ozone, carbon dioxide, atmospheric sulfide compounds, ex-atmospheric versus tropospheric, terrestrial insolation, upper-atmospheric water vapor, atmospheric suspended particulates, etc., made prior to that time. Let me emphasize that this challenge is to provide “measurements” not proxies or inference based extrapolations.

You cannot point to any comprehensive, global, accurate and precise measures prior to the middle of the last century of those items cited above, for there are none. In reality, a great many data related to potential cause factors for global temperature change can go no further into the past than the 1960’s, at the earliest, because no prior attempts had been made to measure them at all on a global basis prior to that time. All you can do is point to “proxies” that allow possible inferences.

”…There are 4.7 million station months of temperature data in GHCN starting in 1701 and continuing to the present."

It is rather interesting that the source you cited stated that temperature data started in 1701 when Farhenheit did not develop his scale until 23 years later. In fact, he didn’t invent the alcohol thermometer until 1709, and the mercury thermometer not till 1714. Given this time frame and the manufacturing technology available, these instruments would not have been wide spread for probably 40 or 50 years, if then. Consequently, there arise some obvious questions: How accurate and precise were these temperature measurements allegedly made in 1701 with a “Santorio” or “Galileo” type thermometer? Exactly how much credence should be accorded a source that uses readings from a device as notoriously accurate as a “water thermometer?”

(…you didn't argue fairly, as I had to find the Web page with the quote you provided…) I’ll not make the same mistake… see the following:

(http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/methist.html)
(http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blthermometer.htm)
(http://www.astragalpress.com/history_thermometer.htm)
1724. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferhenheit)
1731. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9aumur)
1732 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delisle_scale)
1742. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius)
1848. (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blthermometer.htm)
1859. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine)

So I don't see that your argument against statistical validity is well-supported

Did you look up alpha and beta risk? How about Type I and Type II errors? If you did, you should have run across something else related to sample size errors and choosing representative samples, etc. (BTW, I make my living using statistics.) If you read these carefully, you would see that the “inferred” statistical records, e.g., Vostok ice core inferences, etc., do not statistically support the conclusions concerning the currently postulated sources of potentially catastrophic global warming being anthropogenic. Furthermore, you would also see that even a 50-year record of very accurate and precise data cannot be statistically valid for drawing conclusion about functions that have 100,000 thousand year cycles, combined with 26,000-year cycles, combined with… etc.

Most of your other points don't have anything to do with science

In deed, all of my other points had to do with nothing, but science. Science is about making observations, forming hypotheses, creating experiments to test those hypotheses and confirming them or denying them. Science is not about abusing mathematics to create a questionable forecast of doom in order attempt to force the public and the government into ill-considered actions.

… skeptics always make a great deal about the expressions of uncertainty…

Your assertion is not true if those expressions of uncertainty are expressed in terms of mathematically acceptable confidence intervals. Furthermore, if the theory under discussion is not being used as a political lever to push some agenda for potentially disastrous changes foisted off on an unwilling populace, you would find that skeptics would be far less demanding of those proffering the theory.

Do you, or your paleo-climatologists have sufficient data to show that such a rapid rise has not occurred in one or more of the past cycles?

From the Eemian to the present, yes.

Perhaps, you missed the word in bold print, data.

The Eemian interglacial era (known as the Sangamon interglacial in North America, the Ipswichian interglacial in the UK, and the Riss-Würm interglacial in the Alps) is the second-to-latest interglacial era of the Ice Age. It began about 131,000 years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian)

Exactly what data in contrast to proxies, extraoplations, assumptions or estimates on global temperatures can you refer me to for periods 131,000 years ago? How about data in contrast to proxies, extraoplations, assumptions or estimates on stratospheric ozone, carbon dioxide, atmospheric sulfide compounds, ex-atmospheric versus tropospheric, terrestrial insolation, upper-atmospheric water vapor, atmospheric suspended particulates, etc., for periods 131,000 years ago? Herein lies the crux of the skeptics’ objections to the entire global warming issue.

There are some very clever (dare I say, even “good,” if not, well founded) theories on climate change. Unfortunately, these theories are based upon information that is derived from proxies for, not direct measurements of, the phenomena on which the theories are based. Beyond a basis on proxies, there are also too many discontinuties and disjunctions with different sets of proxies. Consequently, there are distinct problems with demanding action on the bases of such theories. Far too many times in the past, proxies have been discovered to be misleading or even false indicators. Therefore, unless, and until, independent conformation can be obtained using data (not extrapolation, assumptions, etc.) these “clever” theories are not a dound basis for action.

If you can present a logically valid argument soundly based upon data, I remain willing to be convinced.

Sorry, I have another business trip for the next three days. I do not know if I’ll be able to access the internet from my hotel room or not. Therefore, a delay in response may be unavoidable.