http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Posted on 03/21/2007 7:56:56 AM PDT by cogitator
Thanks! That helps. That last thing I want to do is to be repeating bad information.
Please change the title as it is incorrect - the global warming programme in question has nothing to do with the BBC and was made for Channel 4 which an independent advertising funded UK terrestrial channel.
It was however, an excellent programme!
read later
Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on.
This implies an unstable system. Positive feedback will result in never-ending increases in temperatures unless some other unknown process stops and reverses it.
Since this has never happened in the past the explanation appears bogus.
"....but again there is a good explanation"
Har! The global warming swindlers have an explanation for everything that doesn't fit their agenda. Those three examples at the end of this article were funnier than any Saturday Night Live skit!
ping
Unfeedback.
"Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on ."
The change in CO2 is rather insignificant and represents change in ocean solubility vs temp. The change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 can not result in the observed temp changes of 8-10oC. The only cause that can result in such a temp change, is energy input to the Earth system. I don't know what causes that change in E input.
I wish George W. Bush would tell the democrats on Capitol Hill to "go f**** yourselves."
Actually, the systems that contribute to the glacial-interglacial change (temperature and CO2) are known; quantification of their total effect is still being worked on. But since in the glacial-interglacial period atmospheric CO2 has been between a minima of ~180 ppm and a maxima of ~280 ppm, there are negative feedbacks that restrain the entire range (and also therefore keep temperature in defined range -- speaking only about the natural system here).
How did they measure C02 emission during/after the Krakatoa eruption in 1883?
This is from NASA Mar 19, 2007.
"NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records"
"Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
Thanks!
The combined land surface and ocean temperature anomalies show an increasing trend -- globally (with a smaller signal in the Southern Hemisphere). The ocean temperatures would obviously be unaffected by UHI.
The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island
One of my points subsequent to #5 will summarize the Urban Heat Island issue, another oft-repeated incorrect point here on FreeRepublic.
Which should have resulted in the "liquisphere" (air/water) boiling off eons ago.
I suspect you were reading about results from feedback 'models'. The subject of 'modeling' was addressed in the documentary and it is quite true to my experience.
We can achieve statistical models that yield the result we are looking for just by changing a few parameters. But the purpose of a statistical model is not to get a result but to try and expain a large portion of the variability.
We can overparametrize a model that will explain almost all the data but will be poorly predictive. We can also achieve models that are accurate but very inprecise.
The only way to be 100% certain of a model is to have access to infinite and all data on all variables. Then our parameter estimates approach their true natural state. But that never happens and that is why we use statistical inferences to generate ideas and questions for further study, never for political results.
I have witnessed scientific misconduct, normally committed by those that are paid by political programs, too numerous to list here. One example that the general public might recall is one dealing with second hand smoke. I personally witnessed a panel whose continued funding was contingent on getting a desired political result, they changed p-values from 0.05 to 0.10 so that they could say they achieved statistical significance. Such misconduct in science is everywhere that politics sticks its nose. There are numerous examples in medical research where pharmaceutical corporations basically bribe their way to convincing their virtually placebo agent is 'effective', and they are masters at coming up with 'explanations'.
One saying that is a tautology in statistics (and mathematical statistics is precisely what are ised) is:
"All MODELS are false, some are useful".
That's what we are after, we are after practical knowledge, we will never achieve perfect understandings. But it is precisely our tolerance of imperfection that allows blowhard politicians to trample on our principles.
It may be a good idea to curb some emissions based on allergies and toxicity, but to turn science on its head as a means of convincing lawmakers to change the law and redirect funds is disengenuous. Gore along with Green Peace, Gorbachev's Green Cross and the UN Law of the Sea Treaty is a global takeover movement that is turning science on its head as a means to obtain power.
1. 100 ppm is not insignificant. 2. Change in CO2 ocean solubility is only a minor factor. 3. CO2 is a forcing factor that combined with other positive feedback effects can result in the observed temperature change.
All of this will be explained when I finish point #5 in my profile. Please bide your time and wait to see if my explanation adequately explains this confusing and often counter-intuitive issue.
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.