Posted on 12/13/2007 4:20:25 PM PST by blam
heh. made the same reference in post #33. :)
Generally not - though we don't know what Hadley Centre uses.
We also have, in many studies, the influence of data from China during the Great Leap Forward, with detailed metadata that no one can find, attributed to Chinese people who have written papers claiming that the metadata isn't available, in a country that couldn't calculate their population to the nearest 100 million.
I don’t know. I think that’s a little strange. I have no idea if there is anything to “global warming” or not. I’m not a climate scientist. It bugs me though that if you are conservative you are supposed to believe that global warming is a hoax and if you are a liberal you are supposed to believe it is the greatest threat to our existence. There appears to be some pretty good evidence that the average temperature is rising some. Whether that is in any way caused by “greenhouse gases” we’re producing or not is another matter. Maybe so, maybe not, but people surely are opinionated about it. They’ll go to web pages where they can find all the “conservative talking points,” or if the are on the other side they’ll get the “liberal talking points,” Google up all the respective propaganda they can find and argue all day long. The fact is that most of us only know what we think we are supposed to know, the arguments from our side, our party line. Personally I think it’s dangerous for us to get so entrenched in our beliefs on theoretical scientific issues like this. I’m going to keep an open mind on global warming.
ping
These guys wanted to hurry up and get in print while the record melting of sea ice in the arctic was cause for panic, ‘cause now there is a record freeze going on up there. Go figure.
Bravo! You are, of course, correct.
It appears that whether or not it is occurring depends upon your start and end dates, and where you measure against what. At least through late August of 2007, the GISS repairs to their U.S. data suggest that the 1930s average was slightly warmer than the 1990s and trivially cooler than the incomplete 2000s; 1931-1935, compared to 2001-2005 (by almost .1C), is warmer; 1930-1934 were warmer than 2000-2004; that the warming trend from the 1910s to the 1930s was about twice as steep as for the time from the 80s to 2000s; that the 1930s were consistantly warm; and that the annual variation dwarfs the centries worth of warming one year, and completely bleeds off a centuries worth of warming the next.
So...from 1630 to now, it has warmed. from 1901 to now it has warmed. from 1930s to now it has cooled. from 1953 to 2003 it has cooled. from 1970 to now it has warmed. from 1998 to now it has cooled. From 1900 to 2000 it has remained the same (miniscule cooling of -.05C).
I wish the trend would continue. I would love for winter to just go away!
I missed it, but repetition is a good pedagogical technique and there seem to be many who need to be taught to find and use the facts.
Actually the earth is cooling. If we could find the Earth’s rectum and stick a thermometer in there, we would find that the core is cooling. Now when folks talk about the “Earth”, it seems everyone has a slightly different definition that makes comparisons of temperature impossible even if an accurate enough time averaging thermometer could be found. I’m still waiting for even the scientists (no hope for the “Climate Scientists”) to adequately and objectively define the system they are attempting to measure and predict.
Dallas
Which is why it is absolute absurdity to be calling this a "trend" going back 100 years.
I challenge the concept of a "global temperature" measurement, let alone a "global temperature measurement trend" in the sense that is being used to push the AGW agenda.
Because the quantity and quality of data is not evenly distributed across the globe, you CANNOT say you have measured the "global temperature" and you certainly cannot string such unreliable data together to make a "global temperature trend" that means anything other than a curiosity. There are areas of the world overrepresented and underrepresented in the calculated average temperature. There are areas and time periods where "proxy data" is used from places like the USA to represent areas that did not have data. This means the place where the proxy data is used from is over represented, throwing the average calculation off of what actually existed. It is all meaningless. I'll believe a real trend taken over a century by an equally spaced global grid of well maintained modern sensors or a whole earth IR scan.
When the amount of temperature change that is being breathlessly trended is on the order of a degree or so, the magnitude of change so far is in the noise level and is highly subject to reading bias and historical changes of such biases. The world has gone insane.
All of these mis-truths coming from Algore, who wants to maximize sales of his carbon credits business, says to me he is attempting financial fraud and should be put in jail.
Algore is not making mistakes, he is lying to manipulate world government policies for his own personal profit.
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~
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.