Posted on 03/23/2008 12:20:39 PM PDT by Delacon
The tangle of the dangle is mangled mainly in space?
Is that Tiros satellite data from 1880? I would not rely on Tiros data nuch before 1920.
>>Is that Tiros satellite data from 1880? I would not rely on Tiros data nuch before 1920.<<
That’s funny..
But you have a point - those numbers lack error bars and thus give an excessive impression of accuracy.
And where was this rise measured?
And, who did the measuring?
Then there is the effect of the sun's magnetic field on the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches us. It is very likely that cloud formation is greatly stumulated by those rays. Current research indicates that it easily accounts for the last 100 years of measured warming through regulation of beneficial greenhouse gas (low cloud) formation.
Total solar irradiance has been going down
It's the relatively small fraction of x and g band radiation that influences cloud formation, apparently. I'm also very curious if you have heard that Antartic ice cores show CO2 level follow historical increases in temperature.
And finally, were you actually dry behind the ears 35 years ago when scientific consensus gravely warned we were going to freeze, starve and be glaciated unless we took immediate and drastic action to stop GLOBAL COOLING?
So, what happens now?
At the same time we infer temperatures from periods before measurement was possible from other sources ~ e.g. diatom deposits, ice cores, pollen layers in shallow lakes, etc.
Recently folks have been reporting that we know the mean global temperature. Turned out most of the devices used to do the measuring were not up to the task, and those that were had been improperly managed.
I'd suggest we don't know if it's getting warmer or cooler.
The weather gurus speak of “anomalies” ~
Interesting how this chart can be have a moving average in it that is a straight line going up?
Re: trends
Well, on the 10,000 year scale glaciers are most certainly receeding.
Re: sea rising
Prove your assertion.
Oh, do tell.
LOL
Yes, but it is scientific analysis with a definite bias toward catastrophe and hysteria which their sponsors want to hear. If they don’t toe the party line, the funding dries up, jobs are lost, graduate students will not receive money to pursue their studies. Follow the money.
Open your eyes, read a little and you’ll find a lot of scientific analysis that is contrary to what you believe. Then, look at the historical record, ie, the MWP and the little ice age. No “scientific analysis” needed there — you can observe the impact of cold vs warm on mankind and civilization.
You could be right about both. It's interesting and potentially dangerous how quickly the idea human activity causes global warming has become more or less accepted by the mainstream. I hope we learn enough to actually know before we do something drastic and stupid to "fix" what we don't yet understand.
>>Re: sea rising
Prove your assertion.<<
>>The Contribution of the Cryosphere to Changes in Sea Level
Global sea level rose by about 120 meters during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilized between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year. Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s, provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 millimeters per year. Climate models based on the current rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to 0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099 (IPCC 2007).<<
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
Re: sea level
BS I read the link and they talk “estimates” and then trot out satellite data that is no where near accurate enough to even see 3mm per year sea level variation from the distance they orbit. That small of a change is lost in the noise of a turbulent sea. They are pulling “facts” out of their noses...
This organization receives its funding from global warming grants. That makes their “estimates” rather suspect. Other sources I’ve seen show very little rise in average sea level.
It's a lot different from the three time adjusted US Temp data. Oh yeah...good luck QA/QC ing the data used for the Global Temperature average.
I moved this link from an earlier thread on Climate Confusion:
I hope it updates regularly - this picture shows yesterday.
You should post that on FR.
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.