M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
I’m sorry … but science without data … is … [nothing].
It’s just making stuff up … “polar bear stories”.
I apologize for sounding contentious … but …
- Status
It’s just making stuff up … “polar bear stories”.
I apologize for sounding contentious … but …
E
epan
Guest
Well, the people who are truly experts, and who are tasked with measuring temperature say that there is a clear and unmistakable warming trend since 1880. Here is the most relevant web site that I know of, if you want to look at the data yourself:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Here is one graph, showing temperature deviation by 0.01 C from the 1950-1980 average. The trend is clear:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Here is a sea surface temp analysis from NOAA. Once again, the trend is clear: ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/ersst.1880.ann.png
E
epan
Guest
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I wonder how much of the global temperature rise can be attributed to the rising prevalence of vehement political discussions. 
E
epan
Guest
Here is a map I made, which should include as much data as you would like. There is a fun map making tool here, which you may use to compare the average temp from any period after 1880 to any period after 1880. Here: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
In this image, I compare the average March temp from 1900-1920 to the average March temp from 1993 to 2013: data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=1993&year2=2013&base1=1900&base2=1920&radius=1200&pol=reg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/giste...T_1200km_Anom03_1993_2013_1900_1920/nmaps.gif
Note: Gray areas signify missing data.
Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/giste...km_Anom03_1993_2013_1900_1920/nmaps_zonal.gif
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
As I sit here with perhaps 1-2" of snow on the ground on this third day of May, I am put to wonder about MMGW since this is the FIRST time EVER that anyone knows about where there was snow in May in this area.
I realize the promoters have changed from MMGW to Manmade Climate Change or something, and either dismiss things like this as “weather” (different from climate change, you know) or attribute it too to MMGW (“well, you see, it disturbed this pattern and that one over there, so now cold air comes…”)
But there is still snow on the ground. Might still be snowing, but I don’t even want to go look.
I realize the promoters have changed from MMGW to Manmade Climate Change or something, and either dismiss things like this as “weather” (different from climate change, you know) or attribute it too to MMGW (“well, you see, it disturbed this pattern and that one over there, so now cold air comes…”)
But there is still snow on the ground. Might still be snowing, but I don’t even want to go look.
E
epan
Guest
Here it is with annual mean temp between 1940 and 1950 compared to the same data between 2002 and 2012. I picked this period, because reporting quantity and accuracy improved a lot around 1940. It doesn’t matter what period you choose. The trends are clear.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/giste...1200km_Anom0112_2002_2012_1940_1950/nmaps.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/giste..._Anom0112_2002_2012_1940_1950/nmaps_zonal.gif
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The UAH sat record shows no warming from the beginning in 1978 through 1997.
And no warming 2001 to now.
In between we had the big ENSO cycle (el nino + la nina).
But keep reading.
Science is about understanding.
E
epan
Guest
Try reading the chart again. FYI, NASA uses satellite data. Go figure.
It is pointless to cherry pick data as you are trying to do. Weather does vary. But pay attention to the line from 1880 to 2013. You might find it instructive. The trend is clear and undeniable. Your point would be valid, if the down blips had any effect on the remarkable overall trend line, which they don’t.
You are simply wrong, and it sounds like you are trying to ignore the data to justify some weird political opinion. I find it odd that financial incentive for the oil industry, utilities, etc… gets so confused with actual science. Thanks FOX news.
Also note the use of global averages. El nino is irrelevant, etc.
E
epan
Guest
I would encourage you to consider my opinion that we do have a strong moral obligation to practice good stewardship, which to me includes being responsible environmentally. Promoting hydrocarbon consumption, as opposed to conservation and sustainable energy use, is morally reprehensible in that light. The evidence is not disputable any more than the evidence for evolution is disputable. It is called science.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
You need to read more than one interpretation of the data:
drroyspencer.com/
When someone draws a line through temperature data, then all data are relevant.
It matters HOW you draw the lines through the data.
drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Apr_2013_v5.5.png
If you use averaging or if you use a best straight line for certain periods, it matters what you select for your beginning point.
Going back to 1880 and adding data from various sources is not scientific … the data needs to be from the same temperature reading instruments for each data series. Older instruments and instrument locations would not produce the same results as more modern instruments and locations. It is invalid to scotch-tape together data from different sources; each has its own set of errors so you lose consistency.
In addition, an audit of temperature recording locations shows that there are severe Urban Heat Island contamination of data. Most of the data was collected at airports. As grass fields gave way to paved areas and as airports got busier, the temperatures increased due to the heat reflective surfaces and the heat produced by the airplanes … and none of this has anything to do with ambient temperatures. It would be like measuring the temperature on the surface of your driveway or next to your air conditioner.
Read more at www.surfacestations.org
Fully 70% or more of temperature recording instruments read HIGH, by 2º to 5º or more.
If you plug those data into a model, then your output results will read several degrees too high.
Since the “most likely” AGW model result for 100 years from now is only a warming of 1º, and since the (corrupted) (name removed by moderator)ut data reads high by 2º to 5º, then you have to adjust the model results downward by 2º to 5º to correct for the bad field data.
If you do that, then the actual model results are a global cooling of around -3º.
Which is what happens when you compare uncorrected model results with actual temperature data for the years after the models made their runs:
drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
The current problem is that AGW advocacy science people are having to backpedal to try to figure out why the current data is going against the models.
If you visit www.sepp.org and click on TWTW newsletter, they describe the current efforts to force the data to behave.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Got timed out.
Owing to budget cuts, some historic data collection locations were closed down and the data series were discontinued. This happened in many places, but particularly in Siberia, where the data always shows cold temperatures … so that if the only remaining data stations are in warmer climates, then the data series will be biased in the upward, warmer direction.
In addition, it is unscientific to combine things like cherry-picked tree ring data used as proxies and add that to airport temperature data which was never audited.
Owing to budget cuts, some historic data collection locations were closed down and the data series were discontinued. This happened in many places, but particularly in Siberia, where the data always shows cold temperatures … so that if the only remaining data stations are in warmer climates, then the data series will be biased in the upward, warmer direction.
In addition, it is unscientific to combine things like cherry-picked tree ring data used as proxies and add that to airport temperature data which was never audited.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
James Hansen et al. 1999:
“In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the last 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases - in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”
“1988 was a temporary inconvenience compared to the repeated droughts of the 1930/s”
Funny how the same person could draw such different conclusions in such a short amount of time, considering he was supposedly looking at the very same data set.
I wonder…
Could it have had something to do with political availability of grant money…???
“In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the last 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases - in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”
“1988 was a temporary inconvenience compared to the repeated droughts of the 1930/s”
Funny how the same person could draw such different conclusions in such a short amount of time, considering he was supposedly looking at the very same data set.
I wonder…
Could it have had something to do with political availability of grant money…???
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Hi Epan,
I noticed that you are in the discernment stage. I just wanted you to know that Catholicism is a great religion. The best. It makes a difference.
And one difference is that many more Catholic in America than non-Catholics accept anthropogenic global warming and are committed to mitigating it – about 68% of Catholics, as opposed to only 62% of non-Catholics.
And part of that difference may be due to our great leadership. Both Popes JPII and BXVI have written strongly about how we must mitigate AGW, that it is everyone’s responsibility. They have been striving to make the Vatican carbon neutral. Also it looks like our new Pope Francis will be following their lead, since in his very first talk upon becoming our Holy Father he spoke strongly about our need to protect creation, and has spoken about that several times since. His lifestyle reflects his message: he lives simply, taking public transportation, and even returning rubber bands to his newspaper man! And he’s a scientist, so maybe at last AGW skeptics will listen to him.
I am also a convert, then some 20 years later was called to Carmel and became a 3rd order Carmelite, OCDS.
Do not be derailed or demoralized by some comments you may hear from some Catholics, but read the Bible and the works of the saints…which gives clear indication that we should be erring on the side of prudence re human lives and charity by accepting AGW and doing all we can to reduce our harm to people and others of God’s creatures – sensible and feasible things that would reduce our GHG emissions by 50%, even 75% cost-effectively.
The skeptics’ idea that we need totalitarianism and have to destroy the economy and kill babies to mitigate climate change is ludicrous, especially when one considers that mitigation measures give us more freedom (like getting off the grid), help our personal finances and the overall economy, and save lives – and this latter is probably the reason most sensible and charitable good Christians are mitigating climate change, to save lives (reduce one’s harm to people and others of God’s creatures), the monetary rewards and freedoms just being a pleasant bonus.
While it makes no sense to kill children in order to save the world for the children, it makes even less sense to be strongly against medical abortion, but ignore one’s contribution to environmental problems that harm and kill fetuses and born people.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here’s part of the answer – the heat has been going into the deep ocean (the atmospheric heat is only part of the total heat imbalance…not the whole story).
See: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/#ITEM-15062-0
And the article on which that is based: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+11+May+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Don’t ignore these quotes. They are from a published paper, but it’s not easy to find on line these days. I wonder why???James Hansen et al. 1999:
“In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the last 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases - in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”
“1988 was a temporary inconvenience compared to the repeated droughts of the 1930’s”
Funny how the same person could draw such different conclusions in such a short amount of time, considering he was supposedly looking at the very same data set.
I wonder…
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
[political correctness]
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
How to Make the Data Come Out “Right.” Alter it!
I hate dishonesty in anyone but especially “scientists” who ought to know better and be a lot more objective than this.
I hate dishonesty in anyone but especially “scientists” who ought to know better and be a lot more objective than this.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Good find!
The comments are very illuminating!!, as well.
Such as this exchange:
Steve McIntyre has details at Climate Audit.
climateaudit.org/2007/02/16/adjusting-ushcn-history/
Paul H says:
December 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Hi Sense
Just found the original on GISS website.
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
Note the bit that says :-
“We suggest that further warming in the United States to a level rivaling the 1930s is likely in the next decade, but reliable prediction requires better understanding of decadal oscillations of ocean temperature.” ( This was written in 1999 – when the old graph showed temps still lower)
You can see Hansen’s graph on the PDF – very last page (Plate A2).
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
AND THEN … there is the outright fraud …
Visit here and just check out all the books that have been written that expose and p(name removed by moderator)oint the outright fraudulent behavior on the part of these tax-supported so-called “climate scientists”.
Just counting up the number of books that expose the fraud is a daunting task … there are so many of them:
amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437
- Status