What Do We Think About Climate Change

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Thomas,

The correction for the 'discontinuity' mentioned above is at the heart of this discussion. ..........The data set and resulting graph I referenced from August '07 is therefore the trustworthy set, having not been unauditably 'massaged' by Hansen, who definitely has a dog in the fight. This is like the third time I've brought this up. Each time the fraud and deceit just blows right by you, Thomas. I don't know what shenanigans it will take from the AGW crowd before you see their motives are not purely scientific, but deeply political.

Jimbo

"Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Three thousandths of one percent......
Yes that is a truly stunning deceit

In case you missed it:



If you look really carefully you can see the "fraud"- it's the green line directly under the correct data..



The most interesting part about this whole bit is why you are now questioning heating?

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The exact 'how' and 'why' we are warming up is still unknown, but it's far more plausible to look toward the solar influence for the answer. But hey, nobody's gonna get elected that way, and that's ultimately what AGW alarmism is all about

Jimbo

[ancient kayaker]

It would be interesting to superimpose a curve of global economic activity over the graph of global temperature.

[masalai]

Global Tropospheric Temperature Anomalies, shows temperature trends in the lower troposphere, the layer from the earths surface to about 5 miles up - this obtained by googling "lower troposphere", and seems fraught with anomolies as the satellites are trying to figure the temperature from a background of the surface temperature of land, oceans and other stuff on the surface often causing bubbles of air temperature - - and we are familiar with "bubbles" in economic jargon - - not reliable information...

I prefer the information presented by bntii, as that is surface temperature and can be verified by using a thermometer on the ground and there is a greater prospect for the data to be proven to be reliable and not the output of a flatulent cow or some other bubble in the atmosphere up to 5 miles up so the temperature could be taken from anywhere in that column of air????

Talk about farting fruitcakes??? most of the/any impact of global warming/cooling will be seen first in the water temperature of the surface of the oceans, and the consequences for humans is the melting of the ice ON Greenland and ON the Antarctic landmasses... - - that ice which is deemed to be floating will not influence the water level on melting but it has been calculated that the ice sitting on land will cause great catastrophe as it melts the sea level will flood most airports and coastal ports....

Surface air in the northern hemisphere will be expected to rise as the greater cloud coverage will allow the larger land masses to fall to very cold levels and result in significant air temperature drops over night and during northern hemisphere winters....

[bntii]

"In the case of the troposphere, the layer from the surface to an altitude of about 7.5 miles, where most weather occurs, it was believed there had been less warming than what was recorded at the surface. However, Fu's team determined the satellite readings of the troposphere were imprecise because about one-fifth of the signal actually came from a higher atmosphere layer called the stratosphere, which for the last few decades has been cooling several times faster than the troposphere has been warming. The group devised a method to remove the stratosphere signal from the satellite data and was left with results that closely matched the warming at the surface. That work was published in May in the journal Nature.

However, critics contended the method overcompensated for the cooling effects of the stratosphere and thus overstated the amount of warming in the troposphere. The criticisms did not appear in peer-reviewed journals.

In the new study, Fu and Celeste Johnson, a UW atmospheric sciences graduate student, used direct stratosphere temperature measurements to examine the contamination from the stratosphere in the satellite channel that measures troposphere temperatures. They also used the same data to evaluate their method for removing the stratosphere contamination. The data they used came from scientists at NOAA and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in England.

The Fu team's work indicates the troposphere has been warming at about two-tenths of a degree Celsius, or nearly one-third of a degree Fahrenheit, per decade. That closely resembles measurements of warming at the surface, something climate models have suggested would result if the warmer surface temperatures are the result of greenhouse gases."

From:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1129113717.htm

Just for the fun of it:

[masalai]

Bntii, Well put and presented.... Your research is appreciated by me...

[bntii]

He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors.
- Rudyard Kipling

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

I always welcome 'unmassaged' data whenever those in possession of such dare to publish it, even if they do so by 'accident'. The Hadley ad GISS data and graphs I presented are such data, without the lower 'non-conforming' data points thrown out. Note that they show no warming trend in the last few years. Even the 'rathole' once published such a data set and graph, if only breifly. Once they discovered their 'error' they quickly removed the offending graph, and having properly massaged the data set, doing the now ritual throwing-out-of-the non-conforming-lowest (but never highest) data points, the now much scarier graph was re-published and look: there's the scary warming again. These guys regularly throw out the lower 'non-conforming' data points (without doing like wise with the higher and equally 'non-conforming' data points) as they are adjudged to be, well NON-conforming; anomalies to be stricken from the record. They consider this just 'smart' data processing to be rid of 'spurious' data points and do not see this as bias toward their pet theory. The graphs Boston posted a while back from Briffa did this with whole data sets and some truncated series, since the result would have been a graph that falls at the end, which is not scary.

I say "Let the data speak!"

Not sure what you meant by your statement:

"The most interesting part about this whole bit is why you are now questioning heating?"

I've consistently said that the earth has been emerging from the 'little ice age' for the last century and that all of the recent warming fits nicely on that trend line, nothing alarming noted. The AGW alarm crowd crowed (alliteration ) about 1998, which you have to admit was not indicative of anything important; the temperature did not continue vertically off the cart as they predicted.

Masalai and Thomas,

I'll say once again that the condition of the data collection network for surface temp. data is very poor, with many stations no longer conforming to standards. It should be a simple matter of checking the temperature on the ground, but in fact getting data that is consistent over many years has proved to be a big problem. This is because many stations are now in cities where they used to be in rural areas. This has the effect of consistently skewing temp. readings upward. This does not reflect a warming trend in the atmosphere, but an error in the data. Yet the AGW alarm crowd, self-styled 'seekers of scientific truth', is vehemently against an audit of the network of sensor stations. Gee, I wonder why?

They even went as far as publishing a paper that amounted to a mock audit of that network which concluded all was good. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar on that one. Fraud or just rank sloppiness? You decide.

Nevertheless, an audit of the stations is underway, about 40% complete. The results so far ain't pretty, with over half of the stations audited so far adding >5C degree(!) error to their temperature readings. This is, of course, not being accounted for in all of those scary graphs of the surface temperatures.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

The discrepancy 'tween satellite and surface data sets has been a point of contention for a long time. This is the old 'fingerprint' battle. While the info Thomas cited above is certainly interesting, it is now 4 years old, and by no means the last word on the subject.


Here's some counter, from a more recent and authoritative source:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...ft/default.htm

Excerpt:

"Abstract

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the validity of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite data showed little or no warming above the surface. There is no longer evidence of such a discrepancy. This is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."




Now the tropical troposphere is said to be the 'gold standard' for finding the 'fingerprint' for CO2 forced warming; if you can't find it here, it can't be found. Interestingly, this is a graph of the latest reconstruction from satellite data (using the latest and best set of corrections) from the above paper:




Now, again, if you go and read the paper, you'll get the usual AGW alarm camp rhetoric. But at least they had the balls to publish an 'unmassaged' graph. Remarkable how iit matches the raw NASA and GISS graphs I posted earlier. And again, please try to look for an alarming warming trend.

Betcha can't find one

Jimbo

[ancient kayaker]

It's hard to reassure myself from data that shows the temperature rise over the last 20 years or so has risen slower than in the previous 100. It is the long term trend that alarms me. There have been temporary levelling out for the odd decade or two before but the underlying trend is unrelenting and scary. It's also kind of hard to ignore million tonne chunks of ice breaking off near the poles at frequent intervals. In my view if there's 1 chance in 100 that the planet is entering a thermal death spiral then it's our clear duty to do something about it other than talk; and frankly the odds look a lot higher than that. Of course, I appreciate your efforts to reassure me but it's not working.

It all sounds like a guy in a truck with faulty brakes who just misses crushing a family car and turns to his passenger and says "see, I told you there was nothing to worry about, the brakes worked fine that time"

[Guillermo]

kayaker,
the problem, as I see it, is that we can do absolutely nothing to influence the global warming or cooling, whatever it happens. All we can do, as you say, is to be prepared for the worst. And from my point of view, freezing is worst than warming.

bntii,
There is 'warmist jargon' and 'cooliest jargon'. You choose.

Knut,
Why do you suppose Greenpeace motivations are 'purer' than Exxon's ones? Money is money, wherever it comes from.
By the way, I find totally ridiculous that Exxon 'fixation' on the side of Greenpeace. I'm old enough to have learnt that behind this kind of confrontations there's always just personal hate between two big boys. I'm wondering who they are are in this case....


Cheers.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

It would be interesting to superimpose a curve of global economic activity over the graph of global temperature.

That's kinda the type of idea that I like.......
(Hummmm, anybody up to it...?)

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

kayaker,
the problem, as I see it, is that we can do absolutely nothing to influence the global warming or cooling, whatever it happens. All we can do, as you say, is to be prepared for the worst. And from my point of view, freezing is worst than warming.

Knut,
Why do you suppose Greenpeace motivations are 'purer' than Exxon's ones? Money is money, wherever it comes from.

"as I see it, is that we can do absolutely nothing to influence the global warming or cooling" - I believe we can do something, but of course.... compared to the amount of energy the sun hammer into our habitat, what the difference a little change in our release of greenhouse gases can do...? A "tiny" change in heat input measured in 0,x W/m2... Well, maybe, just maybe, we're managing to avoid a change. When I was a kid, I remember sometimes that huge lumps of oil/ asphalt came floating in - they are really rare nowadays... To change that, it only required just a few people to think and behave differently.

Greenpeace motives.... Well, as I stated; Follow the money.... (as my lawyer told me once...)...Probably the same goes for them.... I believe that they're also a bit quick to jump "New science solutions"... but have to admit that no improvement will probably be possible without different way of thinking.

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Now the tropical troposphere is said to be the 'gold standard' for finding the 'fingerprint' for CO2 forced warming; if you can't find it here, it can't be found.

Here's some counter, from a more recent and authoritative source:
Jimbo

The entire abstract of the paper you cite as evidence of the above. You seem to have omitted the later part:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the validity of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite data showed little or no warming above the surface. There is no longer evidence of such a discrepancy. This is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Since those reports, errors have been identified and corrected in the satellite
data and other temperature observations. These data now show global average warming in the atmosphere similar to the warming observed at the surface and consistent with the results from climate models, although discrepancies remain to be resolved in the tropics. The recent evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of observed climatic changes and their causes."
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...ft/default.htm

Throwing out "nonconforming data" I see....



Can you do me a favor?
Can you post urls to the source material you are using?
It saves everyone a lot of time when trying to learn about these topics. I am particularly interested in the matched data set represented in the two graphs you initially posted in post #1155

Thanks

[Knut Sand]

Some graphs here:

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

I'm not shure if I buy all of it though......Yet, I'll have to read some of it first...

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

The post #1155 was a graph that NASA/GISS once published but took down. Someone had the sense to archive it before they did. I'll see if I can find the source again for you this evening. The selection of 1995 as a start point for the graph is very important because 'skeptics' have been saying for quite a few years that there really has not been any significant warming since the '80's. The AGW people actually acknowledge this but counter that the reason this is so is that the eruption of two major volcanoes 'masked' the warming that was occurring with a counter (temporary) cooling event. But there have been no 'major' eruptions since 1995, so that time period turns out to be a good test for whether a warming trend could be observed at all, let alone an alarming warming trend, let alone one you could pin on CO2.

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Interesting link Knut, thanks.
From there:

"All five global temperature estimates presently show stagnation, at least since 2002. There has been no increase in global air temperature since 1998, which was affected by the oceanographic El Niño event. This does not exclude the possibility that global temperatures will begin to increase again later. On the other hand, it also remain a possibility that Earth just now is passing a temperature peak, and that global temperatures will begin to decrease within the coming 5-10 years. Only time will show which of these possibilities is the correct."

What it is quite clear is that we still know very little about global processes and we still have a lot to learn. In my opinion to be hysterically alarmists about global warning at this moment is at least naïve. Forcing world wide policies based in such lack of knowledge can be greatly irresponsible and even criminal from the point of view of the undeveloped countries. (Oh, my God, did I say that?)

By the way: being myself an sceptic about all this global warming issue, I'm not so about the real contamination of the planet we are producing. Specially the sea.

Cheers.

P.S.
From the home page of Climate4you:
"Today it is equally easy to forget that it is only about 160 years since about one million people in Europe died of starvation and epidemic diseases because of climate-induced harvest failures."