 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Posted on 02/26/2008 4:42:12 PM PST by chiller
I guess even the threat of global warming legislation has cooled off the planet.
I saw this GISS data also.
How do we reconcile the GISS data you show indicating a very warm 2007 with the GISS (and other) data in the article? There has to be an Apples and Oranges problem here somehow. I'm mystified.
Dear Mr. Gore,
Please read this article and turn in your Nobel Peace Prize. The only Global warming there is, is centered around you. Because we find you full of HOT AIR.
Dear Mr. Gore,
Please read this article and return your Nobel Peace Prize. The only Global warming there is, is centered around you. Because we find you full of HOT AIR.
Look at chiller's graph, if you do a a month-on-month comparison, you will of course show either "heating" or "cooling" in every case... "weather" vs "climate".
I saw this GISS data also.
How do we reconcile the GISS data you show indicating a very warm 2007 with the GISS (and other) data in the article? There has to be an Apples and Oranges problem here somehow. I’m mystified.
—
True: That graphic is used to promote AGW theories - but it shows surface temperatures (many skewed by flat-wrong thermometer locations, uncorrected “heat island” temperatures of up to 7-10 degrees F from urban/suburban sprawl, removal of the Siberian and USSR recorders in the mid-90’s, wrongly corrected temperatures for 1930-1945 - these are actually as high as the 1995-2005 temp’s !, and incorrect temp corrections before and after 1998. (Temp’s before 1998 were lowered, temp’s after 1998 were increased.)
Satellite temp’s (which show large area average temperatures, and temperatures over ocean and woodland, and farmland NOT measured by these “surface only” city thermometers) show a 1/2 of one degree rise from 1972 to 1996-97, a strong peak in 1998, then essentially flat temperatures (declining slightly) from 1996 through 2007.
Winter 2008 dropped off the map: It’s very low. As low as 1980 was in fact. Solar cycle 24 hasn’t started yet (originally predicted by NASA to begin March 2007), and sunspots since 2006 have been very, very low with several months of no sunspots at all - unheard of since records started in 1620!
Solar cycle 25 (peaking in 2025) is widely expected to be very, very low as well.
I suspect that the GISS data in M Dodge’s post is using the old data that had to be thrown in the trash after a software bug was discovered. Prior to the discovery, 1998 was the warmest year “on record”. After discovery and correction, 1934 was the warmest.
Attention, Mr. Gore, Mr. Algore.
Please put your Oscar statue down and pick up the white courtesy telephone.
1934 and 1998 are within a hair of each other; as the data is refined the two years could easily trade places with each other several more times. Which year was very slightly warmer than the other is essentially meaningless in terms of arguing the long term trends - either way.
The problem with “explaining away” the 20th century temperature rise in these ways is that the data from all sources correlates so well. That was what so perplexing about the satellite data – it didn’t match up well with everything else – but now that the source of that discrepancy has been identified and corrected you just don’t see the sorts of systematic bias in any of the measurement methods which would be present if the sorts of possible errors you cite were really significant.
And anyway, IMO this line of argument is a bit behind the times; I’m not aware of serious, science-based contrarian viewpoints on AGW which now dispute the reality of 20th century global warming or the basic physics and chemistry underlying “greenhouse effects”, the interesting questions have shifted to possible countervailing natural processes and the time-scales on which they may be active.
Er, uhm, no.
Bluntly. No, that is not correct.
(More later tonight - have to catch a flight.)
“....This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech.”
I suspect he quickly issued this statement to hopefully ward off the thousands of ideologues who will be calling for his head. Poor guy - dared to publish an inconvenient truth.
Missoula.
78-79.
It would have sucked but it was too cold.
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
I smell a rat.
I can't find anything supporting the chart from this article anywhere on the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction.
Rather, I believe he wanted to avoid the word “ERASE” because that implies that warming data never existed. That would be false, and that is exactly what AGW (anthropogenic global warming) alarmists do with data that does not fit their religion.
Raw data is true data, whether or not it fits theory - and it must be protected if science is to not descend into dogma. In this case, “erase” is the wrong concept, and he is right to call a correction on it. The data will stand, and in time it will show the true pattern; and that pattern may very well make us wish for Global Warming...
I think the ship already sailed on that one a long time ago.
In this case, “erase” is the wrong concept, and he is right to call a correction on it.
Out of curiosity, what would have been a better word to use ? Compensate ? Negate ? I find it odd that the AGW promoters are not alarmed about all the recent cooling observations. Do they not care about the future of humanity ?
Actually, I think “wipe out” says it all - kinda like the way the AGW alarmists are “wiping out” on the mounting wave of empirical evidence that cooling - rather that warming - is in the works.
If you want more warming/cooling fun, I like to go to ICECAP.COM. It compiles the best stories of the day, from big names like Joseph d’Aleo (founder of the Weather Channel) and Joe Bastardi (Accuweather). It has certainly been helpful to me when I encounter Gorians in my daily journey...
Nice graphic. Do you by any chance have access to one on the sunspot cycles you could post? The dips between 1988 and 1998 was probably due to Pinitubo effects. Have we had any massively dusty volcanoes lately?
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.