real science has no part in global warming

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

HadAT2:

Monthly mean carbon dioxide, Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii

This will vary slightly against the global mean sea level figure but, with such a well-mixed trace gas, the differences are trivial. Original source.

weighting effects against background norms in a dynamic system is about small moves

this is true whether you think GW is man made or not.

this simply says nothing about anything and is a non-point

Boris
London

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

GCAG Time Series & Trends


One of the common requests received here at JunkScience.com is for information on global temperature trends. Specifically, people seem to want to be able to compare land-based temperature trends with global, probably in an attempt to identify unadjusted urban heat contamination of the data. These from NCDC:
Time series: Temperature January-December, 1880 - 2005
GHCN Land Surface Data Set -- Global Trend: 0.07°C/decade
The land-based trend is 75% greater than land + sea surface trend and 40% greater than the Hadley-CRU cooperative merged land and sea surface trend.
[left] Time series: Temperature January-December, 1880 - 2005
GHCN-ERSST Data Set
Global Trend: 0.04°C/decade
[right] Time series: Temperature January-December , 1870 - 2005
HadCRUT2v Data Set Global Trend: 0.05°C/decade

not sure why you posted this?

its just 3 graphs of trends?

Boris
London

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

NCDC:

That's all very well but most people relate to the absolute temperature and many users are by now possibly pounding on the keyboard: "Never mind the variance! What's the blasted temperature?" Fortunately, the brave souls at the National Climatic Data Center have taken a stab at producing just that:
*In February, 2006 NCDC transitioned to the use of an improved Global Land and Ocean data set (Smith and Reynolds analysis (2005)) which incorporates new algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods. (See NCDC Global Surface Temperature Anomalies) The same file states "The global monthly surface temperature averages in the table below can be added to a given month's anomaly (departure from the 1880 to 2004 base period average) to obtain an absolute estimate of surface temperature for that month." Which is precisely what we are doing with the global combined, global land and global ocean anomalies to derive the following, revised global absolute temperatures.
Note from NCDC: *From February 2006 through April 14, 2006, the anomalies provided from the links below were inadvertently provided as departures from the 1961-1990 average. Anomalies are now provided as departures from the 20th century average (1901-2000).


Latest Month in Historical Perspective (National Climatic Data Center) Note that the following table differs from NCDC's "Global Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Estimates" published here because those numbers are for the Base Period 1880 to 2004. We realise having everyone declare anomalies with reference to different base-periods is frustrating and we try to maintain at least similar base reference periods for data used in the graphs. Where discrepancies are observed in reported anomalies check the reference period.
UPDATE February 12, 2006: Curiously, the revised monthly means for 1961-90 are exactly the same as those published for 1880-2004, though somehow we doubt that will lead to a rash of headlines stating that the world is really kind of average, temperature-wise.

NCDC's Revised Monthly Averages 1961-1990 (°C)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 12.0 12.1 12.7 13.7 14.8 15.5 15.8 15.6 15.0 14.0 12.9 12.2
Here's the same array for land temperatures:

and ocean temperatures:

Of course, NCDC also report in the more accustomed anomaly format:

Despite their prodigious effort, for which they have our thanks and admiration, NCDC are still producing near-surface temperature amalgams, which we view with some suspicion. Not because of anything NCDC are or are not doing, after all, they are simply providing the service people demand and doing so to the best of their ability, merely because near-surface amalgams are subject to so many potentially corrupting influences. For example, recording points may be established at the edge of town and over time be surrounded by multi-story buildings and paved roads - it's progress and who's to complain but it does add significant local warming bias to many records over time. For this reason we compare near-surface anomalies with those suggested but the satellite-mounted MSUs.

NCDC's reported anomaly should agree with these figures (from their web page).

Combined Mean Surface Temp.
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Annual
1880 to 2004 (°C)
12.0
12.1
12.7
13.7
14.8
15.5
15.8
15.6
15.0
14.0
12.9
12.2
13.9
1880 to 2004 (°F)
53.6
53.9
54.9
56.7
58.6
59.9
60.4
60.1
59.0
57.1
55.2
54.0
57.0

Here's the land anomalies: and the ocean anomalies:

I am not clear why stratosphere and surface temperatures should correlate... cloud cover reduces surface temperature but increases troposphere temperature for the same locale? the heat hits the clouds first and is reflecting back into space... heating up the stratosphere on the way out as well as on the way in?

they don't explain this very well except by insisting anomalies may be false readings created by surface anomalies such as urban build up

they need to go and specifically find the measuring pints and correlate over time with local changes in the environment..

i think questioning the methodology is fine but this analysis seems very sketchy

Boris
london

[mididoctors]

must say junk science dot com is a pretty unimpressive source of clear thinking

"The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was questioned by Paul D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil. [5][6][7] Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars."

Boris
London

[Nonphixion]

Mididoctors is truly an exceptional intellectual adversary.

Good work, friend

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Mididoctors is truly an exceptional intellectual adversary.

Good work, friend

Seconded. Very good job. Tremendous contribution, Midi.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

must say junk science dot com is a pretty unimpressive source of clear thinking

"The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was questioned by Paul D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil. [5][6][7] Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars."

Boris
London

Ouch. This one hurts so bad I can almost feel the sting through the screen. I wonder what the response would be?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Ouch. This one hurts so bad I can almost feel the sting through the screen. I wonder what the response would be?

The only response there is, and should be, is a real study of the science behind all this stuff. No matter what experiments you show 'in vitro' (i use that because we're talking about the earth vs. lab experiments) the only thing that matters is what is actually happening. Those are only seen by the trends, graphs, and data presented. Does it matter who's doing the study? Or are you saying that because he's payed by Exxon that in fact the data taken from the other meteorological sites is in fact wrong?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

must say junk science dot com is a pretty unimpressive source of clear thinking

"The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was questioned by Paul D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil. [5][6][7] Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars."

Boris
London

As I said previously, all he's done is collected data from meteorologists and climatologists and posted it here. How is he wrong from using (and citing his references) data from scientists all around the world?

Have you even looked at the site? It's really impressive. As much as you hate to admit it, you should really read it.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

As I said previously, all he's done is collected data from meteorologists and climatologists and posted it here. How is he wrong from using (and citing his references) data from scientists all around the world?

Have you even looked at the site? It's really impressive. As much as you hate to admit it, you should really read it.

Well I get the impression he plastered the site with legit info.. to make it look impressive and scientific and then made some "weak" interpretations of the data.

Its not easy to wade through

In a certain sense we have to take the majority scientific consensus on faith because the statistical analysis is way above us..

who do we believe?

the majority opinion or minority opinion? sometimes the minority opinion is the correct opinion...

it is a matter of judgement.


how do I judge it


I look at the arguments and in balance I would characterise the minority opinion has cranky if not actually fraudulent... maybe I have a better background that enables me to see into presentations such as this but even so I am doing it on a balance of probabilities..

most GW skeptic material is coming from quarters with material interests in opposing it... a second tier of skepticism comes from those with some emotional investment in opposing GW on a perceived ideological basis...

however I will grant you there is a tier of GW advocates who also support GW for emotional/idelogical reasons.. IMO they just happen to be right even if they have not thought it through

HYPOTHETICAL:

I have a envelope in my hand with the absolute truth whether GW in man made or not..

I have a gun to your head and you need to tell me what you think is in the envelope

if you get it wrong your dead


what are you going to say?

I would say yes..GW is due to man. because I am betting MY LIFE on it

push comes to shove and your forced to choose what are you going to say?

I find it hard to believe that you believe man kind is not the cause of current GW and you would bet your life on it?

Boris
London

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Or are you saying that because he's payed by Exxon that in fact the data taken from the other meteorological sites is in fact wrong?

He has an agenda and he's skewing the data in his masters favor.


What a coincidence that all these poeple "debunking" global warming are payed by the oil companies.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

I find it hard to believe that you believe man kind is not the cause of current GW and you would bet your life on it?

Given that my life is not dependent on it, it's a lot easier to not make such a rash decision.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Given that my life is not dependent on it, it's a lot easier to not make such a rash decision.

but if it was dependent on it in an immediate sense?

what are you going to say.. whatever it is you would imagine saying in that hypothetical scenario I would argue is what you really believe is most likely.

there is no way I can insist on a answer.. or even really desire one.

but i do suggest you try to get a answer even for your own internal consumption

I tend to run this one by on myself quite often as it checks to see whether my position is tainted in some way

it quite often is

Boris
London

[ballz2wallz]

I would like to view myself as a man of honor. I would like to view myself as a man of conviction. I would like to view myself as a man who stands firm in what he believes, and will not waiver in the face of adversity, even if his life depends on it.

I would not change my beliefs for the mere fact that someone is willing to kill me over it. I do not value my life in that way.

I would state what it is I truly felt, ESPECIALLY if my life depended on it.

[motivez]

That reminds me of Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner..

The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will.

[ballz2wallz]

I cannot wait until a global warming alarmist actually debates a cynical scientist. I suspect the more this issue is hyped, the more scientists and science will come out going agianst it.

Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.

However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.

This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.

Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.

Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.

"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.

The agencies such as the GSI are not getting fresh talent simply because of the measly salaries offered by the Government.

Consider this. During one of his visits to Antarctic, to his utter dismay, Raina discovered that the cook of a Japanese team was getting a bigger pay packet than him.

If he is to be believed, currently only about a dozen scientists are working on Indian glaciers. More alarming is the fact that some of them are above 50. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.

In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.

Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers, is merely presumptions, he claimed.

His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Lada