Well, we have that Hungarian scientist pointing out problems in the GW equations, and we have the last 10 years of almost flat temp rise, and the lack of agreement among data sets, and so on, and one expects Gore is getting tense. Who knows when he might get a call asking to return that Peace Prize?
|
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
|
Global warming... irrefutable... consensus... denialists cherry-picking... Gore is brilliant... evidence overwhelming... your refutation is not sufficient... I don’t agree with it... facts are irrelevant... denialists will be assimilated... |
| |
Written By:
Posting robot ERB-1
URL:
http://ailab.maine.edu
|
Deserved or not, it doesn’t matter, but Cheney has been successfully vilified among casual political observers who make up most of the ’moderates’ not to mention the entire Left.
It obvious, that they are trying to connect anti-AGW proponents to being evil like Cheney. The sad thing its so obvious. The sadder thing is that it will probably work with many people. The saddest thing would be if Cheney allowed himself to be drafted as the anti-AGW spokesman. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
Ok, I can understand why "Al Bore" doesn’t want to discuss facts (after all he is is a Leftist).
Perhaps he would prefer to address how much $$$$$ he will PERSONALLY reap in his little Greenie Fund that recommends the best and brightest socially conscience investments vis a vis emergency du jour which only Big Government can solve called "Climate Change"? |
| |
Written By:
Unscripted Thoughts
URL:
http://
|
|
It’s like Gore was channeling Erb... |
| |
Written By:
Scott Jacobs
URL:
http://
|
Not to worry. The Global Cooling surge has saved the day. Temperatures have been flat for years, and this winter is cooler than average.
What surge, you say? It’s one secret the NYT didn’t get. I credit Bush.
|
| |
Written By:
MarkD
URL:
http://
|
New information on temperature data from the 1990s.
First, the concept of "average" temperature was averaged from over 16,000 measurement facilities worldwide, many in Siberia. In 1991, when the wheels came off the Soviet Union, they did not have the money to continue collecting temperatures so they shut down the remote sites. By 2000, there were only 5,400 sites, most in warmer regions. We should expect the average temperature to "warm" if we stop recording coldest measurements.
Second, warming did not affect Summer or Fall temperatures. It seems to have only heated during Winter and Spring.
Third, despite rising CO2 levels, 20th century warming appears to have only occurred in the Northern Hemisphere. The South Pole actually cooled slightly. The average temperature south of the equator rose only 0.05° C.
Finally, although surface temperatures are up about 0.6° C, the predicted increase in the troposphere (10 KM to 15 KM) did not happen. Heating at altitude is a key component of green house theory. |
| |
Written By:
Arch
URL:
http://
|
"surface area: 196,935,000 sq miles"
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
"over 16,000 measurement facilities worldwide"
Call it 17,000.
That is approximately 11,000 Sq.Mi. per measurement facility. Assuming an equal distribution over the Earth’s surface, that is one thermometer in a square with sides with length over 100 miles. On the surface only. Conservatively. Draw your own conclusions. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
Timactual:
Good point. The data are biased toward warming. Data sets from 16,000 (or 17,000) stations would be an inadequate sample size to represent the Earth’s land mass. Reduce that number by 10,000 and the problem is even less representative. If the reduction occurs in Siberia, expect an increase in average temperature.
According to Professor Willie Soon, at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, temperatures increased from 1900 to 1940, fell from 1940 to 1970, and increased again from 1970 to 2000. Atmospheric CO2 levels increased steadily throughout the century and have not accelerated significantly with increased use of fossil fuels. Solar activity, however, increased from 1900 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1970, and increased again from 1970 to the end of the century. Correlation does not equal causation, but lack of correlation undermines the CO2 hypothesis. During the Clinton Administration, Soon and his colleague, Professor Sallie Baliunas (Harvard) were thrown under the bus for publishing data which seemed to contradict AGW.
Bad data, uncorrelated hypothesis, faulty computer models and a proclivity for suppressing debate, does not a sound argument make.
|
| |
Written By:
Arch
URL:
http://
|
"Bad data,"
Yessiree Bob. It is my belief that any ’world wide’ temperature data prior to WWII is a bad joke. Up until WWII there were vast areas of land and sea, probably most of it, that had never had any temperature measurements at all, much less an ongoing series of measurements. The atmosphere above 10,000ft. and the oceans below the surface were almost entirely unknown, their temperatures and any other characteristics a complete mystery. If I err, I pray someone will deliver me from my ignorance, but I doubt that will be necessary. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
Actually, we’ve never had any good global measurements of temperature on the surface of the earth.
Several key problems:
1) Oceans — we’ve depended on data from ships — they most commonly only travel in narrow tracks that connect the major ports with few samples in lots of wide open ocean. There are other problems associated with the way the data is collected on shipboard as well.
2) Land — traditionally there were two reasons to have a weather station and to record the data — to help in predicting the local weather (most commonly at airports) and to determine the local climate (i.e. 30 year averages) primarily for agricultural purposes (i.e. when to plant after the last frost of the Spring and when to harvest before the first frost of the Autumn). So you didn’t really bother to stick a weather station where there weren’t any people doing any planting or flying to/from — the result is that stations are not equally distributed in any fashion — rather they are most commonly located where people live. Recently, there has been an interest in collecting long-term climate data for intellectual; purposes mostly in the US and Western Europe.
3) Air — according to the Green House theory the atmosphere should warm and then the warmer atmosphere should warm the surface. Unfortunately, we have very limited detailed atmospheric profile data — mostly balloons launched from stations in the US and Western Europe. Far less data over the oceans and not much in the far north or even much of the southern hemisphere
what about satellites using the Microwave Radiometers to measure emission from atmospheric oxygen — satellite data is global and continuous and are fine for atmosphere average profiles — not made for pin-point vertical measurements. There are some issues about cross calibrating from one satellite to another — but in general the errors are much more thoroughly studied than the other temperature measurements. Unfortunately, the data only goes back about 30 years.
So the best that we’ve got is the satellites and they don’t show much in the way of clear changes in temperature over their existence. More importantly the profile data is completely contradictory to the predictions of the basic Green House Warming theory. The next best set of data is the US climate data for rural sites that goes back a bit over 100 years and doesn’t show any dramatic temperature changes over the 100 year time since we’ve been collecting the data.
Ultimately, we have tried to extend our temperature data using various types of "proxy data" to estimate temperatures before the thermometry period. Some of the proxies (such as tree rings) are reasonably good at monitoring short term variability in temperature — but are questionable over long term periods. Other proxies give very limited opportunity to get spatial data (i.e. glacier and polar ice cores) or coral reef data.
So what we need to do:
First is try to improve the analysis of the existing surface data until it is consistent with the satellites over their operational period.
Second build a truly global, carefully designed network of automated climate stations that can be cross referenced to the satellite data sets
3) Third — collect from satellites supporting data on solar irradiance and magnetic fields, cloud cover, upper atmospheric chemistry that is hypothesized to influence the climate.
4) Forth — get a good sense of the CO2 exchange between human and natural sources and the atmosphere and various other sinks on land and in the ocean
5) Finally — come back after we’ve had about 3 more solar cycles with all the above — about 2040 and decide if: a) there is any on-going dramatic change in the climate: b) whether human activity has anything to do with it; c) if a) then is there anything that we can do about it - -or should we just do what we’ve always done – Adapt to the changing climate!
Westy
PS: Personally — if the Sun starts to do significantly less heating — a la the "Maunder Minimum" — I’d do a lot more worrying than a small amount of warming
|
| |
Written By:
WestHighlander
URL:
http://
|
