SleepyJean

I have a question. Erm, where do I start? Right, now, according to all the graphs of temperature reconstructions the temperature has gradually shown an increase over time. Since the instrumentation took over the increase has got more and more rapid, apparently. At the same time the scientists keep saying that they have newer, more accurate ways of taking temperature readings. My question is two-fold, I suppose. Could the "increased accuracy" actually be responsible for some or all of the increase, and also this business of proxies, is it possible that there is some kind of loss of data over time that makes temperatures appear to cool the further back you go? Has a comparative study been done of proxy data now compared to measured temperatures in order to "calibrate" the older proxy readings? These might be really stupid questions, but it has been bugging me for ages and I have only just got up the nerve to ask . SJ

Just out of interest, the Chinese admit to regularly seeding clouds to influence local weather. This is not the right thread I realise, but making it rain at a certain place will prevent rain occuring where it was supposed to happen and alter weather patterns, therefore affecting climate, won't it? I don't know how to move this to an appropriate thread, sorry, please can the mods do so? Thankyou. SJ

Oh I agree, personally I would hate to live without central heating, although I suppose I have managed without a car in the past and could do again. As for the PC....please don't let us lose our electricity Never mind global warming, something must be done to find replacements for fossil fuels because they are a finite resource. From that point of view alone I can find it in myself to agree with some of the measures suggested. But when politicians start going on about "50 days to save the world" - who does he think he is, Flash Gordon? - I simply get angry at their attempts to frighten people into doing what they are told. I do have a question about proxies, though. Some of the graphs that use proxies seem to show a general trend towards warming over time. The instrumental record then takes over and sky-rockets, or so it would appear. Is it possible that the proxies need a correction factor applied? Are they looking at proxies now to compare those with instrumental reading and past proxy readings? And could there be a reason why the proxies appear cooler the further back they go, like some kind of loss of information from them (isotopes degrading or something?)? Again, if this question has been answered before, feel free to refer me those past conversations.... Cheers, SJ

Look at the graphs, though. OK, 450millon years ago the world was very different. But it was just as cold then as it is now! In the last 450 thousand years the temp's been up and down like a yoyo (well, not quite, perhaps), and has been much higher than it is now. It looks as if it tends to go up really quickly and then peaks and go down in slower steps. I don't think the continents have changed a huge amount in that time, have they? (Sorry, I was at school during the time when geography didn't involved looking at maps and learning where different countries actually are in the world). Humanity has lived through ice-ages and warm periods before and undoubtedly will do again. I think it is central heating, cars and computers that will be the major casualties. Specific plant and animal species may suffer too, but new ones will replace them, in time, or niche communities will survive and repopulate at a more conducive time. Anyhoo, don't rush to respond, I will be off now. Life is a bit busy at the mo....

I thought I'd bring this over here because it isn't really on topic on the other thread. I want to ask a question that I would really like a good answer to, though. Now I realise it may be a very basic question and you can probably direct me to other discussions where this has been answered. That would be jst fine, thanks Here goes.... I the CRU thread here was a little bit of an exchange between Devonian and myself: "SleepyJean, on 01 December 2009 - 12:12 , said: Thankyou Karl. I did't know that the CRU was the authority on climate change. I assumed they were a leading centre, but also that there were other places coming up with the same things. I am pretty shocked by that, to be honest. The graphs on the first page answered another question for me, too. I had often wondered how it was that Greenland was green and vines were grown in Northumbria when temperatures now are supposed to be higher and neither of these things is currently true. Hello SleepyJean, The graphs on page two are interesting. Note the scale on the first one. See the temperatures? These are claimed to be for Northern Europe. Notice how the author of the article then compares those figures with a graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures? This is and 'apples V oranges' comparision - it makes no sense, you have to compare like areas with like areas to compare temperature over time." So I went looking into the temperature thing and I found a lot of graphs on Global Warming Art, which I am sure many of you are familiar with. I looked at the graphs of global temperatures, which go back over increasing lengths of time. Never mind the fact that this is data available to the public. I just want to know this. Current global temperatures are almost as cold as they have ever been. Ever. Most of the time in the past, global temps have been much, much higher than they are now. So my question is, why are we making so much fuss about the earth warming when it actually, according to the historical data, needs to warm up to reach the normal global average temperature of the last 450 million years? Just wondering.....

Had it always been HADCRUD or is this a Freudian slip? From what I've read, there seems to be a lot of evidence of data not being handled in an objective manner. I don't and never have believed that the scientists have been involved in a big conspiracy with the governments of the world. The governments have jumped on the idea of global warming with apparent glee at the sources of revenue they can dream up. The political involvement has put more pressure on the scientists to provide proof of something they believe is happening anyway, probably allowing more tunnel vision in their data handling. I can see how this thing has spiralled out of contol, but I doubt there is a big bad smoking gun that anyone can point at to say "this is the point where proof that this whole thing is wrong can be found." I also think that at this point there is too much momentum to easily stop the AGW politics, just as even the scientists believe that AGW has too much momentum to be stopped now whatever we do. The politicians like and dislike that particular message because it proves their point on the one hand but undermines their efforts on the other. However, things like this leak serve to muddy the waters nicely and of course all the uber-skeptics come out foaming at the mouth, which rocks the skeptical boat, making the calm-spoken scientists look much more professional. For the general public, this has the effect of making them think the skeptics are all a bunch of nutters. All this source code that was leaked alongside the emails, now, that is interesting. I know nothing about programming, so it's all meaningless as far as it goes, but it does point a finger towards this being a leak from within, especially in light of the email apparently suggesting the destruction of data rather than letting it out under FOI requests. Someone at UEA feels the data should be released, and has done so, as far as they are able. That's how it seems to me, anyway. If that turns out to be true, there is a smoking gun in and of itself, because it shows dissension in the ranks that are claimed to be so united. Of course, I know nothing. I am just an ordinary person, but I do have children and an interest therefore in the kind of world we're leaving them. These emails are a very interesting read in places. Some are just boring, of course.....

Well that's what I would have thought. But I did read that most other places got their data from CRU after it had been processed. Perhaps that was misinformation from rabid cynics. Apparently the point of the story is that you could grow wine-producing grapes as opposed to simply decorative vines. I can't recall the source, something I read years ago ( it could be wrong, I suppose, but I'm pretty sure it was during history lessons at middle school). So the Vikings were really sarcastic, were they? It's possible, I suppose. I'm from viking descent and I get really sarcastic sometimes. (This is a joke, btw, please don't take offence ;-) ) Did I use the word falsified anywhere in my post? I am not accusing anyone of falsifying evidence, but I do know that when scientists set the parameters of their experiments/studies, the way they are set up can be strongly influenced by their own beliefs, so that biased results are inevitable. This is not the same as falsifying evidence, and as it can be down to as simple a thing as the exact wording of a posited theory it can be very hard to spot. This is an actual phenomenon, however, akin to the old "the act of observing changes that which is observed". As with the data, glad to hear it. I will look into those, too. But again, it does seem that CRU is the most mentioned source (on this forum as well as in the media and on the web) at least as far as relatively casual followers of the debate goes. There are so many graphs about, I will have to look more closely in future. Personally I am particularly fond of the ice core ones that show the temperatures rising and falling ahead of the rise and fall of CO2, which appear to show that the stated cause and effect is actually the opposite way round. However, the "compare like for like" point is well taken.

Thankyou Karl. I did't know that the CRU was the authority on climate change. I assumed they were a leading centre, but also that there were other places coming up with the same things. I am pretty shocked by that, to be honest. The graphs on the first page answered another question for me, too. I had often wondered how it was that Greenland was green and vines were grown in Northumbria when temperatures now are supposed to be higher and neither of these things is currently true. I had believed there was evidence of warming, but was skeptical about the causes being man made. Now I am questioning whether there has been warming at all, except on a very minor scale. And the CRU claims to have destroyed the very data that is needed to go back and check the science! I thought proper scientists kept all of the data, in case it needed revisisting, and for reproducability purposes.(I always keep all of my information when I am studying something, and I make no claims to be a scientist - it is for peace of mind. I know I can go back and check if I get an error somewhere). If the CRU has indeed destroyed these data then it begs the question of whether their science is good. If the data have not been destroyed then they are liars and that begs the same question. They are caught coming and going with that one, I feel. And government policy is formed on the basis of this? Well, we know the answer to that one, don't we?

1850: The Little Ice Age ends around this time. (from schools-wikipedia.org) Your chart drops by a largish step at the time the ENSO data comes in. Bearing in mind the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19thC, the fact that your temperatures before 1817 are similar to those after 1850ish, this would suggest to me that the enso data has a significant effect in the LI. Or what I am trying to say is that it suggests the chart before 1817 is a lot less accurate and the drop in 1830 isn't quite as big as it seems. SJ

Thank you for the explanation. Of course you can't go into all the little details of the maths, but scaling I understand. You need do that so that everything fits within the parameters of the same graph, yes? I think that is essentially what you are saying. I am very good at asking stupid questions, lol, but I like to make sure I understand what is going on properly. Wow, so this really is "science in action" as it were. Of course you don't want to publish every detail, someone else might steal your work! Keep it up :lol: . SJ

Hello Village Plank, I find this all fascinating, and it seems to show the global warming happening due to natural factors rather than co2. I was just wondering if you could clarify what "tweaking" you have done for those of us who don't fully understand that aspect. It's just that is seems like adjusting the figures to make them fit the theory, (which I am sure you are not doing, you being as interested in seeing where this goes as anyone) and I think that if you could explain it as simply as possible it would be very helpful. The correction factors and things is what I am talking about (I think!) Thanks, SJ ps, I do understand why you have made adjustments 1945-50 and 1960, that's all very well explained.

This is an interesting thread, some actual science in action. Cool. It is really good that you are going through from a basic principal and trying to figure out how everything fits in and just seeing where it takes you, whether it proves AGW or disproves it. That is a great way to do things. I think I understand the basic principle. It's a bit like a storage heater, with it's input knob and output knob. You can adjust both the input and the output and have different results in terms of how warm your living room is. So the solar activity is the input (as that is the only place we get energy into the system from) and the other variables like volcanic activity and co2 etc effect the output (how warm the living room actually feels). As to your question,"Does temperature act in this way .... more specifically .... (i) Is it harder to heat heat something the hotter it becomes? (ii) Is it harder to cool something the colder it becomes? " Thinking back to science lessons at school, I remember measuring the temperature of a beaker of water at one minute intervals from boiling point. The heat loss, as far as I can recall, was faster at first then slowed down. So the answer to (ii) is definitely yes. I can't specifically remember an equivalent experiment for (i) but my hind-brain is telling me that this too is true (I have one of those brains that retains information without necessarily reminding itself of where the info came from). So I am with you so far, I think. Sorry to go over the basics again, I have just read the whole thread (skipping the parts with silly squabbles) and just wanted to make sure I had it. As a fence-sitter, this is going to be fascinating. SJ

I have wondered about this aspect of things myself. Never mind the thermometers becoming engulfed by urbanisation, never mind the effects of concrete and tarmac, or the use of fossil fuels increasing co2 emmissions. There are millions of air conditioning units pumping out heat during the summer, and heating systems pumping out heat in the winter months. Where does that heat go? It doesn't just disappear, does it? Supposing the co2 has nothing to do with? Supposing we are simply and purely heating up our planet with heat! Would that not tally with the highest rises being in the northern hemisphere, where there are more populated areas in temperate areas of the planet? Ok, that's just my thoughts. I'm off to look at all the websites mentioned above now....

I've been doing a lot of reading over the past couple of weeks. I really do want to try and understand what it is I am supposed to be worrying about. This is my children's future, after all. It was interesting finding out about the shrinking Arctic. I know where I went wrong with my initial, quick reply. I said "hasn't it been growing recently?". Actually, it turns out that that's the Antarctic. Not actually getting wider but getting thicker at any rate. This is apparently due to an expected and predicted increase in precipitation over the Antarctic as a result of shifting weather patterns.... I did see a graph some where that showed the arctic getting smaller and the antarctic getting bigger. They seem to balance each other out (or almost - and that is an important difference, must go and find that graph again). I've seen a lot of graphs. I do like graphs. Something worries me though. There is all this use of "smoothed" data and "adjusted" data, lots of averages and means. All these changes to the facts. Is there anyone out there who makes graphs of actual raw data? Why does it all have to be adjusted? (I've not come across anything that says why the data's been adjusted or averaged). If there is a specific reason, for example on the ice cores it might be that the air leeches out or parts of the air leech out of the ice and so the figures need to be adjusted by x amount per y no.of years to compensate for this fact, then why don't they say so? I do just worry if I know I'm not being told the full story.

Thanks. Just keep taking the tablets, that's what I do

It's really hard to find data pre-1979, isn't it? I did find a graph of the ice along the Icelandic coast. They didn't have a lot between about 1920-1960, much less even than now. It's hard to compare that tot he present situation because the fact is the shape of the ice changes all the time and it could well be that the ice cap was larger back then but just didn't happen to "lean" in the direction of Iceland. On the other hand the icecap could have been even smaller then than it is now, but grew back again. From this data it is hard to tell. So I can't really answer a question about the last 50 years, only the last 30, and obviously the ice has been, in more recent years, notably smaller. In fact it appears from the charts that I've looked at that a real "step change" occurred 12 years ago, 1997 being the last time that the sea ice reached approximately the average of the previous 20 years (about 4.5 million square km). Since that point it seems to have shrunk at a fairly steady rate. As I said above, the more ice melts the more quickly the rest of the ice melts. Because it is surrounded by more water in it's warmer, liquid state and there is more surface area of the liquid compared to the solid, the solid joins the liquid more easily. (My way of putting it; clumsy I know but I think it describes the process reasonably well for someone who doesn't know the scientific terms for this effect.) So the cause of the step change is the melting itself. At some point in the melting of a given amount of ice you will reach a point where the rest of it melts more quickly, with no other changes necessary, purely because of the amount of ice that has already melted. (This happens with chocolate, too, especially if you stir it. Mmmmmm, chocolate......). And of course you have the wave action as well - that's a bit like stirring. None of which gives any clue at all as to why the temperatures might have gone up in the first place. Interesting question, though. Thankyou. Sleepy.

Hello Jethro, thanks for that link. I'll go and have a good look. I am having real trouble finding anything about Antarctic melt, however I just realised your question, Gray-Wolf, was about the North Pole only so I will stick to that for now. Ooopsie, daft as ever me. I will try to pay more attention. Too many children.....

Well, so far I've found that actually, yes, the Arctic Icecap has definitely visibly shrunk, especially over the last few years. Presumably this is the "step change" you refer too. (Have to check out the terminology, lol).Haven't found much about the Antarctic yet but I'll get there. I do understand about the albedo effect though, and obviously have observed on a local scale the way a lot of ice/snow will slowly melt until it reaches a certain point and then the rest of it will all melt away very quickly. Also the fact that it melts in a patchy way, due to varying thicknesses and puddles forming on uneven areas, so the explanation that I've read for the reason why the apparent loss of Arctic ice is accelerating also makes sense. Interesting stuff. Will keep looking and forming an opinion. Just don't want to look as if I've forgotten about it ;-)

Hi Gray-Wolf, my initial response would be, haven't they grown recently? That was what I heard! As I do want to learn more, however, I will go off and do some ice-cap research. I know that the Arctic potentially plays a big part in a european ice-age due to ice melt stopping the north atlantic conveyor - ultimately a big freeze due to the present warming? I also know that in prior millenia we haven't had ice caps so although we're pretty used to them, the earth itself can cope without. Anyway, thanks for the homework, I'll go off and do some research on that aspect. I just hope the articles I read don't say "because of CO2 emissions...." anywhere, Sleepy

So sorry Peterf :wub:

Hello all Yep, I'm new here. New to the whole global warming debate really. Well, apart from the old "discussions with my husband" area. He believes we are warming up the globe and have to do something about it. Mind you, he believes ID cards are a good idea. I won't go into all of the areas of disagreement we have. Thinking about it, there is practically nothing we really agree on. Anyway, I want to learn. I don't really believe in man-made global warming (AGW?). I know I could be wrong. But the evidence that I have seen doesn't lend me great confidence in the theory. I have seen episodes of Horizon etc where the graphs shown do not agree with what the narrator/presenter is saying they show. Now I did maths up to A-level, so I do know how to read a graph, especially when they carefully explain what the different coloured lines mean. Another thing is the fact that I grew up with a dino-nut brother. He used to regale us with interesting facts about the prehistoric eras; the temperatures, the humidity, the co2 levels..... So in terms of global climate changes, gas balances, temperatures, etc, I had a fairly richly factual upbringing. So I feel that the changes we are currently witnessing (apparently) are actually pretty miniscule taken in a truly global perspective (that is, these 30 year global averages are nothing to a 4 1/2 billion year old planet). There also seems to be a total dismissal of any effect from the sun. This is another thing we used to talk about when I was a child, sunspots etc. We just grew up watching documentaries on everything, and would then rush out and buy a book about it too. No, none of us are scientists but we do all have an interest in science and a lifelong love of learning. Over-simplification is another thing I am not that happy with. CO2 seems to be the only thing causing this AGW, according to the newspapers and the government. It's all we hear about. But surely the global climate is an extremely complex system. If the forecasters have difficulty predicting the weather a few days or even hours in advance, how is it so easy to predict climate change? Weather is the local, short-term view of climate, surely. This is why other nations laugh at us Brits - we don't have a climate so we talk about the weather all the time. I am sure there are many of you now gazing in disbelief at this post wondering, "where do these people come from?" as you shake you heads wearily, lol. I want to learn about climate change. Where can I find truly balanced information? Is it possible to do so? What is the truth - if it is even possible to find it? Thankyou for reading. SleepyJean :wub: