Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

An Inconvenient Truth


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Well, I don't know about you guys? But I aint going to let anyone suggest that I deny the existence of natural sources of greenhouse gases, or of natural cycles of climate change...Such natural sources/cycles have existed since day one, they exist now, and will always exist! It's just that, IMO, their existence says nothing about the veracity of anthropogenic emissions. To imply that it does is a logical sleight of hand! :lol:

But, I would appreciate it if someone could tell me just how it is, that a naturallly-produced CO2 molecule differs in its opacity to LW radiation from an anthropogenic one, significantly enough to render it climatologically neutral. I'm sorry, but the chemistry and physics I did in my degree never covered that anomaly! :lol:

Pete,

I don't disagree with any of that. I hope you don't think I might.

Hey, I'm another Pete :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Pete,

I don't disagree with any of that. I hope you don't think I might.

Hey, I'm another Pete :)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks Devon... :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
I can ignore interaction with different isotopes of C with LW radiation.

Would that be because the difference is negligable, perchance? That, in effect, there is no difference? That they will all absorb and re-emit with virtually the same degree of efficiency?

Whatever, the results of man's activities still need be superimposed onto the cycles of nature... :lol:

You are quite right about one thing though, Mark: we do not know for sure. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Shrewsbury,Shropshire
  • Location: Shrewsbury,Shropshire
"Statistically useless"; not "useless".

If you observe another colder winter - and this winter was only colder than the 1970-2000 average, not colder than the long-term CET average and all previous UK 21st Century winters have been warmer than the 1970-2000 average, so your dataset would be all of 2 years - there will not have been a pattern change, except in your own opinion.

I'm afraid that your appreciation of statistics and your understanding of statistical relevance, leaves much to be desired, drgl!

Remember: 2 cold winters do not a summer make!

Paul

Very true-which is why i am saying wait and see!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
One last thing.

I am arguing against "There is irrefutable evidence that the rise in concentration of CO2 is a consequence of mans activities"

Sorry if I seem to always be picking on you but you seem to be so anti-human in your interpretation of the causes of climate change. :p

I posted a link to a report by the US National Research Council and I'm now offering another link and some excerpts from the report.

Please draw your own conclusions! :lol:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org

A Closer Look at Global Warming

The warming of the Earth has been the subject of intense debate and concern for many scientists, policy-makers, and citizens for at least the past decade.

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, a new report by a committee of the National Research Council, characterizes the global warming trend over the last 100 years, and examines what may be in store for the 21st century and the extent to which warming may be attributable to human activity.

The committee was made up of 11 of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of whom is a Nobel Prize winner.

The Evidence for Warming

Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. This warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years, and has been accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, lengthening of growing seasons for some, and earlier arrival of migratory birds. In addition, several other data support that conclusion, the report says.

Part of the debate over global warming centres on disparities between the surface temperature and upper-air temperature. While the Earth's surface temperature has risen, data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low-to mid- troposphere. The report concurs with a previous Research Council report that said despite these differences, "the warming trend in the global mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming in the 20th century."

Are We Changing the Climate?

The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, and surface temperatures have risen at a substantially greater rate than average in the past two decades. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system. A Research Council report, Improving the Effectiveness of Climate Modelling, identifies the lack of a coherent national climate modelling program and sufficient computing resources and suggests areas for improvement.

Almost all of the major greenhouse gases -- with the exception of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- have both natural and human-induced sources. For example, carbon dioxide is not only formed by the decay in plant matter, but also by the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. And atmospheric methane can be formed by growing rice, raising cattle, coal mining, using land-fills, and handling natural gas. Both carbon dioxide and methane are more abundant in the Earth's atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years, the report says. Carbon dioxide is probably the single most important agent contributing to climate changes today, the report says. In addition, the other greenhouse gases combined contribute to climate changes approximately equal to that of carbon dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examines several greenhouse gases in detail, along with their potential to contribute to global warming.

The report notes that the cooling trend in the Earth's stratosphere -- documented by satellite data since 1979 --- is so pronounced that it would be difficult to explain through natural variability alone. The cooling is believed to be partially a result of the build up of greenhouse gases and the depletion of stratospheric ozone, which warms the atmosphere at low levels but cools it at high levels. The use of CFCs -- which were employed in a variety of industrial applications including refrigeration, air conditioning, and aerosols -- was banned in 1996 by the Montreal Protocol. This cooling could delay or perhaps temporarily reverse the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer, which was the intended goal of banning the use of CFCs.

:lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
That's part of the story.

Data shows that, over recent millions of years when mankind wasn't involved, CO2 was a feedback warming effect. That's not surprising, CO2 is a ghg, and if warming is set off that then sets off feedbacks (like warmed seas releasing CO2) that increase CO2 concentrations increasing the warming.

But, atm, we're, by adding so much CO2, forcing the climate system - remember CO2 doesn't know if it's a feedback or a forcing it just acts as a ghg. We, not nature, are setting off the warming. No getting away from that reality. The real question is the magnitude of the anthropogenic warming, not if it's happening - oh and perhaps how much feedback warming we'll see.

DEVONIAN

While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade . In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect.

Disregarding uncertainties in surface measurements and giving equal weight to reported atmospheric and surface data and to 10 and 19 year averages, the mean global trend is minus 0.07 ºC per decade.

The satellite record, with uniform and better sampling, is much more reliable.

The computer models on which forecasts of global warming are based predict that tropospheric temperatures will rise at least as much as surface temperatures. Because of this, and because these temperatures can be accurately measured without confusion by complicated effects in the surface record, these are the temperatures of GREATEST INTEREST. The global trend provides a definitive means of testing the validity of the global warming hypothesis.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Hypothesis

There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases such as H2O and CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere decrease the escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth. But what happens to this radiative input is complex: It is redistributed, both vertically and horizontally, by various physical processes, including advection, convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean.

When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler. The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the IPCC has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere (especially water vapor) to produce a large temperature increase. Other hypotheses predict the opposite that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature. The empirical evidence favoUrs the hypothesis NOT chosen by the IPCC.

While CO2 has increased substantially, the large temperature increase predicted by the IPCC models has not occurred.

The computer climate models upon which ''global warming'' is based have substantial uncertainties. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system [in layman's terms, a very complex one]. the effects of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modelled.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen. REMEMBER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS.

Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S plotted from the 1979 value show the trend line of these experimental measurements as downward. The trend line predicted by International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer climate models is up, which is WRONG as ACTUAL measurements are downward.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test; it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to GHGs will nullify the initial temperature rise.

The reasons for this failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate. For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. It has been suggested that the computer climate models treat feedbacks related to water vapor incorrectly

The global warming hypothesis is not based upon the radiative properties of the GHGs themselves. It is based entirely upon a small initial increase in temperature caused by GHGs and a large theoretical amplification of that temperature change. Any comparable temperature increase from another cause would produce the same outcome from the calculations.

At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth's atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. It does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated.

Approximately 82% of the increase in CO2 occurred after the temperature maximum in 1940. WARMING FIRST, CO2 FOLLOWS NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Regards

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand
Approximately 82% of the increase in CO2 occurred after the temperature maximum in 1940. WARMING FIRST, CO2 FOLLOWS NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Hmm.

I am firmly of the opinion that there is a significant effect from manmade gases as well as from the natural cycle of things. As such, I cannot help but to point out the flaw in the logic of the above statement which has been cited many times...

if "warming = subsequent additional CO2", it does NOT logically follow that "additional CO2 != subsequent warming".

Clearly, I'm using CO2 as per the statement above, but it could apply equally to any greenhouse gas. Indeed, the fact that such chemicals are called "greenhouse gases" at all is indicative of evidence that the latter conclusion cannot be surmised from the former statement.

Or, to put it another way, This statement that CO2 follows warming is not nessecarily evidence against artifical warming, nor is it evidence particularly in favour of it. It is merely one clue in the complex puzzle of atmospheric and climactic sciences, which describes the circumstances of a known positive corrolation between Global Average Temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels.

Edited by crimsone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org

The report notes that the cooling trend in the Earth's stratosphere -- documented by satellite data since 1979 --- is so pronounced that it would be difficult to explain through natural variability alone. The cooling is believed to be partially a result of the build up of greenhouse gases and the depletion of stratospheric ozone, which warms the atmosphere at low levels but cools it at high levels. The use of CFCs -- which were employed in a variety of industrial applications including refrigeration, air conditioning, and aerosols -- was banned in 1996 by the Montreal Protocol. This cooling could delay or perhaps temporarily reverse the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer, which was the intended goal of banning the use of CFCs.

Thanks for the link, Scribbler...The above explains one of the antis' favourite red herrings quite well, I think: the stratosphere is cooled as a result of ghg-induced warming at the surface; which is what one would expect, given the type of radiation involved... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Thanks for the link, Scribbler...The above explains one of the antis' favourite red herrings quite well, I think: the stratosphere is cooled as a result of ghg-induced warming at the surface; which is what one would expect, given the type of radiation involved... :whistling:

Pete

Even pro AGW scientists [iPCC] for example have cited that air temp measurements would be the definitive confirmation of GW and that it is accelerating, as the accuracy of the measurements would be indisputable. The fact is that there has been ZERO increase since recording started in 1979 indeed a downward trend is happeneing. The above is what PROS do to keep moving the goalposts to continue AGW theory.

Below is a quote from my post - note the TROPOSPHERE has cooled over the last 19 years, so this is not an 'anti' REDHERRING.

While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade . In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

But, BFTP, all I'm doing is imagining the effects of raising the levels of atmospheric CO2 and other ghgs - a 'thought experiment' if you like; I'm not paying any attention as to where the ghgs have come from...Whether ghgs be natural or anthropogenic, an increase in opacity to outgoing LW radiation coupled to unchanging transparency to incoming SW, will cause heating at the surface and cooling at altitude. It must do, because the amount of insolation does not change - the total heat contained within the system must remain the same, or thereabouts???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
DEVONIAN

While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade . In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect.

Disregarding uncertainties in surface measurements and giving equal weight to reported atmospheric and surface data and to 10 and 19 year averages, the mean global trend is minus 0.07 ºC per decade.

The satellite record, with uniform and better sampling, is much more reliable.

:doh: Get your facts right. Global tropospheric temperatures are RISING! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png for the confirmation.

The computer models on which forecasts of global warming are based predict that tropospheric temperatures will rise at least as much as surface temperatures. Because of this, and because these temperatures can be accurately measured without confusion by complicated effects in the surface record, these are the temperatures of GREATEST INTEREST. The global trend provides a definitive means of testing the validity of the global warming hypothesis.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Hypothesis

There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases such as H2O and CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere decrease the escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth. But what happens to this radiative input is complex: It is redistributed, both vertically and horizontally, by various physical processes, including advection, convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean.

When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler. The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the IPCC has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere (especially water vapor) to produce a large temperature increase. Other hypotheses predict the opposite that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature. The empirical evidence favoUrs the hypothesis NOT chosen by the IPCC.

While CO2 has increased substantially, the large temperature increase predicted by the IPCC models has not occurred.

The computer climate models upon which ''global warming'' is based have substantial uncertainties. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system [in layman's terms, a very complex one]. the effects of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modelled.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen. REMEMBER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS.

Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S plotted from the 1979 value show the trend line of these experimental measurements as downward. The trend line predicted by International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer climate models is up, which is WRONG as ACTUAL measurements are downward.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test; it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to GHGs will nullify the initial temperature rise.

The reasons for this failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate. For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. It has been suggested that the computer climate models treat feedbacks related to water vapor incorrectly

The global warming hypothesis is not based upon the radiative properties of the GHGs themselves. It is based entirely upon a small initial increase in temperature caused by GHGs and a large theoretical amplification of that temperature change. Any comparable temperature increase from another cause would produce the same outcome from the calculations.

At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth's atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. It does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated.

Approximately 82% of the increase in CO2 occurred after the temperature maximum in 1940. WARMING FIRST, CO2 FOLLOWS NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Regards

BFTP

Source? Tremperature maximum in 1940??? ROFL, lets get serious here BFTP :whistling: . To claim temperatures reached their maximum in 1940 is plain ludicrious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand
Get your facts right.

Sorry to pick on you in particular Devonian, but it's nothing against you personally. You just happen to have posted the most recent example, and undoubtedly intended no malice with the comment.

However, generally speaking, It is such comments as this from numerous people, whether well intended or not, that have really put me off discussing anything to do with global warming or climate change, or many other interesting issues that crop up on these boards. I Love a discussion, or a debate, but not with the tone that seems to keep cropping up as it does for whatever reason.

Such comments as above don't really belong in either a discussion OR a debate. The belong only in an argument. It doesn't really matter whether there's any malicious or aggressive/argumentative intent behind them - they look bad, and make the atmosphere feel bad.

Sorry people, but I just had to get that one off my chest.

Again, nothing against you personally Devonian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

The peak in 1940? :whistling:

post-25-1151253126_thumb.png

Edited by Pete Tattum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Sorry to pick on you in particular Devonian, but it's nothing against you personally. You just happen to have posted the most recent example, and undoubtedly intended no malice with the comment.

However, generally speaking, It is such comments as this from numerous people, whether well intended or not, that have really put me off discussing anything to do with global warming or climate change, or many other interesting issues that crop up on these boards. I Love a discussion, or a debate, but not with the tone that seems to keep cropping up as it does for whatever reason.

Such comments as above don't really belong in either a discussion OR a debate. The belong only in an argument. It doesn't really matter whether there's any malicious or aggressive/argumentative intent behind them - they look bad, and make the atmosphere feel bad.

Sorry people, but I just had to get that one off my chest.

Again, nothing against you personally Devonian.

Look, his data was wrong - twice. Tropospheric temperatures measured by satellite ARE rising, and global temperatures most certainly DID NOT peak in 1940. I can let that kind of gross error pass, let a myth be passed on, or I can robustly couter it with the truth. What would you have me do?

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand

"I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken about the data" would be less confrontational than "get your facts right", and is far more discussive in tone.

Again, please don't think I was aiming my comment at you personally. It's just the general tone of things that always seems to crop up.

Edited by crimsone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

On the subject of increasing carbon dioxide, I certainly accept the observations there, and I accept that this increase is largely human-related, but I don't take that as proof that any observed warming is all a result of increased carbon dioxide. I've stated elsewhere on this forum that I estimate the warming as 75% natural and 25% human-related, but those are just rough estimates, it could as easily be 50-50 as 90-10.

I hope that as this debate proceeds, people taking part will keep in mind that there has to be an awareness that natural cycles have always been around and there's no particular reason for them to stop just because the human race is polluting the atmosphere and adding more carbon dioxide.

As to the more complicated question of how the natural and human-related impacts might interact over time, I suspect that this may be less simple than just adding one impact to the other.

It would be convenient for my point of view if a large natural cooling event lay just around the corner, but my own research tends to indicate that we are just nearing the peak of a rather long-term warming cycle now (on a hemispheric basis), and won't begin to see the strongest part of natural cooling until 2050 to 2100 at the earliest.

Therefore, it's a legitimate question whether the arctic ocean's ice cover will survive this warming episode, and what role a fully ice-free arctic ocean would then play if the natural climate began to cool -- it could lead to a much different northern winter than we have seen even from any conclusions that could be based on reports from historical times, such as the milder climates that favoured the Viking settlements of Greenland.

I don't claim to have any answers about any of this because I suspect there is a wild card in all such speculation, the location and future intensity of the north magnetic pole. Because such changes take place over longer periods of time than human lifetimes, predictions have no real chance of verification in the usual time frame in this whole area of study. However, if anyone digs this up in the 23rd or 24th century, and the weather happens to have shifted to a much colder pattern in Europe, then I would state for the record such an event could be related to the establishment of the north magnetic pole over northern Scandinavia or northwest Russia. At the rate the NMP is currently drifting north away from the Canadian arctic islands, this could conceivably happen in the late 21st or 22nd century, but there is no known reliable method for predicting magnetic pole wandering, plus the general opinion in the science discounts any linkages (despite the fact that in North America temperatures have shown a strong conection to the ongoing change in latitude of the NMP, especially in regions close to that position).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
"I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken about the data" would be less confrontational than "get your facts right", and is far more discussive in tone.

Again, please don't think I was aiming my comment at you personally. It's just the general tone of things that always seems to crop up.

Trouble is it's not 'I think it's wrong' it IS wrong. The data isn't possibly wrong it IS wrong.

What's to debate? It IS wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand

My statement was an example, not a piece of gospel. "I think you are mistaken" does not say that it is possibly true. It expresses that in your own mind you have attempted to see the perspective of both parties in a discussion and have come to a conlusion that the someone is mistaken.

an equally valid statment would be "I'm afraid you are wrong about the data in that respect. What the data really says is that...", and still it is far more discussive and far less confrontational than "get your facts right".

Better still would be to take the personal element out of it altogether and simply be objective... "The data says...", or if needs be, use the first person - "the data that I have seen says...".

I shall say a final time before I completely drop the subject so as not to continue this off topic strand in the thread... It wasn't aimed at you personally Devonian. It was but one of many examples throughout this thread and others of the kind of thing I was talking about. It just happened by coincidence that the most recent example was posted by yourself. There is no need to defend yourself as there is no attack being made against you.

Edited by crimsone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
:p Get your facts right. Global tropospheric temperatures are RISING! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png for the confirmation.

Source? Tremperature maximum in 1940??? ROFL, lets get serious here BFTP :p . To claim temperatures reached their maximum in 1940 is plain ludicrious!

Devonian

One concession my figures covered 20th century upto 1997, I will post last 8 years as soon as I can to bolt on to this post so my post is CORRECT on those measurement data up til 1997. Remember I am not using surface temps at all, they are believed unreliable and even AGW scientists state that tropospheric temps will be the ones of most interest.

I have got my figures from Global radiosonde balloon temp measurements [still considered very very accurate and unbiased] and from Global Satellite MSU [microwave sounding unit] measurements on tropospheric hemespheric temps.

Research and discussion and of course more precise accuracy and clarity re posting is in order by me.

BFTP B)

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!
Devonian

One concession my figures covered 20th century upto 1997, I will post last 8 years as soon as I can to bolt on to this post so my post is CORRECT on those measurement data up til 1997. Remember I am not using surface temps at all, they are believed unreliable and even AGW scientists state that tropospheric temps will be the ones of most interest.

I have got my figures from Global radiosonde balloon temp measurements [still considered very very accurate and unbiased] and from Global Satellite MSU [microwave sounding unit] measurements on tropospheric hemespheric temps.

Research and discussion and of course more precise accuracy and clarity re posting is in order by me.

BFTP :p

Your temp measurements will be interesting, BFTP and I'd like to look into them more closely, but the NOAA Global surface temperature record, collating data from 7000 sites, is certainly not "believed unreliable" by the vast majority of people working in the field of climate change. I accept that it is believed unreliable by some and it used to be doubted by more (never the majority), but the doubts that existed about this temp sequence, 10 years ago, have been well assauged, by recent NOAA (and other) research.

I believe you may be quoting balloon and radiosonde data, whose stated accuracy and reliability has been proved recently to be no better than surface measurements of temperature. In referring to the "believed unreliability", I think you are referring to pre-1997 research doubts as your basis for questioning the usefulness of surface measurements. The last 10 years have seen a lot of comparative research in this area which has, in my opinion and that of many others, put the doubts firmly in the past.

I agree with your last sentence entirely. I'm enjoying reading this debate - nothing wrong, for me, with a little "edge" when one party doesn't believe the other has his, or her, facts right(!) as long as it doesn't degenerate into insults, but I'm afraid that your last piece of evidence, Devonian, is from Wikipedia and you really should go to the original research as individuals put some very iffy data on Wikipedia and allow it to masquerade as truth.

Paul

Edited by Dawlish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Paul

Yes there has been much adjustment/accepted improvement but there is still the level of 'heat island' effect a potential thorn even with adjustments taken into place, there are no such problems with air temp measurements. Good reply and glad one could see my openess, I accept my my data wasn't as current as should be.

Re post 1997 there was huge increase in temps [tropos] in 1998 which stands way above anything I can see in 20th century. I have received e-mail from my contact re this and believe the info is accurate, May 2006 ran at 0.5 above anomaly avearge. What I can see is that we are in a steady period re maximums with 2003 second and 2005 3rd but minimums are falling. So 40 to 97 was 'overall' downward on my access to data but we are now upward since then. One could say we are downward since 1998 but that is too short a timescale and 1998 was unique and 2003 and 2005 were also higher than pre 1998 so that would be a 'false' or at least unquantifiable claim due to timescale IMO.

I think I cannot make further comment on which direction we are going as a good 5+ years from now are needed.

regards

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!
Paul

Yes there has been much adjustment/accepted improvement but there is still the level of 'heat island' effect a potential thorn even with adjustments taken into place, there are no such problems with air temp measurements. Good reply and glad one could see my openess, I accept my my data wasn't as current as should be.

Re post 1997 there was huge increase in temps [tropos] in 1998 which stands way above anything I can see in 20th century. I have received e-mail from my contact re this and believe the info is accurate, current global is 19.74c. What I can see is that we are in a steady period re maximums with 2003 second and 2005 3rd but minimums are falling. So 40 to 97 was 'overall' downward on my access to data but we are now upward since then. One could say we are downward since 1998 but that is too short a timescale and 1998 was unique and 2003 and 2005 were also higher than pre 1998 so that would be a 'false' or at least unquantifiable claim due to timescale IMO.

I think I cannot make further comment on which direction we are going as a good 5+ years from now are needed.

regards

BFTP

It is really interesting, BFTP and I'd like to see the figures. You couldn't post a link, or a file with the email contents in could you, to verify its provenance?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Your temp measurements will be interesting, BFTP and I'd like to look into them more closely, but the NOAA Global surface temperature record, collating data from 7000 sites, is certainly not "believed unreliable" by the vast majority of people working in the field of climate change. I accept that it is believed unreliable by some and it used to be doubted by more (never the majority), but the doubts that existed about this temp sequence, 10 years ago, have been well assauged, by recent NOAA (and other) research.

I believe you may be quoting balloon and radiosonde data, whose stated accuracy and reliability has been proved recently to be no better than surface measurements of temperature. In referring to the "believed unreliability", I think you are referring to pre-1997 research doubts as your basis for questioning the usefulness of surface measurements. The last 10 years have seen a lot of comparative research in this area which has, in my opinion and that of many others, put the doubts firmly in the past.

I agree with your last sentence entirely. I'm enjoying reading this debate - nothing wrong, for me, with a little "edge" when one party doesn't believe the other has his, or her, facts right(!) as long as it doesn't degenerate into insults, but I'm afraid that your last piece of evidence, Devonian, is from Wikipedia and you really should go to the original research as individuals put some very iffy data on Wikipedia and allow it to masquerade as truth.

Paul

Sure it is from Wiki, but the chap who produced the graph cites the data sets used - go ahead check them, and if the is an error (and I'm sure as I can be there isn't, else I wouldn't have used the words I did) let me know :p .

Indeed the chap who produces the graph uses two satellite reconstructions (one by UAH - BFTP quotes an out of date version I think) another from Remote Sensing Systems (who found the flaw in the UAH data which changed the trend to obviously positive) and the surface record from our own University of east Anglia and the Hadley Centre. Again, I 'm sure he's not made a mistake, but if you can find one ...

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
I can only conclude that the claim that the evidence provided gives “irrefutable” facts that all CO2 increases are human in origin is erroneous at best.

And I, for one, would 100% agree with you, Mark...But who's saying "ALL CO2 increases..."? I thought that there was a consensus amongst the scientific community that nobody really knows the exact ratio between man-made and natural? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...