The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[West is Best]

In reply to a couple of posts these are the NASA figures for 2008 Jan Feb and March

Best to go with the NOAA climate centre on this. Space has many very great uses, but I'd rather use an organisation that employs space alongside a myriad of other long-established measuring methods. Much more reliable.

January and February were unquestionably cool relative to recent trends. In the US winter 2007/8 was the 54th coolest since records began in 1895. No great shakes there, except relative to recent years, and it was the coolest winter since 2001. Globally the pattern was similar with the coolest since 2001.

I think the key here is relative to recent trends . There is much for the AGW lobby to stop and think about ... if indeed they actually do think anymore.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/2...13_coolest.html

[bluecon]

Looking back through the last 100 hundred years there is nothing unusual that points to cooling or warming and just climate as usual seems the norm.

[Iceberg]

We've gone from people saying a few years of cooler conditions to a few months to a few months but only in certain places and certain records(in all of these records March 2008 is a big bounce back to warmth).

If we use the NOAA site that Richard uses to support the no warming view it's abundently clear that the coldest US winter for a massive 7 years isn't really significant and is still +0.6C.

Again using the NOAA site we still have the the 16th warmest DJF whilst at the same time have an important La Nina which normally really cools down global temps.. BTW La Nina was the one of the strongest in the last 25 years coupled with very low solar activity and a natural downpoint in climate cycles using PDO etc, with all this we still struggle to get a anything colder than this.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001."

A forecast, La Nina is set to turn neutral for the last 6 months of this year. The last six months of the year will see a return to top 10 or even top 5 periods maybe even top 3.

Personally if either of the last 2 occur I will still see this as supporting the AGW theory if they don't I will start to have doubts.

[jethro]

Iceberg, I can see your point and I do understand where you're coming from but 20 odd years worth of warming temperatures are not going to disappear overnight or even over one year. If it took twenty years to gain the 0.6 or whatever the figure is, stands to reason it will take a similar period to lose it. Personally I find the near stasis of the last 10 years to be interesting, we may well rocket skywards in the near future but fact remains, despite increasing emissions, temperature over that period hasn't followed accordingly.

As with most things, it will be easier to view this with hindsight in a few years and decide the relevance.

Regardless of your viewpoint, pro, sceptic or no man's land in the middle, please have a scan of this:

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/ak...ng_from_LIA.pdf

[biffvernon]

Regardless of your viewpoint, pro, sceptic or no man's land in the middle, please have a scan of this:

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/ak...ng_from_LIA.pdf

Syun-Ichi Akasofu did some valuable work on the Northern Lights in the late 50s and 60s. Now he is notorious for his contributions as a climate change skeptic.

[Iceberg]

Thanks for your Reply Jethro.

I don't want to get bogged down in particular temperature measurements

I've plotted down the Jan-Dec figures so far this decade taken from NASA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

The attached shows temps from 1999 through to 2007 (latest)

The trend is a simple Linear and the Y axis a measure of the postive anomaly globally, if you divide by 100 you will get the 0.5C increase etc.

The trend seems pretty clear to me. There hasn't been any stagnation.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Syun-Ichi Akasofu did some valuable work on the Northern Lights in the late 50s and 60s. Now he is notorious for his contributions as a climate change skeptic.

So a respected and reputable scientist declares himself a climate change skeptic and all of a sudden he is "notorious", as if he has changed to the dark side of the force?

Why are scientists who are skeptical of climate change suddenly become persona non grata? Is their scientific training erased by their opposition to AGW? Do their brains cease to function?

CB

[VillagePlank]

Thanks for your Reply Jethro.

I don't want to get bogged down in particular temperature measurements

I've plotted down the Jan-Dec figures so far this decade taken from NASA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

The attached shows temps from 1999 through to 2007 (latest)

The trend is a simple Linear and the Y axis a measure of the postive anomaly globally, if you divide by 100 you will get the 0.5C increase etc.

The trend seems pretty clear to me. There hasn't been any stagnation.

Sod the anomaly. Where's the data? Where's the actual global temperature?

If one more person posts another anomaly graph I'm going to invert myself.

Edited April 15, 2008 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

If one more person posts another anomaly graph I'm going to invert myself.

Can you take&post pics please...

[Thundery wintry showers]

The data from NOAA and CRU can sometimes be quite different from NASA so it's worth seeing what they show before jumping to too many conclusions. NOAA's report should be out soon.

[jethro]

Syun-Ichi Akasofu did some valuable work on the Northern Lights in the late 50s and 60s. Now he is notorious for his contributions as a climate change skeptic.

Reassuring to know he's been around a while and hasn't just been caught up in the latest fad, thanks for that info. Rightly or wrongly I have more faith in those with long careers, like most areas of life, I find it gives a person a grounded, broader view with greater perspective.

What did you think of the paper Biff, is there anything which you agree/disagree with?

The data from NOAA and CRU can sometimes be quite different from NASA so it's worth seeing what they show before jumping to too many conclusions. NOAA's report should be out soon.

Valid point, if the powers that be cannot reach agreement, what hope have we got eh? I do wish there wasn't such discrepancies.

VillagePlank - I can't find anything but anomaly charts either. Grrrr

[SnowBear]

VP..

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Question, how can we find the value of an anomaly if we cannot establish the true absolute temperatures at the stations we are using for the database??

Seems to me the absolute temperature is guessed and then the anomalies are worked from that??

[Devonian]

...

If one more person posts another anomaly graph I'm going to invert myself.

Bit like going to Lords and complaining there is toooo much cricket

Edited April 15, 2008 by Devonian

[jethro]

VP - the best I can come up with is:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#NCDC

All the graphs anyone could ever want, including absolute temperatures. Have fun.

[Iceberg]

The important thing is surely sticking to one way of doing it and looking at the resulting trend.

NASA's way is not perfect, HADCRU is similar and follows the same trends I just don't have the time to look it up and graph it.!

The absolute temp isn't guessed, but different organisations use different standards i.e some will take it a Ground some at 1m, 2m or 10m.!.

[VillagePlank]

VP - the best I can come up with is:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#NCDC

All the graphs anyone could ever want, including absolute temperatures. Have fun.

I'd rather the data in a convenient CSV format .... I'll keep looking ...

The important thing is surely sticking to one way of doing it and looking at the resulting trend.

Err....no!

Can you take&post pics please...

How rude!

[VillagePlank]

Bit like going to Lords and complaining there is toooo much cricket

I think that rather than making quips, you need to be right at the forefront of explaining why I cannot get hold of actual temperatures, and have to accept anomalies against an arbitrary mean!

After all - it is you and your ilk that ask for evidence. Now I'm asking for it - and we'll all start from the basics. Forget CO2, and all the other AGW hiding holes - let's look at absolute temperatures. And if we can't then why can't we? And if we can't, then how can we produce trends based on an anomaly that is based on data we can't produce?

Edited April 15, 2008 by VillagePlank

[SnowBear]

//

The absolute temp isn't guessed, but different organisations use different standards i.e some will take it a Ground some at 1m, 2m or 10m.!.

But, the initial database for any climate change forecast or research into must come from somewhere, and to me, and at NASA's admission, there is no standard for taking the absolute temperature, therefore any result or conclusion drawn from that database will inherit flaws.

We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter

A guess, is a guess, is a guess, it cannot be made to be anything else.

Also, if we have a long standing weather station which has produced say 60 years of data, and in that mean time urban sprawl has encroached onto its "space", surely that data is compromised. If a 10' hedge can effect the microclimate for 100' of garden, then, a 100' tall building can effect 1000' area around it, so if we have a station which was once amid a small forested area, or hedgerows, and now that area is mainly larger fields for farming, that data must be held as suspect too as the terrain surrounding it is inconsistent.

Therefore to get to a database from such an inconsistent set of data some adjustments and values must be guessed. Which means that all that follows from that data is inconsistent too by inheritance?

Edited April 15, 2008 by SnowBear

[Iceberg]

I think that rather than making quips, you need to be right at the forefront of explaining why I cannot get hold of actual temperatures, and have to accept anomalies against an arbitrary mean!

After all - it is you and your ilk that ask for evidence. Now I'm asking for it - and we'll all start from the basics. Forget CO2, and all the other AGW hiding holes - let's look at absolute temperatures. And if we can't then why can't we? And if we can't, then how can we produce trends based on an anomaly that is based on data we can't produce?

VP absolute temp will always be the temperature minus or plus the anom surely !.

[VillagePlank]

VP absolute temp will always be the temperature minus or plus the anom surely !.

Errr. I think that's the wrong way around isn't it? Surely science is about reproducable results? I can't replicate the anomaly results unless I have the raw data.

[biffvernon]

What did you think of the paper Biff,

Well I wouldn't give it house room after merely reading the title, but others have put the effort into more comprehensive discreditation.

[eddie]

Errr. I think that's the wrong way around isn't it? Surely science is about reproducable results? I can't replicate the anomaly results unless I have the raw data.

Hi VP, I'm not sure if you have seen this already but NOAA have a section on absolute temperatures..

About 2/3 of the way down this page they give the monthly absolute mean temperatures for the globe.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi VP, I'm not sure if you have seen this already but NOAA have a section on absolute temperatures..

About 2/3 of the way down this page they give the monthly absolute mean temperatures for the globe.

Hi eddie

The monthly absolute mean temperatures given there are still estimates, not raw data. Some information about the methods used to construct those absolutes can be found here.

I'm finding this current discussion extremely interesting...thanks VP!

CB

[jethro]

Well I wouldn't give it house room after merely reading the title, but others have put the effort into more comprehensive discreditation.

I really do not wish to appear rude but how on earth can you, or anyone else reach an informed opinion, much less a decision on the validity of the AGW theory, without looking at all the data, from both sides of the debate?

Sadly, I think this thought pattern may be all too prevalent in this debate.

Just think, if we all read a title or headline at face value, didn't bother reading the rest of the article or perhaps read it and didn't bother to check it out against other sources, we'd all still be waiting for that Arctic winter the Express promised us.

[VillagePlank]

So, Mr and Mrs AGW - where's the data?

There's years and years of pleas for evidence, and now its your turn. Turn out your evidence, please. And lets start from core principles - the world is warming. Let's see it. Please. Let's see the EVIDENCE of what you have so profoundly espoused. I am not interested in CO2 or any other GHG - let's just agree that the world is warming from raw data That doesn't mean deviation from the norm.

For those of you who have argued profusely for AGW - you will be noted by your absence in this core part of the debate.

EDIT: I have no problem if you want to confer back to the consensus - hopefully they will be able to provide the data!!!

Hi VP, I'm not sure if you have seen this already but NOAA have a section on absolute temperatures..

About 2/3 of the way down this page they give the monthly absolute mean temperatures for the globe.

Yeah seen it. Not quite a scientific explanation on how anomalies can be generated, but absolutes can't. Back calculation is a joke! Publish the raw data!!

Edited April 15, 2008 by VillagePlank