Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Just what is the correct global temperature trend?


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
a lot of the so called factual data is getting more and more suspect as time goes on.

You mean we're obtaining better data and more accurate interpretation :(

After all, all the data we had on the formation of the Earth in the 1950s looks very very suspect indeed today :) And is the idea that a huge meteorite killed the dinosaurs also now 'suspect'? :) And as for Issac Newton - that lying fraudster :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
You mean we're obtaining better data and more accurate interpretation :(

After all, all the data we had on the formation of the Earth in the 1950s looks very very suspect indeed today :) And is the idea that a huge meteorite killed the dinosaurs also now 'suspect'? :) And as for Issac Newton - that lying fraudster :)

1) Only if you're not fiddling the data.

2) Yes that is suspect.

3) Isaac would turn in his grave over some of fiddling going on today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

Drawing in a few lines, the HAD chart clearly shows that temps have been increasing and probably maxed out in 2002/03 or so, however the following years have all been very warm you could argue there has been a leveling off but my no means a decline or trend.

You've also got to look at the Y axis the NASA(Hansens) has a range of 1.2C for anomalies whereas the HAD range is nearly more than twice this at 2.5C this means that the potential leveling off is alot less noticable on the NASA graph anyway.

One final comment I thought that the HAD data included ocean as well as land based ?, hence the comment about thermometers only partially applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was that 2+2=4 is right no matter who says it. It's same with the science. What the person says is either right or wrong. It is not more wrong just because they may have bias or you may disagree with their politics.

What people should say should be the judged on the content of what they say, not on the content of their character.

Ok, if people have political motivations or other bias it may make people more sceptical of what they say or it may be harder to take them seriously, but what is right is right at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
You've misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was that 2+2=4 is right no matter who says it. It's same with the science. What the person says is either right or wrong. It is not more wrong just because they may have bias or you may disagree with their politics.

What people should say should be the judged on the content of what they say, not on the content of their character.

Ok, if people have political motivations or other bias it may make people more sceptical of what they say or it may be harder to take them seriously, but what is right is right at the end of the day.

I think your misunderstanding to be honest.

If the person is deliberatly mispresenting data / altering data for there own gains or for gains of a lobby or people with invested interest then this is wrong. In that case 2+2=5 although presented as 2+2=4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

Surely it's those claiming that 2+2=5 that are misrepresenting the data? In which case, who's making such claims? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
If the person is deliberatly mispresenting data / altering data for there own gains or for gains of a lobby or people with invested interest then this is wrong.

I don't think that anyone is doing this. At all. Period.

I can understand the position that we can't have absolute temperatures (although, I am beginning to feel that the CET might be a good proxy) because of agreed bias (UHI, calibration) in the underlying data, amongst other things. It makes sense to say it was x degrees at some point in the past, it is now x+1, hence we've warmed 1. You really don't need to know x. Whether or not x was accurate, or not, we still know the difference is 1. I know this is a climbdown from previous posts by me, but, hey, we all live and learn.

It is, in my opinion, very unfortunate that the climate community bicker amongst themselves, which, in turn, seems to manifest itself on fora such as these. I note various controversies where the argument lies in all sorts of obscure techniques that, I feel, virtually all of us will likely never understand. And to be honest, forget the notion of whether or not you're qualified do you understand the presentation enough to to be able to criticise it? I don't. I know I don't.

But I do understand computing, I understand computing science, I understand some of the complex mathematics that are used by climatologists to prepare and present the data. I know, because I 'do it' everyday. I know this sounds conceited, perhaps arrogant, but it's not meant to. It's an accurate reflection of what it is I do. For instance I've spent the last week writing .net libraries for parallel linear lists. I know. I lead an interesting life.

Anyway, I digress. I prepare all sorts of data for the directors of my company, and some of it is used for political purposes and for gain within the company. Don't be under the illusion that this sort of thing only goes on in fora. MY predecessor was a great fan of showing trends using polynomial curve fitting (you can do it easily on Excel) but this is an awful method for reflecting non-linear trends. It is much better to use moving averages. I spent a long time going through all the mathematics that relate to that, and now, my company, is using mathematics that reflect what the data is, and not what the author wants to show.

The point, after this long, and boring diatribe, is that it is far to difficult to hide an misprepresent data that is known and therein I cannot see how a party can misrepresent, by accident, or by design, the absolute, undeniable truth. The last 30 years has shown a warming trend.

It is the allocation of blame that is the argument. Climatology is not lay science, and we are still learning about it everyday. Someone (I apologies that I can't recall) mentioned something along the lines - if we don't affect the climate is the UHI effect real? That's a real slap-down for AGW deniers; of course, the argument is does it affect it enough - but then that leads to circular argument because such a question, as we understand today, cannot be quantified.

I think we all agree that we should stop putting pollutants in the air, or try to reduce them as much as possible. That's not a green attitude, that's not a motion for membership of a militant organisation (I shan't name any) It's common sense. If you don't agree, tip this weeks rubbish on your back lawn, and let your kids go and play in it.

This isn't a defection to the dark side, either ;)

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

to a simple soul like me, I've drawn my interpretation of that change(s) in temperature.

Question is are we about, as some seem to think, to see either a period of little change or possibly a slight fall?

post-847-1210184051_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...