Is Global Warming Really Happening? A Look at Recent News and Controversies

[Andre]

In a while, after having a look at the April 08 data. Only http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

The "in a while" was a response to the question how the average monthly global temp was derived by the different institutes. Well GHCN/GISS GISS is in now (+0.41 C) Not a big deal? Let's look at the temperature anomaly maps.

This is RSS with the -0.069 C anomaly:

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html

(be sure to tick "anomaly" on)

Here you can get GISS/GHCN:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

(be sure to select 1979-2000 as base period for correct comparison with RSS, before hitting "make map", this reduces the anomaly to 0.16C)

Now see the main differences between the two, GISS does not record (grey) Mid Africa where RSS sees a prolongued cold spell. However GISS sees a heat wave over Antarctica, which RSS did not record due to sensor limitations. One might wonder how GISS knows about that heat wave, apparently based on the data of only three stations,

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?lat=-90.0&lon=0.0&datatype=gistemp&data_set=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.700890090008.1.1/station.txt apparently also slightly above average. (Scott base is not showing at this moment) but it makes most of the whole continent, about the size of the USA, about 2 degrees warmer.

Hence the omission of cold Africa and a apparent very generous extrapolation of Antarctic data helps a lot to make GISS/GHCN a lot warmer than the satellites register.

 

[Andre]

Uploaded the maps I'm looking at, in the former post:

 

[latecommer]

Dear Count I.

One overturns theory by attempting to falsify its conclusions which is what I did based on the paleo evidence of levels of CO2 relative to temperture changes.
I hardly consider the stance of the IPCC as a theory. At best it is a hypothesis based on no real empirical evidence. All perported human emissions and their effects do not exceed the "noise" of the known natural emission and absorbtion of atmospheric carbon. Thus to base far reaching economic policy on"settled science" is irresponsible.
In fact the IPCC is based on an unproven hypothesis (that is that human emissions are the primary cause of warming) and any conclusions they make from that point are scientifically bogus. One must first prove a hypothesis before continuing on to implemation of solutions.
the fact that temperature has not risen in correspondence with CO2 over the last decade is a very telling indicator that sometjhing is wrong with the models relied upon by the IPCC.
Remember that models do not, and can not be considered scientific evidence, but only opinion.

 

[latecommer]

Andre,
Is't also true that GISS has lowered past temperature records recently and thus show an inflated warming trend? Isn't this Dr. Hansen's work, and doesn't he have more than a neutral stake in the game?