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

[Andre]

Update, full PDF available here:

http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/2007GL032630.pdf

 

[latecommer]

It appears that those here who insist that the Earth is warming are being very selective in their choice of source material.
Of the four global temperature gathering groups, three of the four report stasis in the last 10 years. Hadley Cru (sp?) from the UK show no warming since 1998. Both satallite measuring sites show stasis to slight cooling. Only Nasa shows warming based on questionable ground based sites (mostly in the United States...hardly any in the Southern Hemisphere). If all four sites are used one would seriously have to doubt the validity of any statement that the Earth is warming at all in the last 10 years despite the increase in the perported "driver" CO2.
So is it truly scientific to cherry pick the site that agrees with ones opinion?

 

[Count Iblis]

It appears that those here who insist that the Earth is warming are being very selective in their choice of source material.
Of the four global temperature gathering groups, three of the four report stasis in the last 10 years. Hadley Cru (sp?) from the UK show no warming since 1998. Both satallite measuring sites show stasis to slight cooling. Only Nasa shows warming based on questionable ground based sites (mostly in the United States...hardly any in the Southern Hemisphere). If all four sites are used one would seriously have to doubt the validity of any statement that the Earth is warming at all in the last 10 years despite the increase in the perported "driver" CO2.
So is it truly scientific to cherry pick the site that agrees with ones opinion?

Write up an article entitled: "Recent measurements contradict AGW" and submit it to Nature.

 

[latecommer]

I have actually done that in my field which is Geology with Paleo emphasis. It was rejected on the grounds that it didn't meet current understanding of climate forcers.
I have discovered that both Nature and Science will not accept any paper that seriously disputes the company line of AGW.

 

[Count Iblis]

I have actually done that in my field which is Geology with Paleo emphasis. It was rejected on the grounds that it didn't meet current understanding of climate forcers.
I have discovered that both Nature and Science will not accept any paper that seriously disputes the company line of AGW.

Ok, then the question is: How reasonable is it to overturn this "current understanding of climate forces" using your methods? Or put differently, if one wants to overturn this "current understanding of climate forces" or for that matter any other theory, what kind of quality of evidence would you need?

 

[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 absorption 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?