Yes Larsb et al., might want to give us the prognostication for when snow will be normal in Hawaii just like in Ohio or other parts NorEast? It is also common knowledge the amount of C02/Sulfur (among other literally TOXIC gases) is almost immeasurable. In contrast, the same immeasurability at that "little" volcano located in Yellowstone National Park, WO could use a tropical winter? .
Heavy snow batters Ohio Valley states By MATT LEINGANG, Associated Press Writer
I think we all will agree the earth is getting warmer, the question is, is man to blame ! Matbe but at such a small percentage that its nill !
The earth was warm (HOT) before man every showed up and it will warm up again long after man is gone !
Its like water....water was wet 10, 100, 1000, millions of years ago. Water is wet today ! AND water will be wet 10, 100, 1000, millions of years from now !
Mankind did not make water wet and mankind did not make the temps to rise !
Should we lower our use of oil ? Hell yes. Should we lower our use of fresh water ? Hell yes. There are many things we humans should be doing but please.....lets not use "The Sky is Falling' or "The End is Near" or such crap as a reason to clean up our act !
Opinions are good. We all have them. Some are just not as believable as others. I think I have had my opinions questioned as much as anyone on the Forum. Sometimes I change them other times I do not.
Man's ability to change the course of the planet will take a lot more Scientific evidence for me to change my opinion.
Indeed too much opinion has passed for BAD legislation! So I would agree! One recent multi-billion dollar example was the CA state MTBE. The good news is it got a multi billion dollar reversal. The bad news is CA state still wants to enact specious legislation, again probably to cost multibillion dollars .
Let me again post something that I have posted in other forums here at Edmunds.
When I put the word FACT in a post, that means it's a FACT.
I never post opinions and call them facts.
Some people here might, but I never EVER do that.
About the only thing I have been posting as FACT is that we have had 19 or the last 26 years in the USA warmer than the mean since 1880. That's not some opinion I picked out of the air - it comes from historical temperature data.
According to the dictionary a fact being a fact hinges on the evidence. In the case of GW your evidence of 19 out of 26 years being warmer in some parts of the USA is a bit lacking in evidence. I believe it was asked as to where these points of reference were gathered. Were they gathered at the precise same time and place year after year. When you are putting forth something as FACT it is only as good as the data it represents. While I would not say your facts are your opinion. I would say the facts you present leave a lot more questions than answers. Again I emphasis that those putting together the FACTS that you like to show us, may be influenced by outside forces. If they were indeed FACTS with valid evidence to substantiate them. They would not have to be corrected. Were the corrections accurate or influenced by politics.
I know you would like to think the people reporting the weather are only interested in facts. They have been known to be wrong. If the temperature used for any given city in the USA has changed in any way over the period of your favorite chart. It makes the evidence that you feel is fact, questionable. For example: if the temperature device used at the airport in San Diego is not in the place it was in back in the 1980s, or the surroundings have changed, (new buildings) etc. That would give a different official reading for San Diego.
I just believe there are too many variables and not enough absolutes in what your evidence is trying to prove to be considered FACT by me.
No, you are analyzing the post completely incorrectly.
I'm not "using anything as proof of GLOBAL WARMING."
The FACT (indisputable) that the USA has MEASURED TEMPERATURES over the last 25 years and 19 of them are above the 1880 mean is not being used by ME as "proof" of anything except for what it INDISPUTABLY shows:
"THE USA has had 19 of the last 25 years warmer than the norm."
What does that prove? NOTHING IN ITSELF. But it does, beyond doubt by you or anyone else, that the trend of temps in the last 25 years in the USA at least is UPWARD.
An UPWARD TEMPERATURE TREND.
Indisputable, so quit trying to dispute it !!
NOW: In context of THIS FORUM, what does the upward trend mean? Does it mean that burning fossil fuels are contributing to warmer years in the USA? Does it mean that we are in a natural, Earf-Driven warming pattern and fossil fuels have nothing to do with it? What does it mean?
Those are the questions. The question of what kind of trend we are in has already been answered.
I've tried to explain it to you once already Gary, and you missed it, so please read again carefully.
It does not matter if the official temperature in a city is in a ditch 10 feet deep or on the end of a steel pole in direct sunlight every day.
The "officially measured temp" of a city is that city's official temperature.
It is relative to the other measured temps in that city. And it does not matter that 8 miles away the temp might be 5 or 8 degrees different from the "official temp."
Over the period of about the last 46,300 days or so, which is the approximate number of days since 1880, it all averages out. Some days, most of the city might be colder. Other days, maybe warmer.
If you don't agree that the official temps registered in a city can be used as the official temperature of the city, and I don't know how you can possibly consider that a valid perspective, because apparently weather measurements mean nothing to you. You cannot ignore the only data we have and disregard it and then expect to be taken seriously, can you?
Ask any climatologist anywhere if the measured temperatures of cities are in dispute anywhere in the climatology world. Or show me a website from an official climate or weather organization which is challenging "official temperatures" as being bogus. If you can do that, then I will accept your silly argument that "official temperatures cannot be used for historical climatic data."
You cannot ignore the only data we have and disregard it and then expect to be taken seriously, can you?
As we explained to you an official temperature reading that increases over the years in a city, is probably due to the growth of the city, and not due to the air 30,000' above, or outside the city being any hotter. So it is not correct to take temperature readings in a growing city, and then say that everywhere else on the Earth is seeing increasing temperatures. That is one of the things we are questioning.
Yes I would agree. I see city weather measurements like the infinite data base in baseball. Sort of a slow news day filler.
So for example, when I hear stuff like hottest day temp in recorded history or since 1950, I think gee whiz. But then when you stop to think that we had literally exponentially less passenger vehicle fleet in say 1950, on the face of it- inverse relationship. FF to today where we actually have some record cold climates and paradoxically exponentially larger passenger vehicle fleet (not to mention population) again disconnect.
Some almost undeniable yet totally ignored actions for open debate/discussion: IF the environmentalists are correct, we need to:
1. limit or stop legal and/or illegal immigration
2. limit and cut back our population from 299 M to percentages less>
3. enforce border restrictions
4. cause to leave so called illegals (estimated at 10-12 M, math indicates 12/299=4% population cut backs
4. dismantle big cities
5. cut down or limit participation in the global travel and business
Is an "official temperature" going to be given the historical respect to be used in temperature analysis in future years?
If not, then do we just eliminate the 15 largest US cities, or the 25 largest, when doing historic temperature analysis for the whole USA?
Or do we study more about Urban Heat Islands and their effect on overall regional climate?
Are large cities warmer ONLY because of the Heat Island Effect, or are they larger because more fossil fuel is being burned and the localized effects of that action?
Well you could sort of setup your own lab. Get an outdoor spotlight, maybe 150-200W and have that be your sun. Put it a few feet above a thermometer. Now put 2 incandescent lightbulbs (to represent the heat that man creates) around the thermometer on a ceramic plate (represent concrete) about 6" away. Take some temperatures with the spotlight on and off. Now grow the city - add some more incandescent lightbulbs around the thermometer, and take some more readings. Or if you don't have those lightbulbs use a bunch of candles. Do this in your garage or some open space to represent how the heat can radiate away.
Common sense tells me your thermometer is going to read higher with the more human activity, represented by the lightbulbs or candles that are around the thermometer. Put another thermometer 10' away from the lights and read that during all those times you've turned the lights on and off, and I doubt you'll see the temperature is moved much at all.
Now this does not say there isn't warming of the Earth in some small amounts, because the sun actually is far more a factor than the spotlight in the setup I suggested. The sun I believe hits the Earth with the same energy in 1 day as all humans burn in a year. So the Sun's energy is 365X more influential. If the sun's energy goes up 1% (sunspot activity), then that is 3.65X what all of humanity is doing. If you need an example of that energy, consider that the sun's energy even through the atmosphere, in a couple hundred square mile area - a small part of what the sun's rays are hitting, evaporates enough water from the ocean to create a hurricane.
Or if you want to consider the sun's energy, consider that every growing plant is powered by the sun, the Earth outside is being warmed, and every cloud in the skies around the Earth is from water evaporated. All the rain that falls is eventually reboiled by the sun into water vapor. So looking at the global climate it is the sun that matters. Man can change the temperature a few degrees higher in the urban areas, by running our engines and motors, but again that is minor, and will only be local to the city.
The point is you can't rely on urban temperatures. I've read that climatologists adjust for these Urban Island effects, but their adjustment is an estimate. Is the city 1.5, 2.0, or 2.5F hotter because of the growth compared to 1980. No one knows for sure. Which adjustment someone chooses or which thermometers around the world you choose can be cherry-picked to prove what you want. That's why I say if we're trying to see if the Earth has warmed 0.4F in 100 years, that is hard to see, if we're estimating how much our thermometers are off because of growing human activity.
An UPWARD TEMPERATURE TREND. Indisputable, so quit trying to dispute it !!
I think you have found that a lot of people disagree with your findings. The data used to build your chart is flawed. By all the factors you have been given here. I confess I do not know if the earth is getting warmer or cooler. I could chart the temperature on my deck over a year and see if it changed. It would be only slightly less significant than the chart you have used as your basis for thinking the US is getting warmer.
There are climatologists that claim it is not getting warmer. They are critics of the GW. I for one have found that our own local John Coleman predicts the weather better than the National guys. His credentials are better than most of the meteorologist we see on TV. He is the founder of The Weather Channel. So if he says there is no warming trend I will believe him over someone from NASA that is politically motivated to keep his job.
Disagree all you want. You are banging your head against facts. If that's how you want to behave, feel free. But don't expect your arguments to hold water, because you know that anyone debating facts will lose not only the debate but other things.
If you think we are not in a 25-year warming trend, show me some data to dispute it.
Just "saying it's not true" is not a valid argument. I know it's true. Anyone who can read should know its true.
Here is the PDF again so you can refer back to it:
If facts cannot be considered data, then we have no reason to discuss things.
Historical temperature data is not up for debate. Those are official measurements, UNRELATED TO ANY CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION. I'm not talking about the NASA data proving Global Warming. It definitely, without possibility of a differing viewpoint, shows that UNITED STATES has had 19 of the last 25 years warmer than the norm. That in itself does not prove anything except what it states. I have said that repeatedly.
Maybe future climate models are up for debate as to their accuracy, but not history. Are you now doubting the Holocaust too? That's official history, just like climate data.
Several scientists have published studies recently which indicate that “it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades,” to avert “a dangerous rise in global temperatures.” The studies show that we truly have a problem and that it will be incredibly difficult (impossible) to do something about it.
Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.
Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters put it as follows: “The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore? The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”
The world's temperature fell precipitously last year - by almost a full degree Celsius. It's a fact and it is indisputable. Real thermometers and real infrared sensors aboard real satellites obtained that data. To say otherwise is banging your head against facts. Given that frightful temperature drop, the question becomes "What are we going to do about it?"
Must have been a REALLY cold July - December 2007:
The Earth's temperature for the first six months of the year 2007 was the second-warmest ever recorded, government scientists reported today.
The average temperature of the planet was 1.13 degrees above average, which trails only 1998 for the warmest January-June period on record. January-June 1998 was 1.15 degrees above average.
For two separate data sets — the Northern Hemisphere and for the Earth's land surface — it was the warmest January-June on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The Northern Hemisphere was 2.48 degrees above the long-term average, while the land temperature was 2.12 degrees above average. Global temperature records date back to 1880.
The climate center notes that anomalously warm temperatures have covered much of the globe throughout the year. The January-June 2007 temperature anomalies were warmer than average across all land areas, with the exception of Argentina.
Wonder what happened in the last half of 2007 to make temps drop precipitously?
I can not find the site now but awhile back I read where a city has been taking their official temps at one building for over 50 years. 50 years ago the building was the center of town but was surrounded by trees and dirt fields and low single story buildings...today that one building is surrounded by buildings taller then it, made out of glass, steel and concrete. There is very few trees within blocks of it and the dirt fields are gone. The city official temps have gone up each year, yes there are more vehicles driving around and the scientist used the hotter temps to blame humans burning oil BUT they never took into consideration the added glass, steel or concrete or the less dirt and trees in the area ! This is just some info you might consider when you talk about official temps going up in cities ! One more thing for you that say we need to stop using oil altogether. Look around you, you see the keyboard your typing on ? well its made from oil. you look around and see all the paint, plastic, synthetics, cloth, etc.......well unless its 100% leather, wood, cotton or wool then it has oil in its making. BTW even leather, wood, cotton and wool is treated with oil products. So when you say stop using oil....are you will to give up 99% of everything in your lifes today ?
things like...ummm...plastics going in to Boeing jetliners. BTW-alternative fuels for jet airplanes, who can't be helping to cause more pollution...I...I...mean Global Warming?
When I put the word FACT in a post, that means it's a FACT.
Maybe in your mind. Not in mine. Just because the government publishes something as FACT, does not make it so. As you can see from this chart. The two times in the last hundred years that we have had warming spells, they were just a blip compared to the warmth the earth experienced in the middle ages. If it happens again good for those folks that have had to suffer in the Arctic for the last 1000 years. With the price of oil I imagine the people in the NE will welcome warm winters without all that high priced heating oil. Global Warming may be coming just in time to save us from the high cost of heating our homes.
Gary, I've got over 4400 posts here at Edmunds. Find me one where I used the word "FACT" when what I said was not a fact. You can't because I do not do it.
Regardless if you BELIEVE it to be true or not: The USA has had 19 of the last 25 years of temps above the norm as measured over the last 46,300 or so days.
That's a FACT.
Gary, and it's not the guvmint per se. It's HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS.
That's nothing that can be dismissed as untrue.
Case closed.
Show me we are not in a 25-year warming trend if you want to dispute my truth. I'm not talking about whether it's NATURALLY DRIVEN warmth at all. But it IS WITHOUT A POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT A WARMING TREND.
Well with those facts, we can all see that this slight warming in the last 20 years, is just part of the trend of some ups and downs. The earth and humanity survived very nicely during that nice period between 1000 - 1400.
And I agree with you that any additional warmth we can get would be welcome. It's been a long, cold winter here in the NE, and we need to get the Earth's temperature up, before we start running low on fossil fuels. If we don't warmup the Earth then as oil and natural gas decline much of the northern U.S. will become uninhabitable for part of the year. Anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line might as well sell their property, and move. Until then we'll burn large quantities of natural gas and oil to keep from freezing to death, and putting the CO2 from our furnaces into the air.
One of the channels (among others) I watch when they have those programs about the earth's climate is the History Channel. Nobody is disputing (or maybe I am projecting here) that YOU are saying there is a 25 year documented so called "warming" trend, but insofar as earth and human existence time lines, 25 years is a blip "micro" sec, in a New York second, etc.
So basically these scientist are saying it's too late unless we return the world to the middle ages because there is currently no way to maintain our civilization without this temperature rise (which may or may not be a result of our using fossil fuels). looking at the chart gary provided I see that so far we are nowhere near the middle ages temperatures by the way, I still think that economic and pollution m,easure will force us to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but we need to figure out what is going to replace them soon. I would have to say that with reports like this it looks more and more like these scientist are g=making statements without knowing what is really going on, so yes there may be a 25 year warming trend (which was preceded by a cooling trend BTW), but they really don't know why.
BTW you wanted to be let known if you were ignoring or distorting facts, it seems to me from reading the current debate going on that you might be skipping over questions (backed by facts BTW) that others are posing, you are going on about the US cities 25 year temperature readings and ignoring the probelms with these readings, you are also (against everything you have said in the past) using this data to say that there is a global warming trend (if it is just a localized to the US trend then really it doesn't matter on a Global scale), if reports of lower than usual temperatures, and unusual weather in other partts of the world are "localized" freaks of nature then what makes the US temperature increases usable as anything but indications of US temperatures in cities that may be caused by other factores (such as growth) and may not even be indicative of the temperates outside of these cities (I.e. in farm lads) where are the temperature readings from unpopulated areas to support the dat from the cities, can you find this data (if it exists) and does it show the same trend ? If it does then that would be more supportove of the theory that there has been a 25 year warming trend in the US at least (and yes it is just a theory unitl the FACTS are presented to indicate that this trend is NOT just in the cities where the population explosision has created conditions for increased temperature readings). So far the olny FACT that you are able to argue is that in US CITIES there has been a warming trend for the last 25 years, this does not extraplotate to the whole country having a warming trend, even if every city in the nation is warming, as there is much more are that is not in a city. Again this has no impart on the need for humanity to reduce it's dependancy on fossil fuels, as we need to figure out other ways to supply the needs (and yes they are needs) of our civilization. I have a feeling a lot of the global warming scare (Yes I believe it is a scare) is to drive reseach into alternaive energy sources (and forms of propulsion), I agree with the need for the research, but not with the scare tactics, but it may be that this is seen as the only way to get people to demand this research is done. Just all in MHO of course Scott
US temperatures in cities that may be caused by other factores (such as growth) and may not even be indicative of the temperates outside of these cities (I.e. in farm lads) where are the temperature readings from unpopulated areas to support the dat from the cities, can you find this data (if it exists) and does it show the same trend ?
Excellent question. Can larsb, or anyone, point to a reliable source such as untainted government or ngo organization that has data covering both rural and urban temperature measuring stations? How about NOAA? Are they neutral? Can we get spreadsheets on this? What is distribution of measuring stations around the US in terms of cities, semi-rural, rural, remote mountainous?
Someone else raised question before about accuracy and calibration of measuring devices. How has this been handled through the last 100 years in US? Are some, most, all measurements done "automatically" today and what amount done by human eye?
Well it is changing this year. So now it is a cooling trend. If you are looking for longer than one year make a trend line from 1000 AD. You will see it is a cooling trend. As I have unsuccessfully tried pointing out to you. Charts and graphs can be manipulated to say what the person or persons making them want to say. If you tell me that the temperature on your porch 10 minutes ago was 65 degrees. I would accept that as FACT from you. As I believe you are honest in your dealings. However I do not believe that all the temperatures compiled in the NASA chart are absolute facts. I think they try to be as factual as they can. It requires too many different entities that may or may not be as honest as you and I to accept it without any questions.
NOAA is implementing a system called MADIS. It will give a much better reference on a much finer grid of the temperatures around the country and maybe the World. NOAA has added about 30 new sites within 10 miles of my home in the last 6 months. These are individuals that have digital weather stations linked via the Internet to the MADIS network. You can go to the Weather Underground in your locale to find all the sites. Just scroll down on this site to see all the weather stations around Phoenix. Look to the right side of the page to see if the station is part of the MADIS network. With this system in place around the globe we should get a decent picture the weather patterns. Not perfect by any stretch.
19 of 25 years is just a blip not any kind of long term trend. Nothing to project our future climate on. How many years out of the last 100 have been below normal. Wait you have not answered what normal is. And who decided what temperature should be considered NORMAL?
Gary, your mistrust of the guvmint is clouding your judgment.
Take NASA out of the equation.
Take any government-sponsored entity out of the equation.
OK so are you with me at this point? OK let's move forward.
Historical Temperatures are facts. They are the reported temperature. Since 1880, there has been no conspiracy to raise or lower them artificially at any level or private industry or government regulations.
So they are what they represent - the official METEOROLOGICAL and historical record of temperatures.
Is that accepted as fact? Is the reported high temp of 78 on April 28th, 1934 in San Diego to be considered the actual official temperature for that day and time?
We'll continue from there when you answer that question.
NO, that is not FACTS. That is someone's reading of a temperature recording device for that day in time. We may accept it of itself as a fact. We may look back and say it was a hot day. If you were to give me a chart that showed the temperature at a given place in San Diego for the last 100 years and it indicated a warming trend, I would accept that for the one square foot of space where the temperature was taken. I do not accept a compilation of cities and states over the last 100 years as anything but random data. I would say we would be lucky if half of them were even close to accurate. That means the whole chart is flawed and NOT FACT. In FACT if just ONE device was not accurate or accurately reported it throws off the chart by some degree from absolute FACT. I am into precise not darts.
Saying that the official temps of a city are in dispute.
That's completely crazy. Not saying YOU are crazy, but that opinion is crazy.
Can you tell me any organization in the climate business who disputes these temperatures as facts? Everyone knows that official temps are not the real temperature in every square inch of a city. But you have to some demarcation point !!!
Without them, we HAVE ZERO HISTORICAL RECORD OF TEMPERATURES !!
To Other posters besides Gary:
Is there anyone else here who challenges official temps as being the official historical record, which is to be used for comparing different eras? Anyone?
I'm not sure if a warmer earth or a cooler earth is better.
But we can agree that the temperature of the Earth is always changing right? It's gone up and down over many millenium, with or without mankind being around.
If you agree with that, I think those are irrefuteable facts, then I question why you think there is something "wrong" with the climate change today, or next year, or 500 years from now? Why would you think that we need to do something to stop the climate where it is today?
What I'm saying to you is if the climate changes, and you're not exactly sure why, why do you think it is good for mankind even to try and stop this change? Isn't that unnatural? Do you think it natural that many people in Phoenix grow grass? Is it natural how you get your water, or is water diverted? Is it good or bad when we change nature for our comfort? Is it good to stop any temperature change, if we know the earth has always changed?
Change is sometimes bad and sometimes good, BUT it is always occurring. Instead of fighting against change, you need to accept it and adapt (job types, climate, financial,...). Individuals and species that adapt survive to evolve; those that don't change usually perish.
Do you have a link that includes the statistical analysis (error bars) to the chart you are referencing? I can only believe that the precision is very poor for this data set if it is an average over measured temperatures across the country. For example, the average temperature in Las Vegas would be greatly higher than the average temperature in Seattle. The difference in regional climates of the cities included in the averages ploted in your link should mean that there are large error bars relative to the average values. So, I am asking whether the error bars are larger or smaller than the temperature trend you are arguing for? If the trend falls within the error bars, then there is no statistical significance to that trend.
At this time I am not arguing one way or the other, but it is very difficult to take data presented as "fact" if the statistical analysis is not presented.
This recent thread reminds me of my gas log books.
I'm sure I've transposed a lot of numbers transcribing them into my log book. And I've probably missed recording an entire tank here and there. And I rarely fill from the same pump and I don't click off at the same time when I fill.
But over 100,000 miles, my mpg seems to figure out within a couple of decimal points of the rest of the tanks, and it's easy to spot a trend where some mechanical glitch, excessive city driving or an easy road trip makes my mpg blip up or down.
There's probably a statistical explanation for that. :shades:
NASA is not the only organization which does weather trend calculations.
When their analysis was found to be incorrect by a person challenging it, they corrected it. Then the person who challenged it said, "OK it's correct now."
Other analysis have shown the same thing.
If NASA had been wrong again, they would have taken it from both barrels by the group of "Global Warming Skeptics" who constantly evaluate any climate data analysis that hits the airwaves.
So although WE cannot review the NASA data, SMART PEOPLE OUTSIDE of NASA have done so and declared it now correct.
My point is this:
Don't focus at all on the NASA data per se. Any and all temperature analysis I can find, by ANY organization, of past historical temp data shows us in a warming trend right now. I can find none which say we have been BELOW THE MEAN for 19 of the last 25 years.
So, in the absence of charts which dispute the NASA and other organization's findings, I'm pretty sure we can be confident that analysis is correct.
That's one dude playing around with his son. Not sure it's even relevant to the discussion. His "assumptions" are his own.
And for every temperature measurement station which is on top of a steel pole, there's one in the shade. It evens out.
With thousands of climate scientists around the planet working on climate data, I think I'll go with the pros.
Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC (2007: p.244) says the following.
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
So, the IPCC does in fact make the claim that the UHI effect is exceedingly small and need not be considered "significant".
NASA is not the only organization which does weather trend calculations.
I guess that's one of your opinions and not a fact? It took me about 5 sec on Google to find this. :P http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/mission_en.html This is a UN sponsored organization; not justt a U.S. sponsored organization like NASA.
Comments
Heavy snow batters Ohio Valley states By MATT LEINGANG, Associated Press Writer
link title
The earth was warm (HOT) before man every showed up and it will warm up again long after man is gone !
Its like water....water was wet 10, 100, 1000, millions of years ago.
Water is wet today !
AND water will be wet 10, 100, 1000, millions of years from now !
Mankind did not make water wet and mankind did not make the temps to rise !
Should we lower our use of oil ? Hell yes. Should we lower our use of fresh water ? Hell yes. There are many things we humans should be doing but please.....lets not use "The Sky is Falling' or "The End is Near" or such crap as a reason to clean up our act !
Man's ability to change the course of the planet will take a lot more Scientific evidence for me to change my opinion.
Well done sir!
When I put the word FACT in a post, that means it's a FACT.
I never post opinions and call them facts.
Some people here might, but I never EVER do that.
About the only thing I have been posting as FACT is that we have had 19 or the last 26 years in the USA warmer than the mean since 1880. That's not some opinion I picked out of the air - it comes from historical temperature data.
According to the dictionary a fact being a fact hinges on the evidence. In the case of GW your evidence of 19 out of 26 years being warmer in some parts of the USA is a bit lacking in evidence. I believe it was asked as to where these points of reference were gathered. Were they gathered at the precise same time and place year after year. When you are putting forth something as FACT it is only as good as the data it represents. While I would not say your facts are your opinion. I would say the facts you present leave a lot more questions than answers. Again I emphasis that those putting together the FACTS that you like to show us, may be influenced by outside forces. If they were indeed FACTS with valid evidence to substantiate them. They would not have to be corrected. Were the corrections accurate or influenced by politics.
I know you would like to think the people reporting the weather are only interested in facts. They have been known to be wrong. If the temperature used for any given city in the USA has changed in any way over the period of your favorite chart. It makes the evidence that you feel is fact, questionable. For example: if the temperature device used at the airport in San Diego is not in the place it was in back in the 1980s, or the surroundings have changed, (new buildings) etc. That would give a different official reading for San Diego.
I just believe there are too many variables and not enough absolutes in what your evidence is trying to prove to be considered FACT by me.
No, you are analyzing the post completely incorrectly.
I'm not "using anything as proof of GLOBAL WARMING."
The FACT (indisputable) that the USA has MEASURED TEMPERATURES over the last 25 years and 19 of them are above the 1880 mean is not being used by ME as "proof" of anything except for what it INDISPUTABLY shows:
"THE USA has had 19 of the last 25 years warmer than the norm."
What does that prove? NOTHING IN ITSELF. But it does, beyond doubt by you or anyone else, that the trend of temps in the last 25 years in the USA at least is UPWARD.
An UPWARD TEMPERATURE TREND.
Indisputable, so quit trying to dispute it !!
NOW: In context of THIS FORUM, what does the upward trend mean? Does it mean that burning fossil fuels are contributing to warmer years in the USA? Does it mean that we are in a natural, Earf-Driven warming pattern and fossil fuels have nothing to do with it? What does it mean?
Those are the questions. The question of what kind of trend we are in has already been answered.
It does not matter if the official temperature in a city is in a ditch 10 feet deep or on the end of a steel pole in direct sunlight every day.
The "officially measured temp" of a city is that city's official temperature.
It is relative to the other measured temps in that city. And it does not matter that 8 miles away the temp might be 5 or 8 degrees different from the "official temp."
Over the period of about the last 46,300 days or so, which is the approximate number of days since 1880, it all averages out. Some days, most of the city might be colder. Other days, maybe warmer.
If you don't agree that the official temps registered in a city can be used as the official temperature of the city, and I don't know how you can possibly consider that a valid perspective, because apparently weather measurements mean nothing to you. You cannot ignore the only data we have and disregard it and then expect to be taken seriously, can you?
Ask any climatologist anywhere if the measured temperatures of cities are in dispute anywhere in the climatology world. Or show me a website from an official climate or weather organization which is challenging "official temperatures" as being bogus. If you can do that, then I will accept your silly argument that "official temperatures cannot be used for historical climatic data."
As we explained to you an official temperature reading that increases over the years in a city, is probably due to the growth of the city, and not due to the air 30,000' above, or outside the city being any hotter. So it is not correct to take temperature readings in a growing city, and then say that everywhere else on the Earth is seeing increasing temperatures. That is one of the things we are questioning.
So for example, when I hear stuff like hottest day temp in recorded history or since 1950, I think gee whiz. But then when you stop to think that we had literally exponentially less passenger vehicle fleet in say 1950, on the face of it- inverse relationship. FF to today where we actually have some record cold climates and paradoxically exponentially larger passenger vehicle fleet (not to mention population) again disconnect.
Some almost undeniable yet totally ignored actions for open debate/discussion: IF the environmentalists are correct, we need to:
1. limit or stop legal and/or illegal immigration
2. limit and cut back our population from 299 M to percentages less>
3. enforce border restrictions
4. cause to leave so called illegals (estimated at 10-12 M, math indicates 12/299=4% population cut backs
4. dismantle big cities
5. cut down or limit participation in the global travel and business
Is an "official temperature" going to be given the historical respect to be used in temperature analysis in future years?
If not, then do we just eliminate the 15 largest US cities, or the 25 largest, when doing historic temperature analysis for the whole USA?
Or do we study more about Urban Heat Islands and their effect on overall regional climate?
Are large cities warmer ONLY because of the Heat Island Effect, or are they larger because more fossil fuel is being burned and the localized effects of that action?
See all the questions?
Well you could sort of setup your own lab. Get an outdoor spotlight, maybe 150-200W and have that be your sun. Put it a few feet above a thermometer. Now put 2 incandescent lightbulbs (to represent the heat that man creates) around the thermometer on a ceramic plate (represent concrete) about 6" away. Take some temperatures with the spotlight on and off. Now grow the city - add some more incandescent lightbulbs around the thermometer, and take some more readings. Or if you don't have those lightbulbs use a bunch of candles. Do this in your garage or some open space to represent how the heat can radiate away.
Common sense tells me your thermometer is going to read higher with the more human activity, represented by the lightbulbs or candles that are around the thermometer. Put another thermometer 10' away from the lights and read that during all those times you've turned the lights on and off, and I doubt you'll see the temperature is moved much at all.
Now this does not say there isn't warming of the Earth in some small amounts, because the sun actually is far more a factor than the spotlight in the setup I suggested. The sun I believe hits the Earth with the same energy in 1 day as all humans burn in a year. So the Sun's energy is 365X more influential. If the sun's energy goes up 1% (sunspot activity), then that is 3.65X what all of humanity is doing. If you need an example of that energy, consider that the sun's energy even through the atmosphere, in a couple hundred square mile area - a small part of what the sun's rays are hitting, evaporates enough water from the ocean to create a hurricane.
Or if you want to consider the sun's energy, consider that every growing plant is powered by the sun, the Earth outside is being warmed, and every cloud in the skies around the Earth is from water evaporated. All the rain that falls is eventually reboiled by the sun into water vapor. So looking at the global climate it is the sun that matters. Man can change the temperature a few degrees higher in the urban areas, by running our engines and motors, but again that is minor, and will only be local to the city.
The point is you can't rely on urban temperatures. I've read that climatologists adjust for these Urban Island effects, but their adjustment is an estimate. Is the city 1.5, 2.0, or 2.5F hotter because of the growth compared to 1980. No one knows for sure. Which adjustment someone chooses or which thermometers around the world you choose can be cherry-picked to prove what you want. That's why I say if we're trying to see if the Earth has warmed 0.4F in 100 years, that is hard to see, if we're estimating how much our thermometers are off because of growing human activity.
Indisputable, so quit trying to dispute it !!
I think you have found that a lot of people disagree with your findings. The data used to build your chart is flawed. By all the factors you have been given here. I confess I do not know if the earth is getting warmer or cooler. I could chart the temperature on my deck over a year and see if it changed. It would be only slightly less significant than the chart you have used as your basis for thinking the US is getting warmer.
There are climatologists that claim it is not getting warmer. They are critics of the GW. I for one have found that our own local John Coleman predicts the weather better than the National guys. His credentials are better than most of the meteorologist we see on TV. He is the founder of The Weather Channel. So if he says there is no warming trend I will believe him over someone from NASA that is politically motivated to keep his job.
If you think we are not in a 25-year warming trend, show me some data to dispute it.
Just "saying it's not true" is not a valid argument. I know it's true. Anyone who can read should know its true.
Here is the PDF again so you can refer back to it:
ACTUAL TEMPERATURE CHART USING ACTUAL RECORDED TEMPERATURES NOT A SIMULATION
If facts cannot be considered data, then we have no reason to discuss things.
Historical temperature data is not up for debate. Those are official measurements, UNRELATED TO ANY CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION. I'm not talking about the NASA data proving Global Warming. It definitely, without possibility of a differing viewpoint, shows that UNITED STATES has had 19 of the last 25 years warmer than the norm. That in itself does not prove anything except what it states. I have said that repeatedly.
Maybe future climate models are up for debate as to their accuracy, but not history. Are you now doubting the Holocaust too? That's official history, just like climate data.
Folks on this board, I have a request:
If I ever get to the point that I am ignoring facts to make my own point, please call me on it. I don't want to ever be a guy who does that.
I will discuss varying opinions all day long. But I don't want to be ever caught disputing facts in order to make a point.
On the topic:
Even an EV is too much - we need to park all vehicles.
Several scientists have published studies recently which indicate that “it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades,” to avert “a dangerous rise in global temperatures.” The studies show that we truly have a problem and that it will be incredibly difficult (impossible) to do something about it.
Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.
Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters put it as follows: “The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore? The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”
The world's temperature fell precipitously last year - by almost a full degree Celsius. It's a fact and it is indisputable. Real thermometers and real infrared sensors aboard real satellites obtained that data. To say otherwise is banging your head against facts. Given that frightful temperature drop, the question becomes "What are we going to do about it?"
Must have been a REALLY cold July - December 2007:
The Earth's temperature for the first six months of the year 2007 was the second-warmest ever recorded, government scientists reported today.
The average temperature of the planet was 1.13 degrees above average, which trails only 1998 for the warmest January-June period on record. January-June 1998 was 1.15 degrees above average.
For two separate data sets — the Northern Hemisphere and for the Earth's land surface — it was the warmest January-June on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The Northern Hemisphere was 2.48 degrees above the long-term average, while the land temperature was 2.12 degrees above average. Global temperature records date back to 1880.
The climate center notes that anomalously warm temperatures have covered much of the globe throughout the year. The January-June 2007 temperature anomalies were warmer than average across all land areas, with the exception of Argentina.
Wonder what happened in the last half of 2007 to make temps drop precipitously?
Twelve months. Sounds like a trend to me.
Right now it's just one of thousands of previous years which was below normal.
Now THAT's a trend! And we're supposed to take action because a few of those years were above normal? By the way, what exactly IS normal?
Wonder what happened in the last half of 2007 to make temps drop precipitously?
Don't ask me. That's what NASA and other respectable outlets reported. Who am I to question cold hard data?
The city official temps have gone up each year, yes there are more vehicles driving around and the scientist used the hotter temps to blame humans burning oil BUT they never took into consideration the added glass, steel or concrete or the less dirt and trees in the area !
This is just some info you might consider when you talk about official temps going up in cities !
One more thing for you that say we need to stop using oil altogether. Look around you, you see the keyboard your typing on ? well its made from oil. you look around and see all the paint, plastic, synthetics, cloth, etc.......well unless its 100% leather, wood, cotton or wool then it has oil in its making. BTW even leather, wood, cotton and wool is treated with oil products. So when you say stop using oil....are you will to give up 99% of everything in your lifes today ?
It's expensive jet fuel or nuttin'.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Maybe in your mind. Not in mine. Just because the government publishes something as FACT, does not make it so. As you can see from this chart. The two times in the last hundred years that we have had warming spells, they were just a blip compared to the warmth the earth experienced in the middle ages. If it happens again good for those folks that have had to suffer in the Arctic for the last 1000 years. With the price of oil I imagine the people in the NE will welcome warm winters without all that high priced heating oil. Global Warming may be coming just in time to save us from the high cost of heating our homes.
Regardless if you BELIEVE it to be true or not: The USA has had 19 of the last 25 years of temps above the norm as measured over the last 46,300 or so days.
That's a FACT.
Gary, and it's not the guvmint per se. It's HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS.
That's nothing that can be dismissed as untrue.
Case closed.
Show me we are not in a 25-year warming trend if you want to dispute my truth. I'm not talking about whether it's NATURALLY DRIVEN warmth at all. But it IS WITHOUT A POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT A WARMING TREND.
And I agree with you that any additional warmth we can get would be welcome. It's been a long, cold winter here in the NE, and we need to get the Earth's temperature up, before we start running low on fossil fuels. If we don't warmup the Earth then as oil and natural gas decline much of the northern U.S. will become uninhabitable for part of the year. Anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line might as well sell their property, and move. Until then we'll burn large quantities of natural gas and oil to keep from freezing to death, and putting the CO2 from our furnaces into the air.
I'm not sure if a warmer earth or a cooler earth is better.
link title
But it's the BLIP we are currently inside right now.
Until it starts changing, it's an upward trend.
The cause? Who knows. Man-influenced? No one can say for certain yes or no. But as long as the possibility exists, then............................
BTW you wanted to be let known if you were ignoring or distorting facts, it seems to me from reading the current debate going on that you might be skipping over questions (backed by facts BTW) that others are posing, you are going on about the US cities 25 year temperature readings and ignoring the probelms with these readings, you are also (against everything you have said in the past) using this data to say that there is a global warming trend (if it is just a localized to the US trend then really it doesn't matter on a Global scale), if reports of lower than usual temperatures, and unusual weather in other partts of the world are "localized" freaks of nature then what makes the US temperature increases usable as anything but indications of US temperatures in cities that may be caused by other factores (such as growth) and may not even be indicative of the temperates outside of these cities (I.e. in farm lads) where are the temperature readings from unpopulated areas to support the dat from the cities, can you find this data (if it exists) and does it show the same trend ? If it does then that would be more supportove of the theory that there has been a 25 year warming trend in the US at least (and yes it is just a theory unitl the FACTS are presented to indicate that this trend is NOT just in the cities where the population explosision has created conditions for increased temperature readings). So far the olny FACT that you are able to argue is that in US CITIES there has been a warming trend for the last 25 years, this does not extraplotate to the whole country having a warming trend, even if every city in the nation is warming, as there is much more are that is not in a city.
Again this has no impart on the need for humanity to reduce it's dependancy on fossil fuels, as we need to figure out other ways to supply the needs (and yes they are needs) of our civilization. I have a feeling a lot of the global warming scare (Yes I believe it is a scare) is to drive reseach into alternaive energy sources (and forms of propulsion), I agree with the need for the research, but not with the scare tactics, but it may be that this is seen as the only way to get people to demand this research is done.
Just all in MHO of course
Scott
Excellent question. Can larsb, or anyone, point to a reliable source such as untainted government or ngo organization that has data covering both rural and urban temperature measuring stations? How about NOAA? Are they neutral? Can we get spreadsheets on this? What is distribution of measuring stations around the US in terms of cities, semi-rural, rural, remote mountainous?
Someone else raised question before about accuracy and calibration of measuring devices. How has this been handled through the last 100 years in US? Are some, most, all measurements done "automatically" today and what amount done by human eye?
Well it is changing this year. So now it is a cooling trend. If you are looking for longer than one year make a trend line from 1000 AD. You will see it is a cooling trend. As I have unsuccessfully tried pointing out to you. Charts and graphs can be manipulated to say what the person or persons making them want to say. If you tell me that the temperature on your porch 10 minutes ago was 65 degrees. I would accept that as FACT from you. As I believe you are honest in your dealings. However I do not believe that all the temperatures compiled in the NASA chart are absolute facts. I think they try to be as factual as they can. It requires too many different entities that may or may not be as honest as you and I to accept it without any questions.
19 out of 25 years does a warming trend make.
Get back to me when 19 of the last 25 years are cooler than the norm.
http://www.wunderground.com/US/AZ/Phoenix.html
http://madis.noaa.gov/
Take NASA out of the equation.
Take any government-sponsored entity out of the equation.
OK so are you with me at this point? OK let's move forward.
Historical Temperatures are facts. They are the reported temperature. Since 1880, there has been no conspiracy to raise or lower them artificially at any level or private industry or government regulations.
So they are what they represent - the official METEOROLOGICAL and historical record of temperatures.
Is that accepted as fact? Is the reported high temp of 78 on April 28th, 1934 in San Diego to be considered the actual official temperature for that day and time?
We'll continue from there when you answer that question.
NO, that is not FACTS. That is someone's reading of a temperature recording device for that day in time. We may accept it of itself as a fact. We may look back and say it was a hot day. If you were to give me a chart that showed the temperature at a given place in San Diego for the last 100 years and it indicated a warming trend, I would accept that for the one square foot of space where the temperature was taken. I do not accept a compilation of cities and states over the last 100 years as anything but random data. I would say we would be lucky if half of them were even close to accurate. That means the whole chart is flawed and NOT FACT. In FACT if just ONE device was not accurate or accurately reported it throws off the chart by some degree from absolute FACT. I am into precise not darts.
Saying that the official temps of a city are in dispute.
That's completely crazy. Not saying YOU are crazy, but that opinion is crazy.
Can you tell me any organization in the climate business who disputes these temperatures as facts? Everyone knows that official temps are not the real temperature in every square inch of a city. But you have to some demarcation point !!!
Without them, we HAVE ZERO HISTORICAL RECORD OF TEMPERATURES !!
To Other posters besides Gary:
Is there anyone else here who challenges official temps as being the official historical record, which is to be used for comparing different eras? Anyone?
But we can agree that the temperature of the Earth is always changing right? It's gone up and down over many millenium, with or without mankind being around.
If you agree with that, I think those are irrefuteable facts, then I question why you think there is something "wrong" with the climate change today, or next year, or 500 years from now? Why would you think that we need to do something to stop the climate where it is today?
What I'm saying to you is if the climate changes, and you're not exactly sure why, why do you think it is good for mankind even to try and stop this change? Isn't that unnatural? Do you think it natural that many people in Phoenix grow grass? Is it natural how you get your water, or is water diverted? Is it good or bad when we change nature for our comfort? Is it good to stop any temperature change, if we know the earth has always changed?
Change is sometimes bad and sometimes good, BUT it is always occurring. Instead of fighting against change, you need to accept it and adapt (job types, climate, financial,...). Individuals and species that adapt survive to evolve; those that don't change usually perish.
Do you have a link that includes the statistical analysis (error bars) to the chart you are referencing? I can only believe that the precision is very poor for this data set if it is an average over measured temperatures across the country. For example, the average temperature in Las Vegas would be greatly higher than the average temperature in Seattle. The difference in regional climates of the cities included in the averages ploted in your link should mean that there are large error bars relative to the average values. So, I am asking whether the error bars are larger or smaller than the temperature trend you are arguing for? If the trend falls within the error bars, then there is no statistical significance to that trend.
At this time I am not arguing one way or the other, but it is very difficult to take data presented as "fact" if the statistical analysis is not presented.
Thanks,
K
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html
I'm sure I've transposed a lot of numbers transcribing them into my log book. And I've probably missed recording an entire tank here and there. And I rarely fill from the same pump and I don't click off at the same time when I fill.
But over 100,000 miles, my mpg seems to figure out within a couple of decimal points of the rest of the tanks, and it's easy to spot a trend where some mechanical glitch, excessive city driving or an easy road trip makes my mpg blip up or down.
There's probably a statistical explanation for that. :shades:
But here's the thing.
NASA is not the only organization which does weather trend calculations.
When their analysis was found to be incorrect by a person challenging it, they corrected it. Then the person who challenged it said, "OK it's correct now."
Other analysis have shown the same thing.
If NASA had been wrong again, they would have taken it from both barrels by the group of "Global Warming Skeptics" who constantly evaluate any climate data analysis that hits the airwaves.
So although WE cannot review the NASA data, SMART PEOPLE OUTSIDE of NASA have done so and declared it now correct.
My point is this:
Don't focus at all on the NASA data per se. Any and all temperature analysis I can find, by ANY organization, of past historical temp data shows us in a warming trend right now. I can find none which say we have been BELOW THE MEAN for 19 of the last 25 years.
So, in the absence of charts which dispute the NASA and other organization's findings, I'm pretty sure we can be confident that analysis is correct.
And for every temperature measurement station which is on top of a steel pole, there's one in the shade. It evens out.
With thousands of climate scientists around the planet working on climate data, I think I'll go with the pros.
Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC (2007: p.244) says the following.
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
So, the IPCC does in fact make the claim that the UHI effect is exceedingly small and need not be considered "significant".
I guess that's one of your opinions and not a fact?