And for every temperature measurement station which is on top of a steel pole, there's one in the shade. It evens out.
It wouldn't even out because in the shade is the correct way to do it, not a low way. So you would always have incorrect high mixed with correct. If I told you to add a column of 1's and then take an average, if the column is 1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1 (having wrong data 2's mixed in) it doesn't average to 1!! Incorrect data mixed in throws off the result.
That's why there are lot of data points. You can't take temps from Phoenix, Las Vegas, Brownsville, and Miami in July and prove anything. You have to use hundreds if not thousands of data points. That evens out the ones that might be high and the ones that might be low.
Greater Phoenix covers a large area. Official readings in Phoenix may be as much as five or ten degrees different than other parts of the Valley of the Sun (maybe hotter, maybe cooler) at any point in time
Official temperatures for the City of Phoenix that are mentioned on local news and radio weather reports are obtained from the National Weather Service in Phoenix, AZ. The ASOS (Automated Surface Observation System), pictured below, is the system used to determine the official readings for the temperature in Phoenix. The National Weather Service operates and maintains three ASOS locations in the greater Phoenix area. They are at Deer Valley Airport, Scottsdale Airport, and Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. The observations from these sites are automatically input into the weather data stream for the National Weather Service. Other systems in the area collect weather data that is manually input into the system. These are the AWOS (Automated Weather Observation System) and LAWRS (Limited Aviation Weather Reporting System) locations in greater Phoenix: Chandler, Falcon Field in Mesa, Williams Field in Mesa, Gila Bend, Goodyear. Both AWOS and LAWRS are FAA maintained sites. The weather equipment located at Luke AFB in Litchfield Park is operated and maintained by the USAF.
We are "arguing" because some people think Global Warming is a hoax, or was perpetrated for financial gain, or is a scare tactic (scaring whom about what?) and others do not.
Everyone's arguing with Larsb because he is the only one here who wants the question to be answered without assuming a correct answer: Are humans contributing to the obvious warming trend or is it just a natural occurrence which would be happening even if humans were not here? And are fossil fuels burning a part of the warming? Is warming or cooling worse for the planet?
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.
Well... you want to win don't ya? Take a look at politicians when they debate... follow their example for victory. If you are trying to win a debate/argument/discussion, you want to ignore/minimize the "facts" that support your opponents viewpoint. Attack your opponents "facts" as theory, speculation, and smoke. Get your opponent on the defensive. You keep defending yourself with the "these are facts" defense... this weakens your position. Right now your losing this war bro. Mount a strong counter attack, and the tide, as well as the tidester... will turn in your favor. :shades:
I went through New Orleans, LA (car) literally one/half to a day before Hurricane Katrina. ALL and I mean ALL the so called weather indicators did NOT predict the Hurricane, WHERE and WHEN it really touched land (actually Biloxi, MS) Most figured it would be a HEAVY RAIN/rumors of Hurricanes etc. As I was approaching New Orleans, LA from the east (coming from near Daytona Beach, FL), I still felt I had some "drive" left in me (or was it a little birdy crapping on my head) and decided to call on the cell phone ahead and cancel the reservation in a DOWNTOWN New Orleans hotel. They were kind enough to rebook a business hotel in Houston, TX @ a sister property for me and I thanked them. When I turn on the cable tv in rainy Houston, it was like watching a nightmare I SHOULD have been stuck in.
Hurricanes have been around for 100's of years. If we can not predict the conditions and prevent Hurricanes , what about stopping the emissions of C02 REALLY going to do? Hate to tell you this but C02 IS a naturally occurring gas in nature.
I'm the one who is using the evidence to prove a trend, as those 11 folks used the evidence to see that he was guilty.
Y'all are the ones using....something - opinions maybe?.....to say there is not a warming trend. I've got all the climate data from the past to use as proof of the trend we are in.
Still waiting for someone to show me some data that conflicts.
O.k, for the sake of argument (less), let's say we are in a warming trend. What now? It's either a naturally occurring phenonenom, or mankind is responsible. Neither can be proven with absolute certainty.
I'm the one who is using the evidence to prove a trend, as those 11 folks used the evidence to see that he was guilty.
Problem is there is always a Darden to screw up the case. If you are trying to prove a trend, that would not include the future. Does your trend end today?. The temperature for the last 6 months has dropped below what you are considering Normal. That would make the trend cooler. And why do you want to use 1880 as a starting point? Why not 1200 AD? I will tell you why. Because it is a FACT that we are much cooler now than in 1200 AD. That would blow your whole case. It would be like Darden wanting OJ to put on the glove.
This whole debate proves once again. People can take statistics and make them say what they want them to say. Then they convince themselves it is factual.
So therefor the only facts you have (at the moment at least from what you are saying) is that in US cities (temperatures avereaged together) there has been indications of a warming trend over the last 25 years (and also that 39 years since 1880 were below the mean calculated over this time period). However we do not have the complete data set to go by, since these numbers are an average are all cities reporting higher temperatures than the past(not likely since they are averages) or are many below the mean and many above it (more likely due to the small increase year by year), No this doesn't say that the trend is incorrect; however when statistics are used (and yes an average of all the cities reporting is a statistical calculation) there does have to be more information provided than just the mean to be relavant (I.E. all the information must be provided including the variations (the window of reliablility so to speak). Again this doesn't mean that the information is incorrect, just that it cannot be stated as FACT unless all the relavant info is provided. But to be fair it would seem that the info you have provided seems to indicate a warming trend over the past 25 years compared to the mean since 1880. Who decided to report the data this way though? Why did they pick 1880 as the year to start to calculate the mean? is it because even through human history that the mean is higher than the mean calcualted from this date? (and no I don't know the answer). So in summary I will agree that yes with the incomplete data provided that there does seem to be a warming trend in US cities in the last 25 years when compared to the mean since 1880. I would like to know the answers to my questions though, and I would like to know if worldwide reporting is indicating this same trend. I would also like to know how the average (or is this the mean temp can be different things) for the us cities was calculated. There is just too much that is unknown about this data to take it a FACT (remember statistics can be manipulated to prove almost anything). Scott
If there is warming, and I think with the amount of warming quoted (was it 0.4C?) being so small, my position is:
1) 95+% of the warming is natural. 5% or less is manmade.
2) And the warming is desireable. I'd say the average temperature on the Earth should be closer to 70F. I think the average of the entire Earth throughout the year is 57F. And if you look at the variety of species and the density of living organisms in the various ecosystems, you will see that the tropics are by far the most conducive to life.
At face value, the average data does appear to show a trend of increasing temperatures. However, without the statistical analysis, we can't determine whether this trend is really relevant.
The problem is using only one temperature point for a city and claiming that is the temperature of the city. N=1 is not scientifically relevant. There can be many microclimates within a city based on wind direction, location, and other factors. One must have at least two measurments to calculate the standard deviation for error propagation analysis. However, the more meaurements that are performed, the lower the standard deviation is likely to be. The lower the standard deviation, the more confidence we can be of the average value. Once we have the average temperature of a city and its standard deviation, we can then average it with temperatures around the world and carry out the error propagation. This is the only way we could ever get a scientifically relevant result. We must then plot the data with error bars to determine whether the trend is significant. Only then, can we possibly even consider taking the data as "fact." From my understanding, based on links you provided, the data is not collected in this method and in no way can be considered "Fact."
"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 although WE cannot review the NASA data, SMART PEOPLE OUTSIDE of NASA have done so and declared it now correct."
I don't care if it is NASA, NSF, DOE, Harvard, Berkeley, or Standford that reports the data. Unless they present the statistics to back up their measurements or conclusions, the data is worthless. I have learned that the only true data that can be regularly trusted from Government funded grants is if they were funded by NIST. Those guys and gals know statistics and require full statistics in their progress reports.
I am not arguing for or against global warming. I am just saying the data IS insufficient to make a conclusion. Especially considering the repercussions of acting prematurely:
see this link, seems like a bad idea to offset global warming, yet companies are investigating this...
A reasonable and intelligent comment on global warming and whether cars contribute, k2rm. How can any thinking person conclude that short term (with emphasis on the word short} temperature fluctuations will continue for months, years or longer. Suggesting we should begin spending large sums to attempt to ameliorate conditions which may not even exist is not smart. Speaking as one who would probably be paying for this nonsense (read: taxpaying motorist) I say : Stop the insanity! Of course we should become more efficient, explore alternate energy, find more oil while we work on a replacement and get serious about it. Wasting capital on feel good stuff like carbon offsets etc. just makes it more difficult to do things that will really move us into the future.
You want to be correct about what, exactly? You seem to be insisting that you are "correct" about a trivial point concerning cherry picked temperature data but you also seem to take that as proof of something. Science is about more than just "data." It's about understanding that data. My advice is to work harder to gain that understanding and listen to what others offer rather than casually dismissing anyone who attempts to broaden the view or ignoring facts that give context and meaning to the matter. Just a thought.
Larbst has a right to agree with about 50% of climatologists that say we are in a warming trend and the rest of you have a right to agree with the other 50% that say we are not. I don't think its fair to call that cherry picking data, there are 'conclusive' studies on both sides.
Whether its 100 years or 1000 years, the climate will change. And it probably never stays 100% the same, so I'm actually agreeing with Larbst that it is either going up or down at any given point, the real calculation is how steep is the curve?And we have to look at a wider window of time. We could be in a minor warming up-turn that is just a temporary stall in a massive slope headed for ice-age.
The important thing, is that when that happens, it is not manmade. I agree its probably 90% nature. And since we can't really do anything to stop it, if the Earth is going to warm/cool, what can we do to prepare for it?
Different areas of the world would become agricultural breadbaskets. Other areas might turn to desert and others might turn into rainforest. Others might be swamped. Where should we plan resources for the future?
I'm not a professional in the psychology field, but I've read enough about management philosophy to know that any organization or group needs to have goals, and a common theme to base their actions around. This group-goal phenomenon is prevalent whether you have a business, a religion, or a political party. The leaders of these organizations always need a goal; for if they had no goal the organization would fall apart. And the more publicity and sensational the goal is the more likely it is the organization will rally people to the cause; and then the leaders of the organization get more $ and power.
The Republicans and Democrats certainly do that; how many campaigns have we heard where "Change is really needed"; and the issues are larger than before.
And religions certainly do this requiring people to give to them, and stressing that only blind-faith and adherence to their rules will give you salvation.
And working my way back to topic, I can see that leaders of the Environmentalist groups need goals to maintain their importance. They have done some good things, and have cut down on air-pollution, leaded-gas, and dumping. So when those issues are solved, what do you get people excited about? Well the "Save the Whales" was tried but this doesn't get too many people excited, so they had to invent something bigger. So whether there is a short, sporadic warming trend, or the data is cherry-picked, they came up with the "global catastrophe" of man-made GW!
With this they could promote the great danger to everyone on the Earth (ignoring the fact that the Earth has prospered many times historically when it was warmer). And the great thing about GW was that it just didn't focus on whales, or chemical dumps, or a few nuclear plants, but it attacked every facet of modern life and development as almost any activity emits CO2. So in one fell swoop, environmentalists push this CO2 which can be used to push their agendas in deforestation, industrial activity, auto mpg, house sizes ...
Now I have no proof of that; but this GW issue certainly looks to me to be the Holy Grail to an environmentalist group. It sure looks, sounds, and walks like a duck to me. I still see snow in March, I still go to the same beach I did 40 years ago, so I don't really see any significant change; certainly Armageddon is not around the corner from GW.
Fully agree with all of that; the climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change...............let's get away from the blame culture and work, honestly, to determine where it's going so that we can use the change. Mere man is not going to really change anything; other than the well-being/finances of the various vested interests.
This man was right, IMO :
H.L.Mencken wrote: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
In addition to Climate Change I would add Global Terrorism to the hobgoblins.
BTW, once again let me remind you that Global Warming is a deadf term - too narrow. The new religion is Climate Change and it's undeniable..........but the reasons and causes are not !
Just £0.02 from a Grumpy Old Man who is heartily sick of interest-groups trying to manipulate the populace for their own benefit. Thus it ever was, I guess.
I agree with all of the above to a certain degree. Climate Change is inevitable, and I don't attribute the greatest of it to CO2, so in part you're right that the environmentalists have attributed it to the wrong cause. I believe it to be one of Earth (and our solar system's) natural cycles.
But one must be cautious of this theory of 'prosperity'. If by prosperity you mean that old populations die out and new ones flourish, then yes that has happened historically. Its the dying part I'd like to avoid. If the whole midwest turns into a dustbowl for an extended period, or undergoing extra-long winters (whichever the case 50 years from now) how will America survive? What if the Sahara desert becomes the most arable farmland in the world?
So its really diversifying our interests the I support. I wouldn't support legislation to ban campfires because they add CO2 to the atmosphere. Thats far too green for me. But I wouldn't mind some tax dollars going into research for some 'what-if' scenarios. Since we can't predict climate change 100% up or down, can we research growing warmer/colder-weather crops? Or ones that survive in drier or more humid conditions? Or where will people go if Florida is inundated by a slow Ocean rising? More violent tsunamis', tornadoes, hurricanes?
I agree with all the Discovery Channel hypotheticals, but I disagree with one conclusion: that we can stop it. If its gonna happen, its gonna happen. I'd rather spend money on preparation than prevention.
So should I invest in land for my grandchildren to live in Canada or Mexico? J/K.
..." Its the dying part I'd like to avoid. If the whole midwest turns into a dustbowl for an extended period, or undergoing extra-long winters (whichever the case 50 years from now) how will America survive?"...
If that is the real concern then get over it, unfortunately you will. It has already happened (Oklahoma dust bowl, which resulted in the CA grapes of wrath- ala Steinbeck et all) and America has survived. Katrina? Same thing. Let's put it this way. I would not go whole hog buying real estate in D/T New Orleans thinking that it will NEVER flood again.
Not me personally, I have no misconceptions of my own mortality. I was talking about populations and societies. I'd like to think the US will still be a superpower in another 200+ years. Sure we've endured being a major world power for better than 100 years, but that's not saying much in the course of world events. Just things to consider.
It seems to me that a big problem with the current global warming or climate change debate is the sensationalism caused by the media. Here are two brilliant award winning essays that discuss scientific literacy. It is important that people on both sides of this debate read the arguments and realize that debate is necessary for advancement of science. And in addition, people need to critically analyze the data. Believing something just because some "smart" person says you should is a disservice to the debate.
The biggest injustice of this entire debate is Al Gore and other's proclaiming "the debate is over." Any scientist who agrees with this proclamation should be ashamed. Luckily, Gore is not a scientist and therefore can have a clear conscience.
I am going to say this before I read either article. Science is the PROCESS of systematic and complete documentation of almost UTTER FAILURE in the process of linking the hypothesis with the data. That coefficient of correlation is a very very high bar indeed. All you need do is look at the failure rate of FDA approvals- (drugs). Indeed if aspirin were an "promising new/old drug" going through the FDA process it would probably have a very EXPENSIVE time passing muster to FAILURE.
So yes when you get a luminary saying the debate is over, the issue is now social, political, economic, etc, CONTROL.
As I have said in past posts this global warming thing is code for economic processes of doing business. The debate would like to IGNORE science since the conclusions are foregone.
I don't think its fair to call that cherry picking data, there are 'conclusive' studies on both sides.
It is cherry picking when you go out of your way to ignore temperature data on a longer time scale that refutes any notion of mankind's effect on global climate and such data demonstrates an inverse causal relationship between atmospheric levels of CO2 and global temperature.
So yes I do think the environmental movement was running low on substantial issues to get people excited about. And if you have no significant issues, then people aren't going to be joining as members and paying memberships or making contributions. So if you're an environmentalist leader, and you still want cleaner water and air then the majority or want to stop most development, what do you do if you don't have a large issue to scare people?
I'm just afraid this is the modus operandi of many of our leaders. Look at the president and the Pentagon since WWII. Have we ever had a period where we haven't been told we need to be very diligent of some enemy? We had to support Vietnam or all of SE Asia would be communist; well that was inaccurate! And when the Soviet Union collapsed we prepared for war with others like China and Iran. And now we have new enemies to be afraid of? And on and on and on...
Let me turn on the news tonight and see what disease, foreign country, mass-murderer, insidious terrorist-plot, I'm supposed to buy into. Maybe I need a new flu shot; but that won't protect me from the chicken-flu, but I'll make some drug company wealthy. Maybe I'll open my mail and find out my local government is demanding some more tax $'s? and maybe I'll find my gas tax goes up next week because I need to subsidize ethanol manufacturers because everyone's afraid of an embargo from Venezuela.
I'm just saying think for yourself, and stop following this never-ending group of leaders who want to fill you with fear, and control you in some way.
So by inference, I would offer not heeding misconceptions about populations and societies. How is it a misconception that one nation or society may rise and another may fall due to harsh conditions? I'm not predicting anything, it was a bit 'what if?'
Look at how badly we handle disasters in our own country and how very minor stimuli cause major changes in our economy. It is actually very fragile. Apply the Indonesian tsunami-like disaster scenario to this country and you'd have chaos. I know Katrina was very sad, but we didn't exactly lose 130,000 people in that wave. If you think the US is impermeable to prolonged drought, floods, etc, THAT is a misconception. And it would send us into a Great Depression. We are fortunate we don't live in one of the most volatile landscapes in the world and it is part of the reason we are able to remain successful.
It is cherry picking when you go out of your way to ignore temperature data on a longer time scale that refutes any notion of mankind's effect on global climate and such data demonstrates an inverse causal relationship between atmospheric levels of CO2 and global temperature.
I suppose I would have to agree with that scenario. I don't happen to believe that CO2 is the only contributing cause. Came in late to that conversation.
And I'm not going to put in my input on the religion argument, but I don't think that is appropriate for this forum. That can only get ugly. Join a religion forum and duke it out there.
We're going to take a short time out in here and let the pixels cool down a bit. I may not know much about global warming but I know when a discussion gets a bit too heated for enjoyable conversation. :P
Hope you enjoyed the cooler environment for a while.
Please try to stick to the topic and resist the urge to try to beat some sense into your fellow posters with a 2x4. Gentle persuasion rules, but please, no wagering.
(I)t makes sense for us to put our business in a position where we can participate proactively in reducing the amount of (carbon dioxide) emissions," -- Rick Wagoner
Well that is a smart public position for Wagoner to take, who is being smarter than Lutz who gave his personal opinion. The public position to agree with GW advocates, and to say GM is doing all it can to reduce CO2 emissions, is a Win-No Lose position.
What Wagoner thinks personally we don't know, what he says on behalf of Gm is what's best business for GM. I'm sure Lutz will be reminded of that!
There is money to be made on the GW bandwagon. Wagoner wants GM's share. Same as the Baptist Church jumping in on the Green revolution.
Baptist group urges action on global warming
Environmental and climate changes "have not always been treated with pressing concern as major issues. Indeed some of us have required considerable convincing ...," said a statement issued by 46 church members including the current and two former presidents of the 16-million-member denomination.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
I'm not a professional in the psychology field, but I've read enough about management philosophy to know that any organization or group needs to have goals, and a common theme to base their actions around. This group-goal phenomenon is prevalent whether you have a business, a non-profit, or a political party. The leaders of these organizations always need a goal; for if they had no goal the organization would fall apart. And the more publicity and sensational the goal is the more likely it is the organization will rally people to the cause; and then the leaders of the organization get more $ and power.
The Republicans and Democrats certainly do that; how many campaigns have we heard where "Change is really needed"; and the issues are larger than before.
And working my way back to topic, I can see that leaders of the Environmentalist groups need goals to maintain their importance. They have done some good things, and have cut down on air-pollution, leaded-gas, and dumping. So when those issues are solved, what do you get people excited about? Well the "Save the Whales" was tried but this doesn't get too many people excited, so they had to invent something bigger. So whether there is a short, sporadic warming trend, or the data is cherry-picked, they came up with the "global catastrophe" of man-made GW!
With this they could promote the great danger to everyone on the Earth (ignoring the fact that the Earth has prospered many times historically when it was warmer). And the great thing about GW was that it just didn't focus on whales, or chemical dumps, or a few nuclear plants, but it attacked every facet of modern life and development as almost any activity emits CO2. So in one fell swoop, environmentalists push this CO2 which can be used to push their agendas in deforestation, industrial activity, auto mpg, house sizes ...
Now I have no proof of that; but this GW issue certainly looks to me to be the Holy Grail to an environmentalist group. It sure looks, sounds, and walks like a duck to me. I still see snow in March, I still go to the same beach I did 40 years ago, so I don't really see any significant change; certainly Armageddon is not around the corner from GW.
..."Armageddon is not around the corner from GW. "...
I was reminded that 2000 plus years ago, even the Apostles got the "end of the world" WRONG. Not to mention the fact the places where they walked are mostly still deserts.
The associated press reported this today. "The global temperture for meterological winter-December, January and Febuary - averaged 54.38 degrees F., 0.58 degrees warmer than normal for the last century." Looks like Al Gore was right.
and here is how much warmer it was - "For the USA, this winter's average temperature was 33.2 degrees, 0.2 degrees above the 20th century average."
I don't think we'd notice that, or Al Gore's assistant could read that difference on a thermometer. It's basically unchanged, especially if you consider that the temperatures used are adjusted for urban heat island effects and the error in that estimated correction could be larger than the increase itself!
Comments
It wouldn't even out because in the shade is the correct way to do it, not a low way. So you would always have incorrect high mixed with correct. If I told you to add a column of 1's and then take an average, if the column is 1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1 (having wrong data 2's mixed in) it doesn't average to 1!! Incorrect data mixed in throws off the result.
I said that anything I precede with the word FACT in the statement will be a fact.
That quote of mine about NASA was not preceded with a "FACT disclaimer."
How Phoenix Gets It's Official Temps
Greater Phoenix covers a large area. Official readings in Phoenix may be as much as five or ten degrees different than other parts of the Valley of the Sun (maybe hotter, maybe cooler) at any point in time
Official temperatures for the City of Phoenix that are mentioned on local news and radio weather reports are obtained from the National Weather Service in Phoenix, AZ. The ASOS (Automated Surface Observation System), pictured below, is the system used to determine the official readings for the temperature in Phoenix. The National Weather Service operates and maintains three ASOS locations in the greater Phoenix area. They are at Deer Valley Airport, Scottsdale Airport, and Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. The observations from these sites are automatically input into the weather data stream for the National Weather Service. Other systems in the area collect weather data that is manually input into the system. These are the AWOS (Automated Weather Observation System) and LAWRS (Limited Aviation Weather Reporting System) locations in greater Phoenix: Chandler, Falcon Field in Mesa, Williams Field in Mesa, Gila Bend, Goodyear. Both AWOS and LAWRS are FAA maintained sites. The weather equipment located at Luke AFB in Litchfield Park is operated and maintained by the USAF.
This site has a wealth of historical temp data.
To everyone except Gary, who thinks it's fiction, that site might be a good source if you want to find something to discuss here.
Here is the number of years in the past 100 which have been below the mean since 1880:
39 of them.
What I have said is that it shows the current trend we are in, at this moment in time.
And there is no "normal" but there is a "mean average" since 1880, which is helpful for comparison purposes only.
(To people who believe historical weather data is a fact, at least.)
FACT - I don't understand why you guys are arguing.
FACT - I don't understand why everyone seems to be arguing with Larsb.
OPINION - I think Global Warming is something silly that was invented as a scare tactic.
Discuss.
-moo
We are "arguing" because some people think Global Warming is a hoax, or was perpetrated for financial gain, or is a scare tactic (scaring whom about what?) and others do not.
Everyone's arguing with Larsb because he is the only one here who wants the question to be answered without assuming a correct answer: Are humans contributing to the obvious warming trend or is it just a natural occurrence which would be happening even if humans were not here? And are fossil fuels burning a part of the warming? Is warming or cooling worse for the planet?
Well... you want to win don't ya? Take a look at politicians when they debate... follow their example for victory. If you are trying to win a debate/argument/discussion, you want to ignore/minimize the "facts" that support your opponents viewpoint. Attack your opponents "facts" as theory, speculation, and smoke. Get your opponent on the defensive. You keep defending yourself with the "these are facts" defense... this weakens your position. Right now your losing this war bro. Mount a strong counter attack, and the tide, as well as the tidester... will turn in your favor. :shades:
I don't want to "win" like a politician. I want to be correct and have the facts stand up.
Still waiting for someone to show me a trend chart (with more than one year on it) that shows we are not in a warming trend.
Still waiting for someone to agree that historical temperature data is useful for plotting past trends.
Here is a true story.
I went through New Orleans, LA (car) literally one/half to a day before Hurricane Katrina. ALL and I mean ALL the so called weather indicators did NOT predict the Hurricane, WHERE and WHEN it really touched land (actually Biloxi, MS) Most figured it would be a HEAVY RAIN/rumors of Hurricanes etc. As I was approaching New Orleans, LA from the east (coming from near Daytona Beach, FL), I still felt I had some "drive" left in me (or was it a little birdy crapping on my head) and decided to call on the cell phone ahead and cancel the reservation in a DOWNTOWN New Orleans hotel. They were kind enough to rebook a business hotel in Houston, TX @ a sister property for me and I thanked them. When I turn on the cable tv in rainy Houston, it was like watching a nightmare I SHOULD have been stuck in.
Hurricanes have been around for 100's of years. If we can not predict the conditions and prevent Hurricanes , what about stopping the emissions of C02 REALLY going to do? Hate to tell you this but C02 IS a naturally occurring gas in nature.
I think that's very similar to what that 1 juror said on the OJ Simpson trial; the 1 who couldn't find OJ guilty. LOL
LOL."If a warming trend does not fit... you must acquit"
Did I say that?
I said that PAST HISTORICAL Temperatures are useful in creating trendlines for past years.
I never said we could predict weather, or predict the future with simulations.
I said right now we are in a warming trend.
Still waiting for someone to dispute that with historical data.
I'm the one who is using the evidence to prove a trend, as those 11 folks used the evidence to see that he was guilty.
Y'all are the ones using....something - opinions maybe?.....to say there is not a warming trend. I've got all the climate data from the past to use as proof of the trend we are in.
Still waiting for someone to show me some data that conflicts.
O.k, for the sake of argument (less), let's say we are in a warming trend. What now? It's either a naturally occurring phenonenom, or mankind is responsible.
Neither can be proven with absolute certainty.
Problem is there is always a Darden to screw up the case. If you are trying to prove a trend, that would not include the future. Does your trend end today?. The temperature for the last 6 months has dropped below what you are considering Normal. That would make the trend cooler. And why do you want to use 1880 as a starting point? Why not 1200 AD? I will tell you why. Because it is a FACT that we are much cooler now than in 1200 AD. That would blow your whole case. It would be like Darden wanting OJ to put on the glove.
This whole debate proves once again. People can take statistics and make them say what they want them to say. Then they convince themselves it is factual.
So in summary I will agree that yes with the incomplete data provided that there does seem to be a warming trend in US cities in the last 25 years when compared to the mean since 1880.
I would like to know the answers to my questions though, and I would like to know if worldwide reporting is indicating this same trend. I would also like to know how the average (or is this the mean temp can be different things) for the us cities was calculated. There is just too much that is unknown about this data to take it a FACT (remember statistics can be manipulated to prove almost anything).
Scott
1) 95+% of the warming is natural. 5% or less is manmade.
2) And the warming is desireable. I'd say the average temperature on the Earth should be closer to 70F. I think the average of the entire Earth throughout the year is 57F. And if you look at the variety of species and the density of living organisms in the various ecosystems, you will see that the tropics are by far the most conducive to life.
At face value, the average data does appear to show a trend of increasing temperatures. However, without the statistical analysis, we can't determine whether this trend is really relevant.
The problem is using only one temperature point for a city and claiming that is the temperature of the city. N=1 is not scientifically relevant. There can be many microclimates within a city based on wind direction, location, and other factors. One must have at least two measurments to calculate the standard deviation for error propagation analysis. However, the more meaurements that are performed, the lower the standard deviation is likely to be. The lower the standard deviation, the more confidence we can be of the average value. Once we have the average temperature of a city and its standard deviation, we can then average it with temperatures around the world and carry out the error propagation. This is the only way we could ever get a scientifically relevant result. We must then plot the data with error bars to determine whether the trend is significant. Only then, can we possibly even consider taking the data as "fact." From my understanding, based on links you provided, the data is not collected in this method and in no way can be considered "Fact."
"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 although WE cannot review the NASA data, SMART PEOPLE OUTSIDE of NASA have done so and declared it now correct."
I don't care if it is NASA, NSF, DOE, Harvard, Berkeley, or Standford that reports the data. Unless they present the statistics to back up their measurements or conclusions, the data is worthless. I have learned that the only true data that can be regularly trusted from Government funded grants is if they were funded by NIST. Those guys and gals know statistics and require full statistics in their progress reports.
I am not arguing for or against global warming. I am just saying the data IS insufficient to make a conclusion. Especially considering the repercussions of acting prematurely:
see this link, seems like a bad idea to offset global warming, yet companies are investigating this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
Of course we should become more efficient, explore alternate energy, find more oil while we work on a replacement and get serious about it. Wasting capital on feel good stuff like carbon offsets etc. just makes it more difficult to do things that will really move us into the future.
You want to be correct about what, exactly? You seem to be insisting that you are "correct" about a trivial point concerning cherry picked temperature data but you also seem to take that as proof of something. Science is about more than just "data." It's about understanding that data. My advice is to work harder to gain that understanding and listen to what others offer rather than casually dismissing anyone who attempts to broaden the view or ignoring facts that give context and meaning to the matter. Just a thought.
Larbst has a right to agree with about 50% of climatologists that say we are in a warming trend and the rest of you have a right to agree with the other 50% that say we are not. I don't think its fair to call that cherry picking data, there are 'conclusive' studies on both sides.
Whether its 100 years or 1000 years, the climate will change. And it probably never stays 100% the same, so I'm actually agreeing with Larbst that it is either going up or down at any given point, the real calculation is how steep is the curve?And we have to look at a wider window of time. We could be in a minor warming up-turn that is just a temporary stall in a massive slope headed for ice-age.
The important thing, is that when that happens, it is not manmade. I agree its probably 90% nature. And since we can't really do anything to stop it, if the Earth is going to warm/cool, what can we do to prepare for it?
Different areas of the world would become agricultural breadbaskets. Other areas might turn to desert and others might turn into rainforest. Others might be swamped. Where should we plan resources for the future?
The Republicans and Democrats certainly do that; how many campaigns have we heard where "Change is really needed"; and the issues are larger than before.
And religions certainly do this requiring people to give to them, and stressing that only blind-faith and adherence to their rules will give you salvation.
And working my way back to topic, I can see that leaders of the Environmentalist groups need goals to maintain their importance. They have done some good things, and have cut down on air-pollution, leaded-gas, and dumping. So when those issues are solved, what do you get people excited about? Well the "Save the Whales" was tried but this doesn't get too many people excited, so they had to invent something bigger. So whether there is a short, sporadic warming trend, or the data is cherry-picked, they came up with the "global catastrophe" of man-made GW!
With this they could promote the great danger to everyone on the Earth (ignoring the fact that the Earth has prospered many times historically when it was warmer). And the great thing about GW was that it just didn't focus on whales, or chemical dumps, or a few nuclear plants, but it attacked every facet of modern life and development as almost any activity emits CO2. So in one fell swoop, environmentalists push this CO2 which can be used to push their agendas in deforestation, industrial activity, auto mpg, house sizes ...
Now I have no proof of that; but this GW issue certainly looks to me to be the Holy Grail to an environmentalist group. It sure looks, sounds, and walks like a duck to me. I still see snow in March, I still go to the same beach I did 40 years ago, so I don't really see any significant change; certainly Armageddon is not around the corner from GW.
This man was right, IMO :
H.L.Mencken wrote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
In addition to Climate Change I would add Global Terrorism to the hobgoblins.
BTW, once again let me remind you that Global Warming is a deadf term - too narrow. The new religion is Climate Change and it's undeniable..........but the reasons and causes are not !
Just £0.02 from a Grumpy Old Man who is heartily sick of interest-groups trying to manipulate the populace for their own benefit. Thus it ever was, I guess.
But one must be cautious of this theory of 'prosperity'. If by prosperity you mean that old populations die out and new ones flourish, then yes that has happened historically. Its the dying part I'd like to avoid. If the whole midwest turns into a dustbowl for an extended period, or undergoing extra-long winters (whichever the case 50 years from now) how will America survive? What if the Sahara desert becomes the most arable farmland in the world?
So its really diversifying our interests the I support. I wouldn't support legislation to ban campfires because they add CO2 to the atmosphere. Thats far too green for me. But I wouldn't mind some tax dollars going into research for some 'what-if' scenarios. Since we can't predict climate change 100% up or down, can we research growing warmer/colder-weather crops? Or ones that survive in drier or more humid conditions? Or where will people go if Florida is inundated by a slow Ocean rising? More violent tsunamis', tornadoes, hurricanes?
I agree with all the Discovery Channel hypotheticals, but I disagree with one conclusion: that we can stop it. If its gonna happen, its gonna happen. I'd rather spend money on preparation than prevention.
So should I invest in land for my grandchildren to live in Canada or Mexico?
If that is the real concern then get over it, unfortunately you will. It has already happened (Oklahoma dust bowl, which resulted in the CA grapes of wrath- ala Steinbeck et all) and America has survived. Katrina? Same thing. Let's put it this way. I would not go whole hog buying real estate in D/T New Orleans thinking that it will NEVER flood again.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/scientific_literacy_and_the_ha.php
and
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/camelot_is_only_a_model_scient.php?page- =1
The biggest injustice of this entire debate is Al Gore and other's proclaiming "the debate is over." Any scientist who agrees with this proclamation should be ashamed. Luckily, Gore is not a scientist and therefore can have a clear conscience.
So yes when you get a luminary saying the debate is over, the issue is now social, political, economic, etc, CONTROL.
As I have said in past posts this global warming thing is code for economic processes of doing business. The debate would like to IGNORE science since the conclusions are foregone.
So by inference, I would offer not heeding misconceptions about populations and societies.
It is cherry picking when you go out of your way to ignore temperature data on a longer time scale that refutes any notion of mankind's effect on global climate and such data demonstrates an inverse causal relationship between atmospheric levels of CO2 and global temperature.
So if you're an environmentalist leader, and you still want cleaner water and air then the majority or want to stop most development, what do you do if you don't have a large issue to scare people?
I'm just afraid this is the modus operandi of many of our leaders. Look at the president and the Pentagon since WWII. Have we ever had a period where we haven't been told we need to be very diligent of some enemy? We had to support Vietnam or all of SE Asia would be communist; well that was inaccurate! And when the Soviet Union collapsed we prepared for war with others like China and Iran. And now we have new enemies to be afraid of? And on and on and on...
Let me turn on the news tonight and see what disease, foreign country, mass-murderer, insidious terrorist-plot, I'm supposed to buy into. Maybe I need a new flu shot; but that won't protect me from the chicken-flu, but I'll make some drug company wealthy. Maybe I'll open my mail and find out my local government is demanding some more tax $'s? and maybe I'll find my gas tax goes up next week because I need to subsidize ethanol manufacturers because everyone's afraid of an embargo from Venezuela.
I'm just saying think for yourself, and stop following this never-ending group of leaders who want to fill you with fear, and control you in some way.
How is it a misconception that one nation or society may rise and another may fall due to harsh conditions? I'm not predicting anything, it was a bit 'what if?'
Look at how badly we handle disasters in our own country and how very minor stimuli cause major changes in our economy. It is actually very fragile. Apply the Indonesian tsunami-like disaster scenario to this country and you'd have chaos. I know Katrina was very sad, but we didn't exactly lose 130,000 people in that wave. If you think the US is impermeable to prolonged drought, floods, etc, THAT is a misconception. And it would send us into a Great Depression. We are fortunate we don't live in one of the most volatile landscapes in the world and it is part of the reason we are able to remain successful.
It is cherry picking when you go out of your way to ignore temperature data on a longer time scale that refutes any notion of mankind's effect on global climate and such data demonstrates an inverse causal relationship between atmospheric levels of CO2 and global temperature.
I suppose I would have to agree with that scenario. I don't happen to believe that CO2 is the only contributing cause. Came in late to that conversation.
And I'm not going to put in my input on the religion argument, but I don't think that is appropriate for this forum. That can only get ugly. Join a religion forum and duke it out there.
Please try to stick to the topic and resist the urge to try to beat some sense into your fellow posters with a 2x4. Gentle persuasion rules, but please, no wagering.
(I)t makes sense for us to put our business in a position where we can participate proactively in reducing the amount of (carbon dioxide) emissions," -- Rick Wagoner
Global warming a 'crock'? Not so, says GM chief (CNET)
What Wagoner thinks personally we don't know, what he says on behalf of Gm is what's best business for GM. I'm sure Lutz will be reminded of that!
Baptist group urges action on global warming
Environmental and climate changes "have not always been treated with pressing concern as major issues. Indeed some of us have required considerable convincing ...," said a statement issued by 46 church members including the current and two former presidents of the 16-million-member denomination.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1045444220080311
Sounds like you're "cherry picking" to me.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I'm not a professional in the psychology field, but I've read enough about management philosophy to know that any organization or group needs to have goals, and a common theme to base their actions around. This group-goal phenomenon is prevalent whether you have a business, a non-profit, or a political party. The leaders of these organizations always need a goal; for if they had no goal the organization would fall apart. And the more publicity and sensational the goal is the more likely it is the organization will rally people to the cause; and then the leaders of the organization get more $ and power.
The Republicans and Democrats certainly do that; how many campaigns have we heard where "Change is really needed"; and the issues are larger than before.
And working my way back to topic, I can see that leaders of the Environmentalist groups need goals to maintain their importance. They have done some good things, and have cut down on air-pollution, leaded-gas, and dumping. So when those issues are solved, what do you get people excited about? Well the "Save the Whales" was tried but this doesn't get too many people excited, so they had to invent something bigger. So whether there is a short, sporadic warming trend, or the data is cherry-picked, they came up with the "global catastrophe" of man-made GW!
With this they could promote the great danger to everyone on the Earth (ignoring the fact that the Earth has prospered many times historically when it was warmer). And the great thing about GW was that it just didn't focus on whales, or chemical dumps, or a few nuclear plants, but it attacked every facet of modern life and development as almost any activity emits CO2. So in one fell swoop, environmentalists push this CO2 which can be used to push their agendas in deforestation, industrial activity, auto mpg, house sizes ...
Now I have no proof of that; but this GW issue certainly looks to me to be the Holy Grail to an environmentalist group. It sure looks, sounds, and walks like a duck to me. I still see snow in March, I still go to the same beach I did 40 years ago, so I don't really see any significant change; certainly Armageddon is not around the corner from GW.
I was reminded that 2000 plus years ago, even the Apostles got the "end of the world" WRONG. Not to mention the fact the places where they walked are mostly still deserts.
Looks like Al Gore was right.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-03-13-global-winter_N.htm
and here is how much warmer it was - "For the USA, this winter's average temperature was 33.2 degrees, 0.2 degrees above the 20th century average."
I don't think we'd notice that, or Al Gore's assistant could read that difference on a thermometer. It's basically unchanged, especially if you consider that the temperatures used are adjusted for urban heat island effects and the error in that estimated correction could be larger than the increase itself!