By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I don't think scientists are challenging actual temperature data for any given location as long as the measuring equipment was in good working condition and in a neutral area.
The challenge is to the computer generated "climate change models". There is no consensus among scientists world wide. There are 100s of theories and data sets, put into giant UN reports that are filtered by politicians. This has caused a big stir among many of the scientists that contributed to those reports. At first they would not even allow anyone to speak at these conferences that was not part of the cult. With so many world renowned scientists questioning the reports and studies they eventually had to let them be heard.
So far you have based your opinion on one set of readings that have been published by a lot of different media venues. You have completely ignored any science that does not go along with what you want to believe.
Probably the study on ocean temperatures has set back the GW cult more than any other scientific study. It was only mentioned on NPR, none of the big political news media.
March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
By Terrence Joyce, Senior Scientist, Physical Oceanography and
Lloyd Keigwin, Senior Scientist, Geology & Geophysics
When most of us think about Ice Ages, we imagine a slow transition into a colder climate on long time scales. Indeed, studies of the past million years indicate a repeatable cycle of Earth’s climate going from warm periods (“interglacial”, as we are experiencing now) to glacial conditions.
The period of these shifts are related to changes in the tilt of Earth’s rotational axis (41,000 years), changes in the orientation of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, called the “precession of the equinoxes” (23,000 years), and to changes in the shape (more round or less round) of the elliptical orbit (100,000 years). The theory that orbital shifts caused the waxing and waning of ice ages was first pointed out by James Croll in the 19th Century and developed more fully by Milutin Milankovitch in 1938.
Undefined Ice age conditions generally occur when all of the above conspire to create a minimum of summer sunlight on the arctic regions of the earth, although the Ice Age cycle is global in nature and occurs in phase in both hemispheres. It profoundly affects distribution of ice over lands and ocean, atmospheric temperatures and circulation, and ocean temperatures and circulation at the surface and at great depth.
Since the end of the present interglacial and the slow march to the next Ice Age may be several millennia away, why should we care? In fact, won’t the build-up of carbon dioxide (CO²) and other greenhouse gasses possibly ameliorate future changes?
Indeed, some groups advocate the benefits of global warming, including the Greening Earth Society and the Subtropical Russia Movement. Some in the latter group even advocate active intervention to accelerate the process, seeing this as an opportunity to turn much of cold, austere northern Russia into a subtropical paradise.
Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US National Academy of Sciences concur. Computer models are being used to predict climate change under different scenarios of greenhouse forcing and the Kyoto Protocol advocates active measures to reduce CO² emissions which contribute to warming.
Thinking is centered around slow changes to our climate and how they will affect humans and the habitability of our planet. Yet this thinking is flawed: It ignores the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future. The issue centers around the paradox that global warming could instigate a new Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere.
Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO² and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states.
The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
Do I understand the text of the television show saying Gore claims to have flown over (in his carbon free jet?) the glacier that disappeared in the computer-synthesized pictures?
He used pictures from "Day After Tomorrow." :P
More gore:
financial stake
GW same story as 19 years ago
Gore squelches freedom of the press (except when he wants to use it to promote his funds?">link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"Is it possible Gore doesn't want press members present as he recommends people invest in companies that he already has a stake in? This is exactly what he did about a month ago in Monterey, California, as NewBusters reported Friday.
"In fact, according to C/Net News.com, this was virtually the same "You Should Be Investing in What I'm Investing In" speech he gave in Monterey:
"The talk, which ran 45 minutes and closed the conference here, updated the presentation used in his Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
"Friday's talk was similar to one Gore delivered in February at the annual TED conference, but without the slides.
"Makes sense to me why he wouldn't want media around to watch him behave like a stockbroker or hedge fund manager hawking his wares. Someone might actually get a clue that the former vice president is behaving signficantly more like Professor Harold Hill than Moses, not that any of these sycophantics would be likely to report it if such an obvious conclusion struck them on the head!"
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"During the speech here, the 2007 Nobel Laureate was interrupted by hecklers three times; each was removed by security."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The possibility of Global Warming contributed to by mankind has nothing to do with AlGore in MY mind.
I did not say "the record for the San Diego AREA" was 111 degrees since the beginning of time.
I said the record "in recorded history" is what it is. That is not debatable. So PLEASE stop trying to do so. Let's move on. Recorded history can stand on it's own two feet without the worry of being debated as trufe or fixxion.
While it isn't debatable, it is statistically irrelevant.
I think it is a scam, myself.
That's how we know ANYTHING about recent temperature fluctuations - comparing historical data to current data. That's how it's done.
Desecration? Now that is an interesting word choice. If you regard one particular subset of data to be sacred then I am not sure what your point is in all of this. The problem with religious zealotry is that it is unyielding in light of contrary or conflicting data and analysis. I sincerely hope that's not where you're coming from.
And, just for the record, I, for one, am not attempting to prove any point. The burden of proof relating to the global warming hypothesis is on those making the claim of anthropogenesis. They remain unconvincing and the arguments uncompelling. Cherry picking data is completely antithetical to the proper conduct of science and amounts to invocation of Maxwell's Demon.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That's the problem with this board - people try to put unrelated issues toward another issue.
My point was that since we have a historical record, which we SHOULD trust, we can use that data to compare with current data so that trends may be established.
I said nothing about a random city having a random high temp relating to GW at all.
Of Course it is debatable. Is it just possible that the person recording the temperature had an agenda? I can take you several places at any given time in San Diego and get a 10+ degree variation. You have a lot more faith in the media and government than I do. You should read some of the things John Coleman has to say about what happened at the Weather Channel he started. If you want to know what the weather will be in advance his is the only program in San Diego I would believe. He is usually right where most of the others are wrong.
When the study is tenths of a degree over years of time. It does not take much error to throw the whole data set WAY off.
I do not believe the temperature in San Diego at the airport was EVER 111 degrees. Just not possible with that much ocean that is in the 70 degree range.
And you can google highest ever temp in San Diego and find out yourself if you do not believe my posts.
(Oh, WAIT - that weatherman in 1963 probably "had an agenda" so his temp is false. He wanted attention, or maybe he wanted to be known as the first person to report the first 111 degree day or maybe he was trying to impress his girlfriend with his ability to read a thermometer. ((you see how idiotic that sounds)) )
1. CA MTBE fiasco, a literal wasting of BILLIONS of dollars
2. Current artifical shortages and price hikes of corn commodities due to (probably the world) fed, state, local, government/s subsidy of ethanol
3. because ethanol is HIGHLY corrosive it can not be pipelined. So the use actually costs MORE in transportation (distribution) costs (more pollution) to get the products to the distribution centers. To upgrade pipeline infrastruture- again in the BILLIONS/trillions of dollars.
4. unstated regulatory costs, which I am sure if we look are in the billions of dollars.
So as one can probably see just from these small examples, GW has a whole cottage to HUGE business industry of spin off economic effects.
( Did I ever mention my dad was on the Grassy Knoll taking target practice on Nov 22, 1963? )
And you can google highest ever temp in San Diego and find out yourself if you do not believe my posts.
I did, and cannot find it.... The day should have been marked on a calendar someplace.
The Weather Channel
The same site says 109 is the magic number.
[edit] Found the NOAA link. It says 111 under the September weather paragraph, referencing the Santa Anas.
Maybe he was just drunk? I assume the number of weathermen that are alcoholics is about the same as the general population. Therefore we would know that some of the temperature readings are not accurate - at least before the preautomated age.
So get crackin!!
Seriously, I am trained and more than aware that the best ideas/perspectives can come from seemingly "the other side." So keep at it!
The record highest temperature at the airport is 111°F (44 °C) on September 26, 1963,
Another
Link Number Three
Numero Quatro
So not to leave this unsolvable or without direction, there are app 540 (major) air ports in the US.(there are WAY more, if one would want to incorporate these) Perhaps a 50 year analysis of "airport" readings would tend to normalize the data. Then we can link that up with however many WORLD airports for a global climatic data base?
Now 2 degrees is not important unless it is part of a computer model that is trying to give global temperatures within a tenth of a degree. Say half the cities reporting are off by 2 degrees or more. That is where I am coming from. There is too much variation to say without reservation that the data is accurate.
September 26th 1963
I have still challenged you folks to find me one single peer-respected global climate scientist who thinks that the historical temperature data is to be doubted or challenged.
So far, no one has piped in. So, if the people who do climate for a LIVING trust those numbers, why should we LAYMEN doubt them? Any good reasons?
Now I get to EDUCATE YOU for once !!!
The "weather underground" website reports it's "high temp" based on merely the readings from IT'S OWN weather stations.
NOT the "official temperature station" for the city.
That's why you will find MANY MANY days on that site where the "weather underground" high and the "official high" for that day are different from each other.
OH GLORIOUS DAY when I get to Educate Gary !!!!
You might not see the humor in this, but the first time I was required to sit in on a "CLASSIFIED" weather briefing, I almost busted out laughing.
My first impression was they classified it to keep people from knowing how consistently incorrect they were!!! So because they were classified, I can neither confirm, nor deny ,nor comment, nor........ :lemon:
Some people are EXPERTS at making the Rockies out of a sandpile.
Yup, and you are one of the worst offenders.
I fail to see how the fact that a Santa Ana wind (typically from the Rockies high over Colorado) came blasting through San Diego in September of 1963 and ran the temperatures up to 111 acts as a factoid to support any point you've made on this board at any time.
"My point was that since we have a historical record, which we SHOULD trust, we can use that data to compare with current data so that trends may be established."
As for the historical record, my point is that 150 years (if it even goes back that far) is such a tiny little sampling compared to the epoch that our planet is currently in (much less the entire weather history of the planet) as to render such a sampling completely irrelevant. You for some vague reason seem to think otherwise. :confuse:
Tell us, can you confidently say that since the current epoch (Holocene) started some 12,000 years ago that San Diego has never gotten warmer than 111 degrees (or colder than the 29 degree record set in January of 1949)? If you cannot, then you cannot use the currently available "historical" records either.
FWIW, 150 years of "historical" records amounts to ~1.25% of the total number of years in our current epoch. Kinda worthless don't you think?
And my statement that the historical record is valid for making trend analysis is still 100% correct.
Show me a peer-respected global climate scientist who ignores or refutes that data as a valid source for comparative purposes to modern trends. Still waiting for that one.
Are you serious? That's a silly request. Why? Because no self-respecting climatologist would base his or her assumptions of global climate change on such a ridiculously small sampling of data. True, they may use such data for a very small portion of their analysis, but nothing more than that, hence the fact that I call such data "interesting" and not "conclusive".
So, to turn this back on you, Show me a peer-respected global climate scientist who bases all of his or her conclusions for modern weather trends on only 150 years of data.
I said they are considered "correct" when using them as data points for analysis of past events.
And they are valid data.
Is that not relevant?
( If you say it's not relevant, then this will be my last post directed toward something you say on this particular point, because you will be TOTALLY not comprehending my point. )
December 2, 2007 ( http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009334007 )
Well that is a rather dumb challenge because anyone who dared challenge this data would immediately become disrespected in your eyes and the eyes of other GW zealots.
Sort of like the old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife"?
By the way, since so much evidence is beginning to come to light that refutes global warming, have you noticed that many of the zealots are beginning to refer to "global climate change" as opposed to global warming? What's up with that?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I am not included in that group. I'm no AlGore clone.
I have not one time said "Global Warming is a proven event and man is for sure causing it."
I want to find out what the cause is, and if man is contributing, then I want it to be curtailed. If it's just a natural event, then it is. We would be fools to not try to find out if we are hurting the Earf.
In related news:
GHG growing
Good question but "I'm Changing the Climate! Ask Me How!" has been around since the anti-SUV heyday of 2004, so I don't think it's happened overnight. All Academic, Inc
Not so quick there. You should have scrolled down to find the source of that report. It is the record from the National Weather Service. The very same NWS you use for your warming trend source. Weather Underground was probably not even in existence in 1963.
Well this takes us back to the beginning. Just how would you propose we make a significant cut in GHG? Keeping in mind that NONE of the countries that have signed onto Kyoto have reached their goal or have cut their emissions at all since signing.