|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 7, 2009 0:26:19 GMT
I am finding this amazing! Can you really accept this data socold?
I mean....if you took the later 1870's, compare the temp then to last month...it would appear that we have cooled roughly .30 during the past 140 years. Very Interesting indeed!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 7, 2009 7:22:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 7, 2009 8:47:11 GMT
Again I find myself agreeing with you for the most part. It's unfair to say it's about as warm as it was in the 1880's. BUT...that said, it does illustrate the point that for all this global warming hysteria...it's really not much warmer. We're about .4C warmer than the 1940's peak and .6C warmer than the 1880's peak. (60 month smoothing). www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 7, 2009 14:30:44 GMT
Whats the matter Socold? Do you consider it dishonorable to splice records together?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 7, 2009 15:07:14 GMT
Well, some record obviously goes back that far. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vglLook at temps in the late 1870's....and today's temp. Looks to me like the late 1870's was warmer than today. Are my eyes decieving me?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 7, 2009 15:36:43 GMT
Well, some record obviously goes back that far. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vglLook at temps in the late 1870's....and today's temp. Looks to me like the late 1870's was warmer than today. Are my eyes decieving me? Yes they most definitely are. I think it is more correct to say that your agenda has deceived your brain.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Jul 7, 2009 15:43:47 GMT
Socold and Sigurdur,
I think that there is some miscommunication here. I believe that Sigurdur is directly comparing HadCrut to UAH and the highest monthly reading from Hadcrut in the 1800s and comparing it to the June 2009 UAH reading.
I would say that that is a little bit of an exaggeration, but sometimes hyperbole can make a decent dramatization. I always prefer to include the parameters of such a hyperbole however, as it can sometimes simply be used as an excuse to dismiss the point being made.
I would put it a little differently and something like this:
"If you compare the highest monthly temperature in the 1800s (near the end of the Little Ice Age) in the HadCrut temperature record, i.e. a temperature difference from "normal" of around + 0.25 deg. C in 1878 (average for the year of around +0.04 deg. C), and compare it to the latest satellite measurement from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), i.e. +0.001 deg. C (average of HadCrut for the last 12 months of around +0.35 deg. C), there is little evidence of a significant warming in the Earth's temperature over the last 130 years. However, that technique of picking the highest temperature in the 1800s and comparing it to today might be seen as "cherrypicking" of data. A fairer comparison might be take the average of the 1870s compared over a 5-year (60 month) smoothing. The average HadCrut temperature of the 1870s was around -0.25 deg. C and the average HadCrut temperature of the recent decade is around +0.4 deg C. Even without the recent (last 2 year) decline in the HadCrut temperature and even assuming that HadCrut accounts for all of the poor temperature siting and UHI effects of the last 50 years or so, there is only a +0.65 deg. C change in temperature over the last 130 years!! A good proportion of that increase ~+0.25 deg C occurred before any significant accumulation of CO2 from human activities could have caused any increase. Further, the reason for the increase from the 1800s to the 1940s would have to be explained in order to definitively suggest that CO2 was responsible for the other +0.40 deg. C increase from 1940 until today. Since the temperature rise is certainly not unprecedented from the 1940s until today in terms of natural variation, it is a stretch to suggest that CO2 is a major driver of climate at this point."
Hope that is a more balanced argument. Although Sigurdur's statement is provocative it deserves to be considered as a challenge to examine the existing record to understand it as best we can (with all its warts).
Hope that this helps,
Ian
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 8, 2009 3:22:09 GMT
Thank you Ian. IF anyone had actually opened the link to the graph of temps, they would have realized exactly what you wrote.
At least I finalllly got someone to bite on the co2 is a leading indicator of cooling temps....LOL.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jul 8, 2009 4:01:19 GMT
What is amazing is how AGW extremists have misled casual and credulous observers by manipulating the axes of the statistical representations of the data. In no case can the alarmists show any significant changes. They can only compress the time axis and dramatically expand the temp axis to make tiny changes in temperature falsely appear to be alarming. Fortunately for rational thought, a growing number of people are seeing through the blatant manipulation of the AGW community.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 8, 2009 11:10:27 GMT
Thank you Ian. IF anyone had actually opened the link to the graph of temps, they would have realized exactly what you wrote. At least I finalllly got someone to bite on the co2 is a leading indicator of cooling temps....LOL. Why do you need people to "bite"? If you know the answer already, then why not say so. Isn't a discussion more informative than a competitive debate?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 8, 2009 11:13:59 GMT
What is amazing is how AGW extremists have misled casual and credulous observers by manipulating the axes of the statistical representations of the data. In no case can the alarmists show any significant changes. They can only compress the time axis and dramatically expand the temp axis to make tiny changes in temperature falsely appear to be alarming. Fortunately for rational thought, a growing number of people are seeing through the blatant manipulation of the AGW community. No, you've made a mistake. You're talking about the professional sceptics. To illustrate: www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/christopher-monckton
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 8, 2009 11:26:38 GMT
Thank you Ian. IF anyone had actually opened the link to the graph of temps, they would have realized exactly what you wrote. At least I finalllly got someone to bite on the co2 is a leading indicator of cooling temps....LOL. Why do you need people to "bite"? If you know the answer already, then why not say so. Isn't a discussion more informative than a competitive debate? Steve: I posted a link to the graph showing that in the late 1870's, the temp spiked to the current temp of the earth. I was hoping someone would at least acknowledge that the current temps, when viewed over a climatic scale, are not out of the normal. And it would appear that they aren't, on a climatic scale, rather than a weather scale.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 8, 2009 12:34:02 GMT
Why do you need people to "bite"? If you know the answer already, then why not say so. Isn't a discussion more informative than a competitive debate? Steve: I posted a link to the graph showing that in the late 1870's, the temp spiked to the current temp of the earth. I was hoping someone would at least acknowledge that the current temps, when viewed over a climatic scale, are not out of the normal. And it would appear that they aren't, on a climatic scale, rather than a weather scale. Isn't a one month spike in the 1870s and a one month dip in 2008 weather? Remember these are measurements of the few metres layer of air above the earth's surface without complete coverage of the earth, so there is plenty of potential variability (which is partially expressed in the noisy signal).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 8, 2009 12:55:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 9, 2009 0:39:51 GMT
After last year's late acceleration in the melt, I'll reserve judgement on 2009 till the middle of August. Yes, the ice melt should continue to extend later in the season as the water warms. The concentration graphs already tell much of the story for 2009. It looks near certain that both the NW and NE passages will be open. It's amazing to watch so many of the posters on this site totally ignore reality.
|
|