Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting to read.. Global temperature is influenced not only be green house gas (CO2) but also by feedback mechanisms and the ongoing natural drivers.
Three causes of the hiatus are explained in the NOAA link above. Natural variables in the Pacific Ocean where there is a transfer of energy between the ocean and the atmosphere (the energy does not go away, it just gets transferred back and forth) such as the Pacific decal oscillation and Enso cycles. Also solar cycles which were lower in this time frame. Finally sunlight reflecting particles for Volcanic eruption.
Interesting to read.. Global temperature is influenced not only be green house gas (CO2) but also by feedback mechanisms and the ongoing natural drivers.
.
20+ y/a, based on the 60 yr cycle record, I predicted that we should enter the cooling 30 yr phase around 2005.
We did--- but: the cooling seems to have stopped and temps have been more or less unchanged these last dozen yrs (the slight warming recorded is within the range of observational error). There seems to be an unusual warming factor negating the predicted cooling factors.
Is that co2 or some ocean cycle, etc not in sync with the other cycles this time around?
The other problem with dealing with "averages" is that of "outliers." ...On a yearly basis, virtually all of the warming accounting for the yearly average is due to 1 or 2 exceptionally warm months, with the other months' average being normal. Does that really make the whole year "warmer?"...The same argument can be made about "outlier yrs"-- take 1998, for example or 1 or 2 of the very warm recent yrs-- eliminate them from the calc and temps are pretty flat.....What does this really mean?
The other problem with dealing with "averages" is that of "outliers." ...On a yearly basis, virtually all of the warming accounting for the yearly average is due to 1 or 2 exceptionally warm months, with the other months' average being normal. Does that really make the whole year "warmer?"...The same argument can be made about "outlier yrs"-- take 1998, for example or 1 or 2 of the very warm recent yrs-- eliminate them from the calc and temps are pretty flat.....What does this really mean?
The real problem, as I tirelessly point out, is that these figures are or purport to be global temperatures. They rarely match observed figures in any given city.
The figures, much like the data that's incorporated into them, are "proxy." A better word for them is "phony."
The real problem, as I tirelessly point out, is that these figures are or purport to be global temperatures. They rarely match observed figures in any given city.
The figures, much like the data that's incorporated into them, are "proxy." A better word for them is "phony."
I followed what GLM said but dont understand your "real problem". Would you mind elaborating? It seems to me that a global average would rarely exactly correspond to every city on the planet. Why this is important or "the real problem"??
Hopefully you dont mind my also asking for either references or why you are an expert and dont need references.
I followed what GLM said but dont understand your "real problem". Would you mind elaborating? It seems to me that a global average would rarely exactly correspond to every city on the planet. Why this is important or "the real problem"??
Hopefully you dont mind my also asking for either references or why you are an expert and dont need references.
This thread, I found some trees in Nuuk! (Street View), further demonstrates my point. Unless the trees, and the forest area referenced in Greenland are very new, little has changed recently. And given the marginal climate for tree growth the trees and forest could not have developed fast.
The alarmists always point to areas where few or no people live and where there are no verifiable or good temperature records. They rarely cite records from other continuously inhabited Arctic areas in advanced countries such as Kugluktuk f/k/a/ Coppermine, Iqaluit f/k/a Frobisher Bay, both in Canada, Nome or Barrow, Alaska or Hammerfest, Norway.
As far as what you did, it looks like you found some data for Chicago on your cell phone that only covers the months of Dec through Feb and the "average seasonal mean temperatures" (whatever this, cant tell from the cell phone screen) look pretty random.
A bunch of people pointed out that one location (and over only a three month time period) is way too small of a sample to conclude anything about global warming. Lots of evidence for warming is presented.
However, your conclusion for the that one location sample for just three months of winter is
Quote:
The more logical assumption is that there is little or no climate change. The whole theory seems weird.
The fraudulent Mann gets brought up again I guess to discredit all science
Quote:
The reason for some single-city focus is as a reality check against the "models." Models can be manipulated, adjusted or just plain "fooled around" with. Prime examples are the destruction of climate-related e-mails at East Anglia University, and the splicing of actual temperatures recorded in modern time with "proxy data" in ways that accentuate trends in a visibly alarming manner (such as the fraudulent Mann "hockey stick") make some spot-checking imperative. No good accountant, for example, takes management's word on quality of receivables. On any but the most qualified reports, they always "test" receivables by checking with some account debtors as to whether the receivables are real. Ditto physical inventories.
Anyhow.. Im with all the posters on that link that said your data set only had some sort of random conclusion for that particular data set (Chicago and for only three months of the winter) and a conclusion can be made only on that particular location and time frame and data set.
If you want to make conclusions on global warming, it should use either global terrestrial or satellite data.
Anyhow. thanks.. I think I know where you are coming from now.
It seems to me that a global average would rarely exactly correspond to every city on the planet.
.
The problem with the traditional, surface instrument record (ie- regular thermometers) is that over the yrs, stations have been added, subtracted (1800 Siberian stations closed after the fall of the USSR, for example) and that they are concentrated in the US & W. Europe, with little coverage for Asia, less for Africa and almost none for the polar regions.
Add to that the problem of missing data is often "estimated" rather than just listed as Missing.
The satellite record gives us a better "grid" pattern and covers the globe more evenly, but it's only 40 yrs old and has to be constantly re-calibrated (orbit deterioration, cloud cover adjustments, etc).
If "Global Warning" is truly "global", then any record we have with a more or less consistent reporting system should be an analog for a "real" average-- especially if it's reported as anomaly rather than absolute temps. (a 1 deg change should be a 1 deg change regardless if it's going from 15 -->16 or from 22-->23deg. The units, after all, are arbitrary.)
By the same token, a single reporting station should be more or less the same as taking the average of many stations. The longest record we have at a single place and co-calibrated thermometers thru the yrs is the Central Anglican Record which dates back to the mid 17th century. Several yrs a go I did a Student's t-test on that data and found no yr's average temp was more than 2 SD from the mean for the entire record, ie-- no warming....
...but keep in mind that GHG Theory says the tropics should show no warming, temperate zones a little and most of the warming in the polar zones, so location can be significant.
Do you think the terrestrial temperature measuring has been cleaned up and is now fairly accurate and repeatable from year to year? I think there are standards that must be met for that measurement.
And if so.. about what time frame did things get cleaned up?
Seems in the 90's of so is when there was a lot of scrutiny on those measurement stations and of course lots of things found and some percent of the stations were questionable in some way (and possibly a significant percent.. I dont know). I would think that scrutiny should have tightened up the measurement standards..
As far as what you did, it looks like you found some data for Chicago on your cell phone that only covers the months of Dec through Feb and the "average seasonal mean temperatures" (whatever this, cant tell from the cell phone screen) look pretty random.
I believe I drew those records from wundergound.com or some other site that has historical weather data. My point is that "global" figures need to check out with at least some localities. The open invitation was to show other localities that have had a dangerous rise in temperatures. There aren't any.
Global temperatures are largely guesswork and can be easily manipulated, to depress them in earlier times and raise them thereafter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
