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.
The original data wasn't collected haphazardly, current data is just more detailed than previous data....should be a simple thing for anyone to understand.
Also, no one is saying previous data was faulty.
Except for NOAA!
"Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake — this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data does. The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data."
"Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake — this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data does. The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data."
Why don't that you just admit that don't understand why the old records needed to be adjusted? If you had read the link you just posted the info is there.
"Came" would be more appropriate since the chemicals in question are now banned.
While they are banned, there is no doubt now that factories in China have been producing and using a huge amount of CFC-11, so much so, that the decline in CFC-11 levels has really slowed. And this seems to be the reason for the ozone depletion that has been measured, not just the unusually cold temperatures.
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.
For those that don't read links, the pollution associated with burning CO2 sources also blocks sunlight, so that fossil fuel use is not a major factor in climate change. But the real problems are CFCs, NO2 and maybe methane. While this never seemed to get much publicity, and no doubt brings tears to the eyes of those thinking CO2 has been the villain all along, the evidence that China has been in violation of the treaty banning CFC-11 and CFC-12, it might help those working to discover what is really going on.
In any case knowing what is happening is of prime importance. Adjusting past data to fit theory isn't science, and when it turns out the probable cause is not CO2 levels, a lot of esteemed scientists are no doubt going to rethink their past work.
Even if CO2 causes warming, and I believe it does, I don't believe there's any immediate threat, and that we could get up to 800-1000 PPM without issue. Still, like I told my co-worker, we all can't collectively as a species burn fossil fuels in internal combustion engines for the next 500 years.
Aside from depleting reserves of these resources, we'd drive CO2 to levels that likely could cause major problems. We do need to reduce carbon emissions, at a steady rate the free market can handle, without excessive authoritarian mandates. The main issue we have is with developing countries. If every human on the planet demanded a western standard of living with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathroom houses, a 3 stall garage with 5 cars parked in it, and maybe a boat and a motorhome, that would carry with it serious problems. Westerners tend to be spoiled by their standard of living.
If the ruling class really cared about carbon that much, their actions would match their words, and they wouldn't be some of the largest carbon producing people on the planet, with their private jets and other luxuries.
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.
