Researcher discovers Y2K bug in GW data, NASA issues large corr. xpost

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
so .02 degress hotter was cause for doom and gloom panic scenarios but "only" .01 degrees cooler is irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]
One isolated year means nothing to a scientist, although it means a lot to the media ('hottest year ever!'). The strength of the predictions lies in the 20 year trend, the corroborating evidence, and the underlying physics.

As for the models, I don't know enough detail to agree or disagree. The basic physics suggests CO2 forcing causing warming. The degree of mitigation is in question. We would have to be way out with our current understanding of the lesser known effects (such as clouds) to be wrong I think.

[Jcrew]

One underlying issue is why NASA won't release the source code for their adjustments to the temperature series. Not sure about this, but I also think they do not release the raw data itself.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
The finding is totally overblown. 1998 was 0.02 degrees hotter than 1934 before the correction. Now it's 0.01 degrees colder. This is versus a temperature anomaly in both years of around 1.25. Look at the changes listed in the blog. This is a very small correction, and doesn't at all invalidate the trend we've been seeing in the last 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh? 20 years makes a trend with regard to weather?
Your standards are almost as low as the Man-Causes-Global-Warming Cult Priests (Al Gore, etc...)

In the medieval warming period, Greenland was green. The Vikings could grow crops and had plentiful grass to feed their animals. If we had thermometers during that time, the 1934 temp record would have been smashed....EASILY. This phenomenon took place all over Europe, North Atlantic, and perhaps beyond. But since we did not have thermometers back then or global temperture stations....we can't know with certainty what the temperatures were and whether this was a world-wide phenom or not.... What is certain is this period was a HUGE weather event and the MCGW Cult likes to pretend this period never happen. They are like the child that closes his eyes and says, "If I can't see the monster then he can't eat me. If I can't see the monster then he can't eat me. If I........"

The 'science' of man-caused global warming (MCGW) is ludicous. Their methodology they use to make their conclusions would make REAL scientists cringe in horror. But if you put their views on TV, make an Al Gore documentary, and have politicians pump money into anyone that backs their views... then uneducated masses eat up their claims like candy.....

The MCGW Cult even using temp data from 1850. Nevermind this readings are likely incorrect. To take a proper temperture reading requires a PRISTINE process that even today nitwits like NASA can't get right. So I'm suppose to believe the people in 1850 with lousy thermometers and poor process got right? er....yeah. Taking the temperature is more than about reading a thermometer. Proper thermometer placement is CRITICAL. Shade, humidity, wind, heat from building, etc... can affect temperature readings. I once heard a story of a radio startion was a site of offcial temp reading. The problem was they placed their thermometer near two air conditioning compressors....WHOOPS!

Some examples of temperature errors include:
*A lazy technician places a thermometer outside his house in the dead of winter. Not thinking the warth of the house affects his readings.
*Placing a thermometer in the shade as oppose to out in the sun. Also if the thermometer is on a post, the positioning of the sun could put shade on the thermometer and affect the readings.
*Not taking the temperature at the EXACT time of day....every day. As we all know temp reading get hotter in the afternoon and cool at night. A person that is 1-hour late in taking the temp has screwed-up and invalidated the data. I have no doubts that many scientists in 1850 trusted the temp readings to servants and the servants ALWAYS followed the correct procedures....yes?
*Placing a thermometer near a river or lake where the wind could cool the readings where if the thermometer was move 2 km, then the temps would be hotter....

Taking temp readings that are to be used for climate models must be 100% pristine and accurate. The MCGW cult does not have this data.....

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh? 20 years makes a trend with regard to weather?
Your standards are almost as low as the Man-Causes-Global-Warming Cult Priests (Al Gore, etc...)

In the medieval warming period, Greenland was green. The Vikings could grow crops and had plentiful grass to feed their animals. If we had thermometers during that time, the 1934 temp record would have been smashed....EASILY.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already explained to you that this logic is WRONG. The relevant figure is the average global temperature. Changes in the average global temperature combine increases in some places with decreases in other places. Looking at a single local temperature, like Greenland, DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. It's like saying that global inflation must be 200% if the price of a single good doubles.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh? 20 years makes a trend with regard to weather?
Your standards are almost as low as the Man-Causes-Global-Warming Cult Priests (Al Gore, etc...)

In the medieval warming period, Greenland was green. The Vikings could grow crops and had plentiful grass to feed their animals. If we had thermometers during that time, the 1934 temp record would have been smashed....EASILY.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already explained to you that this logic is WRONG. The relevant figure is the average global temperature. Changes in the average global temperature combine increases in some places with decreases in other places. Looking at a single local temperature, like Greenland, DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. It's like saying that global inflation must be 200% if the price of a single good doubles.

[/ QUOTE ]

But "global average temperature" ultimately is useless as a predictor of the effects of GW, since the predicted disasterous effects are local phenomena. If temperate climates increase 1.5 degrees and frigid climates decrease .5 degrees the global average went up 1 degree but GW has no immediate material impact. (Im making up the ratio of frigid vs temperate land areas, but the point remains). If the local temperature changes were measurable (which you've just conceded they aren't) then the models would have to be able to sort through the complexities of the propogation of local effects to distant areas. They aren't that good.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already explained to you that this logic is WRONG. The relevant figure is the average global temperature. Changes in the average global temperature combine increases in some places with decreases in other places. Looking at a single local temperature, like Greenland, DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. It's like saying that global inflation must be 200% if the price of a single good doubles.

[/ QUOTE ]

But "global average temperature" ultimately is useless as a predictor of the effects of GW, since the predicted disasterous effects are local phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. The impacts on local temperatures of global changes in the average temperature can be modelled.

[ QUOTE ]
If temperate climates increase 1.5 degrees and frigid climates decrease .5 degrees the global average went up 1 degree but GW has no immediate material impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you say that?

[ QUOTE ]
If the local temperature changes were measurable (which you've just conceded they aren't)

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
then the models would have to be able to sort through the complexities of the propogation of local effects to distant areas. They aren't that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asserting that the models "aren't that good", which is your subjective assessment of the models so I can't argue with that. It is definitely true at the chaotic-dynamic effects of changes in climate conditions is a real challenge to constructing a model. This is a fair criticism. But it doesn't lend any credibility to the hand-waving argument that since Greenland got colder global warming isn't happening.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already explained to you that this logic is WRONG. The relevant figure is the average global temperature. Changes in the average global temperature combine increases in some places with decreases in other places. Looking at a single local temperature, like Greenland, DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. It's like saying that global inflation must be 200% if the price of a single good doubles.

[/ QUOTE ]

But "global average temperature" ultimately is useless as a predictor of the effects of GW, since the predicted disasterous effects are local phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. The impacts on local temperatures of global changes in the average temperature can be modelled. <font color="red">are they are capable of being modeled? yes, eventually we will have the ability to. We dont now. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
If temperate climates increase 1.5 degrees and frigid climates decrease .5 degrees the global average went up 1 degree but GW has no immediate material impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you say that? <font color="red">because if the frigid areas intially become more frigid the glaciers don't melt and if the temperate areas intially become more temperate we have the ability to correct any negative immediate result (eg. we can alter crops to adapt to the 1 1/2 degree change, if it has any impact on that crop. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
If the local temperature changes were measurable (which you've just conceded they aren't)

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't. <font color="red">youre right, you didnt "say it" but your only challenge was to the relevance of local measurements, not the changing ability to measure them accurately. The implication is that you are unable to directly challenge the original statement, or you would have. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
then the models would have to be able to sort through the complexities of the propogation of local effects to distant areas. They aren't that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asserting that the models "aren't that good", which is your subjective assessment of the models so I can't argue with that. <font color="red"> Its not just my assessment, there are a number of articles that talk about the limitations of current models. </font> It is definitely true at the chaotic-dynamic effects of changes in climate conditions is a real challenge to constructing a model. This is a fair criticism. <font color="red">so if you agree with my "subjective assessment" why waste our time challening it? </font> But it doesn't lend any credibility to the hand-waving argument that since Greenland got colder global warming isn't happening.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">that claim was never made. The claim was that a 20 year temperature "trend" is meaningless in "climatological time" and cited the length of previous heating and cooling periods. Youve done nothing to challenge that. </font>

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">that claim was never made. The claim was that a 20 year temperature "trend" is meaningless in "climatological time" and cited the length of previous heating and cooling periods.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

[ QUOTE ]
In the medieval warming period, Greenland was green. The Vikings could grow crops and had plentiful grass to feed their animals. If we had thermometers during that time, the 1934 temp record would have been smashed....EASILY.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like "Greenland was warmer implies global temperature was higher" to me.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorr...7157410-1557205

From the book above.....
After the collapse of the USSR, many temperature stations were closed due to lack of funds.
So how can you determine the average global temperature when some of the coldest areas of the earth were not included in the data?

Answer: You can not

There are so many holes in the research of the MCGW Cult it is almost laughable.... The MCGW Cult has about 1% of the required data to make an educated guess of the weather trends yet they continue to make outrageous claims that MCGW is a slam dunk.

The data I would LOVE to see would have been the energy output of the sun during the Ice Age and the Medievil Warming period. Having this data would tell us whether or not the energy output of the sun is variable or constant over long periods of time. But since we had no satellites in space then, we will never have this data.....

After the Katrina hurricane in New Orleans, MCGW nitwits claimed the increase of Gulf hurricanes was a byproduct of global warming...yet last year's hurricane season we had ZERO hurricanes. I wonder why they did not claim the cause was global cooling.... Hmmm.....

[iron81]

Seriously?

1. Many != all
2. Weather satellites collect temperature data globally.