How Accurate are Global Temperatures?

[SteveGinIL]

According to the IPCC, the global average surface temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.

I use to laugh at those of us who argued that, "Of course we are warming! An Ice Age just ended!"

But I don't laugh at them anymore. Michael Mann's discredited Hockey Stick be damned, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that global warming advocates completely ignore. The only ones they accept are ones with the IPCC stamp of approval or from known scientists who are warming advocates.

The world WAS colder - from 1600 to 1850 - and no denying that fact can make our 160-year warming trend mean anything more than that there used to be an ice age, and now there isn't. BIG SURPRISE.

Warmers always pull the same shenanigans like that: Pick a REALLY COOL period and then compare today to that. Well, of course, when you start your curve at the lowest point EVERYTHING looks like it is on the upswing.

As to the latest upswing - since 1980 - that slope is the same as it was from 1850-1880 and as it was from 1910-1940. Notice those are both 30 years long? So was THIS period of increase. And who among the warmers is going to claim that it was CO2 in 1850-1880 or from 1910-1040? NONE of them. So why should we believe it is CO2 this time?

The science is not settled. There are swarms of studies that argue against the AGW hypothesis. When there is that much disagreement in the data, the only thing certain is that the hypothesis is uncertain. We've all been given the bum's rush by the warmers, and it is a good thing Climategate happened, to wake people up to the fact that the science is not settled AT ALL.

 

[Bill Angel]

It's about the gases. If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time. The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises. None I've seen predict a decline. Why would that be? The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy. If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going? Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.

An easy solution to that question is clouds. Depending on available heat the cloud systems vary from negative to positive feedbacks. Ocean currents, same thing. The earth has had a lot of shocks to the system and always made corrections, there is no reason to believe that the earth won't continue to adjust.

There is an informative study presenting data for CO2 concentrations for the last 200,000 years.
See Global Average Temperature and CO2 Concentrations

To briefly summarize the results:
The current amount (as of 2008) is 387 ppm and it is rising at about 2 ppm per year
Over the previous 400,000 years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere never exceeded 290 ppm.

So while the earth has adjusted in the past for climate variations that are reflected the historical record of CO2 concentrations, the earth has not in its recent history had to deal with climate variations as significant as are reflected in the current CO2 levels, levels which are continuing to increase.

 

[SteveGinIL]

The Tibetan Plateau is warming about three times the global average. Since the 1950’s, warming in excess of 1ºC on the Tibetan side of the Himalayas has contributed to retreat of more than 80% of the glaciers. Melting glaciers endangers the fresh water supply and food security of billions of people in Asia.

Didn't these guys get the memo?

The Glaciergate memo?

The IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers were all going to melt by the year 2035?

Haven't these guys - and you - wakened to the realization that the WWF brochure is not a peer-reviewed source?

ALL glaciers, BTW, have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age.

And the trend lines are not - as you assert - increasing. The slope is all but identical to what it has been since 1850. Was it AGW that caused it back in the late 1880s? No. Not one AGW-er will assert that in good conscience.

If the AGW-ers can't explain the earlier two increases using the CO2 claim, then it is invalid for them to claim it for the present period. And that includes glaciers in retreat.

The Himalayan glaciers have been found to be in greatest danger due to coal dust settling on the ice. At least that is what at least one study has shown. But that study isn't acceptable to you, I would imagine - it is too contrary.

The funny thing is that there wouldn't even BE any "deniers" out here if the AGW-ers had claimed that it was land use underlying the warming. But the CO2 claim - well, that just turned out to be the wrong tack to take. CO2 is just too small an atmospheric component.

Most people imagine that CO2 is something like 3% or 5% of the atmosphere. But that 380ppm is not even 0.04% of the atmosphere - 1/100th of what most people imagine.

If you want to claim land use is warming the Earth, I will have little disagreement with that. But I would then want to add: But we ARE just coming out of an ice age. Maunder Minimum, Spörer Minimum and all that rot.. If you don't know what they are, stop posting until you educate yourself on anything other than Mann-IPCC post-1990 Götterdämerung end-of-the-world pap. The sky is NOT falling.

Thank the gods for Climategate, that the world now has a much more skeptical view of claims by the warmers. Whoever Deep Throat is, we owe him/her a debt of gratitude for outing his/her fellow climatologists.

 

[westwall]

It's about the gases. If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time. The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises. None I've seen predict a decline. Why would that be? The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy. If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going? Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.

An easy solution to that question is clouds. Depending on available heat the cloud systems vary from negative to positive feedbacks. Ocean currents, same thing. The earth has had a lot of shocks to the system and always made corrections, there is no reason to believe that the earth won't continue to adjust.

There is an informative study presenting data for CO2 concentrations for the last 200,000 years.
See Global Average Temperature and CO2 Concentrations

To briefly summarize the results:
The current amount (as of 2008) is 387 ppm and it is rising at about 2 ppm per year
Over the previous 400,000 years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere never exceeded 290 ppm.

So while the earth has adjusted in the past for climate variations that are reflected the historical record of CO2 concentrations, the earth has not in its recent history had to deal with climate variations as significant as are reflected in the current CO2 levels, levels which are continuing to increase.

I sugget you find a source that is not quite so blatantly biased. It would help if they had used a more accurate graph. This one was proven false long ago.

 

[IanC]

It's about the gases. If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time. The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises. None I've seen predict a decline. Why would that be? The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy. If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going? Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.

An easy solution to that question is clouds. Depending on available heat the cloud systems vary from negative to positive feedbacks. Ocean currents, same thing. The earth has had a lot of shocks to the system and always made corrections, there is no reason to believe that the earth won't continue to adjust.

There is an informative study presenting data for CO2 concentrations for the last 200,000 years.
See Global Average Temperature and CO2 Concentrations

To briefly summarize the results:
The current amount (as of 2008) is 387 ppm and it is rising at about 2 ppm per year
Over the previous 400,000 years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere never exceeded 290 ppm.

So while the earth has adjusted in the past for climate variations that are reflected the historical record of CO2 concentrations, the earth has not in its recent history had to deal with climate variations as significant as are reflected in the current CO2 levels, levels which are continuing to increase.

Myself, I wonder about ice core reconstructions of CO2 and other gases. Pressure makes the gases change form and it is very difficult to extract from the core. I think that could easily lead to both a change in the actual value and especially a lowering of the range of values.

 

[SteveGinIL]

The earth has had a lot of shocks to the system and always made corrections, there is no reason to believe that the earth won't continue to adjust.

The hubris is overwhelming. The warmers actually believe that with their smattering of information (we will dispense with calling it "knowledge"), they believe not only that they understand the meteorological principles, and not only interpreting that we somehow (they know how, if you just ask them), but that THEY, in their omniscience, know exactly what the cure is.

Climatology has been around for HOW long?

And HOW MUCH do they know about the water vapor and its EXACT mechanisms and feedbacks and ability to adjust? Funny, if you ask them about ANY of those three things, the answer is s shrug - or even worse - a FUDGE FACTOR in a GCM.

Now you and I both know that not one of those GCMs has even a smiggling of what to do with water vapor. If they did, it would be in the models and the models would be running historical weather and outputting results THAT ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE WEATHER THAT REALLY HAPPENED.

Wow, what a novel idea! PUT UP OR SHUT UP, CLIMATOLOGISTS. Show us a GCM that predicts the recent past, and, BOY, will we listen! (I do not hold my breath in anticipation...)

Until then, STFU might be a good blow-off.

(You know, every once in a while - like now - I get the urge to put a smiley of sorts in a comment, but then I look at what childish crap choices they offer. DO they think we are all three-year-olds? Wouldn't it be nice to actually have intelligent, mature smilies? Who DOES these things, anyway? Can you imagine the Founding Fathers today, deciding which smiley to send each other? And what kind of Constitution we would have if they actually used them?)

 

[ScienceRocks]

According to the IPCC, the global average surface temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.

I use to laugh at those of us who argued that, "Of course we are warming! An Ice Age just ended!"

But I don't laugh at them anymore. Michael Mann's discredited Hockey Stick be damned, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that global warming advocates completely ignore. The only ones they accept are ones with the IPCC stamp of approval or from known scientists who are warming advocates.

The world WAS colder - from 1600 to 1850 - and no denying that fact can make our 160-year warming trend mean anything more than that there used to be an ice age, and now there isn't. BIG SURPRISE.

Warmers always pull the same shenanigans like that: Pick a REALLY COOL period and then compare today to that. Well, of course, when you start your curve at the lowest point EVERYTHING looks like it is on the upswing.

As to the latest upswing - since 1980 - that slope is the same as it was from 1850-1880 and as it was from 1910-1940. Notice those are both 30 years long? So was THIS period of increase. And who among the warmers is going to claim that it was CO2 in 1850-1880 or from 1910-1040? NONE of them. So why should we believe it is CO2 this time?

The science is not settled. There are swarms of studies that argue against the AGW hypothesis. When there is that much disagreement in the data, the only thing certain is that the hypothesis is uncertain. We've all been given the bum's rush by the warmers, and it is a good thing Climategate happened, to wake people up to the fact that the science is not settled AT ALL.

True, but 1850-1880 and 1910-1940 where mainly caused by increase of solar output. 1950 was the peak of the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years. Since then it has been going down, so how do you explain the fact that we are also warming now and warming within a period that has the lowest solar output since the late 19th century?

Doesn't make much sense besides 1# Global warming or 2# they're screwing with the data. Here in Portland we've not gotten back to the 40-60 inches a winter we had in the 1880-1900 period and that tells me that our planet is much much much warmer today then it was at that time. So I'm not sure of either 1 or 2, but I lean towards something causing it and the question is what. The green house effect of some kind becoming more effective would be the most logical answer.

 

[westwall]

According to the IPCC, the global average surface temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.

I use to laugh at those of us who argued that, "Of course we are warming! An Ice Age just ended!"

But I don't laugh at them anymore. Michael Mann's discredited Hockey Stick be damned, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that global warming advocates completely ignore. The only ones they accept are ones with the IPCC stamp of approval or from known scientists who are warming advocates.

The world WAS colder - from 1600 to 1850 - and no denying that fact can make our 160-year warming trend mean anything more than that there used to be an ice age, and now there isn't. BIG SURPRISE.

Warmers always pull the same shenanigans like that: Pick a REALLY COOL period and then compare today to that. Well, of course, when you start your curve at the lowest point EVERYTHING looks like it is on the upswing.

As to the latest upswing - since 1980 - that slope is the same as it was from 1850-1880 and as it was from 1910-1940. Notice those are both 30 years long? So was THIS period of increase. And who among the warmers is going to claim that it was CO2 in 1850-1880 or from 1910-1040? NONE of them. So why should we believe it is CO2 this time?

The science is not settled. There are swarms of studies that argue against the AGW hypothesis. When there is that much disagreement in the data, the only thing certain is that the hypothesis is uncertain. We've all been given the bum's rush by the warmers, and it is a good thing Climategate happened, to wake people up to the fact that the science is not settled AT ALL.

True, but 1850-1880 and 1910-1940 where mainly caused by increase of solar output. 1950 was the peak of the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years. Since then it has been going down, so how do you explain the fact that we are also warming now and warming within a period that has the lowest solar output since the late 19th century?

Doesn't make much sense besides 1# Global warming or 2# they're screwing with the data. Here in Portland we've not gotten back to the 40-60 inches a winter we had in the 1880-1900 period and that tells me that our planet is much much much warmer today then it was at that time. So I'm not sure of either 1 or 2, but I lean towards something causing it and the question is what. The green house effect of some kind becoming more effective would be the most logical answer.

Why? You jump to a conclusion with no evidence to support it. There are many possible reasons for the trends.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I use to laugh at those of us who argued that, "Of course we are warming! An Ice Age just ended!"

But I don't laugh at them anymore. Michael Mann's discredited Hockey Stick be damned, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that global warming advocates completely ignore. The only ones they accept are ones with the IPCC stamp of approval or from known scientists who are warming advocates.

The world WAS colder - from 1600 to 1850 - and no denying that fact can make our 160-year warming trend mean anything more than that there used to be an ice age, and now there isn't. BIG SURPRISE.

Warmers always pull the same shenanigans like that: Pick a REALLY COOL period and then compare today to that. Well, of course, when you start your curve at the lowest point EVERYTHING looks like it is on the upswing.

As to the latest upswing - since 1980 - that slope is the same as it was from 1850-1880 and as it was from 1910-1940. Notice those are both 30 years long? So was THIS period of increase. And who among the warmers is going to claim that it was CO2 in 1850-1880 or from 1910-1040? NONE of them. So why should we believe it is CO2 this time?

The science is not settled. There are swarms of studies that argue against the AGW hypothesis. When there is that much disagreement in the data, the only thing certain is that the hypothesis is uncertain. We've all been given the bum's rush by the warmers, and it is a good thing Climategate happened, to wake people up to the fact that the science is not settled AT ALL.

True, but 1850-1880 and 1910-1940 where mainly caused by increase of solar output. 1950 was the peak of the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years. Since then it has been going down, so how do you explain the fact that we are also warming now and warming within a period that has the lowest solar output since the late 19th century?

Doesn't make much sense besides 1# Global warming or 2# they're screwing with the data. Here in Portland we've not gotten back to the 40-60 inches a winter we had in the 1880-1900 period and that tells me that our planet is much much much warmer today then it was at that time. So I'm not sure of either 1 or 2, but I lean towards something causing it and the question is what. The green house effect of some kind becoming more effective would be the most logical answer.

Why? You jump to a conclusion with no evidence to support it. There are many possible reasons for the trends.

Solar is going down and going down even faster being that we're now within a respectable minimum. To cause the temperatures to stay the same against that lowering solar output takes some other positive forcing to counter it and the satellites show a slow warming trend, evenso not nearly as much as people like hansen predicted. That takes more energy to do then it would of in 1998. Kind of like a car trying to drive up the side of a mountain takes more energy then it takes to drive on flat ground.

ENSO, AMO, PDO, AO all don't add or take away heat but just do other things with that heat...ENSO when your in a nino has the cooler water normally beneath the surface with the hotter water close to the Atmosphere mixing into the lower levels, which gives us the record temperatures those years. While the opposite is true in nina's.

The only two other ways you can add or cap energy to cause the postive forcing is...
1# Green house effect
2# above avg venting and under water volcano's are going off, which are transferring heat from the layers beneath the crust into the oceans and then into the Atmosphere. Since there is no signs of increase venting or under water volcano's 1# would make more sense, but I'm assuming that the whole scientific world is not lieing to me and trying to inslave me into a world government either.

What is your theory westwall?

 

[SteveGinIL]

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

 

[SteveGinIL]

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

 

[SteveGinIL]

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

Oy vey!

 

[SteveGinIL]

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

Oy vey!

And I mean it!

 

[SteveGinIL]

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

A story:

When Satchel Paige was with the Cleveland Indians, one day another pitcher started for the Tribe. While pitching to the leadoff hitter in the first inning, the pitcher got so pissed at the umpire's strike zone that the ump threw him out of the game, for questioning ball and strike calls. The Indians' manager brought in Satchel Paige, then well over 40 years of age. Ole Satch started to warm up,m but the ump was still fuming so much at the other pitcher that he refused to let Satch warm up.

Paige didn't even break into a sweat. He'd pitched in podunk towns all over America, with some of the most god-forsaken umpires ever known to man. He'd dealt with them, and he could deal with that one temporarily insane man in blue.

Paige INTENTIONALLY walked the batter.

Once the man was safely ensconced on first base, Ole Satch proceeded to throw about 30 pickoff attempts to first base. When he was sufficiently warmed up, he finally pitched to the next batter.

The ump could prevent him from warming up by throwing to the plate, but he couldn't order Satch to throw to the plate, either. All he could do was watch and fume.

I am sure that Satch was giggling the whole time.

BTW, he won the game. He pitched to all 27 outs, but didn't get credit for a complete game.

So, I am warming up by throwing to first base here, until I can deliver my pitch properly...

 

[SteveGinIL]

This should be 9 comments now. . .

 

[SteveGinIL]

This should be 10 comments now. . .

 

[SteveGinIL]

This should be 11 comments now. . .

Getting loosened up now. . .

 

[SteveGinIL]

This should be 12 comments now. . .

 

[SteveGinIL]

This should be 13 comments now. . .

Almost there. . .

 

[SteveGinIL]

And, if I counted right, this should be #14 for me...

Aren't you all glad to see it get over with?

I have a comment to post, that I put time into, and an important part of it is two links, one an image. So, rather than wait and post it later, I chose this route. I don't mean to be cute.

But could they not have just had something in the User's Agreement? I've never seen a 15-comment rule before.

The next one should be #15.