Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 Next
Comments 124401 to 124450:
-
Dan at 23:23 PM on 28 February 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Minor correction: I think the correct wording of the Richard Feynman quotation at the end of the Youtube video is "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -
Norman Wells at 21:32 PM on 28 February 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Generally sceptics are in denial in respect of man made global warming, and consequent Climate Change because they do not wish to make the costly changes to Industrial activity and our way of life,that are necessary to counter them .At least not during their lifetime! Consequently the debate rages over the issue as to whether Global Warming is taking place or not,thereby neatly sidestepping the basic and undeniable fact that human activity is responsible for a greatly increased level of atmospheric pollution. Regardless of whether this results in Global warming there are many other important reasons why it should be reduced without further debate as to whether the cost of doing so is affordable.At this moment it is clear that an unwillingness to take action for cost reasons is not the only problem .More serious is the likelihood that we may not even know how to!! Norman Wells -
tonyabalone at 20:06 PM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Keep up the great work. More than ever your site is needed. I've chipped in $50.00. Its only fair as I constantly use your site as my source for countering the sceptics/cynics. This weekend I've fired off several letters to the editors of "The Australian" and "The West Australian" Here in Western Australia we have just had our hottest summer on record and Perth has had the hottest and driest summer on record. Hopefully the letters will be published. -
protestant at 20:03 PM on 28 February 2010Hockey stick is broken
Why do you comply same cherry-picking as the IPCC? Many of the graphs presented still have Korrajärvi upside down. And the glacier-graph is ridicilous why do you cut it from 1600 the whole data from Greenland example can be seen here: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553 You are presenting a graph which ends just before the MWP and other warm periods. Why? Secondly, what statistical method allows you to do "the trick". Many other proxies than just tree-rings show the same divergence - which happens to be in the cooling phase of the PDO and between solar maximums. Much more likely explanation for the "divergence" is the UHI-effect and the effect of CO2 being weak (cloud feedback). if you use non-tree ring samples and UAH temperature data you get this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure11.png The IPCC "hockey stick" reconstructions are just pure quackery to hide the flaws in their biased theory. Even the Institute of Physics is aware of this possible scientific malpractise and cherry picking: LINKModerator Response: [RH] Embedded link. -
BlankCanvas at 17:00 PM on 28 February 2010Working out future sea level rise from the past
This is probably a silly question. In Fig 1 of this post, when current sea levels match the interglacial sea levels (the zero line), would the current CO2 levels match with those particular interglacial CO2 levels? -
kwinters79 at 15:52 PM on 28 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Oops. kwinters (67) wrote: "Though my analysis here is much too simplistic, it certainly helps convince me that Siddall's results appear quite reasonable. " I meant to say (Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009) appears quite reasonable. I think Siddall was too low in his retracted paper (which is why he retracted it). -
kwinters79 at 15:49 PM on 28 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Berényi Péter, The data quality issue is indeed a problem. But since I'm not working to publish any results and since these are only hobby calculations, I'll just stick with the simplistic approach of using the annual data, as is, except for the 2 years flagged with XX. I subtracted out of all my level measurements the 21-year average tide level from 1856 to 1876. The levels were left in mm. And my Time-0 is 1856. I computed a h0 + v*t + a*t^2 least squares equation for the 3 periods: 1856 - 2008, 1950 - 2008, and 1970 - 2008. The equations I got are: Period 1 => -20.524 + 2.269t + 0.0033t^2 Period 2 => 190.2 - 0.787t + 0.0142t^2 Period 3 => 1133.5 - 14.99t + 0.0672t^2 Projecting these out to 2100 I get the following sea-level rise (relative to the average from 1856 - 1876): Period 1 => 75 cm Period 2 => 88 cm Period 3 => 1.58 m So what can I conclude from this little exercise? Not much, as it's far too simple and only dealing with a single tide gauge. But along with all the recently published papers, the ice sheet dynamics, and the fact that Siddall withdrew his low estimate paper, I'd have to conclude that the IPCC estimate was indeed too low. A 1M rise may actually turn out to be a conservative estimate. It will be interesting to see what additional papers are published over the next year or two. -
Douglas McClean at 14:37 PM on 28 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Sure, sea level changes can have either sign. Sure, there are movements of landmasses in both directions. My point was only that sea level *rise* cannot be caused by post-glacial rebound. -
Marcus at 14:08 PM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Though I do want to give money to this excellent site today, I'm sure you can appreciate that the people of Chile need my charity much more today! Still, I'll be happy to chip in $50 next week!Response: Agreed, have just donated to http://www.worldvision.com.au/ and strongly urge everyone to donate to similar relief organisations such as http://www.redcross.org/ -
Charlie A at 12:25 PM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#69 doug_bostrom: "Based on this analysis, you should be careful of your odds: ...http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html Dr Roy Spencer has used the International Surface Hourly (ISH) weather data archived by NOAA to see how a simple reanalysis of original weather station temperature data compares to the Jones CRUTem3 land-based temperature dataset. Details are at: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/spurious-warming-in-the-jones-u-s-temperatures-since-1973/ Although this analysis is limited to the USA because of the data source, it does result in some interesting results. Spencer did NOT adjust the ISH data for the urban heat island effect. Yet the HADCRUT3 showed a higher trend (for the same geographical area analyzed by Spencer). It also showed some rather strange results, including a sudden change of around 0.4C in the differences between the two series in the 2nd half of Several peer reviewed papers reanalyzing various temperature time series will undoubtedly be published in the next few years. Charlie -
Arnold Mousetrouser at 11:32 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
25AUD to the cause as a starter and more to come in bits and bobs. Glad I found you. Best wishes, Arnold Mousetrouser (Australia) -
Josie at 11:26 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
I've donated a bit - more coming when I get richer. Thanks for writing the best climate nonsense debunking service on the web! -
Svatli at 10:29 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Keep up the good work and congratulation :) -
macoles at 09:48 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Keep up the good work John! My $25 isn't as much as Big Carbon might pay their proponents, but at least you needn't feel any guilt in accepting it :) -
wingding at 08:42 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Re 83: "Satellites show neither warming nor cooling" The UAH satellite record shows warming since 1979. The measure is independent of surface temperature records and it directly refutes the idea that warming in the surface records is due to "station dropout" or UHI or AC units. -
dhogaza at 08:37 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Until about 2000 "satellite temperature measurements" used to show cooling in lower troposphere in direct contradiction to both direct surface temperature reconstructions and GCM predictions. It was a long and painful process to develop atmospheric models and fine-tune backward calculation procedures to bring satellite data in line with expectations.
Bull. Other researchers found a series of *algebraic* errors in the derivation of the Christy/Spencer algorithm, one of which was a *sign flip*. After correction, the UAH product shows rough agreement with both the surface temps and model outputs. A logical person might conclude that this increases our confidence in the robustness of GCMs and GISTEMP/HadCRUT. -
tobyjoyce at 08:00 AM on 28 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
At the risk of flogging this one to death, and for my own benefit, I have been thinking about the differences in the 1972 & 1997 spectra. The Harries (2006) paper finds significant differences in the spectra between 1997 & 1972 for certain wavelengths (or rather, the subtracted spectra are significantly different from 0 over certain wavelength bands). Is this enough to show a difference in general - for some wavelengths, there seems to be no difference, right? Suppose there are equal numbers of wavelengths with and without significant differences (which is Gary Thompson's point)? What does that prove? My way to resolve this is mathematically. Suppose 1972 radiation = f(x) + noise 1997 radiation = g(x) + noise To investigate if f(x) and g(x) are equal we look at f(x)-g(x)for values of x.. if we just get noise (mean 0) at all values of x then the functions are equal f(.)=g(.) Now functions may be equal over part of their support e.g. f(x)=x and g(x)=x^2 are equal at x=1. If you just took samples from x=0.95 to x=1.05, you might be hard put to tell a significant difference. So (to repeat!) functions can be equal for parts of their support, and unequal elsewhere. It is where there are significant differences that count. Strictly speaking, you can say that these functions are equal over the inverval [x1,x2] and unequal over the interval [x2,x3]... but clearly there are not equal over [x1,x3]. Therefore, clearly the functions f(x) & g(x), representing the values in different years are not equal over the wavelength range, & Gary's point is unproven. -
jhecht410 at 07:58 AM on 28 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Holy cow, the iPhone app is FREE?! Heck, that shamed me into making a app-sized donation to the Skeptical Science site. Vote with your wallet... -
jhecht410 at 07:33 AM on 28 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
How about porting the app to a pay-to-enter Website? One where the fee to join was the same as the cost of the iPhone app. Can you tell that I don't own an iPhone? (grin) Put up the site, and I'll be first in line to pay an app-priced fee... Porting the app to a Web-based delivery system could potentially generate MANY more users than porting it to other smartphones! -
ProfMandia at 07:17 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
$56 AUD just sent (I know, weird number but I thought it was equal to $50 USD). I was waiting for you to put a donate button up. You are a tireless, scientific workhorse and should get a little $$$ for your efforts. BTW, thanks to Kate over at ClimateSight who turned the lightbulb on for me, I just created a Facebook group called Global Warming Fact of the Day. I will post a small factoid each day related to climate change that is geared toward the general public. From what I gather, anybody who joins the group will get this daily factoid automatically on their Facebook page. I like the concept because people will get information without having to go find it. I started with three factoids to wet appetites. -
Jeff Freymueller at 07:13 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#78 Berényi Péter, I replied to you on the other thread, but I don't use that kind of data so my reply may be of limited use. -
Jeff Freymueller at 07:10 AM on 28 February 2010Temp record is unreliable
#57, Berényi Péter The details are outside my specialty so I can offer only very limited help here. I went to the ftp site and poked around for a minute or two and found this readme file: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/readme.txt The ftp site looks like it is designed to make it simple for people to write automated scripts to grab all the data or updates, which is what I would be doing if I used this data. I do know from reading other blogs that the raw data is also available in addition to adjusted data, so you will have to poke around a bit, or send a question to the email address in the readme file if you can't find what you need after reading the documentation. GISS has the source code for its software online, so you can look into that for examples of reading the files and so on. -
Robert at 07:04 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Congratulations! $5 to you. BTW, when I donated I was sent to a site that offered me premium cartoons. Qui? You deserve more, and when I have more, you will get some of it. -
tobyjoyce at 06:59 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Well done, excellent blog. -
Riccardo at 06:54 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter, the UAH satellite analisys showing cooling was not a problem of comparison, it was just flawed. -
VeryTallGuy at 06:44 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Very well deserved, always my first point of call when debunking nonsense. Keep up the good work on the facts and keep on trying to make the site as welcoming as possible to sceptics. -
Berényi Péter at 06:04 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#80 wingding at 03:00 AM on 28 February, 2010 "they invoke numerous vague arguments [...], but don't explain why the satellites also show similar warming" Satellites show neither warming nor cooling. They show radiance changes in certain narrow em radiation bands. To convert it to surface or lower troposphere temperature is a tricky business and depends on the model used. Until about 2000 "satellite temperature measurements" used to show cooling in lower troposphere in direct contradiction to both direct surface temperature reconstructions and GCM predictions. It was a long and painful process to develop atmospheric models and fine-tune backward calculation procedures to bring satellite data in line with expectations. However, this complex inverse transform can only be verified by direct measurements performed in situ. In this sense satellite temperature trends are not independent sources. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D03106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006392, 2006 Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere Konstantin Y. Vinnikov, Norman C. Grody, Alan Robock, Ronald J. Stouffer, Philip D. Jones, and Mitchell D. Goldberg Received 20 June 2005; revised 12 October 2005; accepted 7 November 2005; published 11 February 2006. www.atmos.umd.edu/.../VinnikovEtAlTempTrends2005JD006392.pdf "As explained in section 1, it is for this reason that we compare the MSU channel 2 measurements directly with forward model calculations that include the stratospheric contribution, rather than attempt to correct the measurements for stratospheric effects" -
Charlie A at 05:30 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
For those of you who point to the similarity of the various global average temperature time series, I would recommend that you look into the history of expectation bias and confirmation bias. An interesting article is "A selected history of expectation bias in physics", by Monwhea Jeng. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508199v1.pdf In particular, look at Figure 2 showing the history of measurements of the speed of light. Note how for much of the first half of the 1900's that the consensus on the value was well below the currently accepted value. Also note that the currently accepted value for the speed of light is _outside_ of the error bands reported in paper after paper. As Skeptical Scientists we should keep in mind the problem of confirmation bias and expectation bias. I don't have a reference at hand, but as I recall, the electron charge to mass ratio has a similar measurement history where there were periods of consensus where the measured values converged, with increasingly smaller error bands, upon a value that later turned out to be erroneous. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 05:07 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Congratulations John. I'm sure you will receive many more accolades for your fantastic service. And I'm only too happy to contribute, you're helping so many of us by you clear and concise explanations. -
Riccardo at 04:45 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, "It looks like NOAA might have its own issues with removing climate measuring stations that report cooler than expected values." It looks very likely the way too often people do not distinguish (or do not want people to distinguish) between absolute temperature and anomaly. Indeed, high northern latitude stations have shown higher trends. The ovreall effect of dropping those stations is (if any) a decreasing trend. As for the urban vs rural stations dropping, anyone can see that less rural stations has been droppend in relative numbers. So there's no "preference" on urban stations, which anyways have the trends corrected and made equal to those in rural stations. It's just one of the many bogus claims on the surface temperature dataset. -
Riccardo at 04:25 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
well done John :) -
Tom Dayton at 03:44 AM on 28 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Argus, a good overview is cce's The Global Warming Debate. It will give you a good base from which you can more efficiently and effectively pursue particular topics here. -
Riccardo at 03:23 AM on 28 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Argus, I'm glad you now realize that we all think that there's not just CO2. It's an important point to make clear as did our host writing a post on it. It is only by looking at all the important factors that scientists can be so confident on the causes of recent and past climate variations. Please keep reading and asking, it won't take that much time :) -
Tenney Naumer at 03:13 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
You certainly deserve this award!!! (Love the photo!) We need you more than ever now to fight the Climate Denial Machine! You are the best when it comes to layperson's explanations that can tell us non-scientists what is going on. Thank you so much! Tenney -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:01 AM on 28 February 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
Congrats John. You deserve that much and more... -
wingding at 03:00 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie: You earlier implied that people were being asked to spend money based on the HadCRUT analysis. But that isn't true and that is why the CRU "lost data" issue is scientifically irrelevant. The HadCRUT analysis is but one analysis of global surface temperature that uses station data. Even without HadCRUT there would be the same picture from GISTEMP, the NCDC and the JPA analysis. Therefore nothing hinges on HadCRUT. There is no need for the HadCRUT data. The HadCRUT result has already been reproduced by these other studies. In the case of GISTEMP the source code is available online. So there are no excuses for focusing on the CRU "missing data" as if this impacts a scientific result. The report you link to, which mainly consists of smear-like questions without bothering to find out the answers, takes issue with NOAA GHCN. But similar issues apply here too. Even though the surface temperature records all use GHCN station data (except HadCRUT) - they only do so for the land. The ocean data also shows warming. And completely independently both satellite records show warming over the past 30 years too. If the NOAA GHCN data is incorrect, how come the derivative surface land temperature records (GISTEMP, NCDC, JMA) agree well with the ocean and satellite derived temperatures which don't rely on NOAA GHCN data? There's too much agreement between these different sources to possibly regard it as an error. Worse of all skeptics just can't make up their mind where the errors are. Contradictions abound. One moment the issue is HadCRUT, next it's GHCN, then suddenly it's GISTEMP (but never UAH). They can't make up their minds what kind of size of error they are talking about, they invoke numerous vague arguments like station dropout in the 90s, or UHI, microsite biases, etc, but don't explain why the satellites also show similar warming (given they are immune to these arguments). It's all very vague and very unscientific. They are all over the shot and none of them have bothered to even try and reproduce the global surface temperature record from station data. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 02:56 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #77 Deech56 The first question to be addressed is sloppy research. And the amazement scientest exhibit when they are asked about their adherence to the standards they set themselves. -
Argus at 02:51 AM on 28 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Thank you very much for acknowledging that there are other forcings than CO2, and that climate changes similar to what we are experiencing now, have occurred before. It seems to me that 99% of what is presented here is focussed on CO2 only, as if there were no other explanation to anything at all happening on this planet. Also, thanks for the links! I am continually reading up on more facts presentations and connected debates within this great site (and some others). I am slowly learning, and by now I know a lot more than the average person in the street, but I also recognize how little I know compared to those who have studied this field seriously for years. -
Berényi Péter at 02:48 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#72 Jeff Freymueller at 17:00 PM on 27 February, 2010 "Anyone can download the original data and reanalyze it" Jeff, I am trying to reflect on this statement, but John keeps deleting my posts. In a _political_ thread, full of off-topic comments. I really do not know why he does it. Anyway, I give it another try following Doug Bostrom's advice in #50, this thread and repost under "Are surface temperature records reliable?" as #57. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=57&&a=110#9491 -
Deech56 at 02:35 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, you might want to check here. -
Berényi Péter at 02:34 AM on 28 February 2010Temp record is unreliable
Re: #72 Jeff Freymueller at 17:00 PM on 27 February, 2010 (in: Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming) http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=147#9477 "Anyone can download the original data and reanalyze it" Jeff, I am trying to do that, but the only source I know of is GHCN-Monthly Version 2 at the NCDC site: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php Do you know a better source? If so, a pointer is welcome. For this particular dataset is a complete mess. It is dominated by USHCN, poorly documented, metadata are insufficient, the adjustment procedure is arbitrary, coverage AFTER 1990 is deteriorating rapidly. Look into it and you'll see. In a post deleted by John I have provided some details. Suffice to say the NCDC adjustment algorithm has at least four outstanding break points at 1905, 1920, 1990 & 2006. On average for the 1920-1990 period they have applied a 0.36°C/century warming adjustment to the entire dataset. It's essentially the same for sites flagged "rural" and the rest (urban & suburban), no statistically significant difference in adjustment slopes (based on counterfactual assumption of no urbanization in this period perhaps). The dataset does not meet any reasonable open source standard. Still, NCDC at its site says it was "employed" in IPCC AR4 20th century temperature reconstruction. http://ber.parawag.net/images/GHCN_adjustments.jpg Looks like it is high time for a transparent open source community project to recollect worldwide temperature histories along with site assessments and ample metadata. -
Berényi Péter at 02:12 AM on 28 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
You can have a look at sea level trends here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml Unfortunately they neither compute acceleration term nor have data in text files. -
pmheideman at 02:10 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Inhofe's report is frankly pathetic. The discussion of "hide the trick" is laughable, with Jones being accused of 'data manipulation' in his graph, indicating that Inhofe's staffers don't even know what data are. The whole premise that someone nefariously hides something by including the real temp data is absurd. It doesn't even mention the NAS report on the Hockey Stick graph, which is a pretty striking act of intellectual dishonesty in a governmental publication. And it cites Jones' "no statistically significant warming" comment repeatedly as if it were some kind of shocking admission, without mentioning that GISS, etc do show warming that passes the significance test. On a skeptic scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being EM Smith of WUWT and 10 being Lindzen, I'd give it a 2.5. -
Berényi Péter at 01:59 AM on 28 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#67 kwinters79 at 07:49 AM on 27 February, 2010 "If I start my NY guage data projection fit from 1950 or 1960 (vs. 1856) there's a significantly more rapid acceleration component. I'll gladly post the data, if anyones interested" Post it please. However, this acceleration thing is not so simple. In PSMSL we have two time series for each station, monthly & annual ones. For the New York tide gauge they are: http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.monthly.plots/960121.gif http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/960121.gif The corresponding text files: http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.monthly.data/960121.rlrdata http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.data/960121.rlrdata Some measurement points are flagged "XX" at end of line, meaning database collectors found them suspicious. I have left them out in this analysis. I have calculated acceleration term for relative sea level change at NY gauge for a number of time spans. Here it is. Monthly/Annual: 1900-1920: +0.7263 mm/yr^2 +0.7899 mm/yr^2 1900-1930: -0.1316 mm/yr^2 -0.1158 mm/yr^2 1900-1940: +0.1065 mm/yr^2 +0.1160 mm/yr^2 1900-1950: +0.0976 mm/yr^2 +0.1011 mm/yr^2 1900-1960: +0.0675 mm/yr^2 +0.0701 mm/yr^2 1900-1970: +0.0320 mm/yr^2 +0.0338 mm/yr^2 1900-1980: +0.0097 mm/yr^2 +0.0083 mm/yr^2 1900-1990: -0.0098 mm/yr^2 -0.0095 mm/yr^2 1900-2000: -0.1244 mm/yr^2 +0.0005 mm/yr^2 1900-2008: -0.1123 mm/yr^2 -0.0010 mm/yr^2 1910-2008: -0.1390 mm/yr^2 -0.0093 mm/yr^2 1920-2008: -0.1650 mm/yr^2 -0.0164 mm/yr^2 1930-2008: -0.1807 mm/yr^2 -0.0187 mm/yr^2 1940-2008: -0.1392 mm/yr^2 +0.0117 mm/yr^2 1950-2008: -0.0339 mm/yr^2 +0.0283 mm/yr^2 1960-2008: +0.3291 mm/yr^2 +0.0679 mm/yr^2 1970-2008: +1.5011 mm/yr^2 +0.1345 mm/yr^2 1980-2008: +5.0428 mm/yr^2 -0.1557 mm/yr^2 1990-2008: +7.4565 mm/yr^2 -0.6288 mm/yr^2 The large discrepancies toward the end are due to measurement problems after 1990. Annual series misses data for years 1992, 1994 & 2001, 1997 flagged suspicious. Metadata does not have explanation. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/docu.psmsl/960121.docu Monthly dataset misses three months for 1992, two for 1994, one for 1997 and four in 2001. Data after 1990 are unusable. I don't know why it is so, one would fancy some technical improvement, not deterioration for recent times. Also, according to docu "Data 1922-1926 interpolated". Looks like only period 1927-1991 is reasonably intact. 1927-1991: -0.0908 mm/yr^2 -0.0901 mm/yr^2 Someone should visit (or call) NY tide gauge station, ask them and report findings. BTW, the station must be The Battery, downtown Manhattan (ID: 8518750), even if PSMSL ducu lacks station ID (!). http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?stn=8518750%20The%20Battery,%20NY&type=Tide%20Data -
Karl_from_Wylie at 01:58 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #74 wingding It looks like NOAA might have its own issues with removing climate measuring stations that report cooler than expected values. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf -
wingding at 00:57 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Charlie A 68: The focus on the missing CRU data is a big political con. It has no scientific importance and is merely advanced to try to discredit the very robust and independently validated recent warming trend. We could pretend CRU never existed and our understanding of warming in recent decades would not change. That's how robust the result is and how little any individual record - like HadCRUT matters. Five other temperature records - GISTEMP, NOAA, JPA, RSS and UAH, all show the same as what HadCRUT shows. And other analyses are also showing the same picture: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/ -
Riccardo at 23:51 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter, i can just quote doug_bostrom, you should post in a different thread. -
Riccardo at 23:45 PM on 27 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Argus, it should come as no surprise that climate has changed before. Indeed, one has to look at how climate works, i.e. that there are several possible forcings other than CO2. In particular, in the first half of last century there has been a reduced volcanic activity (grey line) concomitant to an increase of total solar irradiance (top panel). The result is an increase in temperature till about 1950, overall and in the Arctic as well. -
Berényi Péter at 23:09 PM on 27 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#68 Douglas McClean at 19:24 PM on 27 February, 2010 "the linear rise component you observed in these data is in fact attributable to warming" The linear component can have any sign, is highly variable over locations, not just at sites close to former ice sheets. Shape of Earth is changing all the time, has nothing to do with temperature, usually a slow process (having minuscule acceleration on century time scale) except at plate boundaries. Mediterranean seas like Black sea can also have weird behavior for a number of reasons. All in all the quadratic component is much more reliable than the linear one, depends less on the particular choice of tide gauge set considered. It also dominates over longer time scales. Just to make things clear, the line fit I used was (a/2)*x^2+b*x+c. -
Turboblocke at 22:15 PM on 27 February 2010It's cosmic rays
Thanks Riccardo. BTW he's not a friend, just another blog scientist.
Prev 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 Next
