[desertdude]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10679088

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except they continually back it up with data.

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/ ... gate-data/

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."

[BartSimpson]

That's great. Derby believes in NASA's data more than NASA does.

[sandorski]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except they continually back it up with data.

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/ ... gate-data/

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."

Fox News + vague Quotes = 99% Chance of Fail

[N_Fiddledog]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That's great. Derby believes in NASA's data more than NASA does.

Actually I'm not sure NASA (or at least the part of NASA that still does science as opposed to the activist modifications of say the creative temperature artists at GISS) doesn't appear to have a lot of faith in the Warmist religion.

$1:

“I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists,” NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a taped interview that aired Thursday on National Public Radio. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that is a problem we must wrestle with.”

“I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take,” Griffin said.

And of course the activist leaders of government policy mouth-piece organizations like GISS, and NOAA jumped down his throat, applied the political screws, and forced him to withdraw his comments. We haven't heard much from him since then.

And Griffin even gave them their global warming theory, he just wasn't worried about a catastrophe. Can't have that.

[Zipperfish]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except they continually back it up with data.

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/ ... gate-data/

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."

Horner is a lawyer for a bunch of right-wing think tanks. His comments are meant to persuade, not to elucidate or quantify. Scientists know that no data are perfect, and that establishing the limits of uncertainty is an important an exercise as other data manipulations.

[hurley_108]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That's great. Derby believes in NASA's data more than NASA does.

Actually I'm not sure NASA (or at least the part of NASA that still does science as opposed to the activist modifications of say the creative temperature artists at GISS) doesn't appear to have a lot of faith in the Warmist religion.

$1:

“I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists,” NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a taped interview that aired Thursday on National Public Radio. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that is a problem we must wrestle with.”

“I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take,” Griffin said.

And of course the activist leaders of government policy mouth-piece organizations like GISS, and NOAA jumped down his throat, applied the political screws, and forced him to withdraw his comments. We haven't heard much from him since then.

And Griffin even gave them their global warming theory, he just wasn't worried about a catastrophe. Can't have that.

Your posted satellite data shows a warming trend. I googled it and found the data here. I drew my own chart, and my own moving averages:

0:

temp.PNG [ 33.99 KiB | Viewed 116 times ]

In blue are the measurements, in red the 13 month average, and in pink the 128 month average. 128 months is approximately the 10.66 year solar cycle, so as to see if there was any trend controlling for that variation. As you can see, there is.

Over the period shown here there is a warming trend of 0.014(0.001) degrees per year (number in parentheses is the uncertainty in the figure) in the measurements, and a trend of 0.0165(0.0003) degrees per year in the 128 month average. The intercepts, -27(2) and -32.8(0.6) degrees respectively, are the temperatures back-cast to year zero. Clearly this is absurd, but that just means that the current trend is anomalous for the past 2000 years.

This means that it will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70 years, at this rate, for the globe to warm by 1 degree. That seems rather less than some of the alarmist figures, but it is a substantial warming trend.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That's great. Derby believes in NASA's data more than NASA does.

Actually I'm not sure NASA (or at least the part of NASA that still does science as opposed to the activist modifications of say the creative temperature artists at GISS) doesn't appear to have a lot of faith in the Warmist religion.

$1:

“I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists,” NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a taped interview that aired Thursday on National Public Radio. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that is a problem we must wrestle with.”

“I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take,” Griffin said.

And of course the activist leaders of government policy mouth-piece organizations like GISS, and NOAA jumped down his throat, applied the political screws, and forced him to withdraw his comments. We haven't heard much from him since then.

And Griffin even gave them their global warming theory, he just wasn't worried about a catastrophe. Can't have that.

Griffin is a heretic and mus be dealt with by the High Priests of AGW!!!

[N_Fiddledog]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

This means that it will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70 years, at this rate, for the globe to warm by 1 degree. That seems rather less than some of the alarmist figures, but it is a substantial warming trend.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I've heard slightly different, like 1 degree by the end of the century. Can't remember where, or why, but yeah, close enough.

On whether, or not that is a substantial warming trend, I disagree. In the context of the global warming argument I consider substantial as meaning we are approaching the catastrophes predicted by the IPCC, and other prophets of the doomsayers' religion. As I understand it that starts at about 3 degrees globally. For that you need to postulate a predominance of positive feedbacks to make things worse. That's where the theory falls apart. Generally in the natural world negative feedbacks dominate.

1 degree is no biggie. We can handle it easy peasy by adaptation. Even that though we can't assume as inevitable. The thirty years you're considering includes the thirtyish years of what's known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift. That was when the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) was positive. It influenced global warmth. The PDO has recently turned negative, and will be so for 30ish years. There were 2 positive PDOs in the 20th century. There will be 2 negative in the 21st. The next ten years should tell an interesting story. I say we wait ten years, before we start starving people and turning North America into the third world, based on an as yet unsupported theory the sky may be falling.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

This means that it will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70 years, at this rate, for the globe to warm by 1 degree. That seems rather less than some of the alarmist figures, but it is a substantial warming trend.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I've heard slightly different, like 1 degree by the end of the century. Can't remember where, or why, but yeah, close enough.

On whether, or not that is a substantial warming trend, I disagree. In the context of the global warming argument I consider substantial as meaning we are approaching the catastrophes predicted by the IPCC, and other prophets of the doomsayers' religion. As I understand it that starts at about 3 degrees globally. For that you need to postulate a predominance of positive feedbacks to make things worse. That's where the theory falls apart. Generally in the natural world negative feedbacks dominate.

1 degree is no biggie. We can handle it easy peasy by adaptation. Even that though we can't assume as inevitable. The thirty years you're considering includes the thirtyish years of what's known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift. That was when the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) was positive. It influenced global warmth. The PDO has recently turned negative, and will be so for 30ish years. There were 2 positive PDOs in the 20th century. There will be 2 negative in the 21st. The next ten years should tell an interesting story. I say we wait ten years, before we start starving people and turning North America into the third world, based on an as yet unsupported theory the sky may be falling.

Exactly what I think.

[BartSimpson]

I'm open to wagering the next ten years will be cooler than the last ten years. Any takers?

[djakeydd]

I would not be surprised if the next 10 were cooler, although winters seem to be generally warmer by a fair margin over say 30 years ago. Either way, global climate change is occuring, it's cause is unlikely to be known any time soon. As to macro climate data, it is being skewed to falsify large scale warming which is then blamed on human activity.

[-Wario-]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm open to wagering the next ten years will be cooler than the last ten years. Any takers?

I think you have the answer in your signature

[ASLplease]

If we dont raise taxes and give the money to china, the earth will never get better.

[2Cdo]

ASLplease ASLplease:

If we dont raise taxes and give the money to china, the earth will never get better.

That's worth a positive rep for honesty.