[hurley_108]

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.

I'd call a trend that says Jesus would have needed a parka a significant trend.

Suppose you're right, and we start to see some cooling. Does that mean global warming has stopped? Maybe, maybe not. This is a very short data set (even though it goes back to before I was born). Let's look at the (much maligned) GISS data, and compare it against the UAH data. Here's the GISS chart for the same period as the UAH data (Dec 1978 to present):

1:

GISS(UAH).PNG [ 33.76 KiB | Viewed 105 times ]

Note the slope? Almost identical. Not quite within the error of the UAH slope, but still damn close. And this is the bad data, remember? Now, to look at the entire GISS record:

0:

GISS(All).PNG [ 44.2 KiB | Viewed 105 times ]

We still see a warming trend. Less dramatic still, slightly less than half and taking about 170-180 years for a 1 degree rise in temperatures, but still a warming trend. So even if the next 10, 20, or 30 years are cooling (from now), that still won't necessarily erase the current warming trend.

Yea, we can cool it (pun intended) with the overheated (again, pun intended) rhetoric, but it still merits some action IMHO.

[BartSimpson]

Surface temps in urban areas are up. Big deal. Meanwhile, satellite temperature data shows that it's cooler today globally than this time last year. Where's my press release?

To see the data yourself in real time from 11 NASA satellites go here: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps

[BartSimpson]

July 17th at 14,000 feet shows as the coolest July 17th of the past 10 years.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Surface temps in urban areas are up. Big deal. Meanwhile, satellite temperature data shows that it's cooler today globally than this time last year. Where's my press release?

To see the data yourself in real time from 11 NASA satellites go here: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ ... ?amsutemps

Nope. Think again.

$1:

Adjusting for urban heat island effect.

When compiling temperature records, NASA's GISS goes to great pains to remove any possible influence from urban heat island effect. They compare urban long-term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).

They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analyzing temperature records. More on urban heat island...

Climate Audit and NASA's "Y2K" glitch

Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA. But what is the significance?

Figure 1 compares the global temperature trend from before and after adjustments. Before the error was discovered, the trend was 0.185°C/decade. After corrections were made, the trend was still 0.185°C/decade. The change to the global mean was less than one thousandth of a degree.

More on NASA's Y2K glitch



Other lines of evidence for rising temperatures

The surface temperature trends are also confirmed from multiple, independent sources:

* Surface temperature analysis by NASA GISS finds strong agreement with two independent analyses by CRU's Global Temperature Record and NCDC.
* Weather balloon measurements have found from 1975 through 2005, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.23°C/decade.
* Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures show temperature rises between 0.16°C and 0.24°C/decade since 1982.
* Ice core reconstructions found the 20th century to be the warmest of the past five centuries, confirming the results of earlier proxy reconstructions.
* Sea surface temperatures, borehole reconstructions and ocean temperatures all show long-term warming trends.

[DerbyX]

Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban

[BartSimpson]

Go look at the satellite data for yourself.

[DerbyX]

All I get from your link is a blue page saying: Error return (1) from MCU_GetPost

But here is the counter to what it probably shows anyway:

Satellites don’t just measure the troposphere (the lowest level of the atmosphere) – which is what matters – in isolation, but also the higher stratosphere. The latter is expected to cool during global warming, because more heat is absorbed by the Earth and less is re-radiated into space. Furthermore, satellites are dependent on weekly recalibration by weather balloons so they cannot even be said to be independent.

As for the weather balloons, the problem is that during the 1960′s and 1970′s their on-board thermometers were not shielded from the Sun’s glare – thus inflating temperatures for that time period. Since this (obvious) oversight was fixed in the past couple of decades, the juxtaposed records appear to invalidate global warming…appear being the operative word. For when the analysis is restricted to just night-time measurements, surely enough the data shows a clear warming trend.

[BartSimpson]

$1:

When compiling temperature records, NASA's GISS goes to great pains to remove any possible influence from urban heat island effect. They compare urban long-term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).

Derby, this process you cite here was discredited by one of your fellow Canadians some time ago.

[DerbyX]

Here is more:

$1:

This figure compares the global average surface temperature record, as compiled by Jones and Moberg (2003; data set TaveGL2v with 2005 updates), to the microwave sounder (MSU) satellite data of lower atmospheric temperatures determined by Christy et al. (UAH 2003; data set tltglhmam version 5.2 with 2005 updates) and Schabel et al. (RSS 2002; data set tlt_land_and_ocean with 2005 updates). These two satellite records reflect two different ways of interpreting the same set of microwave sounder measurements and are not independent records. Each record is plotted as the monthly average and straight lines are fit through each data set from January 1982 to December 2004. The slope of these lines are 0.187°C/decade, 0.163°C/decade, and 0.239°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS respectively.

It is important to know that the 5.2 version of Christy et al.'s satellite temperature record contains a significant correction over previous versions. In summer 2005, Mears and Wentz (2005) discovered that the UAH processing algorithms were incorrectly adjusting for diurnal variations, especially at low latitude. Correcting for this problem raised the trend line 0.035°C/decade, and in so doing brought it into much better agreement with the ground based records and with independent satellite based analysis (e.g. Fu et al. 2004). The discovery of this error also explains why their satellite based temperature trends had disagreed most prominently in the tropics.

Within measurement error, all of these records paint a similar picture of temperature change and global warming. However, climate models predict carbon dioxide based greenhouse warming should result in lower atmosphere warming roughly 1.3 times higher than the surface warming. This prediction is consistent with the RSS vs. surface comparison, though by contrast the UAH vs. surface comparison suggests a troposphere warming by slightly less than the surface of the Earth.

Note: In the above figure, there is still a significant discrepancy between the very earliest satellite measurements and the ground based measurements at that time. For this reason only the interval 1982-2005 was used in calculating each trend. Including the earliest years leads to a wider dispersion , with trends of 0.170°C/decade, 0.116°C/decade, and 0.192°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS data respectively. The origin of this discrepancy is unclear.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

All I get from your link is a blue page saying: Error return (1) from MCU_GetPost

Try it now.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

$1:

When compiling temperature records, NASA's GISS goes to great pains to remove any possible influence from urban heat island effect. They compare urban long-term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).

$1:

Derby, this process you cite here was discredited by one of your fellow Canadians some time ago.

Show it then. I just love how you consider all the temperature records as flawed unless they show a cooling then you cite them for reference.

[BartSimpson]

Oh, and your satellite temperature charts mean far less to me than the actual, raw data from NASA satellites.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Oh, and your satellite temperature charts mean far less to me than the actual, raw data from NASA satellites.

That is because you are trying to make the facts fit the conclusion rather then the other way around.

The experts, that 97% of scientists, made the conclusion from the evidence.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Surface temps in urban areas are up. Big deal. Meanwhile, satellite temperature data

My graph on the previous page, showing ~.015°C per year warming is based on the UAH satellite data.

$1:

shows that it's cooler today globally than this time last year. Where's my press release?

Year over year differences are meaningles. This month versus the same month last year is even more meaningless.

$1:

To see the data yourself in real time from 11 NASA satellites go here: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps

Real time is anecdotal. 30 years starts to say something, and that's what I charted on the previous page.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Oh, and your satellite temperature charts mean far less to me than the actual, raw data from NASA satellites.

Meaning what, exactly? What are you reading from the "raw" data? What exactly is the "raw" data? It's a voltage on a sensor. If you want to draw conclusions from the "raw" data, you have to process it, aggregate it, and do some analysis. That I've done, taking the monthly temperatures and applying a linear regression to detect a trend. You've plucked meaningless datum points and posted lightbulb smilies. Good day.