Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
I've been looking at some papers which address this issue and will have more to add later,but it looks like the breadth of the early data,pales in comparison to more modern recorded measurements.
We've more recently had more terrestrial measurement/telemetry,seagoing reported data/telemetry,full-time meteorological data telemetry,airborne sensing/reporting,space-based sensing/telemetry,higher resolution measurements,greater quantitative measurements,higher frequency of measurements,etc..,more reporting infrastructure than ever before.
As of 1999,people were still 'discovering' forgotten databases of archival weather records,which have been undergoing digitizing, such that the data will allow global access to the data to any interested researcher.
Before 1970,there was less information available at the time,it was patchy,and inspired less confidence in comparisons.
The researchers are just playing a game of catch-up.
If you're looking for conspiracies,then confirmation bias is all you need.
|
What's funny is that you can't even take those old measurements at face value. Variability in testing sites, equipment and conditions.
I believe I shared in here several months ago a discussion of tidal gauges, and the debate among researchers as to what the proper correction factors are for those gauges against satellite measurements.
What stood out is the realization that the lithosphere is truly a plastic thing. When you measure water levels, you're measuring them against gauges that will move up and down with the land it is on as the land rises or sinks due to any number of reasons... tectonic plates moving against each other, or rising or sinking due to the weight of ice or water, underground water, etcetera.
When people see a vast scientific conspiracy to "hide the truth", I laugh. Getting thousands of scientists to conspire on anything would require lobby money on the level of... well... oil companies.
That those companies are instead funding the denialists tells you something. They'd rather not waste their money building a majority consensus. More effective to create the illusion of conspiracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
The quoted testimony encompasses sometimes unscientific,or contextual comments,without specificity.
'Truth' is not a word used within the scientific community.
I don't know about the IPCC,but referees for science publications do screen paper submissions for 'cranks' and 'nutters'.And they're the only ones qualified to make the distinction.
No scientist has ever said that climate change is solely driven by anthropogenic carbon.It's only a component of warming.However,what lies outside the signal-to-noise ratio of natural variability DOES attribute anthropogenic carbon as the driver.
There's no other atmospheric coupling of such magnitude that can explain the warming.
|
I was looking through some of the links. One scientist, on his blog complains that - personally knowing one of the scientists quoted - the guy was being taken out of context.
There are genuine skeptics there who propose that there are greater forcings than carbon, but they don't deny the data outright. Not like the politicians who composed the report do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
They've gone up by 15% in Antarctica.
|
Increased warmth. Melting?