Eaarth

[NeilBlanchard]

One of the news reporters over at Fox News should spend a moment to tell Bill O'Reilly about how the ocean tides work...

Bill O'Reilly Proves God's Existence - Neil deGrasse Tyson - The Colbert Report - 1/6/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[dcb]

LOL, are we really gonna go there?

[NeilBlanchard]

I was not the person who introduced Fox News as a reliable news source...

[dcb]

yah but let it go... You know you are in a 100% pissing match when you are debating the relative merits of fox news.

[Arragonis]

If you are going to analyse temp trends then you also have to include an analysis of the adjustments of the temperature record of course. See here.

This is a graph from 1976



and here is one from 2006



Or imposed on each other



So has the record changed ?

Well yes. But only with artificial adjustments. Quoting from the link :

So approximately 70% of the decline in temperatures after 1935-40 has been removed, it seems.


What is the importance? What is the impact if the original temperature set of 1976 is in fact best estimate?
1) The unique and dramatic temperatures of today, appears to be a mostly empty claim.
2) Effects of CO2 are often evaluated and confirmed by examining the temperatures 1940-2008. So, faulty temperatures necessitate CO2 effect to be reconsidered.
3) Effects on sea level rise predicted for the future are often based on fast rising temperature trends, and thus sea level rise would have to be reconsidered.
4) In short, most predictions of future consequences from climate change are build on the “fact” that temperature where rising strongly 1940-2008, and would need to be reconsidered.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by dcb

you do understand that globally temperatures are rising and that local anomalies are to be expected, right? I'm talking observed trends, not predictions.

Anyway you did not answer my question, so you concede that solar is only part of the story?

An interesting aside to this argument of temp record is that the bulk of temps rising since 1850 was before 1940, i.e. pre the postwar consumer and population booms. If they were linked then you would see CO2 rising being followed by warming, i.e. a driver or forcing.

But they don't seem to be linked.



So something else has to be a factor, and a major one.

[dcb]

I must admit I'm a little concerned about the age of those graphs two posts ago. 35 years is a long time in scientific technique terms. I mean you wouldn't want to start a debate about the earth being at the center of the solar system based on some ancient text.

edit: I need a bit to figure out your second post.

[dcb]

As some empirical evidence that the artic is getting smaller/warmer, apparently the northwest passage opened up in 2008 for the first time in centuries. There's a video on this page: Arctic summer ice could disappear within decades, survey data suggests | Environment | The Guardian it is definitely warmer up there than 33 years ago. The white coloring gradient is a little dramatic, so look at the yellow line for the surface area.

[Arragonis]

1. Yeah the graph isn't great for age, but it does show the relationship reasonably well.

2. Its been open before then. The story appeared in the Independent Newspaper at the time as a desperate emergency but was proved to be more or less panic laden bollocks. It was my starting point as a non-believer...

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by dcb

I must admit I'm a little concerned about the age of those graphs two posts ago. 35 years is a long time in scientific technique terms.

To be honest, I'm far more concerned about attempts to correct data that was dutifully collected before the GW controversy started.

It's not the skeptics who are correcting the data ...