Eaarth

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

Okay, what does this mean? Does this mean that the mean temperature in 1972 was -11 C? Or does it mean that somebody took a dataset showing one thing, and interpreted it to mean another thing?

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

For the love of Pete, is being polite and/or constructive really that bad?

Thanks.

And to the other posters who tried/are trying to regulate/moderate the tone of discussion, and who manage to contribute minus taunts & jabs, thank you too.

[roflwaffle]

I've trolled my fair share, but that shooting was a reminder that a small group of people aren't very stable and being a prick probably won't help a situation.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Tell me a little more about this person Lord Christopher Monckton? What is his background and training? He seems to be a favorite of anthropogenic global climate change deniers -- I wonder what his old boss, Margaret Thatcher says about anthropogenic global climate?

He was science advisor to Thatcher when she was "supreme being" in the UK for a while. She was a scientist but was not too unhappy when burning coal was suggested to be bad as she had a few issues with the UK mining unions at the time. Her policy was to phase out coal in favour of Gas and Nuclear for energy production.

Crispin Tickell has claimed Thatch understood the threat of AGW and embraced it. Monkton has suggested the opposite, that she saw it as a political thing.

As Thatch is getting on, I suspect we will have to wait for the memoirs to find out for sure.

He is, however, someone who raises questions about the science - some of which are as yet unanswered. I could also indicate people like Steve McIntyre who are laypersons who have found problems with the science.

Climategate seems to suggest Peer Review no longer does enough to ensure science is as rigorous as it once was.

Originally Posted by dcb

umm... which NASA are we talking about, and were they measuring the globe or some points on a continent?
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever - ScienceNOW
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

You also have to include the adjustments which remain unexplained, and of course the period being reported on which seems to have excluded the cold snap at the end of the year. But nobody seems to explain why.

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

For the love of Pete, is being polite and/or constructive really that bad? The increase in solar irradiance has probably increased the temperature but it probably hasn't been enough to account for all of the increases. If anyone has a problem w/ the data, for instance the IPCC's stuff, feel free to point out what specifically is wrong.

+1 for the polite comment, I think its time to take the heat (I know, I know) out of this. As for the IPCC look at Amazongate, Himilayan (spelling ?) glaciers melting and so on to see them as a clean source.

We need a thorough, unbiased examination of the science. At the moment it is too unreliable to commit several decades of the world GDP to fight this to the exclusion of other work.

I'm out of this thread now. Muppet has left the building...

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

...She was a scientist...

<jealous/>

BTW, I did find some earlier discussions about the NASA data adjustments:
Rewriting History, Time and Time Again « Climate Audit

Nothing terribly conclusive, but this post does describe the method, at least from back then. Do you think it an accurate assesment? That they over-averaged? Or is this the "tip of the iceberg" (pun mine) on the adjustments? Has anyone tried to make sense of the adjustments?

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Climategate seems to suggest Peer Review no longer does enough to ensure science is as rigorous as it once was.


You also have to include the adjustments which remain unexplained, and of course the period being reported on which seems to have excluded the cold snap at the end of the year. But nobody seems to explain why.

To be fair only people outside of science seem to view peer review as something that magically instills rigor in someone's work, they can still abuse basic concepts. All Climategate did based on what I've read was illustrate how cliquey people can be.

A cold snap or any specific weather occurrence really isn't pertinent to GCC, a consistent change in them may be, but cold weather in an of itself doesn't invalidate anything. Having the kitchen window open for a nice cool breeze doesn't mean the garage isn't on fire. Weather isn't climate. What ultimately matters is whether or not we continue to see the same trend in the GIS data and to some extent a consistent change in weather patterns. It could be colder winters in one place, warmer winters in another, and cooler summers in another. YMMV.

[t vago]

I'll be civil, as long as Neil can refrain from implying that I'm some sort of knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing, sloped-foreheaded, flat-earther for not bowing down before the gods of AGW.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere which is most responsible for insulating the Earth, and slowing down the heat loss to a point where the temperature is livable.

If you believe your own theory about CO2 driving global climate, you should really be worried that the CO2 level is as low as it is and temperatures are as low as they are.

Looking at the bigger picture, we're in a cold period Neil, even though on the short term (say 100,000 years) we're in a warmer period inbetween ice ages for all we can tell (nobody has a crystal ball).

By changing the level of carbon dioxide rapidly by a significant amount greater than at any time during human existence or indeed higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years

If you don't take into account the higher readings made in the early 1900's.
The CO2 data that didn't fit the theory.

Why limit the discussion to a period of known low CO2 levels ?
They have been higher for most of Earth's existence, as have the temperatures (call it correlation if you wish).

We can look back at even earlier history to see what happened, and when, in relation to the carbon dioxide levels. At the point about 65 million years ago, when the island that became what we call India finished moving out of the southern hemisphere, and ran into the southern part of Asia -- the level of volcanic activity diminished, and the rate of weathering increased.

The weathering traps CO2, and can (dangerously ?) lower it in the atmosphere.
It's been related to a period of severe global cooling : Snowball Earth - almost wiping out life on the planet.

Weren't you worrying about oceanic acidification ?

Carbon dioxide was at about 1,000PPM at the point -- and there was no permanent ice anywhere on Earth, and it was essentially tropical everywhere on Earth

And life thrived !
Earth supported high numbers of big creatures.
Why paint it as a bleak picture when clearly it wasn't ?

When the people who know the most about the climate get very concerned, then we should all be very concerned, too.

A lot of them who are concerned not about global warming, but about global warming advocacy.

[t vago]

[gone-ot]

...methane is far worse at trapping solar radiation than CO2 (20-something times greater), and yet all the emphasis seems to focus on CO2.

...cattle and volcanos daily produce methane in prodigious quantities, but where's the 'cry-to-arms' against methane?

...I know, CO2 is attributed to fossil fuels, but Mother Nature contributes her fair share as well.

...first, identify the culprits and, then, fairly attribute the blame.