Redstate

I for one would like to see a single climate model that was consistent with global warming make a prediction about future years that actually came true.

So far there hasn't been one. Every single one that made dire predictions about the future was horribly and completely wrong.

That alone makes me a global warming skeptic. If they can't ever predict the near future correctly, I have absolutely no confidence in their ability to predict 100, 1000 years out.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

with a global warming model that could accurately "predict" the past! Thus far they can't even "model" what happened let alone what's going to happen.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

I wasn't watching the thread all day, but I would have said the same thing!

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

Virtually every research paper, project, grant, etc. that deals with climate models has this already. It is called validation - in order for any such model to get published, it has to be demonstrated that it has some actual predictive value and this is usually done by showing what it predicts for the past 1, 2 or more decades, since we actually have the empirically verified data for whatever the model is predicting. Here are some titles if you don't believe me, looks them up on Google scholar if you have the time:

The second Hadley Centre coupled ocean atmosphere GCM : model description, spinup and validation

Long-Term Global Warming Scenarios Computed with an Efficient Coupled Climate Model
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/P...

Simulation of modern and glacial climates with a coupled global model of intermediate complexity
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~avf5/teaching/Files_pdf/Ganapolsky2.pdf

MIT put out a paper showing how different computer models from different reasearchers have wildly different results about past performance. They show an example of something that should be relatively simple to figure out, whether it has been wetter or drier in your town in the past. thye cant agree.

And oftentimes research reports that do agree end up being the same cabal of scientists all agreeing with each other. "I quote you, you quote me".

So when you take in the complexity of weather patterns you dont really have a consensus.

could accurately predict rain tomorrow.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

1. A falsifiable theory

2. Tests of that falsifiable theory

The problem is, when you're talking about climate, tests run on the order of lifetimes, not months or years.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Brought in their first barley harvest in 600 years.

It seems to me that a better form of argument would be to ask about what caused the warming in the 1400's and how we know that the same thing isn't causing it now.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view431.html#global

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Er, that's exactly what I said.

You need to look at the data you have, and come up with a theory – a possible explanation – of what's going on. That theory needs to be specific enough that it makes predictions about data we don't have now, such that other outcomes will disprove the theory.

We then need to collect that data and see what happens.

Backward looking models don't cut it, since there's no prediction involved.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I wish I still had the link to an interesting "Letter to the Editor" written to the Washington Times a few months ago about glaciers in Greenland.

He was a World War II fighter pilot, and he and his squadron were flying back from Europe in 1945 when they ran into bad weather and were forced to ditch their planes in Greenland. They radioed for help, and were rescued by other larger planes after the weather cleared.

Recently, the retired pilot was flown back over the area where the planes had been ditched, but the planes were nowhere to be seen. NASA later found that the planes were buried under 300 feet of ice.

Global-warming enthusiasts and optimistic Greenland farmers may like to point to melting of the edges of the glacier, but if the inland part of the glacier is getting thicker, its total volume may not be decreasing, but possibly increasing. A more detailed mapping over the entire glacier would be needed to determine the overall trend.

Media spin about melting glaciers is also aided by seasonal factors. It's relatively easy for a reporter to ride a ship along the coast of southern Greenland and watch blocks of ice drop off the glacier's edge into the sea under the summer sun. Very few people see the inland thickening of the glacier under winter blizzards, when Greenland remains dark for several months. Except for the silent witness of a few old planes.

Tracking trends in glacier volume is like watching poll numbers...you have to check the internals!

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Global-warming enthusiasts and optimistic Greenland farmers may like to point to melting of the edges of the glacier, but if the inland part of the glacier is getting thicker, its total volume may not be decreasing, but possibly increasing.

Two things. First, the burial of the plane under almost 300 feet of snow has nothing to do with the interior of the ice sheet, because, as you can see here the crash site was at the edge of the ice. From Figure 2 on this page you can see that the plane crashed in on of the areas of greatest annual snow accumulation

Second, as far as whether the volume may possibly be increasing, it isn't. It is, according to NASA, "giving up nearly 50 gigatons--that's 50 billion tons--of water per year." The same page gives a explanation of the thickening of the ice cap in the center:

As ice melts near the coast, it gives up moisture to the surrounding atmosphere, raising its potential energy as the humidity rises. As it's also a lower altitude, the air is warmer, and thus it rises. Up on the wide, flat plains of ice that make up the majority of Greenland's surface, that moisture rich air cools when it reaches the comparatively higher altitude, and the air gives up its moisture in the form of snow. Gradually that snow builds up into ice, hence the apparent increase on the maps shown here. As it turns out, the thickening ice in the center is itself evidence of disappearing ice over the rest of the continent.

So, while it is thickening in places it doesn't represent new ice accumulating, only old ice being relocated. Some small percentage of the melting edge is redeposited at the center, not adding to the potential rise in sea level from the melted ice that does flow into the sea, but neither is it counterbalancing it by taking water from somewhere else and converting it into ice cap.

1. Come up with a mathematical model which, given the climatological input from some year Y, accurately yields the conditions for year Y+n, for all values of n.

2. While your post is not particularly uppity, if you want to convince us of the danger of global warming, you should ditch the "we're smarter than you" attitude. You're not, and condescension just makes our eyes glaze over. Part of that attitude is not realizing that you believe the global warming hype because it fits your assumptions, and those people with whom you agree on most other issues agree with you on this one, too.

3. Stop assuming that those who don't worship the planet don't care about it. We do care about it, in the way one cares about a cherished possession or a great poem written by someone else. The Earth, depending on your point of view, will either be transformed with us on the Judgement Day (in which case we need to take care of it long enough for that to happen) or it will be here millions of years after we're forgotten, recycled into dust. Either way, screaming about "destroying" the planet as some do just makes us blink.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

but I have been convinced by the Science. I didn't mean to come off as I'm smarter then you, I've just been convinced by the scientific data i've seen and I'm curious as to what more needs to be done to sway unconvinced people. I find it to be important.

If you find that my stance of agreeing with accepted science to be a form of arrogance, there is nothing I can do about that.

not so much in the previous post but this sentence:

"If you find that my stance of agreeing with accepted science to be a form of arrogance, there is nothing I can do about that."

is chock full of "i'm smarter than you."

now that you and I have established a wonderful debating relationship, here is what you can do to get us onboard. :-)

admit that you have no idea and that scientists have no idea and that there actually are scientists that disagree. there was a good report from MIT that showed how differing computer models for different universities couldnt even agree to which parts of the world were wetter or drier in the PAST. You would think that is a very easy thing to do, gather rainfall data and punch it it. well I guess it isnt. so when you have something so seemingly simple go wacky, how can you be so sure about global warming.

next kill the hype. saying bush could have prevented katrina by signing kyoto doesnt help your cause.

having greenpeace be very misleading about its glacier photo ad doesnt help your cause

saying that everyone is going to die in 10 years because of global warming...and repeating that every 10 years, doesnt help your cause.

saying that everything is global warming doesnt help. early snow in buffalo? global warming. no snow in buffalo? global warming. warmer oceans? global warming. cooler oceans? global warming.

you can also admit that you were wrong about the next ice age you were touting 40 years ago.

and about kyoto, you can also admit that, by leaving out the biggest polluting nations, it is really a treaty that wants to stifle capitalism and not a serious effort against global warming.

you can also explain how half a degree in 100 years is going to change things...really, not how we are going to be under 300 ft of water next year.

you can also admit that the increase in tornado activity might actually correlate to the more sensitive technology that can track tornadoes.

stuff like that. and this is just what I can think of off the top of my head.

I for one don't think Global Warming is Bush's fault at all. Bush has been in office for 6 years, hardly a time frame broad enough to have dire environmental impact.

And anyone that says Bush caused Katrina is ridiculous and I don't want to associate with. Those are the same loons that say Bush was behind 9-11. Give me a break. As much as I'm not a Bush supporter, there isn't one ounce of me that believes the man has interested in letting 3,000 innocent Americans die.

I do think Global Warming though is at a point where we all need to get involved. I think both the Dems and the GOP have dropped the ball on the issue, and I'm interested in knowing what can get detractors on board.

I would suggest no one has said we'll die in 10 years though. The point that Al Gore is trying to make, is that there is a scientific consensus that in about 10 years, we'll reach an irreversible tipping point, that will have earth altering effects that will be detremintal to the global community.

I'm aware there are dissenting Scientists, however several of them are funding by the Fossil Fuel industry, so I have a hard time trusting them.

I'm glad there has been debate on this topic. I respect everyones dissenting views. I realize I am the minority here.

do you also distrust GW proponents becuase their only source of funding comes if they convince governments that GW is real and an immediate threat?

Remember that "science" has its share of people chasing tenure, book deals, and government funding as well as a number of outright cheats and charlatans. They are human just like everyone else.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I would suggest no one has said we'll die in 10 years though. The point that Al Gore is trying to make, is that there is a scientific consensus that in about 10 years, we'll reach an irreversible tipping point, that will have earth altering effects that will be detremintal to the global community.

Can you give a source that gives a scientific consensus about the tipping point? I'd like to read it. And I mean something somewhat credible NOT a book by Al Gore or a bad press summarization.

As for the "We're all going to die in a decade." I've been hearing similar claims my entire life. There not all global warming but the disaster of the day (decade whatever). Lets see:
We'll be out of oil by the end of the decade (President Carter actually said this on television while he was president. You do the math.) We're going to drown in our own garbage. We're going to starve to death because of overpopulation. The hole in the ozone layer is going to kill us. We're going to freeze to death in the coming ice age. We're going to all die from SARS. We're all going to die of bird flu.

That's all I can think of right now. But these press hyped reports about the end of the world just tend to make one a bit skeptical.

The list of "supportive scientists" he trotted out included how many climatologists? Oh, yeah -- three, out of 100.

Climatologists want nothing to do with Gore or his voodoo science.

Al Gore suggests that over 900 scientists agree with his predictions. The actual number is 13. The others refused to comment (tacit approval) or actually disagreed (outright lying).

There is no "consensus" in the scientific community. They are split about 60%-40%. And most of those are not climatologists. They're numbers are more like 10-10-80 (the 80 being "undecided").

As for the dissenting scientists, yes many of them are funded by the oil/coal industry. Many are also funded from other sources. A study funded by the Sierra Club or Greenpeace (and many of them are) is just as suspect.

The fact of the matter is, wherever the money comes from, it skews the results. There has yet to be a double-blind study of Global Warming (a study where the researchers do not know where the money comes from and the funding agents do not know who is conducting the experiment). Until this occurs, there is no use talking about, well, much of anything.

You assert that "Global Warming though is at a point where we all need to get involved. I think both the Dems and the GOP have dropped the ball on the issue, and I'm interested in knowing what can get detractors on board."

Well, we've given you the answer: Double-blind studies that develop predictor models that acurately predict the future (and in fact, can be shown to "predict" the past).

Interestingly, the computer models developed in the late 1970s, which are among the most benign in terms of climate change, are also among the most accurate. As people add complexity to "improve" the models, the models seem to get worse.

Oh, and before someone else brings up Kyoto, computer models, on average, showed that the temperature of the planet would reduce its increase by 0.2-0.4 C. That was if the U.S. participated. It would not have resulted in any temperature decrease, or even any significant reduction in the supposed increase.

One more thing: From 1888-2004, Punta Arenas, the closest city in the world to Antarctica, the average temperature has dropped half a degree celcius.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

I'm aware there are dissenting Scientists, however several of them are funding by the Fossil Fuel industry, so I have a hard time trusting them.

This type of thing simply infuriates me.

Contrary to what you obviously believe, people who work in the oil industry are no more nor less moral than people who work in environmental organizations.

And what's worse about it is that this type of attitude is actively anti-scientific. Science actually demands that you separate funding from the science of a study. This focus on funding is a cop-out from dealing with dissenting views.

Rather than come to grips with the data, methodology and observations of the skeptic and start an honest peer-review process of his work, you simply dismiss him as a tool of "Big Oil" and scream "CONSENSUS!" at him.

This is science by bullying and press release. And science conducted that way is not science. Environmental Science is now the only field of the physical sciences that actually has lawyers with first degrees in Music listed as "experts".

Until the moment I see global warming skeptics being treated like skeptics are in the other fields of the physical sciences, having their arguments taken seriously, debated and peer reviewed honestly, and not excommunicated and attacked like heretics and apostates as if Global Warming was an article of faith and not a falsifiable theory of science, then I will be convinced.

1. Show a temperature change outside of historical ranges. Don't show me that the earth has warmed 0.6 degrees +/- 0.2 degrees in the last 120 years (which is the end of the little ice age) and claim that the world is coming to an end.

The world has been both MUCH warmer and MUCH colder in the past. I'm not impressed with the current estimated change.

2. Show me changes that can't be explained by other causes. (For example: The output of the sun has also increased in the past century. Maybe that has something to do with it getting a little warmer?)

3. Provide a model of global warming that works. (as noted above)

4. Quit changing and hiding data that DOESN'T suggest human induced global warming. In most scientific disciplines, ANY hint of hinding data is enough for the whole community to dismiss the theory. That doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to Global Warming Theology.

5. Quit blaming everything on global warming. We've been told that it's caused every hot, warm, cold, dry, wet, damp, windy, calm, etc. weather realted phenomena on the planet. Get a little less chicken little in your pronouncements.

YOU have been convinced by "the Science". That doesn't mean that everyone has. Not all climate scientists accept the theory. So why are you surprised that not all lay people have accepted it?

By the way, were you also convinced that every electronic device was going to explode on 1-jan-2000? There were just as many experts predicting global collapse due to Y2K bugs as are promoting human induced global warming.

by scam artists, that's all. You see, I said:

1. Come up with a mathematical model which, given the climatological input from some year Y, accurately yields the conditions for year Y+n, for all values of n.

What that means is simply being able to predict what will happen next year, or over the next several years. I realize that expecting certitude out of the climate is silly. But I'd like to see some model that closely tracks observed history. There isn't one.

Given the lack of even descriptive ability, I'm suspicious of the motives of the people claiming that they know what the future holds, when they demonstrably don't. And since their predictions dovetail so nicely with their policy positions, it doesn't take much to see the scam for what it is: a pure power grab.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

(Yes, I'm a liberal, looking for honest discourse)

You're spouting this same line on a number of different threads here, and on none of them do you appear interested in honest discourse. You do not respond to questions put to you, and you do not bother to ask other people questions. You're here to give a lecture, nothing more.

Frist, the claim that 99.9% of scientists believe it is false.

The claim that the earth has warmed 1 degree doesn't even match the GW scientists. The claim is 0.6 degrees with a MOE of 33%.

Loosing 27,000 species each year? You counted them? Which 27,000 species have been lost exactly?

"When was the last time you saw a butterfly?" Today. How about you?

Of course, we're currently suffering from a chilly rain where I am, so that's probably why.

I know, i know, the rain is the fault of global warming. Apparently, everything is.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

While the average temperature has only risen 1 degree, it has risen 6-9 degrees and the polar ice caps are melting at an increasing rate.

My parsing engine threw a rod on that.

By the way:
David Keeling started measuring co2 in the atmosphere in 1959 in the middle of the pacific ocean on the island of Kauai. At that time the co2 level was right around 280 parts per million. Since then it has consistently risen to 370 parts per million, that number is in direct correlation with average rising temperature.

Repeat after me: correlation does not imply causation.

The rest of your post is just emotional alarmism.

And not to speak for anyone but me, but I couldn't care less about polar bears, except that they make nice rugs. They are our competitors, and if they die off, that makes it a lot less likely that one will eat me, or my dog.

So 'splain why I should care.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Ask the folks of Churchill Manitoba what they think of Polar Bears. If they hadn't suddenly discovered eco-tourism they'd have shot the bears ages ago.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Where you said this "To see global warming, you need to look at the averages and not one paricular Incident." then go on to list isolated examples like these eskimos and polar bears in the north.

All kinds of species are moving north and to higher elevations, as never before, in order to try and survive. Each year we're now loosing 27,000 species unlike any other time in history. When was the last time you saw a butterfly?

This just makes me laugh. So where are these supposedly missing butterflies? At the top of every mountain? North of the arctic circle?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Don't you know the planet is at stake?

Why, before you started in with the mocking, we were about to solve the whole issue, once and for all.

It's almost as if you didn't care about making sure the winter ice stays around, so we can have fun like this:

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

It was good online theater.

Hey buddy. can you explain one little thing to me? Because I have never figured this out.

If the glaciers are melting, and that causes the water to rise
and exacerbates the warming.
Then if that will destroy the ocean currents and that causes a new ice age. Then isn't that a self correcting mechanism. I mean if the gulf stream shuts down then glaciers will grow again, that will drop the ocean water level, and cause more heat to radiate away from the reflective ice, thus no more warming.

Anther self correcting mechanism: more CO2 and more sunlight
= more plants, particularly plankton, which means less co2 in the atmosphere.

I might not know much, but I'm pretty sure when I am being sold a bill of goods.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

1. Prove it.
2. So what. 99.9% of all the species that ever existed on the planet went extinct before the first proto-human climbed down out of the tree. What has species extinction go to do with anything.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Please join us in doing what we can to combat global warming.

Who is us?

What are you doing?

What is the terminal air velocity of the African swallow? (Monty Python joke - you need not answer.)

The last time I stayed in a hotel, a card with a picture of a polar bear on it said that I can do my part to combat Global Warming by sleeping on my sheets two nights instead of one, and by reusing my dirty towels. So, I'm already doing my part, dude.

"It just seems that your not willing look at the evidence. 99.9% of all scientists are in agreement, global warming is real."

I dont' have to read another line of what you say, because I know what you have just written is false. 99.9% of scientists do not agree. 99.9% of climatologists don't agree!

"Glaciers all around the world, that have been there for millions of years are melting at an increasingly alarming rate."

Another alarming exaggeration. Few places on Earth have had constant ice for "millions of years." The temperature of the planet over the past several hundred thousand years has changed dramatically enough during that time that glaciers have melted and reformed many times.

"Literally billions of people depend on mountain glaciers for drinking water and water to grow crops."

Sure, if we're talking about aggregate numbers over the past couple thousand years. Most of the "billions of people" on this planet do not live near enough to glaciers for glacier melt levels to affect the available water. Once you get more than a few dozen miles from mountains, the majority of water comes from rainfall, not from glacial melting. Explain to me how glacial melting affects water levels on the Santee River, or the Sesquahana River, two rivers that are nowhere near any permanent glaciers, yet provide drinking water for millions of people.

"Each year we're now loosing 27,000 species unlike any other time in history."

An estimate based upon an estimate for the number of unknown species, extrapolated from the number of known extinct species each year. Hardly scientific evidence. Any real statistician would consider this non-data.

"All of these things and many more are real and verifiable and their happening now and all around us. You may call me an alarmist but I think of myself as a realist. My grandchildren and your grandchildren are way too precious to be gambling with their futures!"

You're absolutely right: They are way too precious to gamble with their futures. What you are incorrect about is the verifiabilty of the data and your not being an alarmist.

Each year I hear, "Bird flu is coming!" Each year I hear, "Major hurricane events this year!" All based upon "real and verifiable data." But it's not. It's all based upon suppositions and conjecture, not fact.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

You might want to read up on another scientific concept developed in the absence of proof, called Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism was a theory of plant genetics and biology that ran counter to established scientific principles. It was embraced by Soviet leaders because it matched their political philosophy. It was never rigorously tested within the Soviet Union, and it resulted in mass famines and the deaths of millions due to hunger. Even as the holes in Lysenkoism were growing large enough to drive a Mack Truck through, the Soviets continued to embrace it. Even today, many scientists in Russia and the former Soviet Client States continue to embrace Lysenkoism, even though we have now mapped the human genome.

In other words, an untested scientific theory used to promote a political agenda is DANGEROUS.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

While the average temperature has only risen 1 degree, it has risen 6-9 degrees

And everybody should also know that 1 degree = 6-9 degrees as well.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

1). Directly insulting the intelligence of other posters here will not be a good long-term strategy for you.

2). Particularly when you do so without first checking your post to see whether you've made any elementary grammar and/or spelling mistakes.

3). Spelling Celsius incorrectly - and messing up the decimal point? Man, that takes skill.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Just one of my many fixations.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

So far, you have a D minus on your midterm.

- 1 degree Fahrenheit (the one word, BTW, that you spelled correctly) equals 0.6 celsius.
- It's celsius, not celcius.
- It's idiot, not idot. (Or is that a new kind of iPod...?)

Do you think that maybe FredMaidment sensed a slow news day, and chummed the waters with a Global Warming story to see if any mullets were biting?

I was thinking it was a slow news day, but I wasn't trying to chum up the waters any...

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

Waiting for the butterflies to come back. I shall not venture outside until they return.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Ooops wait that the swallows. Sorry.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

...isn't that a good thing?

Well, well, Mr. "the seasons are changing...the ice is melting earlier each year...the numbers of polar bears are declining year after year because there in not enough floating ice so they are literally starving to death...The Thermal Haline conveyer...is slowing down and at some future date mayl shut down if we stay on the path that we're currently on. Glaciers all around the world...are melting at an increasingly alarming rate...All kinds of species are moving north and to higher elevations, as never before, in order to try and survive...Each year we're now loosing 27,000 species unlike any other time in history...When was the last time you saw a butterfly?...All of these things and many more are real and verifiable and their happening now and all around us...You may call me an alarmist but I think of myself as a realist," you just stay positive.

The rest of us here will be as negative as possible -- you know, negating your doom-and-gloom speculation, and negatively saying that things are actually pretty darn good.

The only "positivity" about you, your attitude, or your comments here is in the vein of "I'm POSITIVE things are awful!".

You've got a very limited amount of time to follow Moe's advice to straighten up and fly right, or you will positively be gone very, very quickly.

The environmentalists have shown they have an extremely high tolerance for "collateral damage," in whatever form that damage may take.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Worldwide we've only got 50-70 years of accurate temperature data. Basically, outside the English Speaking world, we don't have a whole lot of accurate data further back than that, and most of that data is only 150 years old or so.

We only have reliable temperature data going back 300 years in this one very small portion of England.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

What makes you think that's a map of temperature stations? The caption states "Annual surface temperature trends for the periods 1901 to 2000, 1910 to 1945, 1946 to 1975, and 1976 to 2000, respectively (°C/decade), calculated from combined land-surface air and sea surface temperatures adapted from Jones et al. (2001)." But doesn't say anything about thermometers nor does it say how Jones et al. calculated these temperatures.

a little deeper - here's the paper

The new database comprises 5159 station records, of which 4167 have enough data for the 1961–90 period to calculate or estimate the necessary averages.

Or if that's not good enough for you - here is the data itself.

When you posted the link to this map, you did so in such a way that implied it was a map of temperature stations. It is not a map of temperature stations nor does it claim to be. Rather it is a map of how the Earths temperature has changed on each 5 degree X 5 degree grid.

Does "5159 station records" mean records from 5159 stations or 5159 temperature readings. It would seem to be the former since the data link you posted links to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ which states:

What are the basic raw data used?

Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. Maps/tables giving the density of coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003) and for the oceans by Rayner et al. (2003). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed.

So these are monthly readings from about 3000 stations. While 3000 is more than enough to have one station on every 5x5 segmenent these stations are only on land. Moreover, if you read the quote above you'll see that the temperature stations are concentrated in the US, southern Canada, Europe and Japan with the sea temperatures concentrated on the major shipping lanes. So a map of where the temperatures are actually taken would look nothing like the nice homogeneous map you linked to. But would show scattered pockets of stations with heavy concentration in the areas listed above.

a map of the actual stations would not look like a nice even plot of points as in the IPCC report. What that repersent is a the average of stations in the 5x5 grid, meaning that there is at least one station in each grid where there is a point. And yes there are some grids that would have more stations than others. But, since they take this clustering into affect when calculating the average, the bias that the clustering could produce is accounted for - which I believe is where you are headed. Rememeber when they test your blood they don't take all of the blood out of your body, just a representitive sample. That's what's been done here.

Simply because a temperature difference is reported does not mean that a temperature was recorded in that grid. In fact there can not be a station in every grid since the stations are land based and 75% of the grids are at sea. The sea numbers are recorded aboard ships. The FAQ I posted a link to before states that the data are interpolated. So some of the grid boxes are infered from the temperatures of the surrounding grid boxes.

From http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/:

How are the land and marine data combined?

Both the component parts (land and marine) are separately interpolated to the same 5º x 5º latitude/longitude grid boxes. The combined versions (HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT3v) take values from each component and weight the grid boxes where both occur (coastlines and islands). The weighting method is described in detail in Jones et al. (2001). Land temperature anomalies are infilled where more than four of the surrounding eight 5º x 5º grid boxes are present, as discussed in Jones et al. (2001). Infilling doesn't take place when the box is ocean, except when it covered by sea ice based on 1961-90 average conditions.

My point is that you are misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the map you linked to. (I suspect both).

I stand corrected - didn't realize there was interpolation going on. The conclusion remains the same - The sea is warming and so are many places on land. Unless you can prove this is not a representitive sample and the onterpolation is not valid, of course. Congratulations, you are one of the only people that disputes the temperature measurements - including most skeptics. You should write a paper and submit it for scientific review. Good luck!

I never disputed the temperature records. I disputed your representation of the map as a map of temperature stations. Like I said in an earlier post the map is NOT a map of stations nor does it claim to be.

I tend to suspect any model that simply moves all of the fertile and livable climate directly above our northern border.

However, the trick, in my opinion, isn't even proving change -- it's proving that man is the sole contributor. And your Hadley model just can't do that.

to an extent. Climate models do not neccesarily prove that it is man who is responsing for the global warming. But what is really silly about this whole thread, is that the poster is actually questiening whether global warming is occuring or not. There is not one single credible scientist who denies that - there is plenty of good old empirical data gathered over the past 50 or 100 years that shows that to be the case. The only disagreement is regarding whether it is human actions that are causing this global warming - there are always skeptics (that's how science works best) who try to come up with other explanations - and that's good. However, you all should look closely in the work produced by the scientists that many claim do not believe in human causes of global warming. Many of those scientists have actually protested the use of their work by various interest groups, mainly because most of their work does not involve proving that humans are NOT responsibly for any climate change, but rather they're simply studying natural explanations for the recent climate changes. What every scientist (even those that supposedly do not believe in human caused climate change) does, however, agree on, is that the amount of pollution gases produced by human acitivities is going to have at least some impact on our climate and environment. What exactly is so difficult for anyone to understand? If you don't believe me, why don't you just go look up where most scientists stand on the issue and examine their work. You would find that 99% of the crap you hear in the media (on both left and right) about the issue is complete BS. Global warmning is not a political issue and it should not be treated as such. Human caused climate change is also not a political issues - it is something that we should be aware of because in all likelihood, it is indeed happening.

I am not questioning whether global warming is happening. I am questioning whether we reliable data to say that it is happening. Certainly, in areas where we have reliable data, the temperature of the planet has increased over the past 150 years. Certainly, over the past 70 or so years, the surface temperature of the atmposhpere over the land mass has also increased.

You are further correct that human beings are having an effect on the environment. That is simple chemistry (or physics, depending on your viewpoint): When you interact with something, you invariably change it.

The issue at hand, and which was raised in my original post, was whether or not human beings actually have such an impact that the Earth that it is worthy of alarm; and my concluding statement was to say that NOBODY knows one way or the other.

If you want to know what's in my head, I'll tell you:

1) I believe that average temperatures on the surface of the planet are rising, for one reason or another.

2) I believe it is possible that humans are causing global warming.

3) I believe that other factors are probably also causing global warming.

4) I believe that, given the evidence we currently have, it is hubris to believe that Man is the one overarching cuase of global warming.

5) I believe that I could very well be proven wrong about #4.

6) To quote Michael Chricton, "I am certain that there is too much certainty in the world."

7) I like having clean air and streams. I like hiking in the woods and not finding abandoned tires, sinks, appliances, and other waste that should have been disposed of otherwise.

8) I believe that when you pollute in such a way that it harms someone else or someone else's property, you are violating their natural rights.

9) I do not believe that government control is the solution to environmental issues. I fully believe that economic forces will force us to make better decisions. Oil prices will increase, making ethanol and hydrogen more attractive. High energy prices make people choose more efficient alternatives, such as more fuel efficient cars and energy efficient heating/cooling systems.

10) I believe that most people are too short-sighted to realize the positive effects of the economic forces acting in their everyday lives; that these people ask the government to "help" them and they make decisions that make far less sense.

11) I believe that, in general, forcing people to change rather than letting them make their own decision causes more friction that compliance. There are reasons to use force. This isn't one of them.

There. That's what I believe.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

I agree with all except for #5. Even on the off chance that they're right, with the "evidence" they have, it is still hubris to claim that little ol' Man is mighty enough to destroy the planet (true, a hubris oddly combined with (at least a facade of) self-deprecation and -loathing, that human life is worth no more than a cockroach, but a hubris nonetheless)

the Canadians cleary have a hidden agenda.

Proving man is the sole contributor - not the sole contributor, but the major contributor at least for the past 50 years. If you turn off the human component in any of these models you get virtually no warming. Of course that is not proof.

The proof may be that CO2 levels are currently 26% higher than ever observed in the last 450,000 years, the increase began around the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 is a greeenhouse gas (Venus is warmer than Mercury) and therefore humans are the major cause. Sure it's a case of a=b, b=c and therefore a=c, but in this case the ties are strongly based on observed evidence. Probably as strong as the case for electrons orbits around atoms - nobody has ever seen an electron, have they? But, the computer you're sitting at now wouldn't exist without models and inderect evidence that they are there.

They're all over the place on the way, but end up with "yep, it's warmer!".

How about some application of the scientific method: something happened to make the real world not fit the model exactly. Change the model to fit the facts, don't just wave them away as "acceptable margin of error".

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

you're a hard one to please. Uncertainty is a fact of life - how exact do you mean by exact? Should highway patrol start pulling people over if they are going 56 mph... how about 55.001 mph?

The predicted change is always within the measurement error of +-0.2 deg. C and until there are more reliable measurements, a more exact model agreement doesn't mean much.

more of the actual studies. It looks, at first glance, like they follow the "even a stopped clock" pattern, but I promise to look, with what passes for an open mind in Conservative circles.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

can be found here. Although these are all at least 5 years old, so you'll likely see better results for the last couple years in publications like Nature, Science, and the Journal of Climate. Plus next year when the latest revision of the IPCC assesment comes out, you'll see a lot more of this. You'll probably see these figures in it.

Wow, you guys can't get enough of this GW stuff can you? Does anybody work around here?

This coming from the guy whose pager apparently goes off every time there is a GW story posted on this site.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

as charged..how cool would that be - pager alerts - maybe in v3.0 of RS.

are not "cool". They're...

HOT HOT HOT!

:-0

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

A phrase that I once saw somebody else use to describe the entire pope/antipope fad that went on in the medieval period. Down to the throwing down of the rosary and shouting "Pope Urban, I choose YOU!"

Yes, I walk in weird circles.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I wonder how many badges you have to earn to get in the College of Cardinals.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

Hey, don't conflate the issues. The mechanism for the destruction of ozone by CFCs is well known. And it'll take time for O3 levels to regenerate.

This is real science, and it doesn't always happen on a human scale.

This should only illustrate how ridiculous Kyoto was, in that it claims that slight reductions in CO2 output by some countries were supposed to turn the tide, literally, from flooding our shores.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

This doesn't have anything to do with overnight regeneration. The same ozone hole that is now bigger than it has ever been in the past has been all but closed in recent years. Maybe there are other forces here at work than what kind of refrigerant we have in our cars?

It certainly shows how ridiculous Kyoto is. It is also an indication of how ridiculous Montreal has been. There were certainly winners and losers created under Montreal, and consumers were certainly the big losers. Kyoto would be even worse.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Temperature variations in the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. This year, the lower stratosphere was about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) cooler than average."

9 degrees cooler? But the Church of Global Warming guy above said it's 6-9 degrees warmer and the ice is melting!

Really, the ozone guys and the GW guys should talk before they make their respective press releases....