Global Warming?

Here is a site to give you the MSU satellite data

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/temperatures/msu.jsp

I gave you a link to US Government data showing rising temperatures.

Do you have a link to a reputable source saying no increase?

You are ignoring this data because you "have heard" that other techniques don't show any rise.

Why do you assume those techniques are superior?

I can't see denying that warming is occurring.

engineer,

flaja is using an argument about the Satellite data from 1998 or so. At that time it didn't show an increase in temperature. Since then the data has had minor corrections for orbital decay of the satellites and we have more data.

I see what Wikipedia is doing, but it would have been nice to have you give me the courtesy of explaining why the link didn't work instead of just saying you couldn't "find it". Common sense should have told you that the period was out of place and you should have known to remove it so the link would work.

parados wrote:

engineer,

flaja is using an argument about the Satellite data from 1998 or so. At that time it didn't show an increase in temperature. Since then the data has had minor corrections for orbital decay of the satellites and we have more data.

Care to document any of them? I just did a quick Google search on atmospheric temperature data from satellites and didn't find anything about these corrections. At most I was only able to find a claim in the NASA article (http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/1996/1996_highlow.html) that some scientists are starting to question the validity of the satellite data, but I gather this is only because the satellite data do not support the global warming dogma.

Since the SAR, several issues have emerged regarding MSU temperatures. Mo (1995) reported that for one of the longest-lived satellites (NOAA-12, 1991 to 1998) the non-linear calibration coefficients were erroneous, affecting MSU 2 and MSU 2LT. Wentz and Schabel (1998) discovered that satellite orbit decay introduces gradual, spurious cooling in MSU 2LT. Christy et al. (1998, 2000) found that instrument responses often differ between the laboratory assessments and on-orbit performance, requiring further corrections. Additional adjustments were also made by recalculating and removing spurious temperature trends due to diurnal effects induced by the east-west drift of the spacecraft (Christy et al., 2000). The magnitude of the spurious trends (1979 to 1998) removed from version D compared to version C were: orbit decay, -0.11; instrument response, +0.04 and diurnal drift, +0.03°C/decade.

Since the SAR, several issues have emerged regarding MSU temperatures. Mo (1995) reported that for one of the longest-lived satellites (NOAA-12, 1991 to 1998) the non-linear calibration coefficients were erroneous, affecting MSU 2 and MSU 2LT. Wentz and Schabel (1998) discovered that satellite orbit decay introduces gradual, spurious cooling in MSU 2LT.

Christy et al. (1998, 2000) found that instrument responses often differ between the laboratory assessments and on-orbit performance, requiring further corrections.

Additional adjustments were also made by recalculating and removing spurious temperature trends due to diurnal effects induced by the east-west drift of the spacecraft (Christy et al., 2000).

I can because the available data do not support the idea that the globe is warming. Some parts of it may be, but the globe as a whole likely is not.

The paper was published in 1998 so data in 1998 and earlier would not be corrected yet.

The data you are trying to peddle is from 1996. The year is right there in your link.

As for the rest of your whining. You are the one that brought up the satellite temps.

It's called physics, concerning the speed of light and doppler shifting. This isn't a case of one scientist deciding the data wasn't right.

Quote:

I can because the available data do not support the idea that the globe is warming. Some parts of it may be, but the globe as a whole likely is not.

I am curious as to what data from 2007 shows this. Heck, I will even take data from 2006 or 2005. I bet you can't find any data from after 2003 that supports your claim without attempting to downplay the scientific standards normally used in judging data.


Oh yes, well you are at it, could you explain how satellites read the temperature of the atmosphere. I could use a good laugh.

I'm not ignoring these data (note the proper use of the plural pronoun for the plural antecedent);

In English, the word datum is still used in the general sense of "something given", and more specifically in cartography, geography, geology, NMR and drafting to mean a reference point, reference line, or reference surface. More generally speaking, any measurement or result can be called a (single) datum, but data point is more common[3]. Both datums (see usage in datum article) and the originally Latin plural data are used as the plural of datum in English, but data is more commonly treated as a mass noun and used in the singular, especially in day-to-day usage. For example, "This is all the data from the experiment". This usage is inconsistent with the rules of Latin grammar, which would instead suggest "These are all the data from the experiment", but these are English sentences, so Latin grammar rules do not apply.

AMID talk of offsetting the hefty carbon footprint of the United Nations climate conference in Bali, organisers missed a large elephant in the room.

The air-conditioning system installed to keep more than 10,000 delegates cool used highly damaging refrigerant gases - as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and nearly the equivalent of the emissions of all aircraft used to fly delegates to Indonesia.

More evidence the Bali summit was a total joke...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

Quote:

AMID talk of offsetting the hefty carbon footprint of the United Nations climate conference in Bali, organisers missed a large elephant in the room.

The air-conditioning system installed to keep more than 10,000 delegates cool used highly damaging refrigerant gases - as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and nearly the equivalent of the emissions of all aircraft used to fly delegates to Indonesia.

mysteryman wrote:

More evidence the Bali summit was a total joke...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

Quote:

AMID talk of offsetting the hefty carbon footprint of the United Nations climate conference in Bali, organisers missed a large elephant in the room.

The air-conditioning system installed to keep more than 10,000 delegates cool used highly damaging refrigerant gases - as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and nearly the equivalent of the emissions of all aircraft used to fly delegates to Indonesia.

Were these "highly damaging refrigerant gases" relased into the atmosphere?

Investigators at the Balinese resort complex at Nusa Dua counted 700 cylinders of the gas, each of them weighing 13.5 kilograms, and the system was visibly leaking.

maporsche wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

More evidence the Bali summit was a total joke...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

Quote:

AMID talk of offsetting the hefty carbon footprint of the United Nations climate conference in Bali, organisers missed a large elephant in the room.

The air-conditioning system installed to keep more than 10,000 delegates cool used highly damaging refrigerant gases - as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and nearly the equivalent of the emissions of all aircraft used to fly delegates to Indonesia.

Were these "highly damaging refrigerant gases" relased into the atmosphere?

If you had actually read the link, you would have seen this...

Quote:

Investigators at the Balinese resort complex at Nusa Dua counted 700 cylinders of the gas, each of them weighing 13.5 kilograms, and the system was visibly leaking.

Unless you are speaking Latin, my way is correct as well.

By the way, trying to correct someone's grammar on the internet is not an effective way to win arguments, IMO.

More evidence the Bali summit was a total joke...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

Quote:

AMID talk of offsetting the hefty carbon footprint of the United Nations climate conference in Bali, organisers missed a large elephant in the room.

The air-conditioning system installed to keep more than 10,000 delegates cool used highly damaging refrigerant gases - as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and nearly the equivalent of the emissions of all aircraft used to fly delegates to Indonesia.

mysteryman wrote:

More evidence the Bali summit was a total joke...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html

Quote:

AMID talk of offsetting the hefty carbon footprint of the United Nations climate conference in Bali, organisers missed a large elephant in the room.

The air-conditioning system installed to keep more than 10,000 delegates cool used highly damaging refrigerant gases - as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and nearly the equivalent of the emissions of all aircraft used to fly delegates to Indonesia.

Were these "highly damaging refrigerant gases" relased into the atmosphere?

As a scientist I am talking about the satellite and balloon temperature readings as a group of individual facts/statistics, which requires plural use according to 2. above.