Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't answer his questions.

Because his questions are frankly silly, and every logical answer I have bothered to type out for him so far has met with more nonsensical posts.

I understand better now why you are a lawyer, not a scientist!! After all, a lawyer can get any answer one wants if they are paid enough money.

I think I understand his point completely, but I simply think his point is invalid or at least not valid enough to justify using bad data.

Quote:

I think I understand his point completely, but I simply think his point is invalid or at least not valid enough to justify using bad data.

Look at my examples okie..

If I measure the ocean off a mark on a dock, is the data not capable of telling when the tide goes in and out? Are you really willing to argue that? Is it bad data because I haven't accurately measured the depth of the ocean?

If I measure the river off a mark on a levee, does that mean I can't tell when the water is rising? Are you really willing to argue that? Is it bad data because I haven't accurately measured the depth of the river?

If I measure the temperature on a thermometer that isn't accurate compared to another thermometer are you really willing to argue that I can't tell the temperature trend? Is it bad data because I haven't accurately measured the temperature?

Why is my third example different from the first 2?

It is bad data if the dock you are measuring from is a floating dock or a dock not anchored properly, and is subject to instability.

Your levee example is not a real good one comparing to a thermometer in a parking lot, unless you specify that the levee is subject to much construction or change for example, which would render it a very unreliable place to do the measurements. Perhaps let us say the levee is bounded by irrigation or outlet canals that are subject to being opened or closed, which would also render the point of measurement as a very poor choice to do so, just as a parking lot is, or a thermometer is above the kitchen range.

Yes, it is bad data and not reliable to make any confident conclusions in regard to temperature trend.

In science, there is something called degree of accuracy, and when you have violated or you have fallen short or gone beyond the degree of accuracy with your data collection, you render yourself subject to making conclusions from the data that are simply not scientifically supportable, and will probably be wrong. In short, it is bad science, plain and simple.

The funny part of my examples okie is that YOU are the one introducing things into the examples in order to introduce what you think are "inaccuracies".

If my dock was floating then it wouldn't be accurate. But I didn't say it was floating, did I? That is you attempting to create a problem in measurement that isn't there.

In my river example, what you introduced doesn't even present us with an inaccuracy. All you did was introduce ways that would change the level of the river. But we are measuring the level of the river to see if it is going up or down.

And when it comes to measuring trends in temperature okie again, we see you attempting to create a problem with measurement that you can't really show exists.

I am attempting to make your examples more like their realistic parallel with placing thermometers into corrupted environment

This whole argument started when I did in fact post clear evidence of a problem, a problem that was documented to be about 5 degrees centigrade in error.

To explain this again for I don't know how many times now, we have a situation with global warming advocates claiming a world crisis because of an upward trend of temperature amounting to about one half of a degree Centigrade, yet we have proof of temperature monitoring stations delivering temperature readings up to 10 times that amount off

For example, the thermometer over the stove, you can't figure out that the readings are going to be highly variable and corrupted because you aren't going to be that consistent in terms of how you use your stove every day, no way anyone with common sense would believe that.

You really are dumb as a post, parados. I used to think you were smart but misguided, but this conversation has me changing my mind, I have to conclude you are either playing dumb or you really are dumb as a rock, or post. For example, the thermometer over the stove, you can't figure out that the readings are going to be highly variable and corrupted because you aren't going to be that consistent in terms of how you use your stove every day, no way anyone with common sense would believe that. Same principle with the climate station in the parking lot, it is simply not a consistent and uncorrupted site for taking temperature readings to determine climate, in fact for you to claim it would be so is frankly silly. And your argument of the thermostat over the stove would deliver an accurate trend is even sillier.

Do you know anything about statistics?

Quote:

For example, the thermometer over the stove, you can't figure out that the readings are going to be highly variable and corrupted because you aren't going to be that consistent in terms of how you use your stove every day, no way anyone with common sense would believe that.

But we are talking about a 30 year period okie. Do you really think you will use the stove so different over 30 years, 365 days, 24 hours a day that the limited use over that time won't just become noise that disappears in the data?

Do you know anything about statistics?

But.. why don't you go back and post a link to where you got your picture since the one you posted isn't good enough for me to read which sites they are using. I'll bet you $10,000 that if both sites have 30 years of records that the trends for both sites will be very similar when graphed using normal graphing.

Yes, and that is a definite yes. Usages obviously change, over time, with size of family, and age, that should be a matter of common sense. Again I am surprised you are that dumb.
Quote:

Last decade warmest on record, indicators in decline
Data 'screaming that the world is warming,' scientist says of annual reportAdvertisement | ad info
.
updated 7/28/2010 4:34:09 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Not only was the past decade the warmest on record, but climate indicators being tracked globally are worsening, scientists reported Wednesday in their annual "State of the Climate."

"A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest" since recordkeeping began in 1870, declares the report, which was released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."

Concern about rising temperatures has been growing in recent years as atmospheric scientists report rising temperatures associated with greenhouse gases released into the air by industrial and other human processes. At the same time, some skeptics have questioned the conclusions.

The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.

"The evidence in this report would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service.

Deke Arndt, chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center, noted that the 1980s was the warmest decade up to that point, but each year in the 1990s was warmer than the '80s average.

That makes the '90s the warmest decade, he said.

But each year in the 2000s has been warmer than the '90s average, so the first 10 years of the 2000s is now the warmest decade on record.

The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.

"At first glance, the amount of increase each decade — about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit — may seem small," the report said.

"But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."

Last month was the warmest June on record and this year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June since record keeping began, NOAA reported last week.

The new climate report, published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining.

Rising over decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land.

Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice.

The 10 were selected "because they were the most obviously related indicators of global temperature," explained Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, who helped develop the list when at the British weather service, known as the Met Office.

"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.