Friday, August 10, 2007

 

Reliable Data on Climate Change




In the debate regarding what is the man made portion of recent global warming, a lot has been made of the placement of the weather stations actually doing the temperature data gathering. Some are next to the hot end of big air conditioner units. That's no good. (An article discussing this from a different point of view is here). Many are in the middle of at least mini heat islands (big asphalt parking lots, too close to buildings, etc.) and many more are in the mega heat island of cities as opposed to the grass trees and rocks of the countryside. America is about 6% urban environment and 94% countryside (although 80% of Americans live in cities). Laer at Cheat Seeking Missiles says only 6% of the weather stations should be urban and the rest out in the grass, trees and rocks of the countryside. Sounds reasonable to me.

If the man-made portion of rising average temperatures over the past 150 years is merely that the temperature data has been increased by bad placement of the weather stations, then this global warming thing is worse than a tempest in a teapot. So how about non-tweakable, good as gold, temperature measurement on which we can rely with confidence--does that information exist? It seems that it does.

Above is a chart of 28 years of satellite data for temperatures in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (with the World's composite at the top). That's a very short period of time from which to extrapolate a trend. However, the Southern Hemisphere doesn't seem to have warmed at all. The Northern Hemisphere seems to have warmed about one degree F. In 28 years, that's a lot, I think--a rate, if it continued, of almost 4 degrees F. per century. But we just don't know anything about the future based on such a short period of measurements. I'm content to wait until we have good information over a long period of time, before I support drastic changes in our way of life.

UPDATE: Oh, no. NASA has 'revised' its numbers, reducing further the hockey stick type graph of the mean temperatures recently (since 1880) in America. Now the warmest year on record was 1934 not 1998. Oh, great. Now whom do we trust?

UPDATE II: One of the recurring themes in the Beatles' movie Help, was a Brit scientist eager to rule the world, Prof. Foot (played by Vincent Spinetti), who decried the brain drain and all British equipment. His Webley Mark VI revolver is no good at one point ("British," he waives it around, "useless.") but he warns the lads, "If I had a Luger..." Just so, Global Warming hasn't been going so well lately and won't be bad for the next few years, but one of a group of un-named climate experts identified as Douglas Smith in an AP story warns, just wait til 2009. Then it's going to get us, and our little dog, too.

Lead paragraph:

Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the [formerly] warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday.

[...]

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. (Emphasis added).

Wait. It would be getting warmer, but for the 'natural forces.' You mean like sun and rain and wind--that sort of natural forces, like the weather? The weather would be getting warmer because of human activity but the weather is preventing it. OK I'm clear.

Actually, Paul at Wizbang is much more vicious than I am about this strange story, or rather a similar one at Breitbart. His best lines:

But what this story really shows is how UNscientific this whole scam is. Global warming was not "offset." It did not occur. The only way these "scientists" can say that Global warming was "offset" by natural forces is to presume they knew what the temps should have been.

In other words, this is the opposite of science. They are starting with a conclusion then when they don't get it, they say the experiment must have been flawed.

Labels:


Comments:
What a bunch of Bull.
 
Today, scientists dismissed global warming as a cause of the melting of the ice pack in the Arctic Sea, stating the Arctic Sea was in a heat island. As for the galcier melting at an unprecedented rate in Greeland, scientists sated they were located too close to the exhaust outlet of an air conditioning unit.
 
Some of the glaciers in Greenland are melting faster than in the recent past and some are not, some even are gaining ice. Some of the ice on top of Antarctica (i.e. not sea 'pack' ice which is lately twice as big as formerly) is melting and some is getting thicker (most of it is getting thicker). If you can see a pattern in that, you are a better, smarter man than I am.
 
Read Dr. R. Timothy Patterson's article. Based on a Canadian government study, but given little media attention, we have more to worry about another little ice age and global warming. An interesting read.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4

A shorter version is at NewsMax:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/21/123227.shtml
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?