Global Warming

[MrManNo1]

Tiggy, since you have responded to everyone else in the past page, let's return to your claim that the earth has warmed over the past 10 years, since you have conveniently ignored my post. Where is your evidence for that? Why is your graph any better than the data from the GISS map I posted?

Stop insisting Glenn substantiate his claims if you won't substantiate your claims.

[Augustine2004]

Hey Glenn, why don't you write up all your findings and home made graphs and submit them to Science or Nature? You'd be a famous celebrity for exposing all this corruption and incompetence in the scientific ranks. But they might ask you to actually substantiate your claims...uh oh, there goes that idea.

Glenn explained what he did to get those results. Was he stupid--didn't he realize that others may do what he said he did and obtain results more in line with what you seem to expect, pretty data showing no obvious evidence of unjustifiable finagling?

[Tiggy]

Tiggy, since you have responded to everyone else in the past page, let's return to your claim that the earth has warmed over the past 10 years, since you have conveniently ignored my post. Where is your evidence for that? Why is your graph any better than the data from the GISS map I posted?

Stop insisting Glenn substantiate his claims if you won't substantiate your claims.

Huh? Your map is based on the same data set and shows the same rising trend. Some areas show a local decrease, some show no change, but they are outweighed by the larger increases in the rising areas.

The overall global mean temperature since 1998 has risen slightly. Both map and graph show it. What's the problem?

- T

[Tiggy]

Glenn explained what he did to get those results. Was he stupid--didn't he realize that others may do what he said he did and obtain results more in line with what you seem to expect, pretty data showing no obvious evidence of unjustifiable finagling?

As I already showed, Glenn is absolutely clueless on how satellite remote sensing is done, and how/why corrections are applied. His childish attempts to 'prove' malfeasance are just laughable.

His ignorance, while amusing, doesn't represent much of a threat to NASA or the Goddard Institute.

- T

[MrManNo1]

Huh? Your map is based on the same data set and shows the same rising trend. Some areas show a local decrease, some show no change, but they are outweighed by the larger increases in the rising areas.

The overall global mean temperature since 1998 has risen slightly. Both map and graph show it. What's the problem?

- T

If you look at the top-right corner of the map, it shows the worldwide temperature change. My map shows that the average from 1998-2009 is .08C lower than 1998. I don't know where you're getting that the map shows an increased temperature from.

[Tiggy]

If you look at the top-right corner of the map, it shows the worldwide temperature change. My map shows that the average from 1998-2009 is .08C lower than 1998. I don't know where you're getting that the map shows an increased temperature from.

Fair question, and here's the answer:

1998 was an exceptionally warm year, well above the average 5-year mean. See the mean on the graph

When you use that one exceptionally warm value as your mean baseline, you are artificially adding a large negative delta to the relative measurements for the next ten years.

Try it and see. Do the same graph from 1999 (a very cold year) to 2008, and use 1999-1999 as the baseline. See what you get.

Using any one year as a baseline can give you very skewed results. That's why the standard is to use the average mean over an extended time range (1950-1980)

Bottom line is, when you take all the correct averages, you get definite warming over the last 10 years.

- T

[Tiggy]

Here MM1, I did the last 10 years using 1999-1999 as a base. See what I mean about the results being skewed?

- T

[Tiggy]

Here's the data for 1998 to 2008 using the 5-year mean from 1996-2000 as a baseline.

Like the elevator operator said - Going up!

- T

[seanD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html

[grmorton]

Tiggy, since you have responded to everyone else in the past page, let's return to your claim that the earth has warmed over the past 10 years, since you have conveniently ignored my post. Where is your evidence for that? Why is your graph any better than the data from the GISS map I posted?

Stop insisting Glenn substantiate his claims if you won't substantiate your claims.

I put Tiggy on ignore, so I am literally not seeing what names he is calling me, and my life is much happier that way (not to mention not wasting time on dataless crap). I felt that he wasn't answering questions I was asking him, and each response was a Jorge-like imitation, a flaming response to any question about data. So I gave up on him. But, if he does come up with something substantive, someone tell me about it. I won't be bothered by reading Tiggy until he decides to behave like someone who cares about data.

[grmorton]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html

Thanks Sean, I loved this part

Andrew C. Revkin, "Hacked Emails is fodder for New Climate Dispute," New York Times,Nov 20,2009

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...mate.html?_r=1

© source where applicable

I think I know why thermometers keep rising. It really isn't all that hard or difficult to understand.

See below. Air conditioner exhaust and other heat sources keep raising the daily high temp, which in turn, raises the daily average temp and that is then put into the global warming calculation. Of course, AGW convinced beleivers don't think air conditioner exhaust fans emit heat.

[Challenger Grim]

So I take it you agree that the global warming which has caused the massive acceleration of glacier retreat since 1900 is a real and observable phenomenon too?

- T

You idiot, nobody denies warming, everyone argues about the cause.

The earth warmed greatly 10,000 years ago (far, FAR more than it is today). What's your explanation for that?

Here's a bit of common sense for you:
1) Thermometers go in 2 directions - up, down.
2) In the 70s, climate scientists were warning about a coming global ice age.

hmm.... if we were concerned about cooling... what would happen after that? (hint, probably warm)

Which is going to be more beneficial to humans? (especially farming) Heat or cold?

Finally, what's the end goal? Let's say you're 100% right, and we implement everything and reverse AGW. Then what? You aiming to starve out millions as cold snaps sweep the world and destroy crops? Or do you imagine every person is going to have 1 hummer and 1 prius and which we'll drive for the day will be announced by the Big Weather Brother?

[Tiggy]

You idiot, nobody denies warming, everyone argues about the cause.

Glenn Morton denies it.

Global warming is one of the most illogical belief systems I have ever seen. And I used to believe it.

He's said so directly a number of times. Why do you think he keeps banging on about the "fraudulent" ground sensor data and satellite sensor data?

Maybe you and Glenn should get your story straight before you continue.

- T

[Tiggy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html

Nature has covered the story too

Some climate-sceptic bloggers are already poring over the posted material, which includes e-mails allegedly sent by the CRU's director Phil Jones to fellow climate researchers, including Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Mann is the author of a widely cited assessment of past climate records, known as the hockey-stick graph, which shows a pronounced global-warming trend during the latter part of the twentieth century

"I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails," says Mann. "However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows." Jones declined to comment on the matter.

With less than three weeks to go until the start of the United Nations' climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Mann doubts that the timing of the attack is a coincidence. "The deniers will probably do anything they can to distract the public from the reality of the problem [of climate change], and the threat that it poses," he says. "Cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, stolen from private e-mails, is the best they've got."

Nature source

Exactly as predicted, the out of context quote mining and cherry picking of the data has already begun. Thing is, all the data from those supposedly 'fraudulently manipulated' studies is still available for review. If someone can put together a case for deliberate fraud and bring substantiating evidence, let them do it Science is merciless to those who commit real fraud, and if proven true it will end the careers of the perpetrators. But right now all there is is empty bluster and innuendo.

On another note, Nature reports on new evidence the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting.

Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements
J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, D. Blankenship & B. D. Tapley1
Nature Geoscience 22 November 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo694

Abstract: Accurate quantification of Antarctic ice-sheet mass balance and its contribution to global sea-level rise remains challenging, because in situ measurements over both space and time are sparse. Satellite remote-sensing data of ice elevations and ice motion show significant ice loss in the range of -31 to -196 Gt yr-1 in West Antarctica in recent years1, 2, 3, 4, whereas East Antarctica seems to remain in balance or slightly gain mass1, 2, 4, with estimated rates of mass change in the range of -4 to 22 Gt yr-1. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment5 (GRACE) offers the opportunity of quantifying polar ice-sheet mass balance from a different perspective6, 7. Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier assessment4, we estimate a total loss of 190plusminus77 Gt yr-1, with 132plusminus26 Gt yr-1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of -57plusminus52 Gt yr-1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006.

Nature link

Darn, those evil scientists have put their fraudulent data everywhere.

- T

[Darwin's Dog]

To be perfectly honest I can't really see how Mann's reply is a good defense.He's basically crying low blow and doing little to refute the actual charge itself.I'll be interested in knowing WHY exactly you need to "correct" data like he did.