Originally posted by CranialSponge
Here's my line of thinking:
These scientists are getting their historical record data from different sources. Some are direct temperature readings, others are various proxy data (tree rings, grapes harvests, ice cores, boreholes, corals, etc etc), some from the northern hemisphere, some from the southern, and so on... and each claiming to be the more accurate reading.
Now depending on how you mix these data up to arrive at an overall mean temperature for that time frame, you will come up with different answers of +/- degrees. And in this case, we are calculating temperatures to the tenths of degrees, so there should no allowance of error margin.
Follow that as you go further down the timeline plugging in the data, and you get more and more eschewed.
It would be like measuring a 12 foot run of countertop to cut and fit into place nice and snug up against your wall... If the wall is slightly out of square by 1/8th of an inch at the corner, by the time you reach the end of the 12 foot run it'll be out by over 1/2 an inch at that opposite end.
Originally posted by PuterMan
I was musing on the fact that I had contacted a well known climate blog about this, but got no response. I did not know how to explain what I was seeing but I thought they may be interested.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by phrig
How strange. That is about the time I contacted the well known climate blog about this. The blog was WUWT by the way. I never got any response from them.
....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."
We Lost the Original Data
Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.
Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."
I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
Originally posted by Psychoparrot
Why should TPTB do this - because of the money earning potential behind climate change industries/taxes? What on earth do they want all this money for? Or is it just to keep us in a constant state of fear?
Democratising Global Governance:
The Challenges of the World Social Forum
This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.
"Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe."
So read Saturday's headline to Senior Editor Gary Stix's piece at one of the nation's most popular science magazines Scientific American:
A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” [...]
The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.
Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers...In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere.
Well again you are feeding the ignorants, when I say climate change I'm clearly not referring to "normal climate pasterns" but to the prevalence of abnormal ones.
In the 1880s there was MUCH MORE Pollution around than nowadays, for almost 100 years there was more pollution, EVERYBODY burnt wood and coal and Cow dung to heat water, Cook food, Heat houses/buildings, Build Railways, feed Locomotives, Ships, Transport, build buildings....etc etc...
Originally posted by mwood
reply to post by PuterMan
WOW. In the last 7 years the mean temperature raised by six hundredths of a degree Celsius.
.06 isn't much at all.
So basically if it's true and the trend continues then it will be 20 years before it raises about 1 degree.
Not too worried yet.....
Perhaps it may be worthwhile for you to look into where each of your source reports are collecting their source data from ? You might find out one guy got his from grape harvests in Italy while someone else got theirs from Yucca tree rings in Central America.
No, Puterman is comparing instrumental data, and what they're doing to it, not proxy data.
Now that's not to say that they're making these adjustments according to proxy data, which
would be foolish at best, but I don't think they are. They're making excuses to adjust it, mostly
due to alleged "time of observation" discrepancies. It is interesting though as the adjustments
ALWAYS result in a "cooler' past and ever warming present. AND, it's not like they went
through the data, made the adjustments, and that was that. They continue to go back,
sometimes MONTHLY and make more adjustments. Somewhere I read how they made
adjustments over and over and over, for a period of like 6 months, continually adjusting
the past down, and the present up, to all the same data.
If anything, all the metadata is probably garbage by now.
Example is your worksheet 2005-11: The 1880 temps from Jan-Dec are different from worksheet 2005-12 which is different from worksheet 2007-08... and so on. If each of these are coming from different science articles, then again I ask: Where are they (each different scientist) getting their monthly/yearly data from ?
Before having a good look, I just assumed you were pulling all of your numbers from the one gistemp website you linked in your blog, and making your yearly temp change comparisons from that ?
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by PuterMan
One very obvious example is that 1880 there were not weather stations in Antartica, but there are now.
including more high-altitude stations, which were previously near inaccessible, would tend to lower the average temperature
There may also be other factors used in determining these past temperatures which are measurement based, but rather model based.
One is the amount of Artic/Antartic ice sheets and mountain glaciation. Snow and ice has a higher albedo and reflects more light/radiation. The ice sheets and bodies have clearly decreased in size, so less heat is reflected back to space and so the earth warms more. There are likely models to account for this. Such modeling is useful for it would help to estimate temperatures in areas that aren't well sampled by weather stations.
There may well be another correction too; this would be to correct for temperature readings at stations that are in areas of increased urbanization and development. I believe the temperature record goes back to the 1500's. Imagine a weather station in London, Paris or Berlin or other population centers where temperatures were recorded. As time goes buy the area gets more developed and the local typical temperature increases because of heat sources, i.e. more people, fireplaces and factories. A typical measurement in 1880 in such a place is likely higher than one made at the same place in 1580. Admittedly this affect would increase with time, so there should also be a correction for the same spot between 1880 and 1980, which would correct an 1880 temperature reading upwards relative to a 1980 one, but it would still reduce it to the 1580 one.
There is one other temporal effect for the the mid and late 1880's in particular: the eruption of Krakatoa. It is already know that this event caused a world-wide dropping of temperatures
It is not the scientists that are trying manipulate reality.