1880 IS getting colder!

Originally posted by elvisofdallas
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Funny that you mention textbooks. I have been told (on multiple occasions) that my memories of being taught about the "coming ice age" that might cause the extinction of humanity are imaginary, caused by a false meme spread by climate change deniers. I've even had links sent to me debunking my memories.

So while everyone is getting prepared by buying beachwear and sunblock, TPTB are buying winter clothes.
Yeah, I recall being taught that we were due for another ice age in school.

These people are snake-oil salesmen and sham-mans.
"1984" has been probably happening since the dawn of man.
We fall for it every time.

Tambora and krakatoa erupted in the 1880 time frame. Dust plumes from massive volcanic eruptions can and will cause world wide temperature drops. Food for thought. Because i know that since ive been born in 1980 the average and mean temperatures have not dropped but actuall y quite the opposite.
In other words i dont buy the theory that global temperatures have been on a decline simce the 1880s. It all sounds like fear mongering to me.

reply to post by butcherguy


I gave you a star because the statement is correct but in the context, presenting that as unimportant seems disingenuous or again as I said an oversimplification, even if not intentional one must consider the audience.

The alterations to the Ozone layer serve as evidence that human activity has unforeseen implications and hard to remedy at our present understanding of things. It also showed that there is a general inability to address environmental issues (something that should already have been understood by past incidents like the DDT, Asbestos or PCB) in fact the discussion regarding the badly named issue of Global Warming has been mostly a repeat of those types of processes to reach a consensus that permits actions to be taken in a timely manner.

Chemical changes in the atmosphere can happen naturally but in the past ~150 years the main contributor has been human activity there is no denying that, in regards to the ozone layer it goes beyond the direct effects in the effectiveness of the function it provides, it extends to the interactions with other chemicals and the impact of the radiation in fauna and flora, that exponentiates the effect, that directly seems minor (but not irrelevant), into something that should be also given consideration.

Ultraviolet Radiation: How it Affects Life on Earth

Considering only the effect of an increase in the radiation on biological systems we can state that the effect can be dramatic if we think that organisms like plankton are the primary driving engine of atmospheric chemistry.

Effects of increased solar ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial ecosystems (Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 46 (1998) 40–52)

Abstract:

Elevated solar UV-B radiation associated with stratospheric ozone reduction may exert effects on terrestrial ecosystems through actions on plants, microbes, and perhaps on some animals. At the ecosystem level, the effects are less well understood than at the molecular and organismal levels. Many of the most important, yet less predictable, consequences will be indirect effects of elevated UV-B acting through changes in the chemical composition and form of plants and through changes in the abiotic environment. These indirect effects include changes in the susceptibility of plants to attack by insects and pathogens in both agricultural and natural ecosystems; the direction of these changes can result in either a decrease or an increase in susceptibility. Other indirect effects of elevated UV-B include changes in competitive balance of plants and nutrient cycling. The direct UV-B action on plants that results in changes in form or function of plants appears to occur more often through altered gene activity rather than damage. The yield of some crop varieties can be decreased by elevated UV-B, but other varieties are not affected. Plant breeding and genetic engineering efforts should be able to cope with the potential threats to crop productivity due to elevated UV-B. For forest trees, this may be more difficult if effects of elevated UV-B accumulate over several years. All effects of elevated UV-B radiation must be considered in the context of other climate changes such as increased temperature and levels of carbon dioxide, which may alter the UV-B responses, especially for plants. The actions of elevated carbon dioxide and UV-B appear to be largely independent, but interactions occur between changes in UV-B and other factors. Other ecosystem-level consequences of elevated UV-B radiation are emerging and their magnitude and direction will not be easily predicted.

S+F for you!

It's disconcerting that there is data change.
The why and who is important. I'd love to know who is behind it.

And I'm seeing some personal attacks.
Keep your eyes on the ball gentlemen.

Google River Thames and freezing.
you will see that up to 1800 it froze for two months!.
deep ice. you dont get ice on it now.

so tell me WHY if its getting colder,
why dont we get ice on the Thames?

reply to post by buddha

Google River Thames and freezing.
you will see that up to 1800 it froze for two months!.
deep ice. you dont get ice on it now.

so tell me WHY if its getting colder,
why dont we get ice on the Thames?

Don't worry dear friend. You will!

Just give it about 10 years or so.

ETA: By the way the thread title is 1880 IS getting colder and NOT 2012 is getting colder.

test 123

reply to post by PuterMan



So this means that pumping toxic gases into the atmosphere 24/7; dumping industrial waste into our lakes, aquifers, rivers, and oceans; burning a resource when we can be making stuff out it; etc, all that is ok now?

reply to post by PuterMan

Yes the older data is being changed. Not the data in the archives but on the published report. By comparing the 1880 figures from archived copies of the reports on the Wayback Machine I can see that the older figures are not the same

Oops, looks like the Global Warmers forgot to scrub the pots and pans....

reply to post by sumgai

So this means that pumping toxic gases into the atmosphere 24/7; dumping industrial waste into our lakes, aquifers, rivers, and oceans; burning a resource when we can be making stuff out it; etc, all that is ok now?

In what way does amending the figures on a chart of temperature anomalies mean that any of what you said is OK?

I do not understand your apparent leap in logic from amended figures to ruining the planet being acceptable. As an attempt at wit, if that is what it was, it is a dismal failure.

reply to post by sumgai


Havin read the OP several times (to glean more nuance, I comprehended PM's post immediately), I don't seem to recall anything at all about wanton polluting being acceptable.

It seems to me that all he is saying is that the base data used by so many who are pushing the agenda of AGW is being manipulated to fit their hypothesis.

My second grader knows that if you don't have good data, you won't have reliable results in a scientific experiment.

That is not the same thing as saying that its ok to pollute and damage the environment willy nilly.

I'm pretty sure PM would rather see corporations held responsible for the damage they've actually done than have people pay because an agenda is being pursued. But that's just me.

It should be noted that what has been charted are temperature anomalies not actual temperatures. What are temperature anomalies?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

What has been changed is the software used for the calculations.

Effective September 2012, the GHCN-M version 3.2.0 dataset of monthly mean temperature replaced the GHCN-M version 3.1.0 monthly mean temperature dataset. Beginning with the August 2012 Global monthly State of the Climate Report, GHCN-M version 3.2.0 is used for NCDC climate monitoring activities, including calculation of global land surface temperature anomalies and trends.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


For a technical discussion you can refer to this: ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

reply to post by eriktheawful


You know, quoting Newsweek articles from 1975 isn't the best way of backing up a scientific argument. Do you know how far science and technology have advanced in the last 37 years??? Do you understand how scientific theories and hypotheses evolve with time as more knowledge and observations are gained?

Citing 37 year-old pop-science articles to refute current scientific theories, observations and studies, and implying that the current scientists are trying to pull the wool over society's eyes is a hoot.

Look around for similar such types of articles, i.e. pop-science, on global geology prior to the late 1960's/early seventies and you'll be able to put forth the argument that plate tectonics is a sham.

It really appears in this thread that the climate-change conspiracists will grasp at straws in an attempt to disprove modern scientific consensus on the matter. Why accept peer-reviewed, cutting edge scientific studies when one can argue nefarious conspiracy and cite long forsaken, highly speculative theories from past decades?

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by nataylor

 

Simple explanation: They're using different data sets

Unfortunately there is nothing 'simple' about that explanation.

ETA: I read from that that the datasets were changed in May 2011 and September 2012. Whilst that may explain 2 of the differences it does not explain the others, neither does it explain the curious fact that the earlier figures are getting cooler and the later figures warmer.

I have downloaded (am downloading) both V2 and V3 datasets and will have a look at them. I also have the PDF of what has been changed and so far I see nothing that would explain the figures.

It's explained by the differing homogenization techniques. The previous changes you've noted are due to updated versions of the datasets. The original GHCN was released in 1992. As I noted, it's had 3 major versions and many minor revisions to each of those versions.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

You know, quoting Newsweek articles from 1975 isn't the best way of backing up a scientific argument. Do you know how far science and technology have advanced in the last 37 years??? Do you understand how scientific theories and hypotheses evolve with time as more knowledge and observations are gained?

Citing 37 year-old pop-science articles to refute current scientific theories, observations and studies, and implying that the current scientists are trying to pull the wool over society's eyes is a hoot.

Look around for similar such types of articles, i.e. pop-science, on global geology prior to the late 1960's/early seventies and you'll be able to put forth the argument that plate tectonics is a sham.

It really appears in this thread that the climate-change conspiracists will grasp at straws in an attempt to disprove modern scientific consensus on the matter. Why accept peer-reviewed, cutting edge scientific studies when one can argue nefarious conspiracy and cite long forsaken, highly speculative theories from past decades?

Since you asked if I understand things, let me ask if YOU understand some things:

Are you aware that your post is called "baiting"?

Are you aware that at no time whatsoever did I declare in my post how I feel about climate change?

Are you aware that you are simply assuming things about me?

Let me educate you a bit: I'm WELL aware of what we are capable now as compared to the 1970s being a electronic and electrical engineer.

People had posted that they could remember that back then the trend was that we were in a cooling trend, and some had mentioned that other people said it was all in their heads, that they were imagining it, when in fact, my post proves that NO, it was not in their imaginations, that yes, there were actual news articles talking about it back then.

That is ALL my post was for.

Now.......would you like to continue trying to bait / flame / troll me? Or should I ask the mods to have a word with you?

Originally posted by eriktheawful
So no. Those of us that grew up back then and were old enough to remember it, it was real. They really were predicting a coming Ice Age.

If by "they," you mean the sensationalist news media, then sure. But if you look at the actual scientific literature published at the time (as was done in this study), you'll see that warming was, by far, most favored at the time.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by eriktheawful
So no. Those of us that grew up back then and were old enough to remember it, it was real. They really were predicting a coming Ice Age.

If by "they," you mean the sensationalist news media, then sure. But if you look at the actual scientific literature published at the time (as was done in this study), you'll see that warming was, by far, most favored at the time.

Absolutely correct.

However, again, as a kid, not many of us were reading scientific papers but were seeing the sensationalist news.

I can take it a step further. I distinctly remember many SciFi novels and paper back being published during the mid to late 70's who's themes were "in the near future, modern humanity is gripped in a new Ice Age"

It doesn't prove anything, other than, it was a popular thought at that time, and no, we're not misremembering or imagining it at all.

My wife is 6 years younger than me, and by the time she hit high school, they were no longer talking about any Ice Age, but instead were starting to talk about Green House gases and a warming trend. (to which she was ignoring since at the time most girls her age were busy trying to dress like Madonna or several other 80's women).

reply to post by PuterMan

NO, the vertical axis units are not given in either your first or last plot, but only in the middle, small plot, so yes, I did have to infer what the units were, because they were not provided in the plots I asked about. And since I was correct in my inference, I wasn't confused on that point. I also now understand what the base average for 1951-1980 is about; thanks for explaining that because that was unclear -- to me at least -- in your OP.

With reference to the issue of Antartic expeditions, there is a BIG difference between knowing some temperatures for a region from various expeditions to the region, and having an accurate, regular, long-term record of measurements if one is trying to construct a consistent database. That is my point. Nothing you have said since has undercut my point on this issue. Moreover, given that the base temperature averaged is for the period 1951-1980, and that these AWS's were not installed until the mid 1980's, there was still poor sampling of this region for the "basis" period of 1951-1980, and thus better accounting/correcting for these regions in the past with much sparser observations could well explain the differences in the database that you see.

Another poster mentioned how these datasets get updated from time to time. Admittedly he only referred you to a technical report for the latest data setupdate. Did you, however, look at the references for this report? There are both a in-press journal article and a submitted one. You might contact the first author of the one that is in press and ask for a pre-print, or you can wait until it is published and check it out. I'd imagine that it would detail how the dataset is established as well as provide references to some of the previous ones.

As to my point regarding satellite observations of temperature vs. conventional measurements, I believe the accepted orthodoxy now is that the remote sensing of temperatures worldwide gives a more accurate estimate of mean global temperature, and that this value is different from that based solely on conventional, ground-based measurements -- in no small part because many more and better observations of ocean surface temperatures can be gathered. Keep in mind that about 3/4th's of the earth is covered by ocean. I remember reading and article about that in EOS some years back.

So, I imagine a correction was calculated to compensate for this difference when only conventional observations were possible. Why this correction systematically very slightly reduces the values in the 1880's while increasing them in the most recent decades, I cannot tell you for sure, but imagine it still has to do with station coverage. Like I said before, coverage in the southern hemisphere was likely far sparser than in the north, back in the 1880's; and until the satellite corrections were added for to all years' data, the more recent, i.e. post-mid-1980's data were likely depressed because of these additional Antartic stations that you mention.

Have you checked carefully what these dataset differences are at other periods, say in 1920 and 1960? Looking at the middle plot in your OP, it appears that there is an inflection point in which each year's compiled dataset for the entire period flips its systematic bias; this appears to be around 1943. WWII gave rise to a lot more weather stations and the information was crucial for military operations. I suspect that the systematic biases your are seeing has to do with the effect of this very probable increase in station coverage at this point. I think it would be worth your effort to make a plot similar to your bottom one in the OP for the periods of, say, 1930-1940 as well as another for 1945-1955; I suspect the systematic trends will "flip" for these two periods.

Of course, you are likely to say well this is just more fudging of the date to show that earlier temperatures are lower than later ones, but I would counter that this shows the effect of a change in the number of measurements for calculating the mean global temperatures because of a significant increase in station coverage.

In any case, the lack of a response on your part to my point, which is that this database systematic bias is less than 7% of the signal that suggests a 0.9 deg C. average gloabl temperature change over 132 years, is conspicuous in its absence. Even taking the worst case systematic bias, i.e. -0.06 deg C for early data and +0.06 for later data, there is still then a 0.78 deg C change over this period, which is still a significant increase, albeit not as big as the one assuming the updated changes in the datasets are warranted, i.e. approximately a 0.9 deg C change -- or so I eyeball it from your middle graph.

Have to continue my response in another post because of character count...

reply to post by PuterMan


A continuation of my reply:

I have no idea of what modeling effects, if any, are used to generate these datasets; my point concerning ice sheets is just a supposition based on the fact that temperatures in and near those regions, given a larger ice sheet, would be lower relative to other portions of the earth, than for the same hitherto ice-sheet-covered regions now with smaller ice sheets, thus I can see an argument for accounting for this difference with corrections given that these areas in particular are those that would have had the poorest coverage in the past, when there weren't stations in the Antartic or as many in the northern-most areas below the 65 deg N cut-off you mentioned. I offered this as a possible explanation, not as primary one to explain the data set differences.

And yes, I am quite familiar with scientific grants and how they are handed out. Are you familiar with the scientific grant process? A panel of respected peers in the field get together and review grant proposals, ranking them in order of scientific utility with respect to whatever the scientific issues of interest are. Obviously there is some politicking and playing of favorites, since human nature is involved. But part of the weighting scheme is also based on the scientific reputation of those contending for funding, and this is based in no small part on the quantity and quality of published peer-reviewed journal articles. So there is a large component of scientific merit in the decision-making process.

To suggest that the shenanigans inherent in this process are greater than the effects on policy because of lobbying by business interests in government and all the politicking done by government bureaucrats and their elected or appointed overlords is a bit of a stretch.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

NO, the vertical axis units are not given in either your first or last plot

My sincere apologies. You are absolutely right. I had assumed that you were referring to the larger plot.

I think it would be worth your effort to make a plot similar to your bottom one in the OP for the periods of, say, 1930-1940 as well as another for 1945-1955; I suspect the systematic trends will "flip" for these two periods.

I will do that tomorrow. Too late now and other things that have to be done before retiring for the night.

A panel of respected peers in the field get together and review grant proposals, ranking them in order of scientific utility with respect to whatever the scientific issues of interest are. Obviously there is some politicking and playing of favorites, since human nature is involved. But part of the weighting scheme is also based on the scientific reputation of those contending for funding, and this is based in no small part on the quantity and quality of published peer-reviewed journal articles.

All of which of course ensures that the dogma is followed and those on the outside remain there! Think about it!