It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Did you ever stop and think that maybe I was referring to those who replied to this thread too?
Welllll, if you think about it... the word "dogma" is pretty much the opposite of "peer-reviewed science".
You failed to actually read the entire first article. It doesn't prove your point.
Your second article is a link to the Examiner, nuff said.
I'm still waiting for you to comment on the fact that the overall trend in the mean global temperature conservatively has still risen 0.78 C (this takes out the 0.12 deg systematic bias that you claim to be in the updated dataset).
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.
Originally posted by PuterMan
In the United Kingdom it definitely was stated that there was an impending ice age and the terminology was would be not could be.
No it wasn't.
The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appears to be the longest-continued downward trend since temperature records began. says Professor Hubert H Lamb of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by CranialSponge
One of the things I found discussed what accounting for land-use at a particular data site, which is something I brought up as a possibility in one of my posts and which was roundly criticized and pooh-poohed by puterman, the OP.
Remember, this is about temperature anomalies, and not just average temperatures, or even the deviation from some baseline of average temperatures. And frankly, it looks to complicated and time consuming for myself to bother to get to the bottom of it.
For instance, the documentation talks about a 30-year baseline, i.e. the 1951-1980 period, but in the same sentence it says something to the effect of doing a century-long calculation; in fact, at the top of the page of the link I provide, it does say the anomalies are based on deviations from the 1901-2000 average.
Average temperature anomalies are also available for land and ocean surfaces separately, and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres separately. The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.
Reading through some of the other documentation, mention is made of accounting for sparse data, particularly for going back to 1854, when the data set begins. So yes, there is a lot of modeling involved and not just raw temperature readings used.
I think the bottom line is that the construction of this data set is much more involved than most people in this thread can imagine, and that then such persons are misinterpreting what exactly these numbers mean.
The fact that the values for a particular year and month change very slightly each month certainly suggests that it is a dynamic data set that is effected by adding to the temperature time series and revising parameterizations for the spacial components of the model, i.e. for land-use changes, amongst other things potentially. Thinking that these anomalies are absolute and permanent values would seem to be an oversimplification of the matter.
The dataset is updated every month. Data for a month are typically made available by the 15th of the following month.
I realize this won't be a satisfactory answer for some, but the only way to get to the bottom of the matter is to either wade through all the documentation -- which, to me, would be a daunting task -- or contact the keeper of the data set and ask politely, i.e. not with a conspiratorial/accusing tone , of why the entire dataset of global temperature anomalies changes each month.