http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm

Strange this has not got much media coverage, well then again maybe not because it goes against the agenda they are pushing.
Moderators: Astarin ShadowPrince, Zahrim, Rhen
Wenceslas wrote:I found a fun site that did a lot of research into current models and actual results.
Maunder
Auricas wrote: I went and found a graph, it's at Wikipedia, I don't want to find it again.
Wenceslas wrote:The article I found goes back a 100 or more years and does quite a bit of analysis.
Showing that the computer models being used today are incorrect!
Go see it.
I just want to point out Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia made up of reader's contributions. I have seen as I searched for different topics, ones where no one has supplied information and it ask's if I would like to do it. That being said, alot of the information is okay, but this does lend itself to predjudiced ideas being presented. If you want to go to wikipedia and read about the smurfs, Kewl! However I would be careful when using it for a reference on a hotly contested topic.
This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3 was used. HadCRUT3 is a record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations. The most recent documentation for this data set is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Haris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones (2006). "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850". J. Geophysical Research 111: D12106. doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990.
Wenceslas wrote:Khaw has said it correctly!!
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
Auricas wrote:I don't mind if some news outlet makes up a sensational headline like this assertion that 100 years of global temperature trends have been "wiped out" based on one year of data. It's to be expected, no matter how much I don't like it.
OK well, basically my original question was why the article uses data going back 20 years (the graph) instead of 100
I hate when these kinds of extreme statements are made.
You condemn data taken before 40 years ago
Do they still measure, though? Because for my argument, I don't need exact temperatures, only accurate proportions and consistency over time. As long as they haven't been fucked with too much my argument is still valid. I don't need to know how warm it was in 1850, I only need to know how much warmer (or cooler) it has gotten since then.Wenceslas wrote:Those reliable thermometers were reliable in 1850, today, 2/3 sit in urban boundaries and often on asphalt. So 2/3 of these are no longer reliable as far as US data.
Yeah, I'm trying not to argue global warming itself. I'm only trying to look farther into that DailyTech article because unless I'm way off, not only did they poorly source and match their data to their argument, but they may have misread the data entirely and their entire credibility is at stake.Global warming is a topic that is akin to the old domino effect that was used to rally people like the days of the "domino theory" of politics. Get A LIFE!
Not trying to sound condescending here Pressto, but I'm having a really hard time understanding this statement. I am going to break it down:Pressto wrote:I have NEVER condemn that DATA. I comdemn the bogus way they used the data in these non-scientific models. The point of this post is to show how anyone can blow their models out of the water using data the same way they did. The earth is Billions of years old and using these tiny 100 year data sets to make predictions for the next 100 years is wrong.
OK, I think we are in agreement then that the graphs we have both brought in here, that date back to 1850, are fact, not fabrication. They are simply graphic representations of all those raw numbers I linked earlier. They are not models.I have NEVER condemn that DATA
Forgive me, but I am not aware of any models. If you are referring to the models the IPCC, Gore, etc like to use to preach their doomsday scenarios, I generally agree. I don't think those models are accurate either. However, again, I'm not arguing models here.I comdemn the bogus way they used the data in these non-scientific models.
Do they still measure, though? Because for my argument, I don't need exact temperatures, only accurate proportions and consistency over time.
Yes it is the IPCC and Gore models I am referring to. Data is just a bunch of numbers recorded. When you use specific parts of data and graph it and then make a prediction about something then you move pass the data into a model. The whole point of this post was to show how silly and stupid those Global Warming theories models are and how just one year of change wiped out their theories and predictions if I used data the same way they did. Based on their theories there is no way we could have had a 0.5C drop last year yet that is exactly what happened. Again notice the media doom and gloom silence now lately?Forgive me, but I am not aware of any models. If you are referring to the models the IPCC, Gore, etc like to use to preach their doomsday scenarios, I generally agree. I don't think those models are accurate either. However, again, I'm not arguing models here.
Do they still measure, though? Because for my argument, I don't need exact temperatures, only accurate proportions and consistency over time.
Accurate assessment of risk typically requires a complex balancing of the nature of the risk, the probability of its occurrence, and the advantages and disadvantages of acting or failing to act. Because this complex balancing is time-consuming, people use heuristics (i.e., mental shortcuts based upon past experience) in assessing risk. While these shortcuts are generally useful and reasonably accurate, they also can lead to systematic errors or biases where people overestimate the likelihood of a particular risk.
The most relevant of these heuristics for purposes of this paper is the availability heuristic. Individuals assess the probability of an event by the ease with which instances or occurrences can be brought to mind. When examples come to mind quickly, people tend to assume that there must be a lot of them. In other words, the easier it is to bring something to mind, the more available it is, and the more available an incident is, the more likely one is to overestimate its occurrence.
An event's salience is the most significant factor as to its availability and thus one of the biggest aspects of skewed risk assessment. Many things can make an event salient. If an event is very familiar to an individual e.g., due to personal experience it is more available to her than if she simply heard or read news reports about it. However, intense media coverage also can make an event salient.
Obviously, the range of all possible harms is quite broad, from minor to significant to catastrophic. How do people discriminate between them? Although risk means different things to different people, Professor Paul Slovic has developed a taxonomy regarding risk attitudes that spans the population, making it possible to assess whether society rates certain harms as minor, major, catastrophic, etc. According to Slovic, individuals perceive risks as more serious the more dreaded and unknown they are. In this sense, a risk is considered to be dreaded if people perceive that (1) it is potentially catastrophic and/or fatal, (2) it is involuntary, and (3) they lack control over it. A risk is unknown if it is (1) new, (2) unobservable, (3) lacking in immediacy, and (4) not understood. A terrorist attack, for example, involves a dreaded risk because it is potentially catastrophic, we lack control over terrorists, and we do not voluntarily become terrorist victims. Such an attack might also represent an unknown risk if it involved chemical weapons. The average person lacks knowledge of such weapons; their effects aren't immediately observable; and the possibility of their use outside of war is reasonably new to us. Slovic's taxonomy has significant implications for risk assessment. As risks becoming increasingly dreaded and unknown, people demand that something be done about them regardless of the probability of their occurrence, the costs of avoiding the risk, or the benefits of declining to avoid the risk. Other research shows that, when an intense emotion such as fear is involved, psychologists also know that individuals tend to either overestimate the likelihood of an event's occurrence or simply ignore the probability that it will occur, instead focusing on the possible harm from the outcome. As a result of these findings, we know the perceived magnitude of the harm which may be associated with an atmosphere of fear can affect our assessment of its probability and our desire for preventive action. When there is a perceived possibility of a highly dreaded/unknown event, individuals will overestimate its likelihood and demand action to prevent it.
Risk assessment is as much a social as it is an individual phenomenon.
As Kuran and Sunstein explain:[P]eople consult each other; they learn from each other, they influence one another's values; they defer to each other, they share sources of public information; they try to mold each other's beliefs and values, and their social interactions shape their knowledge, perceptions and interpretations. . . .
. . . .
In contexts involving risks, then, both perceptions of a risk and its acceptability are framed socially.
Thus, any discussion of the psychological biases associated with risk perception must account for potential social influences upon decision making. Such influences, generally termed availability cascades, take two forms: information and reputational .
Because it is costly to gather information, most risk judgments are based on information from others.Thus, [m]ost of us think and fear what we do because of what we think other people think and fear. For example, if one person in a social group believes strongly that an event will occur, that belief may influence others in the group who are less sure or who simply trust that individual's judgment. This phenomenon, known as an information cascade, may significantly skew risk assessment on a large scale. If the initial source has overestimated the probability of an event due to its availability or because the risk is highly dreaded, the exaggerated belief can cascade through society becoming widespread and self-reinforcing.
Social dynamics can influence risk perception in another way. Most people care about the ways others view them, which may affect the beliefs they have with respect to the likelihood of a particular risk. For example, an individual member of a social group may not believe in the likelihood of an event; however, if other members think the event will occur, the individual may express a view consistent with the group out of concern for her reputation. This phenomenon, called a reputational cascade, can affect public risk perception by pressuring individuals to realign their public expression of risk with the dominant view within . . . society. As with information cascades, such events can become self-reinforcing. As individuals self-censor their expression of inconsistent viewpoints, society may come to hold the dominant view even more strongly.
Neither information cascades nor reputational cascades necessarily occur in any particular situation. Rather, they frequently occur because an individual or group instigates them. Such persons, whom Kuran and Sunstein deem availability entrepreneurs, often have a political or ideological stake in policy control and are adept at attracting media coverage and intuiting issues around which their intended audience might rally. Availability entrepreneurs thus attempt to shape . . . pressures in order to mold public discourse and control the policy selection process. The media often exacerbates a cascade by focusing on dramatic stories likely to attract attention e.g., stories involving vivid or compelling threats, such as terrorism, child abduction, or shark attacks and reporting them with little or no investigation of their basis in fact. When information and reputational cascades occur, they do so on a variety of levels personal, local, and national. Thus, a cascade can cause a particular fear to grip the nation or it can be localized within a group of people, such as a community or organization. Furthermore, when such cascades occur, they necessarily result in commensurate unavailability cascade[s] that progressively free[] public discourse of voices out of tune with the evolving chorus, making it increasingly difficult for people with stated or unstated reservations about the developing public consensus to retain their misgivings.
Do they still measure, though? Because for my argument, I don't need exact temperatures, only accurate proportions and consistency over time. As long as they haven't been fucked with too much my argument is still valid. I don't need to know how warm it was in 1850, I only need to know how much warmer (or cooler) it has gotten since then.
Using a new database for all available land-based grid cells around the world we test the null hypothesis that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in a widely used gridded climate data set is independent of socioeconomic determinants of surface processes and data inhomogeneities. The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P = 7.1 × 10−14), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data.
Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced.
What is the "Controversy"?
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
...
So What is Going On?
The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase. There are several reasons:
First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.
Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.
Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.
Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.
Maurice Strong, principle architect of the Rio conference and it's offspring Kyoto, reportedly said. "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Return to Rhen's Politics, Religion and World Events Forum.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests