REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Need Help from Global Warming Pundits

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 13:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2865
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:22 PM

CANTTAKESKY


I confess. I'm ignorant. I need the help of all you folks who know much more about global warming than I do. I have some specific questions I am having a hard time finding the answers to. Maybe they are right under my nose, but I just need you to kindly point them out to me. For your help, I am deeply and sheepishly grateful.

The first point of global warming arguments is this: The average global surface temperature has risen 0.6° (or 0.7°)C (±0.02°) since 1880.

I did a little digging, and I found the numbers for the actual averages listed year by year. They have risen from 13.88°C in 1880 to 14.6°C in 2004 (0.72°C increase).
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/Temp_data.htm
Here are my questions.


1. What was the standard deviation of those average temperatures? In 1880, the avg was 13.88°C ± WHAT? In 2004, it was 14.6°C ± WHAT?

2. What was the range of the temperature data from which the averages were calculated? That is, what was the range of temperatures that produced an average of 13.88°C, and then 14.6°C? (For example, did the data range from 0°C to 28°C, for an average of 13.88°C? Or did it range from 11.5°C to 16.5°C?)

3. What were the averages and standard deviations of land temperatures vs. ocean temperatures, by year during the entire data collection period?

4. How many temperature stations are there in the world throughout the data collection period, by year?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
According to this document, we currently have about 4300 stations on land. I don't know how many we have at sea. I don't know how many we had in 1880, on land and at sea. If there is a table somewhere with how many stations on land and at sea, listed year by year, that would be ideal.

5. Where were these temperature stations?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf The same file shows a map (page 3) where all these stations currently are, heavily skewed towards North America, Europe, and Eastern Australia. Where were they in 1880? 1900? 1930? etc. If there is a table or map listing the locations of these stations and which ones were added/deleted, even decade by decade or every 30 years, that would be great.

6. Where WEREN'T there temperature stations throughout the data collection period? There are still gaping holes in coverage today in difficult locations, such as Sahara, Amazon, Greenland inland, Antartica inland, etc. Where were the holes in 1880? In 1900? And so forth.

7. What is the precision of the thermometers at these stations throughout the data collection period? What percentage of stations were precise to a 10th or 100th of a degree Celsius in 1880? In 1900? In 1930? Etc. Again, a table would be nice.

8. Were any raw data excluded from calculations of the average temperatures? How much and why?

Forgive me if these are "stupid" questions. If you do know where I can find the answers, please indulge me. Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:09 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


I dont have the knowledge to answer any of your questions (though the lack of responses is interesting in itself), however if you are able to do so try to watch a documentary on UK Channel 4 tonite , 9pm UK time called "The great global warming swindle". If only out of interest in the subject.
I'm sure someone will post a link as to where to find it on the net after it's aired.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 11:05 PM

KHYRON


Some good questions in there, hopefully somebody will have the time to do the research and give you more detailed answers.

There really is a surprising lack of information on standard deviation, but that doesn't mean there isn't some, it's just harder to find. This is what I came up with, it has normalised temperature scales, so a bit of indirect info on the standard deviation:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttrib
utuion.pdf


Also, a lot of temperature measurements are done using satellites (and I guess ground stations are then used to calibrate the data).

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

This is particulary useful when measuring ocean temperatures and has been done since about 1980, so that's a fairly large window where temperatures have been measured literally globally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Too many take numbers at their face value w/ out asking very relevent ( not stupid ) questions you've brought up. Many official city temp stations are located at airports, which routinely have higher ground temps than the surrounding area, this because of the fields of asphalt at the airports.

The bigger issue is that of time. We've simply not had enough time to directly measure the weather, temp, from the planet to see how the variations occur 'naturally'.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:54 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
This is what I came up with, it has normalised temperature scales, so a bit of indirect info on the standard deviation



This doc does mention SD. But it only reveals what percentage of the data were 1 SD warmer, 2 SD's warmer than the mean, etc. E.g. in 2000, 70% of the data were 1 SD warmer than the mean, 30% were 2 SD's warmer. But it doesn't say what 1 SD actually is. So we get an idea how the curve is skewed, but we still don't know what the range of the data is.

Quote:

Also, a lot of temperature measurements are done using satellites (and I guess ground stations are then used to calibrate the data).
Right. More questions.

9. How exactly are satellite measurements used in calculating the mean global surface temperature?

10. Same questions as for land and sea: How many satellite temperature stations were there by year? What is the annual satellite mean and standard deviation compared to land and sea measurements?

Quote:

This is particulary useful when measuring ocean temperatures and has been done since about 1980, so that's a fairly large window where temperatures have been measured literally globally.
This is useful info. So since 1979 or so, there's been less "holes" in our global coverage. If anyone knows exactly how this satellite data is used in conjunction with land and sea data (is it added on top, substituted, adjusted, etc.), I'd like to know!

Thanks again.


Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 10:47 AM

KHYRON


Bump.

Some decent questions here that deserve to be answered.



"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


You must not ask these questions. Global warming is Revealed Truth. Only a heretic would show such doubt.

Welcome to the Heretic Club, Bub.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 2:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You just gotta read the ICC report to answer these questions. It's all there. Get back to us when your done, ok?

-------------------

Trolling posted by one of the troll club members I had to ignore to answer the question:

"Global warming is Revealed Truth. Only a heretic would show such doubt.

Welcome to the Heretic Club, Bub."

This is a typical example of off-topic, completely unnecessary personal attacks. It furthers the discussion not one bit - instead it's meant to derail substantive and reasoned debate.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:36 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
You just gotta read the ICC report to answer these questions. It's all there. Get back to us when your done, ok?


Or you could google "global cooling" and get about 539,000 hits.

Can you provide any specific answers to the questions raised, or is it all "Look at the Revealed Truth of the IPCC (not "ICC", BTW) report"?

Not saying it's one or the other, just that a rush to judgement is still a rush.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I read the report, but ya' know - why should I educate you if you're won't do it yourself?
PS - no amount of provocation is going to make me want to spoon feed you. You want answers? They're there. Go get 'em.

Trolling I had to ignore to answer the question: "Revealed Truth" of the IPCC. Funny how it's always the same people, isn't it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2007 4:57 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

You just gotta read the ICC report to answer these questions. It's all there. Get back to us when your done, ok?
Hostilities aside, this is a genuine request for help. I looked in the ICC reports. I couldn't find it. Maybe I'm just an stupid ignorant bastard, but hey, I'm asking for help.

So, if it's in the report, this is a humble request to indulge my ignorance and show me where it is. Unless someone spoonfeeds it to me, I'm at a loss.

Thanks to whoever takes pity on me and tells me where exactly (link and page number would be great) I can find this info.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2007 2:35 PM

FIVVER


Maybe this will help. The link it to the first article in a 10 part series that looks at global warming skeptics. Below are a couple of paragraphs excerpted from the article. Links to all 10 articles are contained in each one. I found it some mighty interesting reading.



http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8b
cc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0


Quote:


In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).
-----------------------------
While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 7:00 AM

KANEMAN


Fivver great link. I love this one..

"Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin."


Or this.....

"You then asked the IPCC leadership for assurances that your work for the IPCC's 2007 report would be true to science: "[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community. ... Thus I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information and the consensus within the scientific community most expert on the specific topic."

The assurance didn't come. What did come was the realization that the IPCC was corrupting science. This you could not be a party to. You then resigned, in an open letter to the scientific community laying out your reasons."






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 7:07 AM

KANEMAN


On melting ice and rising sea levels:

"Last summer, Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will "lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 7:19 AM

KANEMAN


Those IPCC Summery reports everyone loves:

"Dr. Lindzen is proud of his contribution, and that of his colleagues, to the IPCC chapter they worked on. His pride in this work matches his dismay at seeing it misrepresented. "[Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored," he told the United States Senate committee on environment and public works in 2001. These unscientific summaries, often written to further political or business agendas, then become the basis of public understanding.

As an example, Dr. Lindzen provided the committee with the summary that was created for Chapter 7, which he worked on. "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport," the summary stated, creating the impression that the climate models were reliable. The actual report by the scientists indicated just the opposite. Dr. Lindzen testified that the scientists had "found numerous problems with model treatments -- including those of clouds and water vapor."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 7:24 AM

KANEMAN


Can't possibly be true!!! Can it?

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 7:31 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

You just gotta read the ICC report to answer these questions. It's all there. Get back to us when your done, ok?
Hostilities aside, this is a genuine request for help. I looked in the ICC reports. I couldn't find it. Maybe I'm just an stupid ignorant bastard, but hey, I'm asking for help.

So, if it's in the report, this is a humble request to indulge my ignorance and show me where it is. Unless someone spoonfeeds it to me, I'm at a loss.

Thanks to whoever takes pity on me and tells me where exactly (link and page number would be great) I can find this info.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)




If you go to the link from fivver there is a great article on the lack of people educated in statistics. So, most likely what you look for can't be found in that report. That is why every day more and more of the world's brightest are calling bullshit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 8:49 AM

SHINYED


There's only 3 things I need to know :

1) Al Gore believes it
2) Robert Kennedy Jr. believes it
3) Max Mayfield, former Director of Nat'l. Hurrican Center, just came out and said the whole global warming thing is being overblown, and the hysteria about it is completely wrong. Knowing how desperate both Gore & Kennedy are to have some actual relevence in the world, I'm not surprised in the least they have both become the pied pipers of the pseudo-movement.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 9:15 AM

SHINYED


oops

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 1:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA


While I have nothing truly useful to add, I did stumble across this, which is hi-larious.

http://www.truemajority.org/ExxonToastsThePlanet.html

I trust Ben tho, he's one of the few folks I would call an honest man.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:35 AM

SHINYED


Global Warming Beneficial?

A meteorology professor at the Massachusetts institute of Technology says there is no compelling evidence that global warming will lead to a catastrophe — and in fact might be beneficial.

Richard Lindzen writes in Newsweek: "Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal weather and climate. There is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing…Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing."

Lindzen says most of the current alarm over climate change is based on what he calls "inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now."
Meanwhile, top hurricane forecaster William Gray of Colorado State University called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" during the closing speech of the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans.

Gray says the recent increase in strong hurricanes is part of a natural cycle that has nothing to do with global warming. He says Gore is,"doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:25 AM

CANTTAKESKY


I finally found out why the standard deviation is so hard to find.

It doesn't exist. They never calculate the global mean surface temperature. If the mean doesn't exist, the SD of course would not exist either.

What they actually do is calculate a 30 year mean using computer modeling that adjusts the raw temperatures with many other variables such as sunshine and wet days. They plug in real data in 5x5 grids, and fill in with interpolated data where they have none. The resulting number is called a climatology, which does not have standard deviations. The computer model calculates standard errors for it, which is estimated to be 0.05 deg C.

The climatology is the "zero" line on all those climate graphs. All those annual mean temperature bars are not means themselves, but are "anomalies" or departures from the climatology. Those bars are also calculated by computer modeling. They assume the "real" global mean temperature is correlated with the anomalies, but they never actually calculate the global mean temperature.

So in the end, they are comparing adjusted figures with adjusted figures, and finding a significant increase in global climate measures. Which is fine, if you trust the adjusters to have competently designed the models to reflect reality.

Me, I like science better when results interact extensively with objective reality. The computers don't get corrected by reality--only by what the programmers tell it to correct for.

--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Man made global warming is a complete and total myth.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL