Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[BritPat]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

 

Instead of using tree ring data in a 1998 paper based on the evidence of the above research and research that preceded it, for the latter half of the last century they used direct temperature measurements.

 

A perfectly legitimate approach and one that can only be considered necessary for the purposes of accuracy when comparing their models with the best evidence available for temperature. The decline they were "hiding" was the unexplained decline in reliability of dendrochronology as a technique for measuring temperature. Since then other papers have used different proxies to dendrochronology and have come up with the same results justifying their methodology.

 

So tree ring data is used as a 'proxy' in order to 'indirectly observe' historic temp data (which doesn't exist).

 

IF the tree ring data is a 'realistic and reliable' proxy we could

a) Compare historic tree ring data with modern tree ring data to obtain a trend.

 

b) Compare historic tree ring data with modern temp data to obtain a trend.

 

if the proxy is reliable a) and b) should be in agreement.

 

However we are now told that tree wood density v temp is divergent !

 

So we have the ridiculous proposition that when temp and wood density data exist for the same time periods it is unreliable BUT when we have only wood density data with no corresponding observed temp data it is reliable !!!

 

so we are calibrating indirect historic data against a standard that we can't rely on right now !!!

 

The proxy appears to be unreliable does it not?

 

Alternatively the proxy may well be reliable but our warming trend disappears !!!

 

Hiding the decline my friend

[truman]

They are in the US and whilst the odd sites ones do look strange they amount for less than 1% of them and from the data they have collected on the others it does seem like they are the odd cases and not the norm which should be a reassurance.

 

So don't we count stations in the US? There are lots more if you care to look...

[Wildcat]

Intrestingly that diagram ONLY goes up to 1998 ish.

 

the temperatures have been level / cooled since.

 

1998 recorded record high temperatures because of the El Nino cycle.

 

When it was published in 2007 the IPPR report tells us that "11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years".

 

I believe temperatures have risen since 1998 despite the natural cycle dictating there should be a cooling.

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html

Edited December 11, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

So tree ring data is used as a 'proxy' in order to 'indirectly observe' historic temp data (which doesn't exist).

 

IF the tree ring data is a 'realistic and reliable' proxy we could

a) Compare historic tree ring data with modern tree ring data to obtain a trend.

 

b) Compare historic tree ring data with modern temp data to obtain a trend.

 

if the proxy is reliable a) and b) should be in agreement.

 

However we are now told that tree wood density v temp is divergent !

 

So we have the ridiculous proposition that when temp and wood density data exist for the same time periods it is unreliable BUT when we have only wood density data with no corresponding observed temp data it is reliable !!!

 

so we are calibrating indirect historic data against a standard that we can't rely on right now !!!

 

The proxy appears to be unreliable does it not?

 

Alternatively the proxy may well be reliable but our warming trend disappears !!!

 

Hiding the decline my friend

 

Tree ring data correlated with temperature redings prior to the 1960s and correlated with other proxies preceding the 1960s. making it a good proxy before the 1960s.

 

How good it is as a proxy and the reasons for the divergence interesting though the debate is, does not affect the conclusions about human influence on global warming because the evidence on temperatures do not rely on them. The other proxies reproduce the same temperature record that the 1998 paper involving tree rings did.

[JIbbo]

1998 recorded record high temperatures because of the El Nino cycle.

 

When it was published "11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years"

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html

 

All the graphs published by the IPCC use 'adjusted' data modified from the origianl temperature readings, including the data from NASA

 

Take a read of this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

 

and look at THIS Graph. Wouldn't trus the IPCC as far as i could throw it.

 

IPCC Published data for the site.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero1.png

 

Raw Data

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero3.png

 

Raw Data from 200 + weather stations.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero4.png

 

Graph showing the data after 'adustment for hogomoginty'

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg

 

people are cynical becasue of this above !

[Wildcat]

So don't we count stations in the US? There are lots more if you care to look...

 

I did look and there didn't seem to be that many. The reason I commented on them being US ones is your original claim was about UK based stations.

[Wildcat]

All the graphs published by the IPCC use 'adjusted' data modified from the origianl temperature readings, including the data from NASA

 

Take a read of this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

 

and look at THIS Graph. Wouldn't trus the IPCC as far as i could throw it.

 

IPCC Published data for the site.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero1.png

 

Raw Data

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero3.png

 

Raw Data from 200 + weather stations.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero4.png

 

Graph showing the data after 'adustment for hogomoginty'

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg

 

people are cynical becasue of this above !

 

Of course the data is adjusted. Not least because temperatures are taken at different times of the day and different times in the season. They need to be comparing like with like and they have forumlas to do that so they can use the maximum data possible.

 

I will look at it in more detail later, but considering the bias in the report Greybeard produced earlier. There is no reason to believe whatsupwiththat is a credible source of information. Or that a construction manager in Fiji without any qualifications on climate change has anything much to add to the debate.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Hate to be the one to break it to you but scientists do not work altruistically for the good of mankind, they work for whoever's funding their research. It's a safe bet therefore that their conclusions will only be published if it matches their paymasters' intentions.

 

And the people funding the research and placing the climate stations in the US.... were George Bush's Govt. ideologically sceptical of climate change and lobbied in the region of $300,000 a day by the fossil fuel industry.

[JIbbo]

Of course the data is adjusted. Not least because temperatures are taken at different times of the day and different times in the season. They need to be comparing like with like and they have forumlas to do that so they can use the maximum data possible.

 

I will look at it in more detail later, but considering the bias in the report Greybeard produced earlier. There is no reason to believe whatsupwiththat is a credible source of information.

 

Nope, the temperatures arn't adjusted for the reasons you have stated.

 

They are adjusted for 'Other Reasons'.

 

Its this missing bit between the 'Recordered figures' and the published that people are intrested in.

 

the UEA has lost the original climate data and only has the 'adjusted' figures.

 

Forgive me for being a bit cynical........

[truman]

Of course the data is adjusted. Not least because temperatures are taken at different times of the day and different times in the season. They need to be comparing like with like and they have forumlas to do that so they can use the maximum data possible.

 

.

 

Do they have formulas that include the nearby aircon heat exchangers being on or off at the time of reading?