The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's so amusing to see who's all up in arms about CO2 in the atmosphere and that 'we' are causing all these problems...

When you go by what scientists have said about our climate history (before the records they have of the last 110 years) then it would stand to good reason that not much is happening here that hasn't happened already over and over again.

Of course, once something enters the political arena it becomes about greed, selfishness, and control. The facts get lost.

You cannot realistically come to a conclustion about any effect we may or may not be having based off 110 years worth of data, especially when comparing to what's 'thought' to have happened in the past based on minderal tests and written works.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Six years, John. The increase from 1998 to 2005 was measurable. Don't tell me you are discounting it because it was small. Not when you criticize the "other side" for fudging facts and making up data.

Actually according to this climate scientist it hasn't warmed in 16 years.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

Enlarge Chart

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz1DmhcaaaZ

[Ggreen 12]

Where is the OP? http://www.climatehotmap.org/

[Dakine10 5,452]

Actually according to this climate scientist it hasn't warmed in 16 years.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Cmon. That's just another one of them scientists. What makes one scientist any more reliable than another. We know none of them can be trusted.

I'm just going by NASA's measured data. Unless you think they calibrate their thermometers so that they read too high?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Cmon. That's just another one of them scientists. What makes one scientist any more reliable than another. We know none of them can be trusted.

I'm just going by NASA's measured data. Unless you think they calibrate their thermometers so that they read too high?

Ah, so you only listen to scientists that you agree with? I rest my case.

Nasa's numbers have already been shown to be false. Thermometers in heat islands, no readings in some colder areas, ect. I can show you the stories if you want but you will just discount it anyway. You only want to believe what you want to believe, hence it is a religion to you.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Dakine10 5,452]

Ah, so you only listen to scientists that you agree with? I rest my case.

That was sarcasm. You are the one who keeps posting that scientists are altering the data, not me. It seems hypocritical to accuse scientists of altering data and then using scientific data to support your argument.

Nasa's numbers have already been shown to be false. Thermometers in heat islands, no readings in some colder areas, ect. I can show you the stories if you want but you will just discount it anyway. You only want to believe what you want to believe, hence it is a religion to you.

If you have credible evidence that NASA's data is false by all means please do post it. NASA's temperature data correlates well with NOAA and the Hadley center. If your evidence comes from some jackass blog or website, then yeah I'm going to ignore it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Cmon. That's just another one of them scientists. What makes one scientist any more reliable than another. We know none of them can be trusted.

I'm just going by NASA's measured data. Unless you think they calibrate their thermometers so that they read too high?

I know you think 50 degrees below normal in Oklahoma is "just weather, not climate" but 12 degrees above normal at the south pole is reason to be concerned for penguins (there are no penguins at the south pole, they live in coastal regions where there is open water and they have access to FISH to eat.)

Edited February 13, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Dakine10 5,452]

I know you think 50 degrees below normal in Oklahoma is "just weather, not climate" but 12 degrees above normal at the south pole is reason to be concerned for penguins (there are no penguins at the south pole, they live in coastal regions where there is open water and they have access to FISH to eat.)

Yes thank you Gary, I do know the difference between Antarctica and the South Pole. My penguin comment was just a jab at John for mistakenly accusing me of posting fake pictures of stranded polar bears in a previous thread. I guess you must have missed that thread.

But what I did say was comparing the temperature of Oklahoma and the south pole is meaningless. That was my reponse to a question you asked me directly. I actually did not use the words "weather" or "climate" at all so I'm not sure where that is coming from.

[Pooky 3,828]

If you have credible evidence that NASA's data is false by all means please do post it. NASA's temperature data correlates well with NOAA and the Hadley center. If your evidence comes from some jackass blog or website, then yeah I'm going to ignore it.

You do realise that the report cited in the OP includes the NOAA, don't you?

It's posted on their website, after all.

www.esrl.noaa.gov link

[Dakine10 5,452]

You do realise that the report cited in the OP includes the NOAA, don't you?

It's posted on their website, after all.

www.esrl.noaa.gov link

Yes. As far as I can see, it doesn't contradict anything I posted about TEMPERATURE data. My original point was the researcher (Campo) says climate is essentially not changing. He does NOT say temperature isn't changing. What he does say is that he doesn't think CO2 is responsible for any temperature change to date. His belief is that changes in the hydrological cycle is responsible.

NOAA states global temperatures have increased 0.74 +/ 0.18 degrees since the late 19th century.

They also state as fact:

- 7 of the 8 warmest years on record have occured since 2001.

- the greenhouse effect of CO2 is real, and atmospheric CO2 has increased continually since measuring began.

- warming is not uniform. Some areas are cooler, but the global mean temperature has increased.

Here's their graph.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Dakine10

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes. As far as I can see, it doesn't contradict anything I posted about TEMPERATURE data. My original point was the researcher (Campo) says climate is essentially not changing. He does NOT say temperature isn't changing. What he does say is that he doesn't think CO2 is responsible for any temperature change to date. His belief is that changes in the hydrological cycle is responsible.

NOAA states global temperatures have increased 0.74 +/ 0.18 degrees since the late 19th century.

They also state as fact:

- 7 of the 8 warmest years on record have occured since 2001.

- the greenhouse effect of CO2 is real, and atmospheric CO2 has increased continually since measuring began.

- warming is not uniform. Some areas are cooler, but the global mean temperature has increased.

Here's their graph.

The earth is 6 billion years old and we are worried about the last 7 out of 8 years? What about the last 7 out of 9 MILLION years? Oh, we only have data for the last 110 years so basically...we have no effin' clue! Since CO2 measuring began? When? 4 billion years ago? 1 billion? 1 thousand years ago?

Warming is global but it is cooler in some places?

Let's put this in context. There are 6 billion people on earth. So you are going to ask 8 of them a question and go with that 7 of them say and then say it applies to all people in the world?

Have you any clue what a tiny sample you are speaking of? The data is so....oh never mind. Here, have another glass of Kool aid. It doesn't matter anyway. Global Warming is dead because the funding for it died. The US is the only country that elects politicians so stupid that they would blow their own economy's brains out over something that doesn't exist. Since most of them have been replaced and they are no longer a majority in the house, the issue is dead.

We will see if OPEC countries take up the slack and stop sellling fossil fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Maybe OPEC will save us from ourselves.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes. As far as I can see, it doesn't contradict anything I posted about TEMPERATURE data. My original point was the researcher (Campo) says climate is essentially not changing. He does NOT say temperature isn't changing. What he does say is that he doesn't think CO2 is responsible for any temperature change to date. His belief is that changes in the hydrological cycle is responsible.

NOAA states global temperatures have increased 0.74 +/ 0.18 degrees since the late 19th century.

They also state as fact:

- 7 of the 8 warmest years on record have occured since 2001.

- the greenhouse effect of CO2 is real, and atmospheric CO2 has increased continually since measuring began.

- warming is not uniform. Some areas are cooler, but the global mean temperature has increased.

Here's their graph.

Nice graph. It shows that since 1880 the global mean temperature has fluctuated within a 1 degree celcius range and is currently going down.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The earth is 6 billion years old and we are worried about the last 7 out of 8 years? What about the last 7 out of 9 MILLION years? Oh, we only have data for the last 110 years so basically...we have no effin' clue! Since CO2 measuring began? When? 4 billion years ago? 1 billion? 1 thousand years ago?

What's your point? Since we don't know any better it doesn't matter? We know it has been colder and hotter in geological history. That's beside the point. The argument being made is that increasing levels of CO2 will make that warming occur faster that it normally occurs in geological time. You can disagree, but what's the point of denying the argument. Chances are the answer to that question will not be validated in our life time anyway. The data is what it is, nothing more.

Warming is global but it is cooler in some places?

Yes, that's why it's called global mean temperature.

Let's put this in context. There are 6 billion people on earth. So you are going to ask 8 of them a question and go with that 7 of them say and then say it applies to all people in the world?

No the context is mean global temperature and CO2 have increased. Doesn't matter if I think it has and you think it hasn't. That's what the available data is.

Have you any clue what a tiny sample you are speaking of? The data is so....oh never mind. Here, have another glass of Kool aid. It doesn't matter anyway. Global Warming is dead because the funding for it died. The US is the only country that elects politicians so stupid that they would blow their own economy's brains out over something that doesn't exist. Since most of them have been replaced and they are no longer a majority in the house, the issue is dead.

We will see if OPEC countries take up the slack and stop sellling fossil fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Maybe OPEC will save us from ourselves.

And that's the problem. This has become a political issue instead of a scientific one. People have become so focused on regulation and taxes that they ignore the available data. Scientifically it's easy to say global warming might be occuring. Politically it is not. It's easier to post about how much snow is in your driveway in January.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Nice graph. It shows that since 1880 the global mean temperature has fluctuated within a 1 degree celcius range and is currently going down.

Fluctuation is irrelevant. The graph shows an upward trend since 1910.

I would expect the graph will be going back up again when they factor in the data for 2010.