Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Good question. We ought to be seeing temperature rises. CO2 causes a retention of heat, we've known this for more than a century. This heat has to go somewhere, and there's no known way for it to escape back into space. If the pause is real, this means that instead of the heat going into increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere, something else which is colder will be heated. This could either be the poles or the oceans, with the bets currently being on it being the oceans.
So far it looks like (even by IPCC's own admission) that this the oceans heating up far deeper than they anticipated, acting as a heatsink, is not included in any of the models and that explains the discrepancy.
The heat has to go somewhere.
So far it looks like (even by IPCC's own admission) that this the oceans heating up far deeper than they anticipated, acting as a heatsink, is not included in any of the models and that explains the discrepancy.
The heat has to go somewhere.
This is extremely unlikely to be case unless we've misunderstood both thermodynamics and the dispersion of electromagnetic radiation, both of which we've known for a century now. There's little doubt that we're currently adding more heat to the earth's surface, the question is just where its going.
The dailymail is a tabloid magazine seer, I don't respect it as a source of any news. As it was I followed the link provided in that article, which went to that blog you linked to, and it didn't say that the scientists fudged that the data, simple that there's a difference between the initial dataset and the final adjusted dataset.
The implication is apparently that the scientists were doing this fraudulently, however there's zero discussion of why it was done which is likely for a number of good reasons. I know plenty of equipment that shows systematic bias that has to be corrected for. It could also be that they were folding multiple datasets together. I know that results from the Planck satellite was adjusted based on datasets from other experiments, nudging the results closer to the real value, basically finding the best value that's consistent with all measurements.
The blog discusses none of these possibilities. There's also no sources listed for anything, which makes it even more dubious, I doubt he's pulling those graphs out of thin air, but I don't think he's telling the whole story about them.
The discussion there about US temperatures is irrelevant, the US covers only a small percentage of the earths surface. Its the total average which is interesting, and I've posted that.
The implication is apparently that the scientists were doing this fraudulently, however there's zero discussion of why it was done which is likely for a number of good reasons. I know plenty of equipment that shows systematic bias that has to be corrected for. It could also be that they were folding multiple datasets together. I know that results from the Planck satellite was adjusted based on datasets from other experiments, nudging the results closer to the real value, basically finding the best value that's consistent with all measurements.
The blog discusses none of these possibilities. There's also no sources listed for anything, which makes it even more dubious, I doubt he's pulling those graphs out of thin air, but I don't think he's telling the whole story about them.
The discussion there about US temperatures is irrelevant, the US covers only a small percentage of the earths surface. Its the total average which is interesting, and I've posted that.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...g-the-present/
And they finally admitted to the "mistake." But only after they got caught with their pants down.
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/articl...a081607_2.html
Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however — and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA measures long-term changes in global surface temperatures using raw data collected at thousands of stations around the world (called the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN). The raw temperature data are then corrected to account for a number of factors, including differences in the time of day of measurements between stations, and differences between rural stations and urban stations (which tend to be hotter, due to the so-called "urban heat island" effect).
On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive "hockey stick" temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA measures long-term changes in global surface temperatures using raw data collected at thousands of stations around the world (called the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN). The raw temperature data are then corrected to account for a number of factors, including differences in the time of day of measurements between stations, and differences between rural stations and urban stations (which tend to be hotter, due to the so-called "urban heat island" effect).
On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive "hockey stick" temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.
Leave a comment: