One more thought. Given the collection of data provided at a certain point, one could select certain sets of data or soundings and omit others for the modeling input to give a specific reading at that location over a given time. I know there is a trust factor here, but when there are agendas in play, it must be considered. I trust climatologists who are only interested in science. They would be willing to listen to top shelf meteorologistsâ opinions regarding current trends. I don't trust those who are in dire need of funds to conduct their science. They may skew toward those providing the funding. That funding could be from gov or big oil, or anyone else. It keeps a constant question mark in my mind. In some ways, I've described here why I'm not as sure as you that the science is settled. We may have to agree to disagree.
wjk, I see what you are saying. Scientists are only people and people make errors and have biases. But a couple of points: Yes there may not have been good accurate data for the mid and upper atmospheres until fairly recently. However, we have had ground stations all around the world for what? two hundred years? In addition we have things like tree rings, ice cores etc that go back thousands of years and more recent data of Arctic ice extent, satellite data of the upper atmosphere, sea levels etc. In short we have many data sets across multiple areas and sciences and they all support the other. They all show the same general changes. The possibility that all these various sciences and data sets would just all happen to be making the same mistake or fudging the data all in the same way, is highly unlikely. This chart summarizes the point well.
Certainly the ground stations are important, but questions I then ask are: Where are they located? On a hill, in a valley, in the country, in a city, etc? Ground stations are susceptible to an entire array of local effects that have an impact on surface temperature averages. Tree rings: Was a larger tree ring the result of a wet year, which would possibly have been a cooler year because of cloud cover, or a warmer year causing increased precip? Were there increased nutrients from runoff or atmospheric deposits (opposite for thin rings)? Do these and other surface measurements truly reflect the atmospheric conditions (temps) above the surface to the edge of the atmosphere over a large area during the time period these data are collected from? Certainly they show climate during those periods. It is interesting to me that we find this increase in atmospheric temp (and surface, of course) beginning around the time we started measuring temp from space...in other words, very accurate and total view of atmospheric temp through altitude. These changes might be reflected in sharp changes in long term data charts. The tech advances may be extapolated out of the charts so as not to skew them. But there is that extrapolation again. So much depends on that, doesn't it? Whether it's tree rings, ice samples, etc. Increased extrapolation means increased likelyhood of error. I think that error potential fades with current methods. The same accuracy from space gives excellent sea surface temp readings, though not sure regarding deep water reading. That is equally important, but I'm not up on how uniform measurements of deep sea temps are accumulated, so that's for another discussion. I'll stay with atmospheric temps, for now. So we've have this incredible revolution in temp reading capabilities while at the same time there has been a considerable increase in CO2. Does this show that CO2 caused this warming beyond a shadow of a doubt, or does it show we just better at seeing what those temps were during the same interval? Are we looking at a normal warming cycle in ways we couldn't before, or are we seeing a direct result of trapping? Both? Possibly. As you've indicated, many believe so. My questions don't dispute the data presented in the charts; they question why the charts say what they say. Long term accurate data means everything, especially if we are going to drastically alter our lives. It would have been nice to have satellite temps data throughout the last century, wouldn't it? Then I would have no problem calling it settled. I know many want to act right now. I'd be content to get another 20-30 years of exremely accurate data, and then draw further conclusions. I know, that's too late in the minds of many. I know most scientists are on board, but weren't there times in the past when most were on board, and it turned out they were wrong as tech advances were made?
We have over 160 years of data from many different thermometers from many different areas sited at different type places. They all show the same rise in temps. "The instrumental temperature record shows fluctuations of the temperature of the global land surface and oceans. This data is collected from several thousand meteorological stations, Antarctic research stations and satellite observations of sea-surface temperature. The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running quasi-global record starts in 1850.[1]" There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.[21] The scientific consensus is reflected in, for example, reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and US Global Change Research Program.[21] Although the IPCC AR4 concluded that âwarming of the climate system is unequivocal,â public debate over the evidence for global warming continues.[22] However, it is often confined to a small set of reiterated disputes about Land Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) records, diverting attention from the broader evidence basis.[22] The methods used to derive the principal estimates of global surface temperature trends â HadCRUT3, NOAA and NASA/GISS â are largely independent.[22] So, the spread of the three estimates indicates the likely degree of uncertainty in the evolution of the global mean surface temperature.[22] Independently derived estimates of tropospheric temperature trends for the whole troposphere channel from satellites differ by an order of magnitude more than do estimated surface temperature trends.[22] Numerous studies attest to the robustness of the global LSAT records and their non-reliance on individual stations.[22] Evidence from recent re-analyses lends further support.[22] The IPCC conclusion that âwarming of the climate system is unequivocalâ does not rest solely upon LSAT records.[22] These constitute only one line of evidence among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melting of land ice such as glaciers, the associated rise in sea level and increased atmospheric surface humidity (see the figure opposite and effects of global warming).[22] If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups.[22] The observed changes in a broad range of indicators provide a self-consistent story of a warming world.[22] [edit]Other reports and assessments The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in later publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century.[23] The preliminary results of an assessment carried out by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group and made public in October 2011, found that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the NOAA, the Hadley Centre and NASA's GISS. The study addressed concerns raised by "skeptics"[24][25] including urban heat island effect, "poor"[24] station quality, and the "issue of data selection bias"[24] and found that these effects did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[24][26][27][28] One of the issues that has been raised in the media is the view that global warming "stopped in 1998".[29][30] This view ignores the presence of internal climate variability.[31][30] Internal climate variability is a result of complex interactions between components of the climate system, such as the coupling between the atmosphere and ocean.[32] An example of internal climate variability is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).[30][31] The El Niño in 1998 was particularly strong, possibly one of the strongest of the 20th century.[30] Cooling between 2006 and 2008, for instance, has likely been driven by La Niña, the opposite of El Niño conditions.[33] The area of cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures that defines La Niña conditions can push global temperatures downward, if the phenomenon is strong enough.[33] Even accounting for the presence of internal climate variability, recent years rank among the warmest on record.[34] For example, every year of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990 average.[35]
It's just a wiki cut and paste, Rectum. Take a sentence and put it in Google and you'll find the page. --- Dumbass.
If I'm not mistaken, that 160 years began at the end of a mini cold period. Warming at the surface would be expected. Again, not saying we didn't contribute to it in the 1900's, but there are just too many possibilities. Meteorology and climatology are inexact sciences. As technology and measurements increase in accuracy, so will the understanding of how much our influence is having. The longer we have such accuracy, the more confidence there will be regarding the relationship between CO2 and global temps, at least with people such as myself. I'd like us to have temp measurements of the entire ocean from surface through depth in the same way we now have readings from atmosphere (perhaps we do, but I'm unaware). In the end, even if we are certain of our influence, how do we get the developing giants on board? The US has made great strides in reducing pollution and gasses, but I don't see that happening in India and China. Any suggestions? And what would you like to see here to address the problem you see?
Well, now you're doing the usual thing many people do. You're trying to leapfrog the science question with another argument altogether trying to judge the science by economic or practical questions. The science of AGW is not dependent on what China does or anything else. Before moving to possible practical solutions the science must be assessed and agreed upon. The scientists basically all agree. Now the people of the world need to know that the scientists do agree and trust them. But to answer your question, there are many things that can be and are being done. A carbon tax needs to one of them and nuclear power needs to be another along with efficiency standards etc. A carbon tax need to be done because right now there is a cost for the use of fossil fuels that is not being reflected in it's price.
Actually, I think you misunderstood me again. I'm not leapfrogging the science question in my discussion with you. I had simply concluded my comments on the data reliability questions I have. I'm bringing up another issue stating a reality related to the overall issue (perhaps I should have started that in a new thread). Anyway, I'm not saying that the science is dependent on what China does or doesn't do. I'm saying something completely different. I'm saying they may not care what the science states or be willing to do anything about it if a solution(s) hurts their economies.