Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global warming..
He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has its problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.
In message , "dennis@home" writes
And ?
nand
writes
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but
problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the
Exclusive maybe.
Graham. wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 23:02
Pauli-X
Careful you will confuse him.
You can get data from elsewhere in the world of raw data from long term weather stations. It's quite an effort to understand the way the databases are held and what to select. All the data I've got shows that temperatures have been roughly constant for 50 to 130 years. At some sites the temperature has gone down slightly and some have gone up slightly. The "hocky stick" is a fraud.
A nand job?
There is a lot of what may be evidence that is suppressed.. like the statement about satellite records showing warming since records began in 1979.. the data begins in the 60's but that prior to records "beginning" is ignored
I'd be interested to see that data.
Not really relevant, and a tiresome bandwagon which doesn't belong in this group (imho)
There are some good graphs here:
The real key is global sea temperatures, since that's really the thermal sink ..land temperatures may go up or down with global warming.
What is pretty much fact, is that the earth is retaining more energy as a result of CO2 increase.
What is less certain is where that energy is going.
'Man made climate change' is a better word than 'global warming'
snip
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.
AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined graph.
John Daly of course was a leading climate change denier who also argued than mean sea level wasn't rising.
How convenient.
Well that is the whole problem with the IPCC and most "climate scientists" - they try to add a whole bunch of figures together to get some mythical "global" temperature figure. Their data manipulations cannot easily be checked, especially if they refuse to divulge the calculations they have done. I believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is "catastrophic global warming". I am not much interested in any other statistic that cannot be measured directly over a long period.
OK then, here are my graphs of the nine weather stations in NZ that NIWA themselves chose and added together to prove that NZ has had a warming trend.
I have added the nine graphs together here:
Do you think they don't use a subset of available data to prove there is warming?
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer mythical.
So what about the 70% or so of the Earth that isn't rural?
Well the figures you culled from NIWA are only for a relatively short period.
What I saw on the NIWA site was a claim to gobal warming based on the data from seven representative sites, none of which figure in your list of nine.
I don't know how NIWA get their average figures but given the degree of variability in a daily cycle I would have thought that just about any method that uses more than one data point period from a particular time would be far superior.
Given the large variations I doubt if that is statistically significant but that is hardly the point. What is important is the global picture. For instance during our recent exceptionally cold spell the world as a whole was actually warmer than average according to those who should know.
Still pursuing the conspiracy theory I see. You will be telling us next that the widely quoted extract from the stolen e-mails about adding the real temperatures back in had something to do with fiddling the recent temperature record.
But if Daly's subset is chosen to reflect his belief that GW doesn't exist and the fuller set (whether complete or not) shows a GW trend then the remainder of the set that Daly ignored must show an even stronger trend to GW.
Not at all, I know they ignore data, they say they do so. They don't justify why they ignore the data. They don't even tell you what data they don't ignore. Therefore I conclude that they are ignoring the data that changes their results. They can easily avoid this by publishing the data. Until they do I will assume the worst as many others will.
snip
So you say, but where?
If they ignore it.
There is a good deal of published data out there. Certainly sufficient for Daly to cherry pick stuff he thought advanced his cause while ignoring the the bulk that didn't.
A conclusion you should come to only if you know they are ignoring significant data.
What data? The basis for their conclusions or the data you claim they ignore?
What a curious view of the world. To the prudent assuming the worst would be that the perils of GW have been under estimated, not that the problem just doesn't exist.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.