http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Notice this is the 'unadjusted' version.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
This is another version for the same time period. Notice the word 'extrapolated', that usually means 'doctored up by James Hansen'.
I can remember in 1979 that many scientists were trying to get a grip on what the true temperature of the earth actually was. Since that time they have gone through many 'evolutions', some of them for the good but some of them corrupted by the likes of James Hansen.
Let us face it, Global Warming means big profits, and if it takes only a little tweaking to make it that way, some people have no conscience qualms about tweaking.
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
If I want to measure temperature at a point I can put a thermometer at that point. On the other hand, there is no single point I can put a thermometer at and measure "global" temperature. It is a calculated quantity, and different groups calculate it in different ways that they think are most representative, but it is not a simple process to use thousands of scattered measurements in the best way possible, so different groups have different methods. You could define your own and do it yourself, but I would suggest taking a class in objective analysis first so that you understand the question of representativeness. You'll also need to filter out bad data, or leave to agencies like the National Climate Data Center to do that for you.
Just because I can make a graph it doesn't mean that my graph would be of any use. I leave the science to the scientist, trust the scientific process and largely ignore blogs funded by fossil fuel money.
As for what is the actual issue you can go back to the basics facts people like me, who are not trained in climate sciences, can understand. The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. To my knowledge there is not one scientist who denies these facts.
Let us face it, dumping the waste products from industry into the commons means big profits. And if it takes a little lobbying to make it that way, there are enough people who have no qualms about polluting our atmosphere for the sake of profit or ideology. The science behind AGW is not a scheme by thousand of scientist in order to raise taxes on every one (including the scientist) nor is it scheme to install a (tyrannical) world government.
Quotes by Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) :
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA"
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!"
Easy. There is a subjective element to all temperature graphs which are not raw data (and none are). So the differences are the differences in opinion of various scientists.
My own view is that a global average surface temperature is not possible to know exactly. Therefore, we can only estimate it. Again, that's subjective.
I will state however that raw temperature data does need to be adjusted for a variety of reasons and to get a global temperature.
In general, because they're showing different things. Trying to understand a graph without reading the accompanying text, or claiming that one graph should be able to explain all of any given science, is either laziness or attempted propaganda..
Create you own. Get the historical average daily high temperature data for the last year from your local airport, along with the actual high temperatures. Since the definition of an average is half are above and half are below, check to see where the actuals lie. At my airport (Leesburg, FL) twice as many are ABOVE the average as below it. The chances of this happening naturally are less than 10 billion to one. I think this is good evidence that it is now warmer.
Mathew --
East Anglia does not collect its own climate data. It gets the data from the same sources everyone else does - and where you can, also.
kano:
Both Spencer and Christy (at the U of Alabama) are an interesting pair. Back in April of 2005, Christy and Spencer stopped their regular monthly updates of their MSU T2LT data. Shortly afterward, a new version (5.2) of their data suddenly appeared on their web site and showed a substantial correction. But no explanations were provided, that day. The very next day, that data was pulled off their site. In early August of 2005, they provided version 5.2 again as a rework of their earlier MSU T2LT data. The data included the missing summer months of 2005 plus a rework of the older data. ?At that time, they wrote:
? ?"An artifact of the diurnal correction applied to LT
? ? has been discovered by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz
? ? (Remote Sensing Systems). ?This artifact contributed
? ? an error term in certain types of diurnal cycles, most
? ? notably in the tropics. ?We have applied a new diurnal
? ? correction based on 3 AMSU instruments and call the
? ? dataset v5.2. ?This artifact does not appear in MT or LS.
? ? The new global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 is +0.123
? ? C/decade, or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. ?This
? ? particular error is within the published margin of error
? ? for LT of ± 0.05 C/decade (Christy et al. 2003). ?We
? ? thank Carl and Frank for digging into our procedure and
? ? discovering this error. ?All radiosonde comparisons have
? ? been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good.
? ? There was virtually no impact of this error outside of
? ? the tropics."
The correction yielded a new higher trend than before, at something like 0.193 ℃/decade.
Spencer and Christy posted their data after months of delay on the same day that GW Bush signed the new energy bill. ?This itself was after the conference committee dumped the Senate's recommendations regarding GHG emissions.
The early release at an inauspicious time, the immediate removal the following day, and the re-posting instantly after political issues were made moot was interesting timing, to say the least.
What bothered me is that they knew their data differed from everyone else's. The discrepency had been discussed for years. At some point, scientists requested that these two examine their own work. But they refused, saying only that their product stands. This stubborn refusal eventually forced Carl Mears and Frank Wentz to waste their precious time informing themselves about the basic situation and then to uncover the error in the diurnal correction and write a paper about it. Remote Sensing Systems now (and forever) re-analyzes the same T2LT data and publishes a separate dataset. Most folks use it, now, too. Spencer's and Christy's behavior has made their products less trustworthy.
Regardless, their correction at the time brought the slope of their results within the range of the IPCC TAR (the AR4 wouldn't be out for a couple of years, yet) and removed the distracting use of their MSU T2LT trending as a point of instrumental record dispute.
Their artifact didn't appear in MT or LS data, just the LT. ?(I believe the MT and LS data was processed by a different team.) ?The new global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 was +0.123 C/decade, or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. ?A movement upward of 30%. ?This particular error is within the published margin of error for LT of ± 0.05 C/decade (Christy et al., 2003.)
John Christy served as a pastor of an evangelical Baptist church and went to Kenya as a missionary before he took up his mathematical career, which led to his working for UAH/NASA MSFC. ?A story in the NY Times quoted John Christy (1st link):
? ?"The most common remark I've heard from teachers was
? ? that the chapter on evolution was assigned as reading
? ? but that virtually no discussion in class was taken,"
? ? said Dr. John R. Christy, a climatologist at the
? ? University of Alabama at Huntsville, an evangelical
? ? Christian and a member of Alabama's curriculum review
? ? board who advocates the teaching of evolution. Teachers
? ? are afraid to raise the issue, he said in an e-mail
? ? message, and they are afraid to discuss the issue in
? ? public.
A web site article from Roy Spencer used to be at the 2nd link. But that is gone. ?You can find it in the wayback machine at the 3rd link. Read it. ?It's titled "Faith-Based Evolution." Have you heard of the Cornwall Alliance? ?They are Evangelical Christians of the Dominionist variety -- a pretty scary group, which is now well-funded. Roy Spencer appears in one of their videos (4th link.)
Even NASA has admitted that there temp records are worse than those from East Anglia. All temp. records are suspect and may be cross contaminated And should be looked at with some skepticism due to the fact that they have been doctored or even just made up. It is not even controversial, except to those who artificially and or deliberately make it so, it is simply fact.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article...
EDIT: Gary F. Thanks, correction; NASA has admitted that it temp. data is worse than the climategate data.
I believe Dr Roy Spencer Alabama university Satellite temperatures, most of the others have been doctored
Why do graphs purporting to show Global Temperatures differ?
One graph says we have warmed by so and so, another says not.
Any graph produced by adherents of global warming theory can be opposed by one from unbelievers in global warming.
Even different agencies produce different graphs.
Where can we find a true, no doubts, graph of what is actually happening, without bias, projections or "models"?
