On 2 Sep, 19:10, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
>> On 1 Sep, 20:42, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>> Hmm, yes, quote Hadley Centre: "...A brief look at the graph depicting
>>>> January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our
>>>> climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term
>>>> almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases..."
>
>>>> "...In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to
>>>> remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this
>>>> kind."
>
>>>> Next time it would help if you actually read your source and also gave
>>>> the relevant URL.
>
>>> I am well aware of the views, presented as fact by a government body.
>>> However, I was looking at the data they produced, not the speculation.
>>> The
>>> Hadley Centre data also suffers from the same problem that the NASA data
>>> does; it is based on surface temperature measurements, which means fixed
>>> point measurements, more likely to be near centres of population than in
>>> remote areas, which makes it all the more surprising that they do not
>>> show
>>> any increase in global temperatures since 1998 - note the use of standard
>>> government fudge terms like 'underlying rise over the longer term' and
>>> 'is
>>> predicted to remain upwards' to avoid drawing attention to that by
>>> discusing
>>> actual figures.
>
>> So now you are saying the source you gave was not much use after all
>> or even wrong?
>
> I am pointing out that the data has restrictions, that need to be understood
> when interpeting it. I am also saying, as a separate point, that the
> conclusions presented by the organisation that collected the figures reflect
> official government opinion but fall short of providing a wholehearted
> endorsement of that opinion.
>
>
>
>>> I would give you URLs, but I'm not sure you would know what to do with
>>> the
>>> information. Here is one example:
>
>
>> I don't see what you consider so special about the University of
>> Alabama, compared with, say, the specialist Met Office and IPCC.
>
> The IPCC does not take measurements, but takes its figures from the several
> sources I gave.
>
But it does give opinions.
>
> The advantage of the UAH and RSS (both just as much
> specialists as the Met Office) figures over any other is that they are taken
> across the whole globe, irrespective of whether that is jungle, ocean,
> desert or settled land, while the NASA and Met Office figures are taken from
> a relatively limited number of fixed points, many of which are near centres
> of population, which can affect the figures.
>
But not a continuing upward trend all things being equal.
>
> The satellites also measure the
> bottom 8km of the atmosphere, not just the bit near the surface. The surface
> figures require a lot of extrapolation to give global averages and, as the
> article I referenced shows, that means hsitorical measurements do not remain
> the same, but change as the way the estimates are done change. The upshot is
> that the satellite figures are very much more relaible than the surface
> measurements. However, both systems must continue in parallel until there is
> enough overlapping data to allow better mathemtical modelling of the surface
> data, which will allow for improvements in the understanding of the
> historical data.
>
And the ice cores?
>
>> Also,
>> like all the other GW/CC motorist deniers on this newsgroup you make
>> the same odd mistake of confusing timescales as well as global/local.
>> 1978-2008 is a mere fluctuation blip in GW, which has shown a
>> significant rise since the onset of the industrial revolution as all
>> records show.
>
> The start of the industrial revolution coincided with a relatively cold
> period in recent earth history (I assume a few thousand years is an
> acceptable timescale?),
>
>
> so a subsequent warming is to be expected. The
> debate is entirely about whether that is only due to natural forces, whether
> there was any human element in it and, if so, how much.
>
No the rise is much greater than would be otherwise expected.
>
>>> Translated, globally, June 2008 is provisionally 0.11C below the average
>>> for
>>> the past 20 years, while May is 0.18C below. This is based upon satellite
>>> data, which measures the whole globe from the surface to about 8km above
>>> sea
>>> level and is considered much more reliable than surface temperature
>>> measurements.
>
>> Again, 20 years is a mere blip.
>
>> What makes you seriously imagine that the Met Office, with all their
>> considerable experience and resources, is wrong with its
>> interpretation of data while you alone are correct?
>
> I make no such claim. The data is not mine, nor is the interpretation. They
> both belong to Dr John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer of UAH, equally respected
> experts in the field.
>
But the point I keep on making is that even if there is still some
disagreement as to predictions and mechanisms that is no good reason
to ignore the precautionary principle and keep on taking carbon from
the earth and releasing it into the atmosphere in vast quantities,
with the possibility of killing many millions of people in the future,
just so that the present populations can maintain their extravagant
and wasteful lifestyles. Methane from farm animals is another factor
too.
>
>
>>>>> "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
>>>>> 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
>>>>> oceans have been ice-free at the same time...
>
>>>> That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has
>>>> happened
>>>> since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking for
>>>> the
>>>> passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records
>>>> from
>>>> before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow
>>>> the
>>>> facts to get in the way.
>
>>>> What about ice cores?
>
>>> What about them? We know the passages were open no later than the early
>>> 20th
>>> century, so the ice covering them cannot be older than that.
>
>> Ice cores are a very ancient record.
>
> Do you have trouble with the concept that the record can only be as old as
> the ice and that the ice in passages that have opened in recent years must,
> of necessity, also be recent?
>
>
Deep ice cores are up to 400,000 years old.
>
>
>
>>>> Check this out then:
>
>
>>>> "...The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are
>>>> linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as
>>>> those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This
>>>> caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse
>>>> effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and
>>>> CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in
>>>> CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent
>>>> warming."
>
>>> That is, indeed, the official government line. I do not believe in the
>>> infallibility of governments, even if they do.
>
>> And I don't believe in the infallibility of individual motorist
>> polluters like you who have a vested interest in denying GW.
>
> I accept that global warming has happened and I have do not have any
> interest, vested or otherwise, in denying it. I merely question the
> mechanism that caused it.
>
Which is the whole point.
>
> In any case, I believe that the money being spent
> on CO2 reduction, whether it is justified or not, would be much better spent
> on preparing the world for future climate change, whichever way it goes.
>
But the continued release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases carries
the danger of uncontrollable positive feedback and is therefore best
avoided. I agree that we should prepare for climate change, which will
mean moving many millions of people away from low lying areas, such as
Central London for example, and modifications to farming and disease
control, to mention a few. A massive undertaking. Alternatively, we
could just try not bunging so much CO2 and methane into the atmosphere
and wait for that predicted cooling, starting in 2012 was it?
