tecoyah

This is the latest temperature model, taking us back over 100 yrs. I seriously hope someone screwed up the Data when they made this.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...te_320x240.mpg

hiredgun

well, that's unsettling.

ubertuber

It's kind of pretty but mostly meaningless without explanation. Take for instance 1955, a year in which both poles are orange with red blotches and the rest of the globe is blue with an orange tint. What does that mean? Clearly the poles were not warmer than the equator. This must be comparing temperatures to some sort of average or baseline - which was...what?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Mephisto2

Good point.

But I'm still sending it to my climate skeptic father-in-law!


Mr Mephisto

Superbelt

Here is the page it came from
linky dinky
There is no static baseline. Each step in the animation is based 5 years prior.

raveneye

The baseline is the long term average temperature over roughly a 30-year period.

Many agencies in several countries have presented these data, and you can read a good FAQ from the UK here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The UK uses a baseline mean from 1961 to 1990. The model referred to in the OP uses a baseline from 1977 to 2005 (from the cited paper).

Note that the animation posted is not from any predictive model, rather it is actual data. There is no question about its accuracy.

matthew330

Did anyone else notice how nothing really changed THAT much until the 2000 presedential election? Then the entire world changed red. Prior to 2000, the biggest shocker was Alaska from 1880 to 1890 - scary times.

Rudel73

100 years is all this model presents. The earths climate goes back millions and millions of years, it went through ice ages and incredibly hot periods all on its own. This model only goes back 100 years and yet peopple are claiming that its president bush's fault?

There is no doubt that the globe currently has a warming trend. There is, however, incredible doubt that humans are causing it. Say whatever you want, cite any scientist, it doesnt matter. There is no way to prove humans are causing this warming trend.


Anyways, this little warming period is also coming along with the greatest improvement of worldwide living conditions, life expentancy, and wealth. Everyone is worrying about nothing.

matthew330

I also have to take issue with the definition of "Baseline" here, because this is pretty important, and fairly telling that two people who are seemingly excited about what the OP implies, have two completely different definitions of it.

Superbelt: Baseline data, by it's definition, is static. It doesn't change. The baseline data in this case would be the annual mean temp from either 1775- 1880 or 1880-1885. Which one is not clear, but i don't think it matters much.

Raneneye: Though your explanation was quite convincing, so much so I'm not sure where to begin...Baseline data is not long term averages or means over a 30 year period nearly 80 years AFTER data has been collected.

It's interesting how the two of you probably are very excited about what this model shows, but differ entirely in your definitions of how it's data is generated. both of you couldn't be more wrong about what it's "baseline" (comparison in case you didn't know) data is.

Willravel

Are there any climatologists on TFP? It's always good when a dentist chimes in on tooth info or a history teacher chimes in on the past. I think it could help in interpreting the data.

Rudel73

global warming should be a scientific debate, not a political one.

matthew330

willravel, what data? I think what your looking for is a statistician, but you need real data to be interpreted before that would be of any use. If that's not what your after, PM host, I'm sure he could be a climatologist/statistician for your purposes for at least one thread.

ubertuber

Lame.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

I'm sorry, I assumed you watched the video that the entire thread was about.

Here's the link:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...te_320x240.mpg
I think what we need is someone who has studied climate for years and has a degree, so that we can all stop pretending we are experts. I don't know much about weather, and I suspect that most average people are with me in that camp. I look to people well studied in the area for their opinion so that my opinion would be better informed (instead of following party lines and assuming people are right). Luckily for me, there are thousands of experts who have studied this, and a vast majority of them are in agreement.

Superbelt

matthew330, I was trying to make the data presentation more clear. I was just explaining that, there is no baseline. Each step in this animation is based on temperature increases within the 5 year period of the animation step. Each step is based off of the step prior to it.

And, I'm not a climatologist, but I do have a masters degree in a related field.

raveneye

I don’t think we need a climate expert to interpret that video – it’s straightforward and there’s plenty of explanation all over the net, including the link I gave. Here’s another from NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...2006_warm.html

That page is a very nice summary.

The OP unfortunately did not make it clear that the "model" referred to has nothing to do with the linked video. The model was from a paper just published to predict the temperature change in the U.S. into the near future. The video is simply a nice way to visualize the known temperature data over the last 100 years or so. Previous versions of that video have been kicking around for at least 10 years, I’ve been showing them to my students for that long.

It’s easy to misinterpret the “5-year-increments” quote from the little caption for the video. What that means is that the data plotted in the video is actually a 5-year running average. So the year 2000 for example represents not just the data from 2000, but rather is the average of the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The year 2001 is the average of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, etc. Using a running average is a standard statistical procedure to separate a temporal signal from the temporal noise, making any time trend easier to visualize. You can see both the raw numbers and their running average plotted together on the NASA link above, for the global mean temperature.

For that particular video, the baseline used is the mean temperature for the years 1951 to 1980, as stated in the link above (other agencies in different countries use slightly different baselines; the paper that put together the predictive model uses yet a different one as I pointed out).

But the important point understand is that it doesn't matter what the baseline is, because all the baseline does is tell you what zero is. In the video (and graph a in the link), zero is the average temperature between 1951 and 1980. So if you have dark red in the video, that codes to around 2 degrees celsius. So dark red means that that region is 2 degrees celsius above the mean from 1951 to 1980 at that point on the globe and at that time.

We could just as easily have used a baseline from 1880, but all that would do is change the definition of zero. It's better to use a more recent baseline, because we have a lot more datapoints recently all over the globe from which to calculate a baseline than we did in 1880. Or we could have just plotted the raw data instead and forgot about the baseline entirely. But if we were to plot just the raw data, we wouldn’t be able to see at a glance how much the temperature has changed at any particular point on the globe. That’s the whole purpose of the video, to compare the temperature change at various places on the globe and from year to year (with some of the annual noise filtered out).

Superbelt: take a look at the links I provided, and the video. The animation step is one year, not five years.

pig

good to see you back around raveneye. thanks for clarification.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

tecoyah

Many thanks raveneye.....exellent explanation (my apologies for the lack of clarity in the OP).

I have also found a wonderful source of clarification on the many so called "Myths" of climate change, for anyone interested:

http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

Case in point-

Climate myths: We can't trust computer models

* 17:00 16 May 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Fred Pearce



"Even though the climate is chaotic to some extent, it can be predicted long in advance.

Climate is average weather, and it can vary unpredictably only within the limits set by major influences like the Sun and levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We might not be able to say whether it will rain at noon in a week's time, but we can be confident that the summers will be hotter than winters for as long as the Earth's axis remains tilted.

The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future – and indeed have successfully done so.
Clouded judgement

Climate modellers may occasionally be seduced by the beauty of their constructions and put too much faith in them. Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism – that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change. Their predictions, which they prefer to call scenarios, usually come with generous error bars. In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like “likely” and “very likely” in terms of percentage probability.

Given the complexity of our climate system, most scientists agree that models are the best way of making sense of that complexity. For all their failings, models are the best guide to the future that we have.

Finally, the claim is sometimes made that if computer models were any good, people would be using them to predict the stock market. Well, they are!

A lot of trading in the financial markets is already carried out by computers. Many base their decisions on fairly simple algorithms designed to exploit tiny profit margins, but others rely on more sophisticated long-term models.

Major financial institutions are investing huge amounts in automated trading systems, the proportion of trading carried out by computers is growing rapidly and some individuals have made a fortune from them. The smart money is being bet on computer models."

raveneye

Thanks, pigglet and Tecoyah . . . .

That's a very nice New Scientist article.

The best overall source of info on global warming I think is probably the IPCC website (the purpose of the organization is to assess and synthesize all the science):

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Check out their presentations and graphics.

On the computer modeling issue, to me it seems rather obvious that only a computer is likely to be able to find a meaningful path through the enormous complexity of atmospheric processes.

The IPCC website has a very nice graphic showing how accurate the models have been in "post-dicting" the mean global temperature:

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/05.18.jpg

This graphic shows clearly that you can't ignore anthropogenic processes.

ASU2003

I am one of the people that collects weather data from all over the world. But we send it to NASA to analyze it. NASA uses their satellites to fill in the blanks inbetween our ground weather stations and balloon launches. So I would say the data from the past few years have been really good.

What I wonder is if we reached a tipping point in 1980. The pollution or CO2/H20/CO/NO emmisions got to a point so high that the trees/grass/algee/whatever else that uses those gases as food couldn't keep up anymore. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years. Will environmental restrictions have any effect? Will the solar load from the Sun go down in a cycle? Will some volcano erupt sending tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

aceventura3

Looks like they did.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Fin...rticle8383.htm

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

When NASA recently announced that it was revising its temperature data, right-wing bloggers leaped at the news to propel its global warming denial campaign.

James Hansen — head of the NASA center — sets the record straight. He writes that the “corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable,” adding that the “deceit” propagated by the right “has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change.”

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I have read many references to the data and the correction. I did not see any bloggers using the corrected data in the manner in which DC's post suggests. Most clearly acknowledge the correction was minor.

However, what many do question the significance of many of the warmest days on record occurring prior to WWII. There was no intent to deceive, in anything I read on this issue. I think Hansen is overreacting and appears to be overly sensitive.

At any rate this issue has received almost no attention by any media source of merit conservative or liberal. I simply pointed it out because it seemed ironic that Tecoyah hoped someone "screwed up" and they had.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace....your own article does:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding...

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

the changes are truly astounding?`...acknowledging a minor correction as having a HUGE impact on the global truly warming propaganda machine?

Sorry, but to me, that is the anti-global warming propaganda machine at work.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

When Asher (the author of the citation I provided) says: "but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge." He is stating his opinion and he was wrong and stated the likelihood that he would be wrong. There is no intent to deceive, confuse or to even discredit Hansen.

When he says NASA silently released corrected figures he is being factually correct.

When he writes the changes are "astounding" he is specifically referring to the top 10 list of the warmest years. Many people including me, actively question the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. I think this is a legitimate question, the updated data lessens the evidence of a causal correlation.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

As you can see '01 goes off the list, and all of the changes shows more current years dropping and older years moving up, there are 4 instances of that on a list of 10. There are 4 years from the decade of the 30's on the list.

I hope Hansen sees these changes as being worthy of legitimate statistical discussion relative to the correlation between CO2 and global warming trends. As you know many scientist have proposed alternative explanations for the current global warming trend.

Also, I think what you may have picked up on was the tone from backyard scientist who got a kick out of sticking it to NASA and got pissed off at Hansen for his stonewalling on the issue. This is more a "nerd" (in many ways I consider myself a "nerd" and a backyard scientist, and I am not being derogatory) thing than a political thing.

P.S. Look at the two charts you provided. The first is based on US land surface, which account for 2% of the total global land surface, yet the US accounts for most of the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. In that chart from 1930 to 2000 there is virtually no upward trend. When you look at the second chart the one based on global temperatures, you can see a clear upward trend for the 1930's. Perhaps you can provide a scientific explanation from someone who supports the theory that CO2 emissions are the cause. I won't hold my breath.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace...Im not going to get into another debate on global warming with you or you might bring up IBD editorials and the methane cows again.

I would simply refer you to raveneye's post, re: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body of more than 100 scientists whose work is peer reviewed by other scientists on both sides of the global warming issue.

I do accept the IPCC as the source providing the best analysis of the issue and I agree with their findings that we cant can't ignore anthropogenic processes.

If you dont want to accept the work of the IPCC.....thats fine. Lets just leave it at that.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

raveneye

The deceit here is contained very clearly in the headline “Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record.” This headline is very cleverly deceptive, as it makes two false statements by implication. These are: (1) NASA claimed that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the U.S. (in reality NASA never made that claim); (2) the correction of the data has resulted in 1998 no longer being a global record (in reality the data is from the U.S. and has no effect whatsoever on the global records of warmest years).

So the deception has the intention of confusing people by a simple bait-and-switch ploy: bait them with U.S. data, then surreptitiously switch the context to global data. Then condemn NASA and demand that they fire Jim Hansen (or worse), who is justifiably pissed off. Anybody would be.

The main people responsible for spreading the bait-and-switch are Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts like Amy Oliver, who picked it up from bloggers like those linked to in this thread (Anthony Watts and Michael Asher, but hundreds of others spread it around too like Michelle Malkin). Counter to what many folks want to believe, the story is covered in detail in the mainstream media, as a visit to Google news or Lexis shows. And of course it is all over the internet:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2219...ient=firefox-a

It has apparently fooled a lot of people.



But what has NASA actually claimed about U.S. temperature records? Here is their position, from a peer-revewied 2001 paper by lead author James Hansen himself:

In other words, NASA never believed that 1998 was the warmest in the U.S., NASA has always believed that it’s a statistical tie between 1934 and 1998. We can’t say which is higher, because the uncertainty in the data is about 10 times the observed difference. And the recent correction of the data doesn’t change that fact whatsoever, it’s still a statistical tie. That’s because there’s a lot of random noise there in the annual data, and it still swamps the correction.

But all this is irrelevant to the most important point by far, namely that the global record years haven’t changed one iota and the top five are in the last 10 years. You can still find the story on NASA’s website:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...2006_warm.html




Astute readers will note the word “worldwide” here.

tecoyah

I was tempted to point out a similar observation raveneye, but as of late find this whole debate rather pointless. Regardless of Data, there will be those who decide the climate change issue is not important, and those who do. I have given up trying to "Convince" anyone unwilling to see what the scientific community has given them....they are irrelevant to the problem.

aceventura3

Please address the question concerning US CO2 emissions and the appearance of a lack of a warming trend in the US since the 30's. That is the most important question to me at this time.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

raveneye

There is a warming trend, from the 1960s to present. It is offset by a cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1960s. The cooling trend was caused by sulfate aerosol pollution which lowers the incident radiation. After the sulfate emissions were controlled, the temps rose again.

This information is widely available. If you're truly interested, I recommend Tec's linked article on global warming myths for starters. Your question has been asked and answered a million times, and there is a nice summary there too.

dc_dux

That would require an open mind and an understanding that the US, which ranks first in the world in Co2 emissions, is part of the global community.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Why do you continuously make personal attacks? The US land mass is 2% of the global land mass yet accounts for the majority of the increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. Yet, the US land mass has not incurred the same level of warming as in other areas of the globe. My question is a question in good faith. I first started reading research on this topic within the last 6 months or so. I have not read or seen all of the relevant information, and I have stated in the past that I my lack on knowledge on this subject and developing my views. Since I have been reading a lot of information, and to date nothing has adequately addressed this question. If what Rev says is true, I have not seen this question answered a million times.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

It was not a personal attack, but simply an observation that your attempt to frame the issue in terms of the US only is absurd IMO, and only a means of avoiding the broader issue of GLOBAL warming, of which, the US, as the largest industrial nation, is a contributor.

What the US does impacts the world, and what the world does impacts the US. We dont live in a vacuum when it comes to global warming and the contribution of human activity, as convenient as that might be.

Have you read any of the IPCC reports or "Climate Change - A guide for the perplexed". both of which have been recommended by others here? You only seem to post from global warming skeptics and denial sites.

As tecoyah noted above:
I give up trying to convince anyone as well.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

My alleged attempt to frame the issue in terms of the US only was nothing but an after thought, a P.S. added after my original post based on a chart you provided concerning US temperature changes. Then I simply asked for someone to address the question without any editorial comment added on my part. My question is fair. You call me closed minded, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

You don't like exchanges with me, at one point you stated you would ignore my posts, in this thread at one point you wrote to me that we would leave it at that. What is your problem with following through on your word? If you want a pissing contest, pick someone else, I am not interested.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace...I feel compelled to respond to your posts at times when I believe you attempt to divert the issue...like here, with your "afterthought" about the US only rather than respond to others who directly questioned your earlier posts (ie the deceit, as raveneye correctly characterized it, of the article you posted).

My responses are meant as much or more for others to see as they are to engage in a dialogue with you. You can choose to ignore them or not. I dont particularly care either either way, but I will continue to call you out, or anyone, when I believe (and its only my opinion) that you (or they, like dk and soundmotor with their Sarah Brady posts or necrosis injecting Clinton into discussions in a way that is not completely honest) are being intentionally disingenuous to divert the discussion rather than respond to challenges to your (or their) posts.

I may be too direct for you (or others) and you may not like what I post, but I play by the rules here and if I dont, the mods will let me know.

If you take my posts as a personal insult and a pissing contest...thats your issue, not mine.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I don't know if you ever re-read what is written, but I do. What is written speaks for itself. If you and raveneye see deceit, I have no problem with what you see. I just give my point of view and I saw no deceit.

I am usually more interested in reading the point of view of those who disagree with me than reading the views of those who do agree with me. I have tried to avoid throw-away comments directed at specific individuals that do not move the dialog forward. You don't. You waste time, energy and effort. You saying I am closed minded, is not going to change me, and others have formed their own opinions. Your comment added no value to anything.

It is unfortunate that you are usually wrong. Like in this case, I ask a question about a chart in your post, and you then say I am trying to frame the discussion in an inappropriate manner. I am sure you don't see the flaw in your logic, but it is a pretty big one.

This exchange clearly defines the problem when a conservative tries to take a reasoned approach in discussing an issue with pompous, pseudo-intellectual liberals. Let's ignore the topic and the questions on the table and divert the discussion to some trivial bullshit that has no bearing on anything of value. You have succeeded. I have no more interest in discussing the topic of global warming here.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

LMAO at conservatives taking a reasoned approach with pompous, pseudo-intellectual liberals (oh my, is that a personal attack on me)...OK, ace

I would suggest if you have any other complaints with me, take it up with me privately in a PM so others dont have to be subject to this nonsense.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ASU2003

There is the jet stream that has been known to take the CO2 produced in one area and move it to other parts of the planet.

I do tend to side with the enviromentalists most of the time, but I do realize that there are fluctuations in the planets temperature that wasn't the fault of humans. So, it doesn't really matter if there were warmer years or not. What matters to me are three questions.

1. How has the planet corrected the hot temperature in the past?

2. How do we clean up the environment and atmosphere to make humans impact on the temperature less of a debate?

3. What are we going to do if the temperature goes up at an accelerated rate due to something like the ocean currents slowing down due to fresh water consentrations, the white polar ice cap not reflecting sunlight throughout the summer, the natural CO2 scrubbers can't keep up with our increased emmissions?

kutulu

Are you saying that what goes up in the air doesn't stay exactly where it came from? Inconcievable!

tecoyah