My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

One problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, solar activity changes earlier in the 20th century, despite the statements in your attachment that it lags.

Isn't this a case of you two using different temperature data?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Isn't this a case of you two using different temperature data?

Can you elaborate?

[Michaelangelica]

This ABC (Australia) radio show is usually excellent.
It will be broadcast this weekend
Background Briefing

Background Briefing <backgroundbriefing@your.abc.net.au>
to me

show details
16:37 (26 minutes ago)
ABC Radio National's Background Briefing continues to bring you agenda setting news and current affairs and investigative journalism from around Australia and the world.

This week on Background Briefing....

THE CLIMATE ENGINEERS
Reporter: Wendy Carlisle
For years it's been one of the science community's great taboos but the idea of global climate control is starting to be openly discussed. Ideas like placing giant mirrors in space or firing sulphur particles into the stratosphere to cool the planet are no longer just in the domain of science fiction. Many scientists now believe the time for these ideas will come.

Sunday 6th April 9.10am
Tuesday 8th April 7.05pm
Wednesday 9th April 4.05am

The audio of each Background Briefing is available on-line for four weeks after the program goes to air. To listen back to recent programs or download them to your computer or mp3 player, click on the links below.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Can you elaborate?

If I understand your point, you suggested that the temperature increase preceded the solar cycle. The authors in the link I posted suggested the reverse.

My (somewhat naive) understanding of this issue is that a lot off the source data is heavily contested. That is, the data is heterogeneous. Specifically:

1) some temperature data is influenced over time by increased exposure to heavily populated areas
2) some of the satellite data screens out the population density anomalies, but does not support the time sequence of changes we might expect for the "greenhouse" effect
3) The time sequences necessarily use different temperature assessment techniques over time (since satellites are relatively recent) and the long-window time series are aggregations of multiple recording methodologies
4) US data tends to be more resilient that non-US data

I don't claim to have any particular depth in this discussion, but I am always surprised when any graph shows "temperature" (without caveats or variance bars) when the temperature detail itself is so heavily contested.

[goku]

Originally Posted by goku

?so how much has it warmed up?

i am refurring to the temperature of the earth of course.

i have seen the charts, just want to be sure i'm reading it right.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

My (somewhat naive) understanding of this issue is that a lot off the source data is heavily contested. That is, the data is heterogeneous.

<...>

I don't claim to have any particular depth in this discussion, but I am always surprised when any graph shows "temperature" (without caveats or variance bars) when the temperature detail itself is so heavily contested.

The data I shared was sourced. You really should try checking there before commenting. To save you the trouble, you'll find that data is not limited to landbased nor US only.

Now, what data exactly do you find "heavily contested?" Be specific. Tell us all which data points of which observations.

I personally couldn't care less how much "depth" you have in this discussion, you have enough undrestanding of the scientific method to know that you cannot simply make blanket claims with no supporting evidence, simply sowing the seeds of doubt with speculative and unsupported hand waving, and expect to be taken seriously.

If you know of specific data points being contested, then direct us to them. If not, then it's time for you to quit with your academically dishonest denialist nonsense.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by goku

i am refurring to the temperature of the earth of course.

i have seen the charts, just want to be sure i'm reading it right.

Since when, and where? Are you talking on average, or overall? Do you understand that even small changes have tremendous impact, so the scope of the change may seem tiny, but unless you've studed paleoclimatology and ecology you may not be equipped to recognize the significance of a few temperature points? To be clear, I am not suggesting that you're not equipped, just that if you don't understand this well enough, 1 degree doesn't sound like a whole lot, but it truly is since the global climate system is all about balance... and a delicate one at that.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

The data I shared was sourced. You really should try checking there before commenting.

As was mine. Given your consistent hostile tone, I will return to blocking your posts.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

My (somewhat naive) understanding of this issue is that a lot off the source data is heavily contested.....

I don't claim to have any particular depth in this discussion, but I am always surprised when any graph shows "temperature" (without caveats or variance bars) when the temperature detail itself is so heavily contested.

But the truth is, the reality of the rapid increase in mean global temperature is NOT, I say NOT, heavily contested among climate scientists worldwide. Promoting the notion that it is heavily contested is a tactic used by those who have interests in thwarting the science by continually suggesting that the jury is still out on the matter among scientists.

But it is just not the case. And why you continue to promote these false notions in the public setting of these forums remains the real mystery.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by REASON

But the truth is, the reality of the rapid increase in mean global temperature is NOT, I say NOT, heavily contested among climate scientists worldwide.

Thanks, R. I don't think anyone was contesting the general notion that the temp has risen, as least since 1960. The question on the table here was exactly when. InfNow flatly rejected the implications that warming was (in the main) due to solar activity because he contended that warming preceded the solar increase. The link I posted identified a lag and was hence contradictory, and also used a much longer time series (back to the Maunder and Dalton minima).

This is not a just a theory variance on the same data. These two positions are using different data.

I was just trying to elicit a non-hostile response on the variances around the temperature data, and the various interpretive techniques therein.