Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy
just siome quotes
"No matter how many times we say that "global warming" means a rise of average temperature across the world, decade by decade, and not every year being consistently warmer than the last in every place on Earth, there are still those that get this mixed up."
"Last year was actually the fifth warmest year on record as far as global temperatures were concerned.
The four warmest years were, in ascending order, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 1998. The last decade was the warmest on record, followed by the 1990s and then the 1980s, so the world is definitely warming up. "
|
The problem comes when the methods used to take these average temperatures are cherry-picked. Russia plainly stated that the IPCC used only data located in and around urban centers (which are warmer than rural areas), and failed to use any data from the rural areas. This resulted in measurements which showed an upward trend.
So why didn't IPCC scientists use temperature measurements from rural areas? Because the temperatures in the countryside were at best, unchanged, and at worst, were declining.
Once again, in regards to the hacked emails from East Anglia's CRU, IPCC scientists admit to each other that there
has been no global warming since 1961!. And they talk about the trick they use (cherry-picking data stations), and truncating tree ring data to create an artificial chart which shows a temperature increase.
Is climate the average of temperature taken over decades? Or would averages taken over a period of centuries be better? As of now, taking 2009 and 2010 into account, in a century-long measurement of average climate temperatures
there has been no warming!
An interesting read:
"For much of the Northern Hemisphere, the cold is abating. As climate scientists long realized, a short period does not create a trend. Even global warming advocates, who insisted that the 1998 El Nino warming was a trend, are now claiming that the cold does not contradict their warming trend. Their time spans are evidently extremely adjustable.
The week ended with real heat: Climategate hit the United States. On Thursday night January 14, 2010, in an hour-long special broadcast on KUSI-TV San Diego, John Coleman revealed new research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo.
This new research demonstrates that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has been as intensely involved in manipulating global surface data as has the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, which is now under investigation in Great Britain. NCDC is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The manipulated data is also used by the third organization reporting global surface temperatures – the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA GISS). Thus, all three organizations reporting global surface temperatures may be using similar manipulated data.
D’Aleo and Smith report that in the period of the 1960’s to the 1980’s the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. But it dropped rapidly to about 1,500 by 1990. Further, large gaps began appearing in some of the reported data.
This loss of stations and its possible consequences have been well established. For example, it is discussed in the 2008 NIPCC reportNature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The stations lost appeared to be mostly in colder climates – which, if the data set is not adjusted, would lead to a false indication of warming. (D’Aleo was a contributor to the NIPCC report.)
In December, as Climategate was developing, TWTW referred to a Russian report stating the CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. Thus, the data loss was not due to just the closing of stations as earlier thought, but due to decisions by the CRU to ignore them.
Now D’Aleo and Smith report similar activities by the NCDC. Stations have been dropped, particularly in colder climates (higher elevations or closer to the Polar Regions), and now temperatures are projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.
The reports of the IPCC and governmental agencies such as the EPA are based, in a large part, on these data. If the data are wrong, then the reports are wrong.
It is now clear that the global surface temperature data are unreliable and must be thoroughly investigated. If not, any government policies based upon these reports should be rigorously challenged.
Thanks to the diligent work of John Coleman, Joe D’Aleo, Michael Smith, as well as many others, the US main stream media has no excuse for ignoring Climategate as merely a problem in Britain or a problem of no significance."