Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[boomerangutang]

In an earlier post, I alluded to how low temperatures at politically important places, like the US's east coast, are a big deal for generating headlines, and getting conservatives to huddle together and declare GW a hoax. Look at the graphic above, and you'll see a lot more red squares than blue. As the word 'global warming' attests, we're talking about phenomena on a GLOBAL scale.

Some more tidbits:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January 2014 was the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest on record at 12.7°C (54.8°F), or 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F).

The global land temperature was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest on record for January, at 1.17°C (2.11°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F).

For the ocean, the January global sea surface temperature was 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F), the highest since 2010 and seventh highest on record for January.

source

Edited March 7, 2014 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

someone mentioned in a recent post that global temps haven't increased in 17.5 years. What an odd number? If that's true, then it's because the past 20 years have been much higher than the average for the past 125 years. Perhaps 2014 is cooler than the past 15 or 20 years, but the overall trend is plain to see for any who don't have blinders.

France's nationally-averaged January 2014 temperature was 2.7°C (4.9°F) above the 1981–2010 average, tying with 1988 and 1936 as the warmest January on record.

Spain experienced its warmest January since 1996 and the third warmest since national records began in 1961,

The January temperature in Switzerland was 2.4°C (4.3°F) above the 1981–2010 average—the fifth warmest January since national records began 150 years ago.

Austria experienced its fifth warmest January since national records began in 1768. The nationally-averaged temperature was 3.3°C (5.9°F) above the 1981–2010 average. However, in some regions across the southern parts of the country, the temperatures were the highest on record. In Klagenfurt, the temperature departure was 5°C (9°F)—the highest since January 1813.

China, as a whole, recorded an average temperature of -3.4°C (25.9°F) or 1.6°C (2.9°F) above average during January 2014. This was the second highest January value, behind 2002, since national records began in 1961.

In Argentina, persistence of extremely high temperatures across central and northern parts of the country resulted in several locations setting new maximum, minimum, and mean temperature records for the month of January.

Warm temperatures engulfed much of Australia during January 2014. Overall, the national average mean temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 1961–1990 average. This was the 12th highest January temperature since national records began in 1910. Regionally, the January 2014 temperature ranked among the top 10 warmest in Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia.

source

[attrayant]

Now now, let's not cloud the issue with factual data. Didn't you know that the average global temperature is always measured on the east coast of the US?

[FiftyTwo]

Using the graphs supplied, and adding a line of best fit from 2000+.

I see a reducing trend for all three means.

But then none of the alarmists have any scientific backgrounds.

[attrayant]

I see a reducing trend for all three means.

Of course you do. You've carefully chosen your starting point to ensure you get the result you want.

Anyone with half an ounce of scientific integrity would know better than to cherry pick a start date (like the year 2000) in order to produce a desired conclusion. This chart has been shared numerous times, but it's a good example of how "skeptics" can pick and choose specific start dates or spans of years to "prove" a cooling trend:

(source)

Look at that - the earth has cooled five times since 1970! We must be headed for an ice age!

I'd line to know why they don't think the long-term trend is worrying.

Edited March 7, 2014 by attrayant

[Gulfsailor]

I see a reducing trend for all three means.

Of course you do. You've carefully chosen your starting point to ensure you get the result you want.

Anyone with half an ounce of scientific integrity would know better than to cherry pick a start date (like the year 2000) in order to produce a desired conclusion. This chart has been shared numerous times, but it's a good example of how "skeptics" can pick and choose specific start dates or spans of years to "prove" a cooling trend:

(source)

Look at that - the earth has cooled five times since 1970! We must be headed for an ice age!

I'd line to know why they don't think the long-term trend is worrying.

Any start date is arbitrary. Unless you look at the data since millions of years ago. look at the trend lines in these graphs, and I agree that the long term trend is worrying; It's getting ever colder! Brrrr

[RickBradford]

someone mentioned in a recent post that global temps haven't increased in 17.5 years. What an odd number?

Not really.

17 years is the period chosen by the IPCC itself as the cut-off time after which they would have to admit that their alarmist climate models had been proved wrong.

They reneged on that promise, of course, and put the discrepancies down to bad luck and "coincidence".

For these ideological zealots, if Hell were to freeze over, they'd still blame it on man-made global warming.

[boomerangutang]

Using the graphs supplied, and adding a line of best fit from 2000+.

I see a reducing trend for all three means.

But then none of the alarmists have any scientific backgrounds.

a person doesn't need a scientific background to post graphs online. The graphs were put together by scientists. I can discuss astronomy without being an astronomer.

In order to be a full-fledged denier, you've got to practice all or some of the following:

>>>> dispute any data that points toward warming trends

>>>> denigrate the source of the data and/or say the scientists are money-grubbers

>>>> discount the messenger

>>>> switch goalposts. One day admit there's warming, but insist it doesn't matter. The next deny there's warming, and so on.

>>>> observe an article with data indicating GW, and completely ignore/disregard all data

>>>> never, I repeat never, concede any scientific data remotely points to a global warming trend.

[canuckamuck]

All the graphs show is that it got warmer in the last century and it is not getting warmer so far this century. A lot depends on your starting point. But the only data set that indicates in a warming trend connected to industrialization is one that primarily uses to the 20th century. Go back further or use a shorter set and the trend moves towards no connection.

[Donnie Brasco]

Using the graphs supplied, and adding a line of best fit from 2000+.

I see a reducing trend for all three means.

But then none of the alarmists have any scientific backgrounds.

a person doesn't need a scientific background to post graphs online. The graphs were put together by scientists. I can discuss astronomy without being an astronomer.

In order to be a full-fledged denier, you've got to practice all or some of the following:

>>>> dispute any data that points toward warming trends

>>>> denigrate the source of the data and/or say the scientists are money-grubbers

>>>> discount the messenger

>>>> switch goalposts. One day admit there's warming, but insist it doesn't matter. The next deny there's warming, and so on.

>>>> observe an article with data indicating GW, and completely ignore/disregard all data

>>>> never, I repeat never, concede any scientific data remotely points to a global warming trend.

Not really boomerangutang.

I'll state the basis of skepticism here.

>>> AGM skeptics tend to reject data that attempts to place human activity as the cause of these so called warming trends.

We have always acknowledged change. Warmists have repeatedly presented false, skewed and dry-labbed stats. We expose that stuff.

>>> we generally do this when we catch them cheating and dare to question "the doctrine of the faith" the fact is that there is huge fat laden gravy train out there for Warmist pseud-scientists. Hundreds of millions of dollars. There is nothing for geophysicists who question this man made Warmist doctrine.

>>> if he's not qualified of has presented tainted or flawed data or specious propaganda, we critique it as such.

>>>>> not at all boomerangutang. We observe that currently there seems to be a cooling trend. We have NEVER denied that climate changes? WE question only the fundamentals of dishonest, drylabbing Warmist ideologues wh say that MAN is the culprit. That's it. And if MAN is NOT the culprit there is precious little that our species can do about climate change.

We just might face extinction as a result of our unsuitability for an environment that "changed" while we happened to be the dominant species.

>>>> if the data is dry labbed we analyze it and expose it as fraudulent and then we eliminate this data and conclusions made on the basis of it as flawed and ultimately fraudulent

>>>> boomerangutang! please accept that it is only the made made aspect to climate change that we reject. I have said this already. It is Warmists who are guilty of your list of transgressions.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[chuckd]

Add yet another reason for the denialists to disbelieve the warming cult.

>>>> Discovering yet again the public is being misinformed by the global warming family.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report: UN officials hid overblown global warming estimates

2:38 PM 03/07/2014

Michael Bastasch

The United Nations doesn’t want you to know the facts about global warming, according to a new report out of Europe.

Over the years climate scientists have been reducing their estimates of how much global warming will occur over the next 70 to 100 years if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were doubled — an estimate called “climate sensitivity.”

But readers of the most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment would be ignorant of this, according to a report by the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/07/report-un-officials-hid-overblown-global-warming-estimates/#ixzz2vL4oIqR0

[Donnie Brasco]

http://www.todayonline.com/daily-focus/sydney-opera-house-statue-liberty-could-be-lost-rising-seas

quote>

Published: March 5, 7:42 PM

LONDON — Famous global landmarks including the Statue of Liberty, Tower of London and Sydney Opera House will be lost to rising seas caused by climate change, scientists have warned.

Even with just a further 3°C of warming – well within the range to which the UN climate science panel expects temperatures to rise by the end of the century – nearly one-fifth of the planet’s 720 world heritage sites will affected as ice sheets melt and warming oceans expand.

unquote

Even if these computer models have in-putted all variables and NOT just dry-labbed their thesis statement IS the climate change man made ??? There is NO Evidence to support this.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[Donnie Brasco]

In other words...sit back and watch the weather change. as it has been doing for the past 15 billion years or so.

The Earth and its weather has been going on for about a third of that time. Scientists estimate the Universe has been going on for 13.4 billion years.

More up-to-date: when deniers state things like, 'weather has been changing for a very long time' it's like looking at some girls killed in a road accident and saying 'people have been dying for a long time. Everyone is going do die eventually, so what's the big deal?'

I had friends in California who, when something extraordinary happened, would say things like; "Wow, karma, man." or "what's meant to happen, will happen." Thais are similar, in their quickness to resolve to 'karma' to wistfully explain anything away.

In the climate debate, saying things like "Dude, weather has been changing for a long time! What's the big deal?" ....lowers the level of the discussion.

No boomerangutang, what lowers the level of discussion is junk science and dry-labbing, hysteria, and the FALSE a priori Premise that whenever there IS change WE HUMANS caused it.

Cab there be a statement ANY MORE VAIN than that one ?

The religious posturing of Warmists has reduced their propositions to the level of door-to-door missionaries.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[Donnie Brasco]

"Warmer planet = spreading deserts" is bizarre as well as incorrect.

Sit back and watch the graphics. As the years roll by, deserts will increase in size. And yes, rainfall and storm intensities will increase. Sounds contradictory, doesn't it? Yet, it's a big world out there, so there can be droughts in some places, while concurrently, deluges in others. There are other factors for deserts increasing in size: Overgrazing, deforestation, too many people with too few resources. A couple decades ago, there was one small lone tree in a vast desert area in Chad. A car backed in to it and knocked it over. Go figure.

In other words...sit back and watch the weather change. as it has been doing for the past 15 billion years or so.

Pity that poor tree got taken out by real man-made change.

Computer graphics are cartoons. They prove nothing. They are so ROUTINELY dry-labbed as to invite the most severe scrutiny.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[Donnie Brasco]

People switch affiliations willy nilly. The first time I registered to vote, in the US, 1969, it was as a Republican. Soon after, I disabused myself from that diversion. What are Mr. Moore's credentials as a scientist, let alone a climate scientist?

A quote from Moore: "...there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans..."

Tell that to the hundred million or so city-dwellers whose cities get swamped.

Sir Patrick Moore joined the British Astronomical society at age eleven and eventually became the president.

He was a prominent writer with over 70 books on astronomy, as well as being A well known TV and Radio Host. He has the distinction of being the host of the world's longest running TV series having the same original presenter.

In addition to his many scientific books he also wrote fiction.

Among his numerous awards and appointments he has an honorary doctorate of science from the university of Leicester.

So he wasn't a climate scientist, he was involved with actual science.

BTW he was a critic of the war in Iraq.

And so am I

I am a critic of anything connected with American exceptionalism and the Globalist mindset it has spawned. (Including Dick Cheney and the NEOCON cabal in Washington and all the wars and suffering they cause)

BUT I am 100% convinced that man made global warming is NOT a valid concern.

Man made means made by man, got it ?

We can no more mitigate with climate change than we can with an asteroid crashing into our planet.

We should be dealing with man made problems and NOT computer modelled cartoons backed up by dweebs like Al Gore and hysterics like George's Monbiot.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[RickBradford]

Nowadays, if you go to Tesco's and buy the wrong sort of light-bulbs, you too can achieve instant "denier" status....

[attrayant]

Any start date is arbitrary. Unless you look at the data since millions of years ago. look at the trend lines in these graphs, and I agree that the long term trend is worrying; It's getting ever colder!

I think you've lost your perspective. The only thing those charts show is that it was hot as Hades million of years ago (when, coincidentally, CO2 levels were around 1000 ppm). We're now in something of a temperate zone. The current discussion is (or should be): are we okay with heading back in that direction again?

As you've so eloquently demonstrated, we must choose our measuring point carefully to avoid losing all sense of perspective. If we go back far enough, the Earth was a ball of accreting gas and dust. If we look far enough into the future, the Earth will be swallowed up by the sun. At some point, the entire discussion becomes a non sequitur. So how do we maintain relevance? Should we be concerned about the next five or ten (or seventeen) years? Or should we be concerned about the time period spanning the next several generations of human beings? When you consider what's at risk, I think a reasonable reference point becomes a bit more clear.

Edited March 8, 2014 by attrayant

[FiftyTwo]

One interesting thing is that the global temperature readings are broadly controlled by two opposing groups.

GISS - run by an alarmist.

UAH - run by a skeptic.

The alarmist temperature readings show run-away warming.

The skeptic readings show a slight cooling.

Nobody publishes the straight data, nor will they even reveal how they process their data before publishing the readings.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/temperature_measurement/

For amusement

"One of the ironies of climate science is that perhaps the most prominent opponent of satellite measurement of global temperature is James Hansen, head of ... wait for it ... the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA!"

A rural temperature measuring station ...... middle of a parking lot.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/contributing-to.html

And

"An expected 21st century increase of 0.5 or even 1 degree C does not justify the massive imposed government interventions that will be costly both in dollars and lost freedoms. In particular, the developing world will be far better off hotter by a degree and richer than it would be cooler and poorer. This is particularly true since sources like an Inconvenient Truth wildly exaggerate the negative effects of global warming. There is no evidence tornadoes or hurricanes or disease or extinction are increasing as the world warms, and man-made warming advocates generally ignore any potential positive effects of warming. As to rising sea levels, the IPCC predicts only a foot and a half of sea level rise even with 4 or more degrees of warming. Sea level rise from a half to one degree of warming would be measured at most in inches."

Edited March 8, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[canuckamuck]

Here's an interesting article from a guy who became skeptical by working alarmist projections in reverse. He certainly seems to prove that positive climate feed backs are a fairy tale. And without them, no catastrophe. Oops.

[ExpatOilWorker]

I am on location with a Chinese made rig and just had a chat with the Chinese driller. There are 2 factories in China, building 200 drilling rigs a year. At that rate we will soon be living on a Swiss cheese with an ever growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Welcome to Global China Inc.

[boomerangutang]

Computer graphics are cartoons. They prove nothing. They are so ROUTINELY dry-labbed as to invite the most severe scrutiny.

"...just sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest."

From an early Simon and Garfinkle song

Someone seems to be fixated on the word 'dry-labbed' - to use it in so many posts.

Computer graphics can seem like cartoons, if you so choose. So can spilled pig's blood on the white shag carpet, if a person so chooses.

Seriously though, I don't think anyone is claiming CO2 from man-made fossil fuel machines are ALL that's creating the increased CO2 which is showing up on data measurements. Neither is anyone saying CO2 is the whole story. Try as you may, it just don't jell to try and frame the debate in simplistic truisms. Climate is complicated. Even during a warming trend, there can be some cool periods, just as during a cooling trend there can be some warm periods. Were that climate were as pure and predictable as math, we could just set out some equations and let the computers crunch the numbers. It's not.

More down to earth: If deniers choose to deny that all but a few glaciers worldwide are losing bulk (and not regaining it) - they can continue to view such data with eyes crinkled shut. Yet the data is there for all to see. Glaciers are receding and lessening in mass. It's not a magician's trick, it's real. Last time I checked, ice melts when temps increase. If you've got a better explanation, let us know.

[FiftyTwo]

More down to earth: If deniers choose to deny that all but a few glaciers worldwide are losing bulk (and not regaining it) - they can continue to view such data with eyes crinkled shut. Yet the data is there for all to see. Glaciers are receding and lessening in mass. It's not a magician's trick, it's real. Last time I checked, ice melts when temps increase.

If you've got a better explanation, let us know.

OK, here you go,

Glaciers are receding = part of the natural cycle, nothing to do with man.

Sometimes the world is covered in ice, sometimes there is none at all.

Edited March 8, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[attrayant]

For amusement

One of the ironies of climate science is that perhaps the most prominent opponent of satellite measurement of global temperature is James Hansen, head of ... wait for it ... the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA!

Not knowing much about Hansen (aside from knowing what he's well-known for), I read up on him.

James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

/snip/

Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere. However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures. Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.

This sounds like the exact opposite of what you've posted above. Hansen seems to be a big fan of satellite data. I've been unable to find anything in your (five-year old) link that supports this as well. By the way, Hansen retired a year ago; he's no longer at NASA.

I thought this was particularly hilarious, from you link:

Another problem that Mr. Hansen and his crew are particularly guilty of is making a number of adjustments in the laboratory to historical temperature data that are poorly documented and have the result of increasing apparent warming.

Yes that's just terrible isn't it? Hansen, et al, noticed that satellite's orbits had decayed and this was responsible for some erroneous readings that disagreed with actual measured readings on the ground. By correcting for this orbital decay to get the true readings, he's "guilty of making adjustments to the data". I don't see this as particularly egregious behavior. If you can identify a source of error in a series of measurements and correct for it, why not do it?

These adjustments, that imply that surface temperature measurements are net biased on the low side, make zero sense given the surfacestations.org surveys and our intuition about urban heat biases.

"Imply" has nothing to do with it. The orbit of the satellites had decayed. The temperature measurements WERE on the low side. And that last line about how we should trust our intuition and feelings more than actual measured data... priceless. How about we abandon all science and just go with our gut feelings? It certainly would be easier than mucking about with all that messy data.

And what's the problem with a measurement station in a parking lot? That some measurement points are located in hot places? Should we put measuring devices in only the cool places? So what if the parking lots all over the world are a few degrees hotter than the forests? Why don't we want to include the data from hot spots as well as temperate and cool spots?

Coyoteblog.com? Oh look, a non-peer reviewed blog by a person with no background in climate Science. Go figure.

[FiftyTwo]

And what's the problem with a measurement station in a parking lot? That some measurement points are located in hot places? Should we put measuring devices in only the cool places? So what if the parking lots all over the world are a few degrees hotter than the forests? Why don't we want to include the data from hot spots as well as temperate and cool spots?

Rural stations are generally considered to be placed in natural environments (field and forest).

City stations are generally considered to be placed in heat islands (car parks and roadsides).

There are fairly strict guidelines on the placing of temperature measuring stations.

The raw data is adjusted to reflect that positioning.

If you were a scientist you would understand putting rural stations in artificially hot areas will distort the data to indicate a false warming trend.

Edited March 8, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[attrayant]

Here's an interesting article from a guy who became skeptical by working alarmist projections in reverse. He certainly seems to prove that positive climate feed backs are a fairy tale. And without them, no catastrophe. Oops.

Oh look, an article from Warren Meyer, the same person who owns the Coyote Blog. What is Meyer's background that gives him authority to speak on behalf of climate data?

I run a large small business...

My company runs parks and campgrounds...

I have been an entrepreneur in Phoenix, Arizona for ten years...

I worked from other people in companies as large as Exxon and as small as 3-person Internet startups.

I have an MBA from the Harvard Business School...

...and a mechanical engineering degree from Princeton University.

So... nothing.

[FiftyTwo]

Here's an interesting article from a guy who became skeptical by working alarmist projections in reverse. He certainly seems to prove that positive climate feed backs are a fairy tale. And without them, no catastrophe. Oops.

Oh look, an article from Warren Meyer, the same person who owns the Coyote Blog. What is Meyer's background that gives him authority to speak on behalf of climate data?

I run a large small business...

My company runs parks and campgrounds...

I have been an entrepreneur in Phoenix, Arizona for ten years...

I worked from other people in companies as large as Exxon and as small as 3-person Internet startups.

I have an MBA from the Harvard Business School...

...and a mechanical engineering degree from Princeton University.

So... nothing.

From that description one would think he should be on the alarmist side.

Engineering degree, MBA Harvard, Hmmmmmm sounds like a qualified scientist with Postgrad credentials to me.

Probably higher qualifications than Al Gore anyway.

Attrayant, as you brought it up,

What were your qualifications again?

[attrayant]

And what's the problem with a measurement station in a parking lot? That some measurement points are located in hot places? Should we put measuring devices in only the cool places? So what if the parking lots all over the world are a few degrees hotter than the forests? Why don't we want to include the data from hot spots as well as temperate and cool spots?

If you were a scientist you would understand putting rural stations in artificially hot areas will distort the data to indicate a false warming trend.

A trend is a trend. Even if a parking lot is five degrees higher than a nearby meadow, we are interested in the delta T, not the static temperature. There may be a 5 degree bias, but the trend (the amount of change over time) will still be accurate. If you were a scientist, you'd understand the difference between static T and delta T when analyzing for trends.

By the way, this "if you were a scientist..." cheap-shot is getting a bit tiresome. Most likely none of us on these forums are scientists. Stop tacking it on to your posts as a 2¢ put-down. It doesn't add anything to the discussion except friction.

Edited March 8, 2014 by attrayant

[FiftyTwo]

And what's the problem with a measurement station in a parking lot? That some measurement points are located in hot places? Should we put measuring devices in only the cool places? So what if the parking lots all over the world are a few degrees hotter than the forests? Why don't we want to include the data from hot spots as well as temperate and cool spots?

If you were a scientist you would understand putting rural stations in artificially hot areas will distort the data to indicate a false warming trend.

A trend is a trend. Even if a parking lot is five degrees higher than a nearby meadow, we are interested in the delta T, not the static temperature. There may be a 5 degree bias, but the trend (the amount of change over time) will still be accurate. If you were a scientist, you'd understand the difference between static T and delta T when analyzing for trends.

By the way, this "if you were a scientist..." cheap-shot is getting a bit tiresome. Most likely none of us on these forums are scientists. Stop tacking it on to your posts as a 2¢ put-down.

You keep running down people with Science degrees, while having no qualifications yourself.

I have a Science degree + Postgrad credentials.

Warren has a Science degree + Postgrad credentials.

You have an opinion, which appears to not be science based.

The funny thing is, you just posted about a 5 degree bias, but the whole alarmist theory is based on a 2 degree warming over 100 years. It there is (according to you) a 5 degree uncertainty in the measurements then you are agreeing the whole climate change industry is total BS.

Edited March 8, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[attrayant]

Attrayant, as you brought it up,

What were your qualifications again?

I don't claim to be a scientist, so my credentials are irrelevant. In fact I doubt that any of us on these forums are climate scientists. That doesn't mean we can't debate the data and make references to qualified authorities. Meyer was cited in an earlier post, giving the impression that he possesses some relevant qualification to speak out on behalf of climate data.

If you'll notice I have never used myself as a primary source for scientific data. Whenever I make claims, I do my best to cite the source material, which is more than I can say for others in this discussion.

My degrees are in electrical engineering and physics. They are not in climate science (and neither are yours), making us both equally qualified (or unqualified, if you like) to speak as a primary source on climate science. If a postgrad degree were all that is needed to be an authority on climate science, then anyone with a PhD in dentistry, criminology or graphic design would be qualified. Luckily for climate science, that is not the case.

Edited March 8, 2014 by attrayant

[attrayant]

The funny thing is, you just posted about a 5 degree bias, but the whole alarmist theory is based on a 2 degree warming over 100 years. It there is (according to you) a 5 degree uncertainty in the measurements then you are agreeing the whole climate change industry is total BS.

Read more carefully. I said "if", because the actual number isn't relevant to the issue at hand. IF there is a bias, the number is irrelevant because it's the delta T we're interested in. In English, the word IF is used to set up a hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. It doesn't matter if the bias is 2°, 5° or nothing at all - because we're interested in the rate of change, not the static or instantaneous values.

How can you have a science degree but not know the difference between measurement bias and rate of change?

Edited March 8, 2014 by attrayant