Possible flaw in global temperature data collection

[Gandalf]

This is interesting - apparently, NOAA has removed the listing (http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+N OAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm) of weather station locations amid controversy about their placement and accuracy.

[Andi]

Brian - the link isn't working. ;)

Andi

[Gandalf]

Sorry, fixed. :)

[Andi]

thanks

Very interesting indeed. I wonder what backlash this is going to cause?

[Gandalf]

Probably very little - the whole human-caused global warming thing has always been based much more on politics than science. Those who want to prove their point, and believe that human society is destroying the world will ignore it, and those who aren't convinced human activity is the cause (or who don't believe global warming would necessarily be bad) won't be surprised.

[bvc]

'science' doesn't suggest human-caused global warming. 'Scientist' with an agenda (or just blind) however conveniently discard the past and use current data to imply a change in recent history. But you've heard and know all that....

[Evanescence]

Is global warming a conspiracy theory?

Uh-oh.....

[Pouye]

Is global warming a conspiracy theory?

Uh-oh.....

No, it is a political tool. :mad:

[clemsontigers23]

Global warming has been blown way out of proportion...we as Christians know the world is going to end one day, and one could even argue global warming is part of it. There is no sense in trying to delay the inevitable...do your part, take care of the planet God gave us, but don't put too much emphasis on it. I think I posted the Casting Crowns song "While You Were Sleeping" in another place on here, but the line that goes with this says "As we're sung to sleep by philosophies of save the trees and kill the children." Focus on saving people, not trees.

As far as global warming itself, I also saw some pictures of where they place the sensors. In one small town where the sensor is in the mountains away from most outside influences, the temperature has remained constant, with the occasional rise and dip.

[bvc]

I don't know if this has ever been mentioned.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
I'm not a Bush supporter (except in prayer that God do His will), but I find it to be very funny because of the Green Gore Boy Hypocrite.
I also don't want to derail the thread with Bush nonsense but thought it a fitting given the green concept of the thread.

[Evanescence]

Republicans scoff at Global warming because of the party's affiliation with big business and companies. They demand the scoffing and it trickles down to the unsuspecting, ever-following public.

There is some truth to Global warming and pollution...

[bvc]

so man can destory what God has made?

[Evanescence]

so man can destory what God has made?

Yes. Eat some meat or veggies today?

Pollution affects everyone...including our Christian brothers and sisters...born and unborn. God commands us to love our neighbors, not smoke them out...

[Gandalf]

Republicans scoff at Global warming because of the party's affiliation with big business and companies. They demand the scoffing and it trickles down to the unsuspecting, ever-following public.

There is some truth to Global warming and pollution...
And Socialists flock to global warming alarmism because it paints human activity as the cause of all the world's evils and idealizes a world without corporations or even people.

The truth is that it's likely the earth is warming up (even if the temperature probes are poorly placed, as long as they're consistent, trends can still be detected), and that there is a theoretical possibility that changes in the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O, and other such gases could change the absorptance of the earth, and thus its temperature. It's also true that natural events such as volcanoes dwarf all of human industry combined, and natural "greenhouse gas" emissions from animal life have as large an impact.

There are climate models based on this "greenhouse effect" that people use to generate doomsday predictions of dire changes in Earth's climate. The data don't exist to properly validate these models, however - the system is far too complex and nonlinear for it to be proven that CO2 levels have the effect they're hypothesized to have. There does, broadly speaking, seem to be a correlation between the growth in human industry over the last couple of decades and the temperature of the earth climbing somewhat. But proving causation is much different than showing a correlation.

There is also a correlation between Earth's temperature and solar activity. Increased solar flares, and more energy being released by the sun would naturally cause increased global temperatures. This theory accounts for the rising temperature we can detect on other planets in the solar system as well as our own.

The problem with the temperature data isn't so much that without the NOAA data it can't be shown that Earth is warming up in the long run - it's been warming up (slightly) for centuries, actually - and before that, it cooled for centuries. The problem that comes in with this data is its utility in validating climate models. If the minute changes detected in average temperatures across the globe are actually overwhelmed by inconsistencies in measurement procedures, the data could lead to drastically incorrect models. If, say, the earth is warming up, but so slowly that the actual average temperature is only about 0.001 degrees different, but the data vary by 0.1 degrees (numbers chosen just as examples, not actual values), then we really can't see the real difference that's there. By basing models on data that's not precise or accurate enough, we could potentially miss real, long-term trends while picking up false, short-term trends that are, in reality, only variability in the measurements rather than real changes in global average temperature.

In either case, climate models in use by global warming activists assume greenhouse gases to be the primary cause of the temperature rise. If, in fact, other causes than those being considered by the models are more important, and the correlation is not causal, this can lead to very incorrect conclusions.

The questions are:
Is the global temperature warmer than it would be naturally, without the impact of human industrial emissions?
Is this a negative or a positive effect?
Is there anything we can do to change it?
The first question is currently being answered basically by assuming the greenhouse gas models to be correct and seeing how the results differ if the amount of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere is perturbed. If the models are not accounting for the correct causes to begin with, and are validated based on flawed data, this is certainly an issue.

The second question is assumed to have an answer of "negative" without this ever having been proven. I think even if the first answer were assumed to be that human activity does have an impact, this question should be seriously considered. Is the change for the better? If we can't show that it's a detrimental change, why would we panic about it?

The third question certainly depends on the first two. If the alarmists are correct, and their climate models are accurate, and it's bad that the earth is warming up, then what do their climate models tell us about what we could do? Basically, that we can do effectively nothing (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm), spend a whole lot of money doing it, but feel better about ourselves for caring so much. If they're wrong? We didn't cause it and so changing our activities won't change it anyway, or else we did cause it, but shouldn't change it because it's desirable.

In any case, it's far more (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm) a political (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258993,00.html) issue than (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/brit_doc_thatch.html) a scientific one.

That's not to say it's necessarily a conspiracy, but it is a political tool used by some people to further their own goals. Whether that's Thatcher and nuclear power or modern enviro-communists and any anti-capitalist movement they can latch onto, or Democrats promoting socialism, or corn farmers promoting ethanol as an alternative to petroleum, or researchers looking for funding for hydrogen fuel cell studies, or ... whatever else you can think of, it's not a scientifically established truth, but a hotbutton political issue.

[Gandalf]

I'm very much in favor of clean air and water by the way, and against pollution that actually, well, pollutes. But CO2 is what we exhale when we breathe, and (along with water) one of the "clean" products of combustion. It's an unavoidable byproduct of human life, and hasn't been scientifically shown to cause problems. Tighter NOx and particulate emissions are great, IMO - reduce smog and respiratory irritants, have cleaner air, etc. But CO2? Regulating that is just ridiculous. It's simply a political issue that's not based on an objective evaluation of the evidence, but rather on whatever's most convenient to achieve the goals of the parties pushing it.

[jabob]

"Global Warming" has gone from theory to accepted fact without any true scientific evidence to support it. It has essentially become another false religion. The attraction is that this religion has no deity to be accountable to. People can do what they want with this "faith" and hold others to whatever standards they create.
As with all false religions, there must be a hoax to use as a starting point.
One of the tenets of Global Warming is that 1998 was the hottest year on record. We now know that to be false as 1934 was the hottest year on record. We have been told that five of the ten hottest years on record have been since 1995. The truth is that four of the top ten hottest years on record are from the 30s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939 while only three of the top ten warmest years on record are from the last ten years, '98, 2006 and 1999.
As Gandalf said, this is a political tool and one I think we can render ineffective so long as cooler heads prevail.
http://www.climateaudit.org/

[Gandalf]

More inconvenient (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292810,00.html) new science for the alarmists.