Take your mittens off.
This one tip will help you sleep better tonight
A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.
There is something else to be considered when talking about those temperature station readings. Examine the link:
Also, in relation to the anomalies mentioned in other threads, elsewhere on the NASA site it says "Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980.". As they are said to be Annual mean Temperature Anomalies in .01 C, I would think that the base value computed down to .1 degree from the 1951-1980 time period were computed by a Mean average rather than a Median or Mode average. The same data can give quite different impressions depending on whether you get a Mean, Median or Mode average.
I repeat... I welcome REASONED debate. Sad to say that much of "information" that is used by either side is not reasonable, nor well thought out. No, those few who raise interesting insights about the subject are drowned out by the name callers, the appeals to emotion, and faulty logic.
To many people form an opinion... and then seek out information to support what they want to believe.
Doing a bit of a search on the Surface Station organization, I came across this discussion about Surface Station's study of weather station accuracy.
A rather interesting read, and it raises some intriguing questions about this organization's methodology. It is a bit ironic that Surface Station's raison d'
"Never mind that taking pictures isn?t really a good way to investigate the quality of the data,"
Parking a temperature gauge between two air conditioning units guarantees quality data?
"Never mind that the good people at NASA GISS have worked very hard to identify any problems that exist in the source data, so that they can be corrected when possible and discarded when not."
This was written before a blogger showed that NASA was wrong and then had to correct the data.
"UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
Both Eli Rabett (in reader comments) and Gavin Schmidt (via email) have reminded me that the last step of NASA GISS adjustments ? the correction for urban heating ? uses data from nearby rural stations (like Orland) to apply a correction to non-rural stations (like Marysville). Hence in part, the urban heating correction applied to Marysville depends on the trend at Orland. Therefore these two data sets are not completely independent, so it?s not a complete surprise that they give similar trend rates."
"An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of
temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in
urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather
stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of
the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a "negative urban adjustment" to 45% of the urban
station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the
warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments
made to the station temperature trends."
Note the part about making the adjustments in the wrong direction.
Recently in the discussions I have seen references to a period of time as being "the warmest years since...".
As a setup, let's look at the years of the warmest temperatures ever recorded on the various continents.
Africa - 1922
North America - 1913
South America - 1920
Antarctica - 1974 (We'll deal with there again)
Asia - 1942
Australia - 1960
Europe - 1881
O.K., back to Antarctica to illustrate something;
The 1974 warmest temperature was +58.3 F. Now consider the recorded temperature there that made a record just 9 years later in the year 1983 when it hit -128.6.
Here's the game, and game it is. It's played to illustrate something. The average temperature in Antarctica is - 58F. Here comes the game. Let us, to keep the math simple for the illustration, say that the temperature was the average -58F in the years of decade of the 90's. Let's now compare the 90's to a base of the 80's using the Annual mean Temperature (sound familiar?)
Again, to keep it simple lets say that in all of the other years than 1983 (-128.6F) the temperature was the normal -58F. Doing a Mean average is the way with which we are all familiar - add the values and divide by the number of years (10 in a decade).
So in the 80's we would have 9 years of -58F and one year of -128.6. 9 times 58= 522. Add in the 128.6 of 1982. Divide by 10 to get a Mean average of - 65.06F for the decade of the 80's.
Now to the 90's and it's -58F. Wow, comparing the 90's to the 80's showed that in the 90's the temperature was 7.06 degrees warmer.
That meant nothing, we forced it by selecting a chosen period for a base and taking a Mean average. Hey, let's make it sound even worse and express in tenths of a degree as is done in some statistics. That would make it an increase of 70.06 degrees on a list of numbers expressed on .01 degrees.
... but I think that I have made my interests in this situation totally clear. That is... I am not interested in the raging battle over global temperatures, I am interested in pollution. If it wasn't there before my car was made, or my TV was produced, or my corn puffs were puffed, then it is my responsibility as a self determining human being to do everything to clean up my own garbage.
What if these suspected sea changes in the weather are totally natural ? Does that give me license to pollute more ? Does it suddenly mean that dioxins are OK, or that Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York was somehow less of a total screw up?
The bottom line is this. Those who argue so vociferously against the people who believe in man made global warming are (in reality) arguing for lenient pollution controls. They are saying that they would rather allow manufacturers to pollute more... so their cars, and TVs, and general lifestyle costs less.
That is the reality. Do you disagree?
I don't really believe in man made global warming. I'm too busy worrying about pollution.
I still don't see the "plot" that you seem to see. People buy energy saving appliances like TVs because they don't have to spend as much to use them, or using your words it makes their lifestyle cost less. Of course using less power for TVs and such means less pollution from energy production.
Or there are cars. People look for ones with better mileage, again to lessen their cost in fuel. Less lifestyle cost again. Better mileage may mean less money spent on gas, but it also means less pollution from exhaust and/or fuel production.
Or do you hold with some idea that anybody who has doubts about the Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever scenario makes a point of spending more of their money than necessary on things like electricity and fuel?
The reason I buy newer energy saving appliances is usually because my older energy wasting appliance finally died. I will admit I finally got rid of our Avocado green refrigerator from the Brady Bunch days while it still worked for a new one. I didn't do it for energy purposes, but to move from 18-19cf up to 25cf of space and filtered ice and water through the door. Extra space and convenience, not energy considerations prompted that premature replacement. Also my wife who said "I'm tired of that ugly green refrigerator!" Too bad it wasn't harvest gold instead, it might have survived a few more years here.
How do you even come close to thinking I am talking about "plots" ? Nice attempt at spin there J. Your journalism experience is shining through. (grin)
Concentrating on energy costs from using a product, is like the story of the blind man who grabs the elephants trunk and assumes that is all there is to the animal. I have no desire to spend excruciating hours describing the rest of the elephant to you... especially since you are not blind.
Same goes for your comment about making a point of spending more money if they don't believe in global warming. It is a silly scenario to suggest, and has nothing to do with the gambit I have pursued here.
My thesis is... pollution is pollution, and mankind should do everything it can to stop the pollution it produces through it's many activities. My thesis has nothing to do with global warming.
Honestly ? I have yet to see the people who rant about the non-existence of global warming actually give a cohesive reason for why they are so against the concept. What do these folks think is going to happen if pollution controls are enacted to the fullest extent possible ? Do us a favor J, and explain it to us.
Ummm...maybe because they think it is incorrect? What more reason do you need?
In addition to that, the promoters of Global Warming want us to (as Dave K put it) make certain sacrifices, etc, etc,...to "fix" it. That might cause some consternation, right? But I think when people perceive that an idea may not be valid, they say so. Simple as that.
Something can not be incorrect without a reason. If it is, then what you are talking about is an irrational emotion. That is like telling a child "because I said so".
Sacrifices ? What sacrifices are you talking about ?
You see, this is exactly why many of the post about global warming are such a farce. Ramblings about the actual plan of action being called for by both parties are vague at best, and nothing more than knee jerk politics at worst.
In general, you folks who don't believe in man made global warming all spend so much time debating the details of data collection and what is "normal", that you can't actually tell anyone why you are against the idea... and what might happen if those in favor of doing something succeed. Alternatively, those who are sooo concerned about global warming that they spend all their time at Starbucks talking about their new "recycled" carpeting and the carbon tax credits they just bought... never think about the unnecessary remodeling they just did, which added to the land fills... and never wondering what will happen to the money they spent on carbon credits if that business is a fraud or fails.
As for your response Ed ? I'm sorry, but it really is nothing but a vague rambling to my question. I would have to say you don't really know the answer, or you are so aware of how easily it could be spun to make you look the bad guy, that you just won't risk it.
Well, here's a possible example. A judge just blocked the building of a new power plant in Georgia.
The local paper had a quote from one of the groups against the plant:
"?We think this is the beginning of the end of conventional coal-fired power plants, because of the enormity of their emissions,? said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club?s national campaign against coal.".
Grim, do you think that ending the use of coal in power plants might have an effect on West Virginia?
One of the head scratchers here is that the new plant gets more power per pound of coal and this directly reduces the emissions. Retrofitting has classically been not been as effective as the new plant. Sadly we see the greenies want to shut out both old and new but yet still get all the electrical power they want.
Somethings amiss here.
This one tip will help you sleep better tonight
A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.