How can people continue to claim the surface temperature record is faulty?

Question

Over the past 30 years, NASA GISS shows a warming of approximatley 0.55°C (0.18°C per decade).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Hadley shows approximately 0.5°C warming (0.17°C per decade).

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

NOAA also shows approximately 0.5°C warming (0.17°C per decade).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

RSS shows the same 0.17°C warming per decade.

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures

UAH is the outlier claiming 0.13°C warming per decade.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

Considering the agreement between the satellites and surface stations:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg

Considering that the surface stations correct for urban bias:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/page2.html

And considering that the so-called 'bad' (green, CRN5) stations show the same trend as the 'good' (red, CRN12) stations:

http://www.inturnsoftware.com/downloads/crn12_crn5_giss.gif

How can people continue to claim the surface temperature record is faulty?

Answer 1

With the highest temp increase, one has to be suspicious of Jim Hansen's data, right?  He'll obviously do anything to attempt to prove himself.

Answer 2

That tamino graph is great.  Temperature is about the same for the last 30 years.  All the while CO2 is going up.  What exactly was the correlation between CO2 and average global temperature again?

What we have is some uncertain temp estimates (aka "proxies") going back a long time that folks try to compare to some very precise satellite data going back 30 years.  The precise data doesn't show any correlation with CO2 but 30 years is too short for climate change.  The uncertain data going back thousands of years ... is too imprecise to say that current climate is different from past cycles.

Any questions?

Answer 3

It's all inaccurate except for 1998, which as we all know was the warmest year on record and has categorically disproven that global warming is occurring.  OK...wait a minute.  Isn't the claim on one hand that (a) surface temperature measurment averages are innacurate but then claim on the other hand that (b) 1998 was the warmest year on record?  I mean...if claim 'a' is true wouldn't claim 'b' be invalid?

I guess I just don't understand this highly touted unemotional logic.

Answer 4

A good snow storm can change every thing over night

Answer 5

because all the sources you cite are part of a conspiracy that was started by turn of the century free masons.

Answer 6

Well, there's the obvious "being in denial" stage that all people go through when being given bad news. Whether it be an addiction, an abusive relationship or global warming, people need time to absorb things.

Information is a necessary part of coming to terms with the news and, in some cases, therapy (or mentoring or other external help) will also be needed for some people before they can move on into acceptance and finally being able to do something.

The capacity for self-delusion and denial in people is huge and should never be underestimated. cf. "Taint going to happen, it has never happened in 8,000 years"; these are not the words of a person open to reason.

A battered wife will often talk of the times when "he is good to me" or "he doesn't beat me all the time" - these are true facts but they do not refute the fact that it is an abusive relationship; she simply wants, needs, to believe it isn't.

"A good snow storm can change every thing" and "the planet has cooled 0.6 deg since 2001" are examples of the same phenomenon.

I see my role (and perhaps I am joined by some of the other AGW proponents?) as part of that mentoring/coaching process: Continuous input of fact and truth, correction of myths and harmful self-delusions.

I also recognise that I have two obligations:

1 - To be patient while people work through the bad news into a state of acceptance - some people need more time than others - this can be very hard when confronted with some of the more ludicruous statements and repetition of falsehoods

2 - In my desire to help others understand the truth, I mustn't blind myself to the truth! The 'truth', the facts, do change. It IS possible that AGW has stopped and may even reverse due to some currently unknown mechanism. I am not saying that the current science is wrong just that it may not be complete (all science is never complete!). The fact that there is no evidence against AGW at the present does not mean that something unforeseen may happen in the future - I have to keep an open mind.

Answer 7

I think the general gripe with the reading is that it doesn't extend to the past 400 years.  30 years is a rather short frame of time to make any truly sound judgements.  

Answer 8

Dana are you suggesting that the average is calculated using solely surface temperature stations, i.e., for surface temperature stations - actual measured temperatures - for the entire planet's surface?    Or even half of it?

Or are they making estimates based on satellite data for much of the globe?

(I am asking because I already know the answer to that - NASA GISS uses the highest number of stations - about 7,200 - they don't cover even half of the globe).

And how far back is the data good?   It wasn't 7,200 stations or even half that during WWII, for example.   And, there obviously weren't satellites back then.  

I'm aware that some of the surface stations are close to buildings or otherwise affected by the heat island effect - but going even beyond that, the data is certainly incomplete.

Now, how do the various agencies come to similar averages?   Easy - they are using overlapping sets of data and very similar models.

Answer 9

Dana NASA them selves have admitted it was way off from where it should have been and they have gone back and are in the process of correcting it. They have completed the correcting of USA data and they are evaluating other regions as to the data reliability there. NASA has already noted that the international data is as corrupted as the US data was but it is going to take several years to correct and validate it. So it is going to be several years before we can point to good data worldwide as we now can for US data. So things are a changing and it looks like AGW is going to go the same way Y2k did, poof!

Answer 10

Obviously there are problems with the surface data, but there are also problems with all the datasets, including satellites. Despite these problems, the surface record and the satellite record are good quality, and scientists constantly work to make them better.

The fact that all four datasets agree so well, as your Tamino link shows, gives us more confidence in their accuracy. This link is similar:

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/27/4-globa...

Answer 11

Simple, if you don't want to believe, then you don't.

I know people who think that drinking water is bad for you no matter what the AMA says.

Answer 12

No it is just that the truth is finally beginning to come out despite all the money being spent to suppress it. I realized that the AGW pogrom was a fraud from the day they first released that phony graph that completely distorts the earth’s historical records. Those faithful believers who fell for the con are just going to have to get used to looking foolish to all of the friends they tried so hard to recruit.

Real skeptics like myself are skeptical about anything and everything that goes against historical data and basic logic. I am just as skeptical when a Jehovah Witness comes to the door and tells me that I am going to rot in h**l if I do not give my soul to Jesus to protect and preserve as I do when I hear a promoter of the new ecology saying to save my soul and the world I have to give up anything technological I own or the world will overheat and burn up killing everybody.

To me there is no difference between you and one of those Mormon missionaries. You are both evangelists trying to sell me something I know is not true and telling me that because I am a skeptic I will be punished in eternal torment. Taint going to happen, it has never happened in 8,000 years of recorded history and there are no signs using real data that it is going to happen anytime in the next 8,000 years.

Answer 13

Yes ...and - all those same sources show that the planet has cooled 0.6 deg since 2001 . So much for Co2 being the cause .  

Answer 14

bob326 was right on. There are some problems with all datasets. That's why scientists constantly reevaluate and use established numerical analysis/statistical methods to improve it.

While some doubters will mistakenly label any data changes as some sort of a conspiracy or "proof" that the data's bad (and thus completely unreliable), those of us who've worked with similar data realize it's part of the process to get ever closer to perfect data.

The overall agreement with this many independent datasets is strong evidence for a real warming trend. Only someone without any understanding of data analysis or a very strong AGW-must-be-wrong bias would still be claiming it's all UHI, we can't believe the instrumentation, or some similar myth.

Answer 15

Because NOAA has failed dismally insofar as maintaining our surface stations.  The same situation is assumed for most of the world's stations.

So-called urban bias correction as done, was a pitiful and inaccurate knee-jerk reaction that attempted to cover up the embarrassing fact of bad surface data...... a fact that undermines the claim of 'man-did-it global warming.

Rather than continually adjusting/massaging/manipulating/fixing the data, the warmers need to insist that data collection be done using viable equipment and methodology.

Unfortunately, all the warmers have done is to give credence to the common belief (in the area of so-called AGW) that the 'science' is severely tainted.

Answer 16

The claim that land based temperatures are faulty is based on the fact the warming has stopped since 2002 despite the accumulation of co2 in the atmosphere. The satellite data backs up this fact

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...