Why should we trust the sample data which is used to promote the global warming theory? isnt it too small?

Question

Why should we trust the sample data which is used to promote the global warming theory? isnt it too small?

Answer 1

They must've cut stats out of the physics courses to make room for the global warming propaganda.

Answer 2

What sample data?  Are you talking about the temperature record which is compiled from thousands of temperature stations all over the planet and confirmed by satellite measurements?

No, it's not too small.

Answer 3

Not at all.  Hundreds of scientists all over the world are measuring temperature, CO2 levels, solar radiation, etc.

Here's the greenhouse gas data, as an easily available example.  Look at it, and you'll see there's TONS of it.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg

The fact that we've only measured the last 100 years or so this intensively is not important.  It's only during that time that Man has been emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases.  And the analyses ALL say thatduring this time, greenhouse gases have become the most important thing.  In statistical terms the "signal" from man made greenhouse gases is VERY strong.  Which is why:

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Withe regard to the surface station data, repeated scientific analyses have shown it to be good.  The critics post pretty pictures, because they have no TEMPERATURE data to show the stations are bad.  See for example:

David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895. doi:10.1175/JCLI3730.1

T. C. Peterson (2003). "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found". Journal of Climate 16: 2941–2959. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUV...  

Easterling, D.R. et al., 1997, "Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the globe", Science, 277, 364-367

See also the relevant maps at:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

The papers are relevant, because the stations that have been questioned are overwhelmingly urban.  To trust blogs and untrained amateurs with an axe to grind over the scientific literature is where the mistake is, not in the data.  If Watts actually had anything, he'd publish it in the literature.  He doesn't, so he doesn't.

Answer 4

You folks must be talking about the precise and pristine data from our ground stations similar to these--

http://newsbusters.org/node/13579

http://www.bloggernews.net/110692

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...   I like this one --- it shows how meticulous and stupid some of these "scientists" are-- they apply a correction algorithm to the data to correct for bad weather stations--- whatever the h**l that accomplishes

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

and one more

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur...

This is why I only trust the satellite data--- can you imagine if the USA's stations are this bad-- what must they be like in say Krasnodar, Russia; or Kiev, Ukraine???

Answer 5

How much data is needed before jumping off a railroad track is a wise step?  Would the sound of an on-coming train in the distance be enough? Would a visual sighting of it coming around the corner be necessary? Or would it be wise to require a series of independent research projects that analyze the sound waves, wind patterns, possible other things that make similar sounds, etc.?

One can never have enough data to analyze when you're studying a complex issue like the climate.  The point isn't do we know every minute detail about the climate.  The point is do we know enough that it's time to start making changes?  And the answer to that is "yes".

The sample of data that convinces scientist global warming is real is most definitely not "too small".  There are literally 1000's of peer reviewed scientific studies done over the past 4 decades written about in the professional journals. Though global warming may sound like a new concept to non-scientists, the actual analysis of it started over 100 years ago:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summa...

Edit:

boatman - All instrumentation measurements have problems (including satellite) and accounting for that is a normal part of science. Fortunately, scientists have well established numerical analysis techniques to take care of that.  If we waited for perfect scientific measurements before moving forward, we'd still be living a 17th century lifestyle.

Answer 6

Read what I have written in re: to similar question.  There is no such thing as global warming...  WE MUST QUIT TRYING TO HELP GOD WITH HIS WORLD.

Answer 7

Bob said

"Withe regard to the surface station data, repeated scientific analyses have shown it to be good. The critics post pretty pictures, because they have no TEMPERATURE data to show the stations are bad. See for example:

David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895. doi:10.1175/JCLI3730.1

T. C. Peterson (2003). "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found". Journal of Climate 16: 2941–2959. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUV...

Easterling, D.R. et al., 1997, "Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the globe", Science, 277, 364-367"

By repeated do you mean this: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publicati...

Oh wait, this doesn't agree with the papers you posted.

And neither does this response to Peterson's paper:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publicati...

And neither does this paper:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/20...

Oh wait, this paper refutes the work of Peterson and Parker:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007......

All this papers disagree with your statement "Withe regard to the surface station data, repeated scientific analyses have shown it to be good."

"The papers are relevant, because the stations that have been questioned are overwhelmingly urban."

This is false. Watts has "questioned" many stations that are rural, as well as urban. If you have any evidence that a majority of stations that have been questioned are "overwhelmingly urban", please provide it.

Answer 8

You should NOT trust it. In fact the following web site shows why:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G... I like this one --- it shows how meticulous and stupid some of these "scientists" are-- they apply a correction algorithm to the data to correct for bad data.

This data was "corrected" and showed a 2 degree C rise over the last few decades. The problem was that the "correction factor"was a statistical lie which they have since been ordered to retract. The new "uncorrected" data shows less than 0.2 degrees rise over the same period and no rise at all for the last 10 years. Apparently the  "correction factor"was a politically ordered move to ensure the data conformed to expected political standards.

In fact new data from ice cores shows that we are indeed on a solar swing upwards but have reached the top of the cycle and are now expected to start dropping due to a decreasing solar output. The flatlined temperature changes over the past 10 years clearly shows this to be the case.

Just remember that politicians do not like to be proven wrong so they will occasionally "adjust"the truth to make sure their reality prevails, at least until they can be reelected. Remember also that the guy promising to "do something about global warming" is just as full of c**p as NASA was with it's  "correction factors" and he knows it full well.