• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Uncertainty of the Surface Temperature Data

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Previously I've talked about the impossibility of distinguishing the current trend in the global temperature data set from zero. In other words, all the variance we've seen since 1850 could be due to random variation.

If it's just random variation then we would expect the temperature to drift in different directions from time to time; i.e., to go up for a while, then down for a while, to stay the same, etc. Looking at the HADcrut global temperature record from 1850 to the present it appears to be doing just that.

There's a related argument having to do with the uncertainty of the data. People in the Hadley center did estimates of uncertainty from all sources of error in 2005 and concluded that depending on what part of the earth is considered the uncertainty (95% confidence limits) is between 1 and 5 degrees C. What this means is that, even using a simple regression rather than a time series analysis, it's not possible to detect a significant signal from global warming by greenhouse gasses until the temperature is at least 1 degree above the value in 1968, and it still is not that high. Adding in the effects of autocorrelation, we won't be able to detect a definite upward trend in the temperature record until it exceeds 2 or 3 degrees. Again, if there's no upward trend then there's no point in speculating about what would cause an upward trend.

Much the same problem bedeviled the first working group of the IPCC and in the meeting of 1990 they were again prepared to announce that they were not able to detect a signal due to greenhouse gas warming in the climate record and didn't know when that would be possible. At that point the frustrated IPCC bureaucrats took the report away from the scientists and re-wrote it to say that a greenhouse gas signal had been detected.
 
Previously I've talked about the impossibility of distinguishing the current trend in the global temperature data set from zero. In other words, all the variance we've seen since 1850 could be due to random variation.

If it's just random variation then we would expect the temperature to drift in different directions from time to time; i.e., to go up for a while, then down for a while, to stay the same, etc. Looking at the HADcrut global temperature record from 1850 to the present it appears to be doing just that.

There's a related argument having to do with the uncertainty of the data. People in the Hadley center did estimates of uncertainty from all sources of error in 2005 and concluded that depending on what part of the earth is considered the uncertainty (95% confidence limits) is between 1 and 5 degrees C. What this means is that, even using a simple regression rather than a time series analysis, it's not possible to detect a significant signal from global warming by greenhouse gasses until the temperature is at least 1 degree above the value in 1968, and it still is not that high. Adding in the effects of autocorrelation, we won't be able to detect a definite upward trend in the temperature record until it exceeds 2 or 3 degrees. Again, if there's no upward trend then there's no point in speculating about what would cause an upward trend.

Much the same problem bedeviled the first working group of the IPCC and in the meeting of 1990 they were again prepared to announce that they were not able to detect a signal due to greenhouse gas warming in the climate record and didn't know when that would be possible. At that point the frustrated IPCC bureaucrats took the report away from the scientists and re-wrote it to say that a greenhouse gas signal had been detected.
What junkscience conspiracy blogs have you been reading?
 
Last edited:
I do have to say. You should provide a proper source.

I agree with the assessment, but sourcing is still wise.
 
Someone needs to tell rapidly receeding alpine glaciers in every major mountain range on earth that the climate isn't warming because they evidently did not get the memo.

Someone should also inform melting permafrost that the climate isn't warming because it didn't get that memo either.

They should also inform tree lines that are moving higher in altitude across the globe that the climate is not warming because they did not get that memo.

Let's not forget the northward movement of USDA hardiness zones they didn't get that no warming memo either.

Even if there was not a thermometer anywhere on God's green earth, you could still tell the earth's climate was rapidly warming by simply observing the natural world.
 
Someone needs to tell rapidly receeding alpine glaciers in every major mountain range on earth that the climate isn't warming because they evidently did not get the memo.

Someone should also inform melting permafrost that the climate isn't warming because it didn't get that memo either.

They should also inform tree lines that are moving higher in altitude across the globe that the climate is not warming because they did not get that memo.

Let's not forget the northward movement of USDA hardiness zones they didn't get that no warming memo either.

Even if there was not a thermometer anywhere on God's green earth, you could still tell the earth's climate was rapidly warming by simply observing the natural world.

All of that is a consequence of the warming trend we've been in for 300 years. None of it is controversial. None of it has anything much to do with alarmism.
 
Someone needs to tell rapidly receeding alpine glaciers in every major mountain
range on earth that the climate isn't warming because they evidently did not get
the memo.

Someone should also inform melting permafrost that the climate isn't warming
because it didn't get that memo either.

They should also inform tree lines that are moving higher in altitude across the
globe that the climate is not warming because they did not get that memo.

Let's not forget the northward movement of USDA hardiness zones they didn't get
that no warming memo either.

Even if there was not a thermometer anywhere on God's green earth, you could still
tell the earth's climate was rapidly warming by simply observing the natural world.


Rapidly receding alpine glaciers, melting permafrost, tree lines moving higher in
altitude, and northward movement of USDA hardiness zones don't constitute a disaster.

I might add that increased agricultural productivity due to CO2 is also not a disaster.

I have gotten the memo that I should change my lifestyle because of so-called climate
change. and my response is to tell the senders of that memo to take a flying leap.
 
Back
Top Bottom