Osamabomba wrote:  @Eyas: The thing is you have based your whole arguement (in this thread at least) on one data set. Is this sufficient grounds to oppose a strong scientific theory? Certainly not. If you really want i can provide you with some more information but i'm not sure there is any point considering you appear to have already made your mind up. I hate how this debate has become so politicised.

I really want you to provide some information.  My mind is made up only to the extent that I've seen no reliable proof of global warming.  If you provide me with some, I may actually change my mind.

It may or may not matter to you that before I looked more closely at the temperature data, I was a firm believer in man-made Global Warming for several years.

Global Warming is not a strong scientific theory for exactly the reasons I described; but you've already made up your mind.  Don't you hate how politicized this debate has become.

Osamabomba wrote:Consider these questions:

At what rate is climate change currently occurring?

At a statistically reliable rate of exactly ZERO.

Osamabomba wrote:At what rate did it occur back when the Earth's atmospheric CO2 was higher or lower then it is now?

At as many different rates that there were warming periods, which one do you want to know about?

Accurate comparisons of temperature changes and CO2 concentrations show that temperature changes precede changes in CO2 concentrations, not the other way around.  There's no evidence that CO2 concentrations were responsible for any warming period experienced in the past.

Osamabomba wrote:Do we have past evidence to show us what a fast change to climate can do to the environment and its inhabitants (the answer is yes)?

Well, I'm sure glad you gave me the answer to this one; but, I'm wondering what, specifically, you had in mind when you asked it?

EnragedParrot wrote:

Eyas wrote:None of them, including the data used by IPCC provide any of their raw data.  The HADCRUT data at least has adjusted temperature data.  The GISS data presents only graphs.  The last one you posted only goes back to 1950.

So, AGAIN, if anyone has any atual temperature data from the last 150 years that is not the data used by IPCC, then post it.

What are you planning to do with the raw station data? I'm pretty sure it isn't going to do anyone on this forum a bit of good. Anyway, the data used in the GISTEMP series can be found here, and the data for the GHCN V2 can be found here.  


Oh, and if you're feeling really brave, check out the National Climatic Data Center.

Also, the GHCN dataset goes back to 1880, not 1950.

Osamabomba wrote:@Eyas: I will respond to you later when i have more time. I think you missed the point with the questions. I wasn't implying that you have politicized the debate i justthink the debate is too politicized. I also haven't made my mind up completely i just feel you are ignoring the facts.

Eyas wrote:I didn't see these numbers, can you point me to the place on the site that says this?

Thanks.

How accurate are the hemispheric and global averages?

Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period since 1951. They are about four times as uncertain during the 1850s, with the accuracy improving gradually between 1860 and 1950 except for temporary deteriorations during data-sparse, wartime intervals. Estimating accuracy is a far from a trivial task as the individual grid-boxes are not independent of each other and the accuracy of each grid-box time series varies through time (although the variance adjustment has reduced this influence to a large extent). The issue is discussed extensively by Folland et al. (2001a,b) and Jones et al. (1997). Both Folland et al.(2001a,b) references extend discussion to the estimate of accuracy of trends in the global and hemispheric series, including the additional uncertainties related to homogeneity corrections.