Good source of climate change data

[popeyespappy]

Scientific consensus can be corrupted by political motives as we all know. This government's budget wants to invest in our aging infrastructure but billions of pounds are required that they don't currently have, so how do they balance the books? Turn to the taxpayer yet again? Or how about introduce new hefty carbon taxes onto UK steelmakers therefore industry and the local economy all suffer in the long-run?

When people's livelihoods are at stake I disbelive ANY claim until there is sufficient evidence.

No, you accept any claim which conforms to your preexisting beliefs without challenge or consideration. You also reject any claim contrary to those beliefs without due consideration even when they are logical and evidence based. It’s called belief bias and in the case of anthropogenic global warming you have it bad. You also suffer from conformation bias. You favor information that conforms with your preconceptions and reject information that does not without regard for the validity of either source. This type of bias is particularly prevalent in issues where people hold an emotional stake.

You are upset by what you claim are long term negative consequences of the economic policy being implemented by your government. I’m sorry to tell you but what you are seeing are short term and mild compared to the effects of rapid global climate change. Change that can be slowed and even eventually arrested by global implementation of the policies you dislike.

Because the sun is, and always has been, responsible for our climate and weather. Go read a science book.

There's a difference between ignoring what one asserts as evidence and dismissing it altogether. He presented some very unreliable data indeed, some of it ripped from Wikipedia that completely ignores the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which effects were felt worldwide, global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C, what did the graph show? Temperatures rose by 0.5 °C, like magic.

I’m beginning to see a trend develop here. That trend is that you don’t have a good understanding of the data you are being shown. Take for example the chart Void posted in the other thread.



You are looking for a reason to dismiss the chart out of hand without even having to consider the ramifications it represents. You don’t want to know the only correlation between climate forcing and observed warming is CO2. So you focus on the perceived absence of cooling as a result of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and claim the chart is worthless.

What you don’t understand about the chart is that it has been smoothed using period averaging. Let’s look at another chart so you can see what I’m talking about.



I created this chart using this source data compiled by anthropogenic global warming denier Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer is one of only a handful of “skeptics” with any real expertise in the field. It is a monthly deviation from normal of the global average temperature covering the period from 12/1978 through 12/2010. The blue represents monthly data points. The red line is a 60 period moving average. Please note that the sharp decline that shows up at the end of the blue line practically disappears on the averaged line.

That's because we've only had instrumental temperature recording since 1880 when there are possible long-term solar cycles with our sun to consider that may be caused by magnetic instabilities inside its core, if so, we're looking at time periods into the hundreds of thousands of years.

Which has exactly what to do with the paleoclimate record that has been reconstructed from multiple sources, or the fact that nothing we currently know about the sun gives us any indication that it is responsible for the current warming trend?

You totally ignore the fact that reliable paleoclimate data is available for the 400,000 years plus.

Citation please, since you enjoy "sharing information without discussion".

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

Also

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

Now you are talking shit. IPCC does not carry out their own original research. They are an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Their predictions are horribly inaccurate, Rajendra Pachauri admitted not so long ago he blundered by wrongly asserting the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, yet refused to step down from chair of the IPCC, and to add insult to injury he then attacked those who criticised their claims as using "voodoo science".

Sorry you feel that way, but the IPCC will be discounted every time we have any discussion on climate change in much the same way the Discovery Institute will be discounted whenever a theist starts up another "creationism vs. evolution" thread.

Section 10.6.2 of the IPCC’s 3000 page 4th Assessment Report (AR4) contained a single paragraph with errors about Himalayan glacier melt. The information was not from a peer reviewed source, and it did not meet the IPCC’s standard for evidence. The error was included in the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability section of the document, not the Physical Science Basis portion. The information was not included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The inclusion of this erroneous information in the report in no way changes the fact that Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body.

Let's stick with Earth's climate please.

I didn’t bring up Mars another member did. I replied to their assertion.

Guess I've been reading too many articles by anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

I doubt that very much.

Now you’re just being an asshole. I’ve been following the global warming issue closely since 2000. I spent a couple of days cooling my heels in Longyearbyen, Norway waiting on some equipment when I was the cognizant engineer for the 50 MB data link between the SvalSat tracking station and Goddard for the EOS Terra satellite. They do a lot of arctic climate research on Svalbard. While I was waiting I spent some time talking to some of the scientists there.

Since then I’ve read books by Roy Spencer and James Hansen. One is a skeptic. The other is not. I’ve also read a book on policy by Dressler and Parson. Plus I’ve got a friend that takes the same position you do. We discuss the issue often and he sends me articles on a regular basis.