Comment 34940

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2009 at 04:16:34

JonC >> I assume you again yield on all other points.

"I guess in hindsight this still ended up more of a diatribe"

JonC >> Smith, I don't want to blow your mind, but on any graph showing anomaly from mean exactly half of the area will be above the mean and half the area below the mean.

It depends on the reference period. In this case, the graph's reference period is from 1901-2000, not from 1880-2008. I assumed the reference period went much farther back, but this fact doesn't make the case for Global Warming stronger, it makes it weaker.

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

Have you taken a look at the last two decades? If not, here are some numbers that suggest the climate is not suffering from run away heat build up as the experts have been declaring...

Annual Global Land/Ocean Temp Anomalies C

1990 0.3861
1991 0.3360
1992 0.2023
1993 0.2307
1994 0.2934
1995 0.4073
1996 0.2753
1997 0.4782
1998 0.5971
1999 0.4199
2000 0.3886
2001 0.5173
2002 0.5736
2003 0.5809
2004 0.5409
2005 0.6147
2006 0.5583
2007 0.5455
2008 0.4792


Since 1990, the temperature has gone from .3861 C above average (1901-2000) to .4792 C above average, an increase of 0.09 C.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html

Over 18 years, this was an average increase of .005172 C/year. If we assume that this trend will continue for the next 100 years, which is a big assumption, it would still only lead to a 0.5172 C increase in Global Temp's. Half a degree over a century.

And that 0.5172 C increase, assuming it even happens, is why we all need to radically change our behaviour? That's nonsense. Half a degree Celsius is going to destroy the planet, really?

>> We know there are several relationships affecting global temperature and the level of the relationship as well as their impact on each other.

If this is true, how can this statement be true as well?

>> As a better understanding of the relationships is developed, a better model is developed.

Good science is based on the ability to predict things, for example, the freezing point of water. On the other hand, bad science is unable to predict things accurately.

If climate scientists are so confident in knowing where the climate is heading, they should post their temperature anomaly predictions online? If their models are based on good science, they should be no more than 5% off each year, for at least five straight years.

If they did this and they were correct, this would strengthen the argument that they know what they're talking about. If they can't or won't, they should stop pretending like they can.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds