EnviroLink Forum

However this sharp rise may only look sharp in comparison with other warming periods due to our more detailed picture of it.

Also it may not be that sharp;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/n ... enization/

Also of course the world temperature has not increased since 1998. The rise from 1970 to 98 is thus about twice the time that it has now been steady for.

The IPCC does not expect the world temperature to increase by more than 3.2 c(by 2100). Have you anything which suggests that the IPCC has underestimated the trouble?

nope... again, my point is that the actual temperature is not the issue (regarding it possibly being warmer in the MWP then it is today). High temperatures in the future are NOT what is going to cause catastrophe for humans, animals, and plants. What is going to cause all the problems is how quickly the weather is changing and how slow it is for life to adapt. We might be at war and have drastic loss of diversity of species long before matching the MWP's temperature norms simply due to the change in weather patterns. We only have a few months worth of food that is not eaten yet so massive drought or flood damage to crops in several parts of the world in one year span means massive starvation in the following year (until people realize they CAN eat grass and tree leaves). You also mentioned that present data is more accurate so changes look more drastic which is true but when you see the same hockey stick in the graphs where they show the area of uncertainty (no matter which side of the range of uncertainty you try to draw a straighter, less-hockey-stick-like line with), the same conclusions can be drawn... there has been a jerk and jounce to the system (even if it is not human-caused) that spells disaster. Now I will agree with you that trying to stop CO2 is a waste of money but for a different reason. You see no catastrophe and I see extreme catastrophe. In my opinion, we need to protect the economy so people can afford to survive weather changes and crop failures and land value changes and home heating and cooling bills. This can only happen if we are energy and food self-sufficient. Going solar has nothing to do with CO2 for me and everything with surviving power outages and severe economic depression and inflation. A greenhouse is not to look like a hippie or to go organic but rather to survive when there is no food left to buy at any price.

Not at all. The more detailed picture would only show the small ups and downs while the general trend would show the same sharp rise.



Right, the same old song that only makes sense to those who need a straw to grasp. The differential analysis of those US sites which were claimed to be badly sited compared to those confirmed to be well sited showed the well sited set had a higher increase than the others.



Which is only visible due to the more detailed picture and means nothing in relation to the warming trend.



Why does it matter in the discussion of the documented historical trend?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

so... recent data is LESS accurate now? something smells fishy with your arguments (fishy as in flopping around when caught)

1 I disagree, the good ones showed less warming.

2 Nope, this is in addittion to that potential contamination of the data.



Recent data is more accurate but it is also more detailed which will make changes look more dramatic when compaire to the same changes in the past because the data for the past temperatures has been smoothed out by less fidelity in the way it has been measured.

If you measure the temperature with the best million dollar equipment today to get superb results you must be extreemly careful about how you compair these results with the historic data which was collected by a college professor in his spair time. The old data may be from the same actual temperature conditions but has lower figure just because the professor was in class when the temperature hit maximum.

For the record, I think it has got a bit warmer recently. If this is unusual is a different question.

Not according to the NOAA reviews.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/papers ... tpfree.pdf

3. RESULTS

The average anomaly time series for the last 40
years from the two stations with good exposure and the
three stations with poor exposure are shown in Figure 1
for raw data and Figure 2 for homogeneity adjusted
data. Examination of the linear trends from 1965 to
2004, which are also shown, reveals that the stations
with good siting show significantly more temperature
increase than the stations with poor siting in the raw
data but the trends are not significantly different in the
adjusted data. However, if one analyzes different
periods one can find times when the difference in trends
in the adjusted data is significant and when the sign of
the trend in the difference series is positive or negative.
If the analysis had included the incompletely
homogenized data from Holly, the results would have
indicated that with homogeneity adjusted data the
stations with good siting were warming significantly
more than the stations with poor siting
2 Nope, this is in addittion to that potential contamination of the data.



The rise over time will be the same regardless of the detail. The modern data will be more jagged, but that does not impact the rise over time.



This is why there are min/max termometers and why there are adjustments for time of day measurements using standard thermometers.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein