![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
|
gathering data to test global warming |
a briefing document |
|
|
|
|
|
|
tracking and measuring global warming is not as easy as cribbageAlmost every day, articles and claims are made that this proves or disproves global warming, written or made by people who have not the slightest idea of how complex the studies are. Below, in sections 3 and 4, I refer to two local studies which, as you will see, are being widely confused with ‘global warming’, pro or con. What is particularly amazing is the incredible dogmatism of the ignorant writers of these items. Yet more examples of the arrogance of ignorance. The next section gives some idea of the complexity of these studies, both parts being taken from today. Then we have a claim for a localised study in America, this week’s extreme example of the “it ain’t happening” tendency purporting to be global. Next there is an Asia-local example, which makes the contrary claim with the same error. the complexity of global warming studies
There are also claims around that nitrogen availability will have the reverse effect, and increase carbon uptake by plants.
And here is an example of what modern global measurement can do:
confusing local and global dataThe nonsensically titled “Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever” is a particularly egregious example from an extremist site. Note that, in this article, the corrections referred to are only corrections to a USA limited, land level-based series. This is not global. (The USA is 1/50th of the world’s area, so is a ‘local’ planet area.) Also note that the article is describing how one lot of fudge factors have been replaced by another set, this time called ‘adjustments’.
The error was picked up by observing the discontinuity in the data, always a red flag that something needs careful checking. In this case, a Y2K error was identified. Despite widespread exaggeration, not only was this an extremely local and not very reliable data series, the correction amounted to approximately one one-hundredth of a degree over the most recent years! Such corrections are very common. For example, there was an earlier problem where deniers claimed that satellite measurements were not consistent with warming. These claims were found to be in error because the changes in satellite distance had been incorrectly assessed. This is not ‘exact’ science, but we are gathering better data from year to year, including such corrections as reported here. The consensus remains there is AGW.
|
|
|
|
james hansen on jesters (useful fools) and irresponsible ceos This 5-page .pdf includes details on NASA US data adjustment and global
warming maps.
|
|
© abelard, 2007,26 march the address for this document is http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming_atmospheric_chemistry_physics.php 2500 words |
| latest | abstracts | briefings | information | headlines | resources | interesting | about abelard |