Climategate?

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

You asked for an example of something and I gave you a prefectly obvious one.

If it was perfectly obvious, I wouldn’t be seeking clarification, would I? This is supposed to be an example where a “denier is totally victimised”? Or a “tirade of abuse that greets deniers”? So, something that happened on one of Pat Kenny’s shows involving John Gibbons is evidence of a concerted effort to victimise sceptics? At what point did either Kenny or Gibbons become authorities on climate science?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

"not in so many words" seems to agree that I didn't say it, and, obviously, I didn't mean it.

Maybe you could clarify and state what you did mean? Once again, I’ll ask you to provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

auerillo wrote: »

You may decide they are quoted "out of context" and that I am being "selective" to avoid answering, or considering.

I have decided nothing other than the fact that they are a bunch of quotes. Am I supposed to draw some other conclusion? What point are you attempting to convey by posting these quotes for a second time?

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could clarify and state what you did mean? Once again, I’ll ask you to provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?
I have decided nothing other than the fact that they are a bunch of quotes. Am I supposed to draw some other conclusion? What point are you attempting to convey by posting these quotes for a second time?

David Bellamy's views were dismissed because he has worked as a consultant for an oil company.

The opening speaker, the UN Chief Scientist at Copenhagen, referred to the "criminals" who had "stolen" emails. Some might regard them as heroes.

Our own Boards Weather Forum has many posters who have a very active interest in Meteorology. Many of them are very sceptical & their view of Climategate makes interesting reading.

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

David Bellamy's views were dismissed because he has worked as a consultant for an oil company.

As I have said many times before, David Bellamy’s views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.

Discodog wrote: »

The opening speaker, the UN Chief Scientist at Copenhagen, referred to the "criminals" who had "stolen" emails. Some might regard them as heroes.

Some might, but that does not make their actions any less criminal.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

As I have said many times before, David Bellamy’s views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.

can you list all his views and examples of the them not being based on facts??

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could clarify and state what you did mean? Once again, I’ll ask you to provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?
I have decided nothing other than the fact that they are a bunch of quotes. Am I supposed to draw some other conclusion? What point are you attempting to convey by posting these quotes for a second time?

The post wasn't just for you, but was to contribute to the debate. If you have decided that you want to ignore quotes from respected people, that's great, althought it doesn't actually contribute to the debate and merely serves as more evidence that you appear to ignore anything which doesn't agree with your own views.

Your position seems to be that man made global warming is unarguably a fact, and anyone who tries to argue or bring in other interesting evidence is wrong. And you appear to be able to say that without even considering any of the evidence anyone brings up. Even the opinions of eminent people like Professor John Christie, Professor Philip Stott, Professor Paul Reiter and Professor Richard Lindzen's are ignored. It's all part of a pattern where either the person is attacked as a smokescreen to avoid having to engage with their argument ( eg David Bellamy above) or just ignore entirely anyone or anything which may not agree with your view.

And I am sure that's what you will continue to do, falling into what De Bono calls the intelligence trap, all the time searching for reasons why you are right and ignoring anything to the contrary.

It's simply impossible to engage in an open debate with someone who appears to be so convinced that he is right, and I am sure others will make up their own mind as to why you have decided to ignore the opinions of Professor John Christie, Professor Philip Stott, Professor Paul Reiter and Professor Richard Lindzen.

Ask yourself if you are open to evidence which may question the current theory as to the reasons to global warming?

If the answer is yes, then you'll forgive me for observing that there doesn't appear to be much evidence for that here.

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

As I have said many times before, David Bellamy’s views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.
Some might, but that does not make their actions any less criminal.

They are not just dismissed as well you know.

Whistle blowing is not a criminal offence. The criminals are the ones that have deliberately lied.

As other posters have remarked you exemplify the climate change view. You could use this thread to validate your argument instead of questioning & dismissing alternate views. You ask questions but answer none.

I posted here because some clearly have an open mind but as you appear to be dominating any discussion it is pointless.

The climate change lobby used to try to convert the world to their view. Now this has changed to an attitude of arrogance & self righteousness which is making any doubters think again.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

can you list all his views and examples of the them not being based on facts??

The best example I can think of is his 2005 claim (in a letter to New Scientist) that 555 out of the 625 glaciers observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. This is somewhat at odds with the WGMS’ view of the current state of affairs (in Fluctuations of Glaciers, 2000-2005):

WGMS wrote:

Strong acceleration of glacier melting characterized the first five-year period of the 21st century.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

The post wasn't just for you...
...
...there doesn't appear to be much evidence for that here.

That’s a tremendously long-winded way of not answering a question. I’m going to remind you at this point that soap-boxing is against the rules of this forum.

Now, I’ll try one more time: could you provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

They are not just dismissed as well you know.

Yeah, they are. See the example I provided above.

Discodog wrote: »

Whistle blowing is not a criminal offence.

Hacking a server, stealing emails and subsequently posting them on the internet most certainly is a criminal offence. The legality of those actions is not up for discussion.

Discodog wrote: »

You could use this thread to validate your argument instead of questioning & dismissing alternate views. You ask questions but answer none.

What questions have I not answered?

Discodog wrote: »

I posted here because some clearly have an open mind but as you appear to be dominating any discussion it is pointless.

Yeah, look at me closing down threads and banning anyone who disagrees with me. No open discussion allowed around here. No sir.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

The best example I can think of is his 2005 claim (in a letter to New Scientist) that 555 out of the 625 glaciers observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. This is somewhat at odds with the WGMS’ view of the current state of affairs (in Fluctuations of Glaciers, 2000-2005):

that was a good un alright.... an oversight on his behalf....
what else is there????

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a tremendously long-winded way of not answering a question. I’m going to remind you at this point that soap-boxing is against the rules of this forum.

soap boxing..... actually I think auerillo was just making a point, maybe it will be proved incorrect maybe it won't...

just slightly OT..... soap boxing is not mentioned in the forum charter.....

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a tremendously long-winded way of not answering a question. I’m going to remind you at this point that soap-boxing is against the rules of this forum.

Now, I’ll try one more time: could you provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

How can you have a "valid" argument when it is you & the Global Warming disciples who will decide whether it is valid or not. There is every likelihood that many "valid" arguments have been dismissed just like Earth at the centre of the Universe was dismissed. You are even calling some criminals just like the Inquisition. What is next the stake & the firewood ?.

Hiding behind the rules of a forum is hardly likely to convince people that you are chairing, what should be, an open debate. The Global Warming supporters need to get persuading instead of dictating.

If a genuine sceptic viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have increased their scepticism not reduced it.

e04bf099

Discodog wrote: »

If a genuine sceptic viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have increased their scepticism not reduced it.

... and if somebody on the fence viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have just created a new sceptic, not attained a new disciple;)

Discodog

e04bf099 wrote: »

... and if somebody on the fence viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have just created a new sceptic, not attained a new disciple;)

Good. I am all for scepticism.

e04bf099

Discodog wrote: »

Good. I am all for scepticism.

sorry, that was clumsilly done. I was extending your comments about the mod, rather than commenting on your comments. Pointless post, I know:o

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

that was a good un alright.... an oversight on his behalf....
what else is there????

How about this one:

David Bellamy wrote:

The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest57.htm

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

How can you have a "valid" argument when it is you & the Global Warming disciples who will decide whether it is valid or not. There is every likelihood that many "valid" arguments have been dismissed...

Such as?

Discodog wrote: »

You are even calling some criminals just like the Inquisition.

No, I am referring to those who commit criminal acts, such as stealing data, as criminals.

Discodog wrote: »

Hiding behind the rules of a forum is hardly likely to convince people that you are chairing, what should be, an open debate.

The forum rules (and the general rules of the site) are there to ensure that open debate can take place. If you have an issue with the forum charter, this is not the place to discuss it.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

How about this one:

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest57.htm

Interesting considering your words about a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, but yet you are happy to use them to your benfit, when it suits you..........



I admit the guy has made one or two blunders in the past.... but thats no reason to dismiss him....

djpbarry wrote: »

I ignored them because a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, regardless of who is being quoted.
It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

Interesting considering your words about a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, but yet you are happy to use them to your benfit, when it suits you...

You did ask me to provide an example of an inaccurate claim he had made, did you not? I provided a link to the source so you could be sure it was not taken out of context.

robtri wrote: »

I admit the guy has made one or two blunders in the past.... but thats no reason to dismiss him....

I didn’t say we should dismiss him. I said his views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

You did ask me to provide an example of an inaccurate claim he had made, did you not? I provided a link to the source so you could be sure it was not taken out of context.
I didn’t say we should dismiss him. I said his views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.

actually it is taken out of context, as the next part of the article goes on how the tempreture data for the first hal of the centuary was cold, the second half was hot...

I assume that he means taken the whole centruary into account the temp balances itself out....

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

actually it is taken out of context, as the next part of the article goes on how the tempreture data for the first hal of the centuary was cold, the second half was hot...

I assume that he means taken the whole centruary into account the temp balances itself out....

Which is complete nonsense. This guy is supposed to be a scientist and he's trying to say that there's no upward trend visible in this data?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Which is complete nonsense. This guy is supposed to be a scientist and he's trying to say that there's no upward trend visible in this data?

no thats not what he said....
baiscally that data starts of in 1910 at around -.4 and ends at just over +.4 so the overall average is 0....... thats all he is saying...

anyway I thought you wouldn't trust wikipedia, but like selctive quotes you use it to support your case...

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

no thats not what he said....
baiscally that data starts of in 1910 at around -.4 and ends at just over +.4 so the overall average is 0....... thats all he is saying...

I've no idea how you could interpret his words in such a manner. He clearly states that no trend is visible, when a trend clearly is visible.

robtri wrote: »

anyway I thought you wouldn't trust wikipedia...

I don't, but of course, we both know that the same data can be sourced from NASA's website, don't we?

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

I've no idea how you could interpret his words in such a manner. He clearly states that no trend is visible, when a trend clearly is visible.
I don't, but of course, we both know that the same data can be sourced from NASA's website, don't we?

Stick to your own rules and back up your claims. Quote? Or else it is just your interpretation against his, and his seems more plausible. And you broke your own rules twice by not discussing the link. Poor.

e04bf099

Can anyone tell me how they measure global ocean temperature? Is that surface temperature? How do they deal with the lag of stored heat in all of the deep oceans?

If thats asking a lot then don't worry about it. Just seems like there would be dispute as to how to measure temp decreases and increases in such a dinamic and massive body of liquid.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

Stick to your own rules and back up your claims.

What claims haven't I backed up?

e04bf099 wrote: »

Quote? Or else it is just your interpretation against his, and his seems more plausible.

Really? So whether or not there is an upward trend here is open to interpretation?

e04bf099 wrote: »

And you broke your own rules twice by not discussing the link.

What link have I not discussed?

auerillo

e04bf099 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how they measure global ocean temperature? Is that surface temperature? How do they deal with the lag of stored heat in all of the deep oceans?

If thats asking a lot then don't worry about it. Just seems like there would be dispute as to how to measure temp decreases and increases in such a dinamic and massive body of liquid.

"Since the 1980's satellites have been increasingly utilized to measure SST and have provided an enormous leap in our ability to view the spatial and temporal variation in SST. "

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/cohab/hurricane/sst.htm

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how they measure global ocean temperature?

Information on the compilation of sea-surface temperatures is available here:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf

hiwayman

auerillo wrote: »

"Since the 1980's satellites have been increasingly utilized to measure SST and have provided an enormous leap in our ability to view the spatial and temporal variation in SST. "

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/cohab/hurricane/sst.htm

Thanks a lot. Thats interesting.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

What claims haven't I backed up?
Really? So whether or not there is an upward trend here is open to interpretation?
What link have I not discussed?

What claims have you backed up? We can all answer with questions. That serves only to occupy time. Re-read the threads to figure out the things you've neglected to back-up. You'll find them not too far back.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

Re-read the threads to figure out the things you've neglected to back-up. You'll find them not too far back.

If they're not too far back, then you should have absolutely no trouble in drawing my attention to them.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

If they're not too far back, then you should have absolutely no trouble in drawing my attention to them.

The reason i wouldn't do that is that I don't wish to invite another pedantic question, in the guise of debate and discussion, but fooling nobody. So when you figure out what I was talking about (which you'll find, with a modicum of effort, that it is perfectly transparent) then you can respond to my point accordingly.

Goodluck, we know you can do it!;)

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

The reason i wouldn't do that is that I don't wish to invite another pedantic question, in the guise of debate and discussion, but fooling nobody. So when you figure out what I was talking about (which you'll find, with a modicum of effort, that it is perfectly transparent) then you can respond to my point accordingly.

Goodluck, we know you can do it!;)

If this is the sum total of what you have to contribute, then please don't bother posting further.

If there is some point you wish to discuss, then discuss it.

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

If this is the sum total of what you have to contribute, then please don't bother posting further.

If there is some point you wish to discuss, then discuss it.

You can't ask me not to post, just because I won't play your stupid pedantic game, that EVERYONE can see, including yourself probably.

Why are you trying to take this off-topic, ffs!

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

You can't ask me what to post...

Perhaps not. I can, however, tell you what not to post. If your next contribution is not relevant to the topic at hand, you'll be taking a little vacation from the Green Issues forum.

The UK met office have released all their (current) records, I have downloaded some of them and quickly knocked up a few charts in Excel.

Source Data.

Number= 039690
Name= DUBLIN AIRPORT
Country= IRELAND
Lat= 53.4
Long= 6.3
Height= 68
Start year= 1851
End year= 2009
First Good year= 1851
Source ID= 30
Source file= Jones+Anders
Jones data to= 1991
Normals source= Data
Normals source start year= 1961
Normals source end year= 1990
Normals= 5.1 5.0 6.3 7.9 10.6 13.4 15.1 14.8 13.1 10.8 7.2 6.0
Standard deviations source= Data
Standard deviations source start year= 1941
Standard deviations source end year= 1990
Standard deviations= 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.3
Obs:

1851   5.8   5.7   5.9   7.0  10.3  13.4  14.2  15.1  12.3  10.6   4.6   5.9 
1852   5.3   5.0   5.5   8.3  10.7  12.4  16.6  14.7  11.9   8.4   7.7   8.0 
1853 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 
1854 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 
1855 -99.0   0.0   4.7   7.9   8.8  12.9  16.2  15.7  13.3   9.8   5.9   3.8 
1856   4.1   5.7   4.6   7.7   9.2  13.2  15.3  16.4  12.4  11.2   6.9   4.8 
1857   4.1   5.4   5.3   7.5  10.9  14.5  15.9  16.4  14.3  11.8   8.6   8.8 
1858   6.4   4.6   5.8   8.2  10.9  15.4  14.2  14.6  14.4   9.7   6.3   6.9 
1859   6.1   6.2   8.0   7.6  10.6  14.1  17.3  16.0  12.9  10.1   6.8   3.0 
1860   4.3   3.3   5.3   6.4  11.7  12.2  14.4  13.5  11.4  10.7   6.3   2.7 
1861   5.4   5.6   6.4   8.6  12.0  15.1  15.5  16.2  12.4  10.6   4.4   5.0 
1862   5.3   5.7   6.3   9.2  11.5  12.7  13.2  13.8  12.8   9.9   3.8   7.0 
1863   4.3   6.5   7.5   8.7  11.2  14.0  15.4  15.2  11.8   9.8   9.2   6.8 
1864   4.5   3.0   5.7   9.9  12.3  13.4  15.7  13.9  13.3   9.9   6.8   5.0 
1865   3.0   4.5   4.4   9.9  11.8  15.9  16.2  15.4  16.2  10.7   6.9   7.6 
1866   6.1   4.7   4.9   8.4   9.5  14.0  15.5  14.4  11.6  10.6   7.2   7.1 
1867   2.0   6.9   4.0   9.6  11.0  14.4  14.5  16.0  13.3  10.4   6.1   5.5 
1868   5.4   6.7   7.8   9.2  12.1  14.8  17.1  15.2  14.0   9.1   6.5   7.4 
1869   6.9   7.7   4.5   9.6   8.5  13.1  16.8  14.9  13.8  11.0   7.0   3.9 
1870   4.6   4.0   5.8   9.4  12.1  14.2  15.8  14.4  14.1  10.2   5.6   2.0 
1871   2.8   7.3   7.6   9.1  11.5  13.1  14.9  16.0  11.8  10.8   5.7   5.3 
1872   5.2   7.4   6.8   8.4   9.9  13.5  16.1  15.1  12.9   8.4   7.0   5.3 
1873   5.4   2.9   5.5   7.8  10.2  14.4  15.6  15.4  12.0   9.1   7.1   6.1 
1874   4.2   5.0   7.5   9.4  10.1  13.4  15.9  14.8  12.9  10.0   7.6   2.2 
1875   7.8   4.0   6.0   8.1  12.1  13.2  14.2  16.0  14.4   9.9   6.3   4.5 
1876   5.5   5.6   4.4   7.9   9.5  13.2  16.0  15.4  12.8  11.6   7.5   6.7 
1877   5.9   6.8   5.5   7.6   9.7  14.5  14.9  14.9  11.9  11.0   7.5   5.7 
1878   5.5   6.8   6.4   9.1  11.8  14.8  16.6  15.9  13.9  10.9   3.5   0.2 
1879   1.2   4.1   5.4   6.8   9.1  13.2  13.5  12.9  11.4   9.2   5.9   2.7 
1880   3.6   6.4   6.7   7.3  10.5  13.6  14.8  15.7  14.2   7.0   6.2   5.1 
1881  -0.4   4.2   5.6   7.3  11.3  13.2  15.5  13.6  12.2   8.5   9.8   4.4 
1882   6.6   7.1   7.7   7.9  11.0  12.9  14.9  14.7  11.4   9.6   6.0   2.7 
1883   5.5   5.9   3.2   7.6  10.3  13.2  13.9  14.6  12.3   9.5   6.3   5.1 
1884   6.8   5.7   6.6   6.9  10.5  13.6  15.2  15.8  13.9   9.7   5.8   4.7 
1885   4.5   5.4   4.6   7.7   8.7  12.4  15.2  13.2  11.8   7.4   7.4   4.9 
1886   2.5   3.7   4.6   7.3   9.8  13.6  15.4  15.0  12.5  10.9   7.8   2.5 
1887   4.6   5.0   4.3   6.4  10.0  15.9  16.7  15.4  11.8   8.0   5.4   3.7 
1888   5.0   2.9   3.8   7.1  10.4  12.9  13.6  14.0  11.9   9.2   8.5   5.6 
1889   5.2   3.8   6.0   7.4  11.9  14.1  14.1  14.5  12.9   8.5   7.6   5.9 
1890   6.3   4.5   6.7   7.9  11.1  14.2  13.3  13.3  15.0  10.5   7.0   3.1 
1891   3.7   6.0   4.5   6.5   8.9  14.6  14.7  14.4  13.6   9.2   5.7   5.4 
1892   2.9   4.5   3.1   7.3  11.2  12.9  13.5  14.9  12.1   6.9   7.8   3.6 
1893   4.2   5.2   7.7   9.6  13.0  14.6  15.8  16.4  12.5   9.5   6.0   5.6 
1894   4.4   6.4   6.4   9.5   9.0  13.2  14.9  13.9  11.1   9.0   8.1   5.6 
1895   1.3   0.3   6.1   8.2  11.3  14.2  14.4  15.0  14.3   7.2   8.0   4.6 
1896   5.8   6.2   6.9   9.7  11.8  15.8  15.4  14.0  12.9   6.9   5.9   4.3 
1897   2.4   6.8   6.7   7.4   9.7  14.6  15.7  15.5  12.2  11.2   8.6   6.7 
1898   7.9   5.4   4.9   9.2  10.2  13.6  15.3  15.4  14.7  11.0   7.1   7.9 
1899   5.0   5.4   6.5   8.4   9.6  14.8  16.2  16.1  12.9   9.3   9.7   4.6 
1900   5.1   2.1   3.7   8.9  10.2  13.9  16.6  14.3  13.0   9.5   6.9   7.3 
1901   4.8   3.1   4.5   8.2  10.4  12.9  16.6  14.8  13.4   9.3   6.4   3.9 
1902   5.3   3.3   7.2   7.4   9.3  13.0  14.2  13.7  12.8  10.3   7.9   5.9 
1903   4.6   7.5   6.7   6.7  10.4  12.4  14.6  13.1  12.0  10.2   6.7   4.0 
1904   4.9   4.0   5.0   8.8  10.5  13.3  15.2  14.6  12.6  10.0   6.5   5.6 
1905   5.7   5.6   6.4   7.4  10.9  14.2  16.7  14.0  12.0   7.5   5.3   7.6 
1906   5.8   3.3   5.9   6.7  10.1  14.2  15.0  16.5  12.7  10.1   8.0   4.2 
1907   4.8   3.6   6.9   7.5   9.5  12.3  14.6  14.1  13.6   9.6   6.4   5.7 
1908   4.5   6.6   4.8   6.3  12.1  13.1  15.6  14.4  12.8  12.3   8.3   5.8 
1909   5.3   5.0   4.3   8.6  10.7  12.1  14.8  15.1  11.2  10.0   5.6   4.5 
1910   4.3   5.4   6.3   7.4  10.8  14.2  14.5  14.8  12.4  10.6   4.6   6.5 
1911   4.6   5.4   5.8   8.7  12.2  13.9  17.2  16.2  12.8  10.0   6.3   6.5 
1912   4.7   5.8   7.6   8.8  11.8  13.4  14.7  11.9  11.3   8.5   7.1   7.3 
1913   5.3   5.4   5.7   8.2  11.1  13.6  14.4  14.8  13.0  11.0   8.5   5.5 
1914   5.5   7.0   6.2   9.2  11.2  14.0  15.7  15.9  13.0  10.5   7.0   4.3 
1915   3.9   3.8   6.0   8.6  10.2  13.5  14.3  14.6  13.2   9.6   4.3   5.4 
1916   8.0   4.4   4.1   8.1  11.3  12.3  15.6  16.5  13.5  11.3   7.8   3.3 
1917   2.8   2.8   4.6   6.4  11.8  14.1  15.9  15.3  13.9   7.7   9.1   4.2 
1918   5.2   8.2   6.5   6.8  11.9  13.3  14.5  15.9  11.5   9.2   6.5   7.4 
1919   3.8   3.3   4.1   8.2  12.5  13.6  13.3  15.2  12.1   9.2   3.5   6.3 
1920   5.7   6.9   6.8   8.3  11.5  13.6  13.9  13.5  12.8  10.7   8.9   5.0 
1921   7.8   5.7   7.4   8.0  10.9  13.9  17.5  14.2  13.6  12.2   7.6   7.6 
1922   4.8   5.8   5.7   5.3  12.4  13.1  13.4  13.3  11.6   9.2   7.4   5.5 
1923   6.2   6.3   6.7   7.6   9.2  13.6  16.5  14.4  12.1   9.9   4.1   5.5 
1924   5.9   4.3   4.5   7.0  11.1  13.9  14.6  14.0  12.2   9.7   8.2   7.5 
1925   6.2   4.4   5.6   7.5  10.8  14.4  15.6  15.2  11.4  10.6   4.4   4.1 
1926   6.1   6.9   6.9   9.3  10.2  13.2  16.3  16.2  13.8   8.3   5.8   5.2 
1927   4.9   5.1   7.6   8.8  10.9  11.9  15.5  15.1  12.0  10.5   6.4   4.3 
1928   5.7   6.5   6.2   7.9  10.7  12.6  15.4  14.2  12.3  10.8   7.8   5.0 
1929   3.8   4.2   6.4   7.5  11.1  12.9  15.2  15.0  14.0   9.8   6.7   5.7 
1930   4.8   2.3   5.8   8.3  10.9  14.1  15.0  14.5  12.9  10.5   6.1   5.5 
1931   3.9   4.8   4.6   7.9  10.7  14.5  14.7  13.8  11.5   9.3   7.9   6.5 
1932   7.0   4.2   5.1   6.6  10.2  14.1  15.7  15.5  12.4   8.6   7.5   7.1 
1933   3.3   4.3   7.2   9.8  12.0  14.8  17.3  16.8  14.4  10.6   6.4   4.5 
1934   6.3   4.8   5.8   7.5  11.5  15.1  17.3  14.7  14.0  10.8   7.0   8.8 
1935   5.5   6.1   7.2   7.5  10.1  14.2  16.0  16.0  13.2   9.8   6.4   3.9 
1936   3.5   4.3   7.1   6.4  10.5  13.9  14.7  16.0  13.6  10.7   5.9   6.4 
1937   5.8   5.3   3.0   9.2  11.7  13.7  15.3  15.7  12.7   9.4   6.9   3.8 
1938   6.1   6.2   9.2   7.4  10.7  13.6  14.3  14.7  13.5  10.8   9.7   4.9 
1939   4.2   6.6   6.7   8.7  11.4  13.8  14.9  15.3  13.4   9.2   9.2   4.3 
1940   1.2   5.4   6.8   9.2  11.8  15.7  14.1  15.6  12.7  10.3   7.3   5.0 
1941   1.5   3.8   5.5   6.7   9.7  14.3  15.1  14.4  14.9  11.0   7.2   6.8 
1942   4.3   2.8   6.7   9.3  11.0  13.7  14.9  15.2  12.7   9.7   5.2   7.7 
1943   5.8   6.7   6.9  10.1  10.7  13.7  15.1  14.9  12.7  11.0   7.2   5.1 
1944   7.3   4.6   5.8  10.3  11.3  13.3  15.7  16.1  12.1   9.3   7.0   5.6 
1945   1.8   8.1   9.0  10.0  11.6  14.3  15.7  15.2  14.2  12.0   8.4   7.3 
1946   4.6   6.3   6.1   8.8  10.0  12.8  15.0  13.7  13.5  10.7   8.3   4.1 
1947   4.0   0.6   4.5   8.8  11.7  14.3  14.9  16.9  14.0  11.5   8.3   5.9 
1948   4.9   5.6   8.8   8.7  10.6  13.0  14.7  14.5  13.6  10.9   9.6   7.0 
1949   6.3   6.6   6.2   9.6  10.7  14.7  15.9  15.4  15.0  11.6   7.6   6.0 
1950   6.1   5.3   7.4   7.5  11.1  15.1  14.9  14.4  12.1  10.1   5.9   2.5 
1951   4.4   3.2   4.6   6.4   9.3  13.4  15.3  13.9  13.7  11.2   8.1   6.0 
1952   3.2   4.2   6.9   8.9  12.1  13.6  15.8  15.1  10.9   9.6   6.2   4.8 
1953   5.3   5.5   5.7   6.8  12.1  13.4  14.6  15.1  13.8  10.4   8.7   7.9 
1954   4.5   4.2   6.1   8.1  10.5  12.6  13.7  13.6  11.9  11.9   7.0   7.4 
1955   3.9   2.0   4.1   9.4   9.3  12.8  16.1  16.8  14.0   9.1   8.4   6.9 
1956   4.0   2.1   6.8   7.5  11.4  12.8  14.5  13.1  13.5  10.0   7.5   7.3 
1957   6.1   4.9   9.4   8.4  10.4  13.7  15.1  14.6  12.3  10.7   7.3   6.0 
1958   4.7   5.3   4.2   7.8  10.2  12.9  14.6  14.8  14.4  11.1   8.5   5.6 
1959   3.2   6.4   7.3   8.7  11.7  14.1  15.9  16.0  14.4  12.1   7.7   6.4 
1960   5.1   3.8   6.4   8.8  12.0  14.6  14.4  13.9  12.4  10.3   7.5   4.2 
1961   4.4   7.6   8.6   9.3  10.7  13.4  13.9  14.2  13.7   9.9   7.1   4.2 
1962   4.9   5.2   3.4   7.4   9.9  12.5  13.6  13.5  11.9  10.8   6.7   4.9 
1963   0.8   1.7   6.4   7.9   9.7  13.2  13.8  13.6  12.1  11.2   7.8   5.2 
1964   6.1   5.1   5.2   8.2  11.8  12.8  14.9  14.3  13.6   9.5   8.0   4.9 
1965   4.0   4.2   6.0   8.3  11.0  13.7  13.2  14.2  11.9  11.3   5.5   5.1 
1966   5.0   6.3   7.3   7.0  10.9  14.4  14.4  14.1  14.2   9.4   5.8   6.1 
1967   5.4   5.8   6.8   8.7   9.0  14.0  15.4  14.3  13.1   9.9   6.3   5.6 
1968   5.8   3.2   6.4   7.3   9.4  13.9  14.2  14.9  13.4  12.7   8.4   5.5 
1969   5.8   2.1   4.5   7.7  10.5  13.1  16.0  15.3  13.1  13.3   5.4   5.1 
1970   5.0   3.9   5.1   7.0  12.4  15.2  14.7  14.6  13.5  11.0   7.8   5.8 
1971   6.0   5.9   6.0   7.8  10.7  12.4  15.7  14.6  14.7  12.8   7.3   8.0 
1972   5.1   5.6   6.3   8.5  10.2  11.4  14.9  13.9  12.2  11.5   6.5   7.4 
1973   6.8   5.5   7.1   7.7  10.9  14.5  15.1  15.4  13.7  10.2   7.4   6.1 
1974   7.2   6.0   6.3   8.1  10.6  12.9  14.6  14.5  11.4   8.1   6.7   8.6 
1975   6.8   6.5   5.6   8.8   9.8  14.3  16.6  16.4  12.7  11.3   7.7   6.1 
1976   6.6   6.1   6.4   8.4  11.0  16.0  16.2  16.3  12.8  10.1   6.7   3.5 
1977   3.5   5.6   7.5   7.6  10.3  12.5  15.6  15.2  13.3  12.2   6.1   7.7 
1978   4.2   4.0   6.9   7.1  11.7  13.0  14.6  14.6  14.3  12.5   9.4   6.2 
1979   2.4   3.4   5.0   7.6   9.4  13.9  15.9  14.3  13.2  11.6   8.1   5.8 
1980   4.3   6.5   5.6   9.1  11.3  13.2  14.1  15.3  14.4   9.3   7.8   6.4 
1981   6.2   5.0   8.2   7.8  10.5  12.9  14.5  15.7  13.9   7.4   8.3   3.2 
1982   4.9   6.2   6.1   8.8  10.5  13.7  15.4  14.5  13.3  10.3   7.3   5.1 
1983   6.7   3.4   7.1   6.0   9.3  13.2  17.3  16.4  13.2  10.5   8.8   7.6 
1984   3.6   5.5   5.2   8.4   9.9  14.0  15.9  16.3  12.9  10.8   7.4   6.2 
1985   2.9   4.8   5.4   8.5  10.0  11.9  14.8  13.2  14.4  11.3   5.1   7.1 
1986   4.5   1.7   5.8   5.9  10.3  13.5  14.8  12.3  11.7  10.8   8.0   6.2 
1987   3.9   4.9   5.2   9.6  10.5  12.2  15.6  15.2  12.8   9.1   7.2   7.8 
1988   5.6   4.8   6.8   8.7  11.2  14.3  14.1  14.5  12.7  10.7   7.1   8.4 
1989   7.7   6.4   7.4   6.6  11.9  13.8  17.5  15.8  13.7  12.0   8.1   6.5 
1990   7.3   7.0   8.7   7.9  12.4  13.1  15.8  16.5  12.6  11.4   7.4   5.1 
1991   4.6   3.9   7.9   8.0  11.8  12.4  16.1  16.5  14.3  10.0   7.2   7.0 
1992   6.0   7.3   8.1   8.7  12.3  15.2  15.7  14.5  12.5   8.0   8.0   5.5 
1993   7.0   7.1   7.4   9.8  10.5  14.2  15.0  14.5  12.4   8.5   6.8   5.7 
1994   5.6   4.7   7.6   7.8   9.4  13.1  14.9  13.9  11.9  10.1   9.4   6.7 
1995   4.6   6.0   5.3   8.6  10.3  13.1  16.3  17.4  12.7  12.4   7.7   4.5 
1996   6.0   3.8   4.8   8.3   8.5  13.1  14.9  14.3  12.9  10.9   5.7   4.2 
1997   4.2   6.2   7.7   8.8   9.9  12.4  15.0  16.0  13.0  10.5   8.3   6.4 
1998   5.7   7.9   7.8   6.9  11.4  13.1  14.4  14.9  13.3  10.2   7.0   6.0 
1999   5.4   5.6   7.2   8.8  11.6  12.2  15.9  14.6  14.2  10.3   7.6   4.6 
2000   4.9   6.1   7.3   6.5  10.5  13.3  14.6  15.2  13.3   9.3   6.0   5.3 
2001   3.6   4.3   5.0   7.2  11.4  12.8  15.2  14.9  12.8  12.3   7.8   4.6 
2002   6.8   6.5   7.2   8.1  10.9  13.1  14.4  15.1  12.6   9.5   8.5   6.4 
2003   5.1   4.8   6.9   8.9  10.9  13.9  16.2  15.8  13.5   9.1   7.9   5.2 
2004   5.4   4.9   6.5   8.7  10.8  14.5  14.5  15.6  13.7   9.3 -99.0   6.4 
2005   6.8   4.8   7.6   8.0  10.1  14.5  15.5  15.3  13.8  11.6   6.6   5.8 
2006   5.6   5.0   5.5   8.0  10.9  14.6  16.9  15.2  14.7  11.6   7.6   6.7 
2007   4.9   5.9   6.4  10.6  10.8  13.1  14.2  14.6  13.0  11.0   8.3   6.4 
2008   6.4   5.8   6.0   7.6  11.6  12.8  14.9 -99.0  12.4   8.9   7.0   4.5 
2009   5.5   5.1   6.7   8.3  10.9  13.2  14.9  15.4  12.6 -99.0 -99.0 -99.0 

Here is one for Dublin with the yearly average temperatures plus a couple of trendlines one linear and the other based on 10 years


Here is another for Dublin with the average temperatures in January and July, one reading per year.



Note that it's the winters that are less cold rather than the summers getting warmer.

auerillo

The temperatures, which are over a long period, look remarkably like the temperatures for central England and Kilkenny too, which are here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63398937&postcount=54 .

From the figures there has been, between 1851 and 2005, a period of 154 years, no real increase in warming, whether global or otherwise. Indeed, Dublin appears, from the graph, to have had one of its coolest years since 1884, in the last few years.

Here's a chart from Hobart Australia, quite a heatwave in the late 19th century (or faulty instruments).

auerillo

This is great and thanks for posting it. It seems that Hobart, also, in the last 160 years, seems to have experienced no discernable increase in warming outside fluctuations over the period, and must join Dublin, Kilkenny and central England in all showing no signs of warming.

OK I am about to state the bleeding obvious!

The longer the chart the more level the lines and the smaller the trend appears! Long enough and there is no rise at all!

Most of the data released by the UK met office is from stations that only started to collect data 100 years or so ago, some have a very short history.

Pity we dont have (real) measurements going back to the medevel warm period.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

OK I am about to state the bleeding obvious!

The longer the chart the more level the lines and the smaller the trend appears! Long enough and there is no rise at all!

Most of the data released by the UK met office is from stations that only started to collect data 100 years or so ago, some have a very short history.

Pity we dont have (real) measurements going back to the medevel warm period.

And thats a BIG problem. When they combine different data sets i.e temperatures from observation stations and those from tree rings and ice and sea cores it can lead to dodgy statistics. They give different weights to different results and sure you can biase things any which way.
Take this example
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf
His argument is that tree rings can be influenced by all sorts of things not just weather so he reconstructs the weather over the past 2,000 years using only ONE dataset giving this result:



This one is from the IPCC

^^ Gives a totally different result also note the colours - the red is observatories. Note the gray - thats the ERROR LEVELS from the past!!!

djpbarry

Folks, can we cut down on the posting of the big charts please - not everyone has broadband.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

And thats a BIG problem. When they combine different data sets i.e temperatures from observation stations and those from tree rings and ice and sea cores it can lead to dodgy statistics.

It’s something of a moot point – tree ring data is known to have a very high degree of uncertainty associated with it. Several papers have been published on the subject in recent years.

Deleted User wrote: »

This one is from the IPCC
...
^^ Gives a totally different result also note the colours - the red is observatories. Note the gray - thats the ERROR LEVELS from the past!!!

Yep, great big error bars alright. You’ll note that the first plot you produce probably fits within that range of uncertainty. The point is that nobody can really say with any degree of certainty what the average temperature has been for the last 1,000 years or so and, with the publication of the above figure, this fact is recognised by the IPCC.

zod

Gore on climategate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROAxiGURIrs

e04bf099

zod wrote: »

Gore on climategate

Gore is a f*ckin' retard, and so is anyone who believes a word he says. "over 10 years old", f*ckin' liar! His "example" is pure BS. I used to think politicians like him were bad people. They're not though, they're just don't know what they're talking about. He has bad advisors. F*ckin' ass-hole!

humanji

e04bf099 wrote: »

Gore is a f*ckin' retard, and so is anyone who believes a word he says. "over 10 years old", f*ckin' liar! His "example" is pure BS. I used to think politicians like him were bad people. They're not though, they're just don't know what they're talking about. He has bad advisors. F*ckin' ass-hole!

If it's his advisors that are bad, why so much agression towards him?

Mozart1986

humanji wrote: »

If it's his advisors that are bad, why so much agression towards him?

Maybe what he means is that Al Gore has the responsibility to be better informed and to employ trustworthy advisors before presenting misleading information to the world's population. If I believed what somebody told me about something so serious as this which turned out to be wrong I would blame myself for lack of care and attention to the truth, as much as my advisor. His advisors are not making false or misleading assertions in the international media.

auerillo

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Maybe what he means is that Al Gore has the responsibility to be better employed and to employ trustworthy advisors before presenting misleading information to the world's population. If I believed what somebody told me about something so serious as this which turned out to be wrong I would blame myself for lack of care and attention to the truth, as much as my advisor. His advisors are not making false or misleading assertions in the international media.

A politician being misleading? I simply don't believe it!

robtri

has anybody got a chart for global CO2 concentrations for the last 30 years or so??