One last time.
jjpellin said:
It is hard data of C02 levels, temperatures, solar activity, air temperatures, water temperatures, etc.
CO2 data since 1958 seems to be quite high quality (even though 1% of the data has been interpolated, see below). Before 1958 it is kind of spotty and has been subjected to serious manipulation. The time scale on the CO2 data prior to 1958 is +/-100 years or so.
On the [link ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt]NOAA CO2 webpage[/url] there is an interesting insight into the approach to data by this field of investigation
NOAA said:
Interpolated values are computed in two steps. First, we compute for each month the average seasonal cycle in a 5-year window around each monthly value. In this way the seasonal cycle is allowed to change slowly over time. We then determine the "trend" value for each month by removing the seasonal cycle; this result is shown in the "trend" column. Trend values are linearly interpolated for missing months. The interpolated monthly mean is then the sum of the average seasonal cycle value and the trend value for the missing month.
Nothing "wrong" with this approach, but it isn't really "raw" data anymore (actually it never really was, it is average data for some number of samples within the month, that number is not visible prior to 1974). In this case, the "raw" data is retained so it is visible to later investigation to allow independent determination of the validity of the manipulation.
Current solar activity data is reasonable quality but definitions and measurement standards are pretty iffy before WWII.
Air temperature data is pure garbage. There is not a single unmanipulated data set anywhere. Researchers apply modifications like the oft described "heat island effect" over top of the raw data. Different researchers have different algorithms to make these "adjustments". There is no way to evaluate the actual data from the stations. Also the number and location of weather stations changes every month. Trying to track a single point over time ain't happening. Huge areas of the earth (Siberia, Gobi Desert, most of the Andes, the oceans) do not have a weather station in every grid block so researchers interpolate--i.e., they use their model results to populate their model, a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Water temperature data is even worse. Grid blocks are so big (roughly the size of the state of Colorado) that little effects like the Japanese Current or the Gulf Stream get homogenized nearly out of existence and researchers have to go back an manipulate the results.
I certainly don't see any support for the idea that the rate of change of CO2, air temperature, or water temperature are accelerating. If I plot the Mona Loa data on a semi-log scale (rather than relying on published graphs that always squash the y-axis to accentuate the increase, an old presenter's ploy but certainly not evidence of spin or cherry picking), I can't see evidence of acceleration. The semi-log trend is entirely within the data. A semi-log linear trend is the definition of a non-accelerating data set in Oil & Gas. Maybe other fields have different interpretations of data trends?
If this field of science was not being used for obscene political goals, I would be very impressed with how far they've come in the last 30-40 years. The problem is that governments are making fiscal and environmental policy based on it so it has to stand up to scrutiny. From where I sit, the "true experts" look like they all have a personal financial stake in the outcome, in any other field they would be required to back off.
David
