Hi

I've downloaded the free climate data from the Met Office which is used to calculate the HadCRUT3 land surface temperature series and figures so prominently in the global warming debate. I have just started to examine this data and raised a couple of questions regarding what I've found so far as well as supporting graphics that I've added to this blog:

http://xmetman.wordpress.com/

I don't know that much about how this data is turned into an annual mean global temperature by the Met Office so my observations about it are probably spurious and naive - let me know if you know think I'm barking up the wrong tree...

Bruce.

"exmetman" wrote in message
...
Hi

I've downloaded the free climate data from the Met Office which is used to
calculate the HadCRUT3 land surface temperature series and figures so
prominently in the global warming debate. I have just started to examine
this data and raised a couple of questions regarding what I've found so far
as well as supporting graphics that I've added to this blog:

http://xmetman.wordpress.com/

I don't know that much about how this data is turned into an annual mean
global temperature by the Met Office so my observations about it are
probably spurious and naive - let me know if you know think I'm barking up
the wrong tree...

================================================== =======
Hi Bruce,

You are barking up the wrong tree. Do you want it explained here or on your
blog?

But let me deal here with your first mistake, since it is also made by many
others in usw.

You state:

"I think Global warming as we see it today in the early part of the 21st
century is partly made up from warming that can be attributed to increase
CO2 emissions by man and partly due to natural cycles the cause of which we
still have to find."

It is a tautology to state that the warming is partly man made and partly
natural. Of course it is. The question is "How much is man made and
how much is natural?" And if it the natural part is cyclical then which
part of the cycle are we in. The natural part could be negative and causing
the slow down in warming that we have seen this century.

What you are saying, in effect, is that we don't have to worry about global
warming because there is some other unknown cyclic factor which will save
us. That is wishful thinking at best and bad science at worst.

Let's face it, if this unknown cyclic factor is causing today's high
temperatures there is no sign of it going away soon. And even if it does
change and induce cooling, it is soon going to be swamped by the steadily
rising CO2. :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

Hi Alastair

I called the post "What do you think?" not to ask everyone what I thought about my own views on "global warming" - as if what I personally think matters in the slightest - but to comment on the MASSIVE reduction of climate observations used to calculate the global temperature since the late 1980's - and how that affects that calculation?

Perhaps I didn't phrase the question very well but that's why I generated the graph and put it in my blog so the group could see the changes.

Bruce.