Mike
I'm not even sure where to start with a commentary like this ...
Old data is not very valuable or even useful when new later data, comes along.
I suggest you are out on a limb with this one, backing the wrong horse shall we say.
Its of my opinion that for the purposes of local Climate, you should not be using old Data.
Its a common problem with scientists that they always tend to favour the data which supports their position and ignore contradictory data. Climate observations require information on 'trends' so old data is always necessary and it is absurd to ignore it because it doesn't suit you. Thats not science - thats politics.
And if being of a different opinion is 'being out on a limb', then so am I. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a different opinion. The very reason I got into this debate is because I got fed up with people trying to make me feel bad because I had a different opinion. .....................>
Any ideas ?
Regards
Imran
Hi Imran,
You are right when you state- 'Climate observation depends upon trends. Yes that seems to work when we look at Antartic ice cores and tree rings. etc.
But surely modern Data in the form of actual temp measurements, by satellite, balloon, and seabuoys, are essential when used over the last 50 years?
Right again when you state- There are Scientists who tend to favour the data which supports their position. Occasionaly deliberate falsification has been uncovered, to their shame.
With regard to my quotes:-
"Old data is not very valuable or even useful, when new later data, comes along." and
"Its of my opinion that for the purposes of local Climate, you should not be using old Data"
As I mentioned in my previous post, for the purposes of local Climate, you should not be using old Data. Most of the data used to back climate change, - is tens of years, even hundreds of years old.
It just dos'nt seem logical to me, to include this old data to verify what is happening to the weather today.
Todays arguments as to the why's and wherefor's of our Earths long natural cyclic climatic past, do not seem to gel, when applied to the present day.
So I present an analogy, that may show why we have climate disagreement.
Imagine the Earths natural climate, as a long slow mid-Atlantic roller.
We might be living near the crest, or near the trough of this slow moving wave....I have no interest in what part of the wave we are now living on. i.e (Whether we are in, or out, of a Mini-Ice age, (thats old Data))
But I am interested in present new data, data that goes back no more than say 50yrs, to the present day.
Its my opinion that this modern data is equivalent to a tiny wavelet that is sitting on the surface of this Mid-Altlantic roller. Exactly where, dos'nt matter.
What does matter is that this wavelet is so very small in comparison with the rest of this 'Climatic roller', that it is very difficult to detect.
That any temperature, or other difference this wavelet has, is quickly subjugated, or smothered, by natural climatic forces.
No wonder there are never ending argument as to whether local climatic changes are caused by man or not.
I refuse to take part in this argument any more. Data and events, over the next 5 years should prove my points. I'll wait.
End.
Local Climate = Mixing of the elements = atmosphere, gases, wind, pollution, water, cosmic rays, +or- Ions......or whatever you want to add into the mixture, is like mixing chemicals up in a Laboratory.
Once the chemicals have 'changed colour', ...as in titration, it is virtually impossible to get back to the original formulae, (or Climate).
