People who believe in anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 concentrations rely on data that the earth has warmed by about 1 degree Centigrade over the past century. This increase averages 0.1 degree per decade, and is a very small temperature difference to measure.
Some scientists have been studying whether the temperature measurements are accurate. One study in Alaska, over a 4 year period, sought to determine whether measurements in urban areas could be affected by the anthropogenic heat islands which are created in cities. An abstract of the study is Linked Here and is entitled: ” Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA) “
Another site, SurfaceStations.org has just recently been established to gather data on the accuracy of the 1221 temperature stations that make up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), and the approximately 3200 surface station records which make up the Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN). Some of the temperature stations are located in areas where Urban heat could significantly affect the accuracy of the reading.
Yet another Article in Climate Science claims that the Report entitled:
Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC),
was biased and clearly cherrypicked information on the robustness of the land near-surface air temperature to bolster their advocacy of a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system. As a result, policymakers and the public have been given a false (or at best an incomplete) assessment of the multi-decadal global average near-surface air temperature trends.
If the temperature readings are inaccurate, then the entire basis of anthropogenic global warming argument may be suspect.
I suspect there might be some disagreement on how much the so-called “heat islands” or urban centers throw off the data.
But regarding both of these studies, it seems it might be easy to try a different approach to the data: For those data collection points too close to a “heat island” or urban center, you simply eliminate those in favor of the more rural or “pristine” data collection points, and see if there is any evidence of global warming at those more remote locations. This would mean going back through the records and re-calculating average temperatures based on a smaller number of sites.
So what are we talking about here? A free weekend (or ten?) and access to a spreadsheet? A long process of determining which data collection sites have to be eliminated?
One problem here, Tom, is that it seems you’re at cross-purposes here a bit. Here you’re talking in terms of rising temperatures, and saying they might not be rising at all.
Elsewhere you quote others who claim the temperature is rising, yes, but it’s due to cycles of the sun rather than carbon.
The only common thread in the sources you frequently cite is that they all seem aimed to discredit those who have reached the conclusion that 1) global temperatures are rising, and 2) they’re rising because of rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
One might say that you are consistently applying what some literary and biblical scholars sometimes call a “hermeneutic of suspicion” to anything that comes from the camp of those concerned about global warming.
As a recognized “champion” of small businesses, you could take very different approach than one of suspicion:
- You could ask yourself if current practices are good for small businesses, and if perhaps there might not be a better way.
- You could consider whether conversion to renewables might be done in a way that would benefit small businesses and local economies; whether taking great strides in developing more local, renewable energy (even if not a total solution) might not be of great benefit to local economies.
- You could consider whether it’s good economics, for small businesses and for the vast majority of your constituents, for us to keep buying so much coal from out of state, and so much oil and natural gas from overseas. With a move toward using as much local, renewable energy as possible (and selling it across the grid to other places where needed), this might offer a great boon to local economies and small businesses.
- You could consider whether it’s good foreign policy to be fighting wars that, at least in part, are not just about liberating oppressed countries, but also to some significant degree about securing access to oil. And you might ask if it’s worth it, to have the young sons and daughters of your constituents die for these causes in foreign lands.
In other words, instead of consistently apply a hermeneutic of suspicion, you might apply a more fair hermeneutic of hope, not only in favor of big oil/coal/gas/nuclear, but also in favor of renewables….?
In other words, maybe the cure is, in the end, far better than the disease, and maybe the disease is bigger and more complex than we originally thought?
Glad to see you’re still pondering these sorts of reports and questions as scientists probe and test the issues and assumptions, Tom.