Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Sat Aug 22 2009 - 17:56:40 EDT

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM, John Burgeson (ASA member) <> wrote:

> Cameron: I do read a lot -- on both sides.
> I refer you the the magazine NATURE, which is one of science, not politics.
> If you can find even ONE article in it over the past -- say -- three
> years that suggests that the science I reported in my little article
> is incorrect (I assume you read it) then I'd be most interested in
> looking at it. I read NATURE regularly but not completely; I could
> have missed something.
> Meantime -- take a look at the links Rich provided. Check what the
> real scientists do. Climate science is not that hard to understand. It
> IS hard to do!

The links I just provided is not from scientists, it's asking the computers
to spit out the latest data. Basically what I asked the computers was the
following questions:

1. What is the trend from 1980 - 2007 for global temperatures in July?
Answer 0.16 degrees C warming per decade. The graphing software stops there
but the data for 2008 and 2009 is available from NCDC and it shows the trend
continuing if not accelerating as both 2008 and 2009 are above the

2. What is the ice coverage in the Arctic yesterday (and that's LITERALLY
yesterday). What's shown is well below the average ice coverage and almost
the record low set in 2007. The only thing not clear is whether 2008 or 2009
will be the second lowest year. Which brings us to another science does.
There are roughly 16 different predictions on what the low value will be for
September. Seeing who is most accurate will tell us who understands the
underlying processes better.

And that's what scientists do unlike the false accusations coming from UD we
look at the data. You don't have to trust anyone as the data is available
for all to see. I just pointed you to how to access the National Climate
Data Center computers. Anybody that says you have to have them analyze the
data for you is hiding something.

Unless you are willing to posit a conspiracy that has the scientists are
making the computers lie then you need to compare the claims of UD with the
data and break the tie between the competing claims. That's how science is
done during periods of controversy. Evidence (and not authority) is the tie
breaker. There is absolutely no need to through up your hands with a
presumed false equivalence. In the case of AGW the evidence has been so
consistent for so long there is no longer any controversy that it exists.
The scientists have moved on to other areas to argue about because the edge
of our understanding is where the "fun" of science is.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 22 17:57:24 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 22 2009 - 17:57:24 EDT