Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Also, take a look at this hurricane intensity data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane#Observation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NOAA_ACE_index_1950-2004_RGB.svg

Looks like hurricanes have gotten more severe since 1950....

parados wrote:

Funny stuff there okie.. Of course you would argue that a .05 increase is a plateau. It's the only argument you can make.

Nothing changes the fact that EVERY year since 1994 has been warmer than EVERY year prior to 1980

And every year from 2001 on has been warmer than EVERY year since 1850 BUT 1998.

And WOW.. from 1850 until today according to Hadcrut3... the 10 warmest years have been in the last 11 years. But I guess warming isn't occurring because if we look only at the last year we cooled since 1998.

Pay attention! Look at any year since 1998! Each of those years was cooler than 1998. None of the average global temperatures since 1998 has even equaled 1998's.

AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
...
1998 = 15.546C = (32 + (15.546 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.983) = 59.983F
1999 = 15.296C = (32 + (15.296 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.533) = 59.533F
2000 = 15.270C = (32 + (15.270 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.486) = 59.486F
2001 = 15.409C = (32 + (15.409 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.736) = 59.736F
2002 = 15.464C = (32 + (15.464 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.835) = 59.835F
2003 = 15.473C = (32 + (15.473 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.851) = 59.851F
2004 = 15.447C = (32 + (15.447 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.805) = 59.805F
2005 = 15.482C = (32 + (15.482 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.868) = 59.868F
2006 = 15.421C = (32 + (15.421 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.758) = 59.758F
2007 = 15.414C = (32 + (15.414 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.745) = 59.745F

7th "hottest" year, wow, Parados. Why didn't you use the term "warmest?" And of course, ignore the fact the data comes from apples and oranges.

And if you can cite a computer model that explains why 2007 is 0.13 C cooler than 1998, let us all know.

7th "hottest" year, wow, Parados. Why didn't you use the term "warmest?" And of course, ignore the fact the data comes from apples and oranges.

And if you can cite a computer model that explains why 2007 is 0.13 C cooler than 1998, let us all know.

okie wrote:

7th "hottest" year, wow, Parados. Why didn't you use the term "warmest?" And of course, ignore the fact the data comes from apples and oranges.

apples and oranges? The data all comes from hadcrut3. Please provide your scientific papers to explain how hadcrut3 is inaccurate and the data from it is "apples" and "oranges".

ican711nm wrote:

Also, take a look at this hurricane intensity data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane#Observation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NOAA_ACE_index_1950-2004_RGB.svg

Looks like hurricanes have gotten more severe since 1950....

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

Funny stuff there okie.. Of course you would argue that a .05 increase is a plateau. It's the only argument you can make.

Nothing changes the fact that EVERY year since 1994 has been warmer than EVERY year prior to 1980

And every year from 2001 on has been warmer than EVERY year since 1850 BUT 1998.

And WOW.. from 1850 until today according to Hadcrut3... the 10 warmest years have been in the last 11 years. But I guess warming isn't occurring because if we look only at the last year we cooled since 1998.

Pay attention! Look at any year since 1998! Each of those years was cooler than 1998. None of the average global temperatures since 1998 has even equaled 1998's.

AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
...
1998 = 15.546C = (32 + (15.546 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.983) = 59.983F
1999 = 15.296C = (32 + (15.296 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.533) = 59.533F
2000 = 15.270C = (32 + (15.270 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.486) = 59.486F
2001 = 15.409C = (32 + (15.409 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.736) = 59.736F
2002 = 15.464C = (32 + (15.464 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.835) = 59.835F
2003 = 15.473C = (32 + (15.473 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.851) = 59.851F
2004 = 15.447C = (32 + (15.447 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.805) = 59.805F
2005 = 15.482C = (32 + (15.482 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.868) = 59.868F
2006 = 15.421C = (32 + (15.421 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.758) = 59.758F
2007 = 15.414C = (32 + (15.414 X 1.8)) = (32 +27.745) = 59.745F

Perhaps you need to pay attention ican..
EVERY year you posted is WARMER than EVERY year from 1850-1994.

LISTEN UP!
True, but completely irrelevant to whether or not average annual global temperature has leveled off and has been cooling since its peak in 1998.
...

All you can claim is that the globe is "cooling" because 2007 isn't as warm as 1998. ...

...

There are a number of reasons okie...solar fluctuation being one of them. You know that the sun cycles approx every 11-12 years giving off varying degrees of radiation.

So the globe can cool because of variations in the sun's radiation regardless of increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hmmmm ... If that be the case, then it is also true that the globe can warm because of variations in the sun's radiation regardless of increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

2007 being cooler than 1998 could be from a reduction in solar output (among other things).

Could be? 2007 IS cooler because of a reduction in the amount of the sun's radiation reaching the earth.

parados wrote:

okie wrote:

7th "hottest" year, wow, Parados. Why didn't you use the term "warmest?" And of course, ignore the fact the data comes from apples and oranges.

apples and oranges? The data all comes from hadcrut3. Please provide your scientific papers to explain how hadcrut3 is inaccurate and the data from it is "apples" and "oranges".

Who needs a scientific paper to know the instrumentation was not the same, nor the same exact conditions surrounding the weather stations? Prove they were if you believe it.

Just one graph illustrating of possible bias in data, due to land use, etc.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Armagh_vs_CET.html

maporsche wrote:

...

There are a number of reasons okie...solar fluctuation being one of them. You know that the sun cycles approx every 11-12 years giving off varying degrees of radiation.

So the globe can cool because of variations in the sun's radiation regardless of increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hmmmm ... If that be the case, then it is also true that the globe can warm because of variations in the sun's radiation regardless of increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

2007 being cooler than 1998 could be from a reduction in solar output (among other things).

Could be? 2007 IS cooler because of a reduction in the amount of the sun's radiation reaching the earth.

ican711nm wrote:

maporsche wrote:

...

There are a number of reasons okie...solar fluctuation being one of them. You know that the sun cycles approx every 11-12 years giving off varying degrees of radiation.

So the globe can cool because of variations in the sun's radiation regardless of increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hmmmm ... If that be the case, then it is also true that the globe can warm because of variations in the sun's radiation regardless of increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

2007 being cooler than 1998 could be from a reduction in solar output (among other things).

Could be? 2007 IS cooler because of a reduction in the amount of the sun's radiation reaching the earth.

And it is also true that science can accurately calculate the amount of energy we receive from the sun. (This is quite different from your made up calculations that assume the earth would be 0C if there was no sun.) The funny thing about that science is it doesn't match up with any claim that all the warming is coming from increases in solar radiation.

No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

I do not assume the earth would be 0C if there was no sun. I do assume that humans would not exist on earth if there were no sun.

The rational thing about science is it doesn't match up with any claim--yours and any other claims included--that humans have caused a significant part of the warming.

Come to think of it, I don't even think the earth's temperature would be absolute zero, which is -273.16C, or -459.69F. I'll make a wild guess. Without the sun, this earth probably would have never existed.

External factors provide energy, but internal factors drive the responce (particularly on the time scale).

I particularly like this...

maporsche wrote:

No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

followed with...

ican711nm wrote:

WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

ican - Your responce is entertianing. It in no way contradicts maporche's statement though. I like the use of the word "primary."

Your strawman that people don't believe that the sun contributes to the climate of the earth is pure comedy.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

External factors provide energy, but internal factors drive the responce (particularly on the time scale).

I particularly like this...

maporsche wrote:

No one has claimed that the sun does not have an impact on our climate, what we've stated is that CO2 AMPLIFIES the solar impact by creating a greenhouse effect.

followed with...

ican711nm wrote:

WRONG! What you and others have been claiming up to now is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

ican - Your responce is entertianing. It in no way contradicts maporche's statement though. I like the use of the word "primary."

Your strawman that people don't believe that the sun contributes to the climate of the earth is pure comedy.

T
K
O

What is really "entertaining" is your repeated distortions of what I have actually written!

I never wrote that "people do not believe the sun contributes to the climate of the earth." I wrote (see above):

What you and others have been claiming up to now* is that the primary cause of earth warming is the release by humans of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

up to now* = up to the time I first wrote that sentence.

Increases in GHGs tend to warm the surface while the net effect of increases in aerosols tends to cool it. The net effect due to human
activities since the pre-industrial era is one of warming (+1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4]W/m2). In comparison, changes in solar irradiance are estimated to
have caused a small warming effect (+0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]W/m2).