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

Foxfyre wrote:

When you have NASA reporting significantly increasing ice mass in Anarctica at one point and then significantly decreasing ice five years later, that to me is a 180, especially when it is reported as a trend.

Actually, it's not even a "significantly increasing ice mass in Anarctica at one point and then significantly decreasing ice five years later" - it's happening at the same time. Increasing ice mass here, large scale melting there.

Foxfyre wrote:

Those headlines I posted also indicate a 180 in media emphasis within a one month period. Media interpretation I think should not be the last word on any of this.

Again: how can it be a '180' when it's happening at the same time? Even if you had two newspapers, one reporting that the ice shelf is increasing, and the other one writing that larger areas of Antarctica are melting than before - how would that constitute a '180'?

You'd have two newspapers reporting different parts of what's going one. Yet, as both trends are happening at the same time, it's in no way the contradiction you're trying to make of it.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Temperature
Average annual global temperatures over the last 131 years have varied:
1877 = 14.909C = 58.836F
1878 = 15.023C = 59.041F
1879 = 14.735C = 58.523F

1907 = 14.493C = 58.087F
1908 = 14.441C = 57.994F
1909 = 14.436C = 57.985F
1910 = 14.452C = 58.014F
1911 = 14.419C = 57.954F
1912 = 14.509C = 58.116F
...
1997 = 15.351C = 59.632F
1998 = 15.546C = 59.983F
1999 = 15.296C = 59.533F
2000 = 15.270C = 59.486F
2001 = 15.409C = 59.736F
2002 = 15.464C = 59.835F
2003 = 15.473C = 59.851F
2004 = 15.447C = 59.805F
2005 = 15.482C = 59.868F
2006 = 15.421C = 59.758F
2007 = 15.414C = 59.745F

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2003/ann/glob_jan-dec_pg.gif

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002? Isn't backing up, taking a deep breath, and advocating a critical view of all the data something that should be really encouraged at this point?

You haven't really shown a 180 switch in science Fox. You only pointed to 5 or more sensationlized headlines for one story on each side of the issue. 5 headlines on the same day is NOT a result of a lot of science. It is the result of one paper that may not even say what the headline says it does.

Why don't you back up, research the paper that was the cause of the 2 "opposing" headlines and see if the headlines even reflect the science.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002? Isn't backing up, taking a deep breath, and advocating a critical view of all the data something that should be really encouraged at this point?

You haven't really shown a 180 switch in science Fox. You only pointed to 5 or more sensationlized headlines for one story on each side of the issue. 5 headlines on the same day is NOT a result of a lot of science. It is the result of one paper that may not even say what the headline says it does.

Why don't you back up, research the paper that was the cause of the 2 "opposing" headlines and see if the headlines even reflect the science.

If you had actually read what I wrote, I did not present the headlines as scientific opinion. I presented the headlines as an example of media treatment of scientific opinion (or reports as it were.)

The point was and remains that the 'facts' and 'figures' and 'opinions' are as fluid as the weather itself, and in a lot of places, if you don't like the weather, it will change shortly. My whole problem with all the charts and graphs over a period of five years, or twenty years, or a hundred years is that this is but a blink in the entirety of climate on this planet. And then, of course, there is the conflicting data and conflicting conclusions and differences in the way information is interpreted and advertised depending on a person's or group's ideology or stance on GW or AGW.

I don't think AGW has been definitely disproved, but it sure as heck hasn't been definitely proved. Again, if it is such a critical problem and we have the power to stop it, why isn't everybody passing strict laws requiring us to do whatever is necessary to do that? Why aren't those doing the talking walking the walk themselves?

If it is a critical problem and we don't have the power to stop it, why aren't we focusing on helping the most vulnerable people to prepare to deal with it?

If it isn't a critical problem, why do we need to do anything at all and how ridiculous are all those regulations and goals and carbon trade offs, etc. when we should be focusing on things that actually do some good?

I say step back, take a deep breath, and make decisions based on real facts and not propaganda, ideology, religious zeal, or politics.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002?

Foxfyre wrote:

If you had actually read what I wrote, I did not present the headlines as scientific opinion. I presented the headlines as an example of media treatment of scientific opinion (or reports as it were.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Seriously though guys, doesn't it give anybody pause for thought when there can be such a 180 switch in scientific opinion within five years or even within one month as in 2002? Isn't backing up, taking a deep breath, and advocating a critical view of all the data something that should be really encouraged at this point?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you had actually read what I wrote...

You seem to say this kind of thing frequently.

Perhaps you should just make you posts more clear in the future. Maybe it's not everyone else's problem. I'm not really sure you actually understand what you post.

T
K
O

0 Replies

this is nothing scientific , just anecdotal .
we have lived in eastern ontario about a mile away from lake ontario since 1956 .
until about 1985 , by christmas lake ontario (at the eastern end where we live) would be frozen and stay frozen until the end of march/early april .
the coast guard would send out icebreakers at that time to re-open the seaway for shipping .
the ice would be about three feet thick and we could take a walk on the frozen lake and even circle some of the smaller islands .
the university students would set up ice rinks on the frozen lake and many hockey games would be played during january-february .

an ìce road`would be opened up (marked by discarded christmas trees) for cars to drive over to wolfe island - about 2 miles from the eastern shoreline .

the ground would be frozen until late april and gardening would usually not start before `victoria day`in mid-may .

in the mid eighties things started to change gradually . the lake would freeze later - mid to late january for only three to four weeks .
no more walking on the ice , no ice rinks , and definetely no ice road.

i started to work earlier in the garden - putting seeds into the ground in early may .

saturday and sunday we took some walks by the lake .
not a speck of ice on the lake .
the canada geese no longer go south but were swimming right in front of us in the lake - sure a nice sight .
some flies are already buzzing around - certainly , things have changed .
we have also noticed that ourconsumption of heating oil is getting less - not a bad thing .

this weekend there is to be a brief cold spell but the long range forecast calls for continued mild weather .

so where we live there has certainly be a change - it`s been gradual , but it`s changing .
in the summer there are also more days when the temperature reaches 30 C and higher - and more often for several days in a row .
we also see more smog hanging over the shoreline .
the water level of lake ontario keeps falling - about two feet below where it was some years ago .

nothing scientific but changes that we have noticed .
on more thing : yesterday i caught the first fly of the season in the house .
hbg

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
When you have NASA reporting significantly increasing ice mass in Anarctica at one point and then significantly decreasing ice five years later, that to me is a 180, especially when it is reported as a trend.

Actually, it's not even a "significantly increasing ice mass in Anarctica at one point and then significantly decreasing ice five years later" - it's happening at the same time. Increasing ice mass here, large scale melting there.

Foxfyre wrote:
Those headlines I posted also indicate a 180 in media emphasis within a one month period. Media interpretation I think should not be the last word on any of this.

Again: how can it be a '180' when it's happening at the same time? Even if you had two newspapers, one reporting that the ice shelf is increasing, and the other one writing that larger areas of Antarctica are melting than before - how would that constitute a '180'?

You'd have two newspapers reporting different parts of what's going one. Yet, as both trends are happening at the same time, it's in no way the contradiction you're trying to make of it.

Okay point well taken. But how many of you pro-AGW-ers present both sides showing that one side is increasing and the other melting? Don't you look for articles, charts, graphs, opinions that support your opinion as to what is happening? I usually post opinions that support my opinions. In this case, my intention was to show how treatment of two opposite things that are happening are portrayed in a way to give the impression that only one or the other is happening.

And I did that to illustrate my opinion that we should back off and consider all opinions before going off willy nilly chasing the one that may very well be the wrong one.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Temperature
Average annual global temperatures over the last 131 years have varied:
1877 = 14.909C = 58.836F
1878 = 15.023C = 59.041F
1879 = 14.735C = 58.523F

1907 = 14.493C = 58.087F
1908 = 14.441C = 57.994F
1909 = 14.436C = 57.985F
1910 = 14.452C = 58.014F
1911 = 14.419C = 57.954F
1912 = 14.509C = 58.116F
...
1997 = 15.351C = 59.632F
1998 = 15.546C = 59.983F
1999 = 15.296C = 59.533F
2000 = 15.270C = 59.486F
2001 = 15.409C = 59.736F
2002 = 15.464C = 59.835F
2003 = 15.473C = 59.851F
2004 = 15.447C = 59.805F
2005 = 15.482C = 59.868F
2006 = 15.421C = 59.758F
2007 = 15.414C = 59.745F

Please note that the graphs you posted do not go beyond 2003. However they do show a small temperature decline after 1998.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Please note that the graphs you posted do not go beyond 2003. However they do show a small temperature decline after 1998.

Yet still an upward trend....

0 Replies

Its been pretty flat in the past few years. The upward trend has stalled out. Who knows where it goes from here, but it has not been going up for a few years now.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Solar Firm Heads to Mesa del Sol

Source

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

this is nothing scientific , just anecdotal .
we have lived in eastern ontario about a mile away from lake ontario since 1956 .
until about 1985 , by christmas lake ontario (at the eastern end where we live) would be frozen and stay frozen until the end of march/early april .
the coast guard would send out icebreakers at that time to re-open the seaway for shipping .
the ice would be about three feet thick and we could take a walk on the frozen lake and even circle some of the smaller islands .
the university students would set up ice rinks on the frozen lake and many hockey games would be played during january-february .

an ìce road`would be opened up (marked by discarded christmas trees) for cars to drive over to wolfe island - about 2 miles from the eastern shoreline .

the ground would be frozen until late april and gardening would usually not start before `victoria day`in mid-may .

in the mid eighties things started to change gradually . the lake would freeze later - mid to late january for only three to four weeks .
no more walking on the ice , no ice rinks , and definetely no ice road.

i started to work earlier in the garden - putting seeds into the ground in early may .

saturday and sunday we took some walks by the lake .
not a speck of ice on the lake .
the canada geese no longer go south but were swimming right in front of us in the lake - sure a nice sight .
some flies are already buzzing around - certainly , things have changed .
we have also noticed that ourconsumption of heating oil is getting less - not a bad thing .

this weekend there is to be a brief cold spell but the long range forecast calls for continued mild weather .

so where we live there has certainly be a change - it`s been gradual , but it`s changing .
in the summer there are also more days when the temperature reaches 30 C and higher - and more often for several days in a row .
we also see more smog hanging over the shoreline .
the water level of lake ontario keeps falling - about two feet below where it was some years ago .

nothing scientific but changes that we have noticed .
on more thing : yesterday i caught the first fly of the season in the house .
hbg

Flies in January are still not occurring here and we are a whole lot closer to the Equator than you are, hbg. Still, I hear what you are saying. It does seem that we don't get the prolonged cold or as much snow as I remember from my youth. In the 1970's in North Central Kansas, there would be times that we would have sub-zero temps for days; two weeks with the temperature staying well below freezing. Of course that was during the period that scientists were buzzing about possibilities of an impending ice age. Those prolonged arctic cold spells aren't happening these days.

That your lake no longer freezes is interesting. My family has a cabin in the mountains in northern New Mexico near Eagle Nest lake, a small fishing lake that sufficiently freezes over to allow ice fishing across its entire surface for most of the winter. It still does. So it's really curious that Eagle Nest still freezes solid, and Lake Ontario, so far north, doesn't?

Maybe there is something to this 'axis wobble' theory.

Still what you're saying is another component of the whole global warming debate; i.e., is global warming necessarily a bad thing or something we should attempt to stop? Would Canadians or Greenland appreciate a more moderate climate and longer growing season? Russia is already contemplating the vast expanses of Siberia becoming the next bread basket of the world. At one time scientists were contemplating how to intentionally melt arctic ice to open up the north passage that may now be occurring naturally. I think it has already been shown how the massive sea rise if we lose all or most of the northern ice probably won't occur.

And it still remains more than possible that all of this is the normal ebb and flow of global cycles that have been occuring long before any humans were around to take note of it.

0 Replies

Quote:

That your lake no longer freezes is interesting

lake ontario - that is , the whole lake - did not freeze totally during the last 50 years , as far as i know . it is simply too huge a mass of water to freeze . the freeze only took place at the eastern end , where it narrows before flowing into the st. lawrenca river , and it would also freeze along the edges and it's bays .

i understand that one of more serious problems that will be caused by global warming - no matter what causes it - will be an increase in the insect population in northern areas of canada .
in the last two years , the "tick population" has expanded quite quickly here .
ticks were never considered a problem here because the eggs/larva would simply not survive temperatures of minus 20 C .
last year , "tick patrols" were established in the 1,000 islands and they reported that ticks are indeed spreading on the islands and along the river front .
our health department has warned that coming this spring we should not venture into tall grass or into the woods in shorts and sleeveless shirts .
we are also being advised to use plenty of insect repellent when going outside .
hbg

0 Replies

Latest info. for December, 2008
Average world land temperature was 4.41, which was 0.45 cooler than Dec. 2006 and about the same as Dec. 1979 when it was 4.42. In December, 1978, it was 3.49.

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

And ocean temperature was 15.95, which was 0.26 cooler than Dec. 2006 and the coolest month since December, 1993, 14 years ago when it was 15.87. The temperature in December 1979 was 15.97 and in Dec. 1978 it was 15.84. So in Dec. 2007 when the land temp was 0.92 warmer than Dec. 1978, the ocean temp was only 0.11 warmer in Dec. 2007 from Dec. 1978, 29 years ago.

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

But if a tenth of a degree change in 29 years bothers anyone, be assured help may be on the way if Obama is elected, as I heard him tonight state flat out that if elected, he would stop climate change. If that happens, all of these numbers will all read the same from year to year. I don't know what he will do if the sun heats up or cools off, that could require some real innovative measures. We will probably have to wait for the details of how that would be mitigated later after he takes office if elected.

0 Replies

Hmm, climate change is all about December temperatures, delivered by junkscience.

0 Replies

Another instance of the suppression or bastardization of scientific research so as to, in Karl Rove's famous words, "make our own reality".

Quote:

Scientists Take Complaints About Interference to Hill
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 16, 2008; Page A13

Two dozen scientists swarmed over Capitol Hill this week mad as vespinae ( hornets) at what they say is Bush administration meddling in environmental science.

Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Endangered Species Coalition, the rumpled researchers won time in the offices of more than 20 lawmakers. They are protesting what Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, calls "the systematic dismantling of the Endangered Species Act through the manipulation and suppression of science."

On a dash from the House to the Senate, Grifo said the group wants hearings and better congressional oversight of the Interior Department, where Bush appointees control the fate of threatened and endangered species.

The scientists say political appointees at Interior, or those who report to them, have been altering their reports recommending "critical habitat" preservation to favor industries whose interests conflict with the findings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503428.html?hpid=sec-politics

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Hmm, climate change is all about December temperatures, delivered by junkscience.

If you can provide evidence that junkscience is quoting the wrong numbers, be my guest, Walter. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger, is that the method? I happen to like the junkscience site because it is the best place that I have found that shows up to date graphs and data for land, water, and different levels of the atmosphere from various sources. I think they deserve credit for doing a great job of pulling all the data together into one place and keeping up with it. And if you want the data from the original sources, the links are provided for you there.

And December temperatures are significant for showing an approximate average low for the oceans each year.

I think the December numbers will also serve to bring down the overall average for 2007, which was already down, as listed by ican.

0 Replies

I see okie has gone from agreeing that a 5 year average is best, to a 1 year number is the way, to now thinking comparing just one month is enough to show a trend.

Just out of curiosity okie, do you use one minute prices on wall street to tell which way the DOW is moving?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know