71
   

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

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 11:09 am
I state the figures because they are interesting, and show no drastic upturn, but instead a slight downturn. I have never asserted that one month stands alone as an indicator, but it does add to the cumulative data that we have.

I have said repeatedly that we don't know which way it will go in the future, all we know now is that things have leveled off, plateaued out for now, and temperatures have not been rising for a few years now, more than 5 years in fact, so the 5 year averages are beginning to show it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 11:56 am
Just because figures are interesting doesn't mean they show there is or isn't a trend.

You have to use the proper scientific measures if you want to designate it isn't a trend. Pulling out 2 data points is NOT the proper way. Pulling out 1 outlying data point and comparing it to a mean data point is certainly not even close to science.

If you want to look at "cumulative data" then you look at the cumulative data. You don't look at single points.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 12:30 pm
I didn't pull out just two data points. Among the things I compared, I compared each year's December readings since around 1978, which was 29 years ago. We see similar comparisons all the time, reported in the media, such as this is the warmest June or whatever in the last 30 years. I happen to think that the lowest monthly world ocean mean temperature of 15.95 in Dec. 2007 being the lowest since Dec. 1993, which was 14 years ago, is interesting, if you don't, so be it. Perhaps other folks on this thread will find it interesting whether you do or not.

I have not asserted here that it indicates a definite downward trend in the future, but it does add another tidbit of indication that temperatures are rather flat and not going up for now, and have not been for a few years.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 01:36 pm
okie wrote:
I didn't pull out just two data points. Among the things I compared, I compared each year's December readings since around 1978, which was 29 years ago. We see similar comparisons all the time, reported in the media, such as this is the warmest June or whatever in the last 30 years. I happen to think that the lowest monthly world ocean mean temperature of 15.95 in Dec. 2007 being the lowest since Dec. 1993, which was 14 years ago, is interesting, if you don't, so be it. Perhaps other folks on this thread will find it interesting whether you do or not.

I have not asserted here that it indicates a definite downward trend in the future, but it does add another tidbit of indication that temperatures are rather flat and not going up for now, and have not been for a few years.


Well I think it is interesting Okie, and thank you.

And after commiserating with Hamburger re the more moderate winters now when compared to those of our more youthful past, it is colder than a witch's elbow in New Mexico today with record lows forecast for tonight and tomorrow morning - that will include wind chills of minus 5 degrees fahrenheit.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 01:48 pm
Hmm. But that's because artic air descends on New Mexico - opposite here the last couple of days when we got warm air from the sub-tropics.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 02:03 pm
scientists from NASA and the NOAA seem to agree that the earth's temperature is increasing .
while they did NOT agree on every bit of data , they do agree that the temperature is trending upward .
as i posted earlier , having lived for 51 years on the eastern end of lake ontario , that's how it feels where we are living : less and less ice in lake ontario , earlier springs , increase in insect population ... i'm not a scientists , but i can state with certainty that during the last twenty of those 51 years there has been a slow but steady increase in temperature .
will it continue that way ? i don't think i'm qualified to answer that question .
hbg


Quote:
Last Year Among Hottest On Record, Say Scientists

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 12, 2008; A03



Data collected from around the globe indicate that 2007 ranks as the second-warmest year on record, according to a new analysis from climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

A second team of scientists, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has come up with slightly different results using the same raw data -- suggesting that last year was the fifth-warmest on record -- but the groups reached the same conclusion on where Earth's climate has been headed for the past quarter-century. Taking into account the new data, they said, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.


Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Goddard, said researchers are not as focused on "any individual year but the long-term trends."

"We've got a sustained warming of the planet, which is unequivocal, and the best we can work out is that it's because we've been increasing the greenhouse gas emissions, primarily," Schmidt said in a telephone interview yesterday. "That means it's going to continue. The long-term trends are up, and they're up in the same way our models have been predicting for the last 20 years."

According to the NASA analysis, the global average land-ocean temperature last year was 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit, slightly more than 1 degree above the average temperature between 1951 and 1980, which scientists use as a baseline. While a 1-degree rise may not seem like much, it represents a major shift in a world where average temperatures over broad regions rarely vary more than a couple hundredths of a degree.

The 2007 average was the same as for 1998, which was the hottest year on record until 2005 hit a global average of 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

The NASA scientists based their findings, encompassing all of 2007, on readings from thousands of weather stations around the world. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center researchers used the same readings but did not include December in their preliminary assessment, which will be finalized next week. The groups also analyzed the data a bit differently to compensate for phenomena such as the urban heat island effect and gaps in data.

NOAA issued a news release in mid-December saying that the global average for 2007 "is expected to be near 58.0 F." The same release said last year's preliminary annual average temperature for the contiguous 48 states "will likely be near 54.3 degrees F," which would make 2007 the eighth-warmest year since the United States started recording the data in 1895.

Asked about the agency's findings, NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures in the last 50 years is very likely due to increased human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations, but we cannot yet discern warming trends in the last 10 years with the same resolution."

Rafe Pomerance, president of the advocacy group Clean Air-Cool Planet, said he expects "the new data will continue to heighten concern around the world. The need for intervention to turn down emissions is more apparent than ever."

Pomerance said he is particularly alarmed by NASA's findings on temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic, which have warmed faster than other parts of the globe. Schmidt and his colleagues concluded that 2007 is the warmest year on record for the Northern Hemisphere, with a 1.9-degree-Fahrenheit rise over the 1951-80 average, a difference he called "quite significant."

In the Arctic, the NASA scientists found, last year's average was 4.1 degrees higher than the 1951-80 baseline. "The climate signal is just very powerful," Pomerance said.

While Schmidt likened focusing on any one year's temperature readings to "digesting polls in the New Hampshire [presidential] primary," the numbers carry weight in the public policy arena because officials in the United States and abroad have become increasingly focused on what degree of global temperature rise is dangerous.

The world is about 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was in preindustrial periods, and many scientists warn that the globe cannot afford to get 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was in preindustrial times. Current climate models indicate that Earth will warm by about three-quarters of a degree over the next two decades because of greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere.




source :
NASA REPORT
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 10:33 am
The Baltic Sea is getting ... warmer.
A study [published today] of a century of temperature readings has confirmed that the Baltic Sea climate is getting warmer than other parts of the world heated up by the current climate change.

Average temperatures had risen 0.85 of a degree Celsius in the basin regions over the past century. The mean average rise worldwide had been 0.75 of a degree.

http://i25.tinypic.com/14ng22g.jpg

Image: Air temperature changes for the Baltic Sea basin from 1871-2004, shown as deviation from the 1961-1990 mean value. Bars represent annual values, the black curve shows the smoothed data.



Press release Climate change in the Baltic Sea basin - past, present and future

The BAAC Project BALTEX Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin {pdf-data]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 12:49 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The Baltic Sea is getting ... warmer.
A study [published today] of a century of temperature readings has confirmed that the Baltic Sea climate is getting warmer than other parts of the world heated up by the current climate change.

...


Why don't these reports on climate temperature change, present the actual mean temperature, and not just the deviations from the mean?

The current mean global temperature is about 58F (14.4C) with a deviation of about plus or minus 1F (0.6C).

By the way, that 58F mean is 1F below aviation's choice of 59F as standard sea level temperature at a standard atmospheric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury. Is that good or bad?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 12:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:

Why don't these reports on climate temperature change, present the actual mean temperature, and not just the deviations from the mean?

The current mean global temperature is about 58F (14.4C) with a deviation of about plus or minus 1F (0.6C).

By the way, that 58F mean is 1F below aviation's choice of 59F as standard sea level temperature at a standard atmospheric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury. Is that good or bad?


You've got better data from the Baltic Sea than in the report? Did you read the book already?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 01:30 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Why don't these reports on climate temperature change, present the actual mean temperature, and not just the deviations from the mean?

The current mean global temperature is about 58F (14.4C) with a deviation of about plus or minus 1F (0.6C).

By the way, that 58F mean is 1F below aviation's choice of 59F as standard sea level temperature at a standard atmospheric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury. Is that good or bad?


You've got better data from the Baltic Sea than in the report? Did you read the book already?

No, I do not have any data about the actual mean temperature of the Baltic Sea. Do you?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 01:42 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Why don't these reports on climate temperature change, present the actual mean temperature, and not just the deviations from the mean?

The current mean global temperature is about 58F (14.4C) with a deviation of about plus or minus 1F (0.6C).

By the way, that 58F mean is 1F below aviation's choice of 59F as standard sea level temperature at a standard atmospheric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury. Is that good or bad?


You've got better data from the Baltic Sea than in the report? Did you read the book already?

No, I do not have any data about the actual mean temperature of the Baltic Sea. Do you?


This site discusses the mean temperature of the Baltic Sea in some detail:
http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/archive/ifs2003/en_GB/SST/
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 01:53 pm
hamburger wrote:
scientists from NASA and the NOAA seem to agree that the earth's temperature is increasing .
while they did NOT agree on every bit of data , they do agree that the temperature is trending upward .
as i posted earlier , having lived for 51 years on the eastern end of lake ontario , that's how it feels where we are living : less and less ice in lake ontario , earlier springs , increase in insect population ... i'm not a scientists , but i can state with certainty that during the last twenty of those 51 years there has been a slow but steady increase in temperature .
will it continue that way ? i don't think i'm qualified to answer that question .
hbg


Sorry hamburger, but people like ican and fox pour wax in their ears to avoid hearing things like this. They are only concerned with a global average and not how the climate change effects specific ecological niches.

If they had to address that anything is changing, they'd be in trouble. I'm in MO, and I can at least testify for the last 24 years.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 02:03 pm
ican711nm wrote:

No, I do not have any data about the actual mean temperature of the Baltic Sea. Do you?


There's a bit here:
Baltic Atlas of Long-Term Inventory and Climatology (BALTIC)


.... and another bit will be published in: Feistel et al. - State and Evolution of the Baltic Sea, 1952 - 2005

Some data are (already) online (see link above), like e.g.

http://i31.tinypic.com/11k87ls.jpg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 08:59 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
hamburger wrote:
scientists from NASA and the NOAA seem to agree that the earth's temperature is increasing .
while they did NOT agree on every bit of data , they do agree that the temperature is trending upward .
as i posted earlier , having lived for 51 years on the eastern end of lake ontario , that's how it feels where we are living : less and less ice in lake ontario , earlier springs , increase in insect population ... i'm not a scientists , but i can state with certainty that during the last twenty of those 51 years there has been a slow but steady increase in temperature .
will it continue that way ? i don't think i'm qualified to answer that question .
hbg


Sorry hamburger, but people like ican and fox pour wax in their ears to avoid hearing things like this. They are only concerned with a global average and not how the climate change effects specific ecological niches.

If they had to address that anything is changing, they'd be in trouble. I'm in MO, and I can at least testify for the last 24 years.

T
K
O

Climate has been changing over the earth throughout my lifetime too. More importantly, earth's climate has been changing for much more than a hundred years. The question I ponder is not whether it is changing or not. Of course it is. The question I am pondering is whether or not humans are exclusive (100%), primary (50% to less than 100%), moderate (greater than 1% to less than 50%), or trivial (0 to 1%) causers of climate change.

So far, the available data does not show humans to be more than trivial causers of climate change.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 09:07 pm
Diest TKO wrote:

If they had to address that anything is changing, they'd be in trouble. I'm in MO, and I can at least testify for the last 24 years.

T
K
O

The climate has been changing since the dawn of time, good grief!

But then again, Obama has pledged to stop climate change. Good luck.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 10:42 pm
As today's discussion seemed to include concerns re the Baltic Sea, the site I posted re the mean temperatures doesn't show anything alarming unless I am reading the text and graphs totally wrong.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 10:57 pm
Walter's own posted graphs don't seem to either, so I am still puzzling over what the big news is that we should be all worried about?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 11:26 pm
ican711nm wrote:
So far, the available data does not show humans to be more than trivial causers of climate change.


I'm not sure you're qualified to make this statement.

okie wrote:
The climate has been changing since the dawn of time, good grief!


As said before it's not the change itself, it's the timescale in which the change has been happening in recent history.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 11:34 pm
ican, have you ever actually read any of the IPCC's assessment reports? The most recent one was the fourth. Have you read it? Contrary to your statement, the research has shown more and more surely that humans are the primary cause of climate change today. Not solar variability, not orbital variability, not some mysterious cosmic ray effects. Do us both a favor. Actually read the most authoritative information about what you're discussing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 12:18 am
Foxfyre wrote:
As today's discussion seemed to include concerns re the Baltic Sea, the site I posted re the mean temperatures doesn't show anything alarming unless I am reading the text and graphs totally wrong.


okie wrote:
Walter's own posted graphs don't seem to either, so I am still puzzling over what the big news is that we should be all worried about?

Well, people living around there (and not only scientists) find that alarming.

But it's correct: it shouldn't bother you at all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 09:29:54