ican711nm wrote:
You again have failed to answer my questions about what specifically it is about my conclusions from my AGTM (i.e., AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE MODEL) that you disagree with.
Look at:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ And examine the graph, especially the black curve in the graph;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ And examine the larger version of the graph, especially the black curve in the graph;
AND THEN CLICK ON:
Comma-Separated Values to see again a list of the values I used in my model and were used to produce the graph, especially the black curve in the graph.
Let the facts rule!
My objections to your use of global averages is that global averages mean nothing in terms of local ecosystems or regional climates in general. You seem eager to diregaurd the heat effects of cities, but don't acknowlege how urban heat bubbles effect local ecology.
Direct question: What would the effect on climate be if all terrestrial and aquatic plant life were to die? I'm asking for a direct answer.
You keep using the same source, but you don't seem to be very comfortable with letting the rest of the source be read. It's obvious you don't understand what the data means. The writers of the source say this...
Quote:There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact.
They are talking about people like you ican.
And since it's been brought up a number of times, I thought I'd use YOUR source to address it.
Quote:Myth 6 - 1998 was the warmest year in the global annual temperature record and this has led some to claim that temperatures have been decreasing ever since.
Global average surface temperature 1850-Nov 2007
1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and the land air temperatures. It is therefore not surprising that 1998 appears as a warm outlier. Had any recent years experienced such an El-Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. More recently, 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Niño conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998.
The fact remains that the rise in underlying surface temperature has averaged in excess of 0.15 °C per decade since the mid 1970s. A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph (right, top) of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties which are shown as thin black bars. Recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.
Global annual ranked HadCRUT3
Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 is expected to be 0.41 °C above this average, 0.15 °C warmer than 1999.
The diagram (right, bottom) ranks global temperatures for the last 150 years. It can be seen that the 17 warmest years all occur in the last 20 years.
To see the pictures, you'll need to open the link. While you are there, you read up on the other myths you adore ican.
Ican, you are cherry picking, but worse is that you are leaving a trail of seeds pack to the tree for everyone to follow. I think you are affraid of people getting their facts themselves. You'd rather buffer those facts and apply your own creative context.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit your face.
T
K
O
