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

okie wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I think I've got it.

All that CO2 in the atmosphere is shielding the surface of the globe from the sun's infrared irradiation. All that CO2 does is warm the atmosphere. Therefore, increased CO2 density in the atmosphere is about to cause global surface cooling.

See how easy it is to fabricate fantasy to explain whatever you want to explain.

Since you are a pilot, you are unqualified to comment on the atmosphere that you fly through. You are likely working for capitalists that make money on flying through the atmosphere, and therefore your opinion is obviously biased.

:wink:

Oh whoa is me! You are correct. I confess! Yes I am indeed working for capitalists. Worse my wife and I are both working for capitalists. Back in the 1990s when I flew that Learjet 25D, I flew charter flights for capitalists in which most of my passengers were capitalists. Worse yet, I have a personaly biased interest in maintaining a flyable atmosphere; that is, an atmosphere containing adequate amounts of oxygen for my engines to function properly ... Ah ... Oh ... aah ... Crying or Very sad

..................... Worst of all ... those capitalists for whom I flew charter and now for whom I fly to give flight instruction ... are ....
.........
... ah ... ah ... my wife and me!
Shocked

0 Replies

You obviously don't care a whit about the earth and its atmosphere. All you care about is your own personal lifestyle and yes, I hate to say it, profit. After all, profit is the enemy of all earth loving peoples and of course all animals. No animal would ever dream of such an act of crime against nature. Only greedy men. If some of the people that really care about this planet can get their act together someday, hopefully in time to save the earth, you will get what you deserve, you will be held accountable for your environmental crimes against nature. Unless you can plant enough trees to offset your crimes, I would say there will be a serious day of reckoning for you, icann. And if your wife is a partner in crime, that is even worse.

Sad

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You obviously don't care a whit about the earth and its atmosphere. All you care about is your own personal lifestyle and yes, I hate to say it, profit. After all, profit is the enemy of all earth loving peoples and of course all animals. No animal would ever dream of such an act of crime against nature. Only greedy men. If some of the people that really care about this planet can get their act together someday, hopefully in time to save the earth, you will get what you deserve, you will be held accountable for your environmental crimes against nature. Unless you can plant enough trees to offset your crimes, I would say there will be a serious day of reckoning for you, icann. And if your wife is a partner in crime, that is even worse.

Yep! Profit is the bad guy. It is profit that has corrupted me. I never would have flown a Learjet much less any other airplane and polluted the globe, if it weren't for profit. Not only my profit, but also Cessna's profit, Beech's profit, Piper's profit, Mooney's profit, and Lear's profit. Bill Lear's quest for profit caused him with the help of his employees to build the Learjet I flew. Worse the profits he sought led him to hire people who helped him build lots of Learjets. So if those employees had refused to be seduced by wages, the Learjet would not have been built, we would never have been seduced into having our business buy one, and I would never have been seduced into flying one.

What about profit on technology in airplanes and other vehicles? If it weren't for profit, cars, trucks, boats, radios, navigation instruments, radar, TV, computers and other technology whose production and operation pollutes the globe, would never been built and never operated. Caves and trees would have been far less polluting shelters and the world's CO2 exhaling population would have been far less.

Yes, clearly profit is the devil. Without it, all of our needs would have been met by non-polluting or low polluting CO2 exhaling government instead. That would have spared our environment ... if not us ... right? Shocked

0 Replies

Thanks to profit, things are somewhat efficient. Things would be royally screwed up without it, including the environment. Check out China, although as they use more free market and profit motive, they may eventually clean things up.

Interesting the companies you mention, I recently read an article that Mr. Cessna wanted to build a factory to build his airplanes in Enid, Oklahoma, but the bankers there were too stupid to see a good idea and told him it would never work, that flying was just a passing dream, but not practical, or some such thing. Thus he went to Wichita instead and the town in Oklahoma missed out. The bankers must have been liberals :wink: , along the lines of what we heard about Reagans "pie in the sky" star wars program, remember they said it would never work? I understand the other day they not only knocked the satellite out of the sky, but hit it bullseye in the fuel tanks.

0 Replies

You probably know about the Pilgrims not-for-profit first year and their for-profit years thereafter. But I'll summarize them here anyway.

In the first year the pilgrims operated as a collectivist colony with property and everything else shared equally, including the profit of the colony. This was done regardless of individual differences in contributing to the profit of their colony. In that first year there was little profit and half the members of the colony died.

The following year, the pilgrims decided to distribute such land and other property as they had to each family or adult with the understanding that each was responsible for producing, surviving and otherwise benefiting from its own profit. The colony then began to grow and prosper in subsequent years as the profit made by families or individuals from their work and transactions with each other grew.

Each family or adult pursuit of profit made them all more profitable than in each previous year, even though some profited far more than others. Some chose to hire others. Some chose to work for others. They all were far more interested in improving their individual lot than succumbing to envy, equalizing profit, and dying.

0 Replies

ACCORDING TO PREVIOULY POSTED GRAPHS

In the 100 years 1900 to 2005, Solar Irradiance increased about 2 watts per square meter, or about 0.14%.

During the same period, the average global temperature increased about 0.5 degrees Celsius, or about 0.17%.

What accounts for the about 0.03% difference?

0 Replies

How about land use or the heat island effect, icann?

By the way, I liked your explanation of the pilgrims and capitalism. I have read similar explanations. Which brings up an observation. I have driven around numerous reservations and have observed the poverty and general run down conditions on many, and one day I realized what the problem is; the tribes usually operate in a socialistic manner and deprive tribal members of full private property and business ownership rights, etc. Those native americans that leave the reservations are often quite successful, and of course they are just as intelligent or moreso than other people. It is the socialistic government systems on many reservations that cause the problem. Now of course, many tribes are making a killing with casino gambling, again this is a capitalistic pursuit.

Where did you get the 2 watts per square meter? Do you have a link?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

ACCORDING TO PREVIOULY POSTED GRAPHS

In the 100 years 1900 to 2005, Solar Irradiance increased about 2 watts per square meter, or about 0.14%.

During the same period, the average global temperature increased about 0.5 degrees Celsius, or about 0.17%.

What accounts for the about 0.03% difference?

Are you sure about your math THIS time ican? You seem to just make it up as you go along.

0 Replies

Your math on the Celsius increase is interesting...

Hadcrut3 data1900 -.223
2005 +.482

How you got .5 out of adding those 2 numbers together is beyond me. I get .705 Celsius.

That comes out to .24% if taken from kelvin zero.

But lets do a true 100 years.
1907 is -.507
2007 is +.402
That comes out to .909 increase in temperature at .31%

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Your math on the Celsius increase is interesting...

Hadcrut3 data1900 -.223
2005 +.482

How you got .5 out of adding those 2 numbers together is beyond me. I get .705 Celsius.

That comes out to .24% if taken from kelvin zero.

But lets do a true 100 years.
1907 is -.507
2007 is +.402
That comes out to .909 increase in temperature at .31%

My numbers were my estimated approximations based on these four graphs:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Trend in global average Temperature 1880 to 2007

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/mlo.jpg

!!!Trend Atmospheric CO2 ppm 1958 to 2007

Solar Irradiance Increase 1907 to 2007 = 2 W/M^2

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide5.png

US Surface Temperature Trends versus Solar Activity

Irradiance ratio 2/1370 = 0.00146

Global Temperature Increase 1975 to 2007 = 0.5 K

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide14.png

Temperatures versus years

Temperature ratio 0.5/287 = 0.00174

difference of ratios = 0.00174 - 0.00146 = 0.00028

Temperature increase due to other than solar irradiance increase = 0.00028 x 287 K = 0.0804 K

ASSUMING all of that 0.0804 K temperature increase is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere and:

5 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere;

95 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from evaporation of surface water mixed with CO2;

Then .05 x 0.0804 K = 0.00402 K increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Therefore, the temperature increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere = 100% x 0.00402 K / 0.5 K = 0.201 %.

------------------------------------------------

However, If I use your 0.909 K increase in temperature I get the following result:

Solar Irradiance Increase 1907 to 2007 = 2 W/M^2

Irradiance ratio 2/1370 = 0.00146

For Global Temperature Increase 1907 to 2007 = 0.5 K

Temperature ratio 0.909/287 = 0.00317

difference of ratios = 0.00317 - 0.00146 = 0.00171

Temperature increase due to other than solar irradiance increase = 0.00171 x 287 K = 0.491 K

ASSUMING all of that 0.491 K temperature increase is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere and:

5 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere;

95 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from evaporation of surface water mixed with CO2;

Then .05 x 0.491 K = 0.0246 K increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Therefore, the temperature increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere = 100% x 0.0246 K / 0.5 K = 4.92%.

------------------------------------------------------------

Whether or not your temperature increase number or mine is correct, the amount of global temperature increase 1907 to 2007 caused by human emissions is minor compared to the temperature increase caused by solar irradiance plus evaporation of surface water mixed with CO2 that is evaporated into the atmosphere.

I invite further criticism of my calculations based on other human effects such as land use.

0 Replies

Even based on your graphs ican your math makes no sense..
1900 in the first graph the temperature is obviously below 0 in the anomoly.
2005, the temperature is obviously above .5.

Even a low estimate in reading the graph would require the difference to be at least .55

.55/287.55 = .00191 (assuming the variation is from 287 Kelvin)

Your reading of the graph for solar irradiance is just laughable. simply hold a straight line up from 1900. That is the PEAK and is about 1372.
Then go to the last point on the graph. It is less than 1374 but more than 1373. We will call it 1373.5 Now lets do the math
(1373.5-1372)/1373.5 = .00109

Wow.. the temperature increase is almost double the irradiance increase when we are reasonably accurate with our graph reading.

Quote:

However, If I use your 0.909 K increase in temperature I get the following result:

Solar Irradiance Increase 1907 to 2007 = 2 W/M^2

Irradiance ratio 2/1370 = 0.00146

For Global Temperature Increase 1907 to 2007 = 0.5 K

Temperature ratio 0.909/287 = 0.00317

difference of ratios = 0.00317 - 0.00146 = 0.00171

Temperature increase due to other than solar irradiance increase = 0.00171 x 287 K = 0.491 K

ASSUMING all of that 0.491 K temperature increase is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere and:

5 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere;

95 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from evaporation of surface water mixed with CO2;

Then .05 x 0.491 K = 0.0246 K increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Therefore, the temperature increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere = 100% x 0.0246 K / 0.5 K = 4.92%.

That has to be one of the worst attempts to apply of math I have ever seen.
You can't use the TOTAL CO2 to figure increase in CO2 compared to increase in temperature. You are mixing apples and oranges and pretending you are making lemonade.

Using some simple made up numbers, lets create a scenario -
The ocean takes up 2 billion tons of CO2 a year.
The ocean releases 2 billion tons of CO2 a year.
The atmosphere contains 1 billion tons of CO2.
Assuming there are no other sources of CO2 that means the atmosphere would stay constant.

Now lets add a million tons of CO2 from an outside source.
The atmosphere now contains 1.0001 billion tons of CO2. Where did the other 900,000 tons of CO2 go? How much of the 100,000 tons of new CO2 in the atmosphere came from the ocean? Only someone with no sense would claim that 95% of the new CO2 came from the ocean. The ocean has taken up MORE than it put out so is subtracting CO2 from the atmosphere. The ocean is NOW giving off 2 billion tons of CO2 but taking up 2.009 billion tons. Is the net effect of the ocean to take out CO2 or add it?

You MUST use the net effect of the ocean to figure out what % of the CO2 comes from the ocean. You can't ignore the CO2 that the ocean takes up in your calculations or you are making a mistake a jr high student would make and get graded down for.

0 Replies

Parados, please study my calculations again. You have not correctly understood their purpose.

I am comparing an increase in solar irradiance with an increase in global temperature during a particular period.

The ratio of increase in global temperature exceeds the ratio of increase in solar irradiance.

I subtracted that solar ratio from that temperature ratio and assumed the difference was caused by a CO2 increase in the atmosphere. I understand this overstates atmospheric CO2's effect on global temperature, but I wanted to compute an upper bound on CO2's effect.

I deliberately made six assumptions in computing these upper bounds:

1. Solar irradiance and atmospheric CO2 are the sole causes of global temperature increase.

2. Global temperature increases are directly proportional to solar radiance increases and to atmospheric CO2 increases.

3. The effect of CO2 mixed with evaporated surface water is identical to the effect of equal quantities of human caused CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

4. The 1975 thru 2007 years, and not any preceding years, were the only years within the period 1900 to 2007 of unusually rapid global temperature increase.

5. Each of the foregoing assumptions leads to a calculation that overstates and does not understate the effect of atmospheric CO2 on global temperature. However, that overstatement does provide me with a way to calculate a limit on the effects of atmospheric CO2 on global temperature.

6. 95% of atmospheric CO2 is the CO2 that was mixed with evaporated surface water.

I would appreciate knowing with which, if any, of these assumptions you or anyone else disagrees, and why. I also would appreciate knowing what assumptions, if any, you think are more valid, and why.

Quote:

However, If I use your 0.909 K increase in temperature [not my 0.5 K increase] I get the following result:

Solar Irradiance Increase 1907 to 2007 = 2 W/M^2

Irradiance ratio 2/1370 = 0.00146

For Global Temperature Increase 1907 to 2007 = 0.5 K

Temperature ratio 0.909/287 = 0.00317

difference of ratios = 0.00317 - 0.00146 = 0.00171

Temperature increase due to other than solar irradiance increase = 0.00171 x 287 K = 0.491 K

ASSUMING all of that 0.491 K temperature increase is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere and:

5 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere;

95 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from evaporation of surface water mixed with CO2;

Then .05 x 0.491 K = 0.0246 K increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Therefore, the temperature increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere = 100% x 0.0246 K / 0.5 K = 4.92%.

0 Replies

Quote:

1. Solar irradiance and atmospheric CO2 are the sole causes of global temperature increase.

Quote:

6. 95% of atmospheric CO2 is the CO2 that was mixed with evaporated surface water.

You can't use 'total CO2' when you are computing the increase caused by the increase in CO2. You should only use the "increase in CO2"

When the increase in CO2 is LESS than that put out by humans that means that 95% of the increase can NOT be from the ocean. The net effect of the ocean is to reduce the human increase.

Until you can show that the human caused CO2 is going somewhere other than the ocean and that the oceans are putting out 95% of the increase your argument is based on faulty assumptions.

Quote:

3. The effect of CO2 mixed with evaporated surface water is identical to the effect of equal quantities of human caused CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

That statement makes no sense. What effect? and why are they equal? Is "equal" the same as 95% to 5% you claim elsewhere?

Perhaps I haven't understood your purpose because your math is full of errors. You can't use total CO2 on one side of the equation and increase in CO2 on the other side and claim they are "equal". You leave relevant parts out of your equations. You make **** up. You fail to account for the "net effect" of the ocean in declaring that oceans cause 95% of the increase. Your purpose seems to be to ignore standard mathematical proofs since they would not support your premise. You consistently misread graphs to make the numbers better fit your premise.

So.
1. To figure the cause of CO2 increase in the atmosphere you have to figure "net effect" of each source and sink. When you figure the "net effect" the oceans are NOT the cause of 95% of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
2. To figure the increase in "global temperature" or "global irradiance" you have to use the GLOBAL figures. (Your US graph doesn't state whether it is US or global irradiance. You have already used the US temperatures as if they were global. Now you are using the irradiance numbers when there is no evidence of their being global or US.)
3. Graphs should not be used for figuring small % changes. You need to use the actual numbers used in plotting the graph. You REALLY need to use the actual numbers when you can't read the graphs correctly and make obvious readings that are off by more than 10%. A 10% error in numbers used to factor the change of less than 1% means you have been off by 50% or more in your calculations.
4. To figure progression over time you can NOT use one year vs another year. Statistcal analysis requires a regression. Something you refuse to do time and again no matter how many times you have been told you are in error to figure it the way you do.

0 Replies

My numbers here are based on the magnitudes of differences during 1900 to 2007 between minimum and maximum annual solar irradiances, and between minimum and maximum annual global temperatures. The following graphs provide these numbers as do published tabulations.

US Surface Temperature Trends versus Solar Activity 1880 to 2007

Trend in global average Temperature 1880 to 2007

Maximum solar irradiance (1990) = 1372.5 W/M^2
Minimum solar radiance (1900)= 1369.5 W/M^2
Increase in solar radiance = 1372.5 W/M^2 - 1369.5 W/M^2 = 3 W/M^2

Solar radiance % increase = 100% x 3 / 1371 = 0.219%

Maximum global temperature (2005) = 287.06°K + 0.6046 = 287.6646°K
Minimum global temperature (1909) = 287.06°K - 0.3808 = 286.6792°K
Increase in global temperature = 287.6646°K - 286.6792°K = 0.99°K

Global temperature % increase = 100% x 0.99/287.06 = 0.345%

Difference in % = = 0.345% - 0.219% = 0.126%

Temperature increase due to other than solar irradiance increase = 0.126% x 287.06°K / 100% = 0.362°K

ASSUMING all of that 0.362°K temperature increase is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere and:

5% of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere;

95% of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from evaporation of surface water mixed with CO2;

Then 5% x 0.362°K / 100% = 0.0181°K increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Therefore, the temperature increase caused by human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere = 100% x 0.0181°K / 0.99°K = 1.83%.

The amount of global temperature increase 1900 to 2007 caused by human emissions is secondary almost trivial compared to the primary temperature increase caused by solar irradiance plus evaporation of surface water mixed with CO2 that is evaporated into the atmosphere.

I invite further criticism of my calculations based on other human effects such as land use.[/quote]

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
1. Solar irradiance and atmospheric CO2 are the sole causes of global temperature increase.

Quote:
6. 95% of atmospheric CO2 is the CO2 that was mixed with evaporated surface water.

You can't use 'total CO2' when you are computing the increase caused by the increase in CO2. You should only use the "increase in CO2"

FALLACIOUS!
% change in X = 100% x (Xn - Xo) / X

When the increase in CO2 is LESS than that put out by humans that means that 95% of the increase can NOT be from the ocean. The net effect of the ocean is to reduce the human increase.

FALLACIOUS!

Until you can show that the human caused CO2 is going somewhere other than the ocean and that the oceans are putting out 95% of the increase your argument is based on faulty assumptions.

FALLACIOUS!

Quote:
3. The effect of CO2 mixed with evaporated surface water is identical to the effect of equal quantities of human caused CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

That statement makes no sense. What effect? and why are they equal? Is "equal" the same as 95% to 5% you claim elsewhere?

FALLACIOUS! ATMOSPHERIC HEATING OF QUANTITY Q CO2 EVAPORATED-FROM-OCEAN = ATMOSPHERIC HEATING OF QUANTITY Q CO2 EMITTED-FROM-HUMAN-CAUSED-COMBUSTION

Perhaps I haven't understood your purpose because your math is full of errors. You can't use total CO2 on one side of the equation and increase in CO2 on the other side and claim they are "equal". You leave relevant parts out of your equations. You make **** up. You fail to account for the "net effect" of the ocean in declaring that oceans cause 95% of the increase. Your purpose seems to be to ignore standard mathematical proofs since they would not support your premise. You consistently misread graphs to make the numbers better fit your premise.

FALLACIOUS!

So.
1. To figure the cause of CO2 increase in the atmosphere you have to figure "net effect" of each source and sink. When you figure the "net effect" the oceans are NOT the cause of 95% of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

FALLACIOUS!

2. To figure the increase in "global temperature" or "global irradiance" you have to use the GLOBAL figures. (Your US graph doesn't state whether it is US or global irradiance. You have already used the US temperatures as if they were global. Now you are using the irradiance numbers when there is no evidence of their being global or US.)

FALLACIOUS!

3. Graphs should not be used for figuring small % changes. You need to use the actual numbers used in plotting the graph. You REALLY need to use the actual numbers when you can't read the graphs correctly and make obvious readings that are off by more than 10%. A 10% error in numbers used to factor the change of less than 1% means you have been off by 50% or more in your calculations.

FALLACIOUS!

4. To figure progression over time you can NOT use one year vs another year. Statistcal analysis requires a regression. Something you refuse to do time and again no matter how many times you have been told you are in error to figure it the way you do.

FALLACIOUS! THE GRAPHS AND TABULATIONS I USE ARE REPRODUCTIONS OF THE RESULTS OF REGRESSIONS PERFORMED BY THEIR CREATORS FROM COLLECTIONS OF DATA POINTS TAKEN OVER TIME.

0 Replies

Writing "fallacious" in big blue letters doesn't change anything ican. Your argument is still the same.

I love your claim that it is "fallacious" for me to point you should use the global figures instead of the US figures if you are talking about global irradiance. It is quite funny for you to make such a claim.

0 Replies

Quote:

Maximum solar irradiance (1990) = 1372.5 W/M^2
Minimum solar radiance (1900)= 1369.5 W/M^2
Increase in solar radiance = 1372.5 W/M^2 - 1369.5 W/M^2 = 3 W/M^2

Quote:

FALLACIOUS! THE GRAPHS AND TABULATIONS I USE ARE REPRODUCTIONS OF THE RESULTS OF REGRESSIONS PERFORMED BY THEIR CREATORS FROM COLLECTIONS OF DATA POINTS TAKEN OVER TIME.

If you are comparing the maximum in one year to the minimum in another you are NOT using the regression used in the graph. You are removing the regression created by averaging the year itself.

Why are you using DIFFERENT years now from your earlier claims? You said 2005 before and NOW you are using 1990.

Quote:

In the 100 years 1900 to 2005, Solar Irradiance increased about 2 watts per square meter, or about 0.14%.

And that was after your earlier claim of this

Quote:

Solar Irradiance Increase 1907 to 2007 = 2 W/M^2

But then it was pointed out to you that the graph doesn't go to 2007

You are just all over the place ican. You can't keep your years straight. You can't read graphs. You can't do math. You remove regressions from graphs while saying you don't. You use the word "fallacious" without knowing the meaning.

By the way here is the graph of the solar irradiation from 1978-2007
Notice that there is a 2W/m2 change over the 11 year cycle. That means taking a single year out won't give you accurate measurements for solar activity trends over 100 years. Comparing the minimum from one year to the maximum for another year is even worse in trying to show the solar activity over a long period. You must do a regression to account for the 11 year cycle that we all know exists.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig3_irradiance.gif

I find it interesting that NASA has quite different figures for solar irradiation from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Which do you think is more likely to have accurate numbers that are unbiased? I know which ones gives out the data and and sources for their data. (Hint - NASA)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Writing "fallacious" in big blue letters doesn't change anything ican. Your argument is still the same.

YES, MY ARGUMENT IS THE SAME VALID ARGUMENT.

I love your claim that it is "fallacious" for me to point you should use the global figures instead of the US figures if you are talking about global irradiance. It is quite funny for you to make such a claim.

FALLACIOUS! THE SUN'S IRRADIATION INTENSITY IS INDEPENDENT OF WHICH PART OF THE GLOBE IS EXAMINED FOR TEMPERATURE TRENDS. I'M SURPRISED THAT YOU DID NOT DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF THAT I DID NOT USE THE US TEMPERATURE TREND TO DETERMINE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND.

NATURALLY MY FIRST SOURCE FOR THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND WAS:

Trend in global average Temperature 1880 to 2007-- error corrected

MY SECOND SOURCE WAS:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
1880 thru 2007 Yearly Mean Measurements Atmospheric CO2

The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C + 273.16°K = 287.06°K
1901 -0.0974
1902 -0.1735
1903 -0.2929
1904 -0.3284
1905 -0.2159
1906 -0.1798
1907 -0.3467
1908 -0.3768
1909 -0.3808 +287.06°K
1910 -0.3656
1911 -0.3621
1912 -0.3037
1913 -0.2861
1914 -0.1133
1915 -0.0558
1916 -0.2710
1917 -0.3264
1918 -0.2098
1919 -0.2070
1920 -0.1674
1921 -0.1225
1922 -0.2142
1923 -0.1904
1924 -0.1848
1925 -0.1143
1926 -0.0213
1927 -0.0993
1928 -0.0979
1929 -0.2245
1930 -0.0250
1931 -0.0035
1932 -0.0269
1933 -0.1605
1934 -0.0243
1935 -0.0495
1936 -0.0178
1937 0.0827
1938 0.0979
1939 0.0748
1940 0.1163
1941 0.1380
1942 0.1242
1943 0.1178
1944 0.2134
1945 0.0667
1946 -0.0289
1947 -0.0304
1948 -0.0414
1949 -0.0681
1950 -0.1555
1951 -0.0118
1952 0.0339
1953 0.1128
1954 -0.1115
1955 -0.1314
1956 -0.1878
1957 0.0490
1958 0.0994
1959 0.0530
1960 0.0048
1961 0.0745
1962 0.0979
1963 0.1272
1964 -0.1399
1965 -0.0732
1966 -0.0298
1967 -0.0142
1968 -0.0213
1969 0.0786
1970 0.0324
1971 -0.0643
1972 0.0178
1973 0.1429
1974 -0.1047
1975 -0.0319
1976 -0.1107
1977 0.1282
1978 0.0503
1979 0.1406
1980 0.1887
1981 0.2293
1982 0.1133
1983 0.2716
1984 0.0798
1985 0.0625
1986 0.1496
1987 0.2870
1988 0.2888
1989 0.2087
1990 0.3700
1991 0.3241
1992 0.1894
1993 0.2227
1994 0.2815
1995 0.3981
1996 0.2586
1997 0.4615
1998 0.5764
1999 0.3947
2000 0.3630
2001 0.4934
2002 0.5573
2003 0.5565
2004 0.5337
2005 +0.6046 + 287.06°K
2006 0.5394
2007 0.5484

0 Replies

Prepare for more cooler than usual weather.

SIDC sunspot number was only 2.1 for February, 2008, continuing the rather dormant trend.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
ftp://omaftp.oma.be/dist/astro/sidcdata/monthssn.dat

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...

Quote:
Maximum solar irradiance (1990) = 1372.5 W/M^2
Minimum solar radiance (1900)= 1369.5 W/M^2
Increase in solar radiance = 1372.5 W/M^2 - 1369.5 W/M^2 = 3 W/M^2

Quote:
FALLACIOUS! THE GRAPHS AND TABULATIONS I USE ARE REPRODUCTIONS OF THE RESULTS OF REGRESSIONS PERFORMED BY THEIR CREATORS FROM COLLECTIONS OF DATA POINTS TAKEN OVER TIME.

If you are comparing the maximum in one year to the minimum in another you are NOT using the regression used in the graph. You are removing the regression created by averaging the year itself.

FALLACIOUS! I'M COMPUTING THE INCREASE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FROM ONE YEAR'S AVERAGE REGRESSION CALCULATION TO ANOTHER YEAR'S AVERAGE REGRESSION CALCULATION.

Why are you using DIFFERENT years now from your earlier claims? You said 2005 before and NOW you are using 1990.

Quote:
In the 100 years 1900 to 2005, Solar Irradiance increased about 2 watts per square meter, or about 0.14%.

And that was after your earlier claim of this

Quote:
Solar Irradiance Increase 1907 to 2007 = 2 W/M^2
But then it was pointed out to you that the graph doesn't go to 2007

FALLACIOUS! I EXPANDED THE PERIOD OF ANALYSIS FROM EARLIER POSTS JUST INCASE YOU MIGHT LATER DECIDE TO OBJECT TO THEIR SHORTER PERIODS. THE GRAPH I USED FOR THE SOLAR IRRADIATION TREND DOES IN FACT GO TO 2007.

US Surface Temperature Trends versus Solar Activity

You are just all over the place ican. You can't keep your years straight. You can't read graphs. You can't do math. You remove regressions from graphs while saying you don't. You use the word "fallacious" without knowing the meaning.

FALLACIOUS!

By the way here is the graph of the solar irradiation from 1978-2007
Notice that there is a 2W/m2 change over the 11 year cycle. That means taking a single year out won't give you accurate measurements for solar activity trends over 100 years. Comparing the minimum from one year to the maximum for another year is even worse in trying to show the solar activity over a long period. You must do a regression to account for the 11 year cycle that we all know exists.

WELL THEN, MAKE YOUR OWN CALCULATION OF THE PERCENTAGE THAT HUMAN CAUSED CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING, AND SEE HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IT MAKES.

I find it interesting that NASA has quite different figures for solar irradiation from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Which do you think is more likely to have accurate numbers that are unbiased? I know which ones gives out the data and and sources for their data. (Hint - NASA)

I DO NOT FIND IT "INTERESTING." IT'S MERELY SCIENCE BUSINESS AS USUAL.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know