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

Interesting chart

http://www.nevasport.com/fotos/040708/208808.jpg

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay I have operated under a misconception here. I thought the ones you were posting were those who had jumped ship, but I see now that they include skeptics other than the recently reformed too. That's cool. Just wanted to get it right.

Yes, you have been under a misconception and you argued with me about it a while ago when I pointed it out.

Parados, how about you emulating Foxfyre and confessing your errors on this topic?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Interesting chart

Interesting in that solar radiation has decreased but the temperature hasn't dropped within weeks.

recent volcanic activity

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Okay I have operated under a misconception here. I thought the ones you were posting were those who had jumped ship, but I see now that they include skeptics other than the recently reformed too. That's cool. Just wanted to get it right.

Yes, you have been under a misconception and you argued with me about it a while ago when I pointed it out.

Parados, how about you emulating Foxfyre and confessing your errors on this topic?

I'll wait til you're done confessing your errors.

0 Replies

Not so interesting since the records I have seen show that there is a significant lag between increases or decreases in solar activity and correlating increases and decreases in global temperatures.

And what did I specifically disagree with you about? I didn't think it was a quarrel about whether people had jumped off the global warming bandwagon versus those who never got on it.

0 Replies

And just as we have adjusted to the global warming causing devastating increases in earthquakes, somebody has arrive with a brand new global warming related crisis.....KIDNEY STONES.

Quote:

More Americans are likely to suffer from kidney stones in the coming years as a result of global warming, according to researchers at the University of Texas.

Kidney stones, which are formed from dissolved minerals in the urine and can be extremely painful, are often caused by caused by dehydration, either by not drinking enough liquid or losing too much due to high heat conditions.

If global warming trends continue as projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, the United States can expect as much as a 30 percent growth in kidney stone disease in some of its driest areas, said the findings published in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The increased incidence of disease would represent between 1.6 million and 2.2 million cases by 2050, costing the US economy as much as one billion dollars in treatment costs.

"This study is one of the first examples of global warming causing a direct medical consequence for humans," said Margaret Pearle, professor of urology at University of Texas Southwestern and senior author of the paper.
MORE HERE

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And just as we have adjusted to the global warming causing devastating increases in earthquakes, somebody has arrive with a brand new global warming related crisis.....KIDNEY STONES.

One more nonsense to add to the endless list of things caused by global warming :

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa in conflict, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, Agulhas current moves, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Atlantic less salty...

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And just as we have adjusted to the global warming causing devastating increases in earthquakes, somebody has arrive with a brand new global warming related crisis.....KIDNEY STONES.

One more nonsense to add to the endless list of things caused by global warming :

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa in conflict, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, Agulhas current moves, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Atlantic less salty...

Yup. We're all doomed. DOOMED I say. I was rather disappointed that tooth decay wasn't on that list, Minitax. I had two....count them TWO cavities this past year, and you would think that unusual surge in teeth problems would surely have also been related to global warming somehow.

Seriously, if warmer temperatures contribute to kidney stones, wouldn't you think kidney stones would be epidemic in places like Iraq where triple digit summers have been normal forever or in Death Valley CA or Phoenix - ditto on triple digits or all along the Equator where temperatures are normally much higher than what you find in the southern states in the USA? That the idiots who conducted this study wouldn't look for cultural influences before global warming would be funny if there weren't so many of the gullible who are actually buying into this stuff.

Personally I think they're running out of dissertation topics for PhD candidates and we're seeing a lot more stuff simply made up. I've suspected that for years in the religious community as it is becoming more and more fashionable for the clergy to have a "Doctor of Ministry" among their credentials and there are only so many ways to competently interpret Kant or Nietzsche or Augustine or expansion of Christianity to the New World, etc.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...
How accurate is ican's source? Lets see..
Nasa now thinks 4 of the top 10 hottest years were in the 1930s? Maybe for the US but not when it comes to global temperatures. This is typical of the kind of stuff that the deniers put out. In global temps the 1930s aren't even close to the last decade.
...

NASA is not my source for THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

This is my source:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

0 Replies

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

163+4 = 167.

0 Replies

EACH YEAR'S MONTHLY CELSIUS TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS RELATIVE TO A CHOSEN NORM EQUAL TO:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature = 13.9°C;

WITH CORRESPONDING NUMBERS OF MONTHLY MEASUREMENTS

YEAR JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. YRLYAVG.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

1997 0.151 0.248 0.264 0.195 0.244 0.377 0.372 0.410 0.455 0.494 0.468 0.533 0.351
1997 82 83 82 81 81 80 80 81 80 79 80 81
1998 0.489 0.749 0.547 0.641 0.593 0.604 0.671 0.644 0.392 0.418 0.353 0.447 0.546
1998 81 82 81 79 80 79 79 80 78 79 79 80
1999 0.368 0.545 0.290 0.312 0.233 0.264 0.271 0.235 0.266 0.226 0.211 0.330 0.296
1999 80 80 80 79 78 78 78 80 79 80 80 81
2000 0.206 0.358 0.328 0.450 0.239 0.232 0.256 0.338 0.319 0.192 0.152 0.169 0.270
2000 82 82 80 79 78 78 77 79 77 79 78 80
2001 0.324 0.285 0.488 0.430 0.392 0.415 0.454 0.508 0.402 0.378 0.505 0.320 0.409
2001 79 80 80 79 77 78 79 80 79 79 79 80
2002 0.600 0.612 0.607 0.445 0.441 0.475 0.477 0.420 0.410 0.359 0.395 0.329 0.464
2002 80 81 81 79 79 78 78 80 78 79 81 80
2003 0.527 0.438 0.422 0.414 0.435 0.439 0.453 0.523 0.518 0.565 0.428 0.519 0.473
2003 80 81 80 79 79 79 80 80 80 79 80 82
2004 0.505 0.571 0.510 0.495 0.324 0.347 0.371 0.419 0.446 0.477 0.526 0.376 0.447
2004 81 82 81 79 79 79 79 80 79 79 79 81
2005 0.463 0.376 0.493 0.536 0.480 0.512 0.532 0.503 0.507 0.513 0.494 0.371 0.482
2005 80 81 80 78 79 79 80 81 81 80 81 82
2006 0.296 0.443 0.385 0.357 0.338 0.443 0.434 0.488 0.417 0.481 0.441 0.536 0.422
2006 81 82 83 81 80 81 82 82 82 82 81 82
2007 0.632 0.520 0.441 0.472 0.374 0.375 0.406 0.362 0.410 0.367 0.266 0.212 0.403
2007 81 81 81 81 80 81 81 82 82 81 81 82
2008 0.054 0.192 0.445 0.254 0.278 0.314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.256(thru june)
2008 81 82 83 81 81 81

2005 0.463 0.376 0.493 0.536 0.480 0.512 0.532 0.503 0.507 0.513 0.494 0.371 0.482

2006 0.296 0.443 0.385 0.357 0.338 0.443 0.434 0.488 0.417 0.481 0.441 0.536 0.422

2007 0.632 0.520 0.441 0.472 0.374 0.375 0.406 0.362 0.410 0.367 0.266 0.212 0.403

2008 0.054 0.192 0.445 0.254 0.278 0.314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.256(thru june)

Shocked

Can that be Question

Has there really been a decrease since 2005 Question

1929 -0.451 -0.675 -0.466 -0.387 -0.414 -0.368 -0.402 -0.231 -0.310 -0.208 -0.118 -0.489 -0.376

1930 -0.373 -0.258 -0.185 -0.210 -0.219 -0.202 -0.175 -0.085 -0.096 -0.093 0.029 -0.112 -0.165

1931 -0.041 -0.188 -0.141 -0.195 -0.215 -0.084 -0.039 -0.088 -0.085 -0.071 -0.196 -0.143 -0.124

1932 0.099 -0.192 -0.243 -0.129 -0.199 -0.204 -0.143 -0.213 -0.058 -0.136 -0.225 -0.212 -0.155

Hmmmmmm

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
How accurate is ican's source? Lets see..
Nasa now thinks 4 of the top 10 hottest years were in the 1930s? Maybe for the US but not when it comes to global temperatures. This is typical of the kind of stuff that the deniers put out. In global temps the 1930s aren't even close to the last decade.
...

NASA is not my source for THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

This is my source:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Which was my point. NASA shows quite different and more accurate numbers than you minority Senate report.

0 Replies

ican,
Maybe miniTax or HighSeas can tell you how to figure out trends.

Because the way you are doing it is not the scientific way.

The 6 month temperature you claim shows a trend downward is higher than every yearly temperature before 1990

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:

...
How accurate is ican's source? Lets see..
Nasa now thinks 4 of the top 10 hottest years were in the 1930s? Maybe for the US but not when it comes to global temperatures. This is typical of the kind of stuff that the deniers put out. In global temps the 1930s aren't even close to the last decade.
...

NASA is not my source for THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

This is my source:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Which was my point. NASA shows quite different and more accurate numbers than you minority Senate report.

Yes, you alledge NASA shows quite different numbers.

Yes, you alledge NASA does quite more accurate numbers.

Your allegations are malarkey.

My temperature numbers come from:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
and
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

......... ADD
YEAR 13.9°C TO
1929 -0.376

1930 -0.165

1931 -0.124

1932 -0.155

...

1997 0.351

1998 0.546

1999 0.296

2000 0.270

2001 0.409

2002 0.464

2003 0.473

2004 0.447

2005 0.482

2006 0.422

2007 0.403

2008 0.256

0 Replies

I wonder how many pages the battle of the numbers will consume this time? Smile

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz071608dAPR.jpg

0 Replies

Whatever it takes!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)
--------------------------------------------
Year+Month Station Land+Ocean YrlyAvg
---------------------------------
1998.04 .57 .52
1998.12 1.02 .79
1998.21 .70 .56
1998.29 .71 .56
1998.38 .79 .61
1998.46 .84 .67
1998.54 .90 .71
1998.62 .76 .63
1998.71 .49 .43
1998.79 .58 .40
1998.88 .54 .43
1998.96 .70 .51 .. .535
1999.04 .55 .40
1999.12 .75 .60
1999.21 .35 .27
1999.29 .32 .27
1999.38 .35 .21
1999.46 .54 .36
1999.54 .52 .30
1999.62 .44 .28
1999.71 .43 .27
1999.79 .43 .31
1999.88 .48 .32
1999.96 .36 .33 .. .327
2000.04 .14 .17
2000.12 .61 .51
2000.21 .47 .46
2000.29 .63 .52
2000.38 .41 .29
2000.46 .54 .35
2000.54 .45 .33
2000.62 .49 .38
2000.71 .39 .31
2000.79 .22 .19
2000.88 .36 .26
2000.96 .31 .20 .. 331
2001.04 .51 .38
2001.12 .54 .41
2001.21 .60 .54
2001.29 .41 .39
2001.38 .60 .51
2001.46 .57 .47
2001.54 .56 .50
2001.62 .58 .45
2001.71 .59 .48
2001.79 .50 .44
2001.88 .75 .67
2001.96 .63 .51 .. .479
2002.04 .84 .71
2002.12 .81 .70
2002.21 .99 .84
2002.29 .77 .58
2002.38 .73 .56
2002.46 .52 .46
2002.54 .73 .56
2002.62 .57 .45
2002.71 .62 .48
2002.79 .57 .49
2002.88 .62 .51
2002.96 .45 .36 .. .558
2003.04 .79 .64
2003.12 .67 .51
2003.21 .59 .51
2003.29 .59 .49
2003.38 .74 .51
2003.46 .52 .39
2003.54 .57 .49
2003.62 .76 .63
2003.71 .71 .60
2003.79 .76 .66
2003.88 .59 .49
2003.96 .76 .68 .. .493
2004.04 .61 .52
2004.12 .84 .67
2004.21 .77 .58
2004.29 .67 .52
2004.38 .43 .37
2004.46 .52 .33
2004.54 .21 .22
2004.62 .55 .43
2004.71 .51 .46
2004.79 .72 .58
2004.88 .75 .63
2004.96 .64 .51 .. .493
2005.04 .88 .68
2005.12 .79 .56
2005.21 .85 .70
2005.29 .78 .64
2005.38 .65 .55
2005.46 .72 .59
2005.54 .67 .55
2005.62 .65 .56
2005.71 .85 .68
2005.79 .86 .71
2005.88 .76 .64
2005.96 .72 .59 .. 614
2006.04 .58 .45
2006.12 .78 .59
2006.21 .64 .54
2006.29 .59 .45
2006.38 .41 .43
2006.46 .64 .53
2006.54 .57 .43
2006.62 .71 .59
2006.71 .65 .55
2006.79 .74 .59
2006.88 .76 .63
2006.96 .81 .68 .. .538
2007.04 1.06 .85
2007.12 .78 .61
2007.21 .73 .59
2007.29 .77 .64
2007.38 .72 .55
2007.46 .54 .53
2007.54 .66 .53
2007.62 .77 .56
2007.71 .71 .50
2007.79 .73 .53
2007.88 .66 .48
2007.96 .59 .39 .. .563
2008.04 .35 .14
2008.12 .32 .25
2008.21 .72 .60
2008.29 .52 .42
2008.38 .45 .39
2008.46 .26 .26 .. .343

0 Replies

Who shall I believe? Why does it matter?

Column 1 from
the years 1998 thru June 2008

Column 2 from cru.uea.ac.uk
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Column 3 from data.giss.nasa.gov
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

Yearly Averages:
Col.1 Col.2 Col.3
1998 0.546 0.535

1999 0.296 0.327

2000 0.270 0.331

2001 0.409 0.479

2002 0.464 0.558

2003 0.473 0.493

2004 0.447 0.485

2005 0.482 0.614

2006 0.422 0.538

2007 0.403 0.563

2008 0.256 0.343

0 Replies

Well, if I were you, ican, I wouldn't believe the University of East Anglia figures (as in your cite above for cru.uea.ac.uk) because when you go to the home page of your cite, this is what they have to say about global warming:

Climate change facts
Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise
Fact 3: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
Fact 4: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone
Fact 5: If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix
Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate

Climate change myths
Myth 1: The intensity of
cosmic rays changes climate

Gee, guess the consensus is still alive and well at UEA. You wouldn't fit in well there at all. They'd call you a crank, can't think why. Maybe you'd better believe the NASA figures instead. Uh, no, that wouldn't work either. They also know anthropogenic global warming is happening. What's a poor denialist to do.

0 Replies

The alleged consensus that humans are causing global warming is a myth fostered by a minority not a consensus of scientists.

The temperature trends published by the CRU and NASA groups reveal approximately the same timing of oscillations in average global temperatures but do not show any correlation with the steady non-oscillating increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. Likewise fluctuations in the magnitudes and trends of these oscillations do not correlate with the increase in CO2 density. This clearly suggests that these oscillations are caused by something other than increases of CO2 density in the atmosphere. Therefore the temperature oscillations both groups have been reporting are unlikely to have been caused by what both groups have clearly, irresponsibly jumped to conclude.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

168.
Polar expert Ivan Frolov, the head of Russia's Science and Research Institute of Arctic and Antarctic Regions, said atmospheric temperature would have to much higher to make continental glaciers melt. "Many hundred years or 20-30 degree temperature rise would have made glaciers melt," Frolov said in a December 14, 2006 Russian news article. (LINK) Frolov noted that currently Greenland's and Antarctic glaciers have the tendency to grow. The article explained, "Frolov says cooling and warming periods are common for our planet - temperature fluctuations amounted to 10-12 degrees. However, such fluctuations haven't caused glaciers to melt. Thus, we shouldn't be afraid they melt today."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder how many pages the battle of the numbers will consume this time?

That cartoon bears repeating, Foxfyre. Slowly, I think though that the politicians that are determined to keep many areas off limits to drilling will continue to paint themselves into a corner, with no escape, as their position is indefensible, poorly reasoned, and just plain lousy policy.

I hope McCain comes out for drilling ANWR before Obama does.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know