76
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:45 am
What if all those wind turbines cause the earth to stop spinning or they create enough lift to cause the earth to fly out of it's orbit. Until we know for sure those things won't happen we should drill for more oil and increase our daily driving to create a need for that oil.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:47 am
Global cooling started in 2000, get used to it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 07:42 am
H2O_MAN wrote:
Global cooling started in 2000, get used to it.

What do you base that on?

Linear regression of annual GISS numbers from 2000-2007 show a warming trend.


Linear regression of annual Hadcrut3 numbers from 2000-2007 shows a warming trend.

Linear regression of both series from 1997-2007 show warming
Linear regression of both series from 1998-2007 show warming.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 08:34 am
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way February 27, 2008

Posted By Marc Morano - 4:57 PM ET - [email protected]

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way

[Disclaimer: Since there is no "normal" temperature of the Earth, there is no way the Earth can have a "fever." The headline's reference to "fever" is for amusement purposes only.]

A sampling of recent articles detailing the inconvenient reality of temperature trends around the planet.

News Round Up

Report: Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (Daily Tech - February 26, 2008)

Excerpt: All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down. […] Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Forget Global Warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (Canada's National Post - Feb. 25, 2008) Excerpt: Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year. […]Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

Arctic Sea Ice Sees 'Significant Increase' in Size Following 'Extreme Cold' (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation -CBC - February 15, 2008)

Excerpt: There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year. Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas. Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years. "It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday. […] Winter sea ice could keep expanding. The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added. "The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said. If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

Ice between Canada and Greenland reaches highest level in 15 years (Greenland's Sermitsiak News - February 12, 2008)

Excerpt: Minus 30 degrees Celsius. That's how cold it's been in large parts of western Greenland where the population has been bundling up in hats and scarves. At the same time, Denmark's Meteorological Institute states that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland right now has reached its greatest extent in 15 years. 'Satellite pictures show that the ice expansion has extended farther south this year. In fact, it's a bit past the Nuuk area. We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south. On the eastern coast it hasn't been colder than normal, but there has been a good amount of snow.'

New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years

(Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was conducted by Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University's Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology - Published online: 30 January 2008)

Excerpt: "The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ?'Medieval Warm Period' is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraäsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised." < > "The new Torneträsk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years." Paper available here: & Full Paper (pdf) available here: (LINK)

Antarctic Summer Thaw 'Later Than Normal' (AccuWeather Global Warming News - February 6, 2008)

Excerpt: Actually, the summer thaw down there was later than normal, and NASA believes that La Nina might have something to do with that. Usually, the breakup of fast ice around the Antarctica Peninsula occurs in early to mid-December, but this area was solidly frozen well into January. By the way, according to the Polar Research Group at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the current southern hemispheric sea-ice area is at 2.9 million sq/km, which is about 400,000 sq/km greater than the normal level expected for this time of year, or slightly above-normal. Based on the latest trend on the chart, it appears that the southern hemispheric sea-ice area could be right at normal by March.

Global warming sceptics bouyed by record cold (UK Telegraph - February 26, 2008)

Excerpt: Global warming sceptics are pointing to recent record cold temperatures in parts of North America and Asia and the return of Arctic Sea ice to suggest fears about climate change may be overblown. According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982. […]Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year. "

GLOBAL WARMING? IT'S THE COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES (UK Daily Express - Feb. 18, 2008)

Excerpt: NEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world's ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night. Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature. It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming. But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the "lost" ice has come back. Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels. Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year. The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming. […] Central and southern China, the USA and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. Even the Middle East saw snow, with Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reporting the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan snow and freezing weather killed 120 people.

Report: Sun's 'disturbingly quiet' cycle prompts fear of global COOLING (February 8, 2008 - Investor's Business Daily)

Excerpt: Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined. And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling - (By Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited in Australia - March 2008 Scientific Paper)

Excerpt: Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United StatesExcerpt: I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth's climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling. […] The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the next few hundred years will offset a couple of millenia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling before we plunge into the next ice age. There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial.

Report: Too Much Ice = Polar Bears Starving? (Scientist Philip Stott's Global Warming Politics - February 15, 2008)

Excerpt: Apparently, according to a report, Svend Erik Hendriksen, a certified weather observer in the Kangerlussuaq Greenland MET Office, who is responsible for all the weather observations at Kangerlussuaq Airport (near to Sisimiut), says that the cause is too much sea ice: "Several polar bears located (at least 6) close to Sisimiut town on the West coast ...Too much sea ice, so they are very hungry...Error number 36 in the movie An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says the polar bear need more ice to survive... Now we have a lot of ice, but the polar bear is starving and find their food at the garbage dumps in towns. It's also influence the local community, polar bear alerts, keep kids away from the schools and so on.... The first one was shot at February 1st." Sadly, that "first one" is the poor female hung out in the newspaper photograp.

Report: Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age - Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years. (Daily Tech - February 9, 2008)

Excerpt: In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond. Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. […] Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes.

Greenland climate not varying from ?'natural climate variabilty' (Greenie Watch - Dec. 2007)

Excerpt: RECENT PAPER ON THE HISTORY OF GREENLAND ICE MASS Showing that, although the Greenland melt has increased during the 1992-2006 period, the melt was even higher in 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. So there is no indication that the current melt is above natural climate variability. Of course people who look just on the 1990 to 2007 period "see" great melting acceleration and influence of carbon dioxide and anthropogenic climate change.

Scientist predicts 'Coming of a New Ice Age' (Winningreen February 2008 ) (By Gerald Marsh. retired physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration.)

Excerpt: Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age. What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended. How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earth's surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don't know. Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit ?- an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. […] NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earth's climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age? We ought to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp. [See also the U.S. Senate Report released December 20, 2007, "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007" - LINK ]
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 09:41 am
parados wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Global cooling started in 2000, get used to it.

What do you base that on?

Linear regression of annual GISS numbers from 2000-2007 show a warming trend.


Linear regression of annual Hadcrut3 numbers from 2000-2007 shows a warming trend.

Linear regression of both series from 1997-2007 show warming
Linear regression of both series from 1998-2007 show warming.


Perhaps true, but interstitial cooling periods do occur in the modern age, as, for example from the late 1940s thru about 1960. Linear regression is merely a mathematical technique to approximate local trends in a data series. It has no intrinsic predictive value or power. Moreover, on a longer scale we are clearly in an interglacial period and headed for yet another ice age. Finally the IPCC concensus view is generally very selectively reported and often grossly distorted by AGW zealots, prominently including Al Gore. The truth is the stories we hear about increased hurricane activity; reversals in ocean currents and the other like catastrophe theories are all unscientific speculations, that are unsupportable by real analysis.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 09:51 am
georgeob1 wrote:


Perhaps true, but interstitial cooling periods do occur in the modern age, as, for example from the late 1940s thru about 1960. Linear regression is merely a mathematical technique to approximate local trends in a data series. It has no intrinsic predictive value or power.
It quite clearly shows that something has NOT occurred based on the data. The claim was made the earth has cooled since 2000. A linear regression using the data shows it has not. I didn't make any prediction. I only pointed out the claim was in error based on the data.

Quote:
Moreover, on a longer scale we are clearly in an interglacial period and headed for yet another ice age.

And your basis for the projection that we are headed for another ice age is....?

When you accuse the global warming science of being overblown you better have a solid basis for your claim of another ice age. I look forward to seeing your data and reading the overwhelming science you have to support it.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 10:26 am
parados wrote:
It quite clearly shows that something has NOT occurred based on the data. The claim was made the earth has cooled since 2000. A linear regression using the data shows it has not. I didn't make any prediction. I only pointed out the claim was in error based on the data.

You're correct. But data do show the Earth is cooling over the past 10 years
Now get used to it :wink:

And Bangladesh is not drowning because Big Al said so, it is gaining lands, get used to it : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm

And sea levels have not risen over the past 3 years despite "unprecedented warming", etc, etc...
All good news aren't they, let's cheer Rolling Eyes

http://trendlines.ca/sealevel-80122.gif
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 11:00 am
miniTAX wrote:
parados wrote:
It quite clearly shows that something has NOT occurred based on the data. The claim was made the earth has cooled since 2000. A linear regression using the data shows it has not. I didn't make any prediction. I only pointed out the claim was in error based on the data.

You're correct. But data do show the Earth is cooling over the past 10 years
Now get used to it :wink:
Don't worry, I am used to your selective use of data. If we use exactly 10 years and not 10 years and 5 months the trend lines change from down to up. It seems you managed to magically select one of the few start points that gives you a down trend. Could that be because you selected the high point in the 11 year solar cycle to form the basis for your 10 year trend?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 11:30 am
parados wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:


Perhaps true, but interstitial cooling periods do occur in the modern age, as, for example from the late 1940s thru about 1960. Linear regression is merely a mathematical technique to approximate local trends in a data series. It has no intrinsic predictive value or power.
It quite clearly shows that something has NOT occurred based on the data. The claim was made the earth has cooled since 2000. A linear regression using the data shows it has not. I didn't make any prediction. I only pointed out the claim was in error based on the data.

Quote:
Moreover, on a longer scale we are clearly in an interglacial period and headed for yet another ice age.

And your basis for the projection that we are headed for another ice age is....?

When you accuse the global warming science of being overblown you better have a solid basis for your claim of another ice age. I look forward to seeing your data and reading the overwhelming science you have to support it.


I don't feel any imperative to prove anything. I am a dispassiojnate observer, but adept at separating fact from propaganda and pseudo scientific hype from the real thing. There has been measurable cooling since 1900, however the amount and the statistical significance of it as it may relate to AGW theories is in some dispute. (There have also been extended sub periods of cooling in the century, as I noted.) The IPCC consensus acknowledges some cooling, "probably" a result of human activity. However the various catastrophe scenarios, ranging from Al Gore's fatuous claim that increased hurricane activity and damage is attributable to AGW; to the predicted reversals of the Atlantic Conveyor current; and other like "tipping point" predictions are NOT grounded in either science or the IPCC concensus view.

The repeated cycles of heating and cooling and the accociated periods of extensive glaciation ("Ice ages") are a well-documented fact in the earth's geological record. While all the details and interactions are not fully understood, it is generally accepted by scientists that the earth is currently in an inter glacial period, and that another will follow. Surely this is not news to you.

Hurricane activity and intensity on the Gulf Coast is NOT increasing. The increased financial losses are far more correlated with increased economic development in formerly vacant sub tropical coastal regions subject to seasonal storms. The oft quoted oceanic numerical models used by scientific tricksters out to get another grant are known to be unable to predict the next occurrence of the El Ninho and other well-document circulation phenomena - due simply to chaos or the non-linear sensivity to initial conditions inherent in the models. (Indeed it is remarkable that a population that lives every day with our known inability to accurately predict the local weatther 14 days into the future, is somehow willing to believe similarly constructed predictions about global catastrophy in a century.) The list goes on.

The credulity of people and their too frequent willingness to accept various catastrophy scenarios and conspiracy theorys (such as the ideas relating to the behavior of oil companies that you appear to be suggesting) remain remarkable phenomena. However, they are examples of human frailties, not wisdom.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 12:02 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
parados wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:


Perhaps true, but interstitial cooling periods do occur in the modern age, as, for example from the late 1940s thru about 1960. Linear regression is merely a mathematical technique to approximate local trends in a data series. It has no intrinsic predictive value or power.
It quite clearly shows that something has NOT occurred based on the data. The claim was made the earth has cooled since 2000. A linear regression using the data shows it has not. I didn't make any prediction. I only pointed out the claim was in error based on the data.

Quote:
Moreover, on a longer scale we are clearly in an interglacial period and headed for yet another ice age.

And your basis for the projection that we are headed for another ice age is....?

When you accuse the global warming science of being overblown you better have a solid basis for your claim of another ice age. I look forward to seeing your data and reading the overwhelming science you have to support it.


I don't feel any imperative to prove anything. I am a dispassiojnate observer, but adept at separating fact from propaganda and pseudo scientific hype from the real thing.
Of course you are. That's why you feel you can make predictions but don't have to back them up. It's only the other guys that make predictions that have to do so.

We don't have the science to predict warming in the next 100 years but you are more than happy to claim we will have another ice age. Sure, "dispassionjnate" [sic] indeed.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 12:51 pm
Well I not only put a typo in dispassionate but I also wrote "cooling" instead of "warming" since 1900. Again, I meant to say there has been measurable warming since 1900, though its significance with respect to AGW is subject to some dispute and uncertainty. The IPCC acknowledges some anthromorphic warming, but avoids any conclusions about its ultimate effect and extent.

That we are in an inter glacial period is an indisputable observation from the geological record. I don't think you can find any contradiction to that in the scientific literature. AGW enthusiasts claim that runaway atmospheric warming will ultimately dominate all other natural process and bring an end to that repeated cycle with a global catastrophe. That proposition is not generally accepted by scientists or by the IPCC consensus view. It is a possibility, in the sense that we can't prove it won't happen, however, the common arguments offered to support the conjecture are known to be flawed.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 01:54 pm
Meanwhile as Walter swelters in unusual German heat, it appears that arctic ice won't disappear this summer as some of the more extreme doom and gloomers had predicted, and in fact the ice melt will be less than last year's 30-year record breaker. (It still blows my mind that some people claiming to be scientists are holding out 30-year trends as significant.)

August 1, 2008
Race between waning sunlight and thin ice
The Arctic sea ice is now at the peak of the melt season. Although ice extent is below average, it seems less likely that extent will approach last year's record low.

The pace of summer decline is slower than last year's record-shattering rate, and peak sunlight has passed with the summer solstice. However, at least six weeks of melt are left in the season and much of the remaining ice is thin and vulnerable to rapid loss. A race has developed between the waning sunlight and the weakened ice.

Note: Analysis updates, unless otherwise noted, now show a single-day extent value for Figure 1, as opposed to the standard monthly average. While monthly average extent images are more accurate in understanding long-term changes, the daily images are helpful in monitoring sea ice conditions in near-real time.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent on July 31 stood at 7.71 million square kilometers (3.98 million square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 8.88 million square kilometers (3.43 million square miles), it was 89,000 square kilometers (35,000 square miles) above the value for July 31, 2007. As is normal for this time of year, melt is occurring throughout the Arctic, even at the North Pole.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 02:24 pm
http://i38.tinypic.com/29atstj.jpg
Quote:
The break-up of ice, known as calving, is regarded by scientists as being symptomatic of the warming of polar areas.

Daily Telegraph: Arctic ice shelf splits in big melt
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 02:48 pm
I don't know, but it just seems logical to me that a lack of ice melt in the Arctic in the summertime would be far more alarming that the fact that ice melt is occurring.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 04:11 pm
TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES

The temperature anomalies for the sample period 1998 thru 2008, listed below in columns 2 and 3, are relative to the 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature of 13.9°C or 57°F.

None of these anomalies are greater than 0.615 °C or 1.11°F. Consequently, the highest average combined land and ocean annual temperature for the period 1998 thru 2008 is equal to 14.515°C or 58.127°F

Column 1 Year for
the years 1998 thru June 2008

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

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

Column 4 January Annual Atmospheric CO2 PPM from ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Yearly Averages:
Col.1 Col.2 Col.3 Col.4
1998 0.546 0.535 364.77

1999 0.296 0.327 367.76

2000 0.270 0.331 368.81

2001 0.409 0.479 370.19

2002 0.464 0.558 372.14

2003 0.473 0.493 374.83

2004 0.447 0.485 376.85

2005 0.482 0.614 378.16

2006 0.422 0.538 381.13

2007 0.403 0.563 382.67

2008 0.256 0.343 385.12

Please note from the above sample that the January Annual CO2 PPMs are increased annually, 1998-2008, while the Annual Average Global Temperatures frequently oscillate over the same period. Consequently, it is clear that annual global temperature does not correlate with Atmospheric CO2 PPM. Since they do not correlate, the allegation that atmospheric CO2 causes earth warming cannot be scientifically supported. Even if they did correlate, that alone would be insufficient evidence to support the claim that either one causes the other.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 04:18 pm
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

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

182
AccuWeather Chief Meteorologist Joe Bastardi questioned whether mankind was driving recent warming or whether it was "the pulsing of the sun" in an April 10, 2007 blog titled, "Does the Sun Have the Smoking Gun?" "People are concerned that 50 years from now it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder," Bastardi, who specializes in long-range forecasts, wrote. "You see, the warmer it gets, the tougher it is to get warmer. There will always be a certain set point in a system and unless the amounts of water and land changes, it will try to get back to that set point. The oscillations of water temperatures can distort feedback from the Earth as I believe we are seeing now, and the dance between the tropics and non tropical areas as far as the weather goes is something that one can see in the [19]30s through the [19]50s, but at least to me disappears in the [19]60s through the [19]80s, or when the Pacific is in its warmer cycle, the Atlantic cooler," Bastardi wrote. He rejected the idea that the CO2 climate connection was the only acceptable view in the climate change debate. "One has to understand that the force feeding of any idea with so many variables in a system is counter to methods long established to prove or disprove theories," Bastardi explained.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:28 pm
Attn: George -

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/01/navy.sub.leak/index.html

Can you tell me more info on this?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 11:49 pm
Is it possible the ridicule finally got to Obama? I heard on the late night news around midnight tonight that he has changed his mind and now supports off shore drilling--this after the Democrats left the Republicans protesting the 'no vote' on that very subject, turned out the lights, and went home for summer recess.

So now what will Obama's ardent supporters say? Those who have agreed so passionately that the ban on off shore drilling should remain in place?

And is it possible that a major economic and security crisis of $4/gallon gasoline and $5/diesel is eroding the global warming doctrine a bit?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv08012008a.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 02:19 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And is it possible that a major economic and security crisis of $4/gallon gasoline and $5/diesel is eroding the global warming doctrine a bit?


People here (not only in Germany but in Europe in general), earn less, pay more for all and everything (especially for petrol* and Diesel) than in the USA.

But at least we survived this "major economic and security crisis" for some couple of years.

*Weekly Retail Premium Gasoline Prices (Including Taxes)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10h6bl5.jpg
<snip>
http://i33.tinypic.com/nw0ri9.jpg
<snip>
http://i36.tinypic.com/2r1zsc8.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/k4guic.jpg

It seems that it might take a long time if such prices will change facts about climate change!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 08:05 am
Germany is about half the size of Alaska, a little over a fourth bigger than Texas. To compare the demographics of any European country, other than Russia, to the USA is like comparing a small French villa to Paris. The dynamics, the way of life, and the expectations are different between the USA and European nations. The high fuel costs here have damaged the economy and will continue to do so until we do something about our dependence on imports of foreign oil. Fuel costs are very cheap in those countries supplying the expensive oil to the rest of us. Russia is struggling with high oil prices not because they do not produce enough oil for their own needs, but they lack sufficient refining capacity which is also a problem here in the USA.

But again my point was that I think maybe some of the more staunch AGW religionists may decide that unacceptably high fuel costs are more unpleasant than rethinking flawed doctrines re global warming.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/11/2026 at 11:56:18