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

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

Global cooling started in 2000, get used to it.

0 Replies

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

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

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

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

0 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

<snip>

<snip>

It seems that it might take a long time if such prices will change facts about climate change!

0 Replies

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

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know