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

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850 to 2008

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CO2 Trend 1958 to 2008

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001
================================================
Lots of folks are making global warming models that cannot be substantiated. Here's mine. (More about this after Christmas.)

AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K, 1901 TO 2000. 287.06
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °C, 1901 TO 2000. 13.9
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °F, 1901 TO 2000. 56.9

......................................... 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Solar Irradiance = SI = W/M^2 = 1365.5 1365.6 1365.7 1365.8 1365.9 1366.0
Carbon Atmospheric Density = CAD = CO2 PPM = 241.6 267.6 293.6 319.6 345.6 371.6
Miscellaneous Forcing Functions = MFF = X PPM 6 7 8 9 9 10
F = 0.20620000 0.20594200 0.20568550 0.205429430 0.20517660 0.20492300
G = 0.0206200000 0.0205942000 0.0205685500 0.0205429430 0.0205176600 0.0204923000
H = 0.00206200000 0.00205942000 0.00205685500 0.00205429430 0.00205176600 0.00204923000
AAGT °K = F*SI+G*CAD+H*MFF 286.560 286.760 286.960 287.160 287.360 287.560
ANOMALY °K & °C -0.500 -0.300 -0.100 0.100 0.300 0.500

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K, 1901 TO 2000. 287.06
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °C, 1901 TO 2000. 13.9
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °F, 1901 TO 2000. 56.9

Lets start with the simplest of your numbers. Where do you get your numbers for 13.9°C being the average for 1901-2000?

GISS uses 1951-1980 as the their base point with a temperature of 14°C. The average for 1901-2001 is .151°C higher than their 30 year base point

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Quote:

Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F,

This would mean the average using GISS numbers is 14.2°C

Hadcrut3, which you posted graphs for states it doesn't do an average.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Quote:

Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?

Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year.

But then you give us a silly formula.
AAGT °K = F*SI+G*CAD+H*MFF
So.. let's examine that formula. F, G, and H are all the same numbers
That means the formula can be expressed as AAGT °K = F(SI+CAD+MFF)
So... YOU get temperature by adding Watts + PPM of CO2 + PPM of misc Forcing.

Your formula makes absolutely no sense. PPM of CO2 can't be added to Watts because they are not the same unit. Temperature can't be calculated from watts without knowing heat loss if any and specifics of the object you are heating. You have not created a formula where Temperature is the result of the other side of the equation. You have presented garbage. This isn't a misrepresentation as much as an outright fabrication of numbers that ignore simple physics.

The other problem you have with your formula ican is if it is valid, then it PROVES that CO2 is a direct cause of warming. Something you claim can't be happening.

1 Reply

@parados,

My mistake in restating your formula. H, G, and F are actually each other divided by 10.

That means the formula can be expressed as AAGT °K = F(SI+CAD/10+MFF/100)

What makes it funny is when you simply replace the CO2 PPM in the last year with the CO2 PPM in the first year it means that the CO2 is producing 208% of global warming using your formula. The increase in solar energy actually reduces the temperature.

(My original mistake not dividing it by 10 meant it only produced 103% of the warming.)

1 Reply

@parados,

For heavens' sake Parados, stop with your back-of-the-envelope calculations - you're doing a disservice to your profession, not to mention your fellow posters. This "global warming" joke has continued long enough!

Quote:

.....Imperial College London astrophysicist and long-range forecaster Piers Corbyn wrote British members of Parliament on Oct. 28. "According to official data in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been colder than that year, yet CO2 has been rising rapidly." That evening, as the House of Commons debated legislation on so-called "global warming," October snow fell in London for the first time since 1922.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/21/global-cooling/

1 Reply

@High Seas,

The WashingtonTimes.? That's a reliable science source?

That is some funy stuff there in the WTimes story High Seas.
Piers Corbyn?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Piers_Corbyn
Perhaps if you could post Corbyn's "Official data" then we could check his work.
Here is someone that offered to bet Corbyn on his prediction. It seems Corbyn was a no show on that.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/trying-to-bet-on-climate-with-piers.html

But the next paragraphs in the WTimes story say this.

Quote:

These observations parallel those of five German researchers led by Professor Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences. "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade," they concluded in last May's Nature, "as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."

This "lull" should doom the 0.54 degree Fahrenheit average global temperature rise predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Vatican of so-called "global warming." Incidentally, the IPCC's computer models factor in neither El Nino nor the Gulf Stream. Excluding such major climate variables would be like ESPN ignoring baseball and basketball.

Compare how the WTimes uses Keenlyside's work to what Keenylside himself said in this Rueter's story
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL3084412620080430

Quote:

"The natural variations change climate on this timescale and policymakers may either think mitigation is working or that there is no global warming at all," said Noel Keenlyside, a climate researcher at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany who led the study.

Climate researchers have long predicted more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would spur a general warming trend over the next 100 years. The study in the journal Nature is one of the first to take a shorter-term view.

This is useful because natural changes as opposed to human causes may play a bigger role in the short term, Keenlyside said.

It seems WTimes is using Keenlyside's research in the way he warned it should NOT be used.

And this from the BBC about the research
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

Quote:

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.

The joke's on you High Seas if you actually expected a story in the WTimes to be truthful or you expected anyone to take it at face value like you seem to have. If anyone is doing a disservice to themselves or their "profession", it would be you High Seas for posting that crap without bothering to check any of it.

2 Replies

@parados,

Parados - I checked the British version of events and it corresponds exactly to the excerpt I posted. THAT was the joke, not what you frantically dug up....

Merry Christmas to you too - it only sounds late, but then you obviously live in a time warp where "c" propagates in a Bose-Einstein condensate.... Smile

2 Replies

@parados,

Here is a very interesting read on Keenlyside's work including discussion with the author.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/02/nature-article-on-cooling-confuses-revkin-media-deniers-next-decade-may-see-rapid-warming/

0 Replies

As promised, here is more about my alternate, arbitrary model of climate change attributed to Solar Irradiance, CO2 density in the atmosphere, and miscellaneous forcing functions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 1901 TO 2000 = 287.06 °K 287.06
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 1901 TO 2000 = 13.9 °C 13.9
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 1901 TO 2000 = 56.9 °F 56.9
YEAR = ................................. 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Solar Irradiance = SI = W/M^2 = 1365.5 1365.6 1365.7 1365.8 1365.9 1366.0
Carbon Atmospheric Density = CAD = CO2 PPM = 241.6 267.6 293.6 319.6 345.6 371.6
Miscellaneous Forcing Functions = MFF = MISC PPM = 6 7 8 9 9 10
F = 0.20620000 0.20594200 0.20568550 0.205429430 0.20517660 0.20492300
G = 0.1 * F 0.0206200000 0.0205942000 0.0205685500 0.0205429430 0.0205176600 0.0204923000
H = 0.1 * G = O.O1 * F 0.00206200000 0.00205942000 0.00205685500 0.00205429430 0.00205176600 0.00204923000
AAGT °K = F*SI + G*CAD + H*MFF 286.560 286.760 286.960 287.160 287.360 287.560
ANOMALIES °K = °C = -0.500 -0.300 -0.100 0.100 0.300 0.500

Quote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
Climate of 2007
Annual Report
National Climatic Data Center
15 January 2008
...
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F), the annually averaged land temperature for the same period is 8.5°C (47.3°F), and the long-term annually averaged sea surface temperature is 16.1°C (60.9°F).

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Ah.. Ironic that it snowed on the day. Yes, I would agree with that. Your personal attack on me certainly seemed to indicate that your reason for posting was not to simply point out an irony. Perhaps if you had left that part out I would have seen your attempt was only to point out the irony of snow on a day they discussed global warming. (I don't think that was your purpose for posting what you did. Nor do I think anyone else reading your post will think that was your sole purpose.)

Snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped which was the thrust of the story in the WTimes or did you miss that part of it?

1 Reply

@parados,

Snow does not mean global warming is real.
Global warming is in fact a made up problem.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Now we have a basis for your 13.9 statement.

So, lets deal with your model - Are you arguing that CO2 is the primary cause of warming because that is what your model shows.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

This "global warming" joke has continued long enough!

Is English a second language for you High Seas? I find your choice of words to be odd if the joke you were highlighting was about it snowing on the day they discussed global warming.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

CORRECTION OF COPYING & FORMAT ERRORS

As promised, here is more about my alternate, arbitrary model of climate change attributed to Solar Irradiance, CO2 density in the atmosphere, and miscellaneous forcing functions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 1901 TO 2000 = 287.06 °K
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 1901 TO 2000 = 13.9 °C
AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 1901 TO 2000 = 56.9 °F
YEAR = ................................. 1900 ...... 1920 ...... 1940 ...... 1960 ...... 1980 ...... 2000
Solar Irradiance = SI = W/M^2 = .... 1365.5 .... 1365.6 .... 1365.7 .... 1365.8 .... 1365.9 .... 1366.0
Carbon Atmospheric Density = CAD = CO2 PPM = .... 241.6 .... 267.6 .... 293.6 .... 319.6 .... 345.6 .... 371.6
Miscellaneous Forcing Functions = MFF = MISC PPM = .... 6 ........ 7 ........ 8 ........ 9 ........ 9 ........ 10
F = 0.2062 .... 0.205942 .... 0.2056855 .... 0.20542943 .... 0.2051766 .... 0.204923
G = 0.1 * F = 0.02062 .... 0.0205942 .... 0.02056855.... 0.020542943 .... 0.02051766 .... 0.0204923
H = 0.01* F = 0.002062.. 0.00205942 .. 0.002056855 .. 0.0020542943 .. 0.002051766 .. 0.00204923
AAGT °K = F*SI + G*CAD + H*MFF = .... 286.560 .... 286.760 .... 286.960 287.160 .... 287.360 .... 287.560
ANOMALIES °K = °C = (AAGT - 287.06 ) = .... -0.500 .... -0.300 .... -0.100 .... 0.100 .... 0.300 .... 0.500

Quote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
Climate of 2007
Annual Report
National Climatic Data Center
15 January 2008
...
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F), the annually averaged land temperature for the same period is 8.5°C (47.3°F), and the long-term annually averaged sea surface temperature is 16.1°C (60.9°F).

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

OK, you've posted your "model" a couple of times but haven't addressed the criticism yet, so let me repeat it.

If, and a mighty big IF, we assume your model is correct that means for 1901

.2062*1365.5+.02062*241.6+.002062*6=286.560

which it does.
We do the same with your numbers for 2000.
.204923*1366+.0204923*371.6+.00204923*10=287.560
Again your numbers work out perfectly.

So, in order to factor what the temperature would have been without the increase in CO2 we simply substitute 241.6 for 371.6
.204923*1366+.0204923*241.6+.00204923*10=284.89625

That means with your model, if CO2 had not increased the temperature would have dropped. That means that not only did the CO2 cause warming it prevented cooling from occurring at a time when the the sun gave off more energy. The earth would have been 2.663999 cooler without the increase in Co2 based on your model. Either you model disproves your earlier claims that CO2 is not the primary cause of warming or your model is completely wrong.

Just for shits and giggles, lets use your formula for Venus which has an atmosphere that is 96% CO2.
.204923*1366+.0204923*960,000+.00204923*10= 19952.55331

The temperature of the surface of the sun is about 4400-6600°K
Your model means Venus should be 3 times hotter than the sun. I don't think it is, do you?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Are you arguing that CO2 is the primary cause of warming because that is what your model shows.

It is difficult to determine from my arbitrary model which -- SI, CAD, or MFF-- is the major or primary cause of warming.

To analyze the truth of the quoted statement, make an exact copy of my model, then do the following:
(1) write down the values for AAGT for 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.
(2) then make all the entries for SI = 1365.5, showing no change for SI.
(3) then write down the values for AAGT for 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.
(4) then make all SI entries equal to their original values.
(5) then make all the entries for CAD = 241.6, showing no change for CAD.
(6) then write down the values for AAGT for 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.
You will then see how AAGT's year to year differences vary from the Model's values post year 1900 for step (2) and for step (5).
(1) Model, AAG=: ....... -0.5 ....... -0.3 ........ -0.1 ........ 0.1 ........ 0 .3 ........ 0.5
(3) SI constant, AAGT= -0.5 ....... -0.032 ... -0.561 ... 1.09 ... 1.615 ....... 2.142
(5) CAD constant, AAGT= -0.5 ... -0.483 ... -0.467 ... -0.450 .. -0.436 ... -0.419

It appears to me that the values of AAGT are more sensitive to CAD changes when SI is constant than to SI changes when CAD is constant. But neither CI values alone or SI values alone deliver nearly accurate values for AAGT. However, when SI is constant the rate of warming is greater than the model shows, but when CAD is constant there is continuous small rate of cooling.

Where can we find a better model? (0| ~)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

So, your model is not in keeping with your claims about global warming.

Your model is wrong
Your statements are wrong or
Both are wrong.

1 Reply

@parados,

Yes, my arbitrary model is biased toward Carbon Atmospheric Density = CAD = CO2 PPM and is therefore wrong. When I have time, I'll present another arbitrary model biased toward Solar Irradiance = SI = W/M^2 . Perhaps that model will be closer to right.

But where do you think I can get a better model?

Do you know of a better model?

1 Reply

while i have followed the topic with some interest and have in the past posted some comments , i am not qualified to make any scientific contributions to it .

some of you may be interested in the proceedings of the "arctic change conference" held in quebec city from dec 9 to 12 , 2008 .

the introduction , program and abstracts are available at this website :

http://www.arctic-change2008.com/

one would need a bit of time and scientific understanding to really work through the information presented .
i have glanced through it and perhaps have a somewhat better understanding of the challenges ahead - strictly from a layperson's point of view .
hbg

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I would suggest you start with the models published in scientific journals since those are peer reviewed and avoid the mistakes you are making.

0 Replies

Lots of folks are making global warming models that cannot be substantiated. Here's another arbitrary model of mine that cannot be substantiated.

AVG TEMP 1900 TO 2000 = 287.06 °K ..... YEAR = 1900 .. 1920 .. 1940 .. 1960 .. 1980 .. 2000
AAGT in °K ............................................ 286.56 .. 286.76 .. 286.96 .. 287.16 .. 287.36 .. 287.56
SI in W/M^2 .......................................... 1365.5 .. 1365.6 .. 1365.7 .. 1365.8 . 1365.9 .. 1366.0
AAGT / SI = ........................................... 0.209857 .. 0.209988 .. 0.210119 .. 0.210250 .. 0.210381 .. 0.210512
Computed AAGT in °K ................................ 286.5597335 .. 286.7596128 .. 286.9595183 .. 287.15945 .. 287.3594079 .. 287.559392
AA = AVERAGE TEMPERATURE 1901 TO 2000 in °K .. 287.06 .. 287.06 ..287.06 .. 287.06 .. 287.06 .. 287.06
ANOMALIES in °K = AAGT - AA ....................... -0.500267 .. -0.300387 .. -0.100482 .. 0.099450 .. 0.299408 .. 0.499392

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know