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

@parados,

Pardos wrote:

When you claim something about 12 years of numbers then when asked about it you state you only use 4 years of numbers, you are dealing with nothing but garbage.

I claimed "something about these 12 years of numbers" for 1- 1998, 2-1999, 3- 2000, 4- 2001, 5- 2001, 6- 2002, 7- 2003, 8- 2004, 9- 2005, 10- 2006, 11- 2007, and 12- 2008. That 12 year sequence is greater than the sun's approximate 11 year sunspot cycle. I claimed that during that cycle CAD increased, SI decreased, and AAGT decreased.

Subsequently, I posted that table again, and claimed that CAD was rising, SI was dropping, and AAGT was dropping. You subsequently asked me something about what science I used to support that claim.

Subsequently, I answered INSPECTION and I posted a table of CADs, SIs, and AAGTs over that 12 year cycle with the last 4 years of of AAGTs highlighted. You responded claiming something like: that post was garbage.

Subsequently, I posted the same table--in larger type--with the last 8 years for CADs and SIs, and the last 4 years of AAGTs highlighted. You now claim, I am "dealing with nothing but garbage."

WHY do you think such?

Here's that table again:

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Here's that table again without those highlights and without larger type:

Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
YEAR | CAD is up | SI is down | ANOMALY of AAGT is down|
1998 ..... 367.61 ..... 1366.11 ..... 0.546
1999 ..... 368.59 ..... 1366.39 ..... 0.296
2000 ..... 370.33 ..... 1366.67 ..... 0.270
2001 ..... 371.83 ..... 1366.40 ..... 0.409
2002 ..... 374.45 ..... 1366.37 ..... 0.464
2003 ..... 376.71 ..... 1366.07 ..... 0.473
2004 ..... 378.23 ..... 1365.91 ..... 0.447
2005 ..... 380.78 ..... 1365.81 ..... 0.482
2006 ..... 382.55 ..... 1365.72 ..... 0.422
2007 ..... 384.60 ..... 1365.66 ..... 0.405
2008 ..... 386.20 ..... 1365.60 ..... 0.324

NOTE:
CAD = CO2 Atmospheric Density in ppm;
SI = Solar Irradiance in W/M^2;
ANOMALY of AAGT = CAGT - AAGT = Century (1901 -2000) Average Global Temperature minus Annual Average Global Temperature in degrees Kelsius.

1 Reply

Everyone seems to be ignoring the basic fact that we're at the top of a temperature spike which has been in the making for 70,000 years. If the pattern holds (as it has for the last 600,000 years), then the climate is going to get a bit warmer (regardless of what we do) and then it's going to crash back into an ice age.

Does anyone really think that any human activity at all can alter the natural cycle one way or the other? I have my doubts that the titanic forces which drive the planetary climate can be greatly effected no matter what we do. I still think we should minimize our impact on the environment, just because it's stupid to piss in your own pool. But I think the environment is going to have its way with us pretty much whatever we do.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne wrote :

Quote:

I still think we should minimize our impact on the environment, just because it's stupid to piss in your own pool.

can't put it any better than that - but some people do piss in their own pool .
hbg

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I honestly don't know how much impact it is possible for humankind to have on global climate, Ros, though I figure if we set off all the world's nukes at once, we would certainly see a difference for awhile. We know that the impact of huge asteroids or very large volcanic eruptions do affect the world climate either short term (a few months or years) or long term (several centuries.)

Considering the massive amounts of CO2 that are emitted from the world's vegetation on an ongoing basis, and from the soil and oceans during warming periods, and/or from volcanic activity, I do have a very difficult time believing that the relatively miniscule amounts added to that via human activity could possibly have catastrophic affect on global climate.

I have always and will continue to speak out and do what I reasonably can to stop careless or intentional pollution of the air, water, and land. I cannot personally justify killing anything purely for sport though I have no problem with those who hunt and fish for food or manage overpopulations to prevent starvation, etc. I also appreciate beauty as much as anybody and want nothing done to spoil the pure aesthetic pleasures of our beautiful planet. I am 100% in favor of study and research that helps us preserve it.

But I don't think the CO2 produced by the neighbor's Hummer is going to do any significant or lasting harm to anybody and I strenuously object to denying him the right to choose it and drive it based on probable fuzzy science that some would use to make him unable to do that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

But I don't think the CO2 produced by the neighbor's Hummer is going to do any significant or lasting harm to anybody and I strenuously object to denying him the right to choose it and drive it based on probable fuzzy science that some would use to make him unable to do that.

have you ever noticed the smog that forms over large cities on hot and humid days ?
when we are driving toowards toronto during the summer that plume is visible from as much as 50 miles away .
it sure gives me coughing fits .
(btw we now go by train - cleaner and cheaper .)
sure , it's not "that one hummer" the neighbour drives - but there are millions of us - me included - that are driving , there are factories , powerplants ... add them all together and there is a fine soup "to breathe" - i don't think we should wait until north-american cities all become like mumbai when it comes to air quality (won't repeat the words about the pool ... ...) .
hbg

greetings from mumbai :

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2008/Feb/assets/img/hires/Maharashtra/mumbai-smog.jpg

2 Replies

@hamburger,

But the smog that hangs over your city (and occasionally ours) is composed of a number of things--wood smoke is a biggie here and is banned during times that smog formation is likely--but it is not caused by CO2 which is trotted out as the No. 1 culprit in causing global climate change. Note that my comment was regarding CO2 and nothing else.

I think it is important to know that one thing is not the same as another. I think if you ban my neighbor's Hummer, it needs to be on more solid criteria than an assumption that the Hummer is increasing global warming to the detriment of humankind.

For that matter, if we would encourage populations to spread out and become mostly rural as they once were, smog would mostly not be a problem anywhere.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

foxfire :

i really don't care to know what makes me cough in smog laden cities - knowing the chemical composition of the smog won't make my cough disappear .

as i said : "it's not that ONE hummer (or perhaps wood burning fireplace ) that's the problem .

Quote:

it's not "that one hummer" the neighbour drives - but there are millions of us - me included - that are driving , there are factories , powerplants ... add them all together and there is a fine soup "to breathe" -

take care !
hbg

0 Replies

@hamburger,

What has Los Angeles--a city during the summer with a far greater density of operating automobiles including Hummers and 18 wheeler trucks, plus factories , powerplants, etc. per square mile--done to limit its smog density well below that of Mumbai? Maybe Mumbai can do the samething!

1 Reply

@hamburger,

hamburger wrote:

okie :

i don't know if you read my post http://able2know.org/topic/44061-599#post-3528194

i'll repeat a short part of it - it's from canada's DOE - they forecast a temperature increase of 1 to 6 C by 2100 .

Yeah, I read it, hamburger, but any projection that can't get closer than a magnitude of 600% is not much good, so I pretty much dismissed it as useless speculation rather than serious science.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Albuquerque used to be plagued with a nearly perpetual brown cloud enveloping the lower elevations of the city throughout most of the winter and was frequently gigged for poor air quality. Once they mandated the 'no burn' nights for fireplaces and wood burning stoves and no open burning of any kind, plus took some other measures to scrub what industry we have in the area, the brown cloud is mostly gone now and Albuquerque goes a whole year at a time with 365 consecutive days of excellent air quality.

During that time the population has increased almost two fold and the traffic seems to have increased threefold all the while the smog was diminishing to nothing and the air quality improving.

But I'm sure we're making a lot more CO2 than we used to here. I just have a hard time thinking of that as a pollutant when it is at a level that doesn't kill vegetation, wild life, or people.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

And your claims are still garbage.
"Inspection" reveals that 2001 through 2008 are all have higher temps than 1999 and 2000.

Running a linear regression on the data shows almost no change in temperatures over that time period.
Running a regression including 1997 shows an increase in temperatures. Running a regression from 1999 to 2008 shows an increase in temperatures.

There is no decrease in temperature anomaly unless you cherry pick your numbers. Your "inspection" is subjective in that you see only what you want to see. That means you are providing nothing but garbage. You are not using a standard checkable method. You are just claiming something is because you want to believe it is.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I love your claim that 1998-2008 is 12 years inclusive. That one was quite funny and reveals how bad you are at the numbers.

Quote:

I claimed "something about these 12 years of numbers" for 1- 1998, 2-1999, 3- 2000, 4- 2001, 5- 2001, 6- 2002, 7- 2003, 8- 2004, 9- 2005, 10- 2006, 11- 2007, and 12- 2008. That 12 year sequence is greater than the sun's approximate 11 year sunspot cycle.

1997 to 2008 is 12 years ican. 1997 to 2008 shows an increase in temperature.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I love your claim that 1998-2008 is 12 years inclusive. That one was quite funny and reveals how bad you are at the numbers.

Excellent! I'm glad to have accommodated your sense of humor! Yes indeed, 1997-2008 is 12 years. Yes indeed, 1998-2008 is 11 years, and the 12 year sequence 1997-2008 is greater than the sun's approximate 11 year sunspot cycle.

I'm not scheduled to be perfect until next Tuesday! But I'm way, way, ... way behind schedule. What's your schedule and status?

Thank you for accommodating my sense of humor with this statement:

parados wrote:

1997 to 2008 shows an increase in temperature.

You, of course, recognize that AAGT was lower in 2008 than it was in 1997. Ha Ha! You're quite a joker!

Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
YEAR | CAD is up | SI is down | ANOMALY of AAGT is down|
1997 ….. 364.89 ….. 1365.75 ….. 0.405
1998 ..... 367.61 ..... 1366.11 ..... 0.546
1999 ..... 368.59 ..... 1366.39 ..... 0.296
2000 ..... 370.33 ..... 1366.67 ..... 0.270
2001 ..... 371.83 ..... 1366.40 ..... 0.409
2002 ..... 374.45 ..... 1366.37 ..... 0.464
2003 ..... 376.71 ..... 1366.07 ..... 0.473
2004 ..... 378.23 ..... 1365.91 ..... 0.447
2005 ..... 380.78 ..... 1365.81 ..... 0.482
2006 ..... 382.55 ..... 1365.72 ..... 0.422
2007 ..... 384.60 ..... 1365.66 ..... 0.405
2008 ..... 386.28 ..... 1365.60 ..... 0.324

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

CORRECTION
Ha! Ha!

The 1997 Anomally of AAGT = 0.351. Therefore:

Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
YEAR | CAD is up | SI is down | ANOMALY of AAGT is down|
1997 ….. 364.89 ….. 1365.75 ….. 0.351
1998 ..... 367.61 ..... 1366.11 ..... 0.546
1999 ..... 368.59 ..... 1366.39 ..... 0.296
2000 ..... 370.33 ..... 1366.67 ..... 0.270
2001 ..... 371.83 ..... 1366.40 ..... 0.409
2002 ..... 374.45 ..... 1366.37 ..... 0.464
2003 ..... 376.71 ..... 1366.07 ..... 0.473
2004 ..... 378.23 ..... 1365.91 ..... 0.447
2005 ..... 380.78 ..... 1365.81 ..... 0.482
2006 ..... 382.55 ..... 1365.72 ..... 0.422
2007 ..... 384.60 ..... 1365.66 ..... 0.405
2008 ..... 386.28 ..... 1365.60 ..... 0.324

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The best way to deal with anomalies in data is to do a regression of some kind.

Because the last data is lower than the first doesn't show the trend. Using only 2 points of data out of 12 is cherry picking.

1 Reply

I can't believe how some people still buy into this man made global warming scam...
No wonder the world is going down the toilet, it's full of morons!

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The best way to deal with anomalies in data is to do a regression of some kind.

Yes! For example, compute the average for each day, then compute the average for each month, and then compute the average for each year. That was what was done.

parados wrote:

Because the last data is lower than the first doesn't show the trend. Using only 2 points of data out of 12 is cherry picking.

True but irrelevant since that isn't what was actually done!

What was actually done was to show in enlarged bold type a 4 year decreasing trend in Anomalies of AAGT from 2005 to 2008.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
YEAR | CAD is up | SI is down | ANOMALY of AAGT is down|
1997 ….. 364.89 ….. 1365.75 ….. 0.351
1998 ..... 367.61 ..... 1366.11 ..... 0.546
1999 ..... 368.59 ..... 1366.39 ..... 0.296
2000 ..... 370.33 ..... 1366.67 ..... 0.270
2001 ..... 371.83 ..... 1366.40 ..... 0.409
2002 ..... 374.45 ..... 1366.37 ..... 0.464
2003 ..... 376.71 ..... 1366.07 ..... 0.473
2004 ..... 378.23 ..... 1365.91 ..... 0.447
2005 ..... 380.78 ..... 1365.81 ..... 0.482
2006 ..... 382.55 ..... 1365.72 ..... 0.422
2007 ..... 384.60 ..... 1365.66 ..... [0.405
2008 ..... 386.28 ..... 1365.60 ..... 0.324

2 Replies

NCDC annual global temp. comes in at +0.4869 C, which is the coolest since the year 2000, another indicator that temps have plateaued out over the past 8 years or so.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

In the sun's 11 year sunspot cycle 1998-2008, Anomalies of AAGT decreased irregularly from a high of 0.546 to a current low of 0.324. During that same time period CAD increased steadily from 367.61 to 386.28 , while SI decreased irregularly from 1366.11 to 1365.60.

During the period 2005-2008, Anomalies of AAGT decreased steadily from 0.482 to 0.324. During that same time period CAD increased steadily from 367.61 to 380.78, while SI decreased steadily from 1365.81 to 1365.60.

These facts imply that CO2 steady increases in the atmosphere have far less effect on Anomalies of AAGT than do irregular decreases in SI.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know