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

Again, you try to pretend that the first years didn't happen when you only highlight the last 4.

You ignore the numbers you don't want to deal with.
2005, 2006 and 2007 are all warmer than 1997.
Of the last 4 years in the series, 4 are warmer than 2 of the first four years and 3 are warmer than 3 of the first 4 years.

The average temperature of the first 4 years are lower than the average temp of the last 4.
The average of the first 5 is lower than the average of the last 5 years.


Simply putting all the numbers from the 12 years in an excel spreadsheet and graphing it with a trend line shows there is a trend UP, not down.

Your argument is still garbage, no matter how you try to dress it up and hide it.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, temps pretty much normal, no warming in 2008:

Parados,
I'll apply your logic to the AAGT sequence during the 11 year solar period 1988 to 1998. Most everyone agrees that during that period AAGT was up. But AAGT was down 1988 to 1989, 1990 to 1992, and 1995 t0 1996. Therefore, according to your logic, AAGT was down 1988 to 1998, because one cannot validly base their AAGT up or down conclusion on any period's last three or four years of AAGTs, or even on any period's first and last AAGTs.

Parados, your logic is weird!

That's not my logic. That is yours. I never used 2 or 3 year sequences to show trend. I used first years in sequence compared to last years.

For 1988 to 1998 compare average of first 4 years in sequence to average of last 4 years. It's UP.
The average of 1988-1991 is less than the average of 1995-1998, just like it is 10 years later.

Yes, you "never used [3] or [4] year sequences to show trend."
Yes, you "used first years in sequence compared to last years."

IT IS NOT WHAT YOU DIDN'T USE; IT IS WHAT YOU DID USE.

You used what happened to AAFT prior to the period 1998 to 2008 to judge whether or not AAFT was down within the period 1998 to 2008. I said--and provided data to show it to be true: AAFT was down (i.e., declined) within the period 1998 to 2008. Using your logic you said my statement was "garbage in garbage out."

Assume you have been observing a kite over two successive time periods, A and B. The lengths of time of A and B are irrevelent to this discussion. You initially observe at the end of A that the kite was up to 1,000 feet above the ground. Then you subsequently observe the kite at the end of B was down to 500 feet above the ground. Application of your logic leads you to conclude that the kite was not down lower within B because it continued to be above the ground. But the kite was in fact down lower in B from its peak at the beginning of B.

AAFT was in fact down lower at the end of the period 1998 to 2008 than it was in the beginning of that period. AAFT was in fact lower at the end of the period 1998 to 2008 than it was in 2005. In other words, within the two periods I was discussing, AAFT was down, SI was down, and CAD was up.

By the way, these statements of yours, parados, are not relevant to what I was claiming:
"For 1988 to 1998 compare average of first 4 years in sequence to average of last 4 years. It's UP.
The average of 1988-1991 is less than the average of 1995-1998, just like it is 10 years later."

Perhaps in the next 11 year time period (i.e., 2008 to 2016) AAFT will be down, SI will be down, and CAD will be up. If that happens, it will be less credible that CAD's increases and decreases have a major effect on AAFT, but it will be more credible that SI's increases and decreases have a major affect on AAFT.

LOL.. trend over a 12 year period doesn't mean you get to pick 2 years out of that period and say because those 2 years were down the entire 12 years were.

My 4 years at the beginning to 4 years at the end was argument against your "interpretation" of the data. Interpretation is silly because you pick out numbers and then ignore the rest. I was merely pointing out that picking out numbers can lead to a different conclusion.

The PROPER way to do it is a regression. Regression shows your statement to be false.

Parados, your rebuttal is irrelevant to my argument about the eleven year period 1998 to 2008. I am arguing that in that specific period, CAD was up (i.e., increased), SI was down (i.e., decreased), A-AAGT was down (i.e., decreased), AAGT was down (i.e., decreased).

Then I argued that because all that happened, the argument that CAD increases were a major cause of increases in AAGT is unlikely to be valid.

Then I argued that because of that, SI increases and decreases are likely to be the major causes of AAGT increases and decreases.

Then I argued that averaging over one day, then over one month, then finally over one year is a sufficient form of regression to examine the validity of my arguments about trends in CAD, SI, A-AATP, and AATP during the eleven year period 1998 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
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
YEAR . CAD .. SI .... A-AAGT . AAGT
........ UP ... DOWN . DOWN . DOWN
1998 367.61 1366.11 0.546 287.606
1999 368.59 1366.39 0.296 287.356
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270 287.330
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409 287.469
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464 287.524
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473 287.533
2004 378.23 1365.91 0.447 287.507
2005 380.78 1365.81 0.482 287.542
2006 382.55 1365.72 0.422 287.482
2007 384.60 1365.66 0.405 287.465
2008 386.20 1365.60 0.324 287.384
CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBALTEMERATURE,1901-2000, in °K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM
AMAD = AVERAGE MISCELLANEOUS ATMOSPHERIC DENSITIES in PPM

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

Average Annual Global Temperature Trends

Garbage from you again.

Averaging days and months doesn't change the trend line.

I suggest you look at the bottom chart. It shows the trend line in a heavy black line. That line quite clearly shows from 1998 to the end, the trend is UP.

rather than reproducing charts let me give my 50 + years observations from living in the same city - the last 45 years in the same house .
location : eastern ontario - about 1 mile from where lake ontario runs into the
st. lawrence river .
time period : summer of 1956 to january 2009 .

from the time we moved here in 1956 to the early to mid 1980's winters followed pretty much the same pattern :
by late november winter would start with colder temperatures and snow ,
by late december lake ontario would start to freeze over and by early january the eastern end of the lake would have a good icecover ,
in early january discarded christmas trees would be placed on the ice to mark a route to wolfe island (the largest of the 1,000 islands - about three miles off the shoreline ) ,
pretty soon a lot of islanders and locals would cross the frozen lake by car ,
trucks would bring fuel oil and other goods to the island ,
there'd be iceboats and hockey and skating rinks on the ice ,
for a sunday afternoon's walk we would often walk on the ice for a mile or two ,
by late march the coast guard icebreakers would start from downriver (prescott) , work their way upriver into lake ontario and break the heavy ice for the coming shipping season .

when the 80's rolled around we noticed a bit of a change :
the lake would't freeze until mid to late january , the ice cover would be thinner ,
no more cars or trucks would go across the frozen lake ,
people would still walk on the ice - but there'd be fewer and fewer risking it ,
by mid-march the ice would often start to break up on its own (with some heavy groans , and noises that sounded like cannon-shots) ,
the "ice season" would become shorter and shorter .

the previous winter was a bit unusual even for us :
in mid-january we were still sitting on a bench by the lake side and enjoy the sunshine ,
flies were buzing around our backyard in mid-january ,
it was february until the lake started to freeze over - rather thinly - and by mid-march the ice was gone .

this winter has been different :
we had the first snow in november , it was quite cold over christmas/new year ,
there was some moderation in early january but the last week was quite cold - down to minus 25 c for a couple of nights ( however up until the early 8o's temperatures of minus 20 to minus 35 C for weeks on end were not unusual ) ,
today it started to moderate again (minus 10 C at noon and by next weekend we should reach freezing = 0 C ) .

i might also mention the snow :
snowcovers of 4 to 6 feet were the norm until the early 80's - now we usually don't have more than a foot of snow on the ground at any one time .

i'm not a scientist but i'd say that winters in eastern ontario have become milder - will this trend persist ? i don't know !
both environment canada and the canadian weather-network have issued reports that the winters in canada are getting milder - they could have asked me ; i would have told them .
hbg (hoping for spring to arrive soon - i'm not interested in skiing)

ps i know that a short winter will bring us more insects in the summer ; so i hope there will be another 3-4 days of heavy freezing ; that'll be enough to kill the insect eggs .

thanks hamburger

you are a sharp meteorologist observer!

steve wrote :



living for 50 + years in the same place helps .

typical winterscene about january 1969 - queen's university students built elarorate ice sculptures every winter - in the 80's they started to have snow trucked in from the countryside - eventually they had to give up .

Averaging hourly changes the trend line within daily time periods (e.g., AM, PM).

Averaging daily changes the trend line within individual months.

Averaging monthly changes the trend line within years.

Averaging yearly changes the trend line within 11 year or other specified multi-year periods (e.g., decades, generations).

Averaging within 11 year periods changes the trend line within solar cycles that are greater than 11 years..

Averaging within 100 year periods changes the trend line within millenia.

However, because averaging yearly changes the trend line within 11 year periods, that is appropriate for studying the trend within the period 1998 to 2008. That period is of course what I have been discussing here for the past several weeks.

When I look at the charts below, I quite clearly see the AAGT trend line leveling off and subsequently decreasing over tne period 2005-2008, even while CAD has been increasing before and during the same period.

We shall have to wait and see whether those trends continue past 2008.

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

Average Annual Global Temperature

hamburger, what do you see the weather trend in your area to be 2005 to 2008?

Whatever that trend is, it is not necessarily indicative of what the AAGT trend has been during the same period. Notice the differences between the northern, southern and global trends during that same period.

ican wrote :



i would not call any weather pattern over 4 years a trend .
i don't know whether the 1956 - 2009 trend will continue - i'll leave that up to scientists .
i was an accountant/auditor , so i might be able to describe fraudulent acounting trends , but not weather trends .
mine was simply an observation "from the ground" .
i do find this to be a very interesting topic - even for a former accountant .
i don't think i'll attract much attention if i start a topic under the heading of :
"DEBITS AND CREDITS I HAVE OBSERVED " .
hbg



replacing the word "manage" with "mismanage" is optional

ican, the mistake you are making in all of this is that you are trying to apply common sense reasoning to all of this, and Parados would tell you that it just doesn't work, leave it to the experts, such as the unbiased James Hansen that believes the entire creation is about to be destroyed by capitalism unless we do something quick and decisive, such as I'm not sure, maybe go back to the caves?

Actually, it wouldn't if you are comparing anomalies from the norm for that hour on that day.
Again, not if you are comparing anomalies from the norm for that day.

You make the same mistake on every one of your "averages". HADCRUT3 compares the temperature to the norm and lists the change from the norm. You then try to change it to some standard that you think it is for every day and say based on your made up number that we would see trends based on your made up number. HADCRUT doesn't use your made up number. They use a norm based on a 30 year average for each temperature site. NOT your made up number for the globe.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

Check out your northern hemisphere graph for HADCRUT3. You will notice the anomalies don't get higher during summer and lower during winter. This shows that HADCRUT is NOT using yearly temperature as its base number to calculate anomalies as you claim.