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

ican is trying to apply common stupidity to this. You seem to be right there with him.

Please feel free to point out the mathematical errors in this paper.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

I feel sorry for parados because he as yet cannot or does not reason logically. Because I feel sorry for him, I feel obliged to help rescue him from his disability regardless of whether I think I can or not. Why do I feel so obliged? Truth is I do not know why I feel so obliged.

Parados, for A-AAGT and AAGT, I am not using any other data from my sources than anomalies for each year with respect to the time period 1901 to 2000--not day, month or something else. For CAD and SI, I am using the values from my sources for the end of each year.

I have multiple times presented you the links to all my sources of data about A-AAGT, AAGT, CAD, and SI. Here they are again:
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

Yes, but you fail to admit that your links show your statement to be a flat out falsehood.

Hadcrut3 does NOT show a downward trend from 1997 to 2008 as you keep claiming. I have said how to check it. You have NOT done so. You continue to claim something that is NOT TRUE.

Take the above numbers which are the hadcrut3 yearly numbers for 1997 to 2008
Copy and paste them into an excel spreadsheet.
Highlight the numbers and click "insert chart"
Select scatter chart.
After the chart is inserted, highlight it then go Chart- insert trendline
Click "linear" then OK

See which way the trend line goes.

Either the enter scientific, mathematical and Microsoft communities are wrong or you are wrong ican. Which do you think it is?

From a visual inspection, the chart's curve trended down. My computer software isn't able to provide me a generationed or superimposed trend line.

YEAR . CAD ...... SI ...... A-AAGT
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

It is a fact that during the specific period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of this fact, SI increases and
decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

We'll have to wait and see what happens next year and within the next solar period.

Really? Using 1997 to 2008?
The numbers are in my post for anyone to chart along with the directions on how to do it. Your claim you think it is up is here for all to see.

I think your statement in light of reality says it all.

It is a fact that during the specific period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGTdecreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of those facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

Where "in this paper" is the following rebutted? Name the page or pages and the paragraph or paragraphs.

It is a fact that during the specific period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

I see, now you are back to using the 12 years of 1998 to 2008?

And during the specific period 1997-2008, TSI DECREASED while global temperature INCREASED.

And during the specific period 1999-2008, TSI DECREASED while global average temperature INCREASED.

When your conclusion depends totally on the arbitrary starting point you choose, ican, and is flatly contradicted when you include essentially the same data but bracket your starting point with ones on either side of it, then, inescapably, your conclusion is merely an artifact of your method, and doesn't really correspond to anything in reality. Garbage in, garbage out, as we keep telling you.

? ? ?
You have got to be kidding!

Back to the facts!

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

Choice of an 11 year period is arbitary. So is the choice of a 12 year period. None the less, it is significant to me that AAGT hit a maximum in 1998. That is, both before and after 1998 AAGT was less than it was in 1998. Also, I think examination of an 11 year period is more pertinent, since the sun goes through its complete radiation cycle every 11 years. During the 11 year period 1988 to 1998 CAD increased, and so did SI, and AAGT increase. But during the 11 year period 1998 to 2008 while CAD continued to increase, SI and AAGT decreased. That of course is my basis for claiming that the likely major cause of AAGT changes is SI changes.

Blatham apparently does not read those scientific sources which disagree with his hysteria.

Bjorn Lomborg, in his book--"Cool It" writes:

"Absent a major policy change, we will continue to burn more fossil fuels over the coming century. This is especially true for the rapidly industrializing developing world such as China and India. Whereas the developing world now is responsible for about 40 per cent of the annual global carbon emissions, by the end of the century that figure will more likely be 75 percent."

Of course,our charismatic president will be able to convince China and India to reduce their c02 emissions.

And our courageous president, fearing for the future of our children, will immediately press for the end of Co2 emission in the USA, no matter the cost or the number of jobs lost.

President Obama is not a political animal. He cares nothing about the future of his party in the 2010 elections or his own reelection. He will strongly urge that stern measure be taken at once, no matter how many US jobs will be lost.

I don't see any evidence that this is true. Can you provide some? Or is this just hysteria on your part?

genoves writes :



some might argue that president obama is in a similar position as the leader of a surgical team who had a very sick patient on the operating table .
remove an infected limb (reduce pollution and global warming = lost jobs) that might infect the whole body if not amputated or let the patient die ?
what decision is the surgeon to make ?

it's not unlike america's economic "medical" state .
there is no doubt that the patient is sick and needs a blood transfusion .
take some blood from "donors" (the american taxpayer ) or hold prayer sessions in the belief that the body will heal itself ... and if not , it's "god' will" . after all , the patient had a "good and long life" .

decisions will have to be made - i'm glad i'm not the one who'll have to make them .
hbg

Hamburger- Your premise is that the surgeon is removing an infected limb.

It is not a good analogy. You see, the patient is the entire world. We, are just a part of that world---let us say the patient's right hand.

Very well. The doctor will remove the patient's right hand, but the legs( China and India) are so swollen that the patient will die anywayIF the diagnosis made by certain doctors are correct.

Indeed, there are other doctors who claim that no amputations are necessary.

Sources? "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg

Not only hysteria, but another conservative plying his fear rhetoric of what Obama will do or won't do. He's been in office not 24-hours, and they're already making conclusions about how he will run his administration and the country.

A NASA image of the planet Earth

©2009 Google - Map data ©2009 Tele Atlas - Terms of UseObama: US will 'roll back the specter of a warming planet'
17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) " The United States will "roll back the specter of a warming planet" and "restore science to its rightful place," President Barack Obama pledged Tuesday in his inaugural address.

"With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet," Obama said, vowing to pioneer a green revolution in renewable energy.

Obama's remarks were a stark departure from the stance of his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose rejection in 2001 of the landmark Kyoto Protocol almost destroyed multilateral efforts to roll back global warming.

It was only after a firestorm of criticism for holding up the deal that the Bush team signed the "Bali Roadmap" in December 2007 during a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting that set a two-year deadline for a global agreement.

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost," Obama said.

"We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."

Obama has called for an effort to overhaul US energy policy on the scale of the Apollo project that first landed a man on the Moon.

His plan includes unleashing 150 billion dollars over 10 years to create five million new "green" jobs, an 80-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and ensuring that 10 percent of US energy consumed comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025.

The first concrete measures aimed at dealing with climate change should emerge soon in Obama's 825-billion-dollar economic stimulus package, said Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"There is no question in my mind that there will be measures from the stimulus bill aimed at among other things cutting emissions," Levi said.

"The stimulus package will have spending aimed at expanding renewable energy production, at improving energy efficiency in buildings and at reforming the electric power grid."

Environmentalists hope Obama will roll back Bush's heritage, moving the United States out of the sidelines in the global arena.

But analysts warn against over-expectations.

Obama's room to maneuver may be limited, cramped on one side by the US recession and on the other by the scant time before the December 2009 deadline for completing the new UN climate treaty.

If Obama is unable to get Congress to pass a law restricting emissions it will be difficult to negotiate a specific target and reach a full and final agreement, said Elliott Diringer of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change.

"If the US is not ready to negotiate a commitment other countries won't be either," Diringer said.

"It's more practical to aim for an intermediary agreement. Maybe an agreement on the architecture of the post 2012 framework, not the specific commitment each country will have, but an overall architecture."
Hosted by Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

******************************************************************

Two vital sections--

NO HYSTERIA-PARADOS--But that is your way to characterize ideas with which you disagree,isn't it?

quote from above--

OBAMA'S ROOM TO MANUEVER MAY BE LIMITED CRAMPED ON ONE SIDE BY THE US RECESSIOON AND ON THE OTHER SIDE BY THE SHORT TIME BEFORE THE DECEMBER 2009 DEADLINE"

When Obama's economic advisers tell him about the numbers of jobs that will be lost and the increase in inflation because of the so called emission restrictions, he would be a fool to press the issue.

I am sure, Parados, that you know that the Kyoto accord, now more than a decade old, was a miserable failure and that few countries in Europe, including those which trumpeted the necessity of emission reductions, even met their agreed targets.

December 2009 will meet the same fate. You know, of course, that it is UNFAIR to saddle DEVELOPING COUNTRIES like C hina and India with such restrictions. You are not Anti-China or Anti-India, are you?

Read the report Cicerone. Then comment on it.

He has indeed been in office only 24 hours and according to the report I copied has made decsions. I think it is a bad one. So do many others.