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

Which is why, though any given year (or two years) may be a bit warmer or cooler, the temp trend is still UP.

And, ican, using your own deeply flawed method of analysis,which you employ repeatedly, and applying it to your own data from 1988 to 2008 above, and comparing, by your method, the data from 1988 with the data from 2008, we see that SI has DECREASED over the period,, while global temp has INCREASED, AS HAS CO2. Since the signs are different, the conclusion is inescapable that the temp increase is not due to the sun, but rather to the increase in CO2. Your own method produces a result directly the opposite of what you claim.

That's because your analyses are not accurate models of the global system.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS NOT LEVELLED OFF SINCE 1998, NOR IS IT DECLININ G. According to NASA, 2005 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 1998, 2007 was on track to be the hottest year since records have been kept until a la Nina set in late in the year, which continued to 2008 (since they start in the fall and last between 6 and 9 months usually, they impact two years of global temp). f

If you have been paying any sort of attention, ican, which you show no evidence of having done, you should realize by now that only a total ignoramus would contend that the only two variables having an effect on global temp are TSI and CO2. In point of fact, as virtually any climate scientist will tell you, El Nino-la Nina-ENSO , which is the largest sing le weather event in the world, affect global temps over roughly a third of the globe, but only for the months it is happening. Since it's a redistribution of heat already in the system, when it's over, the system reverts toward the average temp. 1998 was the strongest el Nino on record, and the global temp went up for that year. 2005, with a much weaker el Nino surpassed 1998. 2008 was a la Nina (cool) year, according to NASA and above the 20th century mean, but the coolest year sincde 2001 (and 2001 was, guess what, a la Nina year).

It is completely illegitimat to try to draw conclusions about what is happeningwith the system without taking into account all the major variables in the system. You do not take them into account, which is why you keep producing garbage.

Garbage huh? I think I just figured out who you are. (Or used to be.) Smile

At least Ican has been posting links from credible sources to back up his opinion. I don't see any links supporting your rebuttal.

And no, 2005 was not the hottest year on record, even according to NASA. And there isn't 100% agreement on whether it was the hottest year in the last 100 years which is what NASA actually said.

See here: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

I think even the most adament AGW religionists would agree that 100 years is but a blip in climate history and proves little other than 2005 was a warm year. I have been impressed, however, how many of the pro-AGW magazines and websites out there just sort of kind of changed that 'in the last hundred years' to a more impressive 'on record' and, in your defense, that has been repeated in dozens if not hundreds of blogs since. I guess the old saw is still true that if you repeat a lie often enough, a lot of people will believe it is true.

There is a huge amount of NOAA, NASA, IPPC, etc. and other data out there supporting the AGW theories, and there is a huge amount of credible data from other scientific studies and groups that contradict that data and/or conclusions derived from it.

It is the give and take and the honest debate going on that I prefer to focus on. I am not interested in political correctness. sociopolitical agenda other than being advised that increased skepticism is warranted when it exists, religionist propaganda, self serving proclamations by people desperate to protect their grant funding, and other data that I think is likely to be excessively biased at best and pure junk science at worst.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Which is why, though any given year (or two years) may be a bit warmer or cooler, the temp trend is still UP.

Monterey, I think I saw where even the IPCC chairman said climate temps have plateaued out over the last few years, so I think your argument is not very accurate. Fact is, just look at the graph, and I don't think an upward trend over the last few years is in evidence at all, not any more than it looks like a slight downward trend. The jury is still out as to which way it will go from here.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

It is the give and take and the honest debate going on that I prefer to focus on.

ROFLMAO..
Yeah.. right Fox.. Honest debate?

Perhaps you should check ican's listed sources and compare to the data he posted.
His link for TSI doesn't list 2008 TSI but somehow ican has a number for 2008 TSI.

These are made up calculations by ican.

Quote:

AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K

Anomalies are in Centigrade in Hadcrut3 where he gets the numbers. They are not calculated by subtracting anything from °K
Ican's temperature in Kelvin is not found in any scientific literature. He simply adds a number to the anomaly and pretends it has meaning. You will notice he has no source for that number.

Quote:

And there isn't 100% agreement on whether it was the hottest year in the last 100 years which is what NASA actually said.

No, that isn't what NASA said. They said..

Quote:

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.

If you bothered to check their data, it starts with 1880 so it would not be in the last 100 years but in the last 125 years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

100 years may be a blip but the reconstructions posted earlier would mean 2005 is probably the warmest year in 1000.

But since you want an HONEST debate, the site you linked to confirms what Monterey Jack said about how ican is ignoring facts about the data.

Quote:

Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures. However, what's significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino.

For that matter, ican's sources even point out that 2005 was the warmest year while he claims in his data it was 1998
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html

Code:

Global Top 10 Warm Years  	Anomaly °C  	          Anomaly °F

2005 	                              0.60                 	1.08   

1998  	                             0.58                  	1.04

0 Replies

@okie,

There is no reason to simply think it "looks like a downward trend".

It is easy to take the data and enter it into an excel spreadsheet, chart it and then look at the trendline.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The interesting thing about actually using the data is, you then can see there is no downward trend. There is only the actual data and the actual trend. Nothing "looks like" anything. You can actually SEE the trend and the trend is UP.

1 Reply

@parados,

Show me the upward trend, and tell me its based on how many years averaging, or whatever parmaters you apply?

Interesting, we had this debate a few months ago, I said it had plateaued out, and you vehemently denied it, but the data certainly points to it, in my opinion. As I said, even the IPCC chairman said as much. I can't find the direct quote, only references to it in blogs, but I saw it a while back as well, so I think he said it. Are you going to disagree with that? And are you going to admit I was probably right a few months ago.

To be accurate, I would not say, according to the graphs of data, that the climate is cooling, but I do believe it shows a plateaued condition, and it could go either way. I find it fascinating that some of the coldest temperatures ever have been reported from many places this past couple of years, yet the temperature averages do not appear to drop as much as one might speculate. I can't say they are taking phony readings, but lets just say this, I would like to see more data about the weather stations and the procedures used, before I would believe a tenth of a degree or 3 tenths of a degree, count me a skeptic in regard to the analytical procedures. I am not accusing them of corrupt readings, but I am not going to get all in a tizzy over a small fraction of a degree C. Much ado about nothing. That was my take on this years ago, and it still is. The sky is falling crowd is wanting a crisis to enact their social agenda, after all, "never waste a crisis to get things done."

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

but the data certainly points to it, in my opinion.

So.. post your data that you think points to it.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Simply post the yearly data in an excel spreadsheet. Use the data to create a scatter plot then do a trend line using excels charting tools.

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

Now.. which data are you claiming to use?

1 Reply

@parados,

I posted the chart in one of my previous posts, the chart from junkscience, which uses some of the the same data that you use. If you doubt it, check out the links.

I don't use Excel, so do your own work and your own chart. And if you think it shows what you are arguing for, then post it. But provide the parameters please.

1 Reply

@okie,

Your chart does NOT use a trend line so to claim there is a trend on it is BS.

2 Replies

@parados,

LOL. Look at the lines in the chart, that is your trend. Now if you want to take averages over 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, and so on, your trend line will vary. So pick your poison, Parados, and give us your expertly derived trendline from your Excel spreadsheet.

0 Replies

@parados,

http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/giss120raw1008.jpg?w=462&h=306

1 Reply

@parados,

What is the line based on, Parados, how many years are averaged? Frankly it looks bogus at the right side.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
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).

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=kELVIN&x=32&y=10
Main Entry: kel·vin
...
Function: adjective
Usage: usually capitalized
Etymology: after William Thomson, Lord Kelvin died 1907 British physicist
: relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the unit of measurement equals the Celsius degree and according to which absolute zero is 0 K, the equivalent of -273.15° C, and water freezes at 273.15 K and boils at 373.15 K

My copy of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (copywrite 1974) said water freezes at 273.16°K. So I've been using that number instead of 273.15°K in the data I have posted.
273.16°K = 0.0°C (the temperature at which water freezes)
13.9°C + 273.16°K = 287.06°K = The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature in °K.

2 Replies

@okie,

The formula is there for you okie. Show us how it is wrong.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You do realize that the anomalies used in GISS are NOT based on 1901-2000, don't you?

You are adding an anomaly based on a different time frame to your number so you are creating bogus numbers.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The time span 1988 through 2008 consists of 21 years. The time span 1988 through 1998 consists of 11 years. The time span 1998 through 2008 consists of 11 years. Within the 11 year sun cycle 1988 thru 1998, SI generally increased. Within the 11 year sun cycle 1998 thru 2008, SI generally decreased.

I now ask more specifically what do you think SI will do in the next sun cycle, 2008 through 2018?

If you think you know the answer to this question please explain the basis for your answer.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

What is the line based on, Parados, how many years are averaged? Frankly it looks bogus at the right side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The formula is there for you okie. Show us how it is wrong.

So tell me why this graph isn't as good as yours.

http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gisscooling0209.jpg?w=533&h=350

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You assume that the 11 year cycle is exactly 11 years long and begins on Jan 1 and ends on Dec 31 11 years later.

Your assumptions are false and therefor lead to errors in your data.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know