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

ican's comments are in purple

1. global warming exists (denied by you at various times.)
2. Solar radiation can not account for all the warming (you have claimed it is the sole reason for the warming you have said doesn't exist.)
3. The most likely cause of warming not caused by solar forcings is from CO2
4. The increases in atmospheric CO2 are most likely caused by human activity based on human output and isotopes currently in the atmosphere.

So ican, what are you alleging about global warming?

I AM ALLEGING THIS:

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,
and CAD increases are likely to be minor, if not
negligible, causes of increases of A-AAGT and AAGT.

WHERE:
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


BECAUSE OF THIS:

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

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

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

CO2 Trend 1958-2008

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

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001


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 only Up and Down Up and Down Up and Down
1987 349.90 1365.79 0.179 287.239
1988 352.16 1366.09 0.180 287.240
1989 353.56 1366.66 0.103 287.163 LOW TEMP
1990 355.15 1366.56 0.254 287.314
1991 355.91 1366.45 0.212 287.272
1992 356.27 1366.31 0.061 287.121
1993 357.59 1366.04 0.105 287.165
1994 359.65 1365.81 0.171 287.231
1995 361.29 1365.71 0.275 287.335
1996 362.78 1365.62 0.137 287.197
1997 364.89 1365.62 0.351 287.411
1998 367.61 1365.75 0.546 287.606 HIGH TEMP
1999 368.59 1366.11 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 378.31 1365.91 0.447 287.507
2005 380.87 1365.81 0.482 287.542
2006 382.64 1365.72 0.422 287.482 LESS TEMP
2007 384.64 1365.66 0.405 287.465 LESS TEMP
2008 386.33 1365.60 0.324 287.384 LESS TEMP

Please note:
(1) CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE,1901-2000, in °K = 287.06°K
(2) SI for 2008 was projected from SI in 2005, and this graph:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png

I AGREE:
1. global warming exists (and so does global cooling).
2. Solar radiation can not account for all the warming

I DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE.
3. The most likely cause of warming not caused by solar forcings is from CO2.
4. The increases in atmospheric CO2 are most likely caused by human activity based on human output and isotopes currently in the atmosphere.

From the garbage you spout here over and over ican, I can only assume that you never wrote or corrected any of the models for any engineering projects.

If it wasn't in a table, you couldn't find the answer, could you?

From the insulting tone of your post I think I can safely conclude two things:

1) You are most likely a liberal as it seems to be mostly A2K liberals who think personal insults and being unkind to people is appropriate debate.

2) You don't have anything credible with which to rebut the information Ican posted.

You will note that he did not ridicule or be unkind to you for answering his question. Why do you feel it appropriate to ridicule or be unkind to him when he answered your question?

Fox,

ican's garbage has been repeatedly refuted. His conclusions are not supported. His statements about trends are not always correct.

Love your masked insults Fox.. Are you a liberal?

Parados, the data and arguments I have posted here on this thread have not been repeatedly refuted with evidence and logic. They have only been refuted with emotional tirades like your latest emotional tirades.

Generally, the deliverers of these emotional tirades adhere to doctrines that they themselves cannot defend except by alleging that those who do not adhere to those same doctrines are stupid, ignorant, foolish, fraudulent, and/or traitorous.

I feel terribly sorry for these people. They appear to me to be far more unhappy and angry with themselves than they are with me.

1. Your claim about temperature decreasing in the last 10 years is false.

When you can address that one with some kind of real math, then we can move on to your other claims.
Please provide some actual math. Since you claim to have an engineering degree you should know what actual math is. Simply looking at something and claiming you think it goes in a particular direction would not be accepted on an engineering project.

Using only the end points doesn't show the trend. You should know that if you really have an engineering degree.

And you don't think you need to post some credible math from a credible and linked source showing how his math is wrong? He provided the links for his numbers. So where is your evidence that they are wrong?

There is a world of difference between saying that his number are not convincing to you and in saying they are wrong. You don't need to show why you are not convinced.

I have said specifically how ANYONE can check the math using an excel spreadsheet more than once. Did you follow the instructions and try the math yourself?

No, because I don't really care, but then I haven't been criticizing the numbers anybody has been posting either. Sources or lack of sources yes. But the numbers? No. If I did, I would expect to be able to show why I had a quarrel with the numbers and post support for my opinion or at least provide a logical rationale for why I thought the numbers wrong.

I lack the expertise to evaluate the science competently, but I can evaluate the opinions of those who do have the expertise and make judgments re who has presented the most plausible case pro and con.

You don't care but when someone has repeatedly posted something that has been refuted with directions on how to tell it is wrong you feel you suddenly have the expertise to question that but not the first person's numbers?

You do like to hide behind your lack of knowledge. But your claim that one person presents better numbers than another means you are assuming you have enough knowledge to make a judgement.

Just because someone is always referred to as an idiot isn't evidence that those that oppose him have no argument. It could be that the person is really an idiot.

Remember: AAGT= AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
...

YEAR… CAD... SI... A-AAGT... AAGT
Up only...Up and Down...Up and Down...Up and Down
...
2005 380.87 1365.81 0.482 287.542
2006 382.64 1365.72 0.422 287.482 LESS TEMP
2007 384.64 1365.66 0.405 287.465 LESS TEMP
2008 386.33 1365.60 0.324 287.384 LESS TEMP

Yes, we could also look at the 4 year averages or the 11 year averages. But I've already posted the equivalent of the 4 year averages. Here, I'll do it again:

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

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008.

Carefully examine the average annual Global Temperature graph for the years after 2002. Note that Northern Hemispher is cooling less during that period than is the Southern Hemisphere. The Global average of A-AAGT--and therefore AAGT--is decreasing.

Just because person#1 refers to person#2 as an idiot doesn't mean person#2 is an idiot. It could very well be that person#1 is an idiot, both person's are idiots, person#2 is an idiot, or neither are idiots. I bet person#1 is acting like an idiot.

By the way, the Global graph show the Average Annual Global Temperature has increased less than 1°K or less than 1.8°F in the last 100 years. That's less than 0.35%.

You are #1 in my book ican.

I don't care if the numbers are right or not because I don't have the expertise (or interest) to evaluate them and I don't see how they are any more than one more very small piece of the whole puzzle. I only care that people who are drawing conclusions from the numbers are drawing the most accurate conclusions possible.

Because he does seem to be interested in the science and the principles involved here rather than in discrediting or insulting other members, I suppose it is fair to say that I trust Ican to be posting information that he believes to be probably accurate, and, given my experience with Ican that what he posts is generally supportable by other information and/or expert opinion, I suspect he probably knows whether it is probably credible better than you do. I have yet to see him fail to acknowledge an error when it is pointed out to him which is more than I can say for those who spend most of their time sniping instead of discussing the topic here.

I agree with Ican that people who seem mostly interested in insulting (or embarrassing or judging or humiliating or being unkind to or hurting or --put your own word in here) others are unhappy or at least very insecure people. And nobody makes himself look smarter or more honest by trying to make somebody else look stupid or dishonest.

Parados, it's your comic book!

Let me get this straight? You don't care if the numbers are correct or not. You only care if they are drawing the conclusion you believe to be accurate.

If the numbers aren't correct, the conclusions won't be correct. ican tends to get his math wrong. You seem to think ican is more correct than those that do get their math right. You don't care if ican's math is wrong. You just like his conclusions even though they are clearly wrong and based on faulty information and incorrect math.

Since you NEVER check ican's math and you dno't have the expertise to evaluate what he does say, how do you conclude he is using expert opinion or correct information.

A while ago Fox, I posted the graph that showed that the decrease in pirates was inversely proportional to global warming. I gave a link to the information yet somehow you thought you had enough information to claim that was wrong even thoug supported by links and "expert opinion."

Of course Fox. YOu wouldn't happen to be judging others, would you? Are you that unhappy and insecure?

Parents that tell their children they are being stupid are not necessarily unhappy or insecure. They may just know more than their child and recognize the action as stupid.

Based on his immediately preceding post, could you add some clarifying notes in the margin? I'm certainly not successful in getting him to understand anything I'm saying.