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

http://biocab.org/Amplitude_SI_Lean_s_Database.jpg

@BillRM,

Quote:

You know there is a emotional need for humans to think that we are evil and in one manner or another will do harm to the earth.

I guess that explains how you got the temperature being off by 50% on the numbers on Wiki.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Yeah.. And ican..

In case you didn't notice your chart shows that TSI has decreased from 1947 to 2008 and yet temperature has increased.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

OK, you have data.....what is important, what is good, what is bad ... Reading numbers from instruments is not understanding the situation, nor understanding the consequences for mankind.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THESE GRAPHS

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

http://biocab.org/Amplitude_SI_Lean_s_Database.jpg
Anomalies of Solar Irradiance 1610 t0 2006, Leans Database

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, AoAAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, AoAAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
AoAAGT and AAGT increases and decreases,
and CAD increases are likely to be minor, if not
negligible, causes of increases of AoAAGT and AAGT.

CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE,1901-2000, in °K = 287.06°K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
AoAAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
AAGT = CAGT + AoAAGT
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2

WHAT IS NOT YET KNOWN AT THIS TIME IS WHETHER OR NOT AAGT WILL BEGIN AGAIN TO INCREASE, OR CONTINUE TO DECREASE. WE DO NOT KNOW THAT AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SI WILL BEGIN AGAIN TO INCREASE, OR CONTINUE TO DECREASE.

THE ONLY THING THAT IS KNOWN AT THIS TIME IS THAT CAD CONTINUING TO INCREASE WILL PROBABLY HAVE AN INSIGNIFICANT AFFECT ON INCREASES AND DECREASES OF AAGT.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

http://biocab.org/Annual_Correlation_SI-dT.jpg

Correlation of Annual Solar Irradiance / Annual Change of Temperature

Quote:

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
... You can corroborate that the assertions of Lockwood et al that fluctuations of temperature have been increasing while solar activity has been decreasing are not real.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Mother nature is a moody and complicated Bitch. Are you under the impression that you understand your woman enough to be able to direct her effectively after charting her moods and word choices for a spell?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye10, No! I do not think that I understand mother nature enough to be able to direct her effectively after charting her moods and action choices for a spell.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone else understands mother nature enough to be able to direct her effectively after charting her moods and action choices for a spell.

But I do think CAD (i.e., CO2 Atmospheric Density) increases and decreases--but no decreases for quite a few centuries--have been an insignificant factor in affecting mother nature's moods and action choices for quite a few centuries.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

What amaze me is that we had have everything from an ice ball earth to a earth far hotter then any nightmare of the current we are doom climate changers and yet any tend we see now is due to human actions beyond question!

And we know this by playing around with computer models and data that in many case itself is in question

But for human actions the climate would be nice and stable instead of in a constant state of flux?

Give me a break the mile deep sheet of ice that cover a large percent of North Amercia not that long ago was not cause by human action snor was the fact that it melted away.

0 Replies

Weather men with all the recording stations and historical data at their disposal cannot predict with certainty what the weather will be in a weeks time.
Given the uncertainty of the accuracy of historical data for CO2 levels and temperatures of past millennia, I fail to see how future predictions can be made with any accuracy and if mankind had influenced it in any way.
It is certain there is no consensus on this topic given that it now has run to 666 pages. It looks like we all have to agree to disagree.
It sure has been interesting reading though.
Cheers Deckland.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

WHAT IS NOT YET KNOWN AT THIS TIME IS WHETHER OR NOT AAGT WILL BEGIN AGAIN TO INCREASE, OR CONTINUE TO DECREASE. WE DO NOT KNOW THAT AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SI WILL BEGIN AGAIN TO INCREASE, OR CONTINUE TO DECREASE.

I guess if you assume that the 11 year solar cycle will just magically disappear then you wouldn't have a clue as to whether it will increase from today.

However, science shows that it is highly probable that the solar cycle WILL continue and SI will increase. The graphs you keep posting show that to be the case.
(By the way, the Lean graph you post includes background radiation. I suggest you find the graph for SI without background. It is much flatter.)

0 Replies

@Deckland,

Deckland wrote:

Weather men with all the recording stations and historical data at their disposal cannot predict with certainty what the weather will be in a weeks time.

Correct. However, this thread isn't about weather but 'climate change' (or "global warming", like many Americans still call it).

0 Replies

@Deckland,

Deckland wrote:

Weather men with all the recording stations and historical data at their disposal cannot predict with certainty what the weather will be in a weeks time.

Long term trends are much more reliable than short term trends. The trends shown by the Ice Core Data going back several hundred thousand years are probably unavoidable.

1 Reply

Quote:

Japan, EU to cooperate on ambitious global warming deal

Posted : Mon, 04 May 2009 15:13:38 GMT
Author : DPA

Prague - Japan is ready to cooperate with the European Union on a bold international deal aimed at curbing global warming that is intended to replace the existing Kyoto agreement from 2013, Japan's Prime Minister Taro Aso said Monday. "We shall cooperate with the EU towards building an agreement on an ambitious, effective and comprehensive post-Kyoto framework," Aso said through an interpreter after meeting EU leaders in Prague. The Czech Republic chairs the 27-member bloc until June 30.

World powers are set to negotiate new targets for reducing emissions of gases heating up the planet at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen in December.

The EU has put itself at the forefront of worldwide efforts to fight global warming and expects Japan to soon announce a commitment to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases.

In preparations for the Copenhagen conference, the EU has pledged to cut its emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020.

The bloc also offered to reduce its emissions by 30 per cent if other developed countries joined the plan. But to the EU's frustration, no leading developed economy has adopted a legally- binding obligation.

The Czech presidency of the EU expects Japan to present its mid-term emissions-cutting targets by the end of May, said Jakub Kaspar, the spokesman for the Czech Environmental Ministry.

Source: dpa, via Earth Times

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Deckland wrote:
Weather men with all the recording stations and historical data at their disposal cannot predict with certainty what the weather will be in a weeks time.

Long term trends are much more reliable than short term trends. The trends shown by the Ice Core Data going back several hundred thousand years are probably unavoidable.

At the same time, Deckland is not entirely off base here by including 'weather' in the discussion. After all, climate would be of no concern to humankind if it did not affect the weather. A succession of unusually warm days, months, or years may be indicative of a climate trend or simply a blip in a trend--we have too short a time measuring measuring this stuff on a day to day or year to year basis to know for sure--but regardless, we humans and other living things experience unusually cold or hot or rainy or dry spells not as climate but as weather.

When those computer models take assumed data from much earlier times and cannot produce the climate that we all are experiencing today, what makes us think that those models are reliable to predict anything in the future either?

0 Replies

One of the problems with your reasoning, fox, is that the models do produce today's climate.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Show me. Everything I have seen or read shows that they do not.

1 Reply

That's because the only people you read are the skeptics. You never seem to read any of the repeated rebuttals, nor do you read the original research.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Please tell us what you have read so we know where you are coming from.

I don't expect you to list "everything" you have read but could you at least provide us with a sample of the science you read that says what you just claimed?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

One of the problems with your reasoning, fox, is that the models do produce today's climate.

That's going to be difficult to demonstrate until you can agree on a time-frame, because on any given day it might be cold/rainy or hot/sunny.

1 Reply

climate, ros, not weather.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know