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

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

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

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
366
Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark released a report with his colleagues at the Danish National Space Centre which shows that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years," Svensmark said in the February 11, 2007 article in the UK Telegraph. "Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate. The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted," Svensmark said. Svensmark published his finding on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal in late 2006 and he has a new 2007 book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. "It was long-thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds," Svensmark said. In October 2007, Svensmark co-authored another report from the Danish National Space Center Study concluding: “The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was authored with Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.

I wish he hadnt of said that..now the Global Warming Thuggees will say we have to stop the sun.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I have NOT argued that global warming exists only in the last 15 years.

So how long has it existed ?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

No, since I have NOT argued that global warming exists only in the last 15 years.

I offered it as evidence of how FOX news misrepresented what was said by Jones.

But then I suppose you see it as no sin to labor in your vocation.

Parados, when the temperature goes up or down one day, or one week, or one year, it proves nothing about global warming one way or the other. I think what Jones said is a similar principle, that the time period is too short and the temperature rise or fall, both combined do not indicate any "global warming" at all.

To understand the issue properly, Parados, you must recognize what the meaning of "global warming" denotes. It does not denote temporary or statistically insignificant fluctuations in climate, both up and down. So, given the context of the term "global warming," Fox reported it accurately. I think the wording could have been better, but it is clearly not a fraudulantly written article. In short, to understand the article, you must first recognize the meaning of the term "global warming," as it has become known to describe.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus, there's no problem if "now the Global Warming Thugees will say stop the sun."

Just tell 'em to build their own rocket ships--that will help increase employment--and then tell 'em to go fly those rocket ships directly to the sun--that will decrease the Global Warming Thugee population on the earth, while causing only one minor problem. The sun's fuel and its radiation will increase, but then the shade created by all those Global Warming Thugees while flying to the sun will offset that extra radiation.

0 Replies

The problem with Svensmark's argument is that cosmic ray flux shows no evidence of changing as it should, if his hypothesis were to be valid.

0 Replies

Okie, read the BBC interview which Fox alleges they based their article on. It absolutely does NOT say what Fox says it said. It says the opposite.

1 Reply

Quote:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Following up on wild assertions made by some posters on statistics: basic probability distributions like Gaussian do not apply to climate models or to any other chaotic system. Theoretical mathematicians have known this since Poincaré, practical climate researchers since Lorenz.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Monterey Jack, read my previous post. When the man admitted there had been no statistically significant warming, he essentially admitted to no global warming. Things like weather and short term fluctuations do not constitute global warming, as we now have come to understand the term. Therefore, any statistically insignificant fluctuation does not equal "global warming." A similar argument is used by global warmers to argue that no global cooling has taken place. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. The argument cuts both ways.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Average annual global temperatures (AAGTs) are moving averages calculated from alleged accurate temperature measurements. From these measurements over several years, one can estimate the probability that a particular AAGT will occur at some future time. However, such estimates are rarely reliable for more than one or two future years, if then.

Equally unreliable are the estimates of probable future temperature changes based on an historical correlation with an historical trend in some other variable not shown to be an actual cause of those temperature changes.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19002&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Global Warming
February 17, 2010

WARMING'S UNCERTAIN SCIENCE
The Climategate scandal is a textbook case of professional malfeasance that should give Congress reason to pause before agreeing to a binding international agreement that would hamstring the world economy in order to prevent the climate from changing, says H. Sterling Burnett, a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Climategate was a series of leaked e-mails last year from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, arguably the world's most prominent research center promoting the idea that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

To say the least, these e-mails show scientists behaving badly, says Burnett:

The scientists whose e-mails were disclosed attempted to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroyed raw data so that others are unable to analyze it, used tricks to change reported outcomes, conspired to avoid legally required disclosure of taxpayer-funded data, and attempted to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process.

To make matters even worse, Climategate researchers threatened to seek the firing of editors at scientific journals that published findings that raised doubts about the urgency of the climate crisis.

While the e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming, the importance of this particular data set and the critical role this cabal of scientists has played in shaping public perception of global warming cannot be understated, says Burnett:

Until this scandal, East Anglia's climate data set was considered the most complete and thorough in the world.
If this data set and analyses based on it are flawed, other data that suggest catastrophic global warming will happen soon should probably also be carefully re-examined.

Before trillions more of our dollars are wasted in a vain effort to control the weather 100 years from now, our leaders should be much more certain that human activities are the cause of potentially catastrophic global warming, says Burnett.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Warming's Uncertain Science," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, February 16, 2010.

0 Replies

Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
CO2 density in the atmosphere in parts per million.

The mole fraction of CO2, expressed as parts per million (ppm) is the number of molecules of CO2 in every one million molecules of dried air (water vapor removed).

..........decimal...average...interpolated...trend...#days
............date................................(season corr)

1997 1 1997.042 362.81 362.81 362.64 31
...
1998 1 1998.042 365.00 365.00 364.86 30
...
1999 1 1999.042 367.97 367.97 367.79 27
...
2000 1 2000.042 369.07 369.07 368.87 27
...
2001 1 2001.042 370.47 370.47 370.24 29
...
2002 1 2002.042 372.38 372.38 372.18 29
...
2003 1 2003.042 374.92 374.92 374.72 31
...
2004 1 2004.042 377.03 377.03 376.87 31
...
2005 1 2005.042 378.43 378.43 378.17 31
...
2006 1 2006.042 381.36 381.36 381.10 26
...
2007 1 2007.042 382.88 382.88 382.61 23
...
2008 1 2008.042 385.42 385.42 385.14 30
...
2009 1 2009.042 386.92 386.92 386.63 31
...
2010 1 2010.042 388.63 388.63 388.33 29

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Year|CO2ppm|SIw/m^2|anom.°C|°K
1997 364.89 1365.62 0.351 287.411
1998 367.61 1365.75 0.546 287.606
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
2007 384.64 1365.66 0.405 287.465
2008 386.33 1365.60 0.324 287.384

0 Replies

Global Warming Thuggees have argued statistics prove they are right. Now they argue statistics ALMOST prove they are right. Ghost hunters say the same thing. So do Big Foot hunters. So do UFO spotters. So do conspiracy theorists.

Is there anything you cant prove if the statistics ALMOST prove it ????

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Seeing Parados is too busy to answer my question, I will do it for him. He has consistently argued the last 10 years have proven the earth is getting hotter. Now he says

Quote:

I have NOT argued that global warming exists only in the last 15 years.

Obviously he has had a change of heart.

So you now think that the earth was not hotter during the last 10 years ? That Global Warming started when ? Certainly not 10 years ago as there is no evidence. Not 15 years ago, but when ? Perhaps never ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus, the quotes I posted show that the density of the CO2 in the atmosphere increased since 1998, but the average annual global temperature decreased over the same period. So if CO2 density increase did cause the pre-1998 temperature increase, we have to explain why it didn't cause a post-1998 temperature increase. We could always claim the graphs were from unreliable sources.

This is more easily explained by blaming Bush for screwing up the correlation! After all, almost all of the screw up occurred during Bush's watch!

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Global Warming Thuggees have argued statistics prove they are right. Now they argue statistics ALMOST prove they are right. Ghost hunters say the same thing. So do Big Foot hunters. So do UFO spotters. So do conspiracy theorists.

Is there anything you cant prove if the statistics ALMOST prove it ????

We know the old saying, figures don't lie, but liars will figure. And now we have the additional problem of liars cooking the figures.

0 Replies

And....about those hurricanes.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Jone didn't claim there was "no warming" he said the warming that DID occur wasn't statistically significant. One of the reason being it is a short time period.
And you offer this in SUPPORT of Global Warming ???

Yes, that's the only argument Parados has ever produced and been able to back up - Professor Jones's guarded statement on the significance of his (sadly and mysteriously missing) data. And Jones knows more about density functions of statistical distributions than either Parados or Monterey.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know