http://www.physorg.com/news110267267.html
Really. He and his ilk should be put in plasma-torch-powered toxic waste disposal units when they are dead. Even cremation or burial will poison this mudball for eons.
Carbonite!
I don't blame him for dancing around the issue.
China & India (40%+ of the world population) refuse to lower their pollution and the EU is flat out demanding that the US pay 90%+ of the projected .01% Gross World Product that they think will be needed for a Global Warming Reduction fund.
Yeah right!!
China & India (40%+ of the world population) refuse to lower their pollution and the EU is flat out demanding that the US pay 90%+ of the projected .01% Gross World Product that they think will be needed for a Global Warming Reduction fund.
Yeah right!!
Years ago I was commenting (on multiple threads here) that I didn't understand why Bush shouldn't jump on the global warming bandwagon. There's no reason he shouldn't encourage his buddies to enforce global restrictions for competition in the energy industry.
Sure enough, I was right ... he simply was trying to keep a few voters happy, but he's part of the global energy monopolization effort, as predicted. At least I can feel good having predicted his true colors ... though that's little compensation for paying jacked up prices for energy so his buddies can go around creating a global empire.
(Seriously, this is 100% scam ... He doesn't care when hundreds of thousands die in the Middle East, but he'll claim he's worried about some polar bears. He's just a figurehead though and the problem is larger than just him.)
Sure enough, I was right ... he simply was trying to keep a few voters happy, but he's part of the global energy monopolization effort, as predicted. At least I can feel good having predicted his true colors ... though that's little compensation for paying jacked up prices for energy so his buddies can go around creating a global empire.
(Seriously, this is 100% scam ... He doesn't care when hundreds of thousands die in the Middle East, but he'll claim he's worried about some polar bears. He's just a figurehead though and the problem is larger than just him.)
QUOTE (StevenA+)
He's just a figurehead though and the problem is larger than just him.
I presume you're referring to his intellect?
I presume you're referring to his intellect?
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 29 2007, 07:32 PM)
He doesn't care when hundreds of thousands die in the Middle East
So this war we've been in for a few years now is just imagined?
So this war we've been in for a few years now is just imagined?
There are very good reasons for him not to jump on the bandwagon....number one is that there STILL is not proof that human activity is the cause of warming.
(If you have this proof there is a way to make $125,000. I can direct you to that site.)
Henrik Svensmark, Theodor Landsheidt, Rhodes Fairbridge, and many others are, in my opinion, on the right trail to discover the primary climate forcers......... and it is not CO2!
As most of you know, rising levels of CO2, historically, has followed warming by decades, and sometimes much more. A follower can not be a forcer.
Co2 is also an absorber/reflector at very narrow band widths, and their influence on warming is logarithmic.
Climate models are fatally flawed due to lack of understanding of our complicated system, and until we know more about the processes involved, not suitable for determining public policy.
In addition to all this, there has been no GLOBAL warming for nearly a decade. While the northern hemisphere has warmed slightly, the southern hemisphere has had a decrease in temperature. Argentina has just finished it's coldest winter in a hundred years, Australia had below normal temperatures, and the Antarctic Ice mass has grown.
With CO2 well mixed in the atmosphere, there being as much in the south as the north, why are we getting opposite trends? It appears something else is driving the climate........... and we all see it rise every morning.
(If you have this proof there is a way to make $125,000. I can direct you to that site.)
Henrik Svensmark, Theodor Landsheidt, Rhodes Fairbridge, and many others are, in my opinion, on the right trail to discover the primary climate forcers......... and it is not CO2!
As most of you know, rising levels of CO2, historically, has followed warming by decades, and sometimes much more. A follower can not be a forcer.
Co2 is also an absorber/reflector at very narrow band widths, and their influence on warming is logarithmic.
Climate models are fatally flawed due to lack of understanding of our complicated system, and until we know more about the processes involved, not suitable for determining public policy.
In addition to all this, there has been no GLOBAL warming for nearly a decade. While the northern hemisphere has warmed slightly, the southern hemisphere has had a decrease in temperature. Argentina has just finished it's coldest winter in a hundred years, Australia had below normal temperatures, and the Antarctic Ice mass has grown.
With CO2 well mixed in the atmosphere, there being as much in the south as the north, why are we getting opposite trends? It appears something else is driving the climate........... and we all see it rise every morning.
Notice how the NYT and the BBC are silent on this.
http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/globe-cooli...070918-861.html
http://www.decanter.com/news/143693.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNew...135303920070921
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/24/1986994.htm
Arthur
http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/globe-cooli...070918-861.html
http://www.decanter.com/news/143693.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNew...135303920070921
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/24/1986994.htm
QUOTE
very little has been made of the record amount of sea ice forming in the Antarctic this year. Indeed, this is probably the first you’ve heard of this.
Very quietly, the ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has reached its highest level since records began in 1979. According to NASA GISS data, the Antarctic has cooled by 1F since 1957. This highlights an interesting dichotomy in the way global warming-related topics are reported by the media, and presented by the “consensus.”
Take for example, the Larsen Ice Sheet breakup in 2002, and the winter of 2004. The Larsen Ice sheet breaking up in 2002 received a lot of media attention (hint: it was in An Inconvenient Truth). What wasn’t reported is that the breakup wasn’t caused by global warming—it was caused by a spike in solar activity.
Indeed, two years after the solar peak subsided, the winter of 2004 was the coldest in the entire 50-year record of South Pole temperatures. That’s right, coldest.
And since 2002, the Larsen Ice sheet has refrozen and even grown. This past year has seen cold and snow records set in Australia, South America, and Africa—facts that received very little play in the news.
Very quietly, the ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has reached its highest level since records began in 1979. According to NASA GISS data, the Antarctic has cooled by 1F since 1957. This highlights an interesting dichotomy in the way global warming-related topics are reported by the media, and presented by the “consensus.”
Take for example, the Larsen Ice Sheet breakup in 2002, and the winter of 2004. The Larsen Ice sheet breaking up in 2002 received a lot of media attention (hint: it was in An Inconvenient Truth). What wasn’t reported is that the breakup wasn’t caused by global warming—it was caused by a spike in solar activity.
Indeed, two years after the solar peak subsided, the winter of 2004 was the coldest in the entire 50-year record of South Pole temperatures. That’s right, coldest.
And since 2002, the Larsen Ice sheet has refrozen and even grown. This past year has seen cold and snow records set in Australia, South America, and Africa—facts that received very little play in the news.
Arthur
They are silent for good reasons:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060..._antarctic.html
Other studies of the region focused only on surface temperature variations and produced mixed results. One study found significant warming only on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula but not elsewhere in the southernmost continent.
Another previous study even suggested that parts of Antarctica were cooling in recent decades while the rest of the globe was warming.
Unlike these other studies, the current one looks at temperature variations away from the Earth's surface and also covers a wider area.
Analyzing nearly continuous data collected from nine weather stations over the past 30 years, the researchers concluded that Antarctica's air is indeed heating up.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...arctic_ice.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...arctic_ice.html
Joining the growing list of places on this planet that are melting, Antarctica is losing some 36 cubic miles of ice every year, scientists said today.
...
"This is the first study to indicate the total mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet is in significant decline," said Isabella Velicogna of the University of Colorado at Boulder.
...
However, computer models run in 2001 predicted Antarctica would gain ice during the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study, based on satellite measurements between 2002 and 2005, shows the opposite.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18
So what does this all of this imply? First, short term observations should be interpreted with caution: we need more data from the Antarctic, over longer time periods, to say with certainly what the long term trend is. Second, regional change is not the same as global mean change. Third, there are very reasonable explanations for the recent observed cooling, that have been recognized for some time from model simulations. However, the models also suggest that, as we go forward in time, the relative importance of increasing radiative effects, compared with atmosphere and ocean dynamic effects, is likely to increase. In short, we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html
Our results have now been used as "evidence" against global warming by Ann Coulter in her latest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", which followed closely Michael Crichton’s misuse of our results in his novel/congressional testimony, "State of Fear". If you search my name on the web, you will find pages of examples of misuse of our results in everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents. Not only has this abuse grown, it has evolved. Someone recently sent me a link to a web column where I was quoted as saying "the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle". As Jon Stewart might say…“whaaaa?” Not only have I never thought such a thing, I’ve definitely never said it!
...
New models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica to the human-induced ozone hole over the continent. Besides providing a protective layer over the Earth, ozone is a greenhouse gas. The models now suggest that as the ozone hole heals, thanks to world-wide bans on harmful CFCs, aerosols, and other airborne particles, Antarctica should begin to fall in line and warm up with the rest of the planet. These models are conspicuously missing from climate skeptic literature. Also missing is the fact that there has been some debate in the science community over our results. We continue to stand by the results for the period analyzed, but an unbiased coverage would acknowledge the differences of opinion.
So with this, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who oppose global warming theory. I believe my co-authors would as well.
As for my review of Al Gore’s movie…two frozen thumbs up.
Of course, then there is this:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...tarctic-update/
Are you confused? These two recent articles illustrate the complexity of climate change – simple questions like “Is Antarctica warming or cooling” can be answered different ways depending on data sets used, time periods involved, and who does the analyses. Nonetheless, we learn that contrary to popular presentations on the subject, there is no evidence that Antarctica is melting away.
There are also quite a few different arguments out there for why Antarctica should be so anomalous, for example one is that a circumpolar circulation in the atmosphere walls Antarctica off from the rest of the Earth's atmosphere; another is that the circulation and turnover currents in the southern ocean are currently buffering Antarctica's surface climate; another is that the south polar ozone hole is contributing to anomalously low temperatures; etc.
Bottom line: because of the many poorly understood nuances, don't look to Antarctica for any conclusive information regarding the nature or extent of global warming. Luckily, we do have the basic laws of physics underlying the greenhouse effect, as well as the rest of the globe, to provide us with less ambiguous guidance.
Which is why the predominately WINTER ARCTIC WARMING we are having is NOT the same as GLOBAL WARMING.
No, of course it's not the same. Global warming is calculated from measurements all over the globe -- not just in the Arctic, or just the Antarctic for that matter.
The effect of anthropogenic warming is an overall raising of the bar on average temperatures. It is not a guarantee that temperatures will increase equally everywhere. Nor is it a guarantee that local climate variability should decrease; indeed most models predict the opposite: that local climates will become less predictable and more extreme over time.
That means more drought in some areas, while more floods in other areas. More ice thaw in some places, and more winter ice due to increased precipitation in others.
Even assuming the high range of IPCC estimates of 8 degree C warming over the next 100 years, it won't make much difference at the South Pole where temperatures hover around -50 C. And perhaps global warming will result in intensification of the southern circumpolar winds, which might actually cool Antarctica even more. However, nobody lives in Antarctica, so it doesn't matter much what exactly happens there (short of a catastrophic melt-off of the ice shelf, which seems quite unlikely.) But global warming would make a huge difference in the habitable zones, which is THE reason to be concerned about it.
More information, for inquiring minds, about climate change over Antarctica from the British Antarctic Survey:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/o...mate_change.php
Some teasers:
No, of course it's not the same. Global warming is calculated from measurements all over the globe -- not just in the Arctic, or just the Antarctic for that matter.
The effect of anthropogenic warming is an overall raising of the bar on average temperatures. It is not a guarantee that temperatures will increase equally everywhere. Nor is it a guarantee that local climate variability should decrease; indeed most models predict the opposite: that local climates will become less predictable and more extreme over time.
That means more drought in some areas, while more floods in other areas. More ice thaw in some places, and more winter ice due to increased precipitation in others.
Even assuming the high range of IPCC estimates of 8 degree C warming over the next 100 years, it won't make much difference at the South Pole where temperatures hover around -50 C. And perhaps global warming will result in intensification of the southern circumpolar winds, which might actually cool Antarctica even more. However, nobody lives in Antarctica, so it doesn't matter much what exactly happens there (short of a catastrophic melt-off of the ice shelf, which seems quite unlikely.) But global warming would make a huge difference in the habitable zones, which is THE reason to be concerned about it.
More information, for inquiring minds, about climate change over Antarctica from the British Antarctic Survey:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/o...mate_change.php
Some teasers:
Analysis of weather balloon data collected over the past 30 years has shown that the Antarctic atmosphere has warmed below 8 km and cooled above this height. This pattern of warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere is seen globally and is the expected signature of increases in greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide. However, the 30-year warming at 5 km over the Antarctic during winter (0.75°C) is over three times the average rate of warming at this level for the globe as a whole.
While some of the smaller ice shelves in this region have periodically grown and decayed over the past 10000 years, the Larsen-B ice shelf appears to have been stable throughout this period until it collapsed suddenly in March 2002. This suggests that recent warm temperatures are exceptional within the context of the last 10000 years, making it unlikely that they can be explained by natural variability alone.
No, of course it's not the same. Global warming is calculated from measurements all over the globe -- not just in the Arctic, or just the Antarctic for that matter.
Don't you LOVE GWer climate predictions that CAN'T be wrong?
A lot of stations?
See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Try these:
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 2001 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1931 — End 1936
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
This shows colored squares within 250 km of a station.
Note the HUGE areas NOT MEASURED at all.
Play with it
Change the period above to just the NH cold period. Then to the NH warm period.
OOPS.
You will find that most of the warming is in the NH in the WINTER.
Note how the US (and large parts of the globe) are COOLER in the Summer.
Arthur
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060..._antarctic.html
QUOTE
Other studies of the region focused only on surface temperature variations and produced mixed results. One study found significant warming only on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula but not elsewhere in the southernmost continent.
Another previous study even suggested that parts of Antarctica were cooling in recent decades while the rest of the globe was warming.
Unlike these other studies, the current one looks at temperature variations away from the Earth's surface and also covers a wider area.
Analyzing nearly continuous data collected from nine weather stations over the past 30 years, the researchers concluded that Antarctica's air is indeed heating up.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...arctic_ice.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Other studies of the region focused only on surface temperature variations and produced mixed results. One study found significant warming only on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula but not elsewhere in the southernmost continent. Another previous study even suggested that parts of Antarctica were cooling in recent decades while the rest of the globe was warming. Unlike these other studies, the current one looks at temperature variations away from the Earth's surface and also covers a wider area. Analyzing nearly continuous data collected from nine weather stations over the past 30 years, the researchers concluded that Antarctica's air is indeed heating up. |
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...arctic_ice.html
Joining the growing list of places on this planet that are melting, Antarctica is losing some 36 cubic miles of ice every year, scientists said today.
...
"This is the first study to indicate the total mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet is in significant decline," said Isabella Velicogna of the University of Colorado at Boulder.
...
However, computer models run in 2001 predicted Antarctica would gain ice during the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study, based on satellite measurements between 2002 and 2005, shows the opposite.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18
QUOTE
So what does this all of this imply? First, short term observations should be interpreted with caution: we need more data from the Antarctic, over longer time periods, to say with certainly what the long term trend is. Second, regional change is not the same as global mean change. Third, there are very reasonable explanations for the recent observed cooling, that have been recognized for some time from model simulations. However, the models also suggest that, as we go forward in time, the relative importance of increasing radiative effects, compared with atmosphere and ocean dynamic effects, is likely to increase. In short, we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
So what does this all of this imply? First, short term observations should be interpreted with caution: we need more data from the Antarctic, over longer time periods, to say with certainly what the long term trend is. Second, regional change is not the same as global mean change. Third, there are very reasonable explanations for the recent observed cooling, that have been recognized for some time from model simulations. However, the models also suggest that, as we go forward in time, the relative importance of increasing radiative effects, compared with atmosphere and ocean dynamic effects, is likely to increase. In short, we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future. |
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html
Our results have now been used as "evidence" against global warming by Ann Coulter in her latest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", which followed closely Michael Crichton’s misuse of our results in his novel/congressional testimony, "State of Fear". If you search my name on the web, you will find pages of examples of misuse of our results in everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents. Not only has this abuse grown, it has evolved. Someone recently sent me a link to a web column where I was quoted as saying "the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle". As Jon Stewart might say…“whaaaa?” Not only have I never thought such a thing, I’ve definitely never said it!
...
New models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica to the human-induced ozone hole over the continent. Besides providing a protective layer over the Earth, ozone is a greenhouse gas. The models now suggest that as the ozone hole heals, thanks to world-wide bans on harmful CFCs, aerosols, and other airborne particles, Antarctica should begin to fall in line and warm up with the rest of the planet. These models are conspicuously missing from climate skeptic literature. Also missing is the fact that there has been some debate in the science community over our results. We continue to stand by the results for the period analyzed, but an unbiased coverage would acknowledge the differences of opinion.
So with this, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who oppose global warming theory. I believe my co-authors would as well.
As for my review of Al Gore’s movie…two frozen thumbs up.
Of course, then there is this:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...tarctic-update/
QUOTE
Are you confused? These two recent articles illustrate the complexity of climate change – simple questions like “Is Antarctica warming or cooling” can be answered different ways depending on data sets used, time periods involved, and who does the analyses. Nonetheless, we learn that contrary to popular presentations on the subject, there is no evidence that Antarctica is melting away.
There are also quite a few different arguments out there for why Antarctica should be so anomalous, for example one is that a circumpolar circulation in the atmosphere walls Antarctica off from the rest of the Earth's atmosphere; another is that the circulation and turnover currents in the southern ocean are currently buffering Antarctica's surface climate; another is that the south polar ozone hole is contributing to anomalously low temperatures; etc.
Bottom line: because of the many poorly understood nuances, don't look to Antarctica for any conclusive information regarding the nature or extent of global warming. Luckily, we do have the basic laws of physics underlying the greenhouse effect, as well as the rest of the globe, to provide us with less ambiguous guidance.
I'm not just talking about Antarctica,
Do you DISPUTE the fact that the Southern Hemisphere has cooled down?
In fact its Winter land readings (June - August) were an insignificant 0.2 C above the AVERAGE for the last 127 years and those years include the BRUTALY COLD 50 years that marked the end of the 19th and first 30 years of the 20th century.
You just don't READ about it.
Nor do you read about the fact that the current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice has set a new RECORD (since we started recording it in 1979) of INCREASING ICE.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg
Sorry the Globe isn't cooperating with you.
Arthur
Do you DISPUTE the fact that the Southern Hemisphere has cooled down?
In fact its Winter land readings (June - August) were an insignificant 0.2 C above the AVERAGE for the last 127 years and those years include the BRUTALY COLD 50 years that marked the end of the 19th and first 30 years of the 20th century.
You just don't READ about it.
Nor do you read about the fact that the current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice has set a new RECORD (since we started recording it in 1979) of INCREASING ICE.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg
Sorry the Globe isn't cooperating with you.
Arthur
No, not an "OOPS" at all. In fact, climate models expected higher levels of precipitation to contribute to greater sea ice during winter, and in general to sea ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent. The data showing that Antarctica is actually loosing continental ice came as a surprise to just about every model.
The oceanic circulation patterns around Antarctica are also such that conditions favor greater sea ice cover in the short term, for example as mentioned here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18
and here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...tarctic-update/
... both of which had already been linked (and partially quoted) in my preceding post above, but apparently never perused....
You can read up more on the Atlantic Circumpolar Current, and its effects on the Antarctic climate, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
... where it is also mentioned (in passing) that this current has gotten amplified recently, probably due to short-term wind trends.
The oceanic circulation patterns around Antarctica are also such that conditions favor greater sea ice cover in the short term, for example as mentioned here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18
and here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...tarctic-update/
... both of which had already been linked (and partially quoted) in my preceding post above, but apparently never perused....
You can read up more on the Atlantic Circumpolar Current, and its effects on the Antarctic climate, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
... where it is also mentioned (in passing) that this current has gotten amplified recently, probably due to short-term wind trends.
I read them.
And I TOTALLY AGREE
Which is why the predominately WINTER ARCTIC WARMING we are having is NOT the same as GLOBAL WARMING.
Arthur
And I TOTALLY AGREE
QUOTE
regional change is not the same as global mean change.
Which is why the predominately WINTER ARCTIC WARMING we are having is NOT the same as GLOBAL WARMING.
Arthur
QUOTE
Which is why the predominately WINTER ARCTIC WARMING we are having is NOT the same as GLOBAL WARMING.
No, of course it's not the same. Global warming is calculated from measurements all over the globe -- not just in the Arctic, or just the Antarctic for that matter.
The effect of anthropogenic warming is an overall raising of the bar on average temperatures. It is not a guarantee that temperatures will increase equally everywhere. Nor is it a guarantee that local climate variability should decrease; indeed most models predict the opposite: that local climates will become less predictable and more extreme over time.
That means more drought in some areas, while more floods in other areas. More ice thaw in some places, and more winter ice due to increased precipitation in others.
Even assuming the high range of IPCC estimates of 8 degree C warming over the next 100 years, it won't make much difference at the South Pole where temperatures hover around -50 C. And perhaps global warming will result in intensification of the southern circumpolar winds, which might actually cool Antarctica even more. However, nobody lives in Antarctica, so it doesn't matter much what exactly happens there (short of a catastrophic melt-off of the ice shelf, which seems quite unlikely.) But global warming would make a huge difference in the habitable zones, which is THE reason to be concerned about it.
More information, for inquiring minds, about climate change over Antarctica from the British Antarctic Survey:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/o...mate_change.php
Some teasers:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Which is why the predominately WINTER ARCTIC WARMING we are having is NOT the same as GLOBAL WARMING. |
No, of course it's not the same. Global warming is calculated from measurements all over the globe -- not just in the Arctic, or just the Antarctic for that matter.
The effect of anthropogenic warming is an overall raising of the bar on average temperatures. It is not a guarantee that temperatures will increase equally everywhere. Nor is it a guarantee that local climate variability should decrease; indeed most models predict the opposite: that local climates will become less predictable and more extreme over time.
That means more drought in some areas, while more floods in other areas. More ice thaw in some places, and more winter ice due to increased precipitation in others.
Even assuming the high range of IPCC estimates of 8 degree C warming over the next 100 years, it won't make much difference at the South Pole where temperatures hover around -50 C. And perhaps global warming will result in intensification of the southern circumpolar winds, which might actually cool Antarctica even more. However, nobody lives in Antarctica, so it doesn't matter much what exactly happens there (short of a catastrophic melt-off of the ice shelf, which seems quite unlikely.) But global warming would make a huge difference in the habitable zones, which is THE reason to be concerned about it.
More information, for inquiring minds, about climate change over Antarctica from the British Antarctic Survey:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/o...mate_change.php
Some teasers:
Analysis of weather balloon data collected over the past 30 years has shown that the Antarctic atmosphere has warmed below 8 km and cooled above this height. This pattern of warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere is seen globally and is the expected signature of increases in greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide. However, the 30-year warming at 5 km over the Antarctic during winter (0.75°C) is over three times the average rate of warming at this level for the globe as a whole.
QUOTE
While some of the smaller ice shelves in this region have periodically grown and decayed over the past 10000 years, the Larsen-B ice shelf appears to have been stable throughout this period until it collapsed suddenly in March 2002. This suggests that recent warm temperatures are exceptional within the context of the last 10000 years, making it unlikely that they can be explained by natural variability alone.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Oct 4 2007, 11:02 PM)
No, of course it's not the same. Global warming is calculated from measurements all over the globe -- not just in the Arctic, or just the Antarctic for that matter.
QUOTE
That means more drought in some areas, while more floods in other areas. More ice thaw in some places, and more winter ice due to increased precipitation in others.
Don't you LOVE GWer climate predictions that CAN'T be wrong?
A lot of stations?
See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Try these:
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 2001 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1931 — End 1936
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
This shows colored squares within 250 km of a station.
Note the HUGE areas NOT MEASURED at all.
Play with it
Change the period above to just the NH cold period. Then to the NH warm period.
OOPS.
You will find that most of the warming is in the NH in the WINTER.
Note how the US (and large parts of the globe) are COOLER in the Summer.
Arthur
Anthropogenic global warming implies several phenomena that are indeed falsifiable and testable:
1) Concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase exponentially
2) Troposphere warms, while stratosphere cools
3) Local climate variability (deviation from mean) increases
4) Average global surface temperature goes up
Regarding measured areas, try this:
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
Most continental landmass is covered quite well, as well as some islands in the Pacific. Certainly good enough to see a global pattern.
Tried global Winter (Dec-Feb) and Summer (Jun-Aug) settings for the Mean Period as well, and both show consistent warming trend across the globe.
Though even using your own settings -- just enabling ocean data in addition to land data -- is quite illuminating; you should try it. Remember, we live on a water world, and the oceans are our air conditioner. They've been buffering us against rapid climate change, because it takes them such a long time to warm up. But by the same token, it will take them equally as long to cool back down....
As for any particular spot on the globe, I seem to recall a recent statement from one "adoucette":
I read them.
And I TOTALLY AGREE
QUOTE
regional change is not the same as global mean change.
1) Concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase exponentially
2) Troposphere warms, while stratosphere cools
3) Local climate variability (deviation from mean) increases
4) Average global surface temperature goes up
Regarding measured areas, try this:
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
Most continental landmass is covered quite well, as well as some islands in the Pacific. Certainly good enough to see a global pattern.
Tried global Winter (Dec-Feb) and Summer (Jun-Aug) settings for the Mean Period as well, and both show consistent warming trend across the globe.
Though even using your own settings -- just enabling ocean data in addition to land data -- is quite illuminating; you should try it. Remember, we live on a water world, and the oceans are our air conditioner. They've been buffering us against rapid climate change, because it takes them such a long time to warm up. But by the same token, it will take them equally as long to cool back down....
As for any particular spot on the globe, I seem to recall a recent statement from one "adoucette":
QUOTE
I read them.
And I TOTALLY AGREE
QUOTE
regional change is not the same as global mean change.
Gases are not increasing exponentially.
Where is your evidence for increase in local climate variability?
As to your model parms
Simply change the TRENDS to ANOMALIES.
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: ANOMALIES
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
OOPS
Where did the warming go?
As to the model
We do NOT have that level of OCEAN COVERAGE implied by the mappiing system when get when you select HadISST1.
I'm not sure where the data in this DS was derived from (or its spatial resolution) but I think you'd agree that we DO NOT have that level of resolution of GLOBAL SS Temps that allow us to compare 1900 to 2006.
Arthur
Where is your evidence for increase in local climate variability?
As to your model parms
Simply change the TRENDS to ANOMALIES.
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: ANOMALIES
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
OOPS
Where did the warming go?
As to the model
We do NOT have that level of OCEAN COVERAGE implied by the mappiing system when get when you select HadISST1.
I'm not sure where the data in this DS was derived from (or its spatial resolution) but I think you'd agree that we DO NOT have that level of resolution of GLOBAL SS Temps that allow us to compare 1900 to 2006.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 5 2007, 12:10 PM)
Gases are not increasing exponentially.
Take a close look at this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
The curve over the last 2 centuries or so looks exponential enough to me; how about you?
Of course, this shouldn't be all that surprising if we considered that greenhouse gas emissions directly correlate (by direct causation) to economic growth -- which IS exponential...
Where is your evidence for increase in local climate variability?
Didn't I say it was a prediction of the current climate models? The evidence will materialize over the coming decades, provided the models aren't too far off the mark.
Didn't I say it was a prediction of the current climate models? The evidence will materialize over the coming decades, provided the models aren't too far off the mark.
As to your model parms
Simply change the TRENDS to ANOMALIES.
OOPS
Where did the warming go?
Which leads to a basic question: what is the difference between "TRENDS" and "ANOMALIES"?
The warming of average global temperatures over time (like any other series of data points obtained through time and plotted against a time axis), is a trend.
But let me get this absolutely straight here. Are you now insisting that there has not been an increase in average global temperature over the last century?
As to the model
We do NOT have that level of OCEAN COVERAGE implied by the mappiing system when get when you select HadISST1.
I'm not sure where the data in this DS was derived from (or its spatial resolution) but I think you'd agree that we DO NOT have that level of resolution of GLOBAL SS Temps that allow us to compare 1900 to 2006.
Fascinating, isn't it, that we can graph data we supposedly do NOT have...
As to where the data might have actually come from, I'd imagine ship records would be key to this puzzle. The spatial resolution would be built up over many years -- since the parameters were asking a comparison between two 50-year periods, where I suppose the data over each respective 50-year interval was treated as a single combined data set.
Great graph
Try one a little more specific to our century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b..._gas_trends.png
Its LINEAR, not exponential.
The difference is apparently only known to the folks at GISS.
What is clear is that there is no siginificant land temperature anomalie between the first 50 years of the last century and the last 50 years and there are VAST areas of the continental land mass are the same temperature or COOLER.
Look at the graph (ignore that spike caused by the few readings in the Antarctic Peninsula as it is NOT representative of the Antarctic which we know is cooling)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2000
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
No the question is WHERE did this data come from for the oceans.
It one thing to have stations which report temps on a daily basis, but our ocean coverage is VERY SPORADIC. Yet the graphing would imply we had ships every 250 km of the ocean, damn all the time over the last 100 years.
We didn't.
What we DO know is that the oceans have NOT warmed anywhere near the level of the land masses, as depicted by those charts.
Arthur
And its only taken him 6 years to realise he doesn't have any choice!
He won't be able to save the faces of his former followers though.
Take a close look at this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
The curve over the last 2 centuries or so looks exponential enough to me; how about you?
Of course, this shouldn't be all that surprising if we considered that greenhouse gas emissions directly correlate (by direct causation) to economic growth -- which IS exponential...
QUOTE
Where is your evidence for increase in local climate variability?
Didn't I say it was a prediction of the current climate models? The evidence will materialize over the coming decades, provided the models aren't too far off the mark.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Where is your evidence for increase in local climate variability? |
Didn't I say it was a prediction of the current climate models? The evidence will materialize over the coming decades, provided the models aren't too far off the mark.
As to your model parms
Simply change the TRENDS to ANOMALIES.
OOPS
Where did the warming go?
Which leads to a basic question: what is the difference between "TRENDS" and "ANOMALIES"?
The warming of average global temperatures over time (like any other series of data points obtained through time and plotted against a time axis), is a trend.
But let me get this absolutely straight here. Are you now insisting that there has not been an increase in average global temperature over the last century?
QUOTE
As to the model
We do NOT have that level of OCEAN COVERAGE implied by the mappiing system when get when you select HadISST1.
I'm not sure where the data in this DS was derived from (or its spatial resolution) but I think you'd agree that we DO NOT have that level of resolution of GLOBAL SS Temps that allow us to compare 1900 to 2006.
Fascinating, isn't it, that we can graph data we supposedly do NOT have...
As to where the data might have actually come from, I'd imagine ship records would be key to this puzzle. The spatial resolution would be built up over many years -- since the parameters were asking a comparison between two 50-year periods, where I suppose the data over each respective 50-year interval was treated as a single combined data set.
Great graph
Try one a little more specific to our century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b..._gas_trends.png
Its LINEAR, not exponential.
The difference is apparently only known to the folks at GISS.
What is clear is that there is no siginificant land temperature anomalie between the first 50 years of the last century and the last 50 years and there are VAST areas of the continental land mass are the same temperature or COOLER.
Look at the graph (ignore that spike caused by the few readings in the Antarctic Peninsula as it is NOT representative of the Antarctic which we know is cooling)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2000
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
No the question is WHERE did this data come from for the oceans.
It one thing to have stations which report temps on a daily basis, but our ocean coverage is VERY SPORADIC. Yet the graphing would imply we had ships every 250 km of the ocean, damn all the time over the last 100 years.
We didn't.
What we DO know is that the oceans have NOT warmed anywhere near the level of the land masses, as depicted by those charts.
Arthur
Relevant available data about global warming from NASA
http: // rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html
http: // rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html
Nice link, Ragtime.
So instead of explaining to Arthur how small segments of an exponential curve look linear in isolation, or how trends differ from anomalies, I'll let him educate himself -- if he's willing.
Here's the link again, in a functioning form:
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html
So instead of explaining to Arthur how small segments of an exponential curve look linear in isolation, or how trends differ from anomalies, I'll let him educate himself -- if he's willing.
Here's the link again, in a functioning form:
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html
A period lasting a quarter of a Century is NOT short.
Everybody plays politics.
Even some of those boys at NASA.
You know, like Jim Hensen.
Which is why you find quotes like this in your link:
Good try though.
But you might ask yourself, why does your link show JUST one year of the GISS data, when a 50 year comparison is MUCH MORE INDICATIVE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
I repeat:
Look at the graph (ignore that spike caused by the few readings in the Antarctic Peninsula as it is NOT representative of the Antarctic which we know is cooling)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2000
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
Simply explain why this shows that for the last 50 years there are are VAST areas of the continental land mass that are the same temperature or COOLER than the first 50 years of this century.
Arthur
Everybody plays politics.
Even some of those boys at NASA.
You know, like Jim Hensen.
Which is why you find quotes like this in your link:
QUOTE
I strongly recommend that YOU read Al Gore's new book: "An Inconvenient Truth",
Good try though.
But you might ask yourself, why does your link show JUST one year of the GISS data, when a 50 year comparison is MUCH MORE INDICATIVE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
I repeat:
Look at the graph (ignore that spike caused by the few readings in the Antarctic Peninsula as it is NOT representative of the Antarctic which we know is cooling)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2000
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
Simply explain why this shows that for the last 50 years there are are VAST areas of the continental land mass that are the same temperature or COOLER than the first 50 years of this century.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Oct 6 2007, 09:11 PM)
So instead of explaining to Arthur how small segments of an exponential curve look linear in isolation, or how trends differ from anomalies, I'll let him educate himself -- if he's willing.
I do know the difference of course, simply not how that GISS graphing tool worked when you changed its parameter to TRENDS.
But then it only took a little examination (had you been curious) to see that TRENDS, unlike ANOMALIES, only deals with the first TIME INTERVAL and ignores the BASE PERIOD.
So you showed a graph the explains what we all know, that the latter half of the 20th Century has been generally one of warming.
So now lets look at the Century a tad closer.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1930 — End 1980
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
So what we have is that by just moving the STARTING ENDPOINT to 1930 we see the Globe is in a fairly impressive COOLING TREND over this 50 year period.
No wonder people (and some of the same ones who warn of GW) were writing books and articles about the coming ICE AGE.
OOPS.
But the CYCLICAL NATURE of the Warming and Cooling trends over the last 100 years is why IN BOLD at the end of the RST article you linked to they have THIS:
Arthur
I do know the difference of course, simply not how that GISS graphing tool worked when you changed its parameter to TRENDS.
But then it only took a little examination (had you been curious) to see that TRENDS, unlike ANOMALIES, only deals with the first TIME INTERVAL and ignores the BASE PERIOD.
So you showed a graph the explains what we all know, that the latter half of the 20th Century has been generally one of warming.
So now lets look at the Century a tad closer.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1930 — End 1980
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular
So what we have is that by just moving the STARTING ENDPOINT to 1930 we see the Globe is in a fairly impressive COOLING TREND over this 50 year period.
No wonder people (and some of the same ones who warn of GW) were writing books and articles about the coming ICE AGE.
OOPS.
But the CYCLICAL NATURE of the Warming and Cooling trends over the last 100 years is why IN BOLD at the end of the RST article you linked to they have THIS:
QUOTE
This warming may just be (largely) a natural effect of an interglacial temperature process
Arthur
QUOTE
Bush Seeks New Image on Global Warming
And its only taken him 6 years to realise he doesn't have any choice!
He won't be able to save the faces of his former followers though.
Hi again Arthur,
Still at the mis-information I see.
And while you're going for mis-information, I suppose `a picture (or badly selected data) paints a thousand words...`
Why finishing so early with the interval?
Still at the mis-information I see.
And while you're going for mis-information, I suppose `a picture (or badly selected data) paints a thousand words...`Why finishing so early with the interval?
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 7 2007, 02:07 PM)
Time Interval: Begin 1930 — End 1980
Seem to remember they tried to pull the same trick on The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13229&st=0
Why finishing so late with the base period?:
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
So what we have is that by just moving the STARTING ENDPOINT to 1930 we see the Globe is in a fairly impressive COOLING TREND over this 50 year period.
Would you care to explain your choice of that particular 50 year period? Wouldn't the last 50 years be more appropriate?
I note you tried more appropriate years with your previous post:
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2000
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Results not mis-informing enough for you?
I prefer these more current dates which are closer to your first dates, but just a bit more up to date, and showing the last 56 years:
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
So I get this map showing significant general warming:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...ius=250&pol=reg
Regards,
Smithy
And its only taken him 6 years to realise he doesn't have any choice!
He won't be able to save the faces of his former followers though.
very true...
Seem to remember they tried to pull the same trick on The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13229&st=0Why finishing so late with the base period?:
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 7 2007, 02:07 PM)
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 7 2007, 02:07 PM)
So what we have is that by just moving the STARTING ENDPOINT to 1930 we see the Globe is in a fairly impressive COOLING TREND over this 50 year period.
Would you care to explain your choice of that particular 50 year period? Wouldn't the last 50 years be more appropriate?
I note you tried more appropriate years with your previous post:
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 7 2007, 03:56 AM)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2000
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Results not mis-informing enough for you?
I prefer these more current dates which are closer to your first dates, but just a bit more up to date, and showing the last 56 years:
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
So I get this map showing significant general warming:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...ius=250&pol=reg
Regards,
Smithy
Because Smithy, choice of ENDPOINTS is important when you are in CYCLES
OF COURSE choosing endpoints that are in the MIDDLE of the HIGH POINT of a Cycle will affect the TREND line.
Which, since clearly 1998 - 2004 appears to be the PEAK of the current warm period, then picking dates in this range as the ENDPOINT would distort the record of the 20th Century.
Note that every year since 1998 has been cooler than 1998, simply check the GISS station data as the cooling trend is particularly noticable now in the Southern Hemisphere.
So
If GW is caused by CO2 rise then simply explain how the decades of the 30s were so warm (after it had been SO COLD in the late 19th century) when there was hardly any CO2 released prior to the 30s compared to the decades of say, the 70s & The 80s?
But if GW is caused by CO2 rise then simply explain how CO2 rose EVERY YEAR from 1925 to 1985, a period of 60 years, and YET at the same time we have a SIGNIFICANT COOLING TREND over most of the globe?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Data Sources: Land: 1880-1999 GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1925 — End 1985
Base Period: Begin — End
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular
Or go even further from 1925 to 1990, 65 years and STILL at an overall COOLING TREND.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Data Sources: Land: 1880-1999 GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1925 — End 1990
Base Period: Begin — End
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular
(note IGNORE that RED splotch, that's not a change of that magnitude, that's an ARTIFACT from a SLIGHT ocean current change that affected one of our SPARSE reporting stations in Antarctica. We ACTUALLY do know that Antarctica is COOLING, not warming, and set an ALL TIME RECORD this year for Sea Ice)
So clearly, the warming trend you speak of is actually a fairly INSIGNIFICANT warming, that is QUITE RECENT and barely over the temps that were ALREADY PRESENT by the 30s.
Are you claiming that man caused the significant warming of the 30s?
If so, by WHAT MECHANISM do you propose we caused this warming?
Arthur
OF COURSE choosing endpoints that are in the MIDDLE of the HIGH POINT of a Cycle will affect the TREND line.
Which, since clearly 1998 - 2004 appears to be the PEAK of the current warm period, then picking dates in this range as the ENDPOINT would distort the record of the 20th Century.
Note that every year since 1998 has been cooler than 1998, simply check the GISS station data as the cooling trend is particularly noticable now in the Southern Hemisphere.
So
If GW is caused by CO2 rise then simply explain how the decades of the 30s were so warm (after it had been SO COLD in the late 19th century) when there was hardly any CO2 released prior to the 30s compared to the decades of say, the 70s & The 80s?
But if GW is caused by CO2 rise then simply explain how CO2 rose EVERY YEAR from 1925 to 1985, a period of 60 years, and YET at the same time we have a SIGNIFICANT COOLING TREND over most of the globe?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Data Sources: Land: 1880-1999 GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1925 — End 1985
Base Period: Begin — End
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular
Or go even further from 1925 to 1990, 65 years and STILL at an overall COOLING TREND.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Data Sources: Land: 1880-1999 GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1925 — End 1990
Base Period: Begin — End
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular
(note IGNORE that RED splotch, that's not a change of that magnitude, that's an ARTIFACT from a SLIGHT ocean current change that affected one of our SPARSE reporting stations in Antarctica. We ACTUALLY do know that Antarctica is COOLING, not warming, and set an ALL TIME RECORD this year for Sea Ice)
So clearly, the warming trend you speak of is actually a fairly INSIGNIFICANT warming, that is QUITE RECENT and barely over the temps that were ALREADY PRESENT by the 30s.
Are you claiming that man caused the significant warming of the 30s?
If so, by WHAT MECHANISM do you propose we caused this warming?
Arthur
Come on Arthur :) You're a decent guy, don't let it get to you. I have great respect for your stand. i do beg to differ though, but you see it you way and i do it mine. There is nothing wrong with making a stand. It's a brave thing to do, and in the end it's not about what you did, its all about how you did it.
Yep :) That's human and i find a great pleasure in it. Having 'style' is a nice thing and a pleasure in itself :) Hey, i know some other guys here with it too ::))
Sorry, forgot :) We do have some very cool gals too..
Yep :) That's human and i find a great pleasure in it. Having 'style' is a nice thing and a pleasure in itself :) Hey, i know some other guys here with it too ::))
Sorry, forgot :) We do have some very cool gals too..
What do the following all have in common?
From the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Albia.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Akureyri.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ntananarivo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Asuncion.gif
NOTE: On this and any other GISS graphs that have a 2007 data point, ignore it as it is a partial year.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Beatrice.gif
Arthur
From the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Albia.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Akureyri.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ntananarivo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Asuncion.gif
NOTE: On this and any other GISS graphs that have a 2007 data point, ignore it as it is a partial year.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Beatrice.gif
Arthur
Just a guess?
They're all made as gif:s?
( awh, couldn't help myself here :)
They're all made as gif:s?
( awh, couldn't help myself here :)
While that's true, there are OTHER more relevant climatic points that one can glean.
For instance, do we notice a similarity, could we say, PATTERN to these different plots?
PS, the GISS data set has SURPRISINGLY few records that span the last century into the 21st century.
Also what is interesting is that just as the issue of GW was brought up by Hensen, the number of stations tracked in the GISS database (his baby) PLUMMETs.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ng/stations.gif
Arthur
For instance, do we notice a similarity, could we say, PATTERN to these different plots?
PS, the GISS data set has SURPRISINGLY few records that span the last century into the 21st century.
Also what is interesting is that just as the issue of GW was brought up by Hensen, the number of stations tracked in the GISS database (his baby) PLUMMETs.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ng/stations.gif
Arthur
From the GISS DB
(Remember, IGNORE that last point, that's the partial year 2007)
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Genoa.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-Glennville.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Godthab.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...Griggsville.gif
Arthur
(Remember, IGNORE that last point, that's the partial year 2007)
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Genoa.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-Glennville.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Godthab.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...Griggsville.gif
Arthur
From the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Laramie.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Larissa.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Lincoln.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-LoupCity.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Luling.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Laramie.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Larissa.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Lincoln.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-LoupCity.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Luling.gif
Arthur
From the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Madison-1.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Marrakech.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Mexico.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Minden.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Moberly.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Madison-1.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Marrakech.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Mexico.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Minden.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Moberly.gif
Arthur
From the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Monmouth.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ewBraunfels.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Olympia.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...strovDikson.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-RedCloud.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Monmouth.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ewBraunfels.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Olympia.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...strovDikson.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-RedCloud.gif
Arthur
From GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Reykjavik.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Roswell.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Rushville.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Salehard.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Salisbury.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Reykjavik.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Roswell.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Rushville.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Salehard.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Salisbury.gif
Arthur
From GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Saluda.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Savannah.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...Selinsgrove.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-Smithfield.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Socorro.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Saluda.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Savannah.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...Selinsgrove.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-Smithfield.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Socorro.gif
Arthur
From GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...Sodankyla-1.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Southport.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...teffenville.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Tombstone.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Tularosa.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...Sodankyla-1.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Southport.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...teffenville.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Tombstone.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Tularosa.gif
Arthur
From GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Turuhansk.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...alentiaObse.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Warrenton.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Wilson.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Yemassee.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Turuhansk.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...alentiaObse.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-Warrenton.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Wilson.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Yemassee.gif
Arthur
Arthur Doucette,
Referring way back to my previous post, ignoring the last 26 years is simply being selective for your own purposes.
Scanning through those GIFs (you have been busy!), I can clearly see cycles as I expected, but I see many of them on a rising trend when the whole period is taken into account. Yes there are some which look like they may have a falling trend, but I suggest the average will be up, and that's what the majority of main-stream scientists say. I suggest the rise in the last 26-ish years is relatively dramatic, hence I understand why you would want to miss it out in the interests of mis-information
Are you really trying to correct the IPCC?
Regards,
Smithy
Referring way back to my previous post, ignoring the last 26 years is simply being selective for your own purposes.
Scanning through those GIFs (you have been busy!), I can clearly see cycles as I expected, but I see many of them on a rising trend when the whole period is taken into account. Yes there are some which look like they may have a falling trend, but I suggest the average will be up, and that's what the majority of main-stream scientists say. I suggest the rise in the last 26-ish years is relatively dramatic, hence I understand why you would want to miss it out in the interests of mis-information
Are you really trying to correct the IPCC?
Regards,
Smithy
QUOTE (Ave Maria+Oct 7 2007, 10:46 PM)
And its only taken him 6 years to realise he doesn't have any choice!
He won't be able to save the faces of his former followers though.
very true...
QUOTE (Smithy+Oct 11 2007, 03:10 AM)
Arthur Doucette,
Referring way back to my previous post, ignoring the last 26 years is simply being selective for your own purposes.
Scanning through those GIFs (you have been busy!), I can clearly see cycles as I expected, but I see many of them on a rising trend when the whole period is taken into account. Yes there are some which look like they may have a falling trend, but I suggest the average will be up, and that's what the majority of main-stream scientists say. I suggest the rise in the last 26-ish years is relatively dramatic, hence I understand why you would want to miss it out in the interests of mis-information
Are you really trying to correct the IPCC?
Regards,
Smithy
How can you say I'm ignoring the last 26 years?
Those graphs from over 70 LONG TERM STATIONS all show the last 26 years.
What they DON'T SHOW is that the last 26 years were warmer than the temps previously reached EARLY in the period.
The point of this graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Was simply to show the DOCUMENTED extent of the SUSTAINED COOLING TREND the globe experienced from 1925 until 1985 (SIX DECADES)
The point of this graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Is to show that as late as 1990 the TREND lines were still slightly NEGATIVE.
Which is why I asked you for your explanation for this SUSTAINED COOLING trend at the same time CO2 was rising and for your explanation for the DRAMATIC warming trend at the start of the century before any significant CO2 increase.
I notice you ignore these questions.
You EXPECTED CYCLES?
Please inform us then as to WHY you EXPECTED CYCLES, particularly the COOLING CYCLE in the last century.
Its not about the IPCC, its about the DATA.
What is it about looking at the DATA that upsets you?
Arthur
Referring way back to my previous post, ignoring the last 26 years is simply being selective for your own purposes.
Scanning through those GIFs (you have been busy!), I can clearly see cycles as I expected, but I see many of them on a rising trend when the whole period is taken into account. Yes there are some which look like they may have a falling trend, but I suggest the average will be up, and that's what the majority of main-stream scientists say. I suggest the rise in the last 26-ish years is relatively dramatic, hence I understand why you would want to miss it out in the interests of mis-information
Are you really trying to correct the IPCC?
Regards,
Smithy
How can you say I'm ignoring the last 26 years?
Those graphs from over 70 LONG TERM STATIONS all show the last 26 years.
What they DON'T SHOW is that the last 26 years were warmer than the temps previously reached EARLY in the period.
The point of this graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Was simply to show the DOCUMENTED extent of the SUSTAINED COOLING TREND the globe experienced from 1925 until 1985 (SIX DECADES)
The point of this graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...us=1200&pol=reg
Is to show that as late as 1990 the TREND lines were still slightly NEGATIVE.
Which is why I asked you for your explanation for this SUSTAINED COOLING trend at the same time CO2 was rising and for your explanation for the DRAMATIC warming trend at the start of the century before any significant CO2 increase.
I notice you ignore these questions.
You EXPECTED CYCLES?
Please inform us then as to WHY you EXPECTED CYCLES, particularly the COOLING CYCLE in the last century.
Its not about the IPCC, its about the DATA.
What is it about looking at the DATA that upsets you?
Arthur
From the GISS DB
What do these all have in Common?
How do all of these differ from the previous set?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Berkeley.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Detroit.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Kharkiv.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-LosAngeles.gif
Arthur
What do these all have in Common?
How do all of these differ from the previous set?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Berkeley.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Detroit.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Kharkiv.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-LosAngeles.gif
Arthur
From the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...anFrancisco.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...antaBarbara.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Stamford.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Tokyo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Tucson.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...anFrancisco.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...antaBarbara.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Stamford.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Tokyo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Tucson.gif
Arthur
What does this last set all have in common?
Well for one, you've heard of all these places, (note station names: Tuscon, Tokyo, New York, Phoenix, San Fran, Detroit, Los Angeles etc) while few have ever heard of the majority of the previous stations.
Why?
Because the previous set was selected from PREDOMINATELY RURAL locations.
This last set is from URBAN settings.
If you look closely you will see a faint echo of the dominate cycle from the previous set in this new set, but what is clear is that the URBAN HEAT ISLAND effect PREDOMINATES, and WIPES OUT the 30's to 80's cooling that is so clearly documented in the earlier graphs.
Unfortunately, while the IPCC says that they examined the data and accounted for the UHI, the DB that they use for temps (Hensen's) is clearly STILL contaminated with many stations with PRONOUNCED UHIs.
Its seems clear that these URBAN stations are ONE of the factors that create the pronounced Warming trend seen when one uses the GISS DB and graphs thru the latter part of the 20th Century.
Unfortunately there is no easy way for an end user to purge the DB of Urban stations and get a BETTER look at the NATURAL TRENDS.
Arthur
Well for one, you've heard of all these places, (note station names: Tuscon, Tokyo, New York, Phoenix, San Fran, Detroit, Los Angeles etc) while few have ever heard of the majority of the previous stations.
Why?
Because the previous set was selected from PREDOMINATELY RURAL locations.
This last set is from URBAN settings.
If you look closely you will see a faint echo of the dominate cycle from the previous set in this new set, but what is clear is that the URBAN HEAT ISLAND effect PREDOMINATES, and WIPES OUT the 30's to 80's cooling that is so clearly documented in the earlier graphs.
Unfortunately, while the IPCC says that they examined the data and accounted for the UHI, the DB that they use for temps (Hensen's) is clearly STILL contaminated with many stations with PRONOUNCED UHIs.
Its seems clear that these URBAN stations are ONE of the factors that create the pronounced Warming trend seen when one uses the GISS DB and graphs thru the latter part of the 20th Century.
Unfortunately there is no easy way for an end user to purge the DB of Urban stations and get a BETTER look at the NATURAL TRENDS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 11 2007, 02:02 PM)
How can you say I'm ignoring the last 26 years?
Because you chose deliberately to ignore those years when you drew attention to the world maps.
Because you chose deliberately to ignore those years when you drew attention to the world maps.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 11 2007, 02:25 PM)
What does this last set all have in common?
Well for one, you've heard of all these places, (note station names: Tuscon, Tokyo, New York, Phoenix, San Fran, Detroit, Los Angeles etc) while few have ever heard of the majority of the previous stations.
Why?
Because the previous set was selected from PREDOMINATELY RURAL locations.
This last set is from URBAN settings.
Interesting that you initially failed to point out that the first set were predominantly from rural locations , and yet the overall warming trend still shows, despite the cooling cycle.
Just another attempt at mis-information?
Well for one, you've heard of all these places, (note station names: Tuscon, Tokyo, New York, Phoenix, San Fran, Detroit, Los Angeles etc) while few have ever heard of the majority of the previous stations.
Why?
Because the previous set was selected from PREDOMINATELY RURAL locations.
This last set is from URBAN settings.
Interesting that you initially failed to point out that the first set were predominantly from rural locations
, and yet the overall warming trend still shows, despite the cooling cycle.Just another attempt at mis-information?
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 11 2007, 02:25 PM)
If you look closely you will see a faint echo of the dominate cycle from the previous set in this new set, but what is clear is that the URBAN HEAT ISLAND effect PREDOMINATES, and WIPES OUT the 30's to 80's cooling that is so clearly documented in the earlier graphs.
We should of course be concerned about the population centres...
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 11 2007, 02:25 PM)
Unfortunately, while the IPCC says that they examined the data and accounted for the UHI, the DB that they use for temps (Hensen's) is clearly STILL contaminated with many stations with PRONOUNCED UHIs.
So you claim to be more qualified than the IPCC main-stream scientists? A global average will include all locations. Pity we don't have more, but there's plenty of other evidence for what's going on. Wonder why Bush wants a new image on global warming?
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 11 2007, 02:25 PM)
Its seems clear that these URBAN stations are ONE of the factors that create the pronounced Warming trend seen when one uses the GISS DB and graphs thru the latter part of the 20th Century.
So what are the other factors?
So what are the other factors?
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 11 2007, 02:25 PM)
Unfortunately there is no easy way for an end user to purge the DB of Urban stations and get a BETTER look at the NATURAL TRENDS.
Arthur
The best look at natural trends is to look at all of the data, and not to selectively look at rural locations... but then again, those rural locations still showed a warming trend over all...
Smithy
Arthur
The best look at natural trends is to look at all of the data, and not to selectively look at rural locations... but then again, those rural locations still showed a warming trend over all...
Smithy
Smithy,
My posts are all strung together as a LONG DISCUSSION on the subject.
You pick ONE PIECE and because that piece FOCUSES on a SUBSET of the data or of a SPECIFIC PERIOD you claim its an attempt at DISINFORMATION.
Horse Pucky
It would be DISINFORMATION if I did not disclose the DATE RANGES under study, but in EVERY CASE, I DID.
As to not disclosing they were RURAL vs URBAN, did you not notice that I presented the data as a sort of QUESTION? I was asking people to get involved and see if they could figure out what the two sets of data had in common and what was different about them.
In the end, I explained the difference.
So again, there is NO attempt at disinformation.
Well, except from you.
Which seems to be your style, if you can't attack the data then make it into a personal attack.
Come back when you want to add something of VALUE to the discussion.
Or maybe you can try to answer the questions I asked?
As to your last post:
My posts are all strung together as a LONG DISCUSSION on the subject.
You pick ONE PIECE and because that piece FOCUSES on a SUBSET of the data or of a SPECIFIC PERIOD you claim its an attempt at DISINFORMATION.
Horse Pucky
It would be DISINFORMATION if I did not disclose the DATE RANGES under study, but in EVERY CASE, I DID.
As to not disclosing they were RURAL vs URBAN, did you not notice that I presented the data as a sort of QUESTION? I was asking people to get involved and see if they could figure out what the two sets of data had in common and what was different about them.
In the end, I explained the difference.
So again, there is NO attempt at disinformation.
Well, except from you.
Which seems to be your style, if you can't attack the data then make it into a personal attack.
Come back when you want to add something of VALUE to the discussion.
Or maybe you can try to answer the questions I asked?
As to your last post:
QUOTE (Smithy+)
the first set were predominantly from rural locations , and yet the overall warming trend still shows, despite the cooling cycle.
Maybe you should go back and LOOK AGAIN at those graphs.
None of these show an overall warming trend PAST the initial rise at the START of the Century. CONTRARY to what one would expect if CO2 based forcing is a PRIMARY climatic driver.
As to this BRILLIANT piece of logic about the inclusion of Urban locations that CLEARLY exhibit an UHI effect:
Maybe you should go back and LOOK AGAIN at those graphs.
None of these show an overall warming trend PAST the initial rise at the START of the Century. CONTRARY to what one would expect if CO2 based forcing is a PRIMARY climatic driver.
As to this BRILLIANT piece of logic about the inclusion of Urban locations that CLEARLY exhibit an UHI effect:
QUOTE (Smithy+)
A global average will include all locations.
No, Smithy, because we have VERY FEW stations covering the globe, including a large number of URBAN stations will give a distorted view of the climate because the VAST MAJORITY of the Globe is NOT URBAN, thus, because of the well documented Urban Heat Island effect, their inclusion creates an ARTIFICIAL illusion of increased GLOBAL warming.
Arthur
No, Smithy, because we have VERY FEW stations covering the globe, including a large number of URBAN stations will give a distorted view of the climate because the VAST MAJORITY of the Globe is NOT URBAN, thus, because of the well documented Urban Heat Island effect, their inclusion creates an ARTIFICIAL illusion of increased GLOBAL warming.
Arthur
What do these stations have in common?
How are they like the previous first set (not the city set)?
How are they different than the previous graphs?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Albany.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ntananarivo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Artigas.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Asuncion.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...landairport.gif
Arthur
How are they like the previous first set (not the city set)?
How are they different than the previous graphs?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...tion-Albany.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ntananarivo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Artigas.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Asuncion.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...landairport.gif
Arthur
More from the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...DiegoSuarez.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-EsquelAero.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Giles.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...GoveAirport.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-GreatWall.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...DiegoSuarez.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-EsquelAero.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Giles.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...GoveAirport.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-GreatWall.gif
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 11 2007, 05:57 PM)
None of these show an overall warming trend PAST the initial rise at the START of the Century.
your image of Fairbury:
Going up overall if you ask me...
your image of Fairbury:
Going up overall if you ask me...
QUOTE (Smithy+Oct 11 2007, 03:26 PM)
your image of Fairbury:
Going up overall if you ask me...
Glad we don't have to ASK you.
Print it out.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Fairmont.gif
Draw the lines.
Add up the two periods.
2005 12.2
2004 11.5
2003 11.4
2002 12.1
2001 11.4
2000 12.9
1999 12.2
1998 11.3
1997 10.2
1996 9.8
1995 10.9
1994 11.1
1993 9.3
1992 11.3
1991 11.4
1990 11.5
1989 11
1988 11.6
1987 12.3
1986 11.4
1940 11.1
1939 12.7
1938 12.5
1937 11.3
1936 11.4
1935 11.2
1934 13.5
1933 12.2
1932 11.4
1931 12.8
1930 12.3
1929 10.7
1928 11.2
1927 11.4
1926 11.6
1925 11.1
1924 10.6
1923 10.5
1922 11.8
1921 12.8
I think I was GENEROUS in my assigning temps to the current period, but if you disagree with any of my temp assignments in either period let me know.
Now compare average temps between the two periods:
Last 5 years 2001 - 2005 = 11.7 C vs 1936 - 1940 = 11.8 C
Last 10 years 1996 - 2005 = 11.5 C vs 1931 - 1940 = 12.0 C
Last 20 years 1986 - 2005 = 11.3 C vs 1921 - 1940 = 11.7 C
Hottest year last 20 years = 2009 @ 12.9 C vs 1934 @ 13.5 C
Hottest 5 year period in the last 20 years:
1999 - 2003 = 12.0 C vs 1930 - 1934 = 12.4 C
Hottest 5 years in a 20 year period.
Last 20 years = 12.3 C vs 1921-1940 of 12.9 C
In EVERY measure it was warmer in the decade of the 30s vs the last 10 years or in the 20 years centered around 1930 than it was in the last 20 years.
Arthur
Going up overall if you ask me...
Glad we don't have to ASK you.
Print it out.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Fairmont.gif
Draw the lines.
Add up the two periods.
2005 12.2
2004 11.5
2003 11.4
2002 12.1
2001 11.4
2000 12.9
1999 12.2
1998 11.3
1997 10.2
1996 9.8
1995 10.9
1994 11.1
1993 9.3
1992 11.3
1991 11.4
1990 11.5
1989 11
1988 11.6
1987 12.3
1986 11.4
1940 11.1
1939 12.7
1938 12.5
1937 11.3
1936 11.4
1935 11.2
1934 13.5
1933 12.2
1932 11.4
1931 12.8
1930 12.3
1929 10.7
1928 11.2
1927 11.4
1926 11.6
1925 11.1
1924 10.6
1923 10.5
1922 11.8
1921 12.8
I think I was GENEROUS in my assigning temps to the current period, but if you disagree with any of my temp assignments in either period let me know.
Now compare average temps between the two periods:
Last 5 years 2001 - 2005 = 11.7 C vs 1936 - 1940 = 11.8 C
Last 10 years 1996 - 2005 = 11.5 C vs 1931 - 1940 = 12.0 C
Last 20 years 1986 - 2005 = 11.3 C vs 1921 - 1940 = 11.7 C
Hottest year last 20 years = 2009 @ 12.9 C vs 1934 @ 13.5 C
Hottest 5 year period in the last 20 years:
1999 - 2003 = 12.0 C vs 1930 - 1934 = 12.4 C
Hottest 5 years in a 20 year period.
Last 20 years = 12.3 C vs 1921-1940 of 12.9 C
In EVERY measure it was warmer in the decade of the 30s vs the last 10 years or in the 20 years centered around 1930 than it was in the last 20 years.
Arthur
To continue the most recent set:
What do these stations have in common?
How are they like the previous first set (not the city set)?
How are they different than the previous graphs?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Mcmurdo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-MtIsa.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Neumayer.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...rfolkIsland.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-PasoDeLos.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Pilar.gif
Arthur
What do these stations have in common?
How are they like the previous first set (not the city set)?
How are they different than the previous graphs?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ion-Mcmurdo.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-MtIsa.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...on-Neumayer.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...rfolkIsland.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-PasoDeLos.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Pilar.gif
Arthur
Some more from the GISS DB
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...PuertoMontt.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-RioBranco.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Salto.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...SanAntonioO.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-ScottBase.gif
Arthur
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...PuertoMontt.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-RioBranco.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ation-Salto.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...SanAntonioO.gif
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...n-ScottBase.gif
Arthur
This last set of stations, unlike the previous sets, are all from the Southern Hemisphere.
What they have in common is they all end with ~ a decade of declining temps.
This is also seen in some stations in the NH, but the cooling appears to be decidedly more pronounced in the SH.
The other difference is there are many fewer SH stations with century long records.
This shows were there were stations in 1900:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-1900ofig3b.gif
Arthur
What they have in common is they all end with ~ a decade of declining temps.
This is also seen in some stations in the NH, but the cooling appears to be decidedly more pronounced in the SH.
The other difference is there are many fewer SH stations with century long records.
This shows were there were stations in 1900:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...-1900ofig3b.gif
Arthur
What about the quality of the oxygen we're breathing!
How much oxygen does a 2l vehicle running at 3000rpm for 10 minutes consume?
How much oxygen does a 2l vehicle running at 3000rpm for 10 minutes consume?
QUOTE (EMPulse+Oct 12 2007, 02:53 PM)
What about the quality of the oxygen we're breathing!
How much oxygen does a 2l vehicle running at 3000rpm for 10 minutes consume?
It doesn't consume O2 it converts O2 to PLANT FOOD.
The plants in turn uses the primary PLANT FOOD CO2 + SUNLIGHT to make ANIMAL FOOD and in the process RELEASES the O2 back to the atmosphere.
Which is one reason the Net Primary Production (Plant Biomass) of the planet is increasing at ~ 3% per decade.
Arthur
How much oxygen does a 2l vehicle running at 3000rpm for 10 minutes consume?
It doesn't consume O2 it converts O2 to PLANT FOOD.
The plants in turn uses the primary PLANT FOOD CO2 + SUNLIGHT to make ANIMAL FOOD and in the process RELEASES the O2 back to the atmosphere.
Which is one reason the Net Primary Production (Plant Biomass) of the planet is increasing at ~ 3% per decade.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 12 2007, 07:08 PM)
It doesn't consume O2 it converts O2 to PLANT FOOD.
The plants in turn uses the primary PLANT FOOD CO2 + SUNLIGHT to make ANIMAL FOOD and in the process RELEASES the O2 back to the atmosphere.
Which is one reason the Net Primary Production (Plant Biomass) of the planet is increasing at ~ 3% per decade.
Arthur
After you worked out how much a single vehicle uses, take an estimate of all the vehicles on the planet and their consumption. Then compare it to the average of all the flora O2 creation, then we wont be assuming...
Which is one reason the Net Primary Production (Plant Biomass) of the planet is increasing at ~ 3% per decade.
Nature trying to compensate for our usage? At the rate we chop it down...
The plants in turn uses the primary PLANT FOOD CO2 + SUNLIGHT to make ANIMAL FOOD and in the process RELEASES the O2 back to the atmosphere.
Which is one reason the Net Primary Production (Plant Biomass) of the planet is increasing at ~ 3% per decade.
Arthur
After you worked out how much a single vehicle uses, take an estimate of all the vehicles on the planet and their consumption. Then compare it to the average of all the flora O2 creation, then we wont be assuming...
QUOTE
Which is one reason the Net Primary Production (Plant Biomass) of the planet is increasing at ~ 3% per decade.
Nature trying to compensate for our usage? At the rate we chop it down...
I'm not ASSUMING.
The NPP number was based on global satellite measurements over a two decade period and a NPP increase means More Biomass per decade, not less.
Arthur
The NPP number was based on global satellite measurements over a two decade period and a NPP increase means More Biomass per decade, not less.
Arthur
How much oxygen does a 2l vehicle running at 3000rpm for 10 minutes consume?
It shouldn't be a problem to give me the answer to this simple question!
It shouldn't be a problem to give me the answer to this simple question!
The answer is NONE.
The Oxygen is STILL Oxygen after combustion.
Plants and sunlight is all it takes to return the O2 in molecular form to the atmosphere.
Arthur
The Oxygen is STILL Oxygen after combustion.
Plants and sunlight is all it takes to return the O2 in molecular form to the atmosphere.
Arthur
I want to work out how much CO2 we put into the environment... compared to how much O2 is returned.
Its unclear.
The amount of CO2 we produce is MINISCULE in comparison to the existing global cycles of CO2 exchange.
What we do know is that the CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by ~ 2 ppm of CO2 per year
Each PPM of CO2 = ~2 Gigatons of Carbon and ~5.2 Gigatons of Oxygen.
As to O2 levels.
Scientists from CSIRO measured changes in oxygen levels in the atmosphere from air dating back to 1978.
(CSIRO's has an archive of pristine air collected at Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station)
As they stated: The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air - 20.95 percent by volume. The oxygen reduction was just 0.03 percent in the past 20 years.
Arthur
The amount of CO2 we produce is MINISCULE in comparison to the existing global cycles of CO2 exchange.
What we do know is that the CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by ~ 2 ppm of CO2 per year
Each PPM of CO2 = ~2 Gigatons of Carbon and ~5.2 Gigatons of Oxygen.
As to O2 levels.
Scientists from CSIRO measured changes in oxygen levels in the atmosphere from air dating back to 1978.
(CSIRO's has an archive of pristine air collected at Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station)
As they stated: The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air - 20.95 percent by volume. The oxygen reduction was just 0.03 percent in the past 20 years.
Arthur
<