Laughable, the bigger post wins?
Please edit that crap and post a source not a rant directly into the forum.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html
January was “the thirty-first warmest on record”
Instead of reading yourself, you listen to truth spinners and kooks.
Have you actually checked out the data of Hadley, NASA, GISS etc.?
I posted NASA and quoted yet you remain stubborn. “But the blog-guy said…”. …[/quote]
I posted the links to the data as well as the NASA site.
NASA says the satellite data indicates cooling the last decade.
Here is a quick comparison and average of �??T for all metrics shown above:
Source: Global �??T °C
HadCRUT - 0.595
GISS - 0.750
UAH - 0.588
RSS - 0.629
Average: - 0.6405°C
For all four metrics the global average �??T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: - 0.6405°C
It doesn’t get much more clear than that. In the past year the globe has cooled. This is not a month to month comparison. This is an entire year of data!
Global warming crap = the ANTI-Industrial Revolution
“In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire.”
[Ayn Rand (1971), “The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” Return of the Primitive, 277.]
Check this to see how crappy surfacte temperature stations may be giving bogus temperatures.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No.
Read and learn.
light version
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/223318/86
[/quote]
Sorry, I will take NASA over gristmill.org
Yeah, right- But some blogger over NASA?
so…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
…
Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
to quote pookie from page one:
“I’ll let you go back to your cherry picking now.”
1
2
3
4
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Yeah, right- But some blogger over NASA?
so…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
…
Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
to quote pookie from page one:
“I’ll let you go back to your cherry picking now.”[/quote]
The reasons I have read for the NASA GISS data having the biggest drop is because they knew their 2007 numbers were bogus and they are using this drop to correct them.
Stay tuned. If solar activity remains low things could get very interesting.
Pointless arguing with you. I’m not the one you can pull neverending thread schticks on, like for instance ZEB’s homo aversion monologues. And I won’t repeat myself over and over while you won’t even read my sources.
The thread is yours.
Out of idle curiosity, what is it those graphs with the unreadable labels are supposed to be showing?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Out of idle curiosity, what is it those graphs with the unreadable labels are supposed to be showing?
[/quote]
The drop in temps from Jan 07 - Jan 08
[quote]pookie wrote:
Out of idle curiosity, what is it those graphs with the unreadable labels are supposed to be showing?
[/quote]
If you would have opened any of my links you would see the drop in temps over the past year. Since you didn’t I think your cherrypicking comment was off the cuff and you may change your mind shortly if the trend continues.
Change my mind? Sure, but not from data like this.
One year is much too short a time span to judge phenomena like global warming (or cooling) on.
You have to look at the trend over decades (at least) or centuries.
Just like your graph, with spikes and dips, average yearly temperature fall and rise. Having one very cool year or one very hot one is not in any way an argument to settle the debate.
It’s the overall trend over much longer periods of time that tells the story.
And if you look at data over the last few hundred years, there is a very rapid increase in the average temperature. So while, yes, the Earth has been much hotter than it is now in the past, as far as we can tell, it never got that hot that fast before.
Still, I’m rather pragmatic about GW (or GC)… even if it is happening, no country that matters (US, China, India) is doing anything about it. It makes Canada (and most other countries) failing to meet their Kyoto goals a moot point. Even if Canada could cut all carbon emissions to zero, we’d alleviate a big 3% of the problem.
Assuming that cutting carbon emission is the right solution to the problem.
Hell, the US even has a $100 million satellite siting in a barn somewhere (Google for DSCOVR) that was supposed to be sent to the Lagrange-1 point in the Earth’s orbit. That satellite would give us incredible data to better understand GW… but apparently, some people would rather not have better information. The damn thing is built and paid for; just send it up. But no, let’s grow sweet potatoes in microgravity on the ISS… THAT’s useful.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Change my mind? Sure, but not from data like this.
One year is much too short a time span to judge phenomena like global warming (or cooling) on.
You have to look at the trend over decades (at least) or centuries.
[/quote]
Or longer.
The interesting thing is the very rapid cooling over the last 12 months. Much more rapid than the warming.
It does not fit the climate models that have “debunked” the effects of solar radiation. Could it be that the climate models are wrong?
Cutting emissions isn’t going to happen but there are many that want to tax them. This is the real issue.
Which we don’t know if it is a solution or if there is even a problem.
I didn’t know that. Launch that fucker and get some real data before I have to start paying extra for everything I do so we can by carbon credits from some non productive jackass.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Or longer.[/quote]
That’s what the “at least” implied.
Again? Weren’t you just commenting that decades and centuries weren’t long enough?
If the cooling continues for another 10 or 20 years, we’ll talk. For now, it’s at best another dip in the slow upward trend.
Climate change occurs over geological ages… usually thousands or ten of thousands of years. Drawing any conclusion from a year of data is… well, “unscientific” at best.
Who ever claimed they were perfect? Climate is an extremely complicated subject and all the various interactions are far from completely understood. The models are refined and corrected as new data comes in.
That’s why the DSCOVR satellite would be such a boon. We’d get a lot of data to help us better understand the problem. We might even be able to determine there is no problem. The difference would be that we’d have more facts to make that decision on, rather than mostly personal opinion.
All that said, I’ve yet to see a single article (and I read quite a bit of science/physics/biology stuff) say that because one year was cooler than expected, the models have to be scrapped. As far as my understanding goes, the models predict trends over long periods; none of them claim to be able to announce what the average will be year-by-year. It’s more of a “we expect the Earth’s average temperature to be 1.4C degrees warmer by 2020…” It doesn’t matter if the temperatures drop by 2C some years and climb by 2C some other year… if the long term trend matches a 1.xC increase by 2020, the model is fairly accurate, even though 2020 itself might be the coldest year of the decade.
Shit, we did trends at the end of high school with basic statistics… I can’t believe most people (and worse for you: an engineer) ignore the big picture to concentrate on a detail that supports their viewpoint.
Well then, a better approach would be to propose alternative solutions that don’t require new taxes - not to pretend that warming is not occurring.
Again, more research and more data would help everyone get a clearer picture of the situation.
Yes. Exactly. The fucking thing is all built and paid for, but sitting in moth balls somewhere while we dick around on the ISS…