The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

2007 Weather Review

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/...F6cqKpY4ys0NUE

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_sea...ssrelease.html

[El_Gringo_Grande]

"One thing I have learned in a long life: All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have" = Albert Einstein

Somewhat appropriate to this conversation.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by bkelly

I've been looking into this claim of Lucky Shot's and found some interesting tidbits. I thought I would share my findings.

Lucky Shot's reference for this assertion was the video "Climate Change - Is CO2 the Cause?", a taping of a presentation made by Bob Carter on September 8th 2007 at the Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation. It's a brief mention about half the way through the first video clip. Bob Carter says, "We go to the last ten years... sorry, the last eight years... it's (temperature) stasis again like the little ice age."

(( Note that this is slightly different that Bob Carter's normal argument in which he says the temperature has been in stasis since 1998. This is a dishonest, cherry-picked statement because 1998 was a remarkably warm year and a warming trend reappears if you measure from 1997 or 1999. However I am looking into this different 8 year claim from the video. ))

Bob Carter's data behind the statement has been difficult because I can't read the text at the bottom of the slide in the video and he doesn't make is presentations available. After a lot of searching I found this paper by Mr. Carter that features a global temperature graph entitled "CRU Global Ground Temperature Series, Monthly". CRU refers to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia so my assumption is that Bob Carter uses their datasets for his assertions about global climate trends.

I downloaded the HadCRUT3v dataset, imported it into Exel and saw that it matched the graph in the paper. Now, to test the Bob's 8 year stasis assertion with his own data. The claim was made in September and since it takes a month or two for CRU to process and post the data, I'll look at the 8 years from August of 99 to July to 07.



And the assertion fails. The trend of temperatures for the 8 years prior to July 07 is upward however I noticed that the data is fairly flat starting around 2001. Could temperatures have stabilized, just not for as long a period as Bob Carter suggests? To see, I graphed the six years prior to July of 07.



Well look at that! According to the CRU's numbers the planet cooled slightly during the six years after August of 01.

Okay, so one can find up and down slopes of linear regressions done on 6 year spans of the HadCRUT3v dataset. That suggests that the slope of any six year span doesn't mean much, but I was still curious about how often the slope did become negative. A graph of the slope of the trendlines would show this and a short dip under 0 would indicate that the "temperature stasis" observation uses cherry-picked data. I started with 30 years and then plotted 100 years when I noticed the pattern. Here's the 100 year result.



So the 6 year temperature trends have spent a majority of their time in the positive area since about 1970 and have been moving more positive since about 1946, however what struck me was the cyclical up and down that happens about every 11 years. Hmm, what else happens every 11 years? Oh yeah, the solar cycle! A quick trip to the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center and...



Hmm, interesting. There does seem to be some correlation between the number of sunspots and the slope of a six year temperature linear regression although the '40-'60 span seems to be a reverse of the trend.

So what does this mean about the 6 year temperature stasis we're seeing and Bob Carter's assertion about 8 years? Simple- they don't mean much. Since the solar cycle does affect temperature here on Earth it needs to be factored in to any analysis of temperature trends. The easiest way to do this is to take samples over at least 1 cycle (11 years) and preferably more to minimize unusual solar cycles.



bkelly

Thank you for proving all of our (meaning the sane, dominantly right-brained people) assumptions correct. Its really a mystery to me how anyone.. with any sort of mathematical, astrological, or generally scientific education could not realize that the sun affects the earth's temperature and climate more directly than any other object in the universe.

[Axis of Eeevil]

Read "The Whale and the Supercomputer", a book that captures very succinctly the key element of the Global Climate Change question: the human element, i.e. how we put together very complex information from disparate parts to come up with a summation or picture of the whole.
For the Inuit and Eskimos, there is no doubt that things are changing, and changing beyond what they have a clear record of in their 2-5 millenia oral tradition. For them, the question is not so much why or who to blame, but simply, "How will we once again change our way of life to adapt?"

The many scientists, researchers, specialists and others also interviewed and described make a poignant illustration of the enormity of sifting through enormous records and measurements of minutiae to try and describe and predict something that is in essence beyond our technical capacity to understand or predict. Perhaps beyond our intellectual capacity as well. The communication of the relevant data to those who need to know quickly becomes impossible.

The book never pushes a certain view, it did not decide anything for me or even really help me to "decide" whether GW was a human-caused phenomenon. It makes it almost seem irrelevant, when all we can do is gather more data, which makes more and more complexities apparent, which in turn introduces more uncertainty and a need for more data. A positive-feedback loop of near-infinite complexity and variations of interpretation. This is what every true scientist who holds true to Science grapples with, even if they have been forced by the tyranny of politics and academia to choose one camp or another.

The book aside, I see one thing in this question: the telltale polarization and often false dichotomy of political worldview--which always seem to create a rift precisely where cooperation and communication is needed.

It's the same old intersection of religion, politics and power: today, power is fossil fuels, which has been THE instrument of global power and influence for the last 100 years, vs. "alternate fuels" and consequently a new form of global power and influence being "introduced" to seemingly overturn the energy hegemony of the last 100 years. Power will come more from information, I think, than any form of energy, though it is the key information to have. Every internet search you've done can be found, and that's only the beginning. Either way, it will come down to those that have, and those that don't, and how those in power (that would be us guys, sorry if that's news) can continue to suck dry the resources, labor and lives of the rest of the world to live the way we want to, no matter the cost.

We don't know how to live without oil; how dare we have the gall to put a "No blood for Oil" bumperstricker on our car. We are the ones who demand it of our leaders, they serve our interests. There is nothing now that is not touched by oil. It's a trap, and we're caught.

Sorry for some rambles, it's getting late, and I'm thinking aloud in few places here. The book is a good read, I reccommend it, and my odd second-half of the post has nothing to do with the thrust of the book.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

From http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_sea...ssrelease.html:
NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “Computer projections have consistently shown that as global temperatures rise, the sea ice cover will begin to shrink. While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.”

Woo! There's my boy again!

Originally Posted by Axis of Eeevil

The book aside, I see one thing in this question: the telltale polarization and often false dichotomy of political worldview--which always seem to create a rift precisely where cooperation and communication is needed.

My thanks for your thoughtful post Axis. I will take a look at "The Whale and the Supercomputer".

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by mentholated

mathematical, astrological, or generally scientific education

*sings* One of these things is not like the others...

[Kerostasis]

Wait, wait, don't tell me...is it the "Mentholated" one?

For all that it's fun to make fun of him though, that's clearly a typo for "astronomical".

[sc1ence]

k its 6 degrees out. I am calling shenanigans on global warming.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by sc1ence

k its 6 degrees out. I am calling shenanigans on global warming.

Billy feels the same way:
http://www.arcamax.com/familycircus/s-278497-166330

(I hope that takes you to the Family Circus cartoon from Sunday 12/30/2007.)

[Tonk]

ok, this is probably going to be my only post in this thread because i beleive global warming is total BS.....

al gore stated that global warming is a fact, but dozens of scientists told him that is was only theory and that he shouldnt release a movie saying it was a fact, and since the latest flip flop between global warming and global cooling (look at the patterns, early 1910s said it was warming, late 20s it was cooling 50s was warming, 60s and 70s was cooling and now the current trend says that we are warming up again, global warming is not a scientific theory anymore, but a religion







/end rant

[[tR]Greasy_mullet]

It is a religion and is totally bogus and made up. Here is a new report from the Russians on the coming Ice Age.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

Man made Global Warming is the biggest hoax ever.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Tonk

ok, this is probably going to be my only post in this thread because i beleive global warming is total BS.....

al gore stated that global warming is a fact, but dozens of scientists told him that is was only theory and that he shouldnt release a movie saying it was a fact, and since the latest flip flop between global warming and global cooling (look at the patterns, early 1910s said it was warming, late 20s it was cooling 50s was warming, 60s and 70s was cooling and now the current trend says that we are warming up again, global warming is not a scientific theory anymore, but a religion

Er, someone shoot me. Please.

Homeschooling should be illegal.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Tonk

ok, this is probably going to be my only post in this thread because i beleive global warming is total BS.....

al gore stated that global warming is a fact, but dozens of scientists told him that is was only theory and that he shouldnt release a movie saying it was a fact, and since the latest flip flop between global warming and global cooling (look at the patterns, early 1910s said it was warming, late 20s it was cooling 50s was warming, 60s and 70s was cooling and now the current trend says that we are warming up again, global warming is not a scientific theory anymore, but a religion

/end rant

A theory is more important and viable than a fact. A fact can change with a single observation and is usually based on very little research. A theory usually has much more thought and work put into it.

For some people it is a religion. That applies to both the pro and con side of the argument. Any body that says Global Warming is BS or a hoax also views and treats it like a religion.

But it is, no matter what you say, a true theory with solid research behind it. Can the theory be proved invalid? Well, of course. But so could any theory, including the theory of gravity.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Blurb from Scientific American.

Offering much-needed fodder for climate change skeptics, a new study finds that a perfectly natural (as in not man-made) process has contributed to the nearly doubled melt rate of Arctic ice in recent decades. The usual suspect in Arctic warming or "amplification" is a feedback cycle in which CO2-driven global warming leaves less snow and ice to reflect away the sun's energy, which boosts local surface temperatures and accelerates melting. Now Stockholm University researchers, publishing in Nature, report that between the years 1979 and 2001, the Arctic air that showed the most summer heating was actually a few miles above sea level—beyond the probable reach of snow and ice feedbacks. Instead they attribute the excess high-altitude warmth to energy shed by annual ocean currents coming in from the South, which they say combined with man-made warming to push accelerated climate change in the Arctic.

More detailed story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080103/...TTabWa838PLBIF

[Tonk]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

A theory is more important and viable than a fact. A fact can change with a single observation and is usually based on very little research. A theory usually has much more thought and work put into it.

For some people it is a religion. That applies to both the pro and con side of the argument. Any body that says Global Warming is BS or a hoax also views and treats it like a religion.

But it is, no matter what you say, a true theory with solid research behind it. Can the theory be proved invalid? Well, of course. But so could any theory, including the theory of gravity.

just become someone states their theory as a fact doesnt mean it to be fact... many man-years worth of research in some cases go into the research to turn a theory into a fact, just because al gore says something is fact doesnt mean it is true, theory: the sun is yellow fact: the sun APPEARS to look yellow. fact: the sun is white, but the incomming light hitting the atmosphere reflects the red, and disperses the blue into the atmosphere, the atmosphere(sky) becomes blue, and the remaining colors (yellow) go all the way through the layers of the atmosphere to our eyes, so that when we look at the sun, it appears yellow.

while some theorys end up (with alot of extensive research ) becomming a fact, a majority of them get proved wrong in the end, with FACTS



as for the post reffering to me being home schooled, back up your theory as to why my post makes no sence... with facts preferably =P

yes my years might be off, but the patern shows that, every 10-20 years for the past 100+ years, we have gone back and forth between global cooling and global warming, and that al gores theory is going to be shot down in the next few years.


i should sell some 'carbon credits' to al gore for the private jet that he flys in (if you convert jet fuel/mileage to car/road mileage, the average private jet gets about 5 nautical mpg) (thats like a 2.5 hummer convoy) and the 10,000 sq ft mansion he has to heat in the winter, and cool in the summer, he is a hypocrit in all shapes and forms

and when this was brought up in the news, shortly there after, he took the public transit train in norway on his way to pick up his nobel peace prize (when the media was turned towards him)