|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 24, 2009 21:29:29 GMT
But of course the satellite temperatures show that we are now back to where we were in appx 1987 so the solar warming (sorry, co2 warming) has evaporated and very quickly as well. I would not expect too many warm years for the next 30 or so.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 24, 2009 21:36:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 25, 2009 0:32:18 GMT
Socold: Are you drifting along with that satillite? You know better sir.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 25, 2009 0:40:08 GMT
And all those warm 5 year period are to be expected are they not?Are they, why? When one looks at historical data, it seems the end of each warming cycle has a burst to it. I believe we are near the climatic end of the rebound from the LIA and had expected temps to give one last hurrah. Now don't get me wrong......I am sure that the rising level of co2 is what caused the rebound from the LIA. Thank goodness man learned how to build stronger and more frequent fires.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 25, 2009 1:30:27 GMT
glc. so why are global temperatures over the past 5 years higher than they've ever been. Well the simple answer to that is that they are not. They have been falling steadily, it's only the GISS that is rising due to manual adjustments and poor siting. The current falling temperatures are what you would expect as we enter a deep solar minimum. stevenotsteve The simple answer is that they are. The warmest 5 year period in the satellite record is 2004-2008, the second warmest 5 year period is 1999-2003, the third warmest 5 year period is 1994-1998..... Does the number 5 have special significance in Numerology or something? Sheesh.....
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 25, 2009 1:39:18 GMT
glc. so why are global temperatures over the past 5 years higher than they've ever been. Well the simple answer to that is that they are not. They have been falling steadily, it's only the GISS that is rising due to manual adjustments and poor siting. The current falling temperatures are what you would expect as we enter a deep solar minimum. stevenotsteve The simple answer is that they are. The warmest 5 year period in the satellite record is 2004-2008, the second warmest 5 year period is 1999-2003, the third warmest 5 year period is 1994-1998..... Does the number 5 have special significance in Numerology or something? Sheesh..... Yep.....it is 5 more than zero, and 5 less than 10. Real significant.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 25, 2009 2:33:06 GMT
Does the number 5 have special significance in Numerology or something? Sheesh..... Yep.....it is 5 more than zero, and 5 less than 10. Real significant. Let's play some more numbers games. As Met O predicted 2009 would be in the "top 5 warmest years in history", in order to accomplish this using their values (I hesitate using the term data), the last six months of the year must be equal to or above .494C. As per HadCRUT it is .503 for June, that should be a cinch right? Well, consider the following. Since 1989 (that's 21 years, or 3x7, or 11+10 or even 42/2), the average slope is -.010. Seven out of the 21 years (21/7=3....seeee?) were positive in slope with 1997 being the largest at +.027. To break even with a few .0001C to spare, the remainder of 2009 must approximate (.025) the slope during the "super El Nino" period of the last six months of 1997. Wait, I miscounted, there are only 20 years! Oh well, at least it's divisible by 5, and 4. 2 as well, and 10! This is even better still. As Dirty Harry once said; "Do you feel lucky....punk? Well, do ya?"
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 25, 2009 9:11:49 GMT
Does the number 5 have special significance in Numerology or something? Sheesh.....
Not at all - use 6 years, 8 years or 10 years. It doesn't matter the result is the same.
By the way - have we had another SSW? AMSU temps are looking a bit bloated.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 25, 2009 9:14:38 GMT
The simple answer is that they are. The warmest 5 year period in the satellite record is 2004-2008, the second warmest 5 year period is 1999-2003, the third warmest 5 year period is 1994-1998..... Warmest 5 year period out of 30 years. . . .dang have a conniption! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 25, 2009 16:39:22 GMT
socold. Apparently the satellite records show the warmest day ever!
Wow, and the record goes all the way back to 1999 as well. This must be a new age creationist thing. Just in case you are not sure socold, the world did not start in 1999, even my dog is older than that.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 27, 2009 12:22:15 GMT
For those that aren't aware, Spencer fully debunked this idea...
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 27, 2009 16:40:47 GMT
For those that aren't aware, Spencer fully debunked this idea...
When? Do you have a link?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 27, 2009 18:04:00 GMT
Apparently the UAH website that allows you to graph temperatures from different years displays data that hasn't been corrected for satellite drift, meaning each year is artifically warmer than the last.
My view is that this is made clear on the site and it doesn't matter too much anyway as these kind of websites provide an interesting presentation of the data to the public rather than an essential service that scientists need (scientists would use the data records minus many months, not look at nsidc, uah, gistemp front page data as it came live)
But what's interesting is that skeptics usually disagree with me and demand all the T's are crossed and i's dotted with these sites. They get very upset when such a site makes a mistake (GISTEMP october duplication, nsidc error, etc).
Except if it's the UAH site, in which case none of the skeptics seem that bothered about it...
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 27, 2009 19:32:58 GMT
For those that aren't aware, Spencer fully debunked this idea...When? Do you have a link? Just follow that link to Roger Pielke's site, Spencer left a comment explaining how it was premature and innaccurate to come to such conclusions based off of the daily data charts.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 27, 2009 20:12:18 GMT
I suspect Roger Pielke was joking anyway
|
|