|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2009 18:14:31 GMT
My problem is that there have been a lot of 'warming predictions' made on the basis of manmade CO2 emissions. Many of these are little more than wishful thinking. I can sort of understand this but as the predicted warming has failed to materialise, the AGW argument has taken a significant backward step after a decade of cooling.Except that it has materialised. The warming in the 30 year period, Jan 1979 - Dec 2008, has been between 0.13 and 0.16 deg per decade depending on which data set you use. In the 1980s, Hansen produced a model which predicted warming and, although it was far from perfect, no-one can deny that the earth has warmed. At that time most people would have suggested that the likelihood of warming and cooling were about the same. Now he could have just got lucky and I'm quite sure factors other than CO2 are all part of the mix but we are still in warming phase and I see no evidence (yet) that the situation has changed. This argument needs to be expanded. Quit Cherry Picking your Dates, Include all Available Date / Temperature reports in your models. If your models cannot explain all of the variations they are not accurate. The 1930's were warmer than now, where was the CO2 then? Chuck. And as the CO 2 grew after the 30's into WW2 and into the 50's the temperatures dropped into the ice-age panic of the 70's with the CO 2 still steadily increasing Its too long a cooling period to call it 'weather'
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 10, 2009 18:38:59 GMT
Tacoman25 wrote: RSS dropped to .23... Now I could make the point here about the unreliability of UAH and that sceptics will end up turning full circle and eventually start using the GISS record. But I'll resist and admit that I was slightly surprised by the magnitude of the Feb UAH anomaly. I thought it would be a bit lower than Jan. Eh, take whatever you want from it. But the fact is that the satellite data did not agree on warming in February - so if you want to point out the UAH anomaly, it's worth mentioning how the RSS anomaly went the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 10, 2009 19:24:33 GMT
This argument needs to be expanded. Quit Cherry Picking your Dates,
Ok
1900-2008 warming trend ; 1950-2008 warming trend ; 1970-2008 warming trend ;
In fact any start year you care to select which gives a period length of at least 20 years gives a warming trend.
Include all Available Date / Temperature reports in your models. If your models cannot explain all of the variations they are not accurate.
I haven't got any models so i'm not sure what you mean.
The 1930's were warmer than now, where was the CO2 then?
You must be american. This is common error made by americans. The 1930s were the warmest decade in the USA. It was not the warmest globally.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 10, 2009 21:18:35 GMT
glc
A decade of cooling..
Except that it has materialised. The warming in the 30 year period, Jan 1979 - Dec 2008, has been between 0.13 and 0.16 deg per decade depending on which data set you use.
Thats a long decade, now known as a AGW or glc decade.
1900-2008 warming trend ; 1950-2008 warming trend ; 1970-2008 warming trend ;
!998- 2009 cooling trend.
Lets not forget that most of the AGW activists are under 20. They were indoctrinated at school/uni, yet for the whole or their "adult" lives or the whole time since they were 9 years of age the world has been cooling (whilst co2 has been creeping up of course). But, they have been told that it has been warming, oh dear.. BIG LIE!
Now I know that it would not be politically correct to tell them this as it may damage their self esteem to know what they have been shovelling, but lets face it, even with todays "give everyone an A culture" some of these kids are going to be bright enough to work it out for themselves.
glc, Try to cherry pick some temp data for since 1998.
The Halcyon days of the 1990's are gone and gone for good at least in my lifetime, get used to it!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 10, 2009 21:27:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tilmari on Mar 10, 2009 21:49:57 GMT
A linear trend should not be used, when the data is not linear. You get very different trends depending on where you start: 1998, 1999, 2000 or 2003, for example. Timo
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 10, 2009 22:04:11 GMT
socold
We can cherry pick all we like , but using your own preferred measure, every year since 2001 todate shows a marked downward trend. That would make most of the activists aged around 10-12yrs when indoctrinated. I doubt any of these kids were told the warming had stopped. In fact I have to constantly correct my own kids (3 under 10's) when they come home spouting AGW warming bullshit believing it to be true. The poles are melting (no they are not), the temperatures are rising (no they are not), but the teacher said so. Your teacher is wrong and I will correct her next time I see her and tell her not to feed you this cr*p.
Remove the indoctrination link and AGW dies at birth. Mind you, so would most religions, why not be controversial now I've started ;D
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 11, 2009 0:11:45 GMT
The Halcyon days of the 1990's are gone and gone for good at least in my lifetime, get used to it!
But the average temperatures since 2000 are considerably higher than they were in the 1990s. According to the UAH record the 1990s were about 0.1 deg warmer that the 1980s, but temperatures since Jan 2000 have been about 0.15 deg higher than the 1990s. The same goes for RSS, GISS and Hadley.
A linear trend should not be used, when the data is not linear. You get very different trends depending on where you start: 1998, 1999, 2000 or 2003, for example
Your problem is you're using too short a time period. Of course there will be periods where the trend is not linear, but the data over 30 years gives a pretty good linear fit. Incredibly, though, the same people who are picky about the fit of temperature data seem to have no problem with the arbitrary filtering which is used to show a correlation between temperature and the (now out-dated) solar data.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2009 0:18:12 GMT
This argument needs to be expanded. Quit Cherry Picking your Dates, Ok 1900-2008 warming trend ; 1950-2008 warming trend ; 1970-2008 warming trend ; In fact any start year you care to select which gives a period length of at least 20 years gives a warming trend. Include all Available Date / Temperature reports in your models. If your models cannot explain all of the variations they are not accurate. I haven't got any models so i'm not sure what you mean. The 1930's were warmer than now, where was the CO2 then? You must be american. This is common error made by americans. The 1930s were the warmest decade in the USA. It was not the warmest globally. 1934 - 2008 ? Hmmm a COOLing trend and its a tiny bit more than 20 years
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 11, 2009 1:25:35 GMT
The Halcyon days of the 1990's are gone and gone for good at least in my lifetime, get used to it!But the average temperatures since 2000 are considerably higher than they were in the 1990s. According to the UAH record the 1990s were about 0.1 deg warmer that the 1980s, but temperatures since Jan 2000 have been about 0.15 deg higher than the 1990s. The same goes for RSS, GISS and Hadley. A linear trend should not be used, when the data is not linear. You get very different trends depending on where you start: 1998, 1999, 2000 or 2003, for example Your problem is you're using too short a time period. Of course there will be periods where the trend is not linear, but the data over 30 years gives a pretty good linear fit. Incredibly, though, the same people who are picky about the fit of temperature data seem to have no problem with the arbitrary filtering which is used to show a correlation between temperature and the (now out-dated) solar data. Here is a fun exercise. I took the Hadcrut ground temperature data and subjected it to 11 year smoothing to largely smooth out the 11 year solar cycle. It appears the smoothed data shows a ground temperature increase of about .50 degreeC from approximately 1910 to 1940. Likewise the maximum smoothed data from a peak in 2003 back 30 years also shows virtually the same 30 year increase in temperature at about .55degreeC. So that leaves for 30 years about .05 degreeC unaccounted for. I think one could easily suggest that the difference is probably natural also. So where is the CO2 warming? One would think considering increasing CO2 levels you would see some acceleration of the warming affect, would you not?
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Mar 11, 2009 1:40:55 GMT
There are 4 main sources of temp data UAH,RSS,GISS,and Hadley. The satellites dont measure surface Temp. The GISS data base is suspect. NH land temps vary widely from year to year so I think that most people might agree that because of the thermal inertia of the oceans the Hadley SST - GL data probably provide the most reasonable smoothed picture of what is happening. What does it show? (annual averages) 1.Global SSTs rose about 1 degree during the 20th century 2. 1998 was the warmest year. 3. SSTs have been falling since 2003 . 4.2008 was cooler than 1997 - 11 years with CO2 up 6% and no net warming - completely at odds with the Al Gore-IPCC paradigm. The Met Office is keen to point out that the last 10 years have been relatively warm - when you crest a summit the last 5 steps up and the first 5 down are the highest. We are clearly on the down slope.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 11, 2009 5:20:03 GMT
This argument needs to be expanded. Quit Cherry Picking your Dates, Ok 1900-2008 warming trend ; 1950-2008 warming trend ; 1970-2008 warming trend ; In fact any start year you care to select which gives a period length of at least 20 years gives a warming trend. That is incorrect. 1940-70 had a cooling trend, for example. Same with 1880-1910.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 11, 2009 5:29:50 GMT
The Halcyon days of the 1990's are gone and gone for good at least in my lifetime, get used to it!But the average temperatures since 2000 are considerably higher than they were in the 1990s. According to the UAH record the 1990s were about 0.1 deg warmer that the 1980s, but temperatures since Jan 2000 have been about 0.15 deg higher than the 1990s. The same goes for RSS, GISS and Hadley. The problem with comparing the 2000s to the 1990s is that the 1990s had a major volcanic eruption that significantly cooled global temps for 2-3 years (Pinatubo). The 2000s have seen no cooling from a major eruption. When you factor out the cooling from Pinatubo, the 2000s have only been about .1C warmer than the 1990s, not .15C. There was clearly warming going on throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but that warming trend has not continued into the 2000s. There was no natural (non-volcano influenced) 8, 10, or 11 year period from 1977 to 1998 with no warming.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 11, 2009 8:12:48 GMT
This argument needs to be expanded. Quit Cherry Picking your Dates,
Ok 1900-2008 warming trend ; 1950-2008 warming trend ; 1970-2008 warming trend ;
In fact any start year you care to select which gives a period length of at least 20 years gives a warming trend. That is incorrect. 1940-70 had a cooling trend, for example. Same with 1880-1910. Apparently I need to clarify. I was referring to a period with "any start year" and the most recent end year , i.e. 2008. 1934 - 2008 ?
Hmmm a COOLing trend and its a tiny bit more than 20 yearsThe fact that the end year is cooler than the start year does not necessarily mean there is a cooling trend. And the fact that the area of the US only represents ~2% of the earth's surface means that it's not that significant anyway.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 11, 2009 8:18:55 GMT
The GISS data base is suspect.
Why do you say that?
What does it show? (annual averages) 1.Global SSTs rose about 1 degree during the 20th century 2. 1998 was the warmest year. 3. SSTs have been falling since 2003 .
La Nina
4.2008 was cooler than 1997 - 11 years with CO2 up 6% and no net warming - completely at odds with the Al Gore-IPCC paradigm.
Again La Nina. Apart from 2008, every year since 2001 (the so-called cooling period) was warmer than 1997. If 2009 ends up warmer than 2008 will this be completely at odds with the solar cooling claptrap.
|
|