Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Year of Global Cooling!!
7 years ago  ::  Dec 20, 2007 - 9:35PM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,217
Nice article talking about all the record "cold" that has occurred over the last year!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc … Y/10575140

Of course, the Alarmist have positioned themselves to make claims that hot, cold, wet, dry, .. it doesn't matter, it's all part of Global Warming ... ROTFMAO!!!!

What a bunch of lemmings.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2007 - 11:18AM #2
eadler
Posts: 4,449
[QUOTE=Bodean;154533]Nice article talking about all the record "cold" that has occurred over the last year!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc … Y/10575140

Of course, the Alarmist have positioned themselves to make claims that hot, cold, wet, dry, .. it doesn't matter, it's all part of Global Warming ... ROTFMAO!!!!

What a bunch of lemmings.[/QUOTE]

The so called record cold over the past year is not a general trend. Actually figures show the first halof 2007 was comparitively warm over all.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate … ures_N.htm
"he Earth's temperature for the first six months of the year was the second-warmest ever recorded, government scientists reported today.

The average temperature of the planet was 1.13 degrees above average, which trails only 1998 for the warmest January-June period on record. January-June 1998 was 1.15 degrees above average.

For two separate data sets — the Northern Hemisphere and for the Earth's land surface — it was the warmest January-June on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The Northern Hemisphere was 2.48 degrees above the long-term average, while the land temperature was 2.12 degrees above average. Global temperature records date back to 1880.

The climate center notes that anomalously warm temperatures have covered much of the globe throughout the year. The January-June 2007 temperature anomalies were warmer than average across all land areas, with the exception of Argentina.

Extreme heat in Asia in late May and early June killed 37 people in India and 110 in Pakistan, as temperatures soared to as high as 126 degrees. In late June, a heat wave in Europe killed about 40 people and contributed to scores of wildfires..."

Looking at January to October 2007,
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming
"..The most recent NCDC quarterly report (released on November 15, 2007) suggests continued global warming into calender year 2007.  The global surface temperature for the combined January-October 2007 year-to-date period tied with 2002 as the third warmest January-October on record, while the global land surface temperature ranked warmest on record for January-October 2007. ... "

It is not a good idea  to draw conclusions from an opinion column on Climate Change that appears in the Washington Times.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 01, 2008 - 1:09PM #3
eadler
Posts: 4,449
Bodean,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00718.html
2007 a Year of Weather Records in U.S.
"By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
Saturday, December 29, 2007; 12:15 PM

WASHINGTON -- When the calendar turned to 2007, the heat went on and the weather just got weirder. January was the warmest first month on record worldwide _ 1.53 degrees above normal. It was the first time since record-keeping began in 1880 that the globe's average temperature has been so far above the norm for any month of the year.

And as 2007 drew to a close, it was also shaping up to be the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere.

U.S. weather stations broke or tied 263 all-time high temperature records, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. weather data. England had the warmest April in 348 years of record-keeping there, shattering the record set in 1865 by more than 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit.

It wasn't just the temperature. There were other oddball weather events. A tornado struck New York City in August, inspiring the tabloid headline: "This ain't Kansas!" .."

The warmest year ever in the Northern Hemisphere.
This was expecially true in the Arctic, where the NW passage was ice free for the first time in in recorded history.

Are you willing to admit that the title of this thread is a crock of shxx?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 01, 2008 - 3:45PM #4
Bodean
Posts: 9,217
[QUOTE=eadler;178984]

Are you willing to admit that the title of this thread is a crock of shxx?[/QUOTE]


Well eadler ...

After reading two peer reviewed papers questioning the validity of the the temperature record of the last 30 years ... ummmmm ... NOPE!!

The first part of 2007 was "warm" by our meteorology thermometer readings, but, from what I can gather .. those thermometer readings are what is SHXX!
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 01, 2008 - 5:36PM #5
eadler
Posts: 4,449
Bodean,
I guess when one of your theses is proven false, your strategy is to change the subject. God forbid you should acknowledge that the opening link was bull.

Would you give a link for those peer reviewed papers that prove the thermometer readings are invalid? I expect that there is a Canada Post article on this subject.

I suspect it is probably the same urbanization arguments, and the invalidity of temperature measurement because of a non equilibrium condition existing in the earths oceans and atmosphere. Both of those arguments have been shown to be unimportant in the scheme of things.

Urbanization is a neglible factor according to other peer reviewed papers:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43
"There are quite a few reasons to believe that the surface temperature record - which shows a warming of approximately 0.6°-0.8°C over the last century (depending on precisely how the warming trend is defined) - is essentially uncontaminated by the effects of urban growth and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These include that the land, borehole and marine records substantially agree; and the fact that there is little difference between the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century). This and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05°C to the warming observed over the past century..."

Also the question about validity of the concept of temperature in a non equilibrium situation is immaterial. The average global temperature is an index which shows the thermal state of the earth's atmosphere. The fact that it is not a true temperature is a  argument about semantics, not climate science.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 01, 2008 - 8:18PM #6
PrHaug
Posts: 230
Take a look at the site and tell me if the surface station readings are a little off.

www.surfacestations.org
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 02, 2008 - 10:17AM #7
eadler
Posts: 4,449
[QUOTE=PrHaug;179922]Take a look at the site and tell me if the surface station readings are a little off.

www.surfacestations.org[/QUOTE]

I looked at the web site. It is very interesting and good work.  The slide show conclusions show that the overwhelming majority of sites, 85% have temperature errors of 1-5C. On the surface this seems to be a serious deficiency. Looking at the use the people who study temperature averages make of this data, this may or may not be a problem. What is important is not the temperature itself, but the change of temperature with time. The software used to analyse global temperature trends is said to correct and eliminate errors caused by changes in conditions at temperature measurement stations and eliminate stations that give invalid readings.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
"...Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001), including use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.

Current Analysis Method

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) records through 2005, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included. The GISS analysis is updated monthly.

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. ..."

There is a list of software modifications and corrections made to the data base.

So this comes down to a question of whether the software and selection criteria for the data are sufficient to determine the global temperature anomaly, ie the global average temperature relative  to the base period.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 02, 2008 - 9:34PM #8
eadler
Posts: 4,449
PrHaug,

Besides the temperature data, there is other data which shows rather definitively that the Northern Hemisphere is definitely getting warmer.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res … lobal.html

Take a look at the Snow Cover Anomaly  in the spring summer season, as a function of time, and the Norhern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent. Both show  a general reduction with time, coincident with the indications of the temperature record. This is  a strong indication shows that global warming is real.
Thesed phenomena are  expected to accelerate global temperature increase by reducing the amount of radiation that is directly reflected back to space.

The imperfections in the temperature recording stations, which show that absolute measurements of temperature can be inaccurate, are not sufficient to debunk the fact that the earth is warming.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 12:15PM #9
PrHaug
Posts: 230
Ah, yes, thank you Eadler for admitting that the temperature stations have some severe issues with them.  That's a good start because you generally don't hear that from the anthropogenic global warming crowd.

Now, let's have some more fun regarding this particular little situation, particularly with those adjustments that are made by NASA, et al.  Have these folks been forthcoming with revealing how these adjustments are made?  The answer of course is until recently, they have not. 

But what happened when these codes began to be opened to scientific scrutiny?  Immediately, a mistake was made, and NASA had to re-evaluate its list of hottest years.  Ooops.  Seems like things weren't as clear cut as before.

Now, let's talk about those satellite images.  You are quick to point out the Arcitc sea ice, but what about the satellite images that show the record amount of Antarctic sea ice--unprecedented since measurements have been kept?  What's up with that?  Do the precious global warming models account for INCREASED sea ice in the Antarctic? 

I cited studies showing that the melting in the Arctic was caused by ocean currents and wind, and you were quick to point out that these currents were bringing warmer water that was caused by global warming.  Well, what the heck is happening in the Antarctic?  Are things cooling off and bringing colder water or something?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 2:16PM #10
Armwar
Posts: 12,019
Please give us a reference showing the unprecedented rise in the Antartic sea ice...and this is a friendly question, Pr

I can look myself later on today...busy at present!


Gail
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook