Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

I think you have some problems with timing. The trees in greenland were estimated to be 450,000 to 800,000 years ago which is probably older than you think the earth is.

The ice in Greenland has definitely been shrinking since measurements were kept in 1979. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre has a neat little Google Earth file to show the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1979 to 2007.

 

So I see you agree there were trees there before the SUV and the industrial revolution How long before is irrelevant (before is before) Unless you think the SUV was around before 450,000 to 800,000 years ago there is no problem with the timing.

AND I see you agree there IS ice there now. Still not sounding like warming.

Now matter how you cut it........Were trees there, now Ice there.

 

That is some pretty messed up reasoning, but whatever floats your boat.

 

That's right. Just one person who has violated NASA's code of ethics by testifying in the UK that vandals are above the law when they are attempting to "bring awareness" to global warming, and who has complained to the press of attempted censorship by NASA officials. Anyone else would have gotten his donkey canned.

My point is this. There is no consensus in the so-called "scientific community." You hoped that a NASA publication would lend authority to your opinions. Neither you nor I are qualified to analyze the data (the integrity of which is now dubious) and we will choose the sources that mostly agree with our political bent. You will, as you did, choose leftist-leaning sources, and I will choose others. And we could go back and forth ad infinitum.

Even if global warming were beyond dispute like the heliocentricity of the solar system, I would oppose, as I do, any action that threatened the sovereignty of this nation or abated the liberty and peace of its citizens. Let the icecaps melt. Let the seas rise. Let nature do what it will if making the changes that a small group says is necessary to reverse the trend will in the least weaken this nation or cater to the cavils of nations that hate us. Power is really what the argument is about.

But global warming is not beyond dispute. It's the Chicken Little cavils of a few who see the doctrine as a means of eroding our sovereignty and subjucating the people.

Would it interest you to know that Hansen is an advocate of a totalitarian form of government? As long as he gets to make the rules, anyway.

 

While I was checking sources of temperature data (not heat data), I ran across some maps that show central (as measured north & south) Greenland has been like a degree or so warmer than in the near past (like 1980s). Please note that -20-degrees-F is one degree warmer than -21-degrees-F . Both temperatures are not pleasant if you intend to swim.

Research project: how many degrees would the world average have to go up to melt the Greenland ice cap and the Antarctica ice cap?

 

I got into 'global warming' studies back in the early 1970s when I was a school marm. I followed up that when I was working on my main life career training (Electronic Engineering). The way I go in was two fold:

1. Studying the effects of 100s of nuclear weapons exploding on the face of the Earth. It would cause a Nuclear Winter (which was the cold side of things discussed back in the 1970s)

2. I was in California going to a two-week specific Assembly Language school in Los Angeles, California in 1976 and saw first hand the 'gasoline shortage' staged by the press (Rush Limbagh's Hit&Run Press). The gas stations said they might not have enough gas at the beginning of next month. Everybody decided to get their tank tipped off for the week-end. The gas stations would only pump gas a couple hours a day. Lines formed. When I got back to oklahoma there were no lines & plenty of gasoline (the parts of Oklahoma where I have live have always had an active oil well pump visabe on the drive from the house to the gas station). I was doing some research on how much oil there was. If all this oil is burned (as opposed to making plastic from it) in however long it takes, how much will it raise the Earth's temperature? The figures are stagering! (Be sure you know Scientific Notation - which is hard to use on computer - before you start your study). Well I'll tell you the number for OIL ALL GONE we had back in 1976 - '2000'. Yep 2000 was the year we would run out of oil at the consumption rate of 1976.

numbers from Reader's Digest 1976 Almanac (Reader's Digest, 1975)
known Petroleum reserves (in Billions of Metric Tons) - 74.3
World usage: 2.8 Billion Metric Tons per Year
1975 + 27 = 2002, drop dead date

Well, there is a bit more petroleum reserves such that we burned all that oil and more. Probable we won't even reach the half-way mark until 2012.

What does burning all that Oil do for the Earth's Temperature?

Time Almanac 2006 (Time, 2005) says that in 2001 the Earth production of Carbon Dixoide dumped into the air was 23.9 Billion Metric Tons per year.

Global warming is real - denial is real. A conspiracy to take over the World meets denial of Earth's problems -- I don't feel like the deniers will get themselves or their families very far. Fortunately most deniers have the Spiritual Gift of Martyrdom. But that just isn't my Spiritual Gift.

 

Here is Hansen's written testimony in the Kingsnorth trial which is what I assume you are referring to. Please show me where he states anything similar to what you claim. It is only 20 pages. I hope you are qualified enough to read english.

I can read numbers just as well as you can. Show me where the numbers have been compromised by Hansen.

Show me your "other" sources. I'm talking about data not opinion pieces. I'm willing to go ad infinitum but I don't think it will take that long to shoot down non-existent data.

I don't see how acknowledging a recorded temperature change which the Republican party, Bush and McCain also acknowledge, puts the sovereignty of the US in jeopardy.

I would say acknowledging global warming is recognizing reality. And doing something about the human component is good stewardship of God's creation which is a responsibility God gave to Adam and all man during creation.

It does not interest me when you make claims without backing them up with any evidence.

 

Time Almanac 2006 (Time, 2005) says that in 2001 the Earth production of Carbon Dixoide dumped into the air was 23.9 Billion Metric Tons per year.

That would be about 4.0 Metric Tons for each person on Earth.

Time Almanac 2006 (Time, 2005) says that in 2001 the U.S. production of Carbon Dixoide dumped into the air was 5.8 Billion Metric Tons per year.

That would be about 19.2 Metric Tons for each person in the USofA.

There are 4 Billion unhappy persons on Earth that are unhappy with you personally because you create FIVE TIMES as much Carbon Dioxide as they do. And that is not fair.

I still can't figure out the Scriptural reason to turn one's back on the people of the world - the same folk that scripture says we must not offend.

 

1Co 8:13 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Wherefore if meate offende my brother, I wil eate no flesh while the world standeth, that I may not offend my brother.

Speaking of which, the eating of meat increases one's production of a personal Global Warming gas: methane. :1_grouphug:

 

SO warm enough temperatures to grow trees cooling down enough to cause an ice sheet is..... Global Warming, THAT is messed up reasoning.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html

Major Highlights: NOAA: 2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for U.S. and Globe

Yet, 2007 was the coolest Global temperature in the 21st century (2001-2100) so far (the 2008 results will probably be this:

 

Here is a chart like in the O.P (opening post) but it doesn't have the phony dark line.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/uah_msu_sept2008.png


This also shows that the Sept 2008 reading for the Global Temperature Anomaly was +0.161-degrees-C. (This point was missing in the O.P.)

 

He went to the U.K. voluntarily to testify in a criminal trial in the defense of the vandals.

You don't have the numbers. They're in the data set. You have Hansen's analysis and summary of a data set that includes estimations. Here's a link to a blog where a number of statisticians are discussing the accuracy of the GISS estimation process.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3415

Could you follow that? Even if you could get the gist of it, what could you contribute? That's why I say neither you nor I are qualified to evaluate the data for ourselves. You will rely on your leftist authorities, and I on the more conservative ones.

I gleaned the following from a 15-minute Internet search:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/lord_monckton_s_letter_to_dr._bienenstock.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1905

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7

We could go back and forth ad infinitum. I choose not to. My point is that your authority is dubious and politically motivated, and the "data" does nothing to rebutt the points or the data in the O.P. The NASA label only made it look objective and reliable.

So you do see how it abates the liberty and peace of it's citizens.

You're presupposing there is a human component. That's the assertion for which the evidence is hotly debated.

 

Quoted in post # 33:
// I would say acknowledging global warming is recognizing reality. And doing something about the human component . . . //

Commented in post #33:
// You're presupposing there is a human component. That's the assertion for which the evidence is hotly debated. //

It is no presupposition. In the 1970s my side studies indicated that the burning of the world's supply of Petrochemicals would dramatically increase SOMETHING - CO2 in the air, methane in the air, incompletely burn hydrocarbons in the air -- a mess. Since then half the world Petrochemicals have been torched or thrown into garbage PILES (In central Oklahoma the highest point is the top of Mount Trashmore - One of the two 400-ft high pyramids of Trash in Oklahoma City). An eternal Methane flame burns bright at the top showing the follow of man and making me really glad: This World is NOT my home, I'm outta here at the first sound of the Last Trumpet of The Church Age when Jesus comes to get me.

Suggested Google research project: compare the total volume (in cubic miles) of human beings that have lived or now live to the total volume (in cubic miles) of the already burnt hydrocarbons (times two for the total). BTW, if those hydrocarbons were burn over 6,000 years it would hardly cause a bump in the temperature of the surface of the earth. It is the burning of 95% those hydrocarbons in SIXTY YEARS. Last time I looked there were no spare planets for human occupation - apparently this Earth is the only planet we get.

In 1955 when I was in the 6th grade the science teacher (it was a semi-rural school - 2,000 people in town, 8,000 in the couty) talked a lot about CONSERVATION. In fact, I think already they in the Panhandle of Texas were concerned about depletion of the Natural Helium found below the Panhandle of Texas. Just south of the Panhandle is the Periman Basin (deep Oil Resources) - the wealth of that oil supply helped us liberate the World from Aldof Hitler (AKA: Antichrist) - it is about gone. They used to tell me when the Periman Basin ran out of water - the USofA would go belly up. Guess when the Periman Basin went dry. Can you spell 2002?

OBTW, the 6th grade science teacher was the sunday school teacher at the Southern Baptist Church in that town.

(Comic relief) There were only two churches in that little town: in the first church they said 'they ain't no hell'. In the other church (that SBC I talked about) they said: "the hell they ain't!".

 

While overall it may be true that there is no corelation between the Atmospheric CO2 and Average Global Temperature:

This chart:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/images/figure7.gif

on this page:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

is quoted above showing proof for NOT Global Warming partially caused by human activity

I do note similar circumstances between the End Permian 'event' and the current situation (expanded). With the End Permian Event, In something like 80,000 years the CO2 went from 200-PPM to 2,000-PPM - the temp from 13-degrees-C to 23-degrees-C - some 95-98% of the species went extinct - DNA varity fell, life was on the edge of extension. (Living in Central Oklahoma I've seen the temperature fall 65-degrees-F in ONE DAY). After the End Permian Event it was some 200 million years before the temp settled back down to 13-degrees-C and the CO2 to 200PPM.

Strangely, the suspected End Permian Event was extensive release of natural occurring underground Methane from the long-term-stable Siberian Shield. And what is keeping those Methane fields from escaping into the atmosphere? The Siberian Permafrost. I suspect it will only take a 1 degree rise (to 14-degrees-C) to unfreeze the Siberian Permafrost & release the methane. Or maybe it will take a 1.5-degrees-C rise. But as soon as enough methane is released into the atmosphere - zap! the temp will go up a good 10-degrees-Centigrade. What if this time it only takes 40 years instead of 40,000 years to go up 10-degrees-C?

Back in like 1982 I did this experiment while waiting at a motel for another party at the intersection near San Diego of Clairemont Mesa Blvd (I was going East) and Interstate 805. Going to work (temporary job) I counted how many vehicles went by with one driver before a vehicle came by with one or more riders. (I did it that way cause it was easy to do). My ten day average was 12.6. That computes to about an average of 15 people in each 12 vehicles (they were mostly going to work, the kids had already been dropped off and the school students).

Our whole USofA infrastructure is built on cheap Oil - which may RUIN THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH for the other 5.8 Billion people of the Earth who are NOT in the USofA (yet ).

 

Here is a longer version of the quote from your source which was not given as testimony but in an interview with Nature News.

He was correct in his assessment since the court agreed with him and declared them not guilty.

The dataset is freely accesssible by you and I and any other person to critically analyse for flaws. Here is one of them.

Yes I could follow that as someone who studies the sciences and reads scientific papers on a semi-regular basis, critiques them for validity and needs to understand basic statistics.

He was performing a statistical analysis on the GISS estimation method when there is missing data. Of the 3000 meterological sites that collect data for the GISS dataset on a monthly basis, his claim is that 62% use no estimation and 29% use some estimation.

Using 1 year of temperature data from Hartford, Connecticut, where some extremes of data were missing, his analysis of the GISS estimation method claims that there is a 22% chance that a single estimate could be off by around 1 degree and a 12% chance that an estimation is off by an error of about 3 degrees. Of course, that error was based on a very small sample size, could be higher or lower than the actual number and only is a factor in the few numbers where estimation is used amongst many tens of thousands of numbers where no estimation is used.

You should only speak for yourself.

You may be accurately representing who you rely on, but you are completely inaccurate with my process of who I rely on. I have a strong preference for primary sources of data. When secondary sources are required, I intentionally exclude sources that are from a clear left or right bias and try to find reputable sources without an obvious reason to have an ideological bias. Of course it is impossible to find completely unbiased sources but I do my best to find sources with as little bias as possible.

My guess is that this method is not acceptable to you because you view all sources that disagree with your view as biased and leftist.

Do you agree that if the assertation of a human component is true, that it is part of God's command to man to steward his creation?

I'll rebut each of your googled sources in a subsequent post, several which I have already addressed from RevMitchell as data that only looks at 2001-2008 temperatures which my "leftist" sources of CRU and NASA and also agree have not shown an increase in temperature. But it should be noted that those years are among the 10 hottest years on record since the late 1800s when records started being collected. Others acknowledge that global warming occurs but questions the human component of it. I have no problems with those questions.

 

Consider this page:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

under Figure 2 it says:


// ... correct that temperature since 1980 has risen at only half of the observed rate ... //

Duh, observations are at the observed rate - ALWAYS. I think what they meant to say was that - if it is correct that temperature since 1980 has risen at only half of the projected rate ... - then it would at least make sense, if not even be correct. As it is though it is a basic DUH!

After doing this professionally for 24,000 hours - I can find mistakes - they jump off the page at me. Ain't I a naughty dude raying:

 

During the Cyrogenian period around 850 to 635 million years ago, the earth was thought to be covered in ice to the equator. The equator now has no ice. Viola, global warming.

I can play this game too but would consider myself a little looney for thinking it means anything.

 

First of all you need to make a choice. Do you stand by these articles and papers you posted? Because all of them agree that global warming is occurring, all of them agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, all of them agree that man contributes to global warming via production of greenhouse gases.

BTW, none of the articles you quoted presented raw data that opposes the dataset used by GISS which is what you were trying to do.

If you agree with your articles, then you should have no problems with agreeing with NASA's analysis by Hansen because it says the same thing. Global warming is occurring. The CRU and NASA analyses I quote both say nothing about the contribution of CO2 or man's contribution to greenhouse gases. They simply say that global warming is occuring, which is in agreement with all of the articles you posted. The NASA analysis also includes information about solar irradiation and the El nino-La nina cycles to show their contribution to the warming.

What the articles posted by you do say is that the models used by the IPCC for future warming are exagerrations and that man's contribution to global warming is exagerrated. While I disagree with those views, I consider them to be valid arguments to make and worthy of discussion. I could counter each of their arguments, but I want you to stand by those articles and say that you agree with them first before I go through the work of doing that.

Because if you do stand by the articles you posted, I don't want to hear you ever question the raw data that the globe is warming, or to question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or to question that man contributes to global warming.

If you don't stand by those articles, you should read things before you post them.

 

So you agree that vandalism is justified when Global Warming is cited as the cause. This is tantamount to an admission of extremism.

I got that much by reading, but what could you add to the discussion? Are you really that informed? You don't give me that impression when you post a link to raw data and imply that you are qualified to anayze it. I'm inclined to believe you're exaggerating your technical expertise. If you can take that data and analyze it without a reference to Hansen or anyone else, then I will concede that you may be qualified to derive inferences from raw data. But until then, my assertion that you rely on experts to interpret the data for you stands.

No, I'm not as will be evident in my reply to subsequent post.

No. One of the biggest indictments against the Global Warming alarmists is that they will not present all the data, nor allow dissent without a fight. I'm inclined to reject their reasoning and believe other eminent scientists who look at a bigger picture.

There is a philosophical divide between you and me that's unbrigdable, and this question illustrates it. I don't see a command to "steward His creation," whatever that means. I see a command to subdue it and to have dominion over it. It's resources are here for man to use. There is no such thing as "pristine" wilderness. Jungles and wildernesses are to be tamed.

The land is here for man, not man for the land.