Scientists: Climate-Change 'Time Bomb' About to Go Off

[Gold Dragon]

Come back? Where am I going? Am I to stay way? You come back when you find a source for your claims.

Ok, I'll show you again where the numbers come from for average global temperature. I think this is the 4th time but you sound like you need the repetition.

Climatic Research Unit: Global Temperature record

The Climatic Research Unit is a department of the University of East Anglia in the UK. They collect data from over 3000 temperature stations throughout the globe on a monthly basis. The raw data for land measurements comes from the Met Office Hadley centre which has a nice map of the globe and how some areas are cooler and others warmer than the recorded average temp between 1960 and 1990. Feel free to conduct your own analysis of the data.


A second source is NASA - Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Surface Temperature Analysis that includes satellite data and includes an analysis of El-nino La-nina cycles and solar irradiation cycles. You can download the program that they used for their analysis to test the numbers yourself. Their data comes from the Global Historical Climatology Network which is a run by the National Climatic Data Centre which is part of the US Department of commerce. They allow FTP access to their data as well for your own analysis.

 

[Revmitchell]

Ok, I'll show you again where the numbers come from for average global temperature. I think this is the 4th time but you sound like you need the repetition.

Climatic Research Unit: Global Temperature record

The Climatic Research Unit is a department of the University of East Anglia in the UK. They collect data from over 3000 temperature stations throughout the globe on a monthly basis. The raw data for land measurements comes from the Met Office Hadley centre which has a nice map of the globe and how some areas are cooler and others warmer than the recorded average temp between 1960 and 1990. Feel free to conduct your own analysis of the data.


A second source is NASA - Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Surface Temperature Analysis that includes satellite data and includes an analysis of El-nino La-nina cycles and solar irradiation cycles. You can download the program that they used for their analysis to test the numbers yourself. Their data comes from the Global Historical Climatology Network which is a run by the National Climatic Data Centre which is part of the US Department of commerce. They allow FTP access to their data as well for your own analysis.

You may want to check this out:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=53580

 

[EdSutton]

I don't particularly want to take the time to read through a thread, but would simply like to know, if 'global warming' is such a given, why was it so cold last PM. in Central KY, when the Temp. dropped to ~40* F, temperatures that are generally not reached for another two to three weeks?

Ed

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't particularly want to take the time to read through a thread, but would simply like to know, if 'global warming' is such a given, why was it so cold last PM. in Central KY, when the Temp. dropped to ~40* F, temperatures that are generally not reached for another two to three weeks?

Ed

The mornings are uncharacteristically cool here in the Orlando area especially for this time of year.

 

[EdSutton]

The mornings are uncharacteristically cool here in the Orlando area especially for this time of year.

And we all know global warming causes cold weather, right Gold Dragon?

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

I don't particularly want to take the time to read through a thread, but would simply like to know, if 'global warming' is such a given, why was it so cold last PM. in Central KY, when the Temp. dropped to ~40* F, temperatures that are generally not reached for another two to three weeks?

Ed

Tee Hee. I'll tell a joke:

Stick one hand in hot water out of your tap say 128-degrees-F. Put the other hand in ice-water at 32-degrees-F. the average of 128 & 32 = 128 + 32 = 160/2 = 80-degrees-F. On the average you are comfortable.

Last PM it was 80-degrees-F in exciting Central Oklahoma where Ed Edwards was and 40-degrees-F in KY where EdSullivin was - that is 60 average temp of our Eds. In years past at sunset it would have been 50-degrees-F on ed.S on 01 Oct and 66j-degrees-f on ed.E an average of 58 on our Eds. 60>58 - Global warming.

The average yearly temperature is made from lots of places, lots of dates - millions. The average yearly temperature does NOT indicate the specific temp at a specific time on a specific place.

 

[Ed Edwards]

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

That points to a World temperature chart of the last 4500 Million years. Note the little blip above the 22-degrees-C line at the end of the Permian age about 250 Million years ago. This blip was caused by something that released a lot of methane in what is now Siberia. I spake of this before.

Feel free to study the chart and see if you can figure out what is going to happen in 2009, weather wise. Nobody else can with absolute certainty. But like grandpa said "wheather it is cold, or wheather it is hot - we are going to have weather wheather or not."

And God is still Lord of all.
And asked us to be good stewards of the Earth
(the World System is going to hell in a handbasket, it is the Earth that we need to tend to)

 

[Gold Dragon]

And we all know global warming causes cold weather, right Gold Dragon?

Ed

Ed, I have more respect for you than that. I would have thought you would understand the concept of an average even if Revmitchell cannot.

Global warming does not say that all temperatures all the time at all places are increasing. It means that if you average all the temperatures of all the places in the world at all times of the year, it is increasing.

That could mean that the local area where you are was colder today or even for the whole year but the rest of the globe was warmer.

I didn't realize the concept of an average was such a rare thing but maybe we need to redo some basic math around here.

Consider two sets of numbers representing temperatures in two places at two different times:
60, 70 and 55, 80
The first place dropped 5 degrees from 60 to 55. But the overall average of the two increased from 65 to 67.5

 

[rbell]

It is not ignored by me. The average global temperature has definitely warmed and cooled over history. It is currently warming.

Well and good.

The issues are not whether we are warming...it is indisputable that our temperatures are not static; thus, we are always warming...or cooling. Rather, if we are showing increased temperatures...

• Is the warming man-made? (Hint: no.)
• Is the warming due to a change in our heat source, the sun? (well, many scientists have been too busy drafting policy and regulations to check that little detail out. Kind of an important one to leave out, isn't it?)
• Is the warming historically statistically significant? (Umm....can't tell. We've got this pesky problem of centuries and centuries of temperatures, but only one century that we've recorded temps...and we might not be that accurate in much of the past century (primitive equipment). So...ah, what the heck. Statistics aren't that big of a deal, when you have an agenda.)
• Are we even still warming at all? (some data suggests we've been cooling the last couple of years...may be too soon to tell)
• Are the samples that "prove" global warming scientific enough geologically in nature to be relevant? So it was the hottest it's ever been, let's say, in Sacramento CA this year. That proves it...right? Only problem...it was the coolest summer in 50 years in Anchorage, Alaska (data is fictional; point is not). So what is proven? That weather is different everywhere. That sound you hear is Al Gore coughing up his skull in shock and disgust.

GoldD...this isn't directed at you, I just used your quote for a convenient jumping off spot. Hope you don't feel too used....

 

[Marcia]

Knock-Knock: Where Is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?
by Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., Adjunct Research Professor, James Cook University
Economic Analysis and Policy, September, 2008
http://www.eap-journal.com/download.php?file=671http://www.eap-journal.com/index.html

Before human-caused global warming can become an economic problem, it first has to be identified by scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from natural climate change.

This notwithstanding, a number of distinguished economists have recently written compendious papers or reports on the issue, for example Nicholas Stern (2006) and William Nordhaus (2007); in Australia, Ross Garnaut is currently undertaking a similar analysis. These persons, and many other public commentators and politicians as well, have indicated that they accept that there is a scientific consensus that dangerous, human-caused global warming is occurring, as set by the views and advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC is the United Nations body whose first chairman, John Houghton, wrote in 1994 that ‘unless we announce disasters, no one will listen’. From that point forward, it was obvious that IPCC pronouncements needed to be subjected to independent critical analysis; in fact, the opposite has happened, and increasingly the world’s press and politicians have come to treat IPCC utterances as if they were scribed in stone by Moses. This is a reflection, first, of superb marketing by the IPCC and its supporting cast of influential environmental and scientific organisations; second, of strong media bias towards alarmist news stories in general, and global warming political correctness in particular; and, third, of a lack of legislators and senior bureaucrats possessed of a sound knowledge of even elementary science, coupled with a similar lack of science appreciation throughout the wider electorate – our societies thereby becoming vulnerable to what can be termed ‘frisbee science’, i.e. spin.

I have to write something here or it won't post.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The issues are not whether we are warming...it is indisputable that our temperatures are not static; thus, we are always warming...or cooling. Rather, if we are showing increased temperatures...

While I disagree with a lot of your answers, I think that some of your questions are better questions, some of which I have already addressed.

Unfortunately others feel the need to deny that global warming is actually happening and use "evidence" like it is colder today where they are.

Are the samples that "prove" global warming scientific enough geologically in nature to be relevant? So it was the hottest it's ever been, let's say, in Sacramento CA this year. That proves it...right? Only problem...it was the coolest summer in 50 years in Anchorage, Alaska (data is fictional; point is not). So what is proven? That weather is different everywhere. That sound you hear is Al Gore coughing up his skull in shock and disgust

I see you use the same problematic thinking that local temperature at one or a few places for a very short period of time says anything about global warming. The temperature in Sacarmento or Anchorage over a short period of time does not say anything about global warming which is an average phenomenon over the year for the whole globe. It takes data from thousands of sources around the world using at regular periods (usually monthly) to calculate the global average.

Is the warming man-made? (Hint: no.)

While I disagree with your answer, I think this is definitely the key question and I am definitely open to considering alternatives to this. Instead of trying to challenge the human component of global warming which I think is very easy to do, skeptics seem to try to challenge the fact it is happening which I think is impossible to do with any honest analysis.

Is the warming due to a change in our heat source, the sun? (well, many scientists have been too busy drafting policy and regulations to check that little detail out. Kind of an important one to leave out, isn't it?)

Solar irradiation is something that many scientists have considered. NASA's analysis of global temperature includes data for solar irridation models that say that in 2007 the sun is in a down side of its cycle. It uses this paper's model to calculate the pattern of solar irradiation.

This paper published in 2007 by the Proceedings of the Royal Society looked at the sun's output which has decreased in the last 20 years without a subsequent decrease in global temperature.

Are we even still warming at all? (some data suggests we've been cooling the last couple of years...may be too soon to tell

If you look at the curves from the Climatic Research Unit and from NASA the average global temperature has plateaued in the last 10 years. That is much better than the rapid rate of increase that we saw on the several decades prior, but we need to remember that we are still at the hottest temperatures ever recorded and we have no idea where it will go from here.

It may go down and I would be happy if it did. I don't care so much if models like Gore's that project run-away temperatures are wrong.

GoldD...this isn't directed at you, I just used your quote for a convenient jumping off spot. Hope you don't feel too used....

No worries.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Knock-Knock: Where Is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?
by Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., Adjunct Research Professor, James Cook University
Economic Analysis and Policy, September, 2008

Cool an Australia paper. An interesting opinion piece but not much in terms of actual data.

This notwithstanding, a number of distinguished economists have recently written compendious papers or reports on the issue, for example Nicholas Stern (2006) and William Nordhaus (2007); in Australia, Ross Garnaut is currently undertaking a similar analysis. These persons, and many other public commentators and politicians as well, have indicated that they accept that there is a scientific consensus that dangerous, human-caused global warming is occurring, as set by the views and advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

I think it is the job of economists to be skeptical of spending and they should consider the advice of their scientific advisors to understand the scientific data.

 

[Marcia]

Climatologist Roy Spencer Summarizes the Case Against Global Warming Alarmism
by Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama, NASA

Cornwall colleague Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and, with John Christy, in charge of the NASA remote satellite temperature sensing program (the only one that gives truly global temperature data), spoke recently at the John Locke Foundation, summarizing the message of his book Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. Both the lecture (video of which you can download at http://jlf.streamhammer.com/speakers/royspencer091608.mp4) and the book (http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221944460&sr=8-1)

The source of this post and the previous one I posted are from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Newsletter, October 1, 2008

It has lots more articles, which I do not have time to read.

​

​

 

[Gold Dragon]

Roy Spencer's book Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor is another economist opinion piece that I think has some interesting economic and political views, some that I agree with. We shouldn't use hysteria and it is true that models about future climate projection are inaccurate and likely have some political undertones.

Of course models to project tomorrow's weather are also inaccurate but that doesn't stop us from checking the weather section and letting that decide our plans for the day. Of course if we see that the weather is different, we make adjustments to our plans.

 

[Ed Edwards]

"Global air temperature" "2007 anomaly" "Temperature Anomaly" 1860 "2007 anomaly"

// The fact that the earth has warmed and cooled over its life time is something that is ignored by those who intentionally spread this myth. Thinking people are not going to just swallow this political agena of the UN. Global warming is about power and money and nothing more. //

1. This isn't what the topic is about. The topic of this thread is 'the fact that the earth has warmed and cooled over its life time'. And once there was a serious increase in the temp that occured in but 20,000-30,000 years and took a few million (under 10) years for the earth to correct itself. That situation may also happen NOW if we let the Chi-coms burn the bad coal.

2. But then I'm off topic also. Global warming is a real threat - that is really not debatable. I've been studying the effects of the rapid burn off of the global petroleum resources. Simulations of the CO2 cycle are, of course being refined. However, there is a finite amount of petroleum resources in the surface of the world. We are fast approaching the half life of the easy-to-get oil. The only debate is how fast we are approaching the half life of the petro-resources. The end is nigh. Even so, Maranatha!

I am having a problem with getting my free Adobe reader 9.0
Google seems to have a problem converting pictures output by Adobe Acrobat (the files that can be read with the free reader) into a format I can read.

I have a chart called '2007 Anomaly' which I cannot find (well, I can't read it if I'm find it in .pdl format) on the Internet. I pulled myself off a copy to study (I've used it

Also these sayings are one the chart:

Global air temperature
2007 anomaly +0.40(degrees)C
(8th warmest on record)

This chart shows the following off-sets (anomaly) from 1860 to 2007.
Here are some facts shown on the chart:

1. The average temperature of the earth was off +0.40-degrees-C in 2007
2. 33 years have a positive offset (anomaly)
3. 146 years have been zero offset (i.e. 'average') or negative (colder) than the average.
4. since 1977 there have been 3 colder years and 27 warmer years.
5. 2007 was the 8th warmest year 1860-2007.
6. 2007 was the coolest year in the 21st Century
7. (expected) 2008 will be the coolest year in the 21st Century - offset = +.37-degrees-C
8. (extrapolated = beyond the data) with a -.03 reduction 2006-2007 and 2007-2008,
If this 'cooling period' continues year after year, then the temperature will get back to 'average' in 2021 or 2022.
9. 2007 was the 7th warmest year 1860-2007
10. Seven of the top 8 temperature years were in the 21st century (2001-2100)
11. 1997 was the first warmest year 1860-2007

There are facts:

5. 2007 was the 8th warmest year 1860-2007.
6. 2007 was the coolest year in the 21st Century

they are dangerous facts. Whatcha going to do about it?