E
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
OK. Ender agrees that if the next five years do not show global temperatures warmer than the preceding up to and including 2007, (based on the same measurement criteria) then Barbarian will aknowledge that carbon dioxide levels are not a good predictor of global warming.
If the next five years shows a warming trend, Ender will acknowledge that carbon dioxide is a good predictor of global warming.
I’m impressed, Ender. Few deniers have enough confidence in their beliefs to make such a wager. In fact, in the past few years that I’ve been offering it on various boards, you’re the first one to actually step up and do it.
If the next five years shows a warming trend, Ender will acknowledge that carbon dioxide is a good predictor of global warming.
I’m impressed, Ender. Few deniers have enough confidence in their beliefs to make such a wager. In fact, in the past few years that I’ve been offering it on various boards, you’re the first one to actually step up and do it.
E
Ender
Guest
Well, the bad news is that with NASA continually tweaking the data I could be a winner in 2013 and a loser in 2014 but the good news is that by 2013 I will very likely have no recollection that this bet was ever made.Few deniers have enough confidence in their beliefs to make such a wager. In fact, in the past few years that I’ve been offering it on various boards, you’re the first one to actually step up and do it.
For the record, however, what was the average global temperature for 2002-2007 (this is actually a six year period) and what data are you using to make this calculation? Also, are we are using a pure mathematical average without regard to significant digits or margin of error?
Ender
T
tmts
Guest
I would like to thank those of you who responded to my post, especially Al Masetti. Also wish to clarify my opening comments in that post by saying,
I believe “man-made” global warming is a hoax. I assumed, most people believe that is the cause and I did not feel it necessary to make that distinction.
A few more thoughts regarding climate change. Around 1300 until approximately 1850 the earth experienced the so called “Little Ice Age”.
Some climatologists call the period from 1650 -1850 the “Real Little
Ice Age”. Since the Little Ice Age waned we have had a persistent warming phase, but what seems ironic is the fact that between 1940 and 1970, Central America to Southeast Asia, and European factories were spewing pollution into the atmosphere like never before. Back then there was little to none with respect to regulating the offenders.
Anyone hear "the hole in the ozone layer, lately? I remember people saying
it’s “all those space shots”. Where did all that talk go.?
Since the earth went from warm to cold, and lasted a couple hundred years, and we have been warming for only about 150 years, maybe we have a ways to go before the temperature levels off. Does anyone know what the norm should be? I don’t think anyone can anwser that truthfully.
I believe “man-made” global warming is a hoax. I assumed, most people believe that is the cause and I did not feel it necessary to make that distinction.
A few more thoughts regarding climate change. Around 1300 until approximately 1850 the earth experienced the so called “Little Ice Age”.
Some climatologists call the period from 1650 -1850 the “Real Little
Ice Age”. Since the Little Ice Age waned we have had a persistent warming phase, but what seems ironic is the fact that between 1940 and 1970, Central America to Southeast Asia, and European factories were spewing pollution into the atmosphere like never before. Back then there was little to none with respect to regulating the offenders.
Anyone hear "the hole in the ozone layer, lately? I remember people saying
it’s “all those space shots”. Where did all that talk go.?
Since the earth went from warm to cold, and lasted a couple hundred years, and we have been warming for only about 150 years, maybe we have a ways to go before the temperature levels off. Does anyone know what the norm should be? I don’t think anyone can anwser that truthfully.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Few deniers have enough confidence in their beliefs to make such a wager. In fact, in the past few years that I’ve been offering it on various boards, you’re the first one to actually step up and do it.
Few deniers have enough confidence in their beliefs to make such a wager. In fact, in the past few years that I’ve been offering it on various boards, you’re the first one to actually step up and do it.
You saw the graph of the corrections with the old data. The two almost exactly overlapped. The corrections were so small, the dots overlapped. So that’s not a realistic hope for you.Well, the bad news is that with NASA continually tweaking the data I could be a winner in 2013 and a loser in 2014
I’ll be here. I’ll remind you.but the good news is that by 2013 I will very likely have no recollection that this bet was ever made.
2003 through 2007, then. I’ll recalculate. Using US government figures.For the record, however, what was the average global temperature for 2002-2007 (this is actually a six year period)
Your choice. The term in data is “error bars.” Tell me what you’d like.and what data are you using to make this calculation? Also, are we are using a pure mathematical average without regard to significant digits or margin of error?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Carbon dioxide levels were lower than they are now, of course, but even then warming was a reality.Since the Little Ice Age waned we have had a persistent warming phase, but what seems ironic is the fact that between 1940 and 1970, Central America to Southeast Asia, and European factories were spewing pollution into the atmosphere like never before. Back then there was little to none with respect to regulating the offenders.
Don’t remember anything in the literature about that. But the real culprit was CFCs; when they were curtailed, the layer started to recover. Has little to do with warming, of course.Anyone hear "the hole in the ozone layer, lately? I remember people saying it’s “all those space shots”. Where did all that talk go.?
E
Ender
Guest
OK, but I would like a link to the data you use.2003 through 2007, then. I’ll recalculate. Using US government figures.
Error bars, I guess. If the increase exceeds the margin of error that would pretty clearly show that warming had taken place.Your choice. The term in data is “error bars.” Tell me what you’d like.
Ender
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
There hasn’t been any global warming since 1998.
The temp has flattened out but CO2 has continued to climb.
That’s why Al Gore is pushing for immediate adoption of economic restrictions. Because in a very short while, the disconnect between CO2 and temp will become obvious to everyone. So he has got to get his agenda across before everyone becomes wise to his scheme.
There is a lot of money and personal power at stake here.
AND there is the ongoing battle between the “forces of Socialism” and the “forces of freedom”. It’s been going on for a couple of hundred years. Or more. Read Billington’s excellent book, “Fire in the Minds of Men”.
The title “Earth in the Balance” has some meaning … in the sense of the balance of forces of political control over the Earth.
NOT the survival of the Earth … the Earth has survived EVERYTHING. But the battle for control over the Earth’s population.
Folks who believe in God versus folks who believe in their own control over mankind.
The temp has flattened out but CO2 has continued to climb.
That’s why Al Gore is pushing for immediate adoption of economic restrictions. Because in a very short while, the disconnect between CO2 and temp will become obvious to everyone. So he has got to get his agenda across before everyone becomes wise to his scheme.
There is a lot of money and personal power at stake here.
AND there is the ongoing battle between the “forces of Socialism” and the “forces of freedom”. It’s been going on for a couple of hundred years. Or more. Read Billington’s excellent book, “Fire in the Minds of Men”.
The title “Earth in the Balance” has some meaning … in the sense of the balance of forces of political control over the Earth.
NOT the survival of the Earth … the Earth has survived EVERYTHING. But the battle for control over the Earth’s population.
Folks who believe in God versus folks who believe in their own control over mankind.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Let’s take a look:There hasn’t been any global warming since 1998.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hansen-t2_400x254shkl.jpg
From the Goddard Center, the old and corrected data. Notice the five-year average continues to climb, and sows no sign of stopping.
See above. You’ve been badly misled.The temp has flattened out but CO2 has continued to climb.
This might be a great time, then, for you to take my challenge. After all, if it’s already flattened out, the next five year average will surely not be higher than the last five years. Can we count you in?That’s why Al Gore is pushing for immediate adoption of economic restrictions. Because in a very short while, the disconnect between CO2 and temp will become obvious to everyone.
Don’t you think equating those who accept the data as being against freedom and God, is just a bit um, excessive?
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
The vertical axis is “temperature anomaly”.
Not temperature.
Not temperature.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
At www.climatechangedebate.com
there was an exchange and one of the fellows just now made this post:
In answer to your question on possible warming in the next 6 years,
the most likely answer is probably not. The reason lies in the
polarity of the solar magnetic field, which is opposing Earth’s, for
solar cycle #24, which has definately not started. Some say it will
start in the late fall of 2009. I note that with the polarity of an
even numbered cycle the protection from solar wind and cosmic rays
that has been demonstrated during odd numbered cycles is diminished.
I will not be enjoying a warming retirement if that happens.
there was an exchange and one of the fellows just now made this post:
In answer to your question on possible warming in the next 6 years,
the most likely answer is probably not. The reason lies in the
polarity of the solar magnetic field, which is opposing Earth’s, for
solar cycle #24, which has definately not started. Some say it will
start in the late fall of 2009. I note that with the polarity of an
even numbered cycle the protection from solar wind and cosmic rays
that has been demonstrated during odd numbered cycles is diminished.
I will not be enjoying a warming retirement if that happens.
R
ricmat
Guest
You can also get to the discussion you referenced above at:At www.climatechangedebate.com
there was an exchange and one of the fellows just now made this post:
In answer to your question on possible warming in the next 6 years,
the most likely answer is probably not. The reason lies in the
polarity of the solar magnetic field, which is opposing Earth’s, for
solar cycle #24, which has definately not started. Some say it will
start in the late fall of 2009. I note that with the polarity of an
even numbered cycle the protection from solar wind and cosmic rays
that has been demonstrated during odd numbered cycles is diminished.
I will not be enjoying a warming retirement if that happens.
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangedebate/messages?o=1
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Yes. That means “how far the average global temperature deviates from a set point.” You can get the actual temperature by adding the temperature at the set point to each of the data points. The shape of the curve will remain the same.The vertical axis is “temperature anomaly”.
The higher that is, the warmer the atmosphere is. A record temperature anomaly is also a record average global temperature.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
This graph from the Goddard Center did seem alarming, until after checking I realized that the figures are in tenths of a degree. That means that over the last hundred years that the world temperature has gone up less than a degree. This doesn’t seem significant, and it seems to me that something else substantial has to be shown to indicate that there is a problem, since the actual global rise in temperature over the last hundred years is small.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It pretty closely tracks CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And you might be surprised to know that effects are already with us. Glaciers and ice shelves are melting or collapsing. And note that the change is accelerating. It’s getting warmer at a faster rate.This graph from the Goddard Center did seem alarming, until after checking I realized that the figures are in tenths of a degree. That means that over the last hundred years that the world temperature has gone up less than a degree. This doesn’t seem significant, and it seems to me that something else substantial has to be shown to indicate that there is a problem, since the actual global rise in temperature over the last hundred years is small.
Understand, the world isn’t going to burn up in a few years, and at some point, it will probably stabilize, either by new carbon sinks, by making pollution economically unsupportable, or by reducing human population (hopefully, other factors will intervene before then)
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
It’s important to separate politically correct politics from science.It pretty closely tracks CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And you might be surprised to know that effects are already with us. Glaciers and ice shelves are melting or collapsing. And note that the change is accelerating. It’s getting warmer at a faster rate.
Understand, the world isn’t going to burn up in a few years, and at some point, it will probably stabilize, either by new carbon sinks, by making pollution economically unsupportable, or by reducing human population (hopefully, other factors will intervene before then)
Political debate is one thing.
Science is something totally “else”.
Please don’t mix them.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
This just in from a friend on www.climatechangedebate.org :
If you are interested, the script of the Bob Carter lecture complete with all graphs, can be downloaded at www.aefweb.info/data/Carter.pdf,
It is 14 pages, and I [ClimateChangeDebate friend ] have printed it out for reference. If you are interested in the dvds, contact Leon Ashby, e-mail president@bushvision.com.
Dvd title is An Analysis of Climate Change by Prof. Bob Carter.
I have watched it twice now, and my head is still reeling from the amount of genuine climate science contained in it.
Best regards,
Interested folks should check it out.
If you are interested, the script of the Bob Carter lecture complete with all graphs, can be downloaded at www.aefweb.info/data/Carter.pdf,
It is 14 pages, and I [ClimateChangeDebate friend ] have printed it out for reference. If you are interested in the dvds, contact Leon Ashby, e-mail president@bushvision.com.
Dvd title is An Analysis of Climate Change by Prof. Bob Carter.
I have watched it twice now, and my head is still reeling from the amount of genuine climate science contained in it.
Best regards,
Interested folks should check it out.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
I am puzzled. According to the figures you yourself just provided, the global temperature went up one tenth of a degree since 1980. I don’t understand your statement that global warming is causing the glaciers and ice shelves to melt or collapse, when that is the total amount of warming since 1980.
It pretty closely tracks CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And you might be surprised to know that effects are already with us. Glaciers and ice shelves are melting or collapsing. And note that the change is accelerating. It’s getting warmer at a faster rate.
Understand, the world isn’t going to burn up in a few years, and at some point, it will probably stabilize, either by new carbon sinks, by making pollution economically unsupportable, or by reducing human population (hopefully, other factors will intervene before then)
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That’s about all it takes. A rather small variation in average temperature extends the melting period for a few days each year. And over the years, that accumulates. And the glaciers recede. And ice shelves weaken.I am puzzled. According to the figures you yourself just provided, the global temperature went up one tenth of a degree since 1980. I don’t understand your statement that global warming is causing the glaciers and ice shelves to melt or collapse, when that is the total amount of warming since 1980.
The surprising thing is, the Greenland ice sheet is retreating twice as fast as predicted for such a rise in temperature.
E
Ender
Guest
Speaking of variations in average temperatures, when are you going to calculate the average for the last five years (with the associated error bar)? You need to do that soon as it appears that the data keeps changing. Interestingly it seems that temperature in the future changes the estimates of what the temperature was in the past. I don’t know how large these changes are but, since we’re talking about a change over a mere five years, even small changes will be significant to our bet. Is this interesting or what?A rather small variation in average temperature extends the melting period for a few days each year.
*“As noted in the comments below, GISS updated the GLB.Ts+dSST anomalies which show a large 0.67 degC value for March. This addition of March 2008 temperature data to the record caused a corresponding drop in annual average temperature for the years 1946 and 1903. According to GISS, 1946 is now colder than 1960 and 1972, and 1903 dropped into a tie with 1885, 1910 and 1912.”
climateaudit.org/?p=2964
*
The unsurprising thing is that yet another prediction has been shown to be unreliable.The surprising thing is, the Greenland ice sheet is retreating twice as fast as predicted for such a rise in temperature.
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.