last decade was the hottest decade
Seon Ferguson
hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are you
unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
TUKA
> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
> hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are you
> unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
> admit there is global warming?
The question has never been "is there global warming". No one disputes that we
have been gradually warming at 0.6C per century since going through the Little Ice Age.
The question is does man cause warming, and if so, how much? Is the feedback positive
in such a way as to cause catastrophic warming? Nothing shows that it is.
I love this document:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Here is one of the key parts:
I started my research on anthropogenic (i.e. mancaused) global
warming (AGW) because, I found to my surprise, that to claim a
catastrophic AGW theory as a 'proof', the climate scientists
thought they only needed to show that human emissions MIGHT
cause a fractional- degree global decadal temperature rise, for
an earth that generally varies 20 to 40 deg F every 24 hours and
varies as much as 80 to 100 deg F every year -- This seemed to
be a Herculean task indeed. Also, the scientists have to do
their crisis forecasting by accessing a myriad of disparate
temperature data from often degraded sensors or temperature
proxies for a chaotic global system. That system has had clear
decadal sunspot variation, likely 500 to 2,000-year temperature
cycles, routine 85k-year ice-age periods, etc - all caused by
non-human effects.
Even if global temperatures were the result of a single
cause, the task of predicting future warming by the study of
measured, conflicting surface/atmospheric/ocean data, would be
difficult. With many chaotic causes (solar input intensity,
precipitation, cloud formation, greenhouse gas warming,
atmosphere-to-sea interactions, volcanoes, ocean currents, etc.),
the task seemed overwhelming. In short, I observed that having
adequate confidence in the data to make accurate, long-term
global temperature predictions would likely be impossible.
> Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
I will be interested to see what happens when all the temperature data is
released. Certainly satellite data sets, the only ones that can really be
trusted at this point, show that there has been no warming for the past
decade. You can claim it as the "hottest decade" all you want, if that
is the zenith of it then we are no longer warming.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
olde.sault
And the dryest, no doubt, Seon!
And somewhere else in the world it would have been the coldest and the
wettest
as is always the case, so how can the idiots even up various
temperatures and conclude that, not only the globe is warming but that
our emissions are causing the problem?
We've had a few very cool nights and I've been picking field mushrooms
that usually grow in autumn and spring (after a good rainfall)
NOT IN DECEMBER!
Not that the rainall was that good but they popped up along a causeway
that naturally gets more of the fall than higher ground.
Going to blame the mushroom crop for global warming also, Seon?
OS
Seon Ferguson
"TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhk5hr...@jimmy.heins.net...
> On 2010-01-05, Seon Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
>> hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are
>> you
>> unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
>> admit there is global warming?
>
> The question has never been "is there global warming". No one disputes
> that we
> have been gradually warming at 0.6C per century since going through the
> Little Ice Age.
>
> The question is does man cause warming, and if so, how much? Is the
> feedback positive
> in such a way as to cause catastrophic warming? Nothing shows that it is.
>
So why did some liberals call out and say it's been cooling? And why do
people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree with you it has
been naturally warming since the last ice age that is a fact. However the
temperatures are now way hotter than it was say a century ago. There has
been a dramatic increase in temperature. It would be naturally warming
without humans yes but not as much as it is now.
Seon Ferguson
"olde.sault" <olde....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1d26289-66be-4994...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
The beauro of meteorology aren't just talking about Australia. Global
Warming is a scientific fact and this just proves it.
> OS
asdf
That's right... compare an apple with an orange and call it a banana.
Seon Ferguson
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:246be076-7093-4a59...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> Seon Ferguson typed:
>
>>"So why did some liberals call out and say it's been cooling? And why do
>>people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree with you it has
>>been naturally warming since the last ice age that is a fact. However the
>>temperatures are now way hotter than it was say a century ago. There has
>>been a dramatic increase in temperature. It would be naturally warming
>>without humans yes but not as much as it is now."
>
>
> Reply:
>
> You didn't read his post properly. He said "... gradually
> warming at 0.6C per century since going through the Little Ice Age."
> He did not say since the last Ice Age (or more porperly,
> the last Glacial Period within the present Ice Age we are now in. As
> hard as it may be for you to believe, we are only in an Interglacial
> Period. A warm period during the Ice Age. An Ice Age consists of
> Glacial Periods broken up by warmer Interglacial Periods, like we are
> now in. We are still in an Ice Age since the Earth still has ice caps,
> glaciers, and ice fields.)
>
> He said the 'Little Ice Age" (LIA) which ended approx. 1850.
> Since then, in the last 160 years, we have warmed about one degree.
> (I'm being generous to you.,. it is closer to point seven (.7) degree
> warmer.)
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it is normal to expect the world to warm
> after the ending of the Little Ice Age.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why so many people are in a panic and
> losing sleep because of it.
> Perhaps they need professional counseling. On a couch at a shrinks
> office. Or medication.
>
> Personally I prefer warmth over cold. So do my in-laws. They spend
> each winter in Florida to try to get away from the cold.
>
A little warm? Um temperatures are way warmer then they were in the peak of
the little ice age (which only affected Europe anyway). That is why THE
MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS are loosing sleep over it.
Catoni
Seon Ferguson typed:
>"So why did some liberals call out and say it's been cooling? And why do
>people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree with you it has
>been naturally warming since the last ice age that is a fact. However the
>temperatures are now way hotter than it was say a century ago. There has
>been a dramatic increase in temperature. It would be naturally warming
>without humans yes but not as much as it is now."
Reply:
You didn't read his post properly. He said "... gradually
warming at 0.6C per century since going through the Little Ice Age."
He did not say since the last Ice Age. (or more
properly,
the last Glacial Period within the present Ice Age we are now in. As
hard as it may be for you to believe, we are only in an Interglacial
Period. A warm period during the Ice Age. An Ice Age consists of
Glacial Periods broken up by warmer Interglacial Periods, like we are
now in. We are still in an Ice Age since the Earth still has ice
caps,
glaciers, and ice fields.)
He said the 'Little Ice Age" (LIA) which ended approx. 1850.
Since then, in the last 160 years, we have warmed about one degree.
(I'm being generous to you.,. it is closer to point seven (.7) degree
warmer.)
As far as I'm concerned, it is normal to expect the world to warm
after the ending of the Little Ice Age.
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people are in a panic
and
losing sleep because of it.
Perhaps they need professional counseling. On a couch at a
shrink's
office. Or medication.
Personally I prefer warmth over cold. So do my in-laws. They spend
each winter in Florida to try to get away from the cold.
Damn freezing cold out there right now. They found a couple more
homeless corpsicles early in the morning. Poor bastards.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Who is Tony Abbott?
So you believe hiding the decline made the
data more accurate?
It may be summer where you are, but there
are no glaciers melting in above North 50 Latitude.
Why The Fuss over Global Warming, spending
money to study it, for what?
A bunch of nuts trying to make a living
without getting their hands dirty.
What is the weather there?
Catoni
>"A little warm? Um temperatures are way warmer then they were in the peak of
>the little ice age (which only affected Europe anyway). That is why THE
>MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS are loosing [sic] sleep over it."
Reply:
Wrong again. It's now known that the Little Ice Age was
world-side. And the Mediæval Warm Period was global as well.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
"In Southern Africa, sediment cores retrieved from Lake Malawi show
colder conditions between 1570 and 1820, suggesting the lake Malawi
records "further support, and extend, the global expanse of the Little
Ice Age."
Johnson, T.C., Barry, S., Chan, Y. and Wilkinson, P. 2001. Decadal
record of climate variability spanning the past 700 yr in the Southern
Tropics of East Africa. Geology 29: 83-86.
Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic
ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and
suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age (LIA).
Kreutz, K.J., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow,
S.I. and Pittalwala, I.I. 1997: Bipolar changes in atmospheric
circulation during the Little Ice Age. Science 277, 1294–96.
In the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Franz Josef glacier advanced
rapidly during the Little Ice Age, reaching its maximum extent in the
early 18th century, in one of the few places where a glacier thrust
into rain forest.
Fagan, Brian M. (2001-12-24). The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made
History, 1300-1850. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02272-3.
Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold episodes
between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670; periods contemporary with
LIA events in the Northern Hemisphere.
Villalba, R. 1990: Climatic fluctuations in Northern Patagonian during
the last 1000 years as inferred from tree-rings records. Quaternary
Research 34, 346–60.
^ Villalba, R 1994: Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval
warm epoch and the Little Ice Age in southern South America. Climatic
Change 26, 183–97.
Ad infinitum.
Bill Ward
> "TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhk5hr...@jimmy.heins.net...
>> On 2010-01-05, Seon Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
>>> hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records
>>> are you
>>> unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going
>>> to admit there is global warming?
>>
>> The question has never been "is there global warming". No one disputes
>> that we
>> have been gradually warming at 0.6C per century since going through the
>> Little Ice Age.
>>
>> The question is does man cause warming, and if so, how much? Is the
>> feedback positive
>> in such a way as to cause catastrophic warming? Nothing shows that it
>> is.
>>
> So why did some liberals call out and say it's been cooling? And why do
> people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree with you it
> has been naturally warming since the last ice age that is a fact.
> However the temperatures are now way hotter than it was say a century
> ago. There has been a dramatic increase in temperature.
The 1930s were about as warm as 1998, perhaps warmer. We need to see the
original recorded data to know for sure.
> It would be naturally warming without humans yes but not as much as it
> is now.
On what basis, other than sheer faith, do you make that statement? Are
you going with science, or religion?
Eunometic
Lets see if it doesn't suffer from the same crap the US data does
1 Urban Heat Island effect as suburbs have sprawled.
2 Sensing stations mounted within meters of man made structures such
as power transformers air conditioning ducts.
3 Y2K issues
Is the data 'satelites based' or is the data ground data based,
Lets hope the sceptics get hold of the data and audit it.
Anyone raising the AGW alarm must be treated with scepticism.
And lets see if there wasn't an el nino.
Rev. 11D Meow!
GOD Loves You, Bill Ward.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>Seon Ferguson typed:
>
>>"So why did some liberals call out and say it's been cooling? And why do
>>people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree with you it has
>>been naturally warming since the last ice age that is a fact. However the
>>temperatures are now way hotter than it was say a century ago. There has
>>been a dramatic increase in temperature. It would be naturally warming
>>without humans yes but not as much as it is now."
>
> Reply:
>
> You didn't read his post properly. He said "... gradually
>warming at 0.6C per century since going through the Little Ice Age."
> He did not say since the last Ice Age (or more porperly,
>the last Glacial Period within the present Ice Age we are now in. As
>hard as it may be for you to believe, we are only in an Interglacial
>Period. A warm period during the Ice Age. An Ice Age consists of
>Glacial Periods broken up by warmer Interglacial Periods, like we are
>now in. We are still in an Ice Age since the Earth still has ice caps,
>glaciers, and ice fields.)
>
> He said the 'Little Ice Age" (LIA) which ended approx. 1850.
>Since then, in the last 160 years, we have warmed about one degree.
>(I'm being generous to you.,. it is closer to point seven (.7) degree
>warmer.)
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it is normal to expect the world to warm
>after the ending of the Little Ice Age.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why so many people are in a panic and
>losing sleep because of it.
> Perhaps they need professional counseling. On a couch at a shrinks
>office. Or medication.
Hysteria or temper tantrums, nothing can be as
great a crisis as AGW nuts claim when it takes thousands
of sensors and a bunch of computer programs to find
three tenths of a degree, and part of that may be from
rounding up.
>Personally I prefer warmth over cold. So do my in-laws. They spend
>each winter in Florida to try to get away from the cold.
Do all the AGW nuts live where no heat is
needed? Now, Pasadena, California doesn't need
heat but about 2 months, and not every day then,
in 1964 I lived in an old two story hotel in front of
the "Ice House", and on New Years day, for some
reason the steam radiators were hot, and it was
80 F outside, and I layed a pillow on the radiator
so I could lay out the window to see the parade
with Eisenhower as Grand Marshall.
I don't think ice can melt fast enough for
sea level to rise fast enough to cause much of
a problem except in special places like Manhattan.
If there was not all the talk against the US
being the largest economy the science of climate
change would have a better chance at being taken
serious.
I drove 7 miles to the closest grocery store today,
I wanted a few $1 TV dinners, but the freezers were
not working and the store is not one year old yet.
So I drove another 5 miles to the next grocery
store, and bought the dinners.
That may have taken a gallon of gas each way
in my old clunker, but I got in the habit of eating
81 years ago, and I can't seem to break the habit.
Sorry I couldn't walk the 24 miles, it was too
cold, and I hurt after the first mile.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
Nobody is losing sleep over it, they think its
funny, they tell a tall tale, and their salary goes up.
Maybe a few in East Anglia are losing sleep,
if they are indicted for violating FOIA law, they might
even develop ulcers.
Seon Ferguson
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5acab16d-7844-4c1a...@d7g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
> Seon Ferguson typed:
>
>>"A little warm? Um temperatures are way warmer then they were in the peak
>>of
>>the little ice age (which only affected Europe anyway). That is why THE
>>MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS are loosing [sic] sleep over it."
>
> Reply:
>
> Wrong again. It's now known that the Little Ice Age was
> world-side. And the Medi�val Warm Period was global as well.
>
> http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
>
You never addressed the FACT that temperatures are way higher then they were
in the little ice age.
> "In Southern Africa, sediment cores retrieved from Lake Malawi show
> colder conditions between 1570 and 1820, suggesting the lake Malawi
> records "further support, and extend, the global expanse of the Little
> Ice Age."
>
> Johnson, T.C., Barry, S., Chan, Y. and Wilkinson, P. 2001. Decadal
> record of climate variability spanning the past 700 yr in the Southern
> Tropics of East Africa. Geology 29: 83-86.
>
> Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic
> ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and
> suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age (LIA).
>
> Kreutz, K.J., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow,
> S.I. and Pittalwala, I.I. 1997: Bipolar changes in atmospheric
> circulation during the Little Ice Age. Science 277, 1294�96.
>
> In the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Franz Josef glacier advanced
> rapidly during the Little Ice Age, reaching its maximum extent in the
> early 18th century, in one of the few places where a glacier thrust
> into rain forest.
>
> Fagan, Brian M. (2001-12-24). The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made
> History, 1300-1850. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02272-3.
>
> Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold episodes
> between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670; periods contemporary with
> LIA events in the Northern Hemisphere.
> Villalba, R. 1990: Climatic fluctuations in Northern Patagonian during
> the last 1000 years as inferred from tree-rings records. Quaternary
> Research 34, 346�60.
> ^ Villalba, R 1994: Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval
> warm epoch and the Little Ice Age in southern South America. Climatic
> Change 26, 183�97.
>
> Ad infinitum.
Seon Ferguson
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:tdm5k51e2pi19jeqh...@4ax.com...
The only people who aren't loosing sleep over it are fools who hate science.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:dPidnYKJbdpZRd_W...@giganews.com...
Science. I use graphs. And the graphs say that the temperature was naturally
rising since the little ice age but it never rose as much as it did now.
Surfer
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>Is the data 'satelites based' or is the data ground data based,
>
Here is satelite based temperature data:
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
Rev. 11D Meow!
wrote:
Dear GOD In Heaven!!!
Please don't let the Sleep get loose.
Rev. 11D Meow!
>>
>> Is the data 'satelites based' or is the data ground data based,
>>
>
> Here is satelite based temperature data:
> http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
>
"Bob" Damn those hockey stick charts.
olde.sault
> "olde.sault" <olde.sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't you watch TV news? Haven't you seen parts of America being
snowed over earlier than they ever have been? That would also have
broken some record as my field mushrooms had popping up in December.
Even if the globe is warming the only thing humans can do is to curb
their breeding, overcrowding is the cause of growing emissions.
Overcrowding always cause problems which I realised when too many
chickens packed my yard's chook pen.
Not every egg laid has a right to life (you may quote me).
OS.
.
olde.sault
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOU are the banana, asdf.
OS
matt sykes
Global Warming = x*Adjusted data + y*recovery form the LIA + z*UHI.
Make up your own values for x y and z, no scientist can give an answer
universally accepted.
Catoni
>"You never addressed the FACT that temperatures are way higher then
they were
>in the little ice age."
Reply:
Oh.. but I DID Seon.... Did you miss the part where
I said temperature had risen between point seven to perhaps (if your
lucky) one degree since the Little Ice Age ended approx. 1850?
Do you really consider that one degree or less to be "way
higher" ? ? ? ? ?
Tell us please Seon.... do you expect the Earth to NOT warm when
the Little Ice Age ended ?
I hope you realise that the Little Ice Age resulted in crop
failures and starvation on a massive scale.
Do you wish to return to that time ? ? ?
Want another Little Ice Age do you Seon ? ? ?
Seon.. if you like it cold... do you live in the Arctic? ? ? You
must hate tropical climate and palm trees and sandy beaches.
Have you given up your car and refuse to fly in order to help the
Gorebull Warming cause ? ? ?
Seon Ferguson
"olde.sault" <olde....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:04b37a83-ba79-4c1b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
The average global temperature is hotter. According to scientists anyway but
who cares what those egg heads think right?
Humans don't produce as much CO2 as the big polluters.
> OS.
>
> .
Denz
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-OSdnc_E0ejJJt_W...@westnet.com.au...
> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
> hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are
> you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going
> to admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of the
> conspiracy?
The figures published in The Age from the Bureau Meteorology report are
pretty scarey. The previous decade was almost 0.5 deg hotter than the
1961-1990 average. And 2010 is forecast to be even hotter.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/hottest-decade-on-record-official-20100105-lrph.html
"Hottest decade on record: official"
Australia experienced its hottest decade on record from 2000 to 2009 due to
global warming, the nation's bureau of meteorology said today.
The average temperature in Australia over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees
Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the Bureau of Meteorology said in its
annual climate statement.
And 2010 is forecast to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be
between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average.
"We're getting these increasingly warm temperatures, not just for Australia
but globally. Climate change, global warming is clearly continuing," said
bureau climatologist David Jones.
artie morty
wrote:
>Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
>hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are you
>unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
>admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
Records have been kept for a very short time period compared to the
age of the earth.
Given that the time span between (for example) ice ages can be in the
millions of years, of few hundred years data means very little.
Knowledge of the sun was very limited until the 70's when it was
studied by NASA.
This gave a very strong indication of the relationship between solar
activity and Earth's climate. However, 40 years of data ( available
due to the improvement in measuring instruments over the last 40
years), is simply not enough to discount solar activity and its
relationship to global warming.
The earth is getting hotter - but so is Mars.
viper
> hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are
> you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going
> to admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of the
> conspiracy?
Wow, a whole 100 years of record keeping ? Isn't science enlightening ?
What does Gough think ? He's influential with the Chinese, perhaps he could
introduce them to the notion of 'responsible' industry practice ? He could
take
Kev with him as an interpreter ?
Viper
matt sykes
wrote:
> matt sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5 Jan, 05:07, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
> > > hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are you
> > > unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
> > > admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
>
> Just made a little correction, ;-)
>
>
>
> > Make up your own values for x y and z, no scientist can give an answer
>
> - Show quoted text -
Provided you arent correcting yesterdays temperature data I dont mind!
Bill Ward
Who drew those graphs? Where did they get the data? How do you know
the data is correct? Until you can answer those questions, you are
practicing religion with a different set of scriptures.
Science requires openness and verification, not trust and belief,
> And the graphs say that the temperature was naturally rising since the
> little ice age but it never rose as much as it did now.
So you simply believe the graphs? I assume that must be comforting to
you in some way, but you're practicing religion, not science. When you
can explain logically and convincingly why the graphs are correct, then
you'll be in the science domain.
I M @ good guy
The crystal ball needs calibrated, and the dataset
is still young enough to get a fair number of daily record
highs, which are still not as warm yet as other day of
year within a two week period.
The fact of the matter is, cold records are less
likely to occur in winter because to have a record low,
an Arctic front has to be in just the right place, it can't
be everyplace around the globe.
Those who make a big deal out of record
temperatures are just clowns, there have been
almost no all-time record in the last 20 or 30
years, the AGW nuts are trying to say that just
because it does not get as cold as normal, that
means its getting warmer.
So if it is cloudy at night, especially after
it was sunny during the day, and there is little
or no wind from the polar region, it may not
get as cool or cold at night on that date as
the normal or recorded average.
Big deal, it is still far from being a record
in any sense of the term, it just doesn't get as
cool, so it is getting warmer in AGW la-la land.
Instead of mouthing off, using foul
language, calling me a right winger, or a
God fearing man, just provide a link that
shows how many all-time high records
were broken recently for any state or
country.
Ouroboros Rex
>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>> records are you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott
>> supporting fools going to admit there is global warming?
>
> disputes that we
> have been gradually warming at 0.6C per century since going through
> the Little Ice Age.
>
> The question is does man cause warming, and if so, how much? Is the
> feedback positive in such a way as to cause catastrophic warming?
> Nothing shows that it is.
>
>
> data is
> released. Certainly satellite data sets, the only ones that can
> really be
> trusted at this point, show that there has been no warming for the
> past
> decade.
Nope.
Ouroboros Rex
> Seon Ferguson typed:
>
>> "A little warm? Um temperatures are way warmer then they were in the
>> peak of the little ice age (which only affected Europe anyway). That
>
> Reply:
>
> Wrong again. It's now known that the Little Ice Age was
> world-side.
World-wide? A lie.
Ouroboros Rex
> Seon Ferguson typed:
>
> >"You never addressed the FACT that temperatures are way higher then
> they were
>> in the little ice age."
>
>
> Reply:
>
> Oh.. but I DID Seon.... Did you miss the part where
> I said temperature had risen between point seven to perhaps (if your
> lucky) one degree since the Little Ice Age ended approx. 1850?
!850? A lie.
Ouroboros Rex
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>> Seon Ferguson typed:
>>>
>>>> "A little warm? Um temperatures are way warmer then they were in
>>>> the peak of
>>>> the little ice age (which only affected Europe anyway). That is
>>>> why THE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS are loosing [sic] sleep over it."
>>>
>>> Reply:
>>>
>>> Wrong again. It's now known that the Little Ice Age
>>>
>>> http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
>>>
>> You never addressed the FACT that temperatures are way higher then
>> they were in the little ice age.
>
> And much lower than a lot of periods since the last ice age.
>
> Temperature since the last ice age declined by 0.3�C until now.
>
> http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png
Sorry, local dataset.
Ouroboros Rex
> Seon Ferguson typed:
>
>
>> why do people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree
>> is a fact. However the temperatures are now way hotter than it was
>> say a century ago. There has been a dramatic increase in
>> not as much as it is now."
>
>
>
> You didn't read his post properly. He said "... gradually
> warming at 0.6C per century since going through the Little Ice Age."
>
> properly,
> the last Glacial Period within the present Ice Age we are now in. As
> hard as it may be for you to believe, we are only in an Interglacial
> Period. A warm period during the Ice Age. An Ice Age consists of
> Glacial Periods broken up by warmer Interglacial Periods, like we are
> now in. We are still in an Ice Age since the Earth still has ice
> caps,
> glaciers, and ice fields.)
>
> He said the 'Little Ice Age" (LIA) which ended approx. 1850.
A lie.
Ouroboros Rex
>> news:dPidnYKJbdpZRd_W...@giganews.com...
>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:08:41 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>
>>>> "TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnhk5hr...@jimmy.heins.net...
>>>>>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was
>>>>>> indeed the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest
>>>>>> years on records are you
>>>>>> unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools
>>>>>> going to admit there is global warming?
>>>>>
>>>>> The question has never been "is there global warming". No one
>>>>> disputes that we
>>>>> through the Little Ice Age.
>>>>>
>>>>> the feedback positive
>>>>> in such a way as to cause catastrophic warming? Nothing shows
>>>>> that it is.
>>>>>
>>>> why do people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree
>>>> with you it has been naturally warming since the last ice age that
>>>> is a fact. However the temperatures are now way hotter than it was
>>>> say a century ago. There has been a dramatic increase in
>>>> temperature.
>>>
>>> see the original recorded data to know for sure.
>>>
>>>> as it is now.
>>>
>>> Are you going with science, or religion?
>>>
>> naturally rising since the little ice age but it never rose as much
>> as it did now.
>
> Temperature since the last ice age declined by 0.3�C until now.
Ouroboros Rex
Hey, you should quote more from that lone nut paper of yours. Those of us
who were here for that run are laughing at the above. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jan 4, 8:07 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed
>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>> records are you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott
>> evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
Cite, please.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:07:06 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed
>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>> records are you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott
>> supporting fools going to admit there is global warming? Or is this
>> evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
>
>
> So you believe hiding the decline
In what?
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jan 4, 9:09 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "olde.sault" <olde.sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a1d26289-66be-4994...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed
>>>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>>>> records are you
>>>> unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools
>>>> going to admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part
>>>> of the conspiracy?
>>
>>
>>> the wettest
>>> as is always the case, so how can the idiots even up various
>>> temperatures and conclude that, not only the globe is warming but
>>> that our emissions are causing the problem?
>>
>>> We've had a few very cool nights and I've been picking field
>>> mushrooms that usually grow in autumn and spring (after a good
>>> rainfall)
>>
>>> NOT IN DECEMBER!
>>
>>> Not that the rainall was that good but they popped up along a
>>> causeway that naturally gets more of the fall than higher ground.
>>
>>> Going to blame the mushroom crop for global warming also, Seon?
>>
>> The beauro of meteorology aren't just talking about Australia. Global
>> Warming is a scientific fact and this just proves it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> snowed over earlier than they ever have been?
Weather post. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jan 5, 3:07 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed
>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>> records are you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott
>> supporting fools going to admit there is global warming? Or is this
>> evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
>
> 1 Urban Heat Island effect as suburbs have sprawled.
> 2 Sensing stations mounted within meters of man made structures such
> as power transformers air conditioning ducts.
> 3 Y2K issues
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:17:30 -0800 (PST), Eunometic
> <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is the data 'satelites based' or is the data ground data based,
>>
>
> Here is satelite based temperature data:
> http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
From who? lol
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1400
The globe recorded its fourth warmest November since record keeping began in
1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies rated November 2009 as the warmest November on
record, beating the 2001 record by 0.02�C. NOAA classified the year-to-date
period, January - November 2009, as the fifth warmest such period on record.
The November satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the
atmosphere were the warmest on record according to the University of Alabama
Huntsville data set, or fifth warmest, according to the RSS data set.
Warmest November on record for Southern Hemisphere land areas
Southern Hemisphere land areas had their warmest November on record
including Australia, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
November was 1.87�C (3.4�F) above average in Australia, and several
statewide records were broken, with New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania,
surpassing the previous largest maximum temperature anomaly recorded for an
Australian state. The highest minimum temperature record for the continent
was also broken, with an anomaly of 1.61�C (2.90�F) above average.
Third warmest November on record for the U.S.
For the contiguous U.S., the average November temperature was 4.0�F above
average, making it the 3rd warmest November in the 115-year record,
according to the National Climatic Data Center. That's a pretty remarkable
swing from October, which was the third coldest October on record. Delaware
experienced its warmest November on record, Wisconsin and New Jersey their
second warmest, and five states had their third warmest November (Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, and North Dakota). Eighteen other states had
an average temperature that ranked in the top ten. No states had below
normal temperatures for the month.
November sea ice extent in the Arctic 3rd lowest on record
November 2009 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent was the 3rd lowest since
satellite measurements began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice
Data Center (NSIDC). Only 2006 and 2007 saw lower arctic sea ice extent.
During 10-day period in the first half of November, arctic ice extent
decreased below the 2007 record minimum, but rose above record minimum
levels by the middle of the month.
Ouroboros Rex
> Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:17:30 -0800 (PST), Eunometic
>> <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is the data 'satelites based' or is the data ground data based,
>>>
>>
>> Here is satelite based temperature data:
>> http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
>>
>
> specified zero axis.
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
> Furthermore the source of the data is omitted.
You mean like you have been doing to us with your stolen graphs website
all last year. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On 5 Jan, 05:07, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed
>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>> records are you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott
>> supporting fools going to admit there is global warming? Or is this
>> evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
>
> Make up your own values for x y and z, no scientist can give an answer
> universally accepted.
As always, Matt Sykes lies.
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>> records are you unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott
>> supporting fools going to admit there is global warming? Or is this
>> evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
> age of the earth.
>
> Given that the time span between (for example) ice ages can be in the
> millions of years, of few hundred years data means very little.
>
> Knowledge of the sun was very limited until the 70's when it was
> studied by NASA.
>
> This gave a very strong indication of the relationship between solar
> activity and Earth's climate. However, 40 years of data ( available
> due to the improvement in measuring instruments over the last 40
> years), is simply not enough to discount solar activity and its
> relationship to global warming.
It certainly is, since solar activity has been going down almost the whole
time. lol
>
> The earth is getting hotter - but so is Mars.
See 'seasons'. lol
Ouroboros Rex
Ouroboros Rex
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed
>> the hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on
>> records
>
> And of course you're sure that it has never ever been as hot as last
> decade?
>
>> are you
>> unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools
>> going to admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of
>> the conspiracy?
>
> Living in a box of 130 years diagonal with a locked cover must be very
> depressing.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On 2010-01-05, Seon Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
> > unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
> > admit there is global warming?
>
> have been gradually warming at 0.6C per century since going through the Little Ice Age.
>
> The question is does man cause warming, and if so, how much? Is the feedback positive
> in such a way as to cause catastrophic warming? Nothing shows that it is.
>
Wow, a blogger. And look, he apparently considers himself an expert on
financial matters, and aviation, and robots too!
And who does he quote: One Burt Rutan:
Elbert Leander "Burt" Rutan (born June 17, 1943) is an American
aerospace engineer noted for his originality in designing light,
strong, unusual-looking, energy-efficient aircraft.
Surely he's a scientist! Nope: he has a BS degree in aeronautical
engineering
And where does he present his "work"?
On July 29, 2009, Burt Rutan drew a full house for his presentation at
the Experimental Aircraft Association's EAA Airventure 2009 Oshkosh
Conference entitled "Non-Aerospace Research Quests of a Designer/
Flight Test Engineer" where he discussed his thoughts on his hobby of
climate change.
And to add to the kookery:
Burt Rutan also states he was raised Republican but now seems to think
that both official parties have grown too big and socialist
Wow, you really know how to make your side look silly!
> Here is one of the key parts:
>
> I started my research on anthropogenic (i.e. mancaused) global
> warming (AGW) because, I found to my surprise, that to claim a
> catastrophic AGW theory as a 'proof', the climate scientists
> thought they only needed to show that human emissions MIGHT
> cause a fractional- degree global decadal temperature rise, for
> an earth that generally varies 20 to 40 deg F every 24 hours and
> varies as much as 80 to 100 deg F every year -- This seemed to
> be a Herculean task indeed. Also, the scientists have to do
> their crisis forecasting by accessing a myriad of disparate
> temperature data from often degraded sensors or temperature
> proxies for a chaotic global system. That system has had clear
> decadal sunspot variation, likely 500 to 2,000-year temperature
> cycles, routine 85k-year ice-age periods, etc - all caused by
> non-human effects.
>
> Even if global temperatures were the result of a single
> cause, the task of predicting future warming by the study of
> measured, conflicting surface/atmospheric/ocean data, would be
> difficult. With many chaotic causes (solar input intensity,
> precipitation, cloud formation, greenhouse gas warming,
> atmosphere-to-sea interactions, volcanoes, ocean currents, etc.),
> the task seemed overwhelming. In short, I observed that having
> adequate confidence in the data to make accurate, long-term
> global temperature predictions would likely be impossible.
>
> > Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
> I will be interested to see what happens when all the temperature data is
> released. Certainly satellite data sets, the only ones that can really be
> trusted at this point, show that there has been no warming for the past
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:07:06 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
> >hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are you
> >unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
>
> Who is Tony Abbott?
>
> So you believe hiding the decline made the
> data more accurate?
So you believe in turning a blind eye to science?
>
> It may be summer where you are, but there
> are no glaciers melting in above North 50 Latitude.
>
Glaciers the world over are melting.
Long-term mass balance records from Lemon Creek Glacier in Alaska show
slightly declining mass balance with time.(Miller and Pelto) The mean
annual balance for this glacier was -0.23 m (0.75 ft) each year during
the period of 1957 to 1976. Mean annual balance has been increasingly
negatively averaging -1.04 m (3.4 ft) per year from 1990 to 2005.
Repeat glacier altimetry, or altitude measuring, for 67 Alaska
glaciers find rates of thinning have increased by more than a factor
of two when comparing the periods from 1950 to 1995 (0.7 m (2.3 ft)
per year) and 1995 to 2001 (1.8 m (5.9 ft) per year).(Arendt, et alia)
This is a systemic trend with loss in mass equating to loss in
thickness, which leads to increasing retreat--the glaciers are not only
retreating, but they are also becoming much thinner. In Denali
National Park, all glaciers monitored are retreating, with an average
retreat of 20 m (66 ft) per year. The terminus of the Toklat Glacier
has been retreating 26 m (85 ft) per year and the Muldrow Glacier has
thinned 20 m (66 ft) since 1979.(Adema) Well documented in Alaska are
surging glaciers that have been known to rapidly advance, even as much
as 100 m (330 ft) per day, though the reasons they do this is not
fully understood. (Pedersen) Variegated, Black Rapids, Muldrow,
Susitna and Yanert are examples of surging glaciers in Alaska that
have made rapid advances in the past. These glaciers are all
retreating overall, punctuated by short periods of advance.
> Why The Fuss over Global Warming, spending
> money to study it, for what?
>
> A bunch of nuts trying to make a living
> without getting their hands dirty.
>
> What is the weather there?
artie morty
wrote:
What do you mean by 'since solar activity has been going down almost
the whole time'?
Sunspot activity is following its normal predicted cycle since the
activity of October/November 2003.
But a few years of measured activity means zilch in the scheme of
things.
>>
>> The earth is getting hotter - but so is Mars.
>
> See 'seasons'. lol
>
What does that mean?
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:07:06 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
> >hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are you
> >unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
> >admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
> Records have been kept for a very short time period compared to the
> age of the earth.
>
> Given that the time span between (for example) ice ages can be in the
> millions of years, of few hundred years data means very little.
>
> Knowledge of the sun was very limited until the 70's when it was
> studied by NASA.
>
> This gave a very strong indication of the relationship between solar
> activity and Earth's climate. However, 40 years of data ( available
> due to the improvement in measuring instruments over the last 40
> years), is simply not enough to discount solar activity and its
> relationship to global warming.
The sun's output did not change for the last 50 years but the earth
warmed. What kind of relationship is that?
>
> The earth is getting hotter - but so is Mars.
Gee, you ever think of doing a little research before putting foot in
mouth?
erschro...@gmail.com
> >news:dPidnYKJbdpZRd_W...@giganews.com...
> > > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:08:41 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
> > >>news:slrnhk5hr...@jimmy.heins.net...
> > >>> On 2010-01-05, Seon Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
> > >>>> hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records
> > >>>> are you
> > >>>> unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going
> > >>>> to admit there is global warming?
>
> > >>> that we
> > >>> have been gradually warming at 0.6C per century since going through the
> > >>> Little Ice Age.
>
> > >>> The question is does man cause warming, and if so, how much? Is the
> > >>> feedback positive
> > >>> in such a way as to cause catastrophic warming? Nothing shows that it
> > >>> is.
>
> > >> people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree with you it
> > >> has been naturally warming since the last ice age that is a fact.
> > >> However the temperatures are now way hotter than it was say a century
> > >> ago. There has been a dramatic increase in temperature.
>
> > > The 1930s were about as warm as 1998, perhaps warmer. We need to see the
> > > original recorded data to know for sure.
>
> > >> It would be naturally warming without humans yes but not as much as it
> > >> is now.
>
> > > On what basis, other than sheer faith, do you make that statement? Are
> > > you going with science, or religion?
>
> > rising since the little ice age but it never rose as much as it did now.
>
> Blatant lie.
> Temperature since the last ice age declined by 0.3°C until now.
Peter repeats the lie, like good Nazis of the 30a and 40s. But Herr
Peter, repeating it over and over won't make people believe it today.
The 2000s are the hottest decade on record.
> And there were a lot of periods when it was much hotter than today.
>
> http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png
>
> > >>> I love this document:
>
> > >>>http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
>
> > >>> Here is one of the key parts:
>
> > >>> I started my research on anthropogenic (i.e. mancaused) global warming
> > >>> (AGW) because, I found to my surprise, that to claim a catastrophic AGW
> > >>> theory as a 'proof', the climate scientists thought they only needed to
> > >>> show that human emissions MIGHT cause a fractional- degree global
> > >>> decadal temperature rise, for an earth that generally varies 20 to 40
> > >>> deg F every 24 hours and varies as much as 80 to 100 deg F every year
> > >>> -- This seemed to be a Herculean task indeed. Also, the scientists have
> > >>> to do their crisis forecasting by accessing a myriad of disparate
> > >>> temperature data from often degraded sensors or temperature proxies for
> > >>> a chaotic global system. That system has had clear decadal sunspot
> > >>> variation, likely 500 to 2,000-year temperature cycles, routine
> > >>> 85k-year ice-age periods, etc - all caused by non-human effects.
>
> > >>> Even if global temperatures were the result of a single cause, the task
> > >>> of predicting future warming by the study of measured, conflicting
> > >>> surface/atmospheric/ocean data, would be difficult. With many chaotic
> > >>> causes (solar input intensity, precipitation, cloud formation,
> > >>> greenhouse gas warming, atmosphere-to-sea interactions, volcanoes,
> > >>> ocean currents, etc.), the task seemed overwhelming. In short, I
> > >>> observed that having adequate confidence in the data to make accurate,
> > >>> long-term global temperature predictions would likely be impossible.
>
> > >>>> Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
>
bb
"Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:hhvp5...@news5.newsguy.com...
Denz
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:aao6k5lg08p343buv...@4ax.com...
What crystal ball? The scientists are looking at records, not premonitions
>
> The fact of the matter is, cold records are less
> likely to occur in winter because to have a record low,
> an Arctic front has to be in just the right place, it can't
> be everyplace around the globe.
>
> Those who make a big deal out of record
> temperatures are just clowns,
Climate scientists from around the world, with PhDs - are just clowns?
Strange, I didnt have this impression.
> there have been
> almost no all-time record in the last 20 or 30
> years, the AGW nuts are trying to say that just
> because it does not get as cold as normal, that
> means its getting warmer.
You made that up. I know because two years in the past decade have been
significantly hotter than at any other time in recorded history. And the
last decade was also the hottest
> Instead of mouthing off, using foul
> language, calling me a right winger, or a
> God fearing man, just provide a link that
> shows how many all-time high records
> were broken recently for any state or
> country.
Sure, just look at the link in the article you replied to, or take a look at
the graphs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
And besides, being 'God fearing' has nothing to do with the debate. And Im
not sure why being 'right winged' seems to?
bb
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea247929-49cc-432f...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
yes it has.
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global
warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent
per decade since the late 1970s.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
george
> Climate scientists from around the world, with PhDs - are just clowns?
> Strange, I didnt have this impression.
Then the PhDs in religious studies are dealing in reality?
In the real world PhD means a few more years at school and 'Piled
higher and deeper'.
Its the 'climate scientists' who smooth the data that make the claim
of global warming due to man.
I M @ good guy
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 5 Jan, 14:31, Peter Muehlbauer <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de>
>wrote:
>> matt sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 5 Jan, 05:07, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Well now that the records have come out and last decade was indeed the
>> > > hottest decade and last year was one of the hottest years on records are you
>> > > unscientific global warming denying Tony Abbott supporting fools going to
>> > > admit there is global warming? Or is this evidence part of the conspiracy?
>>
>> > Global Warming = x*Adjusted data + y*recovery form the LIA + z*UHI + fudge factor
>>
>> Just made a little correction, ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> > Make up your own values for x y and z, no scientist can give an answer
>> > universally accepted.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Provided you arent correcting yesterdays temperature data I dont mind!
I don't think he tried to hide the decline.
The coldest stretch of weather since 1979
is sure to make January numbers look C O L D !
Catoni
> Catoni wrote:
> > Seon Ferguson typed:
>
> > they were
> >> in the little ice age."
>
>
> > Oh.. but I DID Seon.... Did you miss the part where
> > I said temperature had risen between point seven to perhaps (if your
> > lucky) one degree since the Little Ice Age ended approx. 1850?
>
> !850? A lie.
Prove it ! Most sources say the Little Ice Age ended apporx. 1850
Catoni
> Catoni wrote:
> > Seon Ferguson typed:
>
> >> peak of the little ice age (which only affected Europe anyway). That
> >> is why THE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS are loosing [sic] sleep over it."
>
> > Reply:
>
> > Wrong again. It's now known that the Little Ice Age was
> > world-side.
>
> World-wide? A lie.
Prove that it's a lie..... I can give you cites, as I did in the
earlier post of you have the brains to read it...... what have you got
besides your usual crap shit.
Catoni
> Catoni wrote:
> > Seon Ferguson typed:
>
> >> why do people like bonzo talk about global cooling? Sure I agree
> >> with you it has been naturally warming since the last ice age that
> >> is a fact. However the temperatures are now way hotter than it was
> >> say a century ago. There has been a dramatic increase in
> >> temperature. It would be naturally warming without humans yes but
> >> not as much as it is now."
>
> > Reply:
>
> > You didn't read his post properly. He said "... gradually
> > warming at 0.6C per century since going through the Little Ice Age."
>
> > He did not say since the last Ice Age. (or more
> > properly,
> > the last Glacial Period within the present Ice Age we are now in. As
> > hard as it may be for you to believe, we are only in an Interglacial
> > Period. A warm period during the Ice Age. An Ice Age consists of
> > Glacial Periods broken up by warmer Interglacial Periods, like we are
> > now in. We are still in an Ice Age since the Earth still has ice
> > caps,
> > glaciers, and ice fields.)
>
> > He said the 'Little Ice Age" (LIA) which ended approx. 1850.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're the liar Rexy honey...
Catoni
As usual, Ouroboros Rex, (the Self-Sucking Serpent King) ... has
nothing....
Denz
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:09c34b29-194f-4eba...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 6, 10:34 am, "Denz" <nos...@here.com> wrote:
> Climate scientists from around the world, with PhDs - are just clowns?
> Strange, I didnt have this impression.
>Then the PhDs in religious studies are dealing in reality?
Now theres a strange tangent. Im not sure that climate science is too
concerned with religious qualifications.
>In the real world PhD means a few more years at school and 'Piled
>higher and deeper'.
A PhD requires an original contribution accepted by professor review. Its
not attending classes and sitting exams. If these guys dont know what theyre
talking about, who does? Andrew Bolt? haha
>Its the 'climate scientists' who smooth the data that make the claim
>of global warming due to man.
Nonsense. A baseless fabrication.
Surfer
wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:17:30 -0800 (PST), Eunometic
>> <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is the data 'satelites based' or is the data ground data based,
>>>
>>
>> Here is satelite based temperature data:
>> http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
>
> From who? lol
>
I think its reliable.
There is background info on the author of the web site here.
http://climatesci.org/2009/04/07/summary-of-roger-a-pielke-srs-view-of-climate-science/
By the way the temperature fluctuations now lie almost entirely ABOVE
the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were evenly balanced
above and below the axis.
That seems a clear sign that the planet has warmed.
I M @ good guy
The one that predicts a complete year or a
future year, records are of the past, the future can
be anything.
>> The fact of the matter is, cold records are less
>> likely to occur in winter because to have a record low,
>> an Arctic front has to be in just the right place, it can't
>> be everyplace around the globe.
>>
>> Those who make a big deal out of record
>> temperatures are just clowns,
>
>Climate scientists from around the world, with PhDs - are just clowns?
>Strange, I didnt have this impression.
I have no idea what value "climate" science
has except maybe to tourist advertising.
But it is the ones that predict the future
and describe the horrors that are clowns.
I don't claim that nothing bad will happen
in the future, in fact I suspect some things will
be worse for one reason or another than even
the clowns claim.
>> there have been
>> almost no all-time record in the last 20 or 30
>> years, the AGW nuts are trying to say that just
>> because it does not get as cold as normal, that
>> means its getting warmer.
>
>You made that up. I know because two years in the past decade have been
>significantly hotter than at any other time in recorded history. And the
>last decade was also the hottest
No I didn't make it up, I know pretty much
when and where the all-time high records occurred,
the climate science clowns don't go by "hotter",
so you are misrepresenting what they claim.
>> Instead of mouthing off, using foul
>> language, calling me a right winger, or a
>> God fearing man, just provide a link that
>> shows how many all-time high records
>> were broken recently for any state or
>> country.
>
>Sure, just look at the link in the article you replied to, or take a look at
>the graphs here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Try;
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/worldtp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
>And besides, being 'God fearing' has nothing to do with the debate. And Im
>not sure why being 'right winged' seems to?
Then you have not been reading what the
AGW alarmist nuts have been saying, they vent
frustration in not having any good evidence of
real warming, the decline hiders use average
daily temperatures to compile the annual
global averages and do not use or remove
the outliers.
I M @ good guy
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>If otherwise, it MUST be fudged.
>
>BTW, it's funny to see the CRU3 data set to zeroes for 10, 11 and 12/2009.
>
>2009 7 0,508
>2009 8 0,548
>2009 9 0,457
>2009 10 0,000
>2009 11 0,000
>2009 12 0,000
>
>Is that true data or is it fudged to zero? *g*
I don't think so, it may be the NH averaged
for those three months.
But then, anomalies totally hide facts.
I M @ good guy
You don't think annual averaging doesn't
smooth data?
Apparently the thread picked up from where
I said climate scientist alarmists are clowns, and
it was mostly your words that started the PhD
tangent.
I think too much is given education, while
experience is pretty much ignored, I don't know
many sciences very well, but because I have
almost turtle recall of 80 years, I have the
ability to do things out of the ordinary.
I really don't think much intentional biasing
of data has been the problem it is the inept and
delusional misinterpretations that result in all
the BS crisis proclamations.
Denz
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:07:58 GMT, "Denz" <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>news:09c34b29-194f-4eba...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 6, 10:34 am, "Denz" <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Climate scientists from around the world, with PhDs - are just clowns?
>>> Strange, I didnt have this impression.
>>
>>>Then the PhDs in religious studies are dealing in reality?
>>
>>Now theres a strange tangent. Im not sure that climate science is too
>>concerned with religious qualifications.
>>
>>>In the real world PhD means a few more years at school and 'Piled
>>>higher and deeper'.
>>
>>A PhD requires an original contribution accepted by professor review. Its
>>not attending classes and sitting exams. If these guys dont know what
>>theyre
>>talking about, who does? Andrew Bolt? haha
>>
>>>Its the 'climate scientists' who smooth the data that make the claim
>>>of global warming due to man.
>>
>>Nonsense. A baseless fabrication.
>
> You don't think annual averaging doesn't
> smooth data?
I did think you were implying the scientists 'doctored' the data.
Of course averaging 'smooths' data. It helps to identify trends. So what? I
really dont get how you imply averaging data makes it look incorrectly that
man made global warming is occuring?
> Apparently the thread picked up from where
> I said climate scientist alarmists are clowns, and
> it was mostly your words that started the PhD
> tangent.
I was merely dismissing the 'climate scientists are clowns' line.
> I think too much is given education, while
> experience is pretty much ignored, I don't know
> many sciences very well, but because I have
> almost turtle recall of 80 years, I have the
> ability to do things out of the ordinary.
A touch arrogant?
Are you trying to tell us that over the 80 years you have developed a 'feel'
that the globe isnt warming / the warming isnt man made? Im not convinced.
Formally educated and dedicated scientists in the field, crunching large
amounts of data in big computers and working in a peer review environment-
this is convincing.
> I really don't think much intentional biasing
> of data has been the problem it is the inept and
> delusional misinterpretations that result in all
> the BS crisis proclamations.
You just dont trust scientists.
I M @ good guy
>
>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>news:vqe8k59s9b7vjuc6s...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:07:58 GMT, "Denz" <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>news:09c34b29-194f-4eba...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jan 6, 10:34 am, "Denz" <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Climate scientists from around the world, with PhDs - are just clowns?
>>>> Strange, I didnt have this impression.
>>>
>>>>Then the PhDs in religious studies are dealing in reality?
>>>
>>>Now theres a strange tangent. Im not sure that climate science is too
>>>concerned with religious qualifications.
>>>
>>>>In the real world PhD means a few more years at school and 'Piled
>>>>higher and deeper'.
>>>
>>>A PhD requires an original contribution accepted by professor review. Its
>>>not attending classes and sitting exams. If these guys dont know what
>>>theyre
>>>talking about, who does? Andrew Bolt? haha
>>>
>>>>Its the 'climate scientists' who smooth the data that make the claim
>>>>of global warming due to man.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. A baseless fabrication.
>>
>> You don't think annual averaging doesn't
>> smooth data?
>
>I did think you were implying the scientists 'doctored' the data.
A few may have been, most thought they
were doing a good job.
>Of course averaging 'smooths' data. It helps to identify trends. So what? I
>really dont get how you imply averaging data makes it look incorrectly that
>man made global warming is occuring?
The averaging doesn't, the peculiarities of a
way less than mature data set can because cloudy
nights cause warmer temperatures and each year
there are "days of the year" that never had a
cloudy night before.
There are some ledgers that use numbered
days of the year, and using that with notation
which nights had cloudy skies can show what
the issue is.
>> Apparently the thread picked up from where
>> I said climate scientist alarmists are clowns, and
>> it was mostly your words that started the PhD
>> tangent.
>
>I was merely dismissing the 'climate scientists are clowns' line.
But not all are PhDs, are they.
>> I think too much is given education, while
>> experience is pretty much ignored, I don't know
>> many sciences very well, but because I have
>> almost turtle recall of 80 years, I have the
>> ability to do things out of the ordinary.
>
>A touch arrogant?
Not really, I try to keep some accomplishments
secret.
>Are you trying to tell us that over the 80 years you have developed a 'feel'
>that the globe isnt warming / the warming isnt man made? Im not convinced.
No, what I said was related to the qualities of
education and experience, I wish I would have had
more education, but if I would have it might have
prevented me from doing a couple of the things
I feel were important.
>Formally educated and dedicated scientists in the field, crunching large
>amounts of data in big computers and working in a peer review environment-
>this is convincing.
And totally and completely useless.
>> I really don't think much intentional biasing
>> of data has been the problem it is the inept and
>> delusional misinterpretations that result in all
>> the BS crisis proclamations.
>
>You just dont trust scientists.
Anybody can make mistakes, and being too
certain of a premise is a big mistake, when after
so many years of grants and gifts the industry
can't say for sure that it is getting warmer or
cooler, claiming a certainty of warmer reduces
my confidence in the factuality of articles.
Tom P
> Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>> Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:17:30 -0800 (PST), Eunometic
>>> <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is the data 'satelites based' or is the data ground data based,
>>>>
>>> Here is satelite based temperature data:
>>> http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/0709tlt_bar.jpg
>>>
>> specified zero axis.
>
> cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
>
>> Furthermore the source of the data is omitted.
>
> You mean like you have been doing to us with your stolen graphs website
> all last year. lol
>
>
... and still is. Not only does he not provide the source for his
graphs, he's even deleted references to himself from the website. Take a
look at the html source code, it used say Peter Muehlbauer all over it,
now it doesn't say anything. That's violating German website regulations
btw, did you know?
Tom P
> Your blah above is typical AGW behaviour when you have no more arguments
> or no arguments against.
>
> In this case you'd better STFU.
>
> Thanks for Godwin.
>
Mr Windmill, your graphs would be more convincing if you provided
credible sources for the data instead of an anonymous website which
appears to be purely your own creation.
T.
Ouroboros Rex
Three separate minimums, 1650, 1770, 1850, separated by warming.
Ouroboros Rex
The ones from a dutch denialist site? lol
what have you got
> besides your usual crap shit.
"Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a
number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century,
including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum
glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they
may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a
globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not
support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this
timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm
Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric
or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed]
hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest
cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1�C
relative to late 20th century levels."...
..."However, viewed hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be
considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period
of less than 1�C relative to late 20th century levels (Bradley and Jones,
1993; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; Crowley and Lowery,
2000). Cold conditions appear, however, to have been considerably more
pronounced in particular regions. Such regional variability can be
understood in part as reflecting accompanying changes in atmospheric
circulation. The "Little Ice Age" appears to have been most clearly
expressed in the North Atlantic region as altered patterns of atmospheric
circulation (O'Brien et al., 1995). Unusually cold, dry winters in central
Europe (e.g., 1 to 2�C below normal during the late 17th century) were very
likely to have been associated with more frequent flows of continental air
from the north-east (Wanner et al., 1995; Pfister, 1999).
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm
Denz
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
There is a complex range of factors that determine the temperature of a day.
Cloud cover is just one. While cloud cover can cool a day, it can also
prevent the night from cooling further so im not sure you can just guess a
conclusion of the overall effect. Unless the earth has been mysteriously
trending towards less cloud cover decade after decade for the last 100
years, I dont think its a factor
I give up.
Catoni
crap.... to be flushed down the shitter.
Rexy's cite: ha, ha, ha,. ha... the Climategate Gang... starring
"East Anglia" Jones and "Hockeystick" Mann.
And as we see Rexy.. it's well known now that it was Global...
Go back and look at my cites..... her's a good one.... you can
click on the individual graphs to see them bigger. Takd a good look
Rexy....
The following is Ouroboros Rex's cites.... JUST LOOK AT THE NAMES
BELOW LOL LOL what a joke ! ! !
Hey... there's Michael Mann....he does magic....he made
the Mediæval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear in his
"Hockey Stick"
>"..."However, viewed hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only
be
considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this
period
of less than 1 C relative to late 20th century levels (Bradley and
Jones,
1993; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; Crowley and
Lowery,
2000). Cold conditions appear, however, to have been considerably
more
pronounced in particular regions. Such regional variability can be
understood in part as reflecting accompanying changes in atmospheric
circulation. The "Little Ice Age" appears to have been most clearly
expressed in the North Atlantic region as altered patterns of
atmospheric
circulation (O'Brien et al., 1995). Unusually cold, dry winters in
central
Europe (e.g., 1 to 2 C below normal during the late 17th century) were
very
likely to have been associated with more frequent flows of continental
air
from the north-east (Wanner et al., 1995; Pfister, 1999). "
The following are just a few cites of evidence of world wide
Little
Ice Age.
"In Southern Africa, sediment cores retrieved from Lake Malawi show
colder conditions between 1570 and 1820, suggesting the lake Malawi
records "further support, and extend, the global expanse of the
Little
Ice Age."
Johnson, T.C., Barry, S., Chan, Y. and Wilkinson, P. 2001. Decadal
record of climate variability spanning the past 700 yr in the
Southern
Tropics of East Africa. Geology 29: 83-86.
Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic
ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and
suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age (LIA).
Kreutz, K.J., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow,
S.I. and Pittalwala, I.I. 1997: Bipolar changes in atmospheric
circulation during the Little Ice Age. Science 277, 1294–96.
In the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Franz Josef glacier advanced
rapidly during the Little Ice Age, reaching its maximum extent in the
early 18th century, in one of the few places where a glacier thrust
into rain forest.
Fagan, Brian M. (2001-12-24). The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made
History, 1300-1850. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02272-3.
Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold episodes
between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670; periods contemporary
with
LIA events in the Northern Hemisphere.
Villalba, R. 1990: Climatic fluctuations in Northern Patagonian
during
the last 1000 years as inferred from tree-rings records. Quaternary
Research 34, 346–60.
^ Villalba, R 1994: Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval
warm epoch and the Little Ice Age in southern South America. Climatic
Change 26, 183–97.
Catoni
>"You just dont trust scientists."
Reply:
Character and honesty is not how many strings of letters there are at
the end of one's name ! All those letters do is get you your first
job.