February was 6th warmest in 127 years
Roger Coppock
Fossil fools constantly are in search of anything but
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to blame global
warming on. Only those explanations will please there
carbon polluting industry masters. Lately, they've
been spreading some manure about the Sun warming up
and causing global mean surface temperatures to rise.
To blame the Sun, fossil fools must totally ignore
some very basic facts.
The Sun can't be the cause of the recent warming because:
--- the sun hasn't warmed enough recently, only gone
through its 11-year cycle, and
--- while that 11-year solar cycle went down for the last
5 years, global temperature record highs were set,
including last year's all time record warmth, and
--- there was more warming near the poles than at the
equator, the sun would have warmed the world evenly,
and
--- the stratosphere has cooled, while the near surface
warmed, the sun would have warmed both evenly, and
--- most of the recent warming happened at night when
the sun did not shine.
Fossil fools can always find a quote from some crank
scientist who will will support their fantasy, but
they'll always ignore these simple facts and the rest of
mainstream science. They're called fools for good reason.
Meanwhile, global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 127 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.
The last 126 yearly means of these data are graphed at:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean February temperature over the last 127 years is 13.997 C.
The Variance is 0.08373.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2894.
Rxy 0.714747 Rxy^2 0.510863
TEMP = 13.635864 + (0.005642 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 125 F = 130.552157
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999 (20 nines)
The month of February in the year 2006,
is linearly projected to be 14.352,
yet it was 14.58. <-- .8 SIGMA above projection!
The sum of the residuals is 21.13638
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.639989 * e^(.0004035 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 21.08378
Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.84 0.843 2.91
2002 14.75 0.753 2.60
1995 14.70 0.703 2.43
2004 14.67 0.673 2.33
1999 14.64 0.643 2.22
2006 14.58 0.583 2.01 <--
2000 14.49 0.493 1.70
2005 14.49 0.493 1.70
2003 14.48 0.483 1.67
1991 14.43 0.433 1.50
1996 14.43 0.433 1.50
2001 14.40 0.403 1.39
1983 14.39 0.393 1.36
MEAN 13.997 0.000 0.00
1918 13.65 -0.347 -1.20
1890 13.64 -0.357 -1.23
1951 13.64 -0.357 -1.23
1888 13.61 -0.387 -1.34
1904 13.61 -0.387 -1.34
1907 13.60 -0.397 -1.37
1911 13.59 -0.407 -1.41
1887 13.55 -0.447 -1.54
1891 13.55 -0.447 -1.54
1929 13.55 -0.447 -1.54
1905 13.53 -0.467 -1.61
1893 13.51 -0.487 -1.68
1917 13.50 -0.497 -1.72
1895 13.49 -0.507 -1.75
The most recent 144 continuous months, or 12 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1514 months of data on this data set:
-- 649 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 865 of them are below the norm.
This run of 144 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.
Clifford
We're cookin' now!
Clifford
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1141771025.4...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> February was 6th warmest in 127 years
>
> Fossil fools constantly are in search of anything but
> anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to blame global
> warming on. Only those explanations will please there
> carbon polluting industry masters. Lately, they've
> been spreading some manure about the Sun warming up
> and causing global mean surface temperatures to rise.
> To blame the Sun, fossil fools must totally ignore
> some very basic facts.
>
> The Sun can't be the cause of the recent warming because:
>
> --- the sun hasn't warmed enough recently, only gone
> through its 11-year cycle, and
>
> --- while that 11-year solar cycle went gone down for the
Clifford
Joe Jared
> The last 126 yearly means of these data are graphed at:
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
This chart seems very promising. What's obvious is that the cycle of
warming and cooling is getting longer, if there's going to be a cooling
cycle at all. Is there also a reference link for humidity? If so, I
wouldn't be surprised in the least if global humidity were increasing as
well.
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
Clifford
see: http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/Change/history.gif
from: http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/
Clifford
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1141771412.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Roger Coppock
Temperature data is reported twice every day as a daily high and
a nighttime low. United States Historical Climate Network data
distributions contain two files "hcn_doe_max_data" and
"hcn_doe_min_data" as well. These two files contain time of
observation corrected data from 1221 sites in the continental
US for more than a century.
Pet scientists for the fossil fuel lobby often claim that an
increased brightness of the Sun is responsible for the observed
rise in the global mean temperature. These maximum and minimum
data very clearly contradict that statement. As one can see
from the maps and outputs published below, 0.0314 °F/Decade is
the probability weighted mean temperature change for the daily
high time data, while 0.0980 °F/Decade is the same figure for
the nighttime low.
So, the rate of warming of the nighttime low is more than three
times the daytime rate! If the sun were brightening and causing
the warming this figure should be reversed, there should be more
warming during the day, not more than three times warming rate
during the night, when the Sun doesn't shine.
(The maps below are best viewed in a non-proportional font like
Courier or Monaco.)
DAILY HIGH TIME OF OBSERVATION CORRECTED DATA
Temperature Change in .1 F/Decade
B 4
31 11 BBC1 2 2 40324 2 C11C1
2 1BA BBAB1 12 3 2 3 2 22121AC
51111B101C1A4 1 4 12 2 211BC0422 1 A322 2A
1040012 BB3B223 B AA 11 11 1 1C12 A 0 1 B11
21BBA 4B 3 C3C223 22 2BA0BBB00 1A11 4 102111114
B3 1 D00BBB AB20 1 11 2A1 D1 BBACA11 B31 222B322 2
30121 D ABCA2 C B 20311 A110B0 BAA3BB1 1B 1ABB1A12223
11 B C B12B 01121 0CC2A0 AB0BB0CBA0BBA00CF2B11235
3 2 3 B3BBC 1020 12 32BBABB0BAA BABBCA01BBB3 0222233
1B13433 0 012 1212 101 2B21BBBBBB0CB CCB3B0B222
110 0 B03B 200 21 A0CAB1BCA1 0CCCBBA0BB10312
2111 435 3 2B11 010C 10B1ABCCBA00B 5BA0AA2
B B6 2 12 23 CABB201ACBBCBC BBD CDBDABA0B2 B
2A3 1 C5 42A15 BCCBBBDCCD 0CAACBBB2CB0B 3
C33 0 112A 2 1 C0 CBCBCB CDDB1A1B1010CB1 2
12 C 222B21A33 1 A CEE D BDCBAC C1B100
631B B 211 20A 0 2CC0C CB0CABA0 A0B 010
30 1 AD DD01 BCCCAB1CAC11
AD B 1 A CCBAB0A 1B01
1BB DB 2 AA
BD C 2 0
C6 A3
0 30
DB
2
Key: ' ' = No Observation
'0' = 0F/Decade, '1' = .1F/Decade, '2' = .2F/Decade . . .
'A' = -.1F/Decade, 'B' = -.2F/Decade, 'C' = -.3F/Decade . . .
661 one degree grid squares have at least one observation.
0.0314 F/Decade is the probability weighted mean temperature change.
554 one degree grid squares have at least a total of .7 confidence.
0.0381 F/Decade is their probability weighted mean temperature change.
NIGHLY LOW TIME OF OBSERVATION CORRECTED DATA
Temperature Change in .1 F/Decade
3 2
23 33 4352 3 A 27343 4 33524
2 214 1B343 51 2 2 3 3 4433633
E142331A221BE 1 2 11 4 353331314 A AC42 32
1110312 6A2B4AB 1 21 32 22 B 220A 2 2 1 143
11320 D2 7 41324B 2A 3254BB220 2101 3 A111B312A
41 C 0442EA 6641 A 10 332 31 1021BA3 113 11A2300 C
33320 6 122C1 2 1 12261 212012 02AA241 23 B12BABBB121
11 1 0 1216 4C333 AC2111 B12101023A21122101112213
1 1 C 4B143 1276 42 6322011101D 1001111A2111 B20011B
2B31A21 1 212 109G 422 3A20B2B012102 3BCC1D1202
44D 5 2353 422 32 12ABB21BA0 1B0BBB4B1BB1D21
1218 424 B 1211 4311 0110B10AABB22 BCA1C0A
4 23 3 C3 62 C302131101AA01 C0A BA1CBB10BE 2
14G 3 5D 1EA2A AA1B00BCA0 B2CB0FABBBCB0 A
363 7 6125 A 0 02 C21CCC 01ADBBBCB1CBBAD E
23 6 330501BD3 2 1 1CB B B4CBAD ECCCAB
4C0B 6 931 023 6 2BBDB BC00ABBC DCC DC1
3B A 00 BCBC 1BB1BBDCD0EB
D3 A B 2 10CBCBB DDB0
BC0 03 C 11
4B A 0 0
1D BD
1 12
14
1
661 one degree grid squares have at least one observation.
0.0980 F/Decade is the probability weighted mean temperature change.
588 one degree grid squares have at least a total of .7 confidence.
0.1096 F/Decade is their probability weighted mean temperature change.
Number of Sites
00100000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
01502102212020020211110030121110000000000000000000000000000
10523041211022010010201000031231110000000000000000000000000
13212124211120101001204031211211102011210000000000000000110
03323222000114121100101102201201011110101000000000000101110
11211001301003212110110022131124103132000100000002453121210
13010011111101113010110122022042311130114000001224423020000
12322001013123010010312110123121012211120110115644232610000
02201000001025120011321011342101323322325222321123462420000
10201012111014120012011132466222013223232414201124631000000
02224111001024101111000113011212133423350123131465400000000
00431010000031120121024013111233110133462122324165000000000
00111100000251020311100112202131211312111012222110000000000
00100310100011011011213212262141013204111211122030000000000
00002110003021000011121013324222110111311242312401000000000
00000221002011110030201103222210112521221365322010000000000
00000002101023111111100101011101021231101224230000000000000
00000001111010112031101011111011122112021202310000000000000
00000000000000110010011002111000143312112112000000000000000
00000000000000000000021000201010332212102211000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000322000013000010011000000000000000
00000000000000000000000012010000000000000030100000000000000
00000000000000000000000000210000000000000002100000000000000
00000000000000000000000000100000000000000001200000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001100000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000
The data cover the years 1800-2004. The number of years on
each station's record varies and on average is about 100 years.
These data were found at:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/hcn_doe_max_data.Z
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/hcn_doe_min_data.Z
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/station.inventory.Z
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/README.TXT
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.htm l
The valid, or non "-99.99," yearly average fields from the time
of observation corrected daily high and nighttime low," or "1+"
and "2+," records in years later than, or equal to, 1800 are
used.
Roger Coppock
Roger Coppock
> Of course, Roger, that's assuming your MEAN is accurate!
> see: http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/Change/history.gif
>
> from: http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/
>
That is why I use data from NASA and not "junkscience.com".
Steve Malloy has tinkered with his own global mean
temperature for about two years now, and he still hasn't
got it right. What he doesn't seem to understand is that
at least a 30-year record is needed before one can infer
statements about climate and global warming. So, the
earliest Malloy's little project could have any value in
the global warming debate is about 2035.
Wally Miller
we had global warming back then and it cooled off in the ensuing 127
years. Rog should check solar cycles and get a telescope to look at
the sun.
Don
>
>In article <1141771412.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>rcop...@adnc.com says...
>> --- most of the recent warming happened at night when
>> the sun did not shine.
>>
>
>
>What on earth is this supposed to mean?
>
>
>--
>Alan LeHun
It means that the greenhouse gases are acting like a blanket, retaining
more heat over night than before.
It means that the explaination of global warming being due to the Sun being
hotter is less likely, since Sunshine isn't available at night.
Coby Beck
news:1141783714.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
The instrumental record Roger is using only goes back 127 years, so February
was the 6th warmest in *at least* 127 years. This is a simple fact that we
are stuck with. GISS uses a global dataset of 145 years that indicates 2005
was the warmest year recorded in that time, so the correct characterization
of that is to say 2005 was likely the warmest year in *at least* 145 years.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm (this graph stops at
2001).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
But there is another direct measurement record that can tell us things about
temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements.
Basically, this involves drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature
at various depths. This gives us information about century scale temperature
trends as warmer or cooler pulses from surface changes propogate down
through the earth's crust. This way of inferring surface temperatures
smooths out short term or yearly flucuations so we can not know anything
about individual years.
Read about it here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html
See the temperature trend here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Thus, using this record we can extend our timeframe and reasonably conclude
that it is warmer now than any time in the last 500 years.
It is possible to make reconstructions of temperature much further back,
using what are called proxy data. These include things like tree rings,
ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites and others. The
reconstructions available are all slightly different and provide sometimes
more and sometimes less global versus regional coverage over the last one or
two thousand years but:
"they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last
several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that
the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was
most dramatic after 1920"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Thus we can reasonably say it is warmer now than any other time in the last
one thousand years.
The only other candidate for a higher temperature period going back through
the entire Holocene (~12000bp to now) is called the Holocene Climatic
Optimum some 6000 years ago. It is not known exactly what the temperatures
were then but they have long been thought to be almost as warm as now. I
think that conclusion is starting to look less likely as it has been
determined that the anamolous warmth of that time was actually only in the
northern hemisphere and only in the winter months.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Wikipedia has a nice graph of many reconstructions of Holocene temperature
all super-imposed with an average of all of them combined to boot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Thus one can reasonably believe that it is warmer now than at any other time
in the last 12,000 years.
Before the current interglacial the planet was in the grip of a much cooler
glacial period with ice sheets well down into the continental US that only
just ended ~10,000 years ago. This 450Kyr record can be read in antarctic
ice core analyses and shows cycles of glacial-interglacial transitions over
100Kyr periods.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
Thus we can say that if our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer
now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years.
That is a bit more than 100 years, it is the entire history of our species.
From
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough.html
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jotuni
Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
> In article <1141771412.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> rcop...@adnc.com says...
> > --- most of the recent warming happened at night when
> > the sun did not shine.
> >
>
> ??????
>
> What on earth is this supposed to mean?
It means more clouds.
Jotuni
> Thus we can say that if our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer
> now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years.
Thus we can also say that climate cooling has been goining on for 5
million years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Roger Coppock
The last 126 yearly means of these data are graphed at:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
> Rog should check solar cycles and get a telescope
to look at the sun.
Solar change, cyclic or not, does not explain the current
warming for the reasons listed.
Using a telescope to look at the sun will cause blindness.
Lloyd Parker
"Clifford" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And your only talking about a .583C difference from MEAN. Whoopty shit!
>We're cookin' now!
>
That's very significant. The last ice age was only about 5 C cooler.
Lloyd Parker
>Of course, Roger, that's assuming your MEAN is accurate!
>see: http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/Change/history.gif
>
>from: http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/
>
Why do you cite an industry-shill group? Why not read what NASA, or IPCC,
have to say instead? Do they confuse you with facts?
Lloyd Parker
"Wally Miller" <Ark...@juno.com> wrote:
>Does this mean the earth was hotter 128 years ago or in 1878?
If I say, Shakespeare was the greatest writer of his time, that doesn't
automatically mean there were greater writers at other times.
>I guess
>we had global warming back then and it cooled off in the ensuing 127
>years. Rog should check solar cycles and get a telescope to look at
>the sun.
>
Duh, I guess you should have graduated high school.
Coby Beck
news:440e6ff7$0$25357$39db...@news.song.fi...
Indeed it was warmer 5 million years ago, even warmer 4 billion, but the
point is not what is a better or worse climate. No one is upset about GW
because we are leaving behind the optimum climate. I don't know if there is
a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature. Surely it is
better on earth now, not having as much land trapped beneath ice sheets as
there was 20K years ago. But between the climate 100 or 200 years ago and
the worst one we may be heading for with tropical forests inside the arctic
circle, one degree Celsius seems just as good as any other. But the critical
issue with what is going on today is not where the temperature is or is not
at, but how fast it is moving.
Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited
to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal
behaviours. The rate at which the global temperature is rising today is very
likely unique in the history of our species. It is also very rare in
geological history though perhaps not unprecedented. But, once you look at
the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of
some historical precedent or another becomes anything but reassuring.
What we know about ecosystems and what geologic history demonstrates is that
such dramatic changes - up or down or sideways - are a tremendous shock to
the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. And that, all in all, is not
likely to be a good thing.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html
d...@dan.com
news:8dMPf.17934$vC4.13881@clgrps12...
> "Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote in message
> news:440e6ff7$0$25357$39db...@news.song.fi...
>>
>>> Thus we can say that if our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is
>>> warmer
>>> now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years.
>>
>> Thus we can also say that climate cooling has been goining on for 5
>> million years.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>
> Indeed it was warmer 5 million years ago, even warmer 4 billion, but the
> point is not what is a better or worse climate. No one is upset about GW
> because we are leaving behind the optimum climate. I don't know if there
> is
Actually, although I agree the real problem is the rate of warming, I would
argue that the climate of the last 10,000 years, i.e. since the last ice
age, has been the best climate to foster the evolution of humans. There will
be some pluses, but I believe, even if the rate was vastly reduced, there
will be more minuses. Things like reduced access to drinking water and
reduced good farmland adversely affect the human population this planet will
support, regardless of rate of change.
Quintal
wrote:
>When the Sun Don't Shine!
>
>Temperature data is reported twice every day as a daily high and
>a nighttime low. United States Historical Climate Network data
>distributions contain two files "hcn_doe_max_data" and
>"hcn_doe_min_data" as well. These two files contain time of
>observation corrected data from 1221 sites in the continental
>US for more than a century.
>
>Pet scientists for the fossil fuel lobby often claim that an
>increased brightness of the Sun is responsible for the observed
>rise in the global mean temperature. These maximum and minimum
>data very clearly contradict that statement. As one can see
>from the maps and outputs published below, 0.0314 °F/Decade is
>the probability weighted mean temperature change for the daily
>high time data, while 0.0980 °F/Decade is the same figure for
>the nighttime low.
>
>So, the rate of warming of the nighttime low is more than three
>times the daytime rate! If the sun were brightening and causing
>the warming this figure should be reversed, there should be more
>warming during the day, not more than three times warming rate
>during the night, when the Sun doesn't shine.
This argument is unconvincing. An increase of sun brightness could
still have more effect on night temperature than day temperature. The
effect can be delayed.
Quintal
allright, less likely, but not conclusive.
Roger Coppock
How?
There is a huge difference between "can be" and "is."
Scott Nudds
> rcop...@adnc.com says...
> > --- most of the recent warming happened at night when
> > the sun did not shine.
"Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message > In article
> What on earth is this supposed to mean?
It means that most of the observed warming has come from nighttime
temperatures that are higher rather than daytime temperatures that are
higher.
Scott Nudds
"Quintal" <xavi...@here.now> wrote
> This argument is unconvincing. An increase of sun brightness could
> still have more effect on night temperature than day temperature. The
> effect can be delayed.
The only delay readily imaginable is the 8 minute delay that it takes for
the light to travel from the sun to the earth.
What other mechanisms of "delay" do you postulate?
Scott Nudds
"Clifford" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote
> And your only talking about a .583C difference from MEAN. Whoopty shit!
> We're cookin' now!
Indeed we are. That is outside the normal climate swings for the interval
in question and is a full 20 to 25 percent of the change between the depth
of the last ice age and now.
A very large change indeed.
Scott Nudds
I don't know of any 127 year solar cycle. But we do have one that is 22
years long and isn't reflected in the measured global average temperature.
Why not Wally? What is the nature of this solar magic that doesn't appear
in the climate record when the sun is observed to increase it's output, but
is seen when the sun doesn't change it's output?
Curious minds want to know..
By the Way, yes it means that back in 1878 there was a February that was
warmer than this February. However, last years Feb was a record as well,
and the year before that, and two years before that.
You see Wally, that's not how random events stack up. Over time, if
things are random you get an ever decreasing probability of exceeding the
highest value, and what we are seeing is an ever increasing probability of
exceeding the highest.
How do you explain that?
Scott Nudds
> Thus we can also say that climate cooling has been goining on for 5
> million years.
Consistant with the reduction of Co2 over that period.. Reduction until
recently that is. We are now just a scant 2'C away from the maximum for the
period and have risen .5'C over the last 60 years or so, with the rate of
warming accelerating.
The projected rise of about 2'C will put us over the highest temps for this
5 million year peroid.
Jotuni
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
> "Wally Miller" <Ark...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > Does this mean the earth was hotter 128 years ago or in 1878? I guess
> > we had global warming back then and it cooled off in the ensuing 127
> > years. Rog should check solar cycles and get a telescope to look at
> > the sun.
>
> I don't know of any 127 year solar cycle. But we do have one that is 22
> years long and isn't reflected in the measured global average temperature.
>
> Why not Wally? What is the nature of this solar magic that doesn't appear
> in the climate record when the sun is observed to increase it's output, but
> is seen when the sun doesn't change it's output?
>
> Curious minds want to know..
It is smoothed out as a heat island effect.
Jotuni
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
> > rcop...@adnc.com says...
> > > --- most of the recent warming happened at night when
> > > the sun did not shine.
>
>
> "Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message > In article
> > What on earth is this supposed to mean?
>
> It means that most of the observed warming has come from nighttime
> temperatures.
So lets clear clouds from the sky and that´ll take care most of global
warming.
Jotuni
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
> Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> > Thus we can also say that climate cooling has been goining on for 5
> > million years.
>
> Consistant with the reduction of Co2 over that period.. Reduction until
> recently that is.
Is that so?
Check this out:
"Two British scientists say the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
Earth's atmosphere is higher than for 20 million years."
Lloyd Parker
Invent a way to do it, doofus, or discuss something practical.
Jotuni
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Clear sky by dropping eg Al2O3 particles into clouds from airplains. It
makes rain.
> doofus, or discuss something practical.
Like reducing co2?
Lloyd Parker
Jotuni <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote:
>In article <dusb84$n8k$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> In article <jotuni-DFB213....@news.song.fi>,
>> Jotuni <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote:
>> >In article <WZ6Qf.127264$8d1.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
>> > "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > rcop...@adnc.com says...
>> >> > > --- most of the recent warming happened at night when
>> >> > > the sun did not shine.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message > In article
>> >> > What on earth is this supposed to mean?
>> >>
>> >> It means that most of the observed warming has come from nighttime
>> >> temperatures.
>> >
>> >So lets clear clouds from the sky and that´ll take care most of global
>> >warming.
>>
>> Invent a way to do it,
>
>Clear sky by dropping eg Al2O3 particles into clouds from airplains. It
>makes rain.
>
1, Calculate how many tons of Al2O3 you'd have to drop to rid the entire globe
of clouds.
2. Calculate how often you'd have to repeat it.
Joe Jared
> 1, Calculate how many tons of Al2O3 you'd have to drop to rid the entire globe
> of clouds.
In the process of killing a cloud, I have to wonder how much Carbon
Monoxide was added to the environment.
> 2. Calculate how often you'd have to repeat it.
often
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
Scott Nudds
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
> > I don't know of any 127 year solar cycle. But we do have one that is
22
> > years long and isn't reflected in the measured global average
temperature.
> >
> > Why not Wally? What is the nature of this solar magic that doesn't
appear
> > in the climate record when the sun is observed to increase it's output,
but
> > is seen when the sun doesn't change it's output?
> >
> > Curious minds want to know..
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> It is smoothed out as a heat island effect.
You know some buzzwords, but you clearly don't have a clue as to what they
mean.
Where are 44 year running averages used to vanish the 22 year solar cycle?
Curious minds want to laugh.... At Jotuni....
Scott Nudds
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> So lets clear clouds from the sky and that´ll take care most of global
> warming.
The tighter your grasp, the more easily the atmosphere will slip through
your fingers.
Scott Nudds
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> Clear sky by dropping eg Al2O3 particles into clouds from airplains. It
> makes rain.
Then why is there a continuing severe drought in the Central U.S.? Just
sprinkle some pixi dust into the air...
Oh, by the way, once the water is removed, what is gonna stop the 133
million square miles of ocean from evaporating another whiff of water vapour
and put them clouds right back?
Stupid... Stupid... Jotuni...
> > doofus, or discuss something practical.
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> Like reducing co2?
Yup. Attacking the source of a problem is typically the best solution.
Scott Nudds
> > Consistant with the reduction of Co2 over that period.. Reduction until
> > recently that is.
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> Is that so?
> Check this out:
> "Two British scientists say the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
> Earth's atmosphere is higher than for 20 million years."
Yes, your referenced article verifies my comment.
Stupid... Stupid... Jotuni...
Do you actually read what you reference?
Pathetic...
Jotuni
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> In article <jotuni-84C81C....@news.song.fi>,
> Jotuni <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote:
> >In article <dusb84$n8k$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
> > lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jotuni-DFB213....@news.song.fi>,
> >> Jotuni <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <WZ6Qf.127264$8d1.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
> >> > "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > rcop...@adnc.com says...
> >> >> > > --- most of the recent warming happened at night when
> >> >> > > the sun did not shine.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message > In article
> >> >> > What on earth is this supposed to mean?
> >> >>
> >> >> It means that most of the observed warming has come from nighttime
> >> >> temperatures.
> >> >
> >> >So lets clear clouds from the sky and that´ll take care most of global
> >> >warming.
> >>
> >> Invent a way to do it,
> >
> >Clear sky by dropping eg Al2O3 particles into clouds from airplains. It
> >makes rain.
> >
>
> 1, Calculate how many tons of Al2O3 you'd have to drop to rid the entire
> globe
> of clouds.
Why?
Jotuni
Joe Jared <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:59:41 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > 1, Calculate how many tons of Al2O3 you'd have to drop to rid the entire
> > globe
> > of clouds.
>
> In the process of killing a cloud, I have to wonder how much Carbon
> Monoxide was added to the environment.
And how is that added?
Jotuni
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
Dear Scott, you have lots of questions.
I answered your question - above, so you ask another one. How many their
will be?
Scott Nudds
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > 1, Calculate how many tons of Al2O3 you'd have to drop to rid the entire
> > globe of clouds.
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> Why?
Two reasons...
1. To relieve yourself of a fraction of your incredable ignorance.
2. To illustrate the level of your incompetency. On this scale, no
calculation = 100% incompetence.
Scott Nudds
> "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
> > You know some buzzwords, but you clearly don't have a clue as to what
they
> > mean.
> >
> > Where are 44 year running averages used to vanish the 22 year solar
cycle?
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> Dear Scott, you have lots of questions.
I do, and you quite obviously have no competence, and no answers.
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> I answered your question - above, so you ask another one. How many their
> will be?
No you haven't actually. A lie is not an answer. A lie is a meaure of
deceit and incompetence.
Being caught in a lie, is a measure of your incompetence at lying.
Jotuni
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote:
Why to rid entire globe of clouds?
Joe Jared
> In article <pan.2006.03.11....@osirusoft.com>,
> Joe Jared <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:59:41 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > 1, Calculate how many tons of Al2O3 you'd have to drop to rid the entire
>> > globe
>> > of clouds.
>>
>> In the process of killing a cloud, I have to wonder how much Carbon
>> Monoxide was added to the environment.
>
> And how is that added?
By planes, most likely.
>
>> > 2. Calculate how often you'd have to repeat it.
>> often
--
Scott Nudds
"Jotuni" <jot...@jotuni.com> wrote
> Why to rid entire globe of clouds?
Why you think that you can rid any part of the globe of clouds?
Fool.
Jotuni
Jotuni
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:27:13 +0200, Jotuni wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2006.03.11....@osirusoft.com>,
> > Joe Jared <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:59:41 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > 1, Calculate how many tons of Al2O3 you'd have to drop to rid the entire
> >> > globe
> >> > of clouds.
> >>
> >> In the process of killing a cloud, I have to wonder how much Carbon
> >> Monoxide was added to the environment.
> >
> > And how is that added?
>
> By planes, most likely.
Do you think that planes do not burn fuel completely?
Scott Nudds
Lurker
news:L3oPf.5118$CT.1267@trnddc04...
> You really need to get a life Roger!
>
> Clifford
>
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:1141771025.4...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> > February was 6th warmest in 127 years
In other words, 127 years of alleged global warming
and we are still in the 6th place?
Coby Beck
news:x2IYf.10930$JZ1.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
LOL! You're funny!
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Sport Pilot
Roger Coppock wrote:
> February was 6th warmest in 127 years
>
Which is about the whole time we have been keeping records fool! Think
about it. The weather has 20 and 50 year cycles and we have only had 6
of the 20 year cycles, so 6th warmest is not that bad! That may mean
the coolest of those 20 cycles. In fact it is pittifully low for
proving global warming!
Sport Pilot
only 6 cycles since the data was recorded, this is probably the coldest
20 year cycle. 128 years is noting. But leftest scientests jump to
conclusions if it gets them fame and glory.
Sport Pilot
only 6 cycles since the data was recorded, this is probably the coldest
Roger Coppock
alt.global-warming, "Global Cycles Are Small Change"
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>Roger Coppock wrote:
>> February was 6th warmest in 127 years
>>
>
>Which is about the whole time we have been keeping records fool! Think
>about it. The weather has 20 and 50 year cycles and we have only had 6
>of the 20 year cycles, so 6th warmest is not that bad!
How about the fact that ALL the warmest years on record have occurred since
1990?
Coby Beck
news:1144261185.0...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The reliable instrumental record only goes back 145 years. This is a simple
fact that we are stuck with. 2005 was the warmest year recorded in that
time, so the correct characterization is to say 2005 was likely the warmest
year in *at least* 145 years.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm (this graph stops at
2001).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
But there is another direct measurement record that can tell us things about
temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements.
Basically, this involves drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature
at various depths. This gives us information about century scale temperature
trends as warmer or cooler pulses from surface changes propogate down
through the earth's crust. This way of inferring surface temperatures
smooths out short term or yearly flucuations so we can not know anything
about individual years.
Read about it here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html
See the temperature trend here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Thus, using this record we can extend our timeframe and reasonably conclude
that it is warmer now than any time in the last 500 years.
It is possible to make reconstructions of temperature much further back,
using what are called proxy data. These include things like tree rings,
ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites and others. The
reconstructions available are all slightly different and provide sometimes
more and sometimes less global versus regional coverage over the last one or
two thousand years but:
"they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last
several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that
the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was
most dramatic after 1920"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Thus we can reasonably say it is warmer now than any other time in the last
one thousand years.
The only other candidate for a higher temperature period going back through
the entire Holocene (~12000bp to now) is called the Holocene Climatic
Optimum some 6000 years ago. It is not known exactly what the temperatures
were then but they have long been thought to be almost as warm as now. I
think that conclusion is starting to look less likely as it has been
determined that the anamolous warmth of that time was actually only in the
northern hemisphere and only in the winter months.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Wikipedia has a nice graph of many reconstructions of Holocene temperature
all super-imposed with an average of all of them combined to boot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Thus one can reasonably believe that it is warmer now than at any other time
in the last 12,000 years.
Before the current interglacial the planet was in the grip of a much cooler
glacial period with ice sheets well down into the continental US that only
just ended ~10,000 years ago. This 450Kyr record can be read in antarctic
ice core analyses and shows cycles of glacial-interglacial transitions over
100Kyr periods.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
Thus we can say that if our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer
now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years.
That is a bit more than 100 years, it is the entire history of our species.
Coby Beck
So ridiculous in so many ways....
Joe Jared
> 20 year cycle. 128 years is noting. But leftest scientests jump to
> conclusions if it gets them fame and glory.
People are more likely to panic for the sheer shock value of some
scientists opinions than to research their findings. You might say
there's a balance to the equations of "scientific" opinions.
Sport Pilot
Yet you are apparently not able to explain why.
Coby Beck
>> >> > In other words, 127 years of alleged global warming
>> >> > and we are still in the 6th place?
>> >>
>> >> LOL! You're funny!
>> >> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
>> >>
>> > Actually smart. Since the weather gets hot and cold every 20 years and
>> > only 6 cycles since the data was recorded, this is probably the coldest
>> > 20 year cycle. 128 years is nothing. But leftest scientests jump to
>> > conclusions if it gets them fame and glory.
>>
>> So ridiculous in so many ways....
>
> Yet you are apparently not able to explain why.
You never bother to respond to the lengthy ans substantive responses I
frequently give you, why shoul I think you are interested? Anyway, this is
why:
There are no 20 year cycles. (Please feel free to post a reference.)
The previous record years are all in the last decade, hardly cyclic.
The records being set are all records in *at least* 128 or 145 years
(depending on the data set). The fact that there is no adequate data 129
years ago does not suggest that it was even hotter.
2005 breaking the record is not convincing? Let's see then, how about:
a.. every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
b.. the ten hottest years on record occured in the last 15
c.. every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
d.. the 20 hottest years on record occured in the last 25
e.. every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956
f.. every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917
The five year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8oC lower than the five
year mean in 2002. This and all the above come from the analysis by NASA
GISS here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
There is an interesting quote from that page:
"Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not
received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year,
1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the
strongest El Niño of the past century."
Do you have any regard for factual information?
Sport Pilot
1950 or so is not frequent enough, accurate enough, nor from enough
places to matter. And there is a 20 and 50 year cycle, though they are
not always exactly that long. Metrologist's have verified this.
Coby Beck
>> Do you have any regard for factual information?
>
>Not from NASA and I do not believe we have enough data, and data before
>1950 or so is not frequent enough, accurate enough, nor from enough
>places to matter. And there is a 20 and 50 year cycle, though they are
>not always exactly that long. Metrologist's have verified this.
This is pretty rich, Sport. In one breath you tell me we have no good data
from before 50 years ago, and in the next you talk about a verified 50 year
cycle.
Can you see how that makes no sense?