In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible
Harry Hope
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
Fri, 01 Jan 2010
In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible, with little
global action to reverse the trend.
As polar ice melted, glaciers disappeared, coral reefs died, forests
burned, and lakes shrank, little was done by the world's biggest
polluters to combat the steadily rising temperatures scientists say
are causing the disastrous changes � fuelled by increased greenhouse
gases.
_______________________________________________________
Harry
Not Sure
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible,
Sure it did, <wink> <wink>
Flaps_50!
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible, with little
> global action to reverse the trend.
>
> As polar ice melted, glaciers disappeared, coral reefs died, forests
> burned, and lakes shrank, little was done by the world's biggest
> polluters to combat the steadily rising temperatures scientists say
> are causing the disastrous changes – fuelled by increased greenhouse
> gases.
>
No, Y2K that was a world destroying glitch in computers
Keep your disasters straight!
Cheers
Green Turtle
news:u9isj59009o8mb3rj...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible, with little
> global action to reverse the trend.
>
Dream on.....
As a bonus, I will list you the UAH warming trends (recalculated to
temperature changes in �C per century) for various intervals:
UAH
2000-2009: +0.53 �C/century
2001-2009: -0.78 �C/century
2002-2009: -1.56 �C/century
2003-2009: -1.43 �C/century
2004-2009: -1.43 �C/century
2005-2009: -3.70 �C/century
2006-2009: -2.30 �C/century
2007-2009: -1.00 �C/century
Keep in mind the 2009 data not 100% finished at time of above, but December
was dam cold, and above numbers if anything will look worse and show more
cooling...
So, Last 7 of the last 8 years show cooling.....
Everyone been freezing their asses off....
Super Turtle
Kevin Cunningham
> On Jan 1, 11:15 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> > Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> > In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible,
>
> Sure it did, <wink> <wink>
>
> with little
Ok, watch this.
Post the name of a peer reviewed paper that says there is no global
warming.
And I bet I never get an answer because there is no paper. None.
And why? No facts, you have to have facts to publish but drooler has
no facts.
Too bad, so sad.
richp
Super Turtle where in the fuck do you get your data
leona...@gmail.com
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible, with little
> global action to reverse the trend.
• Typical fascist bullshit from the Toronto Star
Their editorial feature writer gushed all over
Gore and would have kissed him if he let her.
Catoni
Harry Hopeless with his amazing stories ..... Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ! ! ! ! !
ROTFLMFAO LOL LOL LOL
mrbawana2u
Pigs at the trough.
=======================================
the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak.
At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate
when they do speak out, that they ignore media
hype and maintain a clinical detachment from
social or other agendas. There are facts and
data that are ignored in the maelstrom of
social and economic agendas swirling
about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases
and their effects are well-known.
Here are some of things we know:
• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor,
comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for
nearly 100 years.
It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are
near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not
statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels
to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically
declines with increasing concentration. At present levels,
any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:
• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time,
in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934,
not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records
in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year
cycle,
and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling
absolutely
falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling
factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate
Optimum (MCO)
was real and that the "hockey stick" graphic that attempted to deny
that fact was at best
bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th
century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and
fallen, including
the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100
years are in
normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly,
rate of change.
Contrary to many public statements:
• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the
cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-
year lows.
Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing
population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and
property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or
severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme
cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years
extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger
than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice
extent was significantly above the 30-year average.
There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the
last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level
rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten
centimeters rise in this century.
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data
and computer programs. The computer programs are the source
of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data.
Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.
Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and
inflammatory language. For instance, the word "ever" is
misused by media and in public pronouncements alike.
It does not mean "in the last 20 years," or "the last 70 years."
"Ever" means the last 4.5 billion years.
For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting,
with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask,
"How long is ever?" The answer is since 1979.
And then ask, "Is it still warming?" The answer
is unequivocally "No." Earth temperatures are cooling.
Similarly, the word "unprecedented" cannot be
legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000
years.
=============================================================
The "Science" Mantra
By Thomas Sowell
Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind
and the biggest reason why we live not only longer but more
vigorously in our old age, in addition to all the ways in which it
provides us with things that make life easier and more enjoyable.
Like anything valuable, science has been seized upon by politicians
and ideologues,
and used to forward their own agendas. This started long ago, as far
back as the
18th century, when the Marquis de Condorcet coined the term "social
science"
to describe various theories he favored. In the 19th century, Karl
Marx and
Friedrich Engels distinguished their own brand of socialism as
"scientific socialism."
By the 20th century, all sorts of notions wrapped themselves in the
mantle of "science."
"Global warming" hysteria is only the latest in this long line of
notions,
whose main argument is that there is no argument, because it is
"science."
The recently revealed destruction of raw data at the bottom of the
global warming hysteria, as well as revelations of attempts to
prevent critics of this hysteria from being published in leading
journals,
suggests that the disinterested search for truth-- the hallmark of
real science--
has taken a back seat to a political crusade.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jan 1, 2:53 pm, Not Sure <fred1321...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:15 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> > > Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> > > In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible,
>
> > Sure it did, <wink> <wink>
>
> > with little
>
> Ok, watch this.
>
> Post the name of a peer reviewed paper that says there is no global
> warming.
>
proves anthropogenic global warming 'exists'.
You can not because all of those to which you
refer are neither properly peer reviewed, not are
there any hard facts in the carload.
They are loaded with 'could,''might', 'may', 'if',
'should'. Shoulda, woulda, coulda, cuts no ice in
real science, not like that in realclimate.com.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Green Turtle
news:a75eee7b-c0c1-4bda...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I said where...UAH.....
math and data used for the above can be found linked from here:
Feel free to take the data from above and re-do the math and get the same
numbers yourself....
Super Turtle
Claudius Denk
> On Jan 1, 2:53 pm, Not Sure <fred1321...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:15 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> > > Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> > > In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible,
>
> > Sure it did, <wink> <wink>
>
> > with little
>
> Ok, watch this.
>
> Post the name of a peer reviewed paper that says there is no global
> warming.
No. You post the name of a peer reviewed paper that shows that the
notion that CO2 causes GW has ever been tested.
I know I will never get an answer.
>
> And I bet I never get an answer because there is no paper.
That's right. Only a retard would attempt to prove a negative.
richp
> "richp" <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Feel free to take the data from above and re-do the math and get the same
> numbers yourself....
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"wattsupwiththat.com" is your source LOL
Rav1ng rabbit
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible, with little
> global action to reverse the trend.
>
> As polar ice melted, glaciers disappeared, coral reefs died, forests
> burned, and lakes shrank, little was done by the world's biggest
> polluters to combat the steadily rising temperatures scientists say
> gases.
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Harry
Here are annual temperature anomalies as observed in de Bilt the
Netherlands since 1901. Just plot them up and you'll see that is mostly
random until you hit 1980. Since then we only had 6 years under the
century average while there are 24 year above the average between 1980
and 2009.
1901.00 -0.53
1902.00 -1.14
1903.00 -0.20
1904.00 -0.40
1905.00 -0.65
1906.00 -0.17
1907.00 -0.77
1908.00 -0.89
1909.00 -1.05
1910.00 0.05
1911.00 0.45
1912.00 -0.18
1913.00 0.21
1914.00 0.25
1915.00 -0.62
1916.00 -0.19
1917.00 -1.08
1918.00 -0.14
1919.00 -1.31
1920.00 -0.14
1921.00 0.51
1922.00 -1.17
1923.00 -0.70
1924.00 -0.88
1925.00 -0.31
1926.00 0.20
1927.00 -0.53
1928.00 -0.14
1929.00 -1.09
1930.00 0.23
1931.00 -0.69
1932.00 -0.06
1933.00 -0.47
1934.00 0.76
1935.00 0.20
1936.00 0.02
1937.00 0.03
1938.00 0.20
1939.00 0.14
1940.00 -1.34
1941.00 -0.77
1942.00 -1.12
1943.00 0.18
1944.00 0.00
1945.00 0.52
1946.00 -0.38
1947.00 0.09
1948.00 0.42
1949.00 0.59
1950.00 -0.10
1951.00 0.32
1952.00 -0.45
1953.00 0.46
1954.00 -0.33
1955.00 -0.50
1956.00 -1.22
1957.00 0.25
1958.00 -0.30
1959.00 0.51
1960.00 0.10
1961.00 0.26
1962.00 -1.37
1963.00 -1.60
1964.00 -0.59
1965.00 -0.93
1966.00 -0.08
1967.00 0.42
1968.00 -0.34
1969.00 0.09
1970.00 -0.39
1971.00 0.03
1972.00 -0.61
1973.00 -0.18
1974.00 0.22
1975.00 0.37
1976.00 0.52
1977.00 0.38
1978.00 -0.43
1979.00 -0.94
1980.00 -0.22
1981.00 -0.23
1982.00 0.59
1983.00 0.66
1984.00 -0.00
1985.00 -0.90
1986.00 -0.43
1987.00 -0.61
1988.00 0.90
1989.00 1.30
1990.00 1.42
1991.00 0.08
1992.00 1.08
1993.00 0.17
1994.00 1.15
1995.00 0.99
1996.00 -0.89
1997.00 0.80
1998.00 0.93
1999.00 1.45
2000.00 1.43
2001.00 0.91
2002.00 1.27
2003.00 0.90
2004.00 0.88
2005.00 1.20
2006.00 1.75
2007.00 1.74
2008.00 1.14
2009.00 1.04
Or sorted on annual temperature with the warmest years first you'll get
to see that the warmest years are the most recent ones.
2006 1.75
2007 1.74
1999 1.45
2000 1.43
1990 1.42
1989 1.3
2002 1.27
2005 1.2
1994 1.15
2008 1.14
1992 1.08
2009 1.04
1995 0.99
1998 0.93
2001 0.91
1988 0.9
2003 0.9
2004 0.88
1997 0.8
1934 0.76
1983 0.66
1949 0.59
1982 0.59
1945 0.52
1976 0.52
1921 0.51
1959 0.51
1953 0.46
1911 0.45
1948 0.42
1967 0.42
1977 0.38
1975 0.37
1951 0.32
1961 0.26
1914 0.25
1957 0.25
1930 0.23
1974 0.22
1913 0.21
1926 0.2
1935 0.2
1938 0.2
1943 0.18
1993 0.17
1939 0.14
1960 0.1
1947 0.09
1969 0.09
1991 0.08
1910 0.05
1937 0.03
1971 0.03
1936 0.02
1944 0
1984 0
1932 -0.06
1966 -0.08
1950 -0.1
1918 -0.14
1920 -0.14
1928 -0.14
1906 -0.17
1912 -0.18
1973 -0.18
1916 -0.19
1903 -0.2
1980 -0.22
1981 -0.23
1958 -0.3
1925 -0.31
1954 -0.33
1968 -0.34
1946 -0.38
1970 -0.39
1904 -0.4
1978 -0.43
1986 -0.43
1952 -0.45
1933 -0.47
1955 -0.5
1901 -0.53
1927 -0.53
1964 -0.59
1972 -0.61
1987 -0.61
1915 -0.62
1905 -0.65
1931 -0.69
1923 -0.7
1907 -0.77
1941 -0.77
1924 -0.88
1908 -0.89
1996 -0.89
1985 -0.9
1965 -0.93
1979 -0.94
1909 -1.05
1917 -1.08
1929 -1.09
1942 -1.12
1902 -1.14
1922 -1.17
1956 -1.22
1919 -1.31
1940 -1.34
1962 -1.37
1963 -1.6
My conclusion is that since 1980 global warming became unstoppable.
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Climate Realist
>
> Here are annual temperature anomalies as observed in de Bilt the
> Netherlands since 1901. Just plot them up and you'll see that is mostly
> random until you hit 1980. Since then we only had 6 years under the
> century average while there are 24 year above the average between 1980
> and 2009.
>
>
>
> Q
First question for Rav1ng rabbit:
Why didn't de Bilt have any global warming before 1980? This does NOT
fit in with the IPCC propaganda which ties AGW to industrial times.
Where did you get these temperatures from? Are they adjusted for
things like UHI, site shifts, or equipment changes. If you could
provide full data and history for this site, then we may be able to
work out what "AGW" really is.
Looking forward to your reply.
mrbawana2u
> On Jan 1, 2:53 pm, Not Sure <fred1321...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:15 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744766--climate-change#article
>
> > > Fri, 01 Jan 2010
>
> > > In the 2000s, global warming approached the irreversible,
>
> > Sure it did, <wink> <wink>
>
> > with little
>
mrbawana2u
Rav1ng rabbit
> On Jan 2, 11:21 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>> Here are annual temperature anomalies as observed in de Bilt the
>> Netherlands since 1901. Just plot them up and you'll see that is mostly
>> random until you hit 1980. Since then we only had 6 years under the
>> century average while there are 24 year above the average between 1980
>> and 2009.
>>
>>
>> My conclusion is that since 1980 global warming became unstoppable.
>>
>> Q
>
> First question for Rav1ng rabbit:
>
> Why didn't de Bilt have any global warming before 1980? This does NOT
> fit in with the IPCC propaganda which ties AGW to industrial times.
The Bilt is just one point in the Netherlands, all it reflects is the
local climate, but the correspondence to GISS is significant.
> Where did you get these temperatures from? Are they adjusted for
I got them from the KNMI website, The sets can be downloaded here:
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/download.html
> things like UHI, site shifts, or equipment changes. If you could
> provide full data and history for this site, then we may be able to
> work out what "AGW" really is.
>
> Looking forward to your reply.
They simply keep for a number of WMO stations daily temperature records
back to 1900. I took the daily average values since 1901, fitted a
constant and an annual temperature A*cos(w*t-G) function, the remainder
(observation minus my simple 3 parameter model) is considered as a
temperature anomaly. These anomalies are then displayed as yearly (or
below 5 yearly) averages. The KNMI corrected for site shifts and
equipment changes as far as I understood them. Maybe the next table is
less noisy, it shows the 5 year average temperature anomalies at de
Bilt. Here 1903.50 means, between 1901 and 1906.
1903.50 -0.58
1908.50 -0.57
1913.50 0.02
1918.50 -0.57
1923.50 -0.51
1928.50 -0.27
1933.50 -0.05
1938.50 -0.19
1943.50 -0.24
1948.50 0.13
1953.50 -0.10
1958.50 -0.13
1963.50 -0.85
1968.50 -0.06
1973.50 -0.04
1978.50 -0.14
1983.50 0.02
1988.50 0.52
1993.50 0.69
1998.50 0.74
2003.50 1.03
2008.50 1.42
The KNMI wrote a separate report on the heat island effect, their
conclusion is that it doesn't introduce a large systematic effect. I
also checked station 344 which is close to where I live, this is a small
airport and nothing in the neighborhood of that airport really changed
since the 80's as far as I know.
Greetz,
Green Turtle
If you bothered to follow the above link, you get to here:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
and, that gets you to:
ftp://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/data/msu/
Super Turtle
Last Post
> My conclusion is that since 1980 global warming became unstoppable.
>
30 years' data has been 'adjusted'
mrbawana2u
>[who cares?]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mant...
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?pri...
leona...@gmail.com
> Post the name of a peer reviewed paper that says there is no global
> warming.
• Show me one REAL peer reviewed paper that
proves anthropogenic global warming 'exists'.
You can not because all of those to which you
refer are neither properly peer reviewed, not are
there any hard facts in the carload.
They are loaded with 'could,''might', 'may', 'if',
'should'. Shoulda, woulda, coulda, cuts no ice in
real science, not like that in realclimate.com.
— —