Posted on 02/19/2007 2:40:47 PM PST by Moseley
Global-warming doomsayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in central Queensland, then here in Sydney.
January also was unusually cool.
We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters, as some zealots have been presenting extreme scenarios to frighten us.
They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight-storey building, and the Amazon Basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and Greenland melts.
An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global-warming sceptics, and a US television correspondent compared sceptics to ''Holocaust deniers''.
A local newspaper editorial's complaint about the doomsayers' religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity.
Christians don't go against reason, although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace the probabilities.
What we were seeing from the doomsayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria -- semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.
I'm deeply sceptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence.
I would be surprised if industrial pollution and carbon emissions had no ill-effects at all.
But enough is enough.
A few fixed points may provide light on the subject.
We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history -- for example, the ice ages and Noah's flood, when human causation could only have been negligible.
Nor should it be too surprising to learn that during the past 100 years, the media has alternated between promoting fear of anew ice age and fear of global warming.
Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years.
We all know that a cool January doesn't mean much in the long run.
But neither does evidence based on only a few years.
Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations over limited periods and in a few places to misrepresent longer patterns.
Warming evidence is mixed and often exaggerated but can be reassuring.
Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one-fifth of a degree
Celsius per decade.
The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer, especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.
Britain's University of East Anglia climate research unit found global temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2005, and a NASA satellite recently found the southern hemisphere had not warmed in the past 25 years.
Is mild global warming a northern phenomenon?
We may have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg as large as an aircraft carrier off Dunedin, but we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.
The science is certainly more complicated than the propaganda.
a NASA satellite recently found the southern hemisphere had not warmed in the past 25 years.
Is mild global warming a northern phenomenon?
We may have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg as large as an aircraft carrier off Dunedin, but we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.
The Democrats will propose a giant fan that will blow the cooling air from the Southern Hemisphere into the Northern Hemisphere, and balance out any climate changes. Al Gore will claim it was his idea, but they will name it for Monica Lewinski.
Sure they do... water into wine... rising from the dead... walking on water...
They just call it faith.
Posted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787364/posts
search:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=head
To add true authority to His Eminances words remember.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Psa 104:19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
Psa 135:7 He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.
Jer 10:13 When he uttereth his voice, [there is] a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
How about a little Mark Steyn on the subject:If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false. In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary. That's how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.
...should be called the "Hockey Puck" graph!
ping
It's them Canadian's barbequing seals and polar bears in January doi'n it!!!
See: GHCNland/HR2SSTocean temperature increment from Jan 1951- Jan 2007.
It is best to plot using GHCN unadjusted data, and one should include the Hadl/Reyn ocean series for completeness and compare apples with apples by plotting January only data change (i.e trend selection) through the full 1951-2007 data set not just January 1971 of the default selection.
Hit the link above in #11.. so the map data and zonal average plot can be seen together.
Thanks for the response.
Would you help me understand your post a little better?
I looked at the climate audit page - it looks like the raw data is the same as the NASA page but there are two different fits to the data... Is that the main point? I guess you correctly figured that the chart I used was from NASA.
BTW, 1950/1951 is an imperfect choice to get a good view since 6 years earlier global warming basically stopped (one problem with human caused global warming is that global warming basically stopped between 1945 and 1976).
it looks like the raw data is the same as the NASA page but there are two different fits to the data.
There were two data sets, one 2000 and earlier from NASA which was nearly the same as GHCN, and the newest set put out by James Hanson's group, post 2000, that has been modified displaying a steeper trend by reducing temps in the 1920-30's and increase temps in the 90's present.
For abit of background, James Hanson, keeper of that data, is one of the big original pushers behind the global warming agenda.
BTW, 1950/1951 is an imperfect choice to get a good view since 6 years earlier global warming basically stopped (one problem with human caused global warming is that global warming basically stopped between 1945 and 1976).
Then why use the defaulted 1951-80 land only average as your baseline for anomaly which is essentially the same temperature.
And if we are down to cherry picking monthly data points to display, why highlight the January 2007 data which is an obvious outlier pushing the "trend" up nearly 0.2oC above norm due to the current major El-Nina deviation.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Rationally to best display trends one should pick an average of the 1950-1980 period to capture the centerline of the temperature cycle:
as representive overall center of cycle driving the show as the best baseline, and drop the January 2007 data point as not representative of the whole,(besides selecting Jan 2007 in the dataset to be plotted won't generate an annual average for 2007 until next December ;o/) and use annual trend data with the 1951-1980 baseline as reference.
With the resulting charts here -> GHCNland/HR2SSTocean temperature increment from 1951-1980 baseline to annual average trend 1951-2006 to best represent warming across the period what ever its cause.
Ohh, dear looks like not only Canadians barbecuing seals and polar bears, but the Mongolian hoards burning and plundering Siberia and the Far East doing it to us.
Or if one insists on Anomoly difference instead of trend in temperature,
--> GHCNland/HR2SSTocean temperature anomaly from 1951-1980 baseline to annual average 2006
One thing is for certain, one does not pick a single month's anomaly of land temperatures alone as representative of "global warming", especially when the single month selected is an outlier obviously due to an exceptionally strong El Nina as the the NASA/Hansen default chart selections do.[ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ ]
GHCNland/HR2SSTocean temperature increment from 1951-1980 baseline to annual average trend 1951-2006
Interesting, when selecting 2006 as last year of the interval, the NASA html form requests the 2007 Jan datapoint instead of following the limits as entered.
I had to manually adjust the URL "year_last" & "month_last" values to properly display what I intended to show, trends ending with Dec 2006.
A lesson to be learned, check and recheck when going to any website as to what is really being displayed. This one appears to demand adding in the Jan 2007 data point whether you want it or not.
It is claimed that warming is due to increases in CO2 concentrations, the U.S. specifically is singled out as the the largest contributer to CO2 emissions, by far.
The question the above charts raise, if CO2 is the driver, why are the dominant warming trends everywhere but over the U.S.?
Since CO2 is considered a "well mixed" greenhouse gas in AGW theory, i.e. it is found in the same concentrations through out the global atmosphere, both north and south, why is the Antarctic mid continent in such a strong negative downtrend in temperature?
If, according to AGW theorists, the little ice age was a local/regional phenomona isolated to the northern hemisphere, why is the supposed "global" warming that is predominately isolated to the northern hemisphere not a local/regional phenomena?
If, according to AGW theorists, the little ice age was a local/regional phenomona isolated to the northern hemisphere to be discounted, why is the supposed "global" warming that is predominately isolated to the northern hemisphere with much the same pattern not a local/regional phenomena and not discounted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
