Posted on 01/10/2008 10:33:38 PM PST by neverdem
How do predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change jibe with reality? The solid brown line shows the warming projected by the IPCC, with a range of uncertainty bounded by the dotted brown lines. The other lines show the actual temperatures recorded during the past seven years by different methods on the ground and by satellite. (The lines...)
Last week I asked if there were any good weather omens to look for. I raised a question originally posed by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado: Are there any indicators in the next 1, 5 or 10 years that would be inconsistent with the consensus view on climate change? Lab readers contributed some ideas (and much invective), but I think the most useful one came from a climate scientist who wrote directly to Dr. Pielke and suggested comparing what has happened since 2000 with the predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Pielke took up the suggestion and looked at the increase in global average temperature projected by the IPCC from 2000 to 2007. (The IPCC projected various scenarios, depending on the rate of greenhouse emissions; Dr. Pielke chose the scenario that most closely matches the actual emissions since 2000.) The hard part was figuring out what has actually happened the past seven years, because it all depends on who’s doing the measuring, and whether it’s being done on the surface or by satellite. As you can see from the blue line in the graph above, the recent surface measurements by NASA (the blue line) are warmer than those by the United Kingdom Met Office (the green line), and there are different satellite measurements from Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
(Excerpt) Read more at tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com ...
It’s not too cold here. I’d have to say there is no global warming in our area. How about everyone else?
It’s not too warm here. I’d have to say there is no global warming in our area. How about everyone else?
I just got back to Maryland from Iowa, and the earth has definitely warmed.
Of course, there is other more reliable data that there has been a slight decrease in global temps since 1998.
Sources and graphs would be appreciated. Does any one have data on CO2 concentrations during this time period?
Three of the four lines at the end are outside the predicted area,
colder the predicted.
Hilarious.
And it is a tiny portion of data, a fraction of a heartbeat of earths age.
HIV helpers can be hijacked - Human proteins could provide new target for HIV drugs.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
It’s cold right now. It was warm this afternoon.
If that graph were of government spending, the NYT would be bemoaning a huge drop in spending.
At around Midnight, almost without fail, it is cooler than at Noon. Sometime after Dawn it begins to warm, progressively getting warmer and warmer throughout the daylight hours, until around 6:00PM when the temperature stabilizes and slowly starts to decline.
I have two theories as to what's going on here.
1. The clocks are causing Global Warming. If we change the clocks to only show the hours 7 to 10, we could capture the hours of the most moderate temperatures of any average day and avoid the extreme average daily heat and coolness of the other hours.
2. While watching both the clock and the thermometer, I also notice that they both become easier to read when that big bright yellow things is visible in the sky and harder and harder to read as that same glowing ball goes away every night. I'm not sure if the big glowing ball has any effect on temperatures as I am concentrating on studying the clock right now, but maybe there can be a relationship to my Time vs. Temperature Change ratio.
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~
How can anyone draw a straight line through that mess of randomness? It looks like wishful thinking to me.
It’s simple. When it is dark you turn on your lights. Light bulbs cause global warming. But of course it doesn’t happen right away - there is a lag time. I’m sure that some scientific calculations could be made, but suffice it to say that the global warming is only observed until AFTER you turn the lights off.
Of course when you turn on the lights on again in the evening they are USING energy, which leaves less energy available to heat the earth, so a momentary cooling effect is observed, until of course the global warming kicks in again the next day after you turn the lights off.
How can anyone draw a straight line through that mess of randomness? It looks like wishful thinking to me.
Now, lets see a 70 year or a 100 year chart with a straight line projection. A seven year chart is useless and meaningless.
Please ping me if you get a response because the manmade link is the important part; logic and hard numbers are rare with this topic. The NYTimes readers responding at the end of this piece felt the graphic vindicated the IPCC's predictions. This proves that the NYTimes is good at selling newspapers, and whether they're talking cooling or warming, it's the sun and not CO2 (manmade or natural) that relates to the anomaly.
How can anyone draw a straight line through that mess of randomness? It looks like wishful thinking to me.
No, no, no.
That’s part of the problem - You’re TRYING to draw a straight line through the numbers, and the IPCC (even at this level, when ONLY it’s LEAST aggressive (slowest increasing!) temperature increase in being shown) IS CLAIMING a straight-line increase is DEMANDED by the linear CO2 increase of 1.1 percent each year).
Neither assumption is correct: Temperatures are cyclical, and show a sinusoidal variation with time: Globally, temps rose 1/2 of one degree the 27 years from 1908 through 1935, then fell 1/2 of one degree from 1935 to 1972, then rose 1/2 of one degree from 1972 through 1998.
Since 1998 (an El Nino year - which NONE of the AGW programs can predict!), they have randomly oscillated about the temperature corresponding to 1996-1997: Statistically, as you can see from that part of the chart from 2002 to 2007, they have stayed about the same. Later years indicate a very slight cooling - which is what IS EXPECTED if the next 27 year downward trend has begun.
Yes, CO2 has linearly increased from approximately the early 1940's - exact measurements exist ONLY since the Hawaii lab opened in the early 70's - AS A DELIBERATELY ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THAT CO2 LEVELS AFFECT CLIMATE.
The ENTIRE purpose of that lab to to "verify" what it was funded for - nonetheless, its data shows a linear increase in CO2 at 1.1 percent year.
Unfortunately for the AGW extremists, temperatures have NOT followed that trend: 27 years they go up, 27 years they go down, 27 years they go up, 7 years they stay steady (and begin to go down) ....
For this, the enviro's DEMAND the destruction of America's economy!
I'll answer that question. 1998 had the highest temperature in the last 80 years. If it were included, the graph would incontrovertibly show global cooling! All of the trend lines would point down.
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.
