Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Spot Check of Global Warming
NY Times ^ | January 10, 2008 | John Tierney

Posted on 01/10/2008 10:33:38 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: neverdem; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH


Good data...
21 posted on 01/11/2008 6:28:57 AM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
CO2 levels linearly increase with time, with a very slight but measurable oscillation each spring to summer period as plant life increases (in the northern hemisphere.) This increase in plant life reduces CO2 by a predictable amount. Note that the INCREASE in CO2 of 30% since the first measurements in 1970's HAS NOT meant an increase in temperatures - past the cyclical 1/2 of one degree that naturally occurs. That is, if Kyoto is so vital that "freezing" CO2 levels at their present levels is so important, then the predicted temperature increase would be limited to LESS THAN 1/10 of ONE degree. Yet we have a natural oscillation of 1/2 of one degree.

Further, a KNOWN increase in CO2 of over 10% (from 1996 through 2008!) has NOT meant any detectable increase in temperatures!

At stations in the southern hemisphere (with an opposite winter-summer growing period) the same slight CO2 oscillation happens, but in the reversed months.

What has ONLY happened in the 1972-1998 period is a increase in CO2 with an increase in temperatures: at EVERY other period since 1890’s, temperatures have NOT tracked with CO2: temp’s go up, CO2 remains the same; temps go down, CO2 increases; CO2 increases, temps stay the same.

Pick ANY 27 year period since the 1990’s, and the CO2-temperature relationship can be ANYTHING you want it to be.

22 posted on 01/11/2008 6:30:24 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan

It’s been very warm here, but it was very cold a few days last week. It’s raining today. It’ll get colder, then it’ll get warmer as spring approaches. Then, when summer comes, it’ll be hot some days, cooler others. And, there will be rainy days.


23 posted on 01/11/2008 6:33:54 AM PST by Peter W. Kessler (Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Rather than look at a seven year range of data, let us see how the Gore climate consensus holds up to historical data for the last century. I am certain the predictions would be nowhere close to actual observed results.
24 posted on 01/11/2008 6:51:18 AM PST by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter W. Kessler
It’s been very warm here, but it was very cold a few days last week. It’s raining today. It’ll get colder, then it’ll get warmer as spring approaches. Then, when summer comes, it’ll be hot some days, cooler others. And, there will be rainy days.

Hmmm, very suspicious. Definately could be a sign of global warming. We should spend several billion on this.

25 posted on 01/11/2008 7:12:07 AM PST by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

My stock broker until his retirement used to draw straight lines through his stock charts and talk about moving averages. Maybe he still does, I don’t know. These charts look like stock charts, so the analysis was probably done by a stock broker.


26 posted on 01/11/2008 10:26:30 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; xcamel; neverdem
You get a very, very different “result” from a sine wave: Even a second-order or third order curve evokes a very different result.

But a flat line? No. That’s NOT the way to fit this kind of data.

A “simple sloped line? Like they tried here?
Again: It ONLY fits their scenario of a constantly (or accelerating!) temp increase. The AGW extremists CAN’T afford (literally!) to allow any other answer to be seen.

27 posted on 01/11/2008 10:58:28 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Sorry, we don’t do parabolas or other conics here. We were issued only these straightedges. Least squares or forget it.


28 posted on 01/11/2008 11:02:18 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

From Eye-opener on Global Warming

29 posted on 01/11/2008 12:00:25 PM PST by Entrepreneur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
The "average" temperature is also pretty useless. I heard one scientist say the slight warming has been in the winter months, so the heating needs have been reduced, and the growing seasons extended.

The increase has not affected Summer temps.

30 posted on 01/11/2008 12:09:12 PM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
RealClimate responded to this very quickly, with an extended response from Roger Pielke Jr. :

Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison

31 posted on 01/11/2008 12:39:46 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Entrepreneur

Excellent!


32 posted on 01/11/2008 12:57:18 PM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Thanks for the link.


33 posted on 01/11/2008 1:14:31 PM PST by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Thanks for the link.

At your service.

34 posted on 01/11/2008 1:26:22 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
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.

Comment# 29 has a graph of CO2 versus time.

35 posted on 01/11/2008 1:36:16 PM PST by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Entrepreneur

Thank you.


36 posted on 01/12/2008 6:34:27 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
I'll answer that question. 1998 had the highest temperature in the last 80 years.

I believe that assertion has been shot down!

37 posted on 01/12/2008 8:26:05 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The whole discussion is MOOT because we cannot trust the temperature measurements going back 100 years.

The original temperature data has been adjusted and re-adjusted and twisted a dozen times by the global warming advocates (who are also the agencies of record for the temperature records.)

The only data which can be trusted is the lower atmosphere temperature figures from the satellites since 1979 shown here.


38 posted on 01/12/2008 9:21:43 AM PST by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"I believe that assertion has been shot down!"

The assertion that was shot down was that 1998 was the highest US temperature on record. Father Hansen of NASA GISS had declared that 1998 was the hottest ever. It was later shown that he made a mistake in his math, and that 1934 was actually hotter than 1998. Of course, none of us make a mistake in math, 1998-1934 = 80.

39 posted on 01/12/2008 10:12:47 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I believe that assertion has been shot down!

Only changed for the United States. Globally 1998 still ranks first, and that won't change. I promise.

40 posted on 01/14/2008 1:16:25 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson