The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
Posted on 01/10/2009 5:13:45 PM PST by saganite
Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. The result: the observed increase of warm years after 1990 is not a statistical accident.
Between 1880 and 2006 the average global annual temperature was about 15°C. However, in the years after 1990 the frequency of years when this average value was exceeded increased.
The GKSS Research Centre asks: is it an accident that the warmest 13 years were observed after 1990, or does this increased frequency indicate an external influence?
Calculating the likelihood
With the help of the so called "Monte-Carlo-Simulation“ the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver.
The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have occurred by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
considering that 1934 was the warmest year on record, and half the warmest years were before 1960, the article lies
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85
Climate Research NewsClick on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
The formula was changed with some just discovered variables a couple of years ago that knocked those years out of the top ten as hottest years. There was considerable discussion here at the time as to how the statistics were being manipulated.
So.. that would be nearly the same odds as seeing black come up 14 times in a row on a roulette wheel, right? Well, I have seen that, TWICE! So, you're saying... I should suspect the legitimacy of the casino??
But... more importantly.... So what? This study just says "external causation is likely".... that's a LONG way from proving that the "causation" is increases in a miniscule atmospheric gas.... CO2.
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
Grandma was right. She always said 1934 was the hottest year in her lifetime and she didn't need any fancy equipment to say it, either.
Skeptics don't deny that the tempreture has risen since 1890, so the whole premise of this study is ridiculous and does not refute anything. Yes, there has been some rising in temps. What the skeptics refute is how much of it is caused by man-made CO2. Sometimes I can't believe scientist put their names on some of the global warming crap that is put out.
Maybe the industrial era started in 1990?
I have to be in NYC next week and I’m aware of that miserable forecast. I’m dreading it.
The very fact that the headline says “refute” rather than “dispute” shows that the reporter and/or editor is/are illiterate and/or dishonest.
More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009.
They will be joined by economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists calling attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions.
The conference expects to draw 1,000 attendees including private-sector business people, state and federal legislators and officials, policy analysts, media, and students.
Headliners among the 70-plus presenters will be:
* William Gray, Colorado State University, leading researcher into tropical weather patterns.
* Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.
* Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph--thoroughly discredited in scientific circles--supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in greenhouse gases.
* Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.
* Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
* Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, principal research scientist and team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
The Heartland Institute, a 24-year-old national nonpartisan think-tank based in Chicago, said all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted.
When it comes to planetology, there are no accidents. Is the sun an "external influence"? If the answer is yes then there is the answer.
This past fall I spilled a glass of wine on my carpet. That was an accident.........
During my doctoral studies in statistics I ran many simulations and versions of Monte-Carlo, parametric and nonparametric bootstraps, etc.
The methods work great and are theoretically sound.
But....
Weather patterns have shifted the world over even before SUVs existed, before power plants spewed CO2 into the atmosphere.
To ascertain whether these fellows have a valid statistical conclusion requires an examination of the temperature data, time, season and location.
I would wager that the data are sparse in many locations and inconsistently acquired over time.
IOW there are so many holes already in the makeup of the underlying data as to render any statistical conclusion DOA.
And finally I once won nine games of roulette in a row against a computer and fantasied I had an ‘edge’ only to lose lose lose until I was reminded that runs of numbers are possible with low probability.
What is concerning about proponents of AGW is not that their arguments may be specious but rather they have called the conclusion, ended the debate, excluded others from discussion and branded opponents as heretics whilst planning for global carbon taxation. This is a repeat of Lysenkoism and must be stopped.
economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists
Didn’t know economists and lawyers were climate experts. A very poorly worded press release!
Yes, the Earth’s climate warms and cools.
No, it’s not because of anyone’s “carbon footprint”.
It’s been brutal here in Fairbans for the last 10 days or so. Temps stuck in the negative 40s, dense ice fog, driving on square wheels - oh, so much fun. Yet we toodle on about on our business. And it’s worse further north. Haven’t seen this in over a decade. I’m interested in the theory of solar minimums. We’ve seen very little if any auroral activity lately, indicating lack of sunspot activity, which brings periods of cooling temperatures. Do a google search for solar minimum - very informative.
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.