Global cooling...

No, I am in Odessa, right next to Midland. Also known as Slowdeatha.

LOL! I agree.

Do you guys have moving picture shows out there yet?

Springer told me today, shortly after noon it was in the 50's in Dallas...it was already down to 43 here.

It may be under 40 now...and I officially lodge my "I hate this crap" vote, ok?

No not yet, G W said we don't need to know no nothing 'bout no movin' pictures!




I miss dallas and the rain, but I don't miss the humid, hell equiv hot ass summers.

Seekerof,

I'm well thanks. Hope the same on your end.

The National Post article does a good job of explaining McIntyre/McKitrick's work. It also highlights AC's concern about models and datasets.

The Mann 'hockey stick' is nothing more than a mathematical construct vigorously promoted in the IPCC's 2001 report to affirm the notion that temperature changes of the 20th century were unprecedented."...

The temperature data before 1900 were not directly measured, as they were after 1900 when land-based thermometer readings were used. Instead, pre-1900 temperatures were calculated based on the measurement of "proxies," natural phenomena such as the growth of tree rings or coral that indicate what temperature was at certain times in the past....

Correcting and updating the proxy database used by Mann and his co-authors and then repeating Mann's methodology, McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the MBH98 study in fact reveals that the late 20th century Northern Hemisphere temperature trend is unexceptional compared to the preceding centuries.

The McIntyre/McKitrick paper is useful but also a limited report. I'm glad someone is highlighting the two different types of data used in these models and it's an important point. The pre-1900 proxy data should be scoured and analyzed by anyone wanting to run simulations and it does look like Mann goofed in a few areas.

The shortfall of the article is in the scope. Land-based temperatures are only one variable in a complex system. You also run into the chicken/egg dilema. Which came first, warmer oceans then warmer atmosphere or is it vice-versa? In this matter, our temperature record of the ocean is even harder to ascertain.

The article does mention what I think is a much larger variable than C02 concentrations and as important as methane concentrations.

... long-term solar records indicated that both the MWP and LIA were closely correlated with changes in solar activity, and the output of the sun has indeed been increasing during the past century's 0.6C warming.

This is why were seeing the 15+ degree Celsius anomaly in the south pole. Ozone is mostly absent in the south pole and the amount of incoming radiation has obviously increased.

The article also highlights the crux of the political dilemma:

Supporters of the GHG-induced warming hypothesis desperately needed a "smoking gun" to prop up the need for Kyoto.

This was conveniently supplied by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in their 1998 paper (referred to as "MBH98") in which they reduced the MWP and LIA to non-events outside Europe and unveiled their "hockey stick." The paper concluded, "Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence."

Fact is, politicians can stall and cry "More research, more research!!" to their hearts content, because frankly, we always need more research. And the true extent of the methane burden/ozone loss, won't be blatantly obvious for at least another 50 years.

The CFC ban was politically easy because we had a reasonable substitute that wouldn't incur a great deal of expense to switch. Kyoto on the other hand, would force adjustments across the board that would be costly. I don't see Kyoto having a snowball's chance in hell of being ratified, even if God himself decreed it to be good. I also think Kyoto is a joke in terms of actual effect. It simply doesn't go far enough.

pheeww..that's about all the GW I take for one sitting..

ok valhall you win, it's freezing ass cold now

it's 39 feels like 30, 100% Humidity, and the wind is coming N/NE


Oh blessed Sun where art thou?


And I know it can get a lot colder, but this is the type of wether i was expecting, hey atleast it ain't so hot my balls are stuck to my leg.

lol

Originally posted by Valhall
Springer told me today, shortly after noon it was in the 50's in Dallas...it was already down to 43 here.

It may be under 40 now...and I officially lodge my "I hate this crap" vote, ok?

Me too! Ah doesn't do this cold stuff!!!


(for the record, on the 'global warming' front, the glaciers at both poles (and elsewhere) are shrinking. There's been a number of stories about this.)

Bryd: Yes maam', I know that a couple of us are aware of the polar ice caps are shrinking.
Always good to read and hear from you Bryd.


Kukla:
Thank you for the analysis. I'm sorry to burden you with the information and then ask for a response. My apologies. Take your time next time.
I'm slowly beginning to get a grasp on this but very slowly (plus doing a bit of researching on this in the campus library).....but I do thank you for taking the time to read and decipher the information for me and us.

Will keep my eyes peeled for more.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-11-2003 by Seekerof]

Seekerof,

My pleasure, I don't mind in the slightest.

If you have a used bookstore in your area, you can probably pick up college textbooks on Oceanography and Climatology. For climatology, I would reccomend Aguado's "Understanding Weather and Climate". For oceanography, I would reccomend Trujillo's "Essentials of Oceanography". They're both on Amazon used for less than $10.

Between those two books, you'd be fully versed. Here's some links that I find highly valuable on these topics:

Hydrology Web
etd.pnl.gov:2080...

Weather Servers
www.met.utah.edu...

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
www.whoi.edu...

An Introduction to Physical Oceanography
www.es.flinders.edu.au...

This is the best source for data..

Climate Diagnostic Center
www.cdc.noaa.gov...

USGS Climate Change
geochange.er.usgs.gov...

I did scan the rest of the articles and the arguments are simple. Some have it stuck in their heads that the 20th Century was the warmest ever..simply not true. Not only is impossible to verify, but highly unlikely. It was a warm one though..

The argument is weak to base corrective action on, it oversimplifies the issue. Ground temperature is only one variable.. Sadly, the global debate really hasn't moved beyond this squabble.

Hope all is well.

Thats some good advice, kukla. Its tough to get a grasp on the variables without a good background in earth science. I fear thats one of the key factors in the mis-information campaign on both sides of the issue.

In the summer of 2002, I read an article in my local paper written by a political science professor (of course) from our local university. It was not factual at all and she reverberated statistics from the old GW model as if 20 years hadn't past and no new data had been analyzed. I wrote a rebuttle article and I thought you all might get a kick out of it. I had none of the info from Harvard when this was written but I think it's still very informative. Anyways, here's my reply. Be gentle, I'm noit a journalist and most of my writing is of a technical nature for research reports so I apologize in advance if this seems a bit dry.



"Lately, there seems to be a lot of talk in the media about global warming, a lot of talk but not many facts or sources stemming from viable research. It seems from looking at all the research that a great deal of it is ignored by the press and those promoting the �it�s the end of the world and its your fault� theory. It�s easy enough to find someone who calls themselves an expert to make comments about the subject but the real question is an expert in what? You have people running around screaming �we need to eliminate the carbon dioxide� who have no idea what it is or how it�s used or most importantly how it affects the climatic changes on planet Earth. Carbon dioxide or CO2 is one of the three essential variable gasses along with water vapor and ozone that make up the atmosphere. It makes up only 0.04 percent of dry air but is one of the most significant constituents of the atmosphere in terms of climatic influence. (Blij, Muller 1993) It�s responsible for 2 main purposes. First is photosynthesis, in which plants use CO2 and other substances to form carbohydrates for food. Yes, that�s right trees and plants for their very survival use the evil CO2. Second, CO2 absorbs some of the energy transferred to the atmosphere from the earth and it�s primarily CO2 that keeps the earth at temperatures that permit life. Now the question up for debate is how increases and decreases in the levels of CO2 affect the atmosphere? While we, the general public, are told that global warming is a fact and that increase levels of CO2 are causing it and that this planet will become unlivable because of it, the truth is climatologist still haven�t determined any of this to be a unanimous conclusion. In fact, there have been times in history when CO2 levels have, in fact, been higher than they are now and while we are presented with computer models that show a rise in atmospheric temperature, the data gathered by satellites and weather research balloons doesn�t show this trend to be factual. (www.sepp.org...)

I�m not disputing that the earth hasn�t gained a degree or two globally over the past few thousand years but when you look at the big picture, it makes sense. Before the last Ice Age the earth enjoyed a period of relatively warm temperatures globally more than 10 degrees warmer than present time. (Blij, Muller 1993) There were no Ice caps or glaciers anywhere on the planet. Why? We didn�t have SUVs then (and some of us still don�t now). We didn�t have industry. We didn�t have cell phones and I�m pretty sure Barbara Striessand wasn�t trying to get the rest of us to use clothes lines (which I do) so she could heat an in door pool and sauna / hot tub. The answer as I see it in my meek opinion from the factual research I have done is that the earth goes through processes of climatic change. The reasons are probably not always the same. We know the core is a molten mass of magma and that the asthenosphere (soft layer of upper mantle that underlies the lithosphere) is constantly creating and destroying igneous material. It�s feasible that this could be one of the reasons for the rise in surface temperature while there is no rise in temperature in the troposphere which there would be if one accepts the global warming theory. Another more probable cause of the rise in surface temperature lies some 93 million miles away. (hometown.aol.com...) We already know that the mass of fusion reaction known as the sun is far from a constant. At the present time, we are experiencing massive blows of electromagnetic radiation from solar flares at this peak of the 11 year solar cycle. The energy from the sun (insolation) is absorbed into the earth�s surface, warming it. Some heat is reflected by the earth�s surface called the albedo. So, what would result in a temperature rise on the surface and not a rise in the troposphere? If we go this route, the answer would be a higher insolation rate and a lower albedo rate. There is yet another hypothesis for the one and one half-degree rise in surface temperature over the last couple of centuries. The question of the validity of the devices used to measure temperature from 140 years ago to present. (hometown.aol.com...) My work quite often requires the use of precise thermometers, which have to be calibrated regularly. I have personally seen 2 laboratory grade devices show that much difference when placed in the same controlled environment. So, who measured the temperature 140 years ago and with what?

If the past repeats itself as it often does, the ice will melt and the oceans will rise. The water weight will put pressure on the crustal plates which will force volcanic eruptions delivering ash into the atmosphere limiting insolation and beginning another age of advancing and receding ice sheets. Just a little while back actually, the Northern Hemisphere got a small taste of this sort of thing. In 1815, a volcano named Tambora roared to life billowing tens of thousands of tons of ash into the sky. The eruption lowered the chimney of the mountain by four thousand feet and the pyroclastic flows killed thousands. 15 years or so later, a smaller volcano known as Kraktoa did the same. After the eruption in 1815, the following summers experienced cooler than usual temperatures. In New England, it was known as the year with no summer. Thomas Jefferson, who was fresh off the public service roll and raising corn for a living had to borrow one thousand dollars due to crops failing and patriots celebrating Independence Day retreated to their fire places for warmth. The amount of ash in the atmosphere had limited insolation and lowered annual temperatures at least in the Northern Hemisphere. This period in England inspired one Mary Shelley to write the famous novel, Frankenstein. The dreary, cold weather prevailed for three to four years. Could these years of lower temperatures play a role in the average used for comparison to tell us the current temperature is higher now than it was then?

Now, I realize that using mere facts obtained from years of research to dispel a political tool will no doubt bring on criticism in its own right. Most of it will probably be character assassination to draw the discussion away from the topic, as is frequently the case with these sorts of things. Those who would seek to use the environmental movement to further their political causes are not interested in facts and test results and reasons why changes take place on earth. I do not wish their points of view to be squelched as they do mine. If global warming threatens this planet, I want to know it. I want clean air and clean water but I�m not ready to attribute every change on the planet to human activity. Changes will take place. Levels of gases will change in our atmosphere. Animals will go extinct and other species will develop. It�s happened for millions of years and continues to happen today. Giving your hard-earned money to a political lobby group won�t change it, it�ll just build a politician and new summer home. If the individual wants to help our environment, we can begin by reporting illegal dumps and straight piping of septic systems into our streams. These are areas we have made great strides in but must endeavor to be ever vigilant in, for these are real problems that deface our scenic state and poison fish in our waters.

I could go on and on with arguments to suggest a number of different scenarios all of which just as probable as CO2 and global warming. In my opinion, it would be a mistake to take a step backward in our economy and technology in the name of something that has as much evidence against it as for it. The answer to clean air and clean water is progress and innovation. Taking our whole civilization back to living in the Stone Age would solve nothing. Instead of putting our country at risk of sinking to the standards of third world living, we should aspire to higher goals and encourage China and so many other countries with pollution problems much worse than the U.S. to do the same. Yes, I know it�s hot out there but thus is summer in the South East. Last summer was hot, this summer is hot and in all probability, next summer will be hot so make a note so you can mark it on your 2003 calendar and get that AC unit charged. "

Moses... ! Men the years since 1989 all have been in the top 10 of the hottest of the whole century !!!!

the last 14 years 10 years are the hottest of 100 years.

Getting cooler????

www.knmi.nl

Originally posted by LeenBekkemaa
Moses... ! Men the years since 1989 all have been in the top 10 of the hottest of the whole century !!!!

the last 14 years 10 years are the hottest of 100 years.

Getting cooler????

www.knmi.nl

Okay, time to read the info posted in the thread. Your quoting a model prediction not actual measurements.

AC,

Good post. And kudos for writing your newspaper!

A couple comments..

Advocacy groups in this matter are totally irrelevant. Oil rules until 2050.

The misinformation is C02. The C02 argument is the decoy. It's methane that we need to be thinking about.

Like I've stated in previous posts, elevated concentrations of methane have historically come from the release of stored methane in the ocean, due to a rise in ocean temperature. What trouble me is the oceans haven't released much stored methane and the stratospheric concentrations are already dangerously high. If the ocean starts out outgas, we're going to have serious problems and there's no way around it. Methane lasts for 50 years..

I think we both agree that the temperature cycles of the climate are more dependent on incoming solar radiation and ozone levels than C02. And given the recent spike in solar activity, we should be alarmed. And fortunately today is perfect example.

We are currently receiving the edge of the last CME and look at the 1 day temperature anomaly. It�s off the scale in the northern latitudes.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

Then look at the 30 day land and sea.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

I agree that reverting to the stone age is not the answer. There are technologies that can help relieve the methane burden and provide electricity, clean drinking water and a host of other benefits. OTEC is the first that comes to mind..

www.nrel.gov...