Noaa: Third Coldest October on record...

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by plumranch

 

Thats bizzare

Its kind of interesting to see that the CO2 output hasnt dramatically changed as you would have expected

It's just an issue of scaling, Oz, I could present it like this with all the temp datasets:



and it now looks more dramatic for those few decades, also fits in the post, lol. CO2 levels have been accelerating.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Even more obvious in the annual growth rates (compare early 5 vs. recent 5):

1959 0.95
1960 0.51
1961 0.95
1962 0.69
1963 0.73

cf.

2004 1.56
2005 2.55
2006 1.69
2007 2.17
2008 1.66

Originally posted by blueorder
even if data since 1978 showed "warming"- how can anyone seriously formulate a large scale policy involving ever more cross border regulation, taxation etc, on a timescale of 30 years considering the age of the earth (that is without even getting into a debate about whether recent years are actually cooling or warming).

It isn't based on 30 years. That's just the extent of the satellite record which plumranch posted.

A chap in the UK won a successful appeal to challenge his dismissal from his employment due to this environmental beliefs- he challenged that successfully under legislation designed for religious beliefs, the irony was not lost on me..............

Also designed for philosophical beliefs, under which the judge supported his case.

Originally posted by melatonin
Also designed for philosophical beliefs, under which the judge supported his case.

The irony still stands, even under that classification of belief

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by melatonin
Also designed for philosophical beliefs, under which the judge supported his case.

The irony still stands, even under that classification of belief

If you say so. The judge was able to differentiate between the science and this individual's strongly-held belief and morality, which was informed by the science.

It's the difference between is's and ought's.

The dude was big on ought's.

Originally posted by melatonin]

If you say so. The judge was able to differentiate between the science and this individual's strongly-held belief and morality, which was informed by the science.

It's the difference between is's and ought's.

The dude was big on ought's.

The dude has a belief system and the judge upheld his case based on his belief system

reply to post by plumranch


A smarter way to ridicule the Global Warming Idea would be to look at the big picture (say Climate in the last 125 Billion years) not the small picture (Climate in October).

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by vita eternus


oh the irony.

Pay attention to the salt levels in the oceans, the rising level of water in the lake and how life is affected in the city.

One never really knows what tomorrow will bring.

Be prepared for the worst.

Originally posted by blueorder
The dude has a belief system and the judge upheld his case based on his belief system

Yeah, I know.

Cheers.

that is what you get.. if you over react and say there is something like global warming now we have got a global cooling down.
we will get a new small ice age.
the past several years temps were coming down and this year wil the next even coolder year in a row.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by rnaa
Ya think? The issue is CLIMATE, not weather.

...........really

In what way?

Record breaking weather swings in Florida

Temperature Statistics in Western Australia including October 2009

As the average temperature goes up, LOCAL weather gets more unpredictable, not only record highs but also record lows are recorded as the pendulum swings wider. Droughts and floods increase in severity and frequency.

ha ha, it is not weather it is climate, then you use particular WEATHER data to back up your view on the issue.

Yeah.

The first link was ironic, showing how weather is localized and one man's 'coolest' summer is another man's hottest summer. Glad you picked up on that.

The other was a look at a more reasonable time scale, showing a clear and unambiguous trend in weather patterns over a large area and many MJO/SOI events. Thus saying it is hotter (or cooler) this year than last because of El Nino/El Nina is all well and good, but that doesn't explain why the 10 year average is so much high than the early 1900's.

reply to post by Skyfloating

A smarter way to ridicule the Global Warming Idea would be to look at the big picture (say Climate in the last 125 Billion years)

Looking back we are at a midrange of temperatures.

Temperatures (and Co2) on planet earth 540 million year to present:

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by plumranch

 

A smarter way to ridicule the Global Warming Idea would be to look at the big picture (say Climate in the last 125 Billion years) not the small picture (Climate in October).

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Skyfloating]

Exactly right

The only accurate way to do this (figure out if it is normal), in my opinion is to simply analyse meteorological human recorded observations. Unfortunantly this type of thing has only been around for a little bit longer than 100 years.

Also, melatonin, thanks for clearing that up mate

reply to post by OzWeatherman



Oh, balls.

Look at the 2 of you rubbing shoulders...

Couldn't possibly be because you agree, could it???

BAH...

you'd put it in small print - other theories are available

Oh, and erm,

about my grant...

The irony of all this is that anyone with a straight face can pretend to have enough data to state anything as fact. Human arrogance I suppose.

NOAA can't even get the weather report in the ball park for here in Anchorage half the time and even then no more than 24 hours out. Even so we have people insist they have enough knowledge about this subject to justify the destruction of the worlds economies over what amounts to a coin toss.

Those who stand to profit from Cap and Trade are of course all for this. The doom and gloom end of the world crowd are thrilled at the prospect. Those with enough sense to know that we don't know squat are ignored because facts and common sense are never welcome at any party.

Last winter here in Alaska we had, according to the NOAA the coldest winter on record. The two preceding winters were also among the coldest with many record days. We had also two of the gloomiest, coldest summers on record. This last summer we had a warmer, dryer than usual summer which is the same that happened during previous El Ninya's. Right now we are having average days.

We have had record Salmon runs on years they were predicted to be small and small runs on years they were predicted to be large.

All this tells me that the scientific community suffers from megalomania and are spurred on by a need to justify funding and those in business like Mr. Gore who will admittedly make at least a billion dollars up front if Cap and Trade happens. Meanwhile China and India, using a little more common sense have removed themselves entirely and refuse to be involved. Of course the plan will fail anyway if China and India are not on board so the whole thing is ludicrous.

My point in this diarrhea of the mouth? No person, no agency, no group and no government on the planet has even close to enough data to do anything but guess and sit back and watch as there predictions mostly fail to materialize. At some point an honest person steps back and says - I Don't Know _! Of course we will never see this from the governments. We will never see this from the researchers as they compete for funding. We will never see this from the crazed environmentalist whose greatest joy would be if the earth became like a bad Doomsday movie.

Then of course on top of all of this we have the bald faced liars in the mix. They will fabricate anything if it get's them their way because of course they believe it is for our own good. .

It is like the myth of the declining Polar Bears when in fact their numbers are increasing to a level the workers have to post guards to protect them from these pure Carnivores. The Polar Bears don't belong to the Sierra Club and they don't care what they eat. They never have and they do what they have done for millenia when the ice shrinks a bit. They move south and feed off the now record sized Caribou Herds and other abundant wildlife.

I clearly remember the same crowd telling us in the early 1970's that all wildlife would be gone and all trees would be gone before now. Where are they now that the wildlife has rebounded and we have more standing timber than existed when the Pilgrims hit Plymouth Rock? Standing behind Gore in line for the money with no apology but instead a new set of theories only they are smart enough to understand.

I was told, with a straight face, by my Geology Professor in 1972 that there would be no oil by now, the wildlife would be gone and most of us would starve to death. Where is this genius now? Still filling naive child's minds with meaningless drivel and spouting politics when he should be teaching Geology. In 1972 he said we had 30 years max before it was all over. Highly lauded and if I were foolish enough to name him - well I won't.

Critical thinking is in short supply these days and science has merged with politics in the fight for every last dollar they can squeeze out of the system. No money, no research. No fear, no money. They have learned their lessons well over the last few decades.

They must have forgot FL. I have never seen October this warm before...

Originally posted by plumranch
Looking back we are at a midrange of temperatures.

Are you a dinosaur or a trilobite?

Human civilisation has developed during a period of relatively stable temperatures, a period of rapid climate change is not really a good thing. Even the PETM, the most comparable event to currently, saw the release of thousands of gigatonnes of carbon over a thousand of years or so.

We're potentially doing the same in a few hundred, lol.

And the PETM saw temp increases of several degrees Celcius and wipeout of many ocean fauna. It took up to 150,000 years to return to baseline.

If we were faced with the probability of a very slow increase in temps, we would probably adapt fairly well. But we're not.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

If we were faced with the probability of a very slow increase in temps, we would probably adapt fairly well. But we're not.

The last graph here showed a slow increase as in slow upward trend.

The CO2 curve is also a gradual increase if plotted on a linear scale.

Originally posted by plumranch
The last graph here showed a slow increase as in slow upward trend.

The CO2 curve is also a gradual increase if plotted on a linear scale.

You're kidding yourself. That graph's horizontal axis varies over time (some parts are 50million years per division, other parts 1000 years etc).

For the PETM event it appears the release of a maximum 2000GtC happened over around abouts 1000 years. That's what?

2000/1000 = 2GtC per year.

In 2006 we emitted 8.4GtC. Half is currently being absorbed by sinks. Accounting for both phenomena, it would take us around 240 years to reach the same PETM numbers at such a rate. That's if we expect the sinks to continue taking half our emissions as they are now, but the sinks are actually expected to give up the game in time - and even become net sources.

And the PETM was a notable period of rapid prolonged climate change with mass extinctions, lol.

Can you see the PETM on the graph you posted earlier?

[edit on 11-11-2009 by melatonin]

Before a significant change of climate there are wide swings in the weather patterns.

Every time a particular day is unusually cool for that period is not proof that global warming is a myth.

For some reason climate change denial has become something of a religion. I don't know how belief in Jesus correlates with that but it seems to in this country.