[_ Old Earth _] Global Warming?

[Barbarian]

Is telling. Have you graphed the average annual temperature for west Texas and the Panhandle for the last ten years?

 

[Crying Rock]

Is telling. Have you graphed the average annual temperature for west Texas and the Panhandle for the last ten years?

Jeez, you're talking about half of the big state of Texas.

Let's start with Dawson County:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?tx5013

Look under General Climate Summary Tables, under temperatures, from Year=1910 To Year=2008.

I see the highest summer annual mean temp occurred in 1934 and the lowest summer

annual mean temp occurred in 2007.

I see the highest annual mean is 1934 and the lowest annual mean is 1997.

So it's been 75 years since the last highest annual mean.

Let’s see your figures.

 

[Barbarian]

duplicate. Sorry.

 

[Crying Rock]

You'll need to graph the trend and do a regression line to learn which way the temps have been going. Outliers don't tell you much, particularly for such a small area of the earth.

I'm looking for the numbers, but if you're family is into agriculture in W. Texas, you might want to read this:
Texas scholar produces major assessment of potential impacts of global warming on ecosystems
http://www.texasclimate.org/ClimateCons ... fault.aspx

There is this:
http://texasclimate.org/Portals/6/Books ... Gammon.pdf

Thanks. I wish the data were a little more current, but I do realize this stuff takes time to tally and report.

CR

 

[coelacanth]

This past winter, I think we got some global cooling. :P

Perhaps some cooling in your hemisphere, what about latitudes on the opposite side of the equator? It really wouldn't be global.

 

[coelacanth]

BTW, good work Barbarian.

But Al Gore has consulted with leading climatologists from around the world and done his best to learn what he is talking about. Doing something about it is a political issue, unfortunately. While "An Inconvenient Truth" is interspersed with personal stories that give an emotive reaction and a few political jabs, there is some good science in it. He has additions to it on ted.com that are good, too. (at least three of them i think)

 

[Crying Rock]

duplicate. Sorry.

 

[Crying Rock]

[quote="The Barbarian":3laf46d5]duplicate. Sorry.

[/quote:3laf46d5]

No, this is not a duplicate. This is where you said you would come up with the data that proves west Texas has been warming over the last ten years.

Where did that go?

 

[Crying Rock]

BTW, good work Barbarian.

Don't get ahead of yourself, coelacanth. Barbarian hasn't demonstrated anything.

 

[Rick W]

E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

You fellows need to browse the 98-page report.
page 6 thru 9 for starters.

 

[coelacanth]

BTW, good work Barbarian.

Don't get ahead of yourself, coelacanth. Barbarian hasn't demonstrated anything.

Are we dealing with another massive conspiracy?

97% of people whose area of expertise gives them the greatest training in studying this issue agree that global warming is real and human-caused.

Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

The world has repeated conferences where climate change is discussed. Let's look at Copenhagen earlier this year:

Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are
changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate indicators
are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and
economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sealevel
rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic
events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing
risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-re ... rt-web.pdf

We have to accept key messages 1 and 2 before we can face and deal with 3-6.

What about this data are you (Crying Rock, John, et al) denying? If you ask me, I wouldn't mind a little hysteria... then something might actually be done about it. If we are going to deny the serious and stern warnings of the vast majority of the world's experts in an area that affects the future of ourselves, our children, our nations, and our planet, let's get some good solid reasons to do so. You are invited to demonstrate it as the falsehood you assert it to be. Denial alone doesn't make a problem go away, so let's hear some reasons or let's get to work on solving it.

 

[Barbarian]

The "supressed report" you've linked to, makes the following assertions:

Global temperatures have declined. (check the Goddard and HadCRUT data; it's strongly up)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/old-temperature/

Predictions of glacial melting in Greenland haven't been realized (the glaciers are retreating inland)

Satellite observations indicate that Greenland's glaciers have been dumping ice into the Atlantic Ocean at a rate that's doubled over the past five years, researchers reported here on Thursday. The findings add yet another factor to the long-running debate over the effect of climate change on the world's ice sheets and sea levels.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/

Models predict more and more severe hurricanes, which is not what we see

The models predict more severe, not more hurricanes. Look up the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the past decade.

The number of severe hurricanes has doubled worldwide even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped over the last 35 years, a new study finds.

The increase in major storms like Katrina coincides with a global increase of sea surface temperatures, which scientists say is an effect of global warming.

The possible relationship between global warming and hurricane strength has been a topic of controversy for years.

The new study supports another one released in July, in which climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed for the first time that major storms in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... canes.html

The numerous typos and other errors in the paper seem to indicate a draft copy not submitted to peer review. Which is why so many errors in fact as well. This looks like a bureaucrat tried to do an end run around the scientists at the agency.

But with the lobbyists no longer calling the shots, it seems to have gotten nowhere.

BTW, Alan Carlin, the guy who wrote up the draft is an economist, who was, during the Bush Administration, trying to get the scientists to back off their findings that were considered politically incorrect. I'm thinking bean-counters are useful in figuring the trade-offs, but not for doing the science. This guy is in way over his head.

 

[Crying Rock]

coelacanth wrote:

97% of people whose area of expertise gives them the greatest training in studying this issue agree that global warming is real...

That's a no-brainer. No doubt about it. We've been in an interglacial since ca. 10,000 BC (MIS 1).

Denial of global warming belongs to the same category as denial that the earth is spherical, and denial that man has ever travelled to the moon.

However, what has not been shown is that greenhouse gases are anything more than a very small factor in global warming. There have been cycles of global warming and cooling in the past. The average temperature of the earth's atmosphere at the top of past cycles was greater than the present average temperature. We still have quite a way to go before we get to the pinnacle of the present warming trend, and even the total elimination of man's contribution in terms of greenhouse gases won't stop that trend.

I agree.

Check out MIS stage 5e here:

http://www.quaternary.stratigraphy.org. ... v2007b.jpg

under Marine Isotope Stages.

We're not even to that level yet.

The vast, vast majority of warming during this particular interglacial (MIS 1) occurred during pre-Holocene and early Holocene times. Debating about a couple of degrees in the past ca. 100 years seems pretty meaningless to me, looking at the big picture. If anything I'm standing by for a reversal. I've pondered, IF global warming is in some part under our control, we might want to keep it up. MIS stages 2 and 6 don't seem particularly attractive to me. ;)

coelacanth wrote:

...and human-caused...

Please provide peer reviewed references from professional paleoclimatologists that claim global warming is significantly due to anthropogenic factors?

 

[coelacanth]

How many scientists does it take?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

(bold by me)

Here is but one of those papers you requested (AGU), summarizing things we knew a decade ago.
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
A more recent position statement from the American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_pol ... 2008.shtml

 

[Crying Rock]

More than six.

 

[Crying Rock]

More than six.

Recall I told you early on that we are in a interglacial. How many interglacials have occurred over the past 1ma. Have you had a look at this chart:

http://www.quaternary.stratigraphy.org. ... v2007b.jpg

 

[Barbarian]

A lot of the denier stuff depends on conflating daily, monthly, yearly, decadal, and longer term trends.