Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[licker]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

That would be interesting, since NOAA is expending great effort to document and study the current Warming Trend of our planet, so that we can better understand what is happening right now.

Jim-

You do realize that one can appreciate a change in the climate while disagreeing about the cause correct?

The issue, though not explicitly stated always, is with the notion of anthropomorphic GW, not GW, which as anyone who can read a chart can see that the temperature rose over some decades, and for the last decade has seemingly leveled off.

I would not imagine that anyone serious disagrees with the facts that it has gotten warmer, the question of interest is what caused the warm up, and what is causing it to have slowed/stopped?

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

Jim-

You do realize that one can appreciate a change in the climate while disagreeing about the cause correct?

The issue, though not explicitly stated always, is with the notion of anthropomorphic GW, not GW, which as anyone who can read a chart can see that the temperature rose over some decades, and for the last decade has seemingly leveled off.

First, to address your second point: Again, we have had 2 similar troughs in the past 150 years that we have detailed figures. A 10 year trough, in the geological time scales we are working with, does not in any way indicate that this trend is "over". We are still in a 1000 year+ warming trend, and this is consistent, over this timeframe.

Second, to your first point: I don't think you read my previous posts. I don't completely agree with the causes, at least, not as valid reasoning for humanity to approach the issue with clear intent. The fact is, if global temperatures were to shift down OR up by about 5°, the human race with less than 7 billion people on the planet, will be greatly imperiled. Regardless if you think that any given country or region could persist through such calamity, I can only assure you that it's psychotic not to entertain the notion that eventually the famines and wars would lead to nuclear aggression = the end of the world as we know it.

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity. What matters is the human species rising to meet this problem head on, because we will have to find ways to deal with a little turbulence here or there, if we want to survive for longer than a quarter million years.

[licker]

Air temperatures from March...

Global temp fell almost .5C in 2007.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/1...ast-12-months/

Where did all the energy go?

Answer is it didn't come in the first place.

[Tifone]

Yeah, a graph about 12 months makes a whole lot of a difference. You are just rushing the science for your purpose.
Like JimMorrison said, and I said, not only one year can be cooler than another (chaotic nature of weather), but this is totally irrelevant in a trend showing on a long period of time. Single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/184932/56

Going to bed now. See ya tomorrow.

Don't have too much fun with snowballs without me!!

[licker]

Originally Posted by Tifone

Yeah, a graph about 12 months makes a whole lot of a difference. You are just rushing the science for your purpose.
Like JimMorrison said, and I said, not only one year can be cooler than another (chaotic nature of weather), but this is totally irrelevant in a trend showing on a long period of time. Single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/184932/56

Going to bed now. See ya tomorrow.

Don't have too much fun with snowballs without me!!

Single years? Though if you are claiming that the loss from 2007 is irrelevant due to it being only 12 months, why are you then trying to refute me by showing me data from ONE month? In any case, that data doesn't show what it seems you think it does.

So show me the trend since 1998 please. The point about '07 is that so much heat was lost that it essentially 'undid' all the warming from the past 10 years.

I don't know what this gristmill site is anyway, or why articles from 2006 are relevant, but I'll try to look at them when I have more time.

[thejeff]

And how many of those "academic scientists" are actually climate specialists working in the field and not a geologist or something. Just being a generic scientist gives you no more credibility than any random fool posting on a blog.

[Tifone]

(thejeff a quotation would have helped... I've used the expression both referring to "GW-believers" -post 81- and "GW-unbelievers" -post 84- scientists. /about the former ones, you can eventually check the links/

Lol, believers and unbelievers. Sounds like a religious thread for real )

PS Oh about the water vapour argument licker called: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357/40

About the sun and cosmic rays, something interesting here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666

[Tifone]

I just find comfortable to link the gristmill site since it is are full of useful reliable scientific souces and charts.

The trend since 1998 is showed in SEVERAL of the links I already provided, you would do me a favour to read before posting, it's tiring and cumbersome to me to talk about the same thing again and again, and ultimately pointless if you don't read the answers I provide. Here it is again, with your theory nicely debunked:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

And again about your old "warmer is better" theory:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469

[licker]

Your link says nothing about warmer weather being 'worse', only that rapid change is potentially bad. Hardly the case you are representing.

Further your data is incomplete, it ignores 2007 and 2008.

You are indeed repeating the same thing quite a bit, but it's not providing the answers you seem to think it is, which is why I continue to pose the questions.

"
Grist: it's gloom and doom with a sense of humor. So laugh now -- or the planet gets it."

Err... so this is actually a rather biased site, and you are quoting to us from blogs.

Now there's nothing de facto wrong with that, but it should be put in the open.

[licker]

-edi

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025

Your comments please?

It is as I have claimed. The 'heat' is missing from the equation.

Well unless you accept the fact that its really all the suns fault and stop persisting with the notion that the unproven correlation of temperature to CO2 is meaningful. Unless it's to note that CO2 concentrations LAG temperature as has also been shown in the literature.

By the way... warmer ocean also means greater CO2 sink...

The planet is really quite remarkable at the ways it can seemingly balance itself (not that I'm a Gaiaian)