Global Warming to Increse in 2009? and yet my weatherman cant get the forcast for the rest week right.

The religion of global warming is falling. Trust me the fight will be fierce but the truth is on truths side....

Modern. Just a friendly word of caution. You should learn the difference between weather and climate. Although I disagree with you intensely on this issue, I don't want you to appear ill-informed. Here - this might help:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Russell: "I also read today that NASA has changed the stats on the "hottest year on record" and 1998 is no longer the winner. Apparently its now 1934."

I'd be interested to see where you read that. Here, 1934 isn't even in the top 5.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

I do know the difference I was just making the point that predictions are predictions. Last year was going to be a horrible hurricane season also, yet it was not.

Also, climate predictions are much more reliable than weather or hurricane predictions. For example, take 2085. We can't say for sure, but chances are very likely that January will be colder than July. It's just statistical, and the more trials you have, the more reliable your predictions.

" The religion of global warming is falling. Trust me the fight will be fierce but the truth is on truths side...."

Funny stuff, fool. Keep clinging onto that, and your failed, illegal occupation of Iraq. They're going to work REAL well for your party in the coming elections. Trust me.




"Last year was going to be a horrible hurricane season also, yet it was not."

Last year was an el nino year. Hurricane frequency in the Atlantic is dramatically reduced during el nino years.

Steve is also correct in stating that climate and weather are not the same thing. It's important to know the difference.

The evidence of global warming is substantial and conclusive, to all but a tiny handful of the world's scientists. Most of those whom have not yet accepted documented science are paid by the oil industry, oddly enough.

Russell. Thanks for the link. I don't know what to make of the discrepancy. Even according to your data, however, it is clear to see the trend in warming (5 year mean), even if 1934 was the warmest year. I'll have to do some more research on that, because your link is the only one I find that says this. Much obliged.

Another NASA site showing the same time period and 5 year mean. I wonder if the discrepancy might be that your data is for the U.S., while this is the global data.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/
goddard/news/topstory/2006/2006_warm.html

Yes. That's it. Your graph is titled "U.S. Temperature".

Your data sheet is also titled: "Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature"

That's why posting sources is so important. Thanks.

Folks,
Follow this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

It is from the web site posted above involving that "discrepancy" in Hottest Year (The Goddard Institute of Space Studies, New York, NY).

You will see global maps and if you scroll down a little you will see the line graph of those annual mean temps and the 5-year means plotted out... It might help you see what's going on...

Look at figure A2 (the first line graph) and Figure A (the second one)...
Those are the telling ones for the purposes that you are visualizing in understanding the "trends of Yearly Temperatures over that given Time period" (time for which records are available in the US; 1880 through present)...

What is provided in the Text table link above is shown Graphically in Figure D...
What it shows is HOW MUCH DIFFERENT EACH YEAR WAS FROM ITS PRECEDING YEAR) ...

So, what you have is the year 1934 having had the greatest difference in its mean annual temp (the 12 months of the year averaged out) from that mean annual temp of the year before (1933) ... The rate of "Swing" as it were...
(This are the Links to the Text Tables that your Though you were looking at if anyone is interested : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt and http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

AND what you have is folks PLAYING with the Presentation of Data for the Sole Purpose of Miss leading Folks ...

Steve was quite right in pointing out the 5 year annual mean trends showing each five year set having a net gain in Mean Temperatures...

Nice Try... But why don't you (Modern Day HooHaa and Russel M.) ... go back to playing on the Midway at your local Shopping Mall Parking Lot Carnival...

;)

Best...
DJE

To clarify for those who still might not get the Gist of it...1933 had X degree C Temperature and 1934 had one of the biggest leaps to a warmer Year Recorded in that time period. (1934 was not necessarily the warmest year on Record... it had the biggest swing from it's previous year....).

For those who still need more Clarity... by all means do some research and understand... But for the LOVE OF GOD ... STAY AWAY FROM VOTING MACHINES... (AND STAY OFF THE HIGHWAYS FOR THAT MATTER...AND STOCK MARKETS...AND...WELL YOU GET THE IDEA...)

:) Enjoy

Peace,
DJE

Russell...
I responded the way I did, because Using Data to misrepresent the Situation is One of the Most Irritating and Aggravating Things in this Situation and the Public Discussion going on...

You said: " ... I also read today that NASA has changed the stats on the "hottest year on record" and 1998 is no longer the winner. Apparently its now 1934. If that is true, what does it do to the entire theory?

That is a Clear blatant misrepresentation and Patently false...
Where did you "Read Today that NASA has CHANGED the stats on ..."
Where exactly did you READ that? What exactly was it that you read? Could you provide the link to that? or was it the Stats themselves that you read... In which case you did not Read that :"NASA has changed the stats on the "hottest year on record" and 1998 is no longer the winner..." You MIS-Read the stats... But how did you find that table? Did you look at the Goddard Institute's page that those states came from to get their context?

Are you upset that you read something and did not do your due diligence in verifying what it was you thought you were reading and what you were eager to relay in discussion on the topic?

Or was it Indeed Purposeful? ....

What is the matter with the tenor of this public discussion is continued efforts similar to that which occurred here. Had this been an Isolated incident... or indeed the first one I had encountered myself... Then you would be justified in your indignation and your comment on the tenor of the discussion might have some validity... But please do not claim to be unaware of similar attempts in the course of this public discourse over its lifespan... you come off as disingenuous as any attempt you make to have this discussion here to seem be 'a natural discussion' of some 'interesting new data' ...

Oh gosh... Oh me o my ... How dare there be disgust at attempts to use data the way you have here... How Very Uncivil of Me... Gosh... is there frustration at Witnessing the ENDLESS ENDLESS Attempts to Twist Reality to fit your VIEW...

You are looking for any tidbit to throw out there that might Justify your view...
Here is one more bit of advice... Do you Due Diligence...

And you are Right... I do owe Publius an appology for including him in this particular Frustration... In my irritation I included him in this particular aspect of this conversation here when I rightfully should not have and for that I do retract my inclusion of his moniker above. However, the premise of his original piece is nearly as pointless as the issue you raised about the Year 1934... I think however that Steve and Mr. Kent have appropriately discussed that matter with him... I believe he is as aware of the context of what he has said as you are in what you have said about the Hottest year....

Make as many suggestions ... written or implied ... as you like... I will take them for what they are worth....

;)

I assumed that there was a possibility, however strong, that you deliberately misled with this data because given the nature of misleading efforts of those who deny the reality of Human Induced Climate Change along side the fact that I don't KNOW you, it is natural for me to suspect that as a POSSIBILITY and it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that... Do you see that? Given that you withheld that original source in the first place and Given what that source in actuality is I am certainly Justified in making that Assumption... Certainly you must see that as well... No? If not... You will just have to live with that however you please...

If you note, the majority of my comment in fact regarded your use of the data as having been misread, misunderstood, and misused. I indicated that you were led by your preconceived notion of the Climate Change situation to see the Data the way you wanted to and you presented it here in that manner... Having seen your original source among other reasons, I defer to a greater degree to my Other Presumption as to why you presented the data the way you did... take that how you like and live with it however you please...

No... the problem with the public discussion and the direction of Public Policy is not my Civility... It is the attempts to obscure the discussion itself...

A Real Discussion Regarding the nature of the Public discussion and the direction (lack of action) in Public Policy would be very Interesting actually...


Very sad Russell... Very Sad indeed...

Russell: "But isn't it significant that in the US the hottest year on record is 1934?"

Not really. The issue is not "U.S. warming." It is "global warming." I think the rest of the world might not mind it so much if warming were confined to the national boundaries of the nations that are causing the problem - but CO2 emissions don't know anything about national boundaries.

Russell: "Does this add a question mark as to causes?"

Given that the data you present is limited to the U.S., it actually lends support to the fact that ghg emissions are responsible for warming. The global data are the pertinent data.

Russell: "If that year was a 1.25 degree difference above average, were carbon emmissions the cause?

Again, the U.S. data is not pertinent, except to the extent that it occurs within the context of the global data. The U.S. is a part of the world - not the world itself.

Russell: "It seems to me...."

Russell, I am not a scientist, and judging by your questions, you are not one either. So it would be incumbent on both of us to understand what scientists say about this issue, rather than ideological blogs with an agenda.

David is a scientist, and I can understand his frustration with misrepresentation (not to say you are misrepresenting here). It happens all the time by people with political agendas. It is infuriating to answer a question, such as the one you raise here, and then to see it surface again and again - often by the same people - in another article. You really wonder what is the motivation for doing that.

Russell.

This article is a good example. The title is: "Global Warming to Increse in 2009? and yet my weatherman cant get the forcast for the rest week right." What does the title of the article say? An uninformed person will look at that and think, "Yeah, how can they predict climate in 2009 when they don't know if it's going to rain a week from now."

So I point out to Modern that there's a difference between climate and weather, and he says he knows about the difference, but is making a point about predictions in general. That says two things: 1. If he is aware of the difference between climate and weather, then he's deliberately confusing the two in his title; and 2. making a point about predictions in general says that he is deliberately going to continue to confuse the two despite knowing the difference. Why would he do that if it's not to misrepresent facts? You tell me - or better still, maybe Modern can say something on this himself.

It's onething to predict general patterns, say continent or planet-wide and another entirely to predict specific conditions locally.

What most global-warming critics don't get is that the theory proposes that the overall global climate is warming. On a 25K mile (approximately) around planet, there's not going to be uniform change in part because of the size of the planet, geographic and nautical features aren't evenly distributed, and the planet's tilted 23.5 degree.

James: "It's onething to predict general patterns, say continent or planet-wide and another entirely to predict specific conditions locally."

Exactly! A doctor, consulting with a patient re: a diagnosis of cancer, can say that of the patients diagnosed with this type of cancer, 60% survive. That estimate is based on thousands of patients and thousands of results. But when it comes to this specific patient, the doctor cannot possibly claim to know what his "chances" are.

Ever wonder why we get these issues during the pre-election period? It seems to me that the powers that be cloud the issues with abortion, gay rights, global warming issues to cloud the important issues. These issues are emotional ones for most people and are very polarizing. The candidates can give lip service to these topics while ignoring important ones.

James. How would you know if global warming is an important issue or not. What do you know about it?

Steve, I know global warming is an imporatant issue because, if true, as it seems from all reliable sources, then we're in for a very hard time. Every indicator points to increased greenhouse gases since the mid 18th century when industrialization began. The few natural phenomena that have had any major impact were the eruptions of Krakatoa and Mt. Pinatubo. It's fair to say that human-caused emissions are more responsible for the higher levels of greenhouse gases than is nature, over the last 150+ years.

I went on a cruise last year and the cruise director told us that most of the life in the sea lives in and around coral reefs. He mentioned that coral reefs are also dying off due to warmer waters.

I know global warming happening because I live in Texas and the summers have been much hotter than usual and the winters milder.

Sorry, James Ascher - I was asking James B. - not you. Of course, it's an important issue. Some say it's a greater threat to civilization than terrorism. I think that's true. I was wondering, since James B. says it's not an important issue, how he makes that determination. I don't know if he'll return here to answer that, but thanks for your input. I certainly agree with you. I also live in the south. We are roasting in what is proving to be a typically very hot, rainless summer. It's a struggle to keep any plant life alive. As bad as it is here, it's worse in Alabama and Georgia.

Funny. Russell's posts have all been deleted from this thread. I don't blame him. I'd have deleted them too.

... that's just pathetic ...

This was left out of the cut-and-paste post above:
"As is usually the case in this business, however, there is no way to know with any level of confidence whether this mechanism [the 'global thermostat' the fellow was talking about] is operating in the context of manmade global warming." - Spencer's words & opinnion...

The Spencer fellow is a strong advocate of 'Intelligent Design' ... No I won't get into that discussion here, take it for what it is worth and do what ever seems right...

That the earth has a 'self regulating system' is nothing new. (Self regulating in having a mechanism that cools the earth when temperatures rise via formation of high altitude clouds). J. Lovelock has proposed that idea (among others in less formal ways) long ago in his 'Gaia Hypothesis' ... It is something that researchers have found in various mechanisms around the globe to be happening to some degree or other...

That there is (or may be) a mechanism as described by Spencer only raises greater concern in that despite having a mechanism to 'self correct' to some degree... the Earth is imperically warming... (that is... the mechanism isn't fully working to keep the temps down... that is... the current warming is 'outstripping' the ability of the mechanism to keep temperatures on more stable swings (the rate of warming is unprecedented in the geological record)).

Finally, last I understood... Fair use laws apply if an individual actually uses the material as part of their own original creation or work... not for Whole Cloth cut-and-paste with no original input or effort... (that is, Billy earned a portion of my comment "that's just pathetic" for himself....

So... aside from being just pathetic, that post was also pushing the copyright rules (unless there is some sort of written concent or the material is in the 'Public Domain') ...
;)

Funny... that Billy fellow's comments have disapeared now... hmmmmm