Cooling? Really?

[IanC]

Of the 20 warmest years in the last 150, the oldest on the lists is 1987. And for the top ten, only one is not within the last 12 years, that being 1998. This year, in spite of being a double La Nina year, ranks between 9th and 11th on the list.

Anyone care to guess where the next El Nino year is going to put us. And we, the whole world, pumped out a record amount of GHGs this year.

Despite warm autumn, 2011 temperatures fail to reach record highs | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Top 20 hottest years on record
Global mean temperature anomalies for the three main datasets (Nasa, Noaa, Met Office)
HadCRUT3 NOAA NCDC NASA GISS
1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56
2 2010 0.5 2005 0.52 2005 0.55
3 2005 0.47 1998 0.5 2007 0.51
4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.5
5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49
6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49
7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48
8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48
9 2007 0.4 2004 0.45 2011 0.45
10 2001 0.4 2001 0.42 2004 0.41
11 2011 0.36 2011 0.41 2001 0.4
12 1997 0.36 2008 0.38 2008 0.37
13 2008 0.31 1997 0.38 1997 0.32
14 1995 0.28 1999 0.32 1995 0.3
15 1999 0.26 1995 0.31 1990 0.29
16 1990 0.25 2000 0.29 1991 0.28
17 2000 0.24 1990 0.29 2000 0.26
18 1991 0.2 1991 0.24 1999 0.25
19 1983 0.19 1988 0.2 1988 0.24
20 1987 0.17 1987 0.2 1996 0.22

So, to re-cap, we are at the all time recorded instrumental high of CO2 right now. Years warmer than 2011 during the last ten years are have been:

Coolest: 2011
Warmer than 2011:
2010
2009
2007
2006
2005
2003
2002
2001

So of the ten years to date, this year is the coolest except for one. Again this is happening as the thing you claim to be the prime driver of climate change is at the all time high.

What about the present cooling represents warming to you?

this shows a steady upwards adjustment to 2000. I'll try to find a more up-to-date one because there was a large upwards adjustment after 2007.

I'm not saying that all the adjustments are bogus but it seems pretty convenient that they always seem to be in the same direction. up.

when a large fraction of the trend you are finding is arbitrarily added adjustments then I am somewhat wary of the results. hey Old Rocks- would the last decade still be filling the Top Ten List if you knocked off 0.2-0.5C from the anomaly?

 

[BOBO]

Where it all started...

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"ANY" of these so called "global issues" are nothing but back door politics to attain social positioning, political power, & $$$$$$$. Smoking, obesity, nuclear proliferation, global warming, over population & a host of other fantasy doomsday scenario scare agendas have all come to naught. I remember as a general contractor the RADON SCARE of the 80's...

Radon Scare - Where's the Proof? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

All these scare & flare doomsday topics are just topics that slackers use in an attempt to get "free" government hamburger(grants) to feed the pups their phuking. Other than biological weapons, which sadly there remains no defense for what so ever, there is no other 'global' catastrophes on the near horizon. Truthfully, I don't even bother engaging in dialog with these dog dinging global doomsday slackers anymore.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of the 20 warmest years in the last 150, the oldest on the lists is 1987. And for the top ten, only one is not within the last 12 years, that being 1998. This year, in spite of being a double La Nina year, ranks between 9th and 11th on the list.

Anyone care to guess where the next El Nino year is going to put us. And we, the whole world, pumped out a record amount of GHGs this year.

Despite warm autumn, 2011 temperatures fail to reach record highs | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Top 20 hottest years on record
Global mean temperature anomalies for the three main datasets (Nasa, Noaa, Met Office)
HadCRUT3 NOAA NCDC NASA GISS
1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56
2 2010 0.5 2005 0.52 2005 0.55
3 2005 0.47 1998 0.5 2007 0.51
4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.5
5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49
6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49
7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48
8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48
9 2007 0.4 2004 0.45 2011 0.45
10 2001 0.4 2001 0.42 2004 0.41
11 2011 0.36 2011 0.41 2001 0.4
12 1997 0.36 2008 0.38 2008 0.37
13 2008 0.31 1997 0.38 1997 0.32
14 1995 0.28 1999 0.32 1995 0.3
15 1999 0.26 1995 0.31 1990 0.29
16 1990 0.25 2000 0.29 1991 0.28
17 2000 0.24 1990 0.29 2000 0.26
18 1991 0.2 1991 0.24 1999 0.25
19 1983 0.19 1988 0.2 1988 0.24
20 1987 0.17 1987 0.2 1996 0.22

So, to re-cap, we are at the all time recorded instrumental high of CO2 right now. Years warmer than 2011 during the last ten years are have been:

Coolest: 2011
Warmer than 2011:
2010
2009
2007
2006
2005
2003
2002
2001

So of the ten years to date, this year is the coolest except for one. Again this is happening as the thing you claim to be the prime driver of climate change is at the all time high.

What about the present cooling represents warming to you?

this shows a steady upwards adjustment to 2000. I'll try to find a more up-to-date one because there was a large upwards adjustment after 2007.

I'm not saying that all the adjustments are bogus but it seems pretty convenient that they always seem to be in the same direction. up.

when a large fraction of the trend you are finding is arbitrarily added adjustments then I am somewhat wary of the results. hey Old Rocks- would the last decade still be filling the Top Ten List if you knocked off 0.2-0.5C from the anomaly?

Would it make the slightest bit of differance in the worldwide recession of the glaciers and the melting of the ice caps which ever way the data were adjusted? The state of the Cryosphere is confirming that the world is rapidly warming.

 

[IanC]

glaciers and ice in general is presently receding. and uncovering tree stumps, icemen and many other artifacts of recent past warm periods. why do you consider that a sign of the end of times?

 

[konradv]

This is nothing except nature being nature. Its always been this way since the beginning of time.

Here in New York I wore a summer polo shirt today. Its been unseasonably mild for most of the fall. The leaves came down real late. Could it possibly be because some species can now thrive this year ( in recent years, the first week of December in New York has seen bitter cold)?? Could it be about balance? Meanwhile, down south, its cold as all shit!!! Balance? When some species dominates, it effects other species ability to survive. I'm talking brush......insects..........mammals..........etc...........
Who can say its not about balance?

The answer is..............NOBODY.


Just like nobody can say that man causes climate change.


And remember..........opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one!!!





On species adapting to a changing climate...............thirve or perish? Scientists just dont know based upon current AND historical evidence!!!

Could species evolve to adapt to climate change? | GlobalPost

A lot that depends on the speed of change. Sure, if we're talking a natural cycle, but considering all the GHGs we've put out since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, that's becoming less and less likely.

 

[westwall]

So, to re-cap, we are at the all time recorded instrumental high of CO2 right now. Years warmer than 2011 during the last ten years are have been:

Coolest: 2011
Warmer than 2011:
2010
2009
2007
2006
2005
2003
2002
2001

So of the ten years to date, this year is the coolest except for one. Again this is happening as the thing you claim to be the prime driver of climate change is at the all time high.

What about the present cooling represents warming to you?

this shows a steady upwards adjustment to 2000. I'll try to find a more up-to-date one because there was a large upwards adjustment after 2007.

I'm not saying that all the adjustments are bogus but it seems pretty convenient that they always seem to be in the same direction. up.

when a large fraction of the trend you are finding is arbitrarily added adjustments then I am somewhat wary of the results. hey Old Rocks- would the last decade still be filling the Top Ten List if you knocked off 0.2-0.5C from the anomaly?

Would it make the slightest bit of differance in the worldwide recession of the glaciers and the melting of the ice caps which ever way the data were adjusted? The state of the Cryosphere is confirming that the world is rapidly warming.

Tell that to Antarctica next time. I think she would laugh her ass off at you!

 

[westwall]

This is nothing except nature being nature. Its always been this way since the beginning of time.

Here in New York I wore a summer polo shirt today. Its been unseasonably mild for most of the fall. The leaves came down real late. Could it possibly be because some species can now thrive this year ( in recent years, the first week of December in New York has seen bitter cold)?? Could it be about balance? Meanwhile, down south, its cold as all shit!!! Balance? When some species dominates, it effects other species ability to survive. I'm talking brush......insects..........mammals..........etc...........
Who can say its not about balance?

The answer is..............NOBODY.


Just like nobody can say that man causes climate change.


And remember..........opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one!!!





On species adapting to a changing climate...............thirve or perish? Scientists just dont know based upon current AND historical evidence!!!

Could species evolve to adapt to climate change? | GlobalPost

A lot that depends on the speed of change. Sure, if we're talking a natural cycle, but considering all the GHGs we've put out since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, that's becoming less and less likely.

Sooooo, when the temperature in your area swings from say 35 degrees at night and rises to oh say 70 degrees during the day you break apart?

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly asses here trying to divert attention from the fact that it is still rapidly warming. And that warming is now having consequences that were predicted.

The people that keep track of weather events, the meteorologists, and the people that pay out on insurance polices for those events, all state that we are seeing a major increase in the number and intensity of events. Yet the dingbats state this is not so. And then, instead of siting studies, immediatly launch into "oh, you're predicting the end of the world" bullshit.

No, neither I nor the scientists are predicting the end of the world. However, what is being predicted is that we will see increased heat, increased weather events, and the consequences of those events in human terms, on agriculture and our infrastructure.

 

[konradv]

This is nothing except nature being nature. Its always been this way since the beginning of time.

Here in New York I wore a summer polo shirt today. Its been unseasonably mild for most of the fall. The leaves came down real late. Could it possibly be because some species can now thrive this year ( in recent years, the first week of December in New York has seen bitter cold)?? Could it be about balance? Meanwhile, down south, its cold as all shit!!! Balance? When some species dominates, it effects other species ability to survive. I'm talking brush......insects..........mammals..........etc...........
Who can say its not about balance?

The answer is..............NOBODY.


Just like nobody can say that man causes climate change.


And remember..........opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one!!!





On species adapting to a changing climate...............thirve or perish? Scientists just dont know based upon current AND historical evidence!!!

Could species evolve to adapt to climate change? | GlobalPost

A lot that depends on the speed of change. Sure, if we're talking a natural cycle, but considering all the GHGs we've put out since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, that's becoming less and less likely.

Sooooo, when the temperature in your area swings from say 35 degrees at night and rises to oh say 70 degrees during the day you break apart?

What kind of goofy question is that? You go from one ridiculous extreme to another. Is that what really passes for debate amongst the skeptics? Ask a real question and MAYBE I'll answer. Otherwise you're just wasting out time!!!

 

[westwall]

Silly asses here trying to divert attention from the fact that it is still rapidly warming. And that warming is now having consequences that were predicted.

The people that keep track of weather events, the meteorologists, and the people that pay out on insurance polices for those events, all state that we are seeing a major increase in the number and intensity of events. Yet the dingbats state this is not so. And then, instead of siting studies, immediatly launch into "oh, you're predicting the end of the world" bullshit.

No, neither I nor the scientists are predicting the end of the world. However, what is being predicted is that we will see increased heat, increased weather events, and the consequences of those events in human terms, on agriculture and our infrastructure.

Where exactly is it warming? Every data set except for GISS says the temps have leveled off. No warming no cooling. Just holding level.

 

[westwall]

A lot that depends on the speed of change. Sure, if we're talking a natural cycle, but considering all the GHGs we've put out since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, that's becoming less and less likely.

Sooooo, when the temperature in your area swings from say 35 degrees at night and rises to oh say 70 degrees during the day you break apart?

What kind of goofy question is that? You go from one ridiculous extreme to another. Is that what really passes for debate amongst the skeptics? Ask a real question and MAYBE I'll answer. Otherwise you're just wasting out time!!!

You're trying to tell us that the rapid increase of 1 to 1.2 degrees in say 1000 years is going to lead to armageddon. I point out that you regularly experience temperature changes of 30 degrees in a few hours and I'm the one who doesn't make sense?

You are too funny dude!

 

[code1211]

So, to re-cap, we are at the all time recorded instrumental high of CO2 right now. Years warmer than 2011 during the last ten years are have been:

Coolest: 2011
Warmer than 2011:
2010
2009
2007
2006
2005
2003
2002
2001

So of the ten years to date, this year is the coolest except for one. Again this is happening as the thing you claim to be the prime driver of climate change is at the all time high.

What about the present cooling represents warming to you?

this shows a steady upwards adjustment to 2000. I'll try to find a more up-to-date one because there was a large upwards adjustment after 2007.

I'm not saying that all the adjustments are bogus but it seems pretty convenient that they always seem to be in the same direction. up.

when a large fraction of the trend you are finding is arbitrarily added adjustments then I am somewhat wary of the results. hey Old Rocks- would the last decade still be filling the Top Ten List if you knocked off 0.2-0.5C from the anomaly?

Would it make the slightest bit of differance in the worldwide recession of the glaciers and the melting of the ice caps which ever way the data were adjusted? The state of the Cryosphere is confirming that the world is rapidly warming.

The state of the cryoshpere may indicate many things. One thing that might be indicated is warming, another is a change in ocean currents. The ice of the South Pole doesn't seem to be melting at the same break neck pace as the water borne North Pole ice.

One might ask why the difference?

Another might ignore the questions and propose an explanation with unjustified certainty absent any critical review.

 

[code1211]

This is nothing except nature being nature. Its always been this way since the beginning of time.

Here in New York I wore a summer polo shirt today. Its been unseasonably mild for most of the fall. The leaves came down real late. Could it possibly be because some species can now thrive this year ( in recent years, the first week of December in New York has seen bitter cold)?? Could it be about balance? Meanwhile, down south, its cold as all shit!!! Balance? When some species dominates, it effects other species ability to survive. I'm talking brush......insects..........mammals..........etc...........
Who can say its not about balance?

The answer is..............NOBODY.


Just like nobody can say that man causes climate change.


And remember..........opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one!!!





On species adapting to a changing climate...............thirve or perish? Scientists just dont know based upon current AND historical evidence!!!

Could species evolve to adapt to climate change? | GlobalPost

A lot that depends on the speed of change. Sure, if we're talking a natural cycle, but considering all the GHGs we've put out since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, that's becoming less and less likely.

Even in view of the fact that the current warming trend pre-dates the Industrial Revolution?

 

[code1211]

Silly asses here trying to divert attention from the fact that it is still rapidly warming. And that warming is now having consequences that were predicted.

The people that keep track of weather events, the meteorologists, and the people that pay out on insurance polices for those events, all state that we are seeing a major increase in the number and intensity of events. Yet the dingbats state this is not so. And then, instead of siting studies, immediatly launch into "oh, you're predicting the end of the world" bullshit.

No, neither I nor the scientists are predicting the end of the world. However, what is being predicted is that we will see increased heat, increased weather events, and the consequences of those events in human terms, on agriculture and our infrastructure.

Um...

Stopped warming about 10 years back.

 

[konradv]

Silly asses here trying to divert attention from the fact that it is still rapidly warming. And that warming is now having consequences that were predicted.

The people that keep track of weather events, the meteorologists, and the people that pay out on insurance polices for those events, all state that we are seeing a major increase in the number and intensity of events. Yet the dingbats state this is not so. And then, instead of siting studies, immediatly launch into "oh, you're predicting the end of the world" bullshit.

No, neither I nor the scientists are predicting the end of the world. However, what is being predicted is that we will see increased heat, increased weather events, and the consequences of those events in human terms, on agriculture and our infrastructure.

Um...

Stopped warming about 10 years back.

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

 

[westwall]

Silly asses here trying to divert attention from the fact that it is still rapidly warming. And that warming is now having consequences that were predicted.

The people that keep track of weather events, the meteorologists, and the people that pay out on insurance polices for those events, all state that we are seeing a major increase in the number and intensity of events. Yet the dingbats state this is not so. And then, instead of siting studies, immediatly launch into "oh, you're predicting the end of the world" bullshit.

No, neither I nor the scientists are predicting the end of the world. However, what is being predicted is that we will see increased heat, increased weather events, and the consequences of those events in human terms, on agriculture and our infrastructure.

Um...

Stopped warming about 10 years back.

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

Ummm, we have ALLWAYS taken natural cycles into account. It is YOU who claim that the atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps. Nice attempt to recast your statements.

 

[code1211]

Silly asses here trying to divert attention from the fact that it is still rapidly warming. And that warming is now having consequences that were predicted.

The people that keep track of weather events, the meteorologists, and the people that pay out on insurance polices for those events, all state that we are seeing a major increase in the number and intensity of events. Yet the dingbats state this is not so. And then, instead of siting studies, immediatly launch into "oh, you're predicting the end of the world" bullshit.

No, neither I nor the scientists are predicting the end of the world. However, what is being predicted is that we will see increased heat, increased weather events, and the consequences of those events in human terms, on agriculture and our infrastructure.

Um...

Stopped warming about 10 years back.

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

I only used the data presented by Old Rocks in the first post on the thread.

Are you disputing his sources?

 

[konradv]

Um...

Stopped warming about 10 years back.

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

I only used the data presented by Old Rocks in the first post on the thread.

Are you disputing his sources?

No, I'm disputing your conclusions.

 

[konradv]

Um...

Stopped warming about 10 years back.

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

Ummm, we have ALLWAYS taken natural cycles into account. It is YOU who claim that the atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps. Nice attempt to recast your statements.

You take them into account when they serve your purpose and you lie when it suits you, too. You can't cite a post where I said, "atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps", so why should we believe ANYTHING you have to say?

 

[westwall]

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

Ummm, we have ALLWAYS taken natural cycles into account. It is YOU who claim that the atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps. Nice attempt to recast your statements.

You take them into account when they serve your purpose and you lie when it suits you, too. You can't cite a post where I said, "atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps", so why should we believe ANYTHING you have to say?

You show me where I have never said it was natural cycles we were dealing with.