2011 global temperature thread

[Old Rocks]

Global Fiducials Library

Bering Glacier is the largest and longest glacier in continental North America. In 1996, its size reached a late twentieth-century maximum. Since then, parts of Bering Glacier's terminus have retreated more than three miles and have thinned by more than 200 feet. These images below document the 1996-2005 retreat of Bering Glacier and show an example of the long-term monitoring required to accurately assess the state of the glacier.

 

[Old Rocks]

ESS 203 home page

In the polar regions, many glaciers end in the ocean. This is Barne Glacier, on Ross Island in Antarctica. Could these glaciers be threatened by rising ocean temperatures? By rising sea level?

 

[Old Rocks]

From Russia with concern.

http://www.lgt.lt/geoin/files/geology_and_ecosystems.doc

Part V: Prediction of the Geoenvironmental Evolution of Ecosystems

PREDICTION OF EXOGENIC GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES
A. KRUPODEROV & A. SHEKO 229

PREDICTION OF ENDOGENIC GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES
G. VARTANYAN 247

MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE GEOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Q. HE 251

THE INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON GEOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM INTERACTION J. SATKUNAS ,J. TAMINSKAS, N. OBERMAN

 

[Mini 14]

Won't this eventually boil down to population control?

If humans emit CO2, and CO2 is the culprit, controlling carbon emissions and such merely prolongs the inevitable.

Until we start killing people simply for emitting CO2, we're not serious about "saving" this planet.

Posting walls of text and numbers doesn't do shit to address the real effects of an imaginary problem.

Rocks, Matthew.....

you're both going to die, and the planet isn't.

Both of you need to get laid, or play a game of baseball, or take a ride on a roller coaster.

You both need lives, outside of the Internet, and beyond the propaganda.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, it will boil down to population control. Population control by agriculteral failure. Natures hard ball game.

As for your flap yap about killing people for emitting CO2, ain't gonna happen. The people that will die, at least initially, will be those in the third world countries that have little to do with the emissions that will drive the climatic change.

Now as far as posting walls of text and nonsense, neither Mathew or I can hold a candle to biPolar.

 

[konradv]

Also its about time that SOMEBODY finally says this :
People like You get impressed if You see a simple graph which has anywhere in the
picture description the word "NASA" on it, or read an article with something like
"scientists at NASA"...that`s understandable...because You think holy shit, NASA!
They are all "rocket scientists" ,they make satellites, they can land on the moon etc etc...
so this must be right.
Only people that never have worked with or for NASA would be deceived by this!
Do you really think, that a guy who actually works with or designs hi-tech equipment
gives a rat`s ass what some "climatologist" who has permission to access NASA`s vast
resources is doing(as long as he does n`t "shoplift") or saying???...as long
as he is not trying to tell them how to do their job!

haha, I think it has been said actually. NASA's direction has dramatically turned to political correctness in the last few decades and it shows in their output. mind you they still let some unexplainabe work see the daylight, like the study from a few months ago that showed the Urban Heat Island effect was orders of magnitude larger than Jones' claim.

Orders of magnitude greater?!?! I'd like to see a cite for that! Why do you have to shit on your own claims by over-stating them? An order of magnitude is 10-times. Orders of magnitude would be at least 100-times. You sure you want to stick with that?

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC states the following.

Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.[50]

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BenNatuf]

I will post the data as it comes in and you can debate it. I don't care if it is right or wrong...I enjoy doing it just like most people enjoy watching fat men throwing a ball around. Different yes, but that is a good thing to have differences in people...If not we would have a very boring word.

Nina and nino decrease and increase the anomalies within their years. The enso is the most powerful short term natural factor in the yearly temperature difference....Outside of a huge volcano of course. So having a much weaker nino and powerful nina is a different set up that favors it to be much below 1998s natural factors anyway.


Yes the UAH measures the lower troposphere...Not saying it is not a good tool to have, but against the surface data?

all satelite "surface data" is lower trop. Do you expect them to measure the temperature of the dirt? You are breathing in the lower troposphere right now.

I thought giss went off of Satellite, buoy, and ship data for their ocean data.

What good is the data off a bouy when you ognore it and grid in land surface temperatures instead? Yes, thats exactly what they did. You do know how they "grid" temperatures don't you? Just in vase you don't, they seperate the earth into "grids" and get an "average" for each grid. Where they don't have in situ data they take the 5 HIGHEST surronding grids and use that average. In doing this they've been caught more than once ignoring weather stations where they do have in situ data and "gridding in" higher averages. They've been caught doing it in canada, Russia, Bolivia, and the arctic.

BTW, I believe they do so more recently but GISS used to be all in situ data from weather stations, no satelites. And Hansen has been caught more than once fudging the data. Why they still employ the charletan is beyond me, except that AGW is a cash cow for the agency.

 

[BenNatuf]

One of the sad things about this board is how much of the posting has to do with the posters disdain for some political figure. Politics does not change the melting of the glaciers by 1 mm. In fact, each and every time I see a poster yapping about his dislike of one politician or the other on the global warming board, I know that he is not serious about the science at all. In fact, all too often, the poster is willfully ignorant of what the scientists state, and quick to espress his disdain for all scientists.

You're a riot buddy. Gacial retraction is the product of lower snowfall not rising temps. My disdain is for people who have no clue and misuse data to make a claim that it doesn't support.

 

[IanC]

Also its about time that SOMEBODY finally says this :
People like You get impressed if You see a simple graph which has anywhere in the
picture description the word "NASA" on it, or read an article with something like
"scientists at NASA"...that`s understandable...because You think holy shit, NASA!
They are all "rocket scientists" ,they make satellites, they can land on the moon etc etc...
so this must be right.
Only people that never have worked with or for NASA would be deceived by this!
Do you really think, that a guy who actually works with or designs hi-tech equipment
gives a rat`s ass what some "climatologist" who has permission to access NASA`s vast
resources is doing(as long as he does n`t "shoplift") or saying???...as long
as he is not trying to tell them how to do their job!

haha, I think it has been said actually. NASA's direction has dramatically turned to political correctness in the last few decades and it shows in their output. mind you they still let some unexplainabe work see the daylight, like the study from a few months ago that showed the Urban Heat Island effect was orders of magnitude larger than Jones' claim.

Orders of magnitude greater?!?! I'd like to see a cite for that! Why do you have to shit on your own claims by over-stating them? An order of magnitude is 10-times. Orders of magnitude would be at least 100-times. You sure you want to stick with that?

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC states the following.

Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.[50]

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Letter was still quoted by the IPCC in its 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) as one of the two pillars of the claim by Jones, his supporters and the IPCC itself that any remaining UHI contamination in long-term temperature series is mimimal:

“These results confirm the conclusions of Jones et al. (1990) and Easterling et al. (1997) that urban effects on 20th century globally and hemispherically averaged land air temperature time-series do not exceed about 0.05°C over the period 1900 to 1990 (assumed here to represent one standard error in the assessed non-urban trends).” Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.
NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

I dunno, looks like orders of magnitude to me (which would mean anything over 10 times, but implying about 100 times)

care to explain the UHI adjustments for GISS over the last decade? hahaha

 

[BenNatuf]

Global Fiducials Library

Bering Glacier is the largest and longest glacier in continental North America. In 1996, its size reached a late twentieth-century maximum. Since then, parts of Bering Glacier's terminus have retreated more than three miles and have thinned by more than 200 feet. These images below document the 1996-2005 retreat of Bering Glacier and show an example of the long-term monitoring required to accurately assess the state of the glacier.

Maybe you should try something else? You realy aren't to good at making assertions

The most fascinating accounts are of the growth and retreat of the different glaciers. Here is a sample:

Gangotri was retreating at 20 m per year up to 2000, but then slowed, and since September 2007 has been at a standstill.

Siachen glacier advanced 700 m between 1862 and 1909 and retreated 400 m between 1929 and 1958, since when retreat has been very small. The snout has retreated just 8-10 m since 1995.

Other contrasts are that Sonapani glacier retreated 500 m in the last 100 yr, whereas Kangriz glacier shows virtually no retreat.

The small (2km) Machoi Glacier has a continuous record of snout observations since 1875, and shows no major retreat in the last 50 years.

Bhagirath glacier retreated 320 m between 1962 and 2005 (7.4 m/y), but only 1.5 m in 2006.

In the early phase of Himalayan exploration glaciers were in general retreat, but even then Mirapin and Hassanabad advanced rapidly.

In Kumaon three glaciers retreated, including Pindari (425 m in 57 years), but Poting glacier was stationary.

Three surging glaciers of Kumdan behaved differently during 1958: Aktash and Chong Kumdan were advancing, but Kichik Kumdan was retreating.

Chong Kumdan glacier has three limbs:

The southern limb advanced 1.25 km up to 1990 and then retreated by 0.75 km up to 2006.

The northern limb, from 1993 to 2007, “is continuously surging ahead and has advanced by about 2.5 km. (16.7 m/y)”

The central limb retreated between 1997 and 2001, after which it surged. Between 1990 and 2007 the central limb advanced 1.75 km.

Kichik Kumdan glacier has two limbs.

The northern limb retreated 0.53 km between 1990 and 1997, then advanced up to 2004, and then retreated again by 0.6km.

The southern limb initially retreated up to 1992, advanced until 2005, and then retreated again in 2006 and 2007

^^^^WOW! Imagine that, real data showing that glaciers recede and contract almost irregardless of temperture! And they they do both at the same time... what oh what could explain this????

“Ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.”

Snow precipitation is the dominant factor in glacier advance or retreat.“A glacier… does not respond to the immediate climatic changes, for if it be so then all glaciers within the same climatic zone should have been advancing or retreating at the same time.”

gee, an actual conclusion drawn on evedence instead of an assertion of belief in causality based on a nonexistant correlation. Now, unless I'm mistaken (which I'm not) AGW says warmer temperatures produce more snow (go figure), so if there's less snow.... hmmmmmmm, thats a toughie.

Himalayan Glaciers ? A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change. by V.K. Raina | Climate Realists

 

[konradv]

Won't this eventually boil down to population control?

If humans emit CO2, and CO2 is the culprit, controlling carbon emissions and such merely prolongs the inevitable.

Until we start killing people simply for emitting CO2, we're not serious about "saving" this planet.

Posting walls of text and numbers doesn't do shit to address the real effects of an imaginary problem.

Rocks, Matthew.....

you're both going to die, and the planet isn't.

Both of you need to get laid, or play a game of baseball, or take a ride on a roller coaster.

You both need lives, outside of the Internet, and beyond the propaganda.

You'd only be correct if the number of humans exhaling CO2 exceded the ability of the earth to deal with it. At the present time we're about 30-40% over historical averages since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. So obviously we're overdoing it there. Of course, that represents billions of tons og CO2 emitted DAILY. If we cut substantially into that, the earth should be able to keep up with our exhalations, making your point moot.

 

[BenNatuf]

Won't this eventually boil down to population control?

If humans emit CO2, and CO2 is the culprit, controlling carbon emissions and such merely prolongs the inevitable.

Until we start killing people simply for emitting CO2, we're not serious about "saving" this planet.

Posting walls of text and numbers doesn't do shit to address the real effects of an imaginary problem.

Rocks, Matthew.....

you're both going to die, and the planet isn't.

Both of you need to get laid, or play a game of baseball, or take a ride on a roller coaster.

You both need lives, outside of the Internet, and beyond the propaganda.

You'd only be correct if the number of humans exhaling CO2 exceded the ability of the earth to deal with it. At the present time we're about 30-40% over historical averages since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. So obviously we're overdoing it there. Of course, that represents billions of tons og CO2 emitted DAILY. If we cut substantially into that, the earth should be able to keep up with our exhalations, making your point moot.

The assetion that CO2 is 30to 40% over preindustrial averages is unproven and according to some data untrue. The idea that all of the increase there is, is not natural is also unproven and more than likey bogus.

Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years

 

[BenNatuf]

more on Hansen and GISS and how they fudge the GISS temperature record

Climate Observations: GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data

I guess I should have said moron hansen and how he perpetrates a fraud.

hottest year my ass

 

[Old Rocks]

Ben, you are truly full of shit. We have direct measurements of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere back to 800,000 years ago in the ice cores.

And no matter what asses like you spout, Dr. Hansen is and will continue to be one of the most respected scientists in the world.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The point of this thread is to post temperature data and to discuse temperature data and the differences within the natural and human forcings on it between other years and in context within them.

This thread is not to Bash James Hansen or to discuse co2 or its effect on the temperatures or historic co2. It is a thread to discuse enso or any other factors that is a natural forcing that effects the temperature.


I don't give a **** about the fraud within this thread. Please start another thread to discuse the ******* possible fraud or lie that you believe to be so.
If you believe it to be a crock of shit then make a new thread.


I wish to get back to comparing 2010 to 2005, 1998 through looking at the forcing and how the set up effected them differently. In hopefully we can do it for 2011 soon.

 

[BenNatuf]

Ben, you are truly full of shit. We have direct measurements of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere back to 800,000 years ago in the ice cores.

And no matter what asses like you spout, Dr. Hansen is and will continue to be one of the most respected scientists in the world.

I take it you've not heard of mixing? pressure? diffusion? all that shit that effects the gas in the ice cores. They are good for millennial averaging only and then its not certain they are entirely accurate. we do not have "direct measurements", we have meaasurements of minute air bubbles that have been mixed, squoze, released recaptured and compressed.

Dr hansen is a fraud, a quack, a liar, a charlatan, and nothing more than an activist with a title. His work is sloppy and has been critiqued so harshly he's had to retract it in the past. He uses deceptive techniques to create warming where none exists and to erase coooling where it does exist. the guy is a ******* fraud. Unlike you I have posted the SCIENCE to back up my assertions while you have done nothing but come in here and grovel at the feet of a fraud.

Jaworowski and his followers insist that ice cores are invalid media for determining CO2 concentrations in Earth&#8217;s prehistoric atmospheres, because:

1.Ice sheets are NOT closed systems that trap gases mechanically and preserve them indefinitely. Instead, liquid saline water can exist in ice at temperatures below &#8211;70° C, within a permeable ice sheet where a capillary liquid network acts as a sieve to redistribute elements, isotopes and micro-particles.
2.Air recovered from old ice is contaminated during field and laboratory operations.
3.The widely accepted pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level of 290 ppm rests on biased rejections of high CO2 readings in ice cores. Early studies on ice cores consistently showed a range of CO2 readings that were higher than later studies &#8211; in one case, a study by the same researcher on the same ice core showed different numbers in different years...

D. Raynaud and coauthors [9] admit that &#8220;several processes could cause the gas record measured in ice samples to be different from the original atmospheric composition.&#8221; They list the following processes:

&#8226;absorption of gases on the surface of snow and ice crystals,
&#8226;separation by gravity and molecular diffusion of the gases in the ice column,
&#8226;alteration of gas composition by formation of air hydrates at great depths in the ice sheet or by presence of drilling-induced fractures or thermal cracks in ice samples,
&#8226;alteration by chemical interaction between gases and ice on long time scales.

Admittedly Jaworski was partially rebutted on some of his issues, but it matters not at all as all of the concerns he had about using ice core air bubbles as a proxy are known to be real issues and even the accolites of AGW mythos admit it. Rather than use a resource that we know is not accurate, and even when it could be is only accurate enough to give near approximations of millennial averages, why not use the better resources? Stomatal research, sediments, pollen and geologic proxies. All are more accurate than ice cores and all show CO2 both more variable and higher than your hero's can admit and still have their model toys work. That would be why they don't use them... if people find out the science is deeply flawed the cash cow will dry up and the grant stooges will have to find a new schtick.

http://hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geophysical-Artifacts

 

[skookerasbil]

Temperature in Maine tonight................



minus 50

http://new.bangordailynews.com/?id=164627



tell those folks about CO2 levels!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

This thread is NOT about co2 or fraud. It is about global temperature and comparing the years with others. That is what it is. Make a new thread to discuse the fraud.

 

[BenNatuf]

The point of this thread is to post temperature data and to discuse temperature data and the differences within the natural and human forcings on it between other years and in context within them.

I have posted temperature data and I have posted links which show the methodology of the data your posting is flawed... deeply flawed. As far as discussing "human forcings" goes, why the **** would i want to discuss the workings of a myth?

This thread is not to Bash James Hansen or to discuse co2 or its effect on the temperatures or historic co2. It is a thread to discuse enso or any other factors that is a natural forcing that effects the temperature.

and I've done that, but if you don't want to discuss the fraud who publishes the crap weather data, use another source. And how the **** could you possibly discuss the "human forcing" myth without talking about CO2?

I don't give a **** about the fraud within this thread. Please start another thread to discuse the ******* possible fraud or lie that you believe to be so.
If you believe it to be a crock of shit then make a new thread.

Why would you not want to discuss the veracity of the data you post if you want to talk about it comparatively? How the **** can you make a comparison between an apple and an anvil if you don't know ones an apple and ones an anvil?

I wish to get back to comparing 2010 to 2005, 1998 through looking at the forcing and how the set up effected them differently. In hopefully we can do it for 2011 soon.

I don't care what you don't care about. So long as you post fraudulent weather data from GISS I will post the data from other sources that refute their silly claims. You want to discuss 2010, 2005 and 1998, but you don't want to know that the data showing 2005 and 2010 to be warmer than 1998 has been manipulated to show it... why would you want to compare inaccurate and incompatible data sets? You want to dicuss them? fine

1998 was likely the hottest year in the instrumental period since the 1940's, proboboly largely due to a huge el nino.
2005 was likely the hottest year since 1998, though at least one year in the late 30's and early 40's may have been warmer, its hard to tell because this is about the time when the real manipulation started.
2010 wasn't, Evedence shows the record for 2010 was manipulated and fabricated even more than 2005, the temperature record cannot be trusted.

actually evedence shows all records since some time in the 80's has a pronounced warm bias in it. but you don't want to tak about that.