Global Warming Carries On

Aargh ! The Global Warming Obstructionists / Delayers / Denialists are going to SWARM me !

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.changecollege.org.uk/html/global_warming_carries_on.html

Global Warming Carries On
by Jo Abbess
15th April 2008

Today, Oisin from Climate Change News Digest pointed me in the direction of the NASA data for all the years 1880 to the present :-

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I did a simple experiment. I imported the data into © Microsoft ® Excel ™ and did two things :-

1. Charted the data line for each month and year superimposed (see chart above).

2. Charted a trendline for each month (left as an exercise for the reader).

I found four clear results, which you are encouraged to see for yourselves :-

a. The trendline for the period 1880 to 2008 for each month is rising.

b. The trendlines are diverging : the Winter months of January, February and March are getting hotter, faster.

c. There have been a couple of cold months in the past that are outliers, just like January and February were for 2008.

d. As of March 2008, the cooling effect of La Nina ENSO appears to be over.

This is very serious stuff.

So, why is Gordon Brown following the money crisis, when the Climate Change is so critical ?

Why does he think that any intervention can keep the Economy growing, given the global problems with food, Climate and Energy ?

And why does he think that OPEC can increase oil production, when they have most likely hit peak production ?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
7th April 2008
James Hansen et alia.
Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet. A rising price on carbon emissions and payment for carbon sequestration is surely needed to make drawdown of airborne CO2 a reality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7345928.stm
14th April 2008
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he understands people's fears over the economy and insisted that keeping it on track was his "sole focus". "We are on the side of home owners, business and individuals," he said. As in past crises, ministers would do "everything in our power to keep the economy moving forward", he said.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKN1547233820080415
15th April 2008
Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Tuesday called on the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to boost production to counter rapidly rising oil prices, adding his voice to similar requests from the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. "We are not producing enough oil ... and we can take collective action to persuade OPEC and others to get the oil price down," Brown said in an interview on Sky Television.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Am I missing something ? Oh yes..the 'Man made' bit..

Interesting stuff. I haven't imported or analysed the data myself so I'll take your word for it Jo, that the trends are as you indicate.

But tell me, where are the CO2 data ? Where is the link with man's activities ? Do these data show (or even perhaps prove) that CO2 is a factor in these temperature rises ? And are there any other periods in earth's history where similar increases (or decreases) in temperature might be seen ? What correlation might there be between similar events ? What statistical model should be used (bearing in mind that each statistical *model* comes with it's own inherent biases !).

As was mentioned in another post - I have a graph that links global warming to the decline in the numbers of pirates!

So the lines go up, as they have done in the past, and they might go down, as they have done in the past. There is however, no causal data. They are just lines and to afford these lines the label of 'fact' and then tell everyone that this is a result of man's activities is foolish, naive and just plain wrong !

Lies, damned lies and statistics (courtesy of Benjamin Disraeli).

p.s. "Obstructionists / Delayers / Denialists" ...... could we please add another, far more accurate catagory -'discussionists' - as that is what we really are. The labels you have used above smack of a closed mind, one that is not open to scientific debate or reasoned analysis and it significantly weakens any 'argument' you might have.

Discussionism

>>p.s. "Obstructionists / Delayers / Denialists" ...... could we please add another, far more accurate catagory -'discussionists'
good idea.

A discussionist viewpoint :)

At the risk of repeating the previous post.

Theres no demonstration of causality.

a&b
You're creating a chart using a calculated set of figures supplied to you, are you sure they are 100% accurate reflection of reality?

c
Dismissing results you don't like isn't even science (it's politics). I've worked in science, if you get an outlier you need to explain it before it's discounted.

d
Mind telling me how you reached such a sweeping conclusion. Please include all source data and statisical/mathmatical proofs

If you don't focus on the "money crisis" it's tricky to pay for the "climate crisis".

Came across this link (as you're so fond of them)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/...

it's about 18months old, but does include a link to a 40 page document full of explainations.

Very interesting report

Thanks for that link Barelysane - that report makes for *very* interesting reading !

Another link

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/23/global_warming_yawn/

It's a top level article, need to follow a few of the links, the Dyson Climate models article is interesting.

and another one

just found this article signed by 60 climate scientists

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87...

if i can find the details they speak about i'll post the link

googling the scientists names seems to be a good start

Found this site by googling one of the names in the open letter

http://www.nrsp.com/background.html

Followed a link to this quote in an article which I found interesting

According to an article authored by John McLean and Tom Harris, published in the Dec. 14th Canada Free Press, only 600 of the 2,500 IPCC scientists reviewed the specific multi-chaptered report related to the possibility of man-made global warming adversely affecting the environment. Of those 600 scientists, 308 made comments, but only 62 reviewed and made comments regarding the critical Chapter 9 related to man and his activities being the primary cause of climate change. Of those 62, fifty-five are said to have a serious vested interest, which leaves very few credible IPCC scientists out of the 2,500 who supposedly agree that global warming is manmade.

The article is found here

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

Interesting article