| Author |
Message |
    
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 552
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:44 pm: | 
|
"Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.
The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.
If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."
Global temps have not risen since 1998?! Wow, and I was starting to believe all the propaganda. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6730
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 04:17 pm: |
|
I don't think one year makes a trend. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 553
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 05:01 pm: |
|
Denny, it's 10 years. No change since 1998. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6731
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 05:37 pm: |
|
Thanks, Ron...I've gotta stop trying to think before I'm awake! But, I'd still like to compare this single data point to others before I decide.... |
Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley
Post Number: 5372
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 05:50 pm: |
|
Global warming "stopped in 1998": Fox News host Brit Hume and a Washington Times editorial both cited a misleading statistic to suggest that global warming might have "stopped in 1998" because of a "negligible decrease in temperature" since that year. While 1998 was the hottest year on record, according to the Climatic Research Unit, an examination of temperature data since 1998 undermines the assertion that global warming "stopped" in that year. For example, neither mentioned the fact that five different years since 1998 (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005) have seen warmer temperatures than any year preceding 1998, according to Climatic Research Unit figures. Nor did they explain that 2005 was the second-warmest year on record, according to the Climatic Research Unit, and the hottest year on record when analysis of warming in the Arctic is taken into account, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. |
Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley
Post Number: 5373
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 05:52 pm: |
|
 |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 555
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 07:43 pm: |
|
Either the temps are rising or they ain't. Which is it? |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6732
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 07:47 pm: |
|
Chumley makes my point that one year doesn't make a trend. Just because 1998 was warmer than a more current year doesn't mean that there isn't a long term trend. Same way daily weather is different than climate. |
Belly Buster Bob
Senior Member
Username: Canman
Post Number: 3019
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2008 - 12:27 am: |
|
I think anyone who even gets involved in these discussions on either side of the fence is a wack job. The earth is changing and has been since birth. The earth itself will continue to emit thousands of times more greenhouse gasses naturally than any humans ever will.
The global warming scheme is for making money people.....there....I too am a wack job |
Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok
Post Number: 219
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2008 - 08:35 pm: |
|
And I for one am all for making money.
For every 100 buck I receive, I will plant one mighty oak tree. That way you can feel good that something is being done.
Disclaimer, I will plant one egg corn that I found laying on the ground. It could, maybe, a few hundred years from now, be a mighty oak.
And that, in a nut shell, is how carbon credits work.
Oh, and NASA has conceded that 1998 was NOT the warmest year on record. They made a mistake that year. 2005 was the warmest in the past 100 years. Go to NASA.gov and do a search. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6736
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2008 - 09:09 pm: |
|
If you plant an egg corn, do you get chickens? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 04:06 am: |
|
People who are selling Carbon Credits should be jailed.
People who buy Carbon Credits should be put on display in bamboo cages and poked with sharp sticks. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 8709
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 10:31 am: |
|
Carbon credits are a shell game worthy of the late Ken Lay of Enron shame. I cringe every time I watch a movie that proclaims, usually somewhere late in the credits, it is "carbon neutral." |
David Lewinnek
Intermediate Member
Username: Davelew
Post Number: 450
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 03:26 pm: |
|
Average global surface temperatures are a poor measure of anything. The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium (day-night changes, winter-summer changes, etc.) which makes measurement difficult. There are more sensors on land than in the sea, which tends to lead to selection bias. Plus, surface temperature is not as important as temperature at depth when it comes to climate change, it's just easier to measure. The issue is like taking a temperature measurememnt of your mash tun without stirring, and only looking at surface temperatures-- it's hard to get a meaningful number.
When it comes to global warming, looking at natural phenomona such as volume of ice in the polar ice caps, volume of ice in glaciers, and animal ranges is more useful.
The polar ice caps especially do an excellent job of providing a long-term average of temperatures in a meaningful way, and they have been declining at a rate of 2.5% +/- 1.0% a decade since accurate tracking began with passive microwave satellites in the 1970s. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 557
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 04:08 pm: |
|
David, are all glaciers in the world declining? I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that there are some glaciers that are actually growing.
I would think that global warming would effect all glaciers, just not some right? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 5497
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 04:34 pm: |
|
Shifting temperature patterns can cause some areas to go in opposite directions. I saw a show about a drought in ancient Egypt that is believed to have been caused by a warming that caused the Gulf stream reduce or switch off. Obviously Northern Europe got colder but North Africa and the Mideast got hotter.
It would be quite an assumption to think that global warming would effect all areas evenly or even in the same direction. |
David Lewinnek
Intermediate Member
Username: Davelew
Post Number: 451
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 07:06 pm: |
|
Ron, the Earth is not at one temperature. There are hot spots and cold spots. Climate change can move the hot spots around, resulting in some areas actually getting cooler, even as the average spot gets warmer.
In fact, there's an increasing trend in Antarctic ice right now, growing at about 0.5% per decade over the last 25 years or so. At the same time, Arctic ice is decreasing at 2.5% per decade. Even though the voume of ice usually thought of as a great indicator of trends, the two polar ice caps are seeing different effects.
Part of this is that the mountain ranges in Antartica block some of the air from moving, so the Antarctic air is typically colder and less polluted. So the Antarctic sees fewer greenhouse gases and is colder. On the other hand, the Antarctic gets so cold that there are small amounts of carbon dioxide ice in the upper atmosphere, so some chemical reactions that require a solid substrate (such as CFCs degrading ozone in the upper atmosphere) only occur in the antarctic, even though there are high concentrations of pollutants in other places.
In the end, climate change is incredibly complicated, and can't be summed up by one number like "global average temperature" or short sound bites suitable for the nightly news. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6737
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 07:59 pm: |
|
Just to make this relevant...
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200804081862.htm |
Kevin Kowalczyk
Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer
Post Number: 218
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 07:59 pm: |
|
Coincidentally, I posted the Onion's response to that story in the humor thread. Since it is relevant, I'll cross post here:
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/beer_production_threatened_by
Which one of you is a neighbor to the guy in the middle? |
World Expressions