Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 49262
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2019/05/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2008/2/26-3/4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:49262 Activity:nil
2/26    Wow, so it *has* been a cold year
        \_ Global warming, baby! And when we are in the next Ice Age it
           will also be a product of global warming just like it was
           overfishing that crashed the sardine fishery in Monterey.
           \_ Data point != trend
              See also "dead cat bounce"
              \_ Good, then we can stop hearing about how hot 1998 was?
               \_ Big flucutations are what you get when you add a lot
                  of chaos to a stable system.  Look at the trend.  The deltas
                  are getting bigger and on average getting higher.  If after
                  say 3-4 years things stay down then come back to us.
                  \_ Yah, when you can explain 1940-1970 I'll listen to you.
                  \_ Gore and friends are wrong but I wish they were right.  A
                     slightly warmer planet is better for humanity.
2019/05/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/1/28-2/19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54591 Activity:nil
1/28    "'Charities' Funnel Millions to Climate-Change Denial" (
        And they're getting tax-deduction out of it!
        \_ Climate denialism should quality for the religious exemption.
        \_ Koch, yes, Koch and his ilk give "millions" to this kind of thing.
           How much is spent on the other side of the issue?
2012/6/22-7/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54420 Activity:nil
6/22    "Study: The U.S. could be powered by 80% green energy in 2050"  (
        \_ How many Republicans does it take to make green energy?
           -150,000,000! Ding ding ding!
           \_ Because having control of the White House and both houses of
              Congress wasn't enough (ie, the do nothing and blame the
2010/8/3-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53908 Activity:nil
        'Russia's largest circulation newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda, ran a
        headline on July 31 that asked, "Is the Russian heat wave the result
        of the USA testing its climate weapon?" The daily's answer was "Yes,
        Yeah, let us use our climate weapon on the California climate so that
2010/4/20-5/10 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53792 Activity:nil
4/20    "Spring comes 10 days earlier in changed U.S. climate"
2009/11/26-12/6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53545 Activity:nil
11/26   "New climate targets may not change daily life much"
        \_ Glenn Beck says that trying to meet these climate targets will
           lead to a worldwide socialist regime.
2009/11/23-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53539 Activity:high
11/22   What no chatter about the Climate Hack?  MOTD, I'm so diappointed
        \_ What is impressive about breaking onto an academic server? I
           broke onto the Astronomy machines when I was a sophmore.
           \_ Way to miss the point. The hack itself was not impressive.
              The information that was exposed, however, make the above
              thread kind of moot.
2008/8/8-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50821 Activity:nil
        "WASHINGTON (AFP) - US and British researchers have *confirmed* the
        link between warmer climate and an increase in powerful rainstorms,
        according to a study released Thursday that underscores one of the
        challenges of global warming."
Cache (8192 bytes) ->
January 2008 - 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months 19 02 2008 January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling. January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year. Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top: UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. here (RSS Data Version 31) The purpose of this summary is to make it easy for everyone to compare the last 4 postings I've made on this subject. I realize that not all the graphs are of the same scale, so my next task will be to run a combined graphic of all the data-sets on identical amplitude and time scales to show the agreements or differences such a graph would illustrate. Here is a quick comparison and average of DeltaT for all metrics shown above: Source: Global DeltaT C HadCRUT - 0595 GISS - 0750 UAH - 0588 RSS - 0629 Average: - 06405C For all four metrics the global average DeltaT for January 2007 to January 2008 is: - 06405C This represents an average between the two lower troposphere satellite metrics (RSS and UAH) and the two land-ocean metrics (GISS and HadCRUT). While some may argue that they are not compatible data-sets, since they are derived by different methods (Satellite -Microwave Sounder Unit and direct surface temperature measurements) I would argue that the average of these four metrics is a measure of temperature, nearest where we live, the surface and near surface atmosphere. The total amount of cooling ranges from 065C up to 075C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down." I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: "-a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years" There has been no "erasure". This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not "erase" anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied. weather 85 responses to "January 2008 - 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past12 months" 19 02 2008 Jeff in Seattle (19:06:37) : Seems like GISS is the odd man out and should be discarded as an "adjustment". This is at the recommendation of the WMO I think that would be 71-2000 (which should still cover the "modern global warming" period). Remember, GISS consistantly shows as the "hottest" because of the reference period (51-80, I believe), while HadCRU and NCDC use later time periods. we're already almost a decade past that and inconveniently, showing, a dramatic decline in temps. This past 7 years has already given back all of the gain of the past 150 years. Shows how vulnerable the purported changes are to real results. The January temperature is the lowest for any month since 1994, and the lowest for a month unaffected by volcanic eruptions in 20 years. January 2008 was cooler than January 1932, even after all the downwards adjustments they have applied to the old data. There's way too much noise to pluck anything of value from the N Pole data, but the MSU data shows the Extratropics have dropped 094 deg C in the last 12 months. Dependent on the time lag between the SOI and the La Nina (2 to six months typically) we're in for some chillier weather for a couple more months, assuming one believes ENSO has an impact on global temp. How long is the lag between solar and global temperature? We won't be seeing the rest of the recent drop in TSI for a few more years now. This is why I keep saying I'm not going to analyze the surfacestation data until the survey is complete. Avfuktare vind sanering krypgrund (04:46:28) : So, the oceans have turned cooler or at the very least stayed the same over the last few years, and the temperature of the atmosphere have cooled significantly over the last decade. The idea of "committed warming", ie a strong radiative imbalance is rather hard to reconcile with the fact that the climate system has lost heat. It should be time to 1) use a relatively short response time to perturbations for the climate system when calculating the sensitivity and 2) admit that either the sun or possibly ocean currents play a much bigger role then admitted by the IPCC. If that happens we could soon be back in record warm temperatures. On the other hand it is pleasant to see the low temperatures on the graph. I am not a scientists but am having trouble with the current adjustments They seem to be designed to make the recent trend warmer. I just wonder if GISS is trying to adjust the older records up to match current UHI levels? I will not say they are deliberately changing the record, but I do have trouble in that they do seem to have personal bias toward warming and their adjustments seem to show that. We need to get back to raw data and eliminate the microbias stations from the USHCN and start using good methodology. From the layman's point of view I want climate science that I can trust. If we are going to use proxies, use ones that are conclusive (not tree rings that might be moisture related, CO2 related, or temperature related). That is *exactly* what I thought the instant I saw their data. Looks like they knew they were overestimating for a long time, and this was a great time to adjust their reporting to be in line with everyone else. And this is odd, condsidering their recent adjustments to NOAA data are nil-they don't push current temps UP (any more than the NOAA), they have been pushing past temperatures DOWN. "I wonder if there will be a scientific consensus that this temperature drop was not caused by humans?" No comment on the subject would probably translate to "not human". OTOH, there are those who say "it's Global Warming" (Dr. edu/amsutemps/ by clicking on the graphs you could roughly calculate the temps for feb up to current but as Anthony says it wont be relaible as it's going up and down ect but its still below (that's the lower troposphere data) REPLY: I've visited this resource and I've seen some errors in the way javascript presents the data on that website, so take it with some caveats that it may not accurately represent the result due to it being an interactive web application. There are plenty of variables that could alter the absolute temperature for each study. But if these numbers truly represented a global average temperature, there should be a very high degree of agreement over the delta T Particularly in the most recent, and presumably most reliable, numbers. When the data for the single most precisely measured year, shows a disagreement equal to fully 1/4 of the claimed total change, the system simply isn't knowable at a relevant level. Assuming all the numbers are gathered and adjusted in good faith, that data can only get less precise in preceding years. A larger drop in GISS simply indicates that the poles got colder faster than the rest of the globe. I would not read too much into the difference between them. That said, I am not convinced that GISS polar measurement estimates have any connection with reality but that is a seperate issue. except for the part about it being nice to see low temperatures on the graph. El Nino/La Nina effects on ocean temps (+/- 5 degrees from equator, 120-170 degrees West. shtml 20 02 2008 Obsessive Ponderer (12:15:30) : Anthony, When you redo the data for the temperatures to a common reference, could you make the raw data available on your website? I have some neat statistical software I am playing with, find it frustrating using all the difference data sets and don't have a really good idea how to change it all to a common reference. REPLY: There are links to the raw data below each graph, maybe you missed them? edu/amsutemps/ by clicking on the graphs you could roughly calculate the temps for feb up to current but as Anthony says it wont be relaible as...