Re: excellent article on global warming

In article <c0jvv49hplqsci0o3dm8hci8qq15s9tarq@xxxxxxx>, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 4, 1:29 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

The antartic ice  is above long term trend:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and the arctic ice is below long term trend
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

No, you mean it's below the cherry picked cyclical peak.

This is one reason why I wouldn't trust a 'climate change' advocate to
tell me if it were raining outside. They always cherry pick some
cyclical peak to compare against. If it's temperature they pick the
end of the little ice age and then, oh my, oh my, it's gotten warmer.

The past decade was warmer than even Loehle's reconstruction of the
medieval warm period.

Hey, no kidding? I guess that's why it's no longer an ice age, eh?

Here they pick a 1978 peak but sssshhhh... don't talk about anything
prior. Like that the current ice shrinkage is NOTHING NEW and
completely within cyclical bounds.

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdf

As of no later than the latest year mentioned in that article, which is
2000. Arctic sea ice accomplished much, maybe most of its post-1979
shrinkage after 2000.

"Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which
wouldn't be happening if global warming were real.

Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to
disprove a global trend is dead in the water.

You mean like the arctic ice ***?

No, of course not. It's only a problem with 'their' regional
phenomenon, not 'your' regional phenomenon.

Anthropogenic global
warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe.
We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

How about assessing the global temperature monitoring. No longer
convenient it shows no warming but a slight cooling trend, eh?

Gets worse too because, after error correction, 1998 wasn't "the
hottest year on record."

So what was? 2005? Links to *current* graphs of global surface
temperature anomaly follow:

Currently, HadCRUT-3 has 1998 hottest since 1850, and 2nd hottest was
2005.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

GISS has 2005 being hottest since 1880. The square for 2004 is largely
obscured, making the peak appear to be 1994 and the last point to be 2007.
1998 and 2007 are roughly in a tie for 2nd.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

GISS shows extremely slightly greater warming trend than HadCRUT-3 does,
probably by including polar areas that HadCRUT-3 does not include. The
Arctic has been warming much faster than the rest of the world has.

NCDC only has a graph going to 2007 so far, and shows 2005 as hottest
year since 1880. 1998 is in second place.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

RSS MSU TLT ("temperature lower troposphere"), is sometimes referred to
as just RSS even though they provide interpretations of MSU satellite data
for other levels of the atmosphere.

Looks like that one has 1998 being hottest since 1979 as of early
October 2008: (My newsreader forces me to put this in 2 lines):

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/
SC_RSS_compare_TS_channel_TLT_Land_and_Sea.png

(Excudes poleward of 70 S and 82.5 N, and where surface is 3 KM or
higher.)

UAH has their own lower troposphere temperature interpretation of MSU
satellite data. Looks like 12 month running mean taken in the month of
December was highest since 1979 in 1998 and second-highest in 2005.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

<SNIP>

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Quantcast