2005 has almost hotter global temperature averages than 1998, which is the hottest year ever on record.

The signs are so out there and I would say to a large extent irrefutable. People who question whether the weather systems are really 'destabilising' most obviously have their heads in the sand , I am led to believe.

Here's an article from our local newspaper on extreme weather that is happening globally. Perhaps these ideas will persuade you to get this into discussion and get your representatives to pressurise governments (especially the US and Australia) to do WAY MORE STUFF THAN THEYRE CURRENTLY DOING , to reduce our most obvious fingerprint on this planet.

Come on, we're not a virus, we don't take over this planet and remove all life from it ?!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/12/16/1134703607512.html

Hottest year on record as extreme weather lashes globe

By Deborah Smith Science Editor
December 17, 2005


THIS year is Australia's hottest on record and may be the planet's warmest for thousands of years.

Extreme weather events also soared, with a historic hurricane season in the north Atlantic and heatwaves and flooding on most continents, according to an annual review by the World Meteorological Organisation.

Michael Coughlan of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said 2005 and 1998 were vying to be the hottest years on record globally, with only two weeks of measurements to be made. "Nineteen ninety-eight has its nose in front, but the race is not over yet."

Dr Coughlan said the record warmth in 1998 was helped along by a strong El Nino event - a warming of the equatorial waters in the Pacific Ocean occurring every three to seven years that tends to increase global temperatures. "The 2005 warmth is remarkable for the fact that it occurred in the absence of an El Nino event," he said.

Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said temperatures had risen sharply in the past few decades due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

"The last time the Earth was this warm was about 5000 or 6000 years ago."

Temperatures would continue to climb, with the warming possibly intensified by factors such as an increase in wildfires that release carbon dioxide.

A hotter Earth could also release carbon dioxide from organic matter in the soil, and warmer oceans could be less able to absorb carbon dioxide from the air.

"The future is notoriously hard to predict, but climatically speaking we are probably in for a rather wild ride," Professor Steffen said.

Richard Whitaker, a consultant meteorologist, said climate change was likely to increase the severity of extreme weather in Australia and around the world.

He said Australia had become complacent about the risk of severe cyclones and storm surges, despite witnessing the devastation of the hurricane season in the US.

Cities such as Townsville, Rockhampton, Cairns and possibly Brisbane could be struck by a severe cyclone similar to the one that severely damaged Townsville in 1971.

In 1998 the average global surface temperature was 0.54 degrees above the 30-year annual average for the years 1961 to 1990. This year's temperature has so far been 0.48 degrees above the average. Final figures will be released in February.

Actually, we have been pressing our government to withdraw from Kyoto, seeing the lack of science it has shown lately, and the abnormally cool two years in a row we had (2004 and 2005 -I am speaking about Argentina that has been cooling since 1987, but this is getting cold down here and we would like some more warmth). :D ;)

But they wouldn't listen to us, they are eager to cash some more dough from suckers in European countries selling "emission credits"... You see, money grabbing is not just something industries or oil companies do. :mad:

Actually, we have been pressing our government to withdraw from Kyoto, seeing the lack of science it has shown lately, and the abnormally cool two years in a row we had (2004 and 2005 -I am speaking about Argentina that has been cooling since 1987, but this is getting cold down here and we would like some more warmth). :D ;)

But they wouldn't listen to us, they are eager to cash some more dough from suckers in European countries selling "emission credits"... You see, money grabbing is not just something industries or oil companies do. :mad:

Not sure where you're saying that Kyoto had a lack of science drawn to it. For all the nations to initially have agreed to the Kyoto pact meant that there was a HELLUVA lot of science to it. It's only since the U.S. and George W. jnr. decided to withdrawal that the doubtful side of the arguments have been given their say... Place all the propaganda you have there in the US on top of that and you actually get the impression that fuel guzzling SUV's and coal powered plants are not a major problem...

Don't worry too much about Argentina mate, worry about the global mean... Just because there is cold weather in one place does not mean that's a necessarily good thing. I think the problem is that the weather systems are CHANGING dramatically, and in which ways they are changing is uncertain. So for example, the huge number of hurricanes that occurred over this last year in the US is due to INCREASED ocean temperatures and thus most of the rain that normally got scattered over the amazon now occurs in flooding over the SE US. That extra hurricane activity has created a NEW weather profile, and this in turn effects many other sources.

So some places might become colder due to different weather circulation systems which has been affected by higher average temperatures due to the amonuts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And frankly, it looks like people in the U.S. don't give a shit!

Let's not get into the debate of money grubbing here, that's everywhere and just reflects the humans selfish desire for power....

For one, if I was selling emission credits I would be quite happy to know that I am contributing to the GOOD of the planet and I would be feeling no guilt. I use green electricty, which means all of my electricity comes from renewable resources .... I feel good about that. I am not a smoke stacker like 99% of the population..

Good then.

This is a newspaper article and does not state what the records are or who keeps them - what records? Anyways, having said that and done, don't think that I'm taking offense at your posting, as I am guilty of often citing scientists who report directly to Reuters and CNN myself - and see nothing wrong with doing this! The article states:

"Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said temperatures had risen sharply in the past few decades due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions: "The last time the Earth was this warm was about 5000 or 6000 years ago."

Why would the temperatures have been warmer 5-6000 years ago, when were just out of a glacier period 10,000 years ago?

They also state that "2005 and 1998 were vying to be the hottest years on record," However, now, the normal 3-7 year cyclic heating from El Nino warming cannot be attributed to this 2005 warming, as it did in 1998. There is no El Nino now. This adds credence to the cause: Global Warming!

Actually, we have been pressing our government to withdraw from Kyoto, seeing the lack of science it has shown lately, and the abnormally cool two years in a row we had (2004 and 2005 -I am speaking about Argentina that has been cooling since 1987, but this is getting cold down here and we would like some more warmth). :D ;)

But they wouldn't listen to us, they are eager to cash some more dough from suckers in European countries selling "emission credits"... You see, money grabbing is not just something industries or oil companies do. :mad:

So because Argentina is cooling, that meants global warming is a myth? By the way the call it GLOBAL Warming for a reason.

I wouldn't worry anyway, since America has made it clear they will never cut emissions, unless the reduction in green house gases can be replaced by renewables.

I wouldn't worry anyway, since America has made it clear they will never cut emissions, unless the reduction in green house gases can be replaced by renewables.

The incentive level to make renewable energy is just about null if there is not a push in that direction, so I doubt any great advances will be happening in the U.S. before Bush's term is completed...

Much easier to sit where you are than to sell a few parts, refine your model, and go take a walk in the dark.....


p.s. interesting read in your blogspace there Kenny.. Interesting.

Another interesting thing is that Russia has signed Kyoto, the remaining country that pulled the pact into power. What if Russia now invents modes of transport that are much lighter on fuel and less polluting ? There would be plenty of incentive there to create low polluting power plants as well.

What's America, the biggest polluter going to do ? They will simply steal this technology and ride their wave.... What a shame it would be to see this happen when by all means Russia deserves all the respect and kindness and wealth.....

Random jounralist ramblings I guess.. I take some of that at face value..

I would imagine Will Steffen did some research and found that the last time temperatures where this warm according to whatever projects he was involved in found that to be true... Maybe run a Will Steffen google search ;)

This is a newspaper article and does not state what the records are or who keeps them - what records? Anyways, having said that and done, don't think that I'm taking offense at your posting, as I am guilty of often citing scientists who report directly to Reuters and CNN myself - and see nothing wrong with doing this! The article states:

"Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said temperatures had risen sharply in the past few decades due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions: "The last time the Earth was this warm was about 5000 or 6000 years ago."

Why would the temperatures have been warmer 5-6000 years ago, when were just out of a glacier period 10,000 years ago?

Another interesting thing is that Russia has signed Kyoto, the remaining country that pulled the pact into power. What if Russia now invents modes of transport that are much lighter on fuel and less polluting ? There would be plenty of incentive there to create low polluting power plants as well.

What's America, the biggest polluter going to do ? They will simply steal this technology and ride their wave.... What a shame it would be to see this happen when by all means Russia deserves all the respect and kindness and wealth.....

Thats the thing, cutting emissions doesn't mean economical ruin. Britain cut emissions 15 percent between 1990-2002, while boosting its economy 36%.

So because Argentina is cooling, that meants global warming is a myth? By the way the call it GLOBAL Warming for a reason.
“Global” means “everywhere” in the world, isn’t it? Then, Most of South America is cooling; Greenland have been cooling for the past 50 years; Antarctica has cooled for the past 35 years; many places in the world have cooled slightly; other parts have warmed slightly; the United States has warmed since 1900 an average of 0.169º C. So, it is not global, it is regional.

32 states in the continental USA have warmed by +0.503º C, while 16 states have cooled by -0.334º C, giving a total warming of 0.169º C –not much warming in my humble opinion. (Read it: Ghostbusting Temperatures (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html)

Of course, “Warmers” have invented the Ideal Undefeatable Hypothesis: if it warms somewhere, if it cools somewhere; if it rains a lot, if it is dry, it there are hurricanes, if there are not, if it snows in Miami, or Somalia, or the Arab emirates; if there are terrible and unprecedented blizzards in the US northeast; or unprecedented freezing temperature in Spain; then blame it on Global Warming. You can’t lose the bet. Anything that happens, it is caused by warming. Next time make you ice cubes for your sodas in your kitchen oven…

But hypotheses and theories must be proved, contrasted against real world observations. And there is not a single evidence that points to an abnormal, or “dramatic” or “catastrophic” warming, either local, regional or global. In any case, the slight warming observed has been highly beneficial for mankind, as increase in crop yield in my country Argentina:

There is a recently published study by Magrin, G.O., Travasso, M.I. and Rodriguez, G.R. 2005. "Changes in climate and crop production during the 20th century in Argentina." Climatic Change 72: 229-249, stating : “…technological improvements account for most of the observed changes in crop yields during the second part of the 20th century, which totaled 110% for maize, 56% for wheat and 102% for sunflower”, Magrin et al. report that “… due to changes in climate between the periods 1950-70 and 1970-99, yields increased by 38% in soybean, 18% in maize, 13% in wheat, and 12% in sunflower.

Twentieth-century climate change, which is claimed by climate alarmists to have been unprecedented over the past two millennia and is often described by them as one of the greatest threats ever to be faced by humanity, has definitely not been a problem for agriculture in Argentina. In fact, it has helped it.

The only “consensus” among the scientific community is “We know nothing about how climate systems work.” So we cannot say if we’ll warm or if we will cool in the next 25 years. As the three last winters have set record colds everywhere in the world, we might be seeing signals of the next Little ice Age. Climate changes, yes, it has always done so and it will always change in the future. There is no such thing as a stable climate. You ought to know that.

Has there been increased solar flare activity with the sun lately?

- N

Thats the thing, cutting emissions doesn't mean economical ruin.

Precisely, in fact it means a better lifestyle for everyone, as new jobs will be created in the process...

The difference between Britain's pollution and the US is quite great though -- think of the cheap fuel prices you get in the U.S. People in the U.S. NEED cheap fuel to get around to service their massive economy.....

I don't understand the decisions if you look at it in this light: if every nation on earth was doing something about it, then one nation 'falling behind' isn't going to mean much is it..

Why such a fuss about Kyoto? Why they want it to be implemented and complied by everyone? You already know that Kyoto Treaty will not reduce a bit CO2 emission as Kyoto is about “emission credit trading” and not CO2 emissions reduction.

Countries will keep emitting more than they were emitting before. They have been doing so since 1997 –not a single Kyoto signatory has complied with its target! Spain is 40% above its target, also Greece: the UK is about 18% more, Germany, Denmark, Italy, etc, are all above their commitments. And you really think they are going to reduce now 60% of their oil consumption and energy generation --when they didn't care doodle squat about CO2 increases? Hype-ocrazy is the name of the game.

What CO2 reductions are you people talking about? Emission credit trading will move money from one country to another while keeping CO2 emission growing and growing. The trading will benefit bankers that move the money from one country to another, and organizations that specialize in trading counseling. Kyoto is about business not about climate control. For even if ALL countries of the world would STOP emitting CO2 the reduction in temperature by 2050 would be a mere 0.02º C, something that most thermometers cannot measure!

And may I ask, if Kyoto was such a beauty, why Clinton didn’t send it to the Senate for ratification? –he let three years go by without doing nothing else than playing around in the “Oral Room”. :p :D

Marsoups: Don't misunderstand me. I thought I made that absolutely clear in my post. Will Steffen is the director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University. He is a reputable and respectable scientist and hence I absolutely agree with the post, and definitely with the conclusions! Are you suggesting otherwise? Something I do not know about him?

Why such a fuss about Kyoto? Why they want it to be implemented and complied by everyone? You already know that Kyoto Treaty will not reduce a bit CO2 emission as Kyoto is about “emission credit trading” and not CO2 emissions reduction.Edufer: We can only keep hoping, praying, and trying. The latest rounds have put tremendous pressure on the U.S. to follow the aggreements, still, they did not. Change does not happen overnight, but to stop trying is to give up hope and is a prelude to disaster. I believe that through constant effort, we will all join in.

Edufer: You state: "even if ALL countries of the world would STOP emitting CO2 the reduction in temperature by 2050 would be a mere 0.02º C."

Do you have a source on this?

CO2 is only one of the five major Greenhouse Gases that we are producing that contribute to Global Warming. The others are methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons. The excess methane and nitrous oxide are mainly being produced artificialy through automobile emmisions. Chlorofluorocarbons are produced from aersol spray cans.

Other Greenhouse gases that are Global Warming and gases causing the depletion of the Ozone layer are:

Name, Chemical fotmula, concentration in ppt (parts per trilion), and percentage%:
Tetrafluromethane Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) 80ppt-40ppt, 0.003
Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 3 ppt, 0.001
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 4.2ppt-4.2ppt, 0.002
HFC-23 Trifluoromethane (CHF3) 14ppt, 0.002
HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (C2H2F4) 7.5ppt, 0.001
HFC-152a 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 0.5ppt-0.5ppt, 0.000
CFC-11 Trichlorofluoromethane (CFCl3) 268ppt, 0.07
CFC-12 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CF2Cl2) 533ppt, 0.17
CFC-13 Chlorotrifluoromethane (CClF3) 4ppt, 0.001
CFC-113 1,1,1-trichlorotrifluoroethane (C2F3Cl3) 84ppt, 0.03
CFC-114 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane (C2F4Cl2) 15ppt, 0.005
CFC-115 Chloropentafluoroethane (C2F5Cl) 7ppt 7ppt 0.001
Tetrachloromethane Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) 102ppt, 0.01
1,1,1-trichloroethane Methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3) 69ppt, 0.004
HCFC-141b 1,1-Dichloro-1-Fluoroethane (C2H3FCl2) 10ppt, 0.001
HCFC-142b 1-Chloro-1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H3F2Cl) 11ppt, 0.002
Halon-1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane (CClF2Br) 3.8ppt, 0.001
Halon-1301 Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br) 2.5ppt, 0.001

What's America, the biggest polluter going to do ? They will simply steal this technology and ride their wave.... What a shame it would be to see this happen when by all means Russia deserves all the respect and kindness and wealth.....Gotta love that knee-jerk demonization of America. Sorry bucco, we're not the main problem here, we have a net deficit of global CO2.

"We know that we who reside in the United States emit about 6.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year," said Taro Takahashi, Doherty Senior Research Scientist, associate director of Lamont-Doherty, Columbia's earth sciences campus in Palisades, N.Y., and an author of the report. "As an air mass travels from west to east, it should receive carbon dioxide and the East Coast concentration of CO2 should be higher than on the West Coast. "But observations tell us otherwise. The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities."http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19406.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s69.htm

Which means that the U.S. is cleaning up pollution from the rest of the world.

Wa, wa, wa, waaaa...

;)

~Raithere

(edited to change references, I found a better one than I originally used)

The United States is the worst and most wasteful polluting country on Earth. What both these articles are saying is that we MAY be reabsorbing more C02 now because we have stopped cutting down all our forests and have been actively implemented replanting programs, BUT, while at the same time producing MORE CO2, nitrogen deposition through fertilizers, and other Greenhouse Gases.

Read the articles and concentrate on the details, especially the last lines re-posted below: "this may be enhanced by human-induced nitrogen deposition - a diluted form of acid rain - and increasing CO2 levels, which can act as fertilizers for plants."

We have increased the reabsorbtion of C02 by reforestation, and have decreased the output of CO2 by eliminating massive burning of forests to be used for agriculture as they are now still doing in Brazil, Indonesia, China, and Siberia; but C02 is only a small part of the Greenhouse Gas total. Some say CO2 has only increased since 1850 by 14%, others say 30%.

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, buT is a Greenhouse Gas because it traps in solar radiation. CO2 occurs naturally and accounts for 2 to 4 percent of the greenhouse effect [water vapor is responsible for about 40%]. But since the industrial revolution [~1850], CO2 concentrations have increased by about 30% and have increased the temperature of the Earth by 1 degree Fahrenheit.

The United States is the largest consumer of oil, using 20.4 million barrels per day. 40% of U.S. C02 emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. 20% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars. 13% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from trucks used mostly for commercial purposes. Buildings structure account for about 12% of carbon dioxide emmissions.

Methane: Methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Levels of atmospheric methane have risen 145% in the last 100 years.

Nitrous oxide: Man-made sources of nitrous oxide include nylon and nitric acid production, the use of fertilisers in agriculture, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter."
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm

"CO2 emissions from fuel burning, responsible for about 87 percent of global warming, have increased by about 27 percent since the industrial revolution."
Source: U.S. Energy Intelligence Agency, International Energy Agency, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/waste-gases.html

However, beyond any doubt, Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and Perfluorocarbons (PFC) are the worsT Greengouse Gases and the United States produces the most by far:

"Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) were developed as an alternative to ozone-eating chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), the coolant, cleaning, and propellant gases were blacklisted internationally in 1987. Because they do not possess chlorine, HFCs do not directly destroy ozone in the earth's atmosphere. They do, however, contribute to global warming. Principle uses: refrigeration; as agents used to blow foams or insulation; solvents or cleaning agents, especially in semi-conductor manufacturing.
Global warming potential: 4,000 to 10,000 times that of CO2.

Perfluorocarbons (PFC) are replacement gases for CFCs but result also as a by-product of aluminium smelting. PFCs also used as a purging agent for semi-conductor manufacture and small amounts are produced during uranium enrichment processes.
Global warming potential: 6,000 to 10,000 that of CO2." Source: U.S. Energy Intelligence Agency, International Energy Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/waste-gases.html


"The results suggest the presence of a carbon sink, which occurs when
carbon dioxide absorbed by plants as they grow exceeds carbon dioxide released by
dead material as it decays. The method does not identify the causes,
there are a number of possible mechanisms that could be responsible for the sink.
Forest regrowth in areas where generations of pioneers leveled trees to create
farmland almost certainly plays an important role. Millions of acres east of the
Mississippi have returned to forest. Forest regrowth, and carbon absorption, in North America may be enhanced by some side effects of industrialization.

The researchers stress that all of these mechanisms are temporary. It is
thus inevitable that this sink will eventually stop absorbing carbon dioxide at these
levels. They also stressed that the findings are subject to confirmation. "Our
sampling density and frequency were inadequate for estimating the ecosystem
uptake of carbon dioxide over other areas of the world," Dr. Takahashi said....Other studies of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show that global sinks vary by almost a factor of five from year to year and may also vary in location.The results in this paper may not be representative of periods outside 1988 to 1992, they added."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19406.html

"In an article appearing in the Oct. 16 issue of Science magazine, scientists from NOAA, Princeton University, and Columbia University say that they have tentatively identified that "sink" as being mostly North America, at least during the period studied, from 1988-1992.

The researchers are not sure what is causing this decline of carbon dioxide. But they theorize that it is partly due to the regrowth of plants and vegetation on abandoned farmland and previously logged forests in North America, and may be enhanced by human-induced nitrogen deposition - a diluted form of acid rain - and increasing CO2 levels, which can act as fertilizers for plants. However, the actual cause remains unknown. The researchers do believe that plants and soils are a major factor in CO2 absorption and will continue to exert considerable influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future."
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s69.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/New%20Fig%206.gif

Carbon Intensity by Region, 2001-2025

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/New%20Fig%201.gif

Concentrations and Anthropogenic Emissions of Carbon Dioxide 1750 to Present

Source: National Energy Information Center (NEIC), Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

:bugeye: Back to square one again. The global warming fallacies against the sceptics. The magic spell of the multiple refuted hockey stick will probably last another generation. :mad: Longer, if the current kids still have to learn that piece of junk by heart.

So Hansen and Jones think that 2005 is going to be the second warmest when compiling the available surface data. But South America is not and neither is the United States:

http://www.ecoearth.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=49592

This year's average U.S. reading of 53.8 degrees is the 20th highest on record but only about a degree from the high of 54.9 degrees in 1998.

Now it could be that it's colder in the America's it could also be that the USA is the best measured large area by many orders of magnitude and it's also the only place left with about half of the data coming from (near) rural stations.

Unfortunately no-one is allowed to peek in the kitchens where this global temperature is cooked to see how they deal with Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

Of course there have been studies telling that UHI is non-existing and if it exists it's more dan compensated for. Or are the global thermometers measuring the growth of the cities that they are placed in?

See for yourself, the temperature history of Tokyo compared to it's nearest rural stations: UHI non existent?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/tokyo.JPG

Note also that those rural stations are closed now (as about all the other rural stations worldwide outside the USA) and have stopped moderating the increasing numbers on the thermometers of Tokyo and the other cities.

Andre: According to your graph, the Linear (Tokyo) monitoring has increased 3 degrees Celcius (55.5-60 degrees Fahrenheit), from 1880 to the present: that's a tremendous amount! And the Kawachugiko scale has increased at the same rate. The Katsura only slightly increased and only the Ajuri shows an extremely slight decline - almost a negligible decline.

You posted a graph that adds proof to Global Warming.

Raithere: "we have a net deficit of global CO2." How so? You posted:

"As an air mass travels from west to east, it should receive carbon dioxide and the East Coast concentration of CO2 should be higher than on the West Coast. "But observations tell us otherwise. The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities."

Of course our own land features will obsorb some of our own C02 when air currents are from East to West, but they are not always in that direction. Further, industrialization is not just confined to the East coast. Further, this is irrelevant to the total C02 that we put out that exists the United States and contributes to the world increase. Oceans absorb C02 to but does this mean that it's not a problem? You say that "we have a net increase." With the massive world-wide deforestation going on, where are the plants that are going to use this net increase to transform it back into 02? There is no net decrease (deficit) worldwide!

Valich:

All those gases are not present in Earths atmosphere to be significant as greenhouse gases.

According to you there are only FIVE greenhouse gases –so what would you call WATER VAPOR? And what percent of heat retention capability would you give to each of your gases? (This will be fun).

Have you ever read the papers? Aerosol sprays cans containing CFC were banned in 1978. Do you remember the Montreal Protocol?

And in the long list of CFC gases you provided, you would not find a single one that reached the stratosphere at heights where there are photons with the energy enough to dissociate CFCs. Go back to your drawing board. :m: :D

You posted a graph that adds proof to Global Warming.
No. Andre posted a graph showing there is a slight local (human made?) cooling; a small local warming; a very slight regional warming; and a huge (man made --they built a fast growing city) warming in Tokyo. It proves that variations are natural (cooling was not man-made), so why the other rural ones must be man-made?

What it shows quite clearly is that Tokyo suffers from a tremendous UHI disease!

BTW: Our nearby mountains in Córdoba, (32ºS --corresponds to the north hemisphere latitude of Tobruk, Africa, or Forth Worth, Texas) had this morning a small but really beautiful SNOWFALL.

BTW --We are presently 4 days away from SUMMER!

Global Warming? Not down here --and we are part of the globe.

No. Andre posted a graph showing there is a slight local (human made?) cooling; a small local warming; a very slight regional warming; and a huge (man made --they built a fast growing city) warming in Tokyo. It proves that variations are natural (cooling was not man-made), so why the other rural ones must be man-made?

What it shows quite clearly is that Tokyo suffers from a tremendous UHI disease!

BTW: Our nearby mountains in Córdoba, (32ºS --corresponds to the north hemisphere latitude of Tobruk, Africa, or Forth Worth, Texas) had this morning a small but really beautiful SNOWFALL.

BTW --We are presently 4 days away from SUMMER!

Global Warming? Not down here --and we are part of the globe.

I think you're missing the point about global warming. Global warming is the MEAN average ACROSS the globe. So this means each and every single community that has such a thing as a thermometer and somebody to put the readings into a database, averaged off across the entire globe over the duration of a year.

Ocean temperatures have been shown to be on the slight increase as well, so this is in no way limited to land mass..

Even if the earth is hotting up, this does not mean that certain parts of the globe could possibly not experience COLDER than average weather .In fact New Zealand is much colder these days than it used to be.The weather systems are changing now (rather rapidly, as opposed to over the course of a few thousand years), in different parts of the world.

The reasonings can be logical- if one area becomes much hotter, it can lead to the colder air from the polar regions getting sucked further in to the hotter areas. This colder air is circulating further than it normally would when there is higher extremes in air pressure over the different latitudes.
Or perhaps a warm ocean current does not move as far as it normally would have, thus slowing the distrubution of heat energy.

Just because there are now snow storms in regions that normally would never have such extreme weather does not mean that the planet is getting colder; on average it is retaining more of the suns energies than ever measured before (due to buildup of greenhouse gases) and thus creating more ENERGY in the weather systems. Who knows maybe this could trigger an ice age in some parts of the globe.... But what's clear is that what's going on is chaos and every man and his dog should get himself a watertank and stop relying off the cities & McDonalds to feed themselves

Honestly; don't get it wrong : global warming does not necessarily mean that your town will have warmer winters and thus there's not an issue ; )

It shows you are missing the point about climatology. First, there is not such thing as a “global climate”; only regional climates (several thousand squares kilometers in area) that can be decomposed in many “local” climates, much smaller areas that show variations in temperature, precipitation, barometric pressure, etc, fairly similar in an area of few hundreds square kilometers.

A very gross image would be your home: presuming you have not heating or air conditioning running, your cellar is cooler than the ground floor, and your attic is the warmest floor. Some rooms would be cooler than others (smaller rooms warmer, rooms with high ceilings cooler, etc). Your kitchen will be the warmest room in the house. If you speak about your home’s average temperature, what would you be referring to? The sum of your cellar, garage, living room, kitchen, upper stairs bedrooms and the attic divided by the number of measurements taken? What about your home’s roof? Or your home’s foundations? They are also part of the house.

And how would every room influence the average temperature result? Which room has more weight in the result? You could have an extremely cool basement and a terribly hot cellar, but you average will say: a nice home to live. If you don’t happen to sleep in the attic or the basement. The global average or media does not give the right idea of what’s going on in the planet.

Then, how would you measure temperature? How many thermometers would you use for getting an accurate reading of your house? –or the planet. As there are infinite points where you can measure temperature, you would need infinite thermometers. How much thermometers would you say are enough to give an accurate idea of the average temperature in your house –or the planet?

Then, how will you calculate the average? By the linear sum of temperature readings and dividing by the number of readings is one method. But as temperature is more related to kinetic energy, the best way to calculate it is by using the kinetic energy rule: sum the squares of temperatures and divide by the number of readings and take the square root. It can render totally different results. Don’t you believe? Let’s see.

Take four reading inside a room during winter, when the heating is on. We may have 17º C near one window, 19.9º C near the door to the hallway; 20.3º C near the kitchen door, and 22º6º C near the fireplace. The “average” is 19.95º C. Then, when the spring arrives we open the window and the air invades the room, giving a uniform reading of 20º C in all four thermometers. Would you say the room has warmed or cooled? Apparently, it has warmed by 0.5º C according to the lineal sum divided by four.

But if you use the kinetic energy rule mentioned above, your result would be -0.5º C, which indicates that the room has cooled by 0.5º C. Both ways are correct. Which one would you choose? Which one would give an accurate idea of the real world? Physics are strange, sometimes hard to understand, and climatology is full of physics. So there is no use in talking about global temperatures. There is no such thing (yes, lay people don’t understand other way, so they must accept what’s being fed to them –they become easy prey of unethical behaviors from some less ethical people).

Lastly, Ice Ages are not local. They are really global –worse on the Northern Hemisphere of course, but the South cools a lot following the variation in planetary temperatures. It has happened before many, many times and will keep doing it. We have just to wait, some cooling have happened in the short span of one or two decades, so beware!

Merry Christmas and a not so freezing New Year!

Edufer, We normally have snow in Flagstaff this time of year, usually from November till February. Could you deliver some of this for us? We'd like to see a white Christmas again.

How curious! Usually we have not snow in summer in Córdoba (subtropical climate), but last week (December 20th) we had two inches of snow in our nearby mountains -in a first time ever (since 1573) event in our history.

Alas, it lasted just 12 hours, so we cannot send you any. But don't despair, by next week you'll have snow for the championship! :D :p :eek:

Valich, I know where you could ask for some snow: Europe. They have plenty now. Of course, it is caused by warming. Glacial Warm. :p :D :cool:

It shows you are missing the point about climatology. First, there is not such thing as a “global climate”; only regional climates (several thousand squares kilometers in area) that can be decomposed in many “local” climates, much smaller areas that show variations in temperature, precipitation, barometric pressure, etc, fairly similar in an area of few hundreds square kilometers.

That is a ridiculous statement, to say that it is missing the point about climatology..... That just sounds like opening cans of worms to me. We are looking at statistical information, not what the point of climatology is or isn't..

A very gross image would be your home: presuming you have not heating or air conditioning running, your cellar is cooler than the ground floor, and your attic is the warmest floor. Some rooms would be cooler than others (smaller rooms warmer, rooms with high ceilings cooler, etc). Your kitchen will be the warmest room in the house. If you speak about your home’s average temperature, what would you be referring to? The sum of your cellar, garage, living room, kitchen, upper stairs bedrooms and the attic divided by the number of measurements taken? What about your home’s roof? Or your home’s foundations? They are also part of the house.


If you wanted to, you could measure the average temperature of your home, but what would you be wanting to prove by taking those particular measurements ?
Those measurements woulnd't be particularly interesting either since they would all follow each other in a rather predictable manner.. eg. attic stays slightly cooler all year round when you leave the door closed all summer. So what...


And how would every room influence the average temperature result? Which room has more weight in the result? You could have an extremely cool basement and a terribly hot cellar, but you average will say: a nice home to live. If you don’t happen to sleep in the attic or the basement. The global average or media does not give the right idea of what’s going on in the planet.


LOL. The media and the weather beaurau of each country are vastly different organisations. To compare the two to one another is like saying a car salesman behave much like movie directors do - it just isn't right.

Let me ask you this, if you had a globe , and you wanted to measure the average temperature of the globe, how would you do this? You may not use guages to measure the temperatures in many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of 'random' locations to do this in this assignment......


Then, how would you measure temperature? How many thermometers would you use for getting an accurate reading of your house? –or the planet. As there are infinite points where you can measure temperature, you would need infinite thermometers. How much thermometers would you say are enough to give an accurate idea of the average temperature in your house –or the planet?


Going off-course here from the argument -- of course it is not a 100% precise measurement but it is good enough for us to tell what sort of graph we're looking at --- wherever there is a thermometer, we can look at what sort of measurements have been guaged, and what this information feed tells us..

Then, how will you calculate the average? By the linear sum of temperature readings and dividing by the number of readings is one method. But as temperature is more related to kinetic energy, the best way to calculate it is by using the kinetic energy rule: sum the squares of temperatures and divide by the number of readings and take the square root. It can render totally different results. Don’t you believe? Let’s see.


Not sure where you get this 'temperature related to kinetic energy rule'. Where did you get this from ?? Sounds like a completely different equation to me.... Do you know what kinetic energy is exactly ?
I'm totally flabberghasted that nobody else has something to say about this --- this is supposed to be a forum for 'intelligent' conversation, yet I see a lot of bug-eyed pin-the-donkey's-tail going on on this forum....
Sorry , but your argument is nonsense... Anybody care to back me up? ;)

BTW, new calculations, from the past year and such have revealed :
"Last year was the hottest since records began in Australia in the 1860s and, globally, the last decade has included eight of the hottest years on record."

That's EIGHT of the hottest years on record. Is this by chance ? Or is there a rhythym somewhere there in the numbers...........

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17716451%255E3102,00.html

That's EIGHT of the hottest years on record. Is this by chance ?

No it's perfectly explainable. We have also the largest cities ever.

2005 Hottest Year on Record

"2005 will end up just above or below 1998 as the hottest year on record. Most significant, climate scientists say, is that this year's readings occurred without the help of a major El Niño event. "In just seven years, the background global temperature has increased to a level equal to the peak in the 1997–98 El Niño," says James Hansen, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

That record-breaking El Niño slathered the tropical Pacific with anomalously warm sea water. There was no such event this year, but many other regions were notably warm — including the North Atlantic, where an unprecedented number of tropical cyclones formed. Hansen says that NASA is likely to dub 2005 as the warmest year on record.

This year's heat was not a total surprise — NASA predicted early in 2005 that it would be one of the warmest years on record. Over the past century, says NASA, Earth's average surface temperature has risen 0.8 °C, with three-quarters of that occurring since the 1970s. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

Hansen, who compiles the annual rankings for NASA, says the recent warming is consistent with the increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "Climate change is real and should begin to be noticed by real people," he says." http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/4381062a.html

Valich, I know where you could ask for some snow: Europe. They have plenty now. Of course, it is caused by warming. Glacial Warm. :p :D :cool:
Yeah, right, snow...
we haven't seen any snow worth talking about this year at all in Latvia (Eastern Europe)! There was one for a few days, but that's it.
Usually at this time of the year the snow is to knees and blizzards used to be quite frequent.

Before xmas I went to my lectures with an umbrella, because it fucking rained instead of snow!

I like snow, want winter...
The climate may be isn't warming up globally, but the weather patterns sure enough aren't normal - as they used to be

But I don't expect the weather to stay the same too, our climate is a dynamic process

That is a ridiculous statement, to say that it is missing the point about climatology. ... That just sounds like opening cans of worms to me. We are looking at statistical information, not what the point of climatology is or isn't.
Of course, global warming can be seen from two totally different perspectives: from the climatological perspective, and from the statistic perspective. Climatology deals with observed physical facts, historic records, mostly related with the interaction between the atmosphere, the oceans, and other things as volcanoes, reaction from the emerged land, etc. and the solar activity.

Statistics deal with numbers and averages. Climatology sometimes uses statistics, but statistics are not the climate. People tend to confuse lots of things in this issue, as you seem to do: somehow many people believe that the official global temperature statistic is the same thing as the “climate”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No one is really worried that the temperature might rise by a few degrees, even if it is only “on average”. People see every spring and summer temperature rising from winter and going down later in fall. What people are actually worried about isare glaciers changing length, the sea level rising, the frequency and severity of storms changing and changes in rainfall patterns, etc. People are worried about change in all of the properties of the climate, most of which hare physical aspects that have little to do with temperature, and certainly much less to do with some official (and easily manipulated) global temperature statistic.

The fact is that, even if all flaws in the way how official temperature is calculated, and everything were fixed, all those things that worry people so much will still be happening. On the other hand, if statistic did change, nothing guarantees that something awful needs to happen. There simply is a lot more going on in the atmosphere and oceans than temperature.

If you want to talk about climate in scientific terms, you should forget statistics for a while. You should start talking using terms used in climatology –a totally different science than statistics! You should start looking into three basic laws that rules the Universe, that is, thermodynamics. And my impression is that you have very little understanding of any of these three terrible laws.

Marsoups said: LOL. The media and the weather beaurau of each country are vastly different organisations. To compare the two to one another is like saying a car salesman behave much like movie directors do - it just isn't right.
You were misled by an involuntary typo in my comment: it appeared as “The global average or ]media[/b] does not give the right idea of what’s going on in the planet.” And it should read “… or median …”, another synonym of “average”. A thinking person would have spotted the error, but you couldn’t resist the temptation of making fun out of an evident typo.
Going off-course here from the argument -- of course it is not a 100% precise measurement but it is good enough for us to tell what sort of graph we're looking at --- wherever there is a thermometer, we can look at what sort of measurements have been guaged, and what this information feed tells us.
We are not talking here about a small globe the size of a soccer ball. We are talking about a planet. The sheer inaccuracy found in managing weather stations, their records, instrumentation, operator’s skill, etc, has led thousands of scientists to doubt about the validity of the “global average” temperature, and many of those scientists believe that the process of obtaining the global average has been “doctored”; that the official data (GISS, NASA, NOAA, BoM, Hadley Center, MET, etc) is not showing what would be the real global temperature, mainly because the official way of dealing with Urban Heat Island effect has not been clearly explained for every station. For many urban stations they have even added temperature to the already abnormally high temperature, and most of the times, they subtract a mere 0.2º C for the UHI, when the observed fact is medium to large size cities are from 3 to 6º C warmer than the surrounding country area.

So, if you satisfy yourself with non accurate data for an “average” composed by an increasingly smaller number of stations, and a manifest unethical handling of data, then it’s your privilege.

Not sure where you get this 'temperature related to kinetic energy rule'. Where did you get this from ?? Sounds like a completely different equation to me.... Do you know what kinetic energy is exactly ? I'm totally flabberghasted that nobody else has something to say about this --- this is supposed to be a forum for 'intelligent' conversation, yet I see a lot of bug-eyed pin-the-donkey's-tail going on this forum.... Sorry, but your argument is nonsense... Anybody care to back me up?
You are right. This is supposed to be a forum for scientifically prepared and knowledgeable people. Then, what are you doing here?

If you cannot relate “kinetic energy” with “temperature” then you should go and play cards or rugby, because physics is not your game. Of course, the kinetic energy rule comes out of any physics textbook dealing in depth with temperature. And yes, I know what the definition of kinetic energy is, and what kinetic energy is all about –but I doubt that someone in the world knows “exactly” what kinetic energy is, in the same way as no one knows “exactly” what electricity is. You could say electricity is a flow of electrons, and that would be just a tiny part of the question. You could say that kinetic energy is the energy contained in a body in motion, and the kinetic energy rule applies (among many other things) to molecular movement in gases.

You would enter into the kinetic theory of gases, that explains the macroscopic behavior of gases studying the conjunct of molecules, each one of them obeying separately to the many laws of mechanics. The theory allows describing theoretically Boyle-Mariotte's and Gay-Lussac's laws, and the hypothesis has been derived from Dalton’s atomic theory and Avogadro’s hypothesis by assuming the discontinuity of matter.

The kinetic theory of gases establishes that 1) any gas is formed by molecules in motion (kino=motion), 2) the pressure of any gas is the consequence of the impacts of molecules against the walls of the container, 3) Molecule impacts are elastic, 4) The heat (or temperature) depends on the kinetic energy of molecules, 5) The free median path (distance between two impacts) decreases as the gas pressure is increased, 6) In polyatomic molecules we must consider the molecule’s spin and the vibration of the atoms, and 7) Among molecules there are attraction forces that drives them away from the ideal behavior, forces that increases with pressure. For the time being, I think it would be useless providing here mathematical formulas defining the behavior of gases, but if needed, just ask for them.

Now, what you understanding is about “kinetic energy”?

[quote]Marsoups said: BTW, new calculations, from the past year and such have revealed:
"Last year was the hottest since records began in Australia in the 1860s and, globally, the last decade has included eight of the hottest years on record."

That's EIGHT of the hottest years on record. Is this by chance ? Or is there a rhythym somewhere there in the numbers... /quote]
You are making the unscientific mistake of believing what politically biased official bodies and organizations have to say about scientific matters. You are taking for granted that there have been “EIGHT hottest years on record in the last decade”, at least on Australia. How trustable are Australia’s temperature records and the Australian way of measuring temperatures and building records?

If you cared to take a look at Adelaide’s temperature record you’d see that is has been cooling noticeably for the last 150 years. What kind of climatic factor would make a city the size of Adelaide to cool –when the rest of Australia is warming?

<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-12/Adelaide.gif>

For your information, many cities in Australia have been cooling, giving the lie to the “warming trend”. As an example, Darwin cooled from 1882 to 2005 -0.65º C, but if you take the temperature from 1882 to 1939, when the weather station was moved from the city to the airport, then the temperature drop is 1.3º C.

What about cooling of -2.25º C at Balranald, of -2.3º C in Coonamble, -2.1º C in Bourke, of -2.35º C at Condobolin, etc, etc,? Here is a small list of Australian station across the country:

Warming stations: (Yes, some cities have warmed)

Kalyra, 1900-1992 = +0.6º C --- Risdon, 1924-1992 = +0.5º C
Cap Bourda, 1925-1992 = +0.6º C --- Nawra, 1907-1992 = +0.4º C
Kellerberrin, 1910-1992 = +0.5º C --- Menzies,1898-1992 = +0.5º C
Southern Cros, 1895-1992 = +0.1º C --- Walgett, 1881-1992 = +0.1º C
Wiluna, 1902-1992 = +1.0º C --- Alice Springs, 1879-1999 = +0.2º C
Canberra, 1942-2002 = +0.1º C --- Adelong, 1907-1992 = +0.01º C
Invernell, 1907-1992 = +0.02º C --- Richmond, 1893-1992 = +0.02º C

Cooling stations: (And yes, lots of cities have cooled)

Dubbo, 1881-1992 = -0.6º C --- Parkes Macart, 1907-1992 = -0.25º C
Adelaide, 1857-2003 = -1.15º C - Jerrys Plain, 1907-1992 = -2.0º C
Wilson, 1877-1992 = -1.0º C -- Nihil, 1899-1992 = -0.35º C
Gabols, 1880-1992 = -1.2º C -- Kyankutta, 1927-1992 = -0.2º C
Wagga, 1908-1992 = -0.6º C -- Balranald, 1881-1992 = -2.25º C
Bathurst, 1858-1992 = -2.1º C - Coonamble, 1907-1992 = -2.3º C
Nobbie, 1862-1992 = -1.9º C - Bourke, 1877-1992 = -2.1º C
Tamworth, 1907-1992 = -2.1º C - Hillston, 1916-1992 = -0.4º C
Mt. Gambie 1861-1992 = -1.3º C Clunes, 1880-1992 = -1.95º C
Omeo, 1879-1992 = -1.95º C Condobolin, 1907-1992 = -2.35º C
Otway, 1865-1992 = -2.5º C - Moruya, 1876-1992 = 1.75º C
Wentworth, 1907-1992 = -0.25º C Rutherglen, 1910-1992 = -0.25º C

This data is taken from NOAA’s database (you can make your own calculations). While the warming cities show a slight warming along many decades, the cooling has been in general greater than the warming. The data is there. You can check it. However, NOAA’s database stops showing Australia’s temperature records in 1992. Why have they been doing this? They are supposed to show updated temperatures from the whole world.

If you want to see that the “global warming” observed is merely regional, and it has been "manufactured" by clever use of stations (mostly with UHIE), you could take a look at different pages about the issue:

Ghostbusting Temperatures: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html (Analysis and graphs of 1221 temperature records from the USHCN (US Historical Climatology Network) and their respective trends in 48 U.S. states: 32 warmed by +0.503º C, while 16 cooled by 0.334º C, analyzed state by state, station by station).

The first of a series of articles was "Ghost Temperatures", at http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/ghosts.html where they show records from different parts of the world and their respective trend graphs.