2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

[sunsettommy]

From the BLOG of Lobos Motl,

2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

Excerpt:

According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be

colder than 2005

colder than 2004

colder than 2003

colder than 2002

... and, most obviously, ...

colder than 1998,

despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade.

http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate

[sunsettommy]

Gosh I thought B.Max would be glad to see this post.

Oh well.

Does anyone have anything to say?

[Riverwind]

2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

It might be interesting if it gets cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. Until then it is just a blip in a long term trend....

[geoffrey]

2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

It might be interesting if it gets cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. Until then it is just a blip in a long term trend....

Of general cooling since the middle ages?

It's a warm year for me, it was like 5 degrees today. Green Christmas.

Oh well, what can you do?

[Michael Hardner]

Political web forum no-nos for 2007:

Pointing out current temperature blips somewhere as arguments for/against global warming...

[Slavik44]

2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

It might be interesting if it gets cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. Until then it is just a blip in a long term trend....

Of general cooling since the middle ages?

It's a warm year for me, it was like 5 degrees today. Green Christmas.

Oh well, what can you do?

Poor soul....5 degrees...warm.....no wonder B.C gets stuck with homeless people from every Province in Canada...Can we ship them back...we could use their welfare checks to buy them plane tickets.

[sunsettommy]

Political web forum no-nos for 2007:

Pointing out current temperature blips somewhere as arguments for/against global warming...

Generally what you say is true except for one thing.

Al Gore and select number of scientists and environmentalists have been talking about a "tipping point" to runaway warming.They seem to think it will happen in less than 10 years.

So I posted this to show that the warming is SLOWING DOWN! This contradicts them big time.

Gosh it might even turn into a COOLING trend.The Russians have actually made predictions of global cooling within 10 years.They base it on the changing suns output.

1998 was by far the warmest since 1979(according to the satellites) when the Pacific Ocean changed to a cooler weak phase.The warming is now weak.

I hope you remember that this current warming is only 30 years long.That is about the length of a typical cycle.Before that it was cooling for about 30 years.Before that it was warming for about 35 years and then before that it was cooling for ........

LOL.

[sunsettommy]

2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

It might be interesting if it gets cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. Until then it is just a blip in a long term trend....

A weak tree is more susceptible to pine bark beetles.Than the Beetles are susceptible to the cold.

They seem to congregate in public owned forests.

[Riverwind]

They seem to congregate in public owned forests.

You don't know much about the pine beetle do you?

[sunsettommy]

They seem to congregate in public owned forests.

You don't know much about the pine beetle do you?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pine+...G=Google+Search

Which pine beetle species are you talking about?

In America they are much more active in public owned forests.The trees are more likely to be older and the underbrush much thicker providing hotter forest fires.

The privately owned forest reserves are better cared for and the trees are younger and more vigorous.

[August1991]

From the BLOG of Lobos Motl,

2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

Excerpt:

According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be

colder than 2005

colder than 2004

colder than 2003

colder than 2002

... and, most obviously, ...

colder than 1998,

despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade.

http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate

That blogspot, which has attracted alot of attention from other (right wing) bloggers, is highly misleading.

To say that 2006 was colder than 1998 is like saying the TSX300 was down yesterday from last week - ignoring the fact that the TSX300 last week was at an all time high.

These are blips and motls.blogspot who claims to be a physics major at Harvard should know better - unless he's pulling everybody's leg.

I have been unsuccessful in trying to find the WMO data upon which he based his graph. Here, however, is a wikipedia graph based on global data from 1860-2000 compiled in the UK.

It should be apparent that 1998-2005 are mere blips.

----

There is no doubt that global warming exists in theory. The evidence is that man-induced gases are contributing to the phenomenon.

My own take on global warming concerns the idea of "Tragedy of the Commons". If something appears free, people will abuse it to the point where it becomes a problem. That's true of fish in the ocean, Canada's health services and the world's environment.

[jdobbin]

There is no doubt that global warming exists in theory. The evidence is that man-induced gases are contributing to the phenomenon.

Be prepared for people "righter" than you to call you an idiot for thinking so. I'm not sure exactly what Harper thinks on this issue but there is a base in the Conservative party who are not convinced on global warming, smoking, cholesterol and a whole lot of other things 'dem scientists and doctors keep talking about.

Republican strategy in the U.S. has been to discredit science by calling it unproven theories. Thereafter, they substitute their own theories such as "Intelligent Design" which they back it up with pseudo science. It gets easier and easier after that to discredit smoking health warnings, the threat of cancer and the like by calling them unproven modeling theories.

On global warming, even when confronted with evidence of the unusual in climate, the next strategy is to say it will be good for everyone. After being confronted with evidence that it also hurts people, the strategy is to say there is nothing to be done. And then we go back to it is just a modeling theory with no substance at all and claim it is a U.N. plot for world government.

I don't know that Harper can play both sides of this issue. At the moment, he can blame the Liberals for implementing Kyoto in a way that seemed ineffective. The problem is that is will have to deliver on the environment so that it looks like he takes the issue more seriously than the Liberals. It might piss off some of his supporters who don't believe it is happening at all though.

[kimmy]

It is going to be +5 degrees here in Edmonton on today, the official first day of winter, so I'm officially declaring Global Warming back on. It was cancelled a few weeks ago, but now it's reinstated.

There is no doubt that global warming exists in theory. The evidence is that man-induced gases are contributing to the phenomenon.

As I've said before, a visit to the Columbia Icefield in Alberta's mountains with somebody who remembers what it was like 30 years ago is quite persuasive. Last week I saw a TV commercial illustrating the same point, showing successive generations standing beside the signposts marking the Athabasca Glacier's location when they were young.

Millions of tons of ice can't be wrong. Glaciers don't fluctuate up and down like the lines on a graph. When they advance or recede it's because of long term trends. And for the glacer to have receded so far in the past 30 years, and so much farther yet since the highway was built in the 1930s, is much harder to ignore or dispute than charts or graphs.

It's happening, and it's happening here in Alberta.

Whether it's man-made or natural, whether it's a one-way trip or cyclical, whether we can stop it or are powerless, is all open to debate, but there's no question that it's happening.

My own take on global warming concerns the idea of "Tragedy of the Commons". If something appears free, people will abuse it to the point where it becomes a problem. That's true of fish in the ocean, Canada's health services and the world's environment.

What's your overall take on Kyoto, then? It does have make an effort to put a price-tag on producing emissions.

-k

[sunsettommy]

August1991:

There is no doubt that global warming exists in theory. The evidence is that man-induced gases are contributing to the phenomenon.

My own take on global warming concerns the idea of "Tragedy of the Commons". If something appears free, people will abuse it to the point where it becomes a problem. That's true of fish in the ocean, Canada's health services and the world's environment.

Do you know how much mankind actually release by percentage of the total CO2 emissions yearly?

That alone will reduce mankinds role to the observed warming to a small amount.

Try considering other forcings such as the Sun,Land use changes,Cosmic Rays and so on.

The real tragedy of the commons is to lie and distort about our role in the warming.

As for Lobos's article.He was mocking the people who are arguing about a coming "tipping point".If you bothered to look at his graph he posted.There was actual warming every single year on it.But it is warming less and less since 1998.

The very opposite of what Al Gore and other propagandists are talking about.

There is ZERO evidence of accelerated warming.

August1991 try this link and you will see what Lobos is talking about.It is from WMO website.

http://www.wmo.ch/meteoworld/archive/en/feb2006/2005.htm

[sunsettommy]

jdobbin:

Republican strategy in the U.S. has been to discredit science by calling it unproven theories. Thereafter, they substitute their own theories such as "Intelligent Design" which they back it up with pseudo science. It gets easier and easier after that to discredit smoking health warnings, the threat of cancer and the like by calling them unproven modeling theories.

I do not accept Intelligent design and neither does a lot of climate skeptics (most actually say there is warming going on).I myself agree that there is warming going on.

I am also an INDEPENDANT with some conservative positions.

Ooops! There goes your silly broad charactarization of people you dislike.

Second hand smoke dangers are wildly overblown and smoking itself is not a dangerous as claimed.There are scores of lifelong smokers who live beyond 80 years.

Cancer rates are going down.

Your attitude is very apparent when you to attempt to paint skeptics with a broad brush.

Try instead sticking to debating the actual topic at hand.

Lobos Motl was mocking Al Gore and his propagandists with his way of showing that while yes there is warming going on.It is less and less a warming trend since 1998.

[White Doors]

Talk about intolerence from the 'inclusive' left. They are inclusive until you step outside of the party line. Then you are hitler, or a so-com or a neo-con.

Irony is fun!

[jdobbin]

Talk about intolerence from the 'inclusive' left. They are inclusive until you step outside of the party line. Then you are hitler, or a so-com or a neo-con.

Irony is fun!

You'll have to show me the Hitler line. I didn't see it.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

As I've said before, a visit to the Columbia Icefield in Alberta's mountains with somebody who remembers what it was like 30 years ago is quite persuasive. Last week I saw a TV commercial illustrating the same point, showing successive generations standing beside the signposts marking the Athabasca Glacier's location when they were young.

Millions of tons of ice can't be wrong. Glaciers don't fluctuate up and down like the lines on a graph. When they advance or recede it's because of long term trends. And for the glacer to have receded so far in the past 30 years, and so much farther yet since the highway was built in the 1930s, is much harder to ignore or dispute than charts or graphs.

It's happening, and it's happening here in Alberta.

I agree completely Kimmie, and it's happening around the world. That, and the Arctic ice sheet is far from what it used to be as well. If this is not evidence of a world wide warming trend, then I don't know what is.

The questions remain, are we the cause of the accelerated warming? Possibly. Is there anything that can be done at this point, or is it already too late and we will just have to live with the changes that come?

I read somewhere, sorry no reference, that the carbon cycle effects are something like 50 years behind (although I have seen the time lag being from 7 years to 60+ years). So the effects we are seeing now are from the industrialization of 50 years ago. If that is true then even if we stop releasing as much greenhouse gas as we are now, we will still be hit much harder in the future.

[shoggoth]

Do you know how much mankind actually release by percentage of the total CO2 emissions yearly?

That alone will reduce mankinds role to the observed warming to a small amount.

About 27 billion tons.

Nature aborbs about 15 billion tons.

So mankind release by percentage of the total net CO2 additions to the atmosphere yearly, about 100%

[sunsettommy]

Do you know how much mankind actually release by percentage of the total CO2 emissions yearly?

That alone will reduce mankinds role to the observed warming to a small amount.

About 27 billion tons.

Nature aborbs about 15 billion tons.

So mankind release by percentage of the total net CO2 additions to the atmosphere yearly, about 100%

I have no idea how you can come with this stuff.It is not even a coherent claim.

NOAA does it much better and here is the link:

They make it clear that we emit a small amount of CO2 compared to nature.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html

We actually emit about 3% of the CO2 yearly emission totals.Nature does the rest.

[sunsettommy]

From the IPCC:

Climate Change 2001:

Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

Again Nature emits most of the yearly CO2 total.

[sunsettommy]

Lets look at Woods Hole:

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif

[stignasty]

Second hand smoke dangers are wildly overblown and smoking itself is not a dangerous as claimed.There are scores of lifelong smokers who live beyond 80 years.

That's like referring to a veteran who joined up in '39 and fought through the end of World War II without an injury and then making the claim that "war isn't as dangerous as people make it out to be."

[sunsettommy]

Second hand smoke dangers are wildly overblown and smoking itself is not a dangerous as claimed.There are scores of lifelong smokers who live beyond 80 years.

That's like referring to a veteran who joined up in '39 and fought through the end of World War II without an injury and then making the claim that "war isn't as dangerous as people make it out to be."

lol,

Making an analogy between a man and a cigarette.

It is obvious that you can not rebute the fact that many long time smokers live a long life.

[sunsettommy]

Talk about intolerence from the 'inclusive' left. They are inclusive until you step outside of the party line. Then you are hitler, or a so-com or a neo-con.

Irony is fun!

What are you talking about?

You sure you posted in the right thread?