Climate data catches experts off guar...

Climate data catches experts off guard - Hawaii News

There are 139 comments on the Honolulu Star-Bulletin story from Jul 27, 2009, titled Climate data catches experts off guard - Hawaii News. In it, Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that:

A team of scientists led by a University of Hawaii oceanographer had a big surprise when they looked to the ancient past for clues to global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#123 Jul 31, 2009
jerb1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are concerned (and you should be too) with atmospheric energy levels which manifest as waves. Your surface temperatures are a chaotic reflection of these short and long waves. Your temperatures are not a significant indicator of global energy potential, but if your surface reflections vary wildly you might conclude that the whole system is becoming more energized. How WILDLY is anybody's guess so far, because we've never been here before with good sources of data.
It's just the NOAA, that's all. Again, the NOAA showing cooling for the US is good enough for all of us deners and besides, I used to be a believer.
Let's debate the glaring mistakes in the theory:
-23 years of calling for climate crisis.
-La Nina "delayed" GWing.
-Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming.
-It's too political for honest science.
-Most of the research is done on effects, not causes.
-The IPCC is only "90%" sure.
-The IPCC reports predict everything and if you bothered to read them you would see the self fulfilling prophecies that they are.
I gotta go, later.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#124 Jul 31, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, it has been cooling for over ten years in the US. That's good enough for us deniers to junk the theory.
Go to: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...
-and just change the “first year to display” as 1997
So from 2009 to 1997 it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 1997 - 2009 Trend =-0.85 degF / Decade
From 1998 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 1998 - 2009 Trend =-2.32 degF / Decade
From 1999 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 1999 - 2009 Trend =-1.85 degF / Decade
From 2000 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2000 - 2009 Trend =-1.73 degF / Decade
From 2001 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2001 - 2009 Trend =-1.51 degF / Decade
From 2002 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2002 - 2009 Trend =-3.57 degF / Decade
From 2003 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2003 - 2009 Trend =-2.61 degF / Decade
From 2004 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2004 - 2009 Trend =-3.79 degF / Decade
From 2005 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2005 - 2009 Trend =-13.63 degF / Decade
From 2006 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2006 - 2009 Trend =-26.24 degF / Decade
From 2007 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2007 - 2009 Trend =-2.05 degF / Decade
From 2008 to now it shows: It doesn’t have to show because everyone knows it’s colder this past winter, spring and half of the summer.
Thanks for providing the site. I tried it out and the results were interesting.

The first range I used was 1990 to 2008. Temperature was a gradual slope upward. However, when I switched to 1975 to 2008, the change in temperature was extremely clear with a much steeper slope. It became obvious the years where the average temperature was below normal was rising steadily and the number of years of above average temperatures was rising.

Since: Jul 08

Albuquerque, NM

#125 Jul 31, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's just the NOAA, that's all. Again, the NOAA showing cooling for the US is good enough for all of us deners and besides, I used to be a believer.
Let's debate the glaring mistakes in the theory:
-23 years of calling for climate crisis.
-La Nina "delayed" GWing.
-Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming.
-It's too political for honest science.
-Most of the research is done on effects, not causes.
-The IPCC is only "90%" sure.
-The IPCC reports predict everything and if you bothered to read them you would see the self fulfilling prophecies that they are.
I gotta go, later.
Have we returned to the levels of 23 years ago, planetwide? We should vary warmer and colder than those levels if global warming didn't happen.

La Nina and El Nino are very cyclical because the Pacific is the largest heat reservoir, their influences are so complicated that you can dedicate your whole career to just one or the other.

You're so cynical about the other points you can't be objective.

Since: Jul 08

Albuquerque, NM

#126 Jul 31, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for providing the site. I tried it out and the results were interesting.
The first range I used was 1990 to 2008. Temperature was a gradual slope upward. However, when I switched to 1975 to 2008, the change in temperature was extremely clear with a much steeper slope. It became obvious the years where the average temperature was below normal was rising steadily and the number of years of above average temperatures was rising.
Obvious? Sfc temps change every hour, every acre. I've never used a NWS thermometer that was accurate or even consistent to within a degree F. Only wags can be discerned from those numbers and the cause of the variability is neither global warming nor global cooling.

Can you feel the difference between 55 and 56 degrees F?

You need to look at changing atmospheric patterns, above the friction layer, preferably above the level of migrating systems.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#127 Jul 31, 2009
jerb1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have we returned to the levels of 23 years ago, planetwide? We should vary warmer and colder than those levels if global warming didn't happen.
La Nina and El Nino are very cyclical because the Pacific is the largest heat reservoir, their influences are so complicated that you can dedicate your whole career to just one or the other.
You're so cynical about the other points you can't be objective.
What's your point? From what I saw, there's no swinging. There's a steady movement to warmer and warmer temperatures. Your same site indicated as much and even shows the average rise.

I don't know if the Pacific is the largest heat reservoir. But I do know the shallower waters of the Gulf heat up faster, which is why hurricanes tend to be stronger in that area and grow.

Since: Jul 08

Albuquerque, NM

#128 Jul 31, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>What's your point? From what I saw, there's no swinging. There's a steady movement to warmer and warmer temperatures. Your same site indicated as much and even shows the average rise.
I don't know if the Pacific is the largest heat reservoir. But I do know the shallower waters of the Gulf heat up faster, which is why hurricanes tend to be stronger in that area and grow.
My point is that warm or cold surface temperatures over a few decades can be explained by coincidences, to put it in non-technical words.

If hurricanes tend to be stronger in the shallower waters of the Gulf then why do we have wide swings in frequency and intensity from year to year? It's the same well-understood weather coincidences that yield the warm or cold surface temps in the NOAA data. NOAA is tax supported so they put out data. With global warming we will get more and more powerful 'coincidences'. This is difficult to post about without describing waves at different altitudes in the troposphere. I assume that some of you guys know how weather is forecast..
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#129 Jul 31, 2009
jerb1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that warm or cold surface temperatures over a few decades can be explained by coincidences, to put it in non-technical words.
If hurricanes tend to be stronger in the shallower waters of the Gulf then why do we have wide swings in frequency and intensity from year to year? It's the same well-understood weather coincidences that yield the warm or cold surface temps in the NOAA data. NOAA is tax supported so they put out data. With global warming we will get more and more powerful 'coincidences'. This is difficult to post about without describing waves at different altitudes in the troposphere. I assume that some of you guys know how weather is forecast..
You make a good point. So I went back to your site again and found the following:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research...

Note the gradual rise in temperature from the 1880's, which is also the approximate time of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the use of oil. I don't think this is a coincidence by any means.

As far as hurricanes go, I don't doubt we have swings in not only intensity, but numbers as well from year to year. I don't understand enough to say anything one way or another. For me, it's like a car. I know to put in gas and oil and understand why tires have to be inflated and so on. But I can't explain how a spark plug is made or how a light bulb is manufactured. I know enough to change that plug or light so the car can go.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss the troposphere unless you're referring to ducting, inversion layers, or cold/warm layers but I don't mind hearing what you have to say.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#130 Jul 31, 2009
Finding a warming trend is problematic, just pick the right start and end dates. Even then, no evidence that CO2 causes warming has ever been shown with experimental tests.
frank miller

United States

#131 Jul 31, 2009
My God, if it weren't for global warming we'd be
freezing our tushies off! No more Winter vacations
to Hawaii! To the Australian Gold Coast! To Nice,
Canne where there are 280 days of warm sunshine!
Rio de Janeiro of course out of the question!
F.M.
Stumpy

Honolulu, HI

#132 Aug 1, 2009
frank miller wrote:
My God, if it weren't for global warming we'd be
freezing our tushies off!
I just read where scientists are worried that the Narwhales are having survival problems due to the growing ice sheets. The environmentalists and their followers will change their story to whatever keeps the money flowing their way.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#133 Aug 1, 2009
I don't understand why climate data catches experts off guard, it looks like they are making some of it up:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tal...

http://www.climateaudit.org/

'"Unprecedented" Data Purge At CRU
by Steve McIntyre on July 31st, 2009
On July 31, 2009, the purge of public data at CRU reached levels "unprecedented" in its recorded history. Climate Audit reader Super-Grover said that the data purge was "worse" than we expected.

On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/.
The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file - see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009....'

Since: Jul 08

Albuquerque, NM

#134 Aug 1, 2009
Stumpy wrote:
<quoted text> I just read where scientists are worried that the Narwhales are having survival problems due to the growing ice sheets. The environmentalists and their followers will change their story to whatever keeps the money flowing their way.
If narwhales are having problems it is a concern for environmentalists. You don't understand that?

Since: Jul 08

Albuquerque, NM

#135 Aug 2, 2009
frank miller wrote:
My God, if it weren't for global warming we'd be
freezing our tushies off! No more Winter vacations
to Hawaii! To the Australian Gold Coast! To Nice,
Canne where there are 280 days of warm sunshine!
Rio de Janeiro of course out of the question!
F.M.
We're a subtropical species originally from the savannah, so yes, we'd like it warmer in the winter in the higher latitudes we've moved into. But Frank, I know you know more about hydrodynamics for you to think this is OK for the whole planet. You can calculate how more energy is available with each degree of global temps.

Since: Aug 08

Pittsburgh, PA

#136 Aug 2, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
We are living longer now than at any time in human history.......
......except on the continent of Africa, where it is dropping. & deniers have no reason to take credit for lifespan increases.
Stumpy

Honolulu, HI

#137 Aug 2, 2009
jerb1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If narwhales are having problems it is a concern for environmentalists. You don't understand that?
Sure, I understand that the ice sheet is growing according to the same environmentalists that say the the earth is heating up. It just depends on what government grant they are trying to be granted, and how much BULL they can sling to get it.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#138 Aug 2, 2009
The "greenhouse" effect of 500ppm CO2 is insignificantly warmer than 200ppm, that's why there's never been a single experimental test that shows any temperature difference. Cutting CO2 emissions will do nothing to help the climate. The only effects of climate change mitigation we'll see are higher energy prices, more corporate welfare, more fat cat Wall Street Carbon traders and massive unemployment.
Big Buggah

Hillsboro, OR

#139 Aug 3, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey you modern day witch burner. Back in 1900 you and your kind wondered what to do with all the horses needed by the year 2000.
We are living longer now than at any time in human history and all you can do is worry about the future.
Be brave, not a silly hysterical glowbull whiner. Lead by example for our politically correct whiner children you climate pu$$ies have made them into.
Global warming another WMD scam ahd history will curse us all, denier and warmie alike.
Be brave and protect our planet, not save and rescue it from a mistake with cave man like fear.
Do you actually read what people write or just go off on them for fun?
litesong

Pittsburgh, PA

#140 Oct 21, 2010
Blast from the past:
Brian_G wrote:
The "greenhouse" effect of 500ppm CO2 is insignificantly warmer than 200ppm......
Within 100 years of the atmosphere having 500ppmv CO2, at present rates of CO2 dumping, the atmosphere would be comprised of 0.1+% CO2 by mass. With present rates of warming due to CO2, the release of permafrost methane would be dramatically greater than the present, & methane itself, would compete with CO2 in its warming effects.

brian_g says the things he says because he has a sub-5th grade comprehension of his hi skule deegreee, of which he is proud. Presently, he has made 3 errors of 1 million, 1000 & 3000 times, has an erroneous definition of climate, has made 4 alleged threats & runs the brian_g 'ganghood' filled with filthy vile pukey proud racist pig &/or alleged threatener or threatener deniers.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#141 Oct 21, 2010
You call it dumping, I think it's freeing. If we could increase the rate we emit carbon dioxide, we might be able to test AGW theory and find out if climate change mitigation would work or is any good.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News With La Nina around the corner, dry weather in ... Jun 7 Kev 1
News Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (Jul '09) Jun 1 Into The Night 3,753
News new Scientists find minivan-sized sponge, world... May 31 Jack 8
News As Canada probes Haida Gwaii ocean fertilizing,... Apr '16 lotsa fish poop p... 1
News El Nino, La Nina patterns may be keys to predic... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Sewage in the CRD: Scientists question need for... Mar '16 crazy 1
interesting course Mar '16 Hanalei 1
More from around the web