Six Steps to Hell

[Gaius Baltar]

In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that by the end of the century global temperatures would have risen by between 1.4°C and 6.4°C. These short videos are from a National Geographic documentary on the likely effects on the planet caused by each degree of increasing global temperature.

One degree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ZQRIsn2pA

Two degrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-0_gDXq ... re=related

Three degrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rdLu7wi ... re=related

Four degrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skFrR3g4 ... re=related

Five degrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nRf2RTq ... re=related

Six degrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8qmaAMK ... re=related

[Electro]

Too bad that's all hypothetical. I recall that as 2006 was one of the coldest years in recent times it pushed back the average increase to normal levels.

[johnbeag2]

Who has been telling us porkies ??

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ...

For the full article go to:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

[qtman]

Too bad that's all hypothetical. I recall that as 2006 was one of the coldest years in recent times it pushed back the average increase to normal levels.

That data/analysis is full of holes.

He makes grand claims about 2006 and 2007 being the 'coldest years this century'.

Sure they are, but this century is only 8 years old. The fact remains that 2007 is the 8th hottest year since records began, and the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred within the last 13 years.

What is interesting about this and its associated analysis is that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than previous years in this century.

Climate Change skeptics are signaling this as evidence that Global Warming has stopped. The opposing view is that this has been caused by the La Nina effect in the Southern Hemisphere, which has itself occurred because of Global Warming, and which will only last for a couple of years. Thereafter, El Nina will kick in again and drive temperatures even higher.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environme ... 5220080103

There is still an abundance of evidence that the trend is upwards, despite relative cooling in 2006/2007.

[johnbeag2]

Qtman wrote:
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:17 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" That data/analysis is full of holes.

He makes grand claims about 2006 and 2007 being the 'coldest years this century'.

Sure they are, but this century is only 8 years old. The fact remains that 2007 is the 8th hottest year since records began, and the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred within the last 13 years. "


Not so. See below, information published in August last.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/0 ... t_yea.html

McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the "corrected" data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data..
Here is one of his first posts where he begins to understand what is happening. "This imparts an upward discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000 - and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a programming error."
He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.
He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA's newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA.
According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85
Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86

[qtman]

Qtman wrote:
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:17 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" That data/analysis is full of holes.

He makes grand claims about 2006 and 2007 being the 'coldest years this century'.

Sure they are, but this century is only 8 years old. The fact remains that 2007 is the 8th hottest year since records began, and the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred within the last 13 years. "


Not so. See below, information published in August last.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/0 ... t_yea.html

McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the "corrected" data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data..
Here is one of his first posts where he begins to understand what is happening. "This imparts an upward discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000 - and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a programming error."
He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.
He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA's newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA.
According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85
Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86

That data relates only to North America. For instance, 2006 was a relatively cool year worldwide, but was one of hottest years ever in the US. Everyone agrees that the 11 hottest years on record *worldwide* occured on the last 13 years.

The issue that the skeptics have now switched to is the relative cooling that has occured in 2006 and 2007. These are the coolest years since 1998, which was the hottest year ever worldwide.

As I've already pointed out, much of this can be attributed to the La Nina effect in the Southern Hemisphere. 2006 and 2007 were actually very hot years in the Northern Hemisphere, as anyone who booked a skiing holiday in 2006 will tell you.

[david]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... antarctica

"It's bigger than any ice shelf we've seen retreating before, and in the long term it could be a taste of other things to come. It is another indication of the impact that climate change is having on the region."

Long term?!!!!

[red365]

Finally the EPA have published the database of public water supplies that are contaminated by pollution of various kinds. You might remember in January they told us that one third of us were drinking polluted water, but much to their shame, didn't actually detail which ones were affected. Today they have done so.

See here

[Akrasia]

Finally the EPA have published the database of public water supplies that are contaminated by pollution of various kinds. You might remember in January they told us that one third of us were drinking polluted water, but much to their shame, didn't actually detail which ones were affected. Today they have done so.

See here

I just looked through that (just the tables, didn't read the body text) and I didn't see the name Ennis anywhere. Ennis has had a persistent boil water alert for at least 2 years now because of outbreaks of Criptosporidium.

I wonder how comprehensive that EPA report actually is.

[joemomma]

Finally the EPA have published the database of public water supplies that are contaminated by pollution of various kinds. You might remember in January they told us that one third of us were drinking polluted water, but much to their shame, didn't actually detail which ones were affected. Today they have done so.

See here

Isn't this a thread on global warming? What does the above have to do with the topic?