Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by pro-pilot, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. Confusion reigns supreme in these circles. This is a classic example were the scientific community is spinning to explain these changes based on theory that is incomplete. Non-integrateable with co-incident theory and no scientific experimental data.

    However, what it does show is that the planet's atmosphere is constantly changing, but stay's within a pattern over time.

    Unfortunately, those in power wish to use this as a great chance to drive new taxes and markets for commercial benefit.


  2. You are showing a distinct dip.
    But it is no greater than teh one shown in 1998, and the temperatures climbed distinctly after that.
    The Post 98 average is obviosly higher than the pre 98 average, so apart from that one dip you could draw a compleatly oposit conclusion from the data you have displayed. Now do you have a 50 year or 100 year graph so we can look at real trends?
  3. I don't have access to the raw data, so can't accurately put a trend line on this graph, but from a visual inspection the line appears to be as follows (I Would say that is a pretty conservative trend) Which way doe the trend go??? I Would say that is a 0.2 Degree climb... (0.3 is the official figure (And some say that is conservative))
    Let me also point out at this point that you in the past have been saying that global temperature trends were in fact up, but it wasn't through human effect. So have you changed your mind? or is this just an other bandwagon jump?
  4. Well blogged Bravus.

    I can see the trend FL drew, but a 2nd order or moving average trend would definitely show a dip... but imo it's too early to say whether it's statistical noise or a serious heralder of bad tidings... however, relative to the graph, it's a seriously strong dip...

    Interestingly in 1998, the GW proponents would have used the spike as the "proof" of GW...
  5. No Argument that there is a dip, But there is also an over all upward trend.
    Without more data the graph doesn't prove much at all. Any Impartial Scientist who is dispassionately looking at the data should be able to see that.
  6. But if we draw a general boundary trend-line...


    We can see the Global Temperature Anomoly is just d1cking around, and we shouldn't really take it too seriously.
  7. There's the question of 'why pick on January, for example. The graph is not well labelled, but if you picked, say, August in the two successive years you would show a rise in temperature.

    Cherry blossoms fall
    In gentle seasonal winds
    Data picked like fruit
  8. Jesus, back in 98 I remember when the world almost exploded!!

  9. Ktulu, that's norty. :LOL:
  10. Why settle for a 50 year sample, when everything else is supposed to have taken millions of years :roll:?????
  11. Why indeed?
    Because the escalation of impact by humans has been very pronounced over this time period. But I agree. If you want real trends then you have to measure back as far as you can accurately go.
    And this is the problem...
    100 years ago we could get measurements at specific locations, but couldn't really get enough points of reference to create anything that would be considered a "World Average"
    If we look at ideas like a "World Average" then we would have to ask where are our sampling points, is there any waiting on them? and so on. For example if we have a lot of sampling across Europe we would expect to see a cooling due to the Decrease in activity from the South American Current (See an other of PPs posts for this)
    Does that mean we have global cooling? or just localised cooling around the sample points?
    Graphs can be used to display anything, (As Ktulu has displayed) And PP Has a great ability to throw pre digested data up in front of people and say this is proof. But most of the time a carful look at his "data" shows it to be inconclusive or even at odds with his hypothesis
  12. only need to look back 10 000 years, right Paul :wink:

  13. Come on Paul is older than that!
    Did you know there were 15 commandments and Paul went up with Moses to compile them but he dropped one of the tablets. Moses was peeved he refused to write him into the gospel.
    Hence there were only 10.
    Paul also helped with the invention of the wheel but refused to cooperate with the inventors when they wanted to release it to the general public because he considered it a leftist communist plot.
    :p :p :p :p :p
  14. Plagiarism! That was Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part 1"! :p

    Moses - "I bring you FIFTEEN (drops one and shatters)....make that TEN commandments!" :LOL: :LOL:
  15. :rofl:
  16. Can we make this about the GC and not Hornet please...
  17. In terms of graphs, 10 years is interesting but not really enough... except, as in the case of this one, to notice that the anomaly is *never* negative: even at the minimum the temperatures for the whole period are above average.

    50-100 years is interesting, 500 is better. 2000 years is nice, because (if graphed properly) it shows that it's warmer now than in the much-touted Medieval Warm Period.

    Going out to hundreds of thousands or millions of years is interesting too, but we need to remember that what we're talking about here is human comfort and safety on a planet with 6 billion humans on it. That wasn't the case in the Cretaceous, when it was warmer and there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere.
  18. but rob (and i am sure PP will agree) there is a distinct connection between the 1998 spike in global temperature, and the year of manufacture of pauls bike.