[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by ElectricSlide

DEBATING THIS IS A HUGE WASTE OF TIME AND PRODUCTIVE ENERGY - ALSO CREATING UNNECESSARY TENSION AND DIVISION BETWEEN GOOD PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER FOR A BETTER WORLD FOR EVERYONE. THE "SOLUTIONS" ARE GOOD FOR EVERYONE IN MULTIPLE WAYS - UTOPIAN LIKE.

Hehe - there will never be Utopia until we start making better people...



________________

Here's an old post of mine:



Another user also made an excellent neutral and productive point:[/quote]

[david85]

The net loss of south pole sea ice was one year after it reached an all time high int 2005.

[Jeff from KY]

Originally Posted by david85

The net loss of south pole sea ice was one year after it reached an all time high int 2005.

South Pole ice will probably continue to increase for the reasons given. And the planet is still warming.

[bbbowden]

After reading through this thread, I'd like to say thank you to Jeff for making the argument that I am unable coherently express. Every time I hear one of these discussions, I always want to ask the participants the reason they have chosen the side they have chosen.

[PhantomPholly]

You could ask me. I chose the "side" I'm on because I can clearly see that those who back it are either a) corrupt politicians who stand to enrich themselves, both with money and with power; and b) because the alleged threat will not be a threat at all by the time it allegedly would truly be a problem.

When we've got 200 years to solve a 20 year problem, I just can't get on the bandwagon.

[david85]

What Jeff did with his graph was use the yearly average which needless to say isn't the whole story. This is a month by month graph that includes the global peak of 1998. I would be comfortable saying that global temp has not gone past the peak of 1998.

[david85]

Another reason these graphs are nearly irrelevant is this:



The earth has been warmer than it is today and it did get warmer as fast as it is now. Note how measured thermometer readings line up reasonably well with the tree ring data.

Now maybe some one can explain to me why I should be running for the hills.

[david85]

Something else to consider, innacurate temperature readings from surface weather stations:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[Jeff from KY]

Originally Posted by david85

What Jeff did with his graph was use the yearly average which needless to say isn't the whole story. This is a month by month graph that includes the global peak of 1998.

Well, first, I have no idea what data set you are using or what the months covered are. Assuming your trend line is correct (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t) I can’t really comment as to why your line shows a downward slope. Could you be using regional monthly data rather than global monthly data? What’s the date range covered? When discussing climatic trends, ranges of less than 10 years will be problematic.

Using the global monthly temperature anomalies data from the NASA site that you referenced (here’s the link to the data set again http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt), I graphed the range from January 1998 to December 2008 and got the following graph.



The bigger question however is why do you think that you and I, arguing on an Internet web site, building graphs in Excel, will pull some breakthrough insight out of data that has been reviewed and analyzed by thousands of climatologists and geophysicists? Do you really think they all missed this cooling trend (or they are conspiring to hide it)?

I would be comfortable saying that global temp has not gone past the peak of 1998.

Might be comfortable, but you’d be comfortably wrong

Highest Average Monthly Temperature Anomaly in 1998 – Feb. – 1.02
March 2002 – 1.02
January 2007 – 1.06

And looking at the annual (Jan-Dec) temperature anomalies:
1998 – 0.70
2005 – 0.75
2007 – 0.72
And the planet is still warming.

[Jeff from KY]

Originally Posted by david85

Another reason these graphs are nearly irrelevant is this:



The earth has been warmer than it is today and it did get warmer as fast as it is now. Note how measured thermometer readings line up reasonably well with the tree ring data.

Now maybe some one can explain to me why I should be running for the hills.

First, no one says you should be running for the hills. However, if your car is rolling down a hill (batteries gave out ) towards a large tree at the bottom, isn't it prudent to start applying the brakes now?

New Scientist magazine has published several articles dealing with these climate myths that continue to appear on the 'net; Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed. Here's the one that addresses your point; It Was Warmer During the Medieval Period. And a similiar one; It's Been Far Warmer in the Past.