Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

[kallsop]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

Fire up the SUV, Jeeves, and hurry!

[jsfisher]

Do you think it possible the Dailytech may have overstated the significance of all this? I'd like to give the result some time to age just to see if it is a trend or an anomaly.

[JoeEllison]

So, this appears to be a misrepresentation(we call them "lies" where I come from...) based on a quick check of NASA's GISS, which says 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/) Hadley has 2008 predicted to be another top-ten year (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html) for temperature.

The fact that 2008 may be cooler than 2007(and still hot compared to historical data) is predicted along with a strong La Niña, not due to solar activity.

[jsfisher]

So, this appears to be a misrepresentation(we call them "lies" where I come from...) based on a quick check of NASA's GISS, which says 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/) Hadley has 2008 predicted to be another top-ten year (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html) for temperature.

Keep in mind the Dailytech report is on January temperatures for 2007 and 2008, not annual averages.

The fact that 2008 may be cooler than 2007(and still hot compared to historical data) is predicted along with a strong La Niña, not due to solar activity.

May be cooler is predicted? What does that mean? Is the prediction for a cooler or for a warmer 2008?

[jsfisher]

By the way, the dataset directly from NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt), for example, shows the temperature drop. I'm not sure what you think has been misrepresented.

[JoeEllison]

Keep in mind the Dailytech report is on January temperatures for 2007 and 2008, not annual averages.In other words, it is stupid and useless, and STILL makes false claims? Nice to know... :rolleyes:

May be cooler is predicted? What does that mean? Is the prediction for a cooler or for a warmer 2008?
You should read the links provided. It is expected to be cooler than 2007, which was tied for second hottest year. It is still expected to be hotter than most of the other years on record, including the last La Niña year. "Cooler than the hottest three years on record" is nothing even remotely like the claim that "global cooling" is occurring.

Stupid media spreading misinformation, again. :(

[jsfisher]

In other words, it is stupid and useless, and STILL makes false claims? Nice to know... :rolleyes:

As I suggested in my first post of this thread, I wouldn't put much stock in the Dailytech as a reliable news source. However, the underlying datasets all show January 2008 to be noticeable colder than January 2007. No false claim there. The claim may not be meaningful, but it isn't false.

You should read the links provided.

I was questioning your sloppy use of language, not the content of the links.

[JoeEllison]

As I suggested in my first post of this thread, I wouldn't put much stock in the Dailytech as a reliable news source. However, the underlying datasets all show January 2008 to be noticeable colder than January 2007. No false claim there. The claim may not be meaningful, but it isn't false.



I was questioning your sloppy use of language, not the content of the links.
The sloppy use of language is in the DailyTech article, and apparently in your representation as well. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SIGNIFICANT COOLING TREND. To claim that there was a "twelve month long drop in world temperatures" is a lie, as is the claim that all of the previous century's warming has been wiped out. A cold month after the second hottest year on record is not a "twelve month long drop in world temperatures" unless you're a liar or an idiot.

[jsfisher]

The sloppy use of language is in the DailyTech article, and apparently in your representation as well. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SIGNIFICANT COOLING TREND. To claim that there was a "twelve month long drop in world temperatures" is a lie, as is the claim that all of the previous century's warming has been wiped out. A cold month after the second hottest year on record is not a "twelve month long drop in world temperatures" unless you're a liar or an idiot.

(Bolding mine.)
Here's the January 2007 to January 2008 GISS temperature data:

Jan 0.87 Feb 0.63 Mar 0.59 Apr 0.66 May 0.55 Jun 0.53
Jul 0.51 Aug 0.56 Sep 0.50 Oct 0.55 Nov 0.49 Dec 0.40
Jan 0.12

I'll leave it to you to plot it if you like, but it looks to me like an overall twelve drop in world temperatures. There's a little noise in the data, but the trend is clear.

[JoeEllison]

(Bolding mine.)
Here's the January 2007 to January 2008 GISS temperature data:

Jan 0.87 Feb 0.63 Mar 0.59 Apr 0.66 May 0.55 Jun 0.53
Jul 0.51 Aug 0.56 Sep 0.50 Oct 0.55 Nov 0.49 Dec 0.40
Jan 0.12

I'll leave it to you to plot it if you like, but it looks to me like an overall twelve drop in world temperatures. There's a little noise in the data, but the trend is clear.

The trend is that 2007 was tied as the second hottest year in recorded history. What do you have to say about that little fact? Anything? Anything at all?

[JoeEllison]

I think I'm done wresting with the anti-reality claims of DailyTech for tonight. If you choose to be suckered by their lies, knock yourself out.

[jsfisher]

The sloppy use of language is in the DailyTech article, and apparently in your representation as well.


You said this:

The fact that 2008 may be cooler than 2007(and still hot compared to historical data) is predicted along with a strong La Niña, not due to solar activity.


That is analogous to me saying, "This week's Pick-3 Lottery number may be 342." That is not a prediction. Nor is saying 2008 may be cooler than 2007.

Your use of language was sloppy.

[jsfisher]

I think I'm done wresting with the anti-reality claims of DailyTech for tonight. If you choose to be suckered by their lies, knock yourself out.

Wow. Just wow.

[mhaze]

Yep.

[David Wong]

More grasping at straws from the AGW deniers.

Sigh.

[BobK]

Here are some graphs (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-metrics/) and comments on the last 30 years for the four major datasets.
Sure looks to me like a sharp drop in the past year has wiped out most of the warming of the last 30 years. It also still seems to be heading in the same direction.

Edit to change url.

[JoeEllison]

More grasping at straws from the AGW deniers.

Sigh.

Pretty pathetic, isn't it? This isn't even complicated science... it is just stupidity and lack of basic common sense. The second hottest year in the last hundred years is manipulated and dishonestly twisted into "the end of global warming." And the deniers wonder why no one takes them seriously? :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

That's not correct. You can't say a "twelve-month long drop", when you only look at two months, one year apart.

And why January? Sure, it's start of the new year, but the planet doesn't care about that. If we look at Dec 2006 - Dec 2007, the picture changes dramatically, a(n estimated, mine, based on the graph) drop of only 0.43.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

But Denmark has had its 4th warmest winter since recording began in 1874.

Here's a graph (http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sort_vinter), showing the three winter months (hey, if they can pick one month, I can pick three, right?), Dec-Feb. Notice something? We get warmer and warmer winters, but when we do get cold winters, they get really cold - also consistent with Global Warming, which predicts more extreme weather.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

The biggest hint that this is propaganda is the term "wiped out"? That's the same as saying that there are no fluctuations in the world's temperature.

But, as we can see for the Hadley source, there was a(n estimated, mine, based on the graph) increase from Jan 1987 - Jan 1988 of 0.518 - almost as big as the drop from Jan 2007 - Jan 2008.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

That's further evidence that this is propaganda. We are led to believe that it would be much better for us if the mean temperature would increase dramatically - by 26 degrees F. But the planet's mean temperature doesn't mean that it has the same temperature equally distributed - it will always be colder at the poles and warmer around Equator, due to the sun. If we have a mean temperature that is 26 F higher than today, it would mean that the ice caps would definitely melt, but the Equator would be similarly warmer - scorching hells.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

The Little Ice Age was uniformly bad news for civilization? There is some disagreement as to when it started and ended, but if we go from this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Dating_of_the_Little_Ice_Age), would the ending of dependable warm summers in Europe in 1300 be OK as a starting point? Sure, we had famines and even the Black Death, but from 1300 to the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century, civilization went through the Renaissance through the Age of Enlightenment and was just starting the Industrial Age. Some "uniformly bad news" for civilization.

Regardless of your stance on GW, this article is demonstrably pure propaganda.

[kallsop]

Yikes, the Warmers got their feathers in a cluster. LOL.

Take a deep breath. It's not a crisis when someone questions your faith.

[JoeEllison]

Yikes, the Warmers got their feathers in a cluster. LOL.

Take a deep breath. It's not a crisis when someone questions your faith.

Ah, yes... the lie that climate science is a religion, to go with the very obvious lies of the article you posted. Are you so deeply entrenched in your beliefs that you don't mind being lied to? CFLarsen is right on this one: you should be insulted by that piece of propaganda, whatever your view on global warming. It is illogical and dishonest, whatever your stance on the issue is.

[Safe-Keeper]

Just saw this yesterday in my city's newspaper's web sites. Everyone of course got crazy thinking it was some sort of evidence against global warming. I hate willful ignorance.

This has happened before. A single cold winter or summer or quarter or year and all the deniers start the well-oiled 'AGW is over, fire up your SUVs!11' machine, and, when we point out that this doesn't prove anything, start throwing mud at us for our 'religion' (the comments to the news story I mentioned were pretty much identical to kallsop's posts in this thread). Again, move along people, nothing to see here.

[JoeEllison]

Just saw this yesterday in my city's newspaper's web sites. Everyone of course got crazy thinking it was some sort of evidence against global warming. I hate willful ignorance.

And, you know, it only takes five minutes to go online and show how utterly stupid the article is. No one with a lick of sense would call the second hottest year, expected to be followed by another Top Ten Hottest year, a sign of the end of global warming and a possible sign of an ice age.

[Safe-Keeper]

But as a side note, this reduced solar activity thing is interesting. Can anyone here who knows something about this elaborate, as my paper (or kallsop's article) didn't mention if this drop is something that'll last for several years, or if it's a short-term thing.

[sol invictus]

Here are some graphs (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-metrics/) and comments on the last 30 years for the four major datasets.

Take a look at that plot:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_1979-2008-520.png

Now, when you look at that, do you seriously think it indicates a change in the trend?

If yes, try covering the right-hand edge of the plot with a piece of paper or your hand, and move it to the left. See that? By precisely the same logic there was huge upward spike in global temperatures about 15(?) months ago.

It's a noisy plot. The only way to extract a trend is to average over those spikes.

[jsfisher]

It's a noisy plot. The only way to extract a trend is to average over those spikes.

It is a very noisy plot. The one point that is interesting, short term though it may be, is how low the spike is for January 2008. That will cease to be of much interest once the graph spikes back up.

[JoeEllison]

Take a look at that plot:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_1979-2008-520.png

Now, when you look at that, do you seriously think it indicates a change in the trend?

If yes, try covering the right-hand edge of the plot with a piece of paper or your hand, and move it to the left. See that? By precisely the same logic there was huge upward spike in global temperatures about 15(?) months ago.

It's a noisy plot. The only way to extract a trend is to average over those spikes.

Why not use this one from NASA?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/169049main_1880_2006_gms.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Yikes, the Warmers got their feathers in a cluster. LOL.

Take a deep breath. It's not a crisis when someone questions your faith.

How about addressing the criticism?

[mhaze]

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

From Anthony Watts -

In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:“Anthony Watts compiled the results (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/) of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine:“–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.


Duuuuhhhhhhh!!!

[godless dave]

I've heard of 2+2=5, but this is the first time I've seen someone assert that one month is equal to twelve months.

[mhaze]

I've heard of 2+2=5, but this is the first time I've seen someone assert that one month is equal to twelve months.

Incorrect.

[MattusMaximus]

Take a look at that plot:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_1979-2008-520.png

Now, when you look at that, do you seriously think it indicates a change in the trend?

If yes, try covering the right-hand edge of the plot with a piece of paper or your hand, and move it to the left. See that? By precisely the same logic there was huge upward spike in global temperatures about 15(?) months ago.

It's a noisy plot. The only way to extract a trend is to average over those spikes.


Yup, nothing like a selective use of statistics to bolster one's claims. Based solely upon the analysis of the data and graph (a complete analysis, 1979-2008), I'd have to say the conclusions that GW was 'wiped out' in the last year to be complete garbage.

All one has to do is look at the trend in the data over time to see that there seems to be some kind of warming trend taking place. To be fair, based upon that graph, the most that the 'deniers' could possibly claim is that the temperature trend could be flat, but I cannot say this for sure without a more thorough analysis of the uncertainties in the data and whatnot. But no, they want to start making up crap about 'global cooling.'

Of course, the people putting forth this hogwash anti-GW 'science' are simply cherry-picking the data that supports their claims, such as when they focus only upon the last piece of the data where there's a dip. And they ignore the rest of the data.

It's kind of like how psychics count only the hits and discount the misses. And it is just as dishonest.

[casebro]

Why not use this one from NASA?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/169049main_1880_2006_gms.jpg

Because it doesn't even go up to 2008, perhaps?

[wollery]

Take a look at that plot:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_1979-2008-520.png

Now, when you look at that, do you seriously think it indicates a change in the trend?

If yes, try covering the right-hand edge of the plot with a piece of paper or your hand, and move it to the left. See that? By precisely the same logic there was huge upward spike in global temperatures about 15(?) months ago.

It's a noisy plot. The only way to extract a trend is to average over those spikes.I'm not a climate scientist, I'm an astrophysicist, but I've worked with enough data that produce similar plots to be pretty sure that if you did a linear regression fit to that data you'd get a line with a slope of 0.044 degrees per year increase.

There also seems to be a trend of two years heating followed by two years cooling, but the heating is larger than the cooling, which is why the general trend is upwards. It has been a little flatter over the last 4 years, but if the trend continues then the next 2 years should be upward with a spike in 2010 (roughly).

[JoeEllison]

Because it doesn't even go up to 2008, perhaps?

Do you see the spike for 1998? Add it for 2007 as well. Two-way tie for second hottest year in the past century, in case you missed it, and a pretty solid continuing of the general trend... unless you're a liar with an agenda, in which case the second hottest year in a century means a possible ice age.

[MattusMaximus]

Because it doesn't even go up to 2008, perhaps?


Point made. People on all sides of the GW issue (I won't call it a 'debate' - that's too much like buying into creationist crapola) would do well to reference complete data sets when making their arguments.

That said, it seems the most complete data we have firmly supports GW.

[CapelDodger]

How about addressing the criticism?

Yeah, right, let us know how that works out for you ... ;)

Looks like another drive-by to me.

[Megalodon]

Yes, there is a drop in global temperature this winter, but it should be seen in perspective to the last few decades...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28147c62252e11c6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11047)

The 00s have been on average 0.543º above climatology. As a comparison, the 90s were 0.349º, the 80s 0.205º and the 70s 0.036º above climatology... maybe some can notice a trend.

[JoeEllison]

Point made. People on all sides of the GW issue (I won't call it a 'debate' - that's too much like buying into creationist crapola) would do well to reference complete data sets when making their arguments.

That said, it seems the most complete data we have firmly supports GW.

It wasn't much of a point, though... was it?

[MattusMaximus]

It wasn't much of a point, though... was it?


I thought so. It's disingenuous to insist that anti-GWers present and examine complete data sets and then turn around and not do it yourself. And besides, even with the dip in the data in 2007-08, the upward trend in the data is still readily apparent.

The fact that anti-GWers try to use that small blip in the data as 'proof' that GW isn't real just shows how they're either dishonest or incompetent.

[CapelDodger]

Last January saw mild El Nino conditions. This January sees mild La Nina conditions. No wonder this last twelve-month is being latched onto.

Look at this nonsense

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U3RFHO0&show_article=1) in all recorded history. "

China saw a cold-snap in late January and early February, which in no way defines a season. Chinese winters in the 40's were much colder. Snow has often fallen in Baghdad, it just hasn't been so often recently. There are mountains to its East and North, so it's quite vulnerable to weather.

And it just goes on in the same vein. It's all over, folks, move along, nothing to see here, the AGW bubble burst between Jan 2007 and Jan 2008.

[JoeEllison]

I thought so. It's disingenuous to insist that anti-GWers present and examine complete data sets and then turn around and not do it yourself. And besides, even with the dip in the data in 2007-08, the upward trend in the data is still readily apparent.
Well... I see your point, but it wasn't MY point, if you see my meaning. I was answering the charge that the graph presented was "noisy," by presenting a graph that more clearly showed the overall trend... and, as I noted, the data for 2007 and 1998 are a virtual match(as per the NASA declaration that 2007 and 1998 tied for second hottest year on record), so I DID present a complete data set, although the graph did not.

[m_huber]

Because it doesn't even go up to 2008, perhaps?

It uses annual mean temperature; 2008 doesn't have a full annual mean temperature yet.

[MattusMaximus]

The 00s have been on average 0.543º above climatology. As a comparison, the 90s were 0.349º, the 80s 0.205º and the 70s 0.036º above climatology... maybe some can notice a trend.


Nope, no trend there! GW turned into GC (global cooling) in 2007-08 - the data are definitive!!! :jaw-dropp

It's the same sloppy thinking that states "Well, it's pretty cold today in Chicago. So much for GW!" People who make such statements either have no knowledge of statistics (suckers in Las Vegas) or they're just liars.

These drive-by's (nice term) are so damn annoying. Anyone want to make a bet as to whether or not the trolls are going to stick around to defend their bogus claims, or do you think they'll run & hide so they can derail and distort another day?

[MattusMaximus]

Well... I see your point, but it wasn't MY point, if you see my meaning. I was answering the charge that the graph presented was "noisy," by presenting a graph that more clearly showed the overall trend... and, as I noted, the data for 2007 and 1998 are a virtual match(as per the NASA declaration that 2007 and 1998 tied for second hottest year on record), so I DID present a complete data set, although the graph did not.


I see... point made. :)

[JoeEllison]

I see... point made. :)

And, you coincidentally made the point that you aren't a moron, by being able to understand pretty simple facts when presented to you... unlike some totally unnamed people... :D

[gumboot]

Wow, what a load on nonsense. The graph doesn't even show changes in temperature. It showed changes in temperature anomaly. And according to the graph in the OP-linked article it doesn't even drop below zero so there's no way anyone could ever interpret that as cooling if anything it's just a reduction in the rate of warming.

[Geckko]

Wow, what a load on nonsense. The graph doesn't even show changes in temperature. It showed changes in temperature anomaly. And according to the graph in the OP-linked article it doesn't even drop below zero so there's no way anyone could ever interpret that as cooling if anything it's just a reduction in the rate of warming.


I don't think that is strictly true. These data tend to be anomalies relative to a (constant) long run average in order to remove seasonality. So that means a higher anomaly indicates rising, lower anomaly indiactes falling, constant anomaly means stable.

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, right, let us know how that works out for you ... ;)

Looks like another drive-by to me.

Since the Earth is round, sooner or later, he'll drive past this again. And I'll be here, waiting. :)

[Megalodon]

Nope, no trend there! GW turned into GC (global cooling) in 2007-08 - the data are definitive!!! :jaw-dropp

Not only that, 2007 had an average anomaly of 0.562º, above the 00s average anomaly... proof of cooling indeed.

These drive-by's (nice term) are so damn annoying. Anyone want to make a bet as to whether or not the trolls are going to stick around to defend their bogus claims, or do you think they'll run & hide so they can derail and distort another day?

I don't know... whenever I post graphs, the denialists ignore me, or focus on a minimal part of my posts. I stopped addressing their stupidity, and just post the data to show them for the liars they are.

Of course, now hazy or DR will drop by and claim the high ground in the discussion, ignoring the fact that, for a number of months now, they keep calling a whole class of scientists, liars, corrupted and/or incompetent. But that's the high ground, apparently.

[TrueSceptic]

I thought so. It's disingenuous to insist that anti-GWers present and examine complete data sets and then turn around and not do it yourself. And besides, even with the dip in the data in 2007-08, the upward trend in the data is still readily apparent.

The fact that anti-GWers try to use that small blip in the data as 'proof' that GW isn't real just shows how they're either dishonest or incompetent.
From what I've seen, here and elsewhere, there is a third possibility: that they are delusional. In fact, IMO it dominates.

So we have dishonest, delusional, or incompetent. Is there a nice "d" word for "incompetent"?

[drkitten]

So we have dishonest, delusional, or incompetent. Is there a nice "d" word for "incompetent"?

Dumb.

[TrueSceptic]

Dumb.
Thanks. Trouble with that one is that means mute over here, not stupid.

[kjkent1]

...nevermind

[m_huber]

Since the Earth is round, sooner or later, he'll drive past this again. And I'll be here, waiting. :)

Well, it is spherical, or more accurately, geoidal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid).

[drkitten]

Thanks. Trouble with that one is that means mute over here, not stupid.

Yeah, and I'll bet you think the word "ironmonger" is meaningful, too.

[TrueSceptic]

Yeah, and I'll bet you think the word "ironmonger" is meaningful, too.
Meaning...?

I'm just after something not slang, and not ambiguous. :)

[jsfisher]

Meaning...?

I'm just after something not slang, and not ambiguous. :)

If I'm not mistaken, an ironmonger is someone that runs a hardware store.

[jimbob]

Its obvious: an ironmonger mongs iron, a fishmonger mongs fish, and a costermonger mongs costers.

Do Americans call it "a butcher's shop", "a butchery", or something else? My Kiwi cousins use the word, "butchery".

[ben m]

In other news:

In 2003, NASA's Space Shuttle crash rate went from 0% to 100%, reversing a 15-year trend. Two years later, the 0% success rate abruptly shifted back to 100% and stayed there. Weird.

David Ortiz's 2007 batting average is sometimes said to be over 0.330, but I see a sharp downward dip in September when he want 0 for 4 (plus a walk) against the White Sox. The correct value of his batting average is .000 and the Mainstream Sabermetric Conspiracy can't cover it up any longer!

Supposedly the "tide is going out", but that last wave washed further up the beach than any of the ten preceding waves. Clearly the tide is not going out.

Some people say I've been gaining weight steadily, but yesterday I stepped out of a violently dehydrating sauna and came out 3kg under your supposed upward "trend line". The new, better trend line will turn me into a skeleton in about three days.

(Monday) The stock market just dropped 100 points in one day OMG WTF sell sell sell! (Tuesday) Oh, hey, it just rose 40 points on opening OMG HERE WE GO buy buy buy! (Wednesday) OH NOES it dropped a dollar! At this rate I'll be homeless by noon tomorrow! Help! (Thursday) etc.

(flipping a coin) Heads. Heads. They say this is a two headed coin, but more studies are needed. (continues flipping.) Tails. See? you were wrong, it must be a normal coin. Tails. Tails. There, now it's a two-tails coin. Heads. Tails. Tails. There, see? Two tails, just like I said. (This study was conducted by Innumeracy Industries GmbH---lead investors in the fact that all coins are two-headed.)

[Dr. Imago]

Aside from this being one big "we're still right" masturbatory session by the warmer camp, please detail for me how these findings affirm the supposition that the escalating CO2 levels are the prime "forcer" of global warming. As well, how could these most recent observations possibly have occurred if CO2 is the potent "insulator" you warmers would have us to believe?

And, no one has yet answered a question of mine from another thread: how long of an observation period is required for one to discern a meaningful trend? I think having a meaningful agreement on that is paramount to continuing this discussion.

Thank you in advance.

-Dr. Imago

[INRM]

I don't think we should get out our SUV's yet.... If anything, the planet's been heating up over the past 400 years which is largely mankind induced.

We could use a little cooling off right now I say

[wollery]

Aside from this being one big "we're still right" masturbatory session by the warmer camp, please detail for me how these findings affirm the supposition that the escalating CO2 levels are the prime "forcer" of global warming. As well, how could these most recent observations possibly have occurred if CO2 is the potent "insulator" you warmers would have us to believe?It's called weather. The Earth is a very complex system, with ocean currents affecting atmospheric currents, absorbing and releasing heat, and producing cycles that carry over several years (see my earlier post about the cyclic trend apparent in the graph). We happen to be in a down part of the cycle at the moment. The general trend is quite obviously upwards, and has been for a long time.

And, no one has yet answered a question of mine from another thread: how long of an observation period is required for one to discern a meaningful trend? I think having a meaningful agreement on that is paramount to continuing this discussion.Here's one for 140 years ;
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg
Lots of little ups and downs, but a clear upward trend.

But all of that is irrelevant. The point is, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and does contribute to global warming, even if it isn't the only cause. There may be a general trend due to natural causes, but even if there is, the amount of CO2 we humans produce is adding to it, and that can't be a good thing.

[a_unique_person]

Aside from this being one big "we're still right" masturbatory session by the warmer camp, please detail for me how these findings affirm the supposition that the escalating CO2 levels are the prime "forcer" of global warming. As well, how could these most recent observations possibly have occurred if CO2 is the potent "insulator" you warmers would have us to believe?

-Dr. Imago

Cold Air Outbreaks.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/wrfredirect.cgi?id=6473

You will need to download the webex player. The poles are still cold, and the climate is capable of sending that cold air to other places.

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

[CapelDodger]

I don't know... whenever I post graphs, the denialists ignore me, or focus on a minimal part of my posts. I stopped addressing their stupidity, and just post the data to show them for the liars they are.

I can see how it might seem a thankless task but I, for one, thank you for it. So it isn't :).

[CapelDodger]

Its obvious: an ironmonger mongs iron, a fishmonger mongs fish, and a costermonger mongs costers.

Do Americans call it "a butcher's shop", "a butchery", or something else? My Kiwi cousins use the word, "butchery".

Just over the way in Clifton Street is a shop that announces itself (in large lettering) as a "Family Butcher". Don't ask me why, but there it is. They've been there for years, so they must be doing good trade.

[CapelDodger]

(flipping a coin) Heads. Heads. They say this is a two headed coin, but more studies are needed. (continues flipping.) Tails. See? you were wrong, it must be a normal coin. Tails. Tails. There, now it's a two-tails coin. Heads. Tails. Tails. There, see? Two tails, just like I said. (This study was conducted by Innumeracy Industries GmbH---lead investors in the fact that all coins are two-headed.)

:D

As any fule kno, all coins are ten-headed. String-theory proves it. Trust me on that, and place your bet accordingly.

[jsfisher]

Its obvious: an ironmonger mongs iron, a fishmonger mongs fish, and a costermonger mongs costers.

Do Americans call it "a butcher's shop", "a butchery", or something else? My Kiwi cousins use the word, "butchery".

Usually just "the butcher" or "the butcher's" with the "shop" part elided.

[CapelDodger]

I don't think we should get out our SUV's yet.... If anything, the planet's been heating up over the past 400 years which is largely mankind induced.

Hardly. It's mostly explained by vulcanism and solar variation, neither of which are influenced by we mere humans.

We could use a little cooling off right now I say

A bout of serious vulcanism would definitely buy some time.

[CapelDodger]

Meaning...?

I'm just after something not slang, and not ambiguous. :)

"Drooping".

[Jeff Corey]

Jagger's Butcher Store sign, "Pleased to Meat You."

[CapelDodger]

The poles are still cold, and the climate is capable of sending that cold air to other places.

And if that's what the weather wants to do, there's damn' all we can do about it.

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Yeah, that'll work ;).