Interesting Data Presentation on Global Temperature Trends

Heat is easily defeated with a little shade....

Why do I always get the feeling we are being manipulated with data on global warming? Don't suppose the manipulation of facts (both now and historical) has a bearing on my attitude. I live in an area that was exceptionally cold and many cold records were broken. Yet the data from Bloomberg suggests we were warmer than normal. Most climatologist reported the opposite in the region. It makes me wonder how the data was weighted. Here is an alternative point of view. We can stop all human CO2 discharge but will we actually achieve anything other than a very expensive change of all human behaviour? There still remain many natural fluctuations and to claim we can achieve temperature change goals through economic collapse is just so much misinformation.

Many contradicting views can be found. The solar physicists will claim solar activity as a primary driver of global warming. They may have a very valid point. Are we supposed to pick a side?

By the way, the picture looks very "hot".

'...we can stop all human CO2 discharge...'

.

....over my dead body....and everyone else's too.

While searching for a workable solution it doesn't hurt to pick some of the low hanging fruit...

"We can stop all human CO2 discharge but will we actually achieve anything other than a very expensive change of all human behaviour?"

Changing to solar power is not an expensive change. It actually saves money for homeowners, and can be financed with no money in advance. It reduces the amount of money going to terrorists. It results in fewer oil spills, fewer oil refinery explosions, few tank car explosions, and less air pollution. It can be installed in remote areas instead of on top of the house, if the house is not suitable, and the homeowner still gets the energy credits. Where is the down side?

What exactly are you implying when you say 'it reduces the amount of money going to terrorists'. Are you suggesting natural gas, coal, and uranium sources fund terrorists? Or did you forget to mention the electric car purchase required in addition to the solar panel.

Far less than 1% of electricity used in the typical US home comes from oil. Oil mostly powers transportation and makes chemical stock.

I have lived in several apartment buildings that burned oil for heat. Not many buildings actually use electricity for heating, even though heat pumps are one of the most efficient ways of heating a building. According to the EPA, about 81% of heating is done with natural gas, not much with coal.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/commercialresidential.html

The part I left out was not the electric vehicle, but conservation such as insulating houses. Most people can save a lot of money and live more comfortably by insulating their houses and apartments better.

You're right about electric vehicles. For those who can afford it, electric vehicles would also reduce emissions. If any of those new battery technologies pan out, they should come down dramatically in price and go up dramatically in range and speed of recharging. I'm not holding my breath, but it does look promising.

insights.globalspec.com/article/799/aluminum-batteries-could-challenge-lithium-ion-on-cost-and-safety

Are you suggesting natural gas proceeds from home heating in the US are a significant funding source for terrorism?

Look closely, those are cowboy hats not turbans.

Nope. I was talking about the oil.

That doesn't follow. You seem to understand that electricity production for homes in the US isn't fueled significantly by oil. You also make the statement that homes are heated mostly by natural gas....not oil. How exactly does putting solar panels on the roof, to power the typical home, take funding away from terrorist to any significant degree?

When I posted that comment, I did not know that 80% of homes are heated by natural gas. My experience was of using oil to heat two different homes. So the contribution of home heating to terrorism is not as high as I though, but it is not zero.

As you say, if you include the cost of an electric car, you reduce the amount of actual gasoline being bought, and that does affect the money going to terrorists.

Agreed.

The basic physics consists of inbound radiation of spectra A through the atmosphere, radiation absorption on all surface features (e. g., heating), reflection and re-radiation of spectra B back to space, but some portion of the net radiation being captured in the atmospheric thermal sink by an assortment of chemical actors largely associated with human activity or amplified by human activity. On any particular diurnal cycle all of this is globally very miniscule and very often is regionally contrary as the result of the thermodynamic engine movement of global air masses, those movements being generally amplified, as one would expect, in some amount by the long term average increase in global temperature.

Folks, the primal physics of anthropogenic warming of the atmosphere and associate terrestrial/aquatic/marine features is real. Beyond these physics we are in largely uncharted science with respect to second, third, etc. order consequences.

One of the more interesting aspects is that before there was a forestry service, it is estimated that the equivalent of 100 per cent of the non-boreal forests and plains of Earth burned every 50 to 100 years, yet all of this burning plus occasional mega-volcanism did not approach the insertion of the base load of heating-implicated chemicals presently accumulating in the atmosphere. And, BTW, atmospheric particulate actually attenuates the current process by intercepting a portion of the incident radiation and reflecting it back into space, but the physics of so-called "global dimming" process is still being thrashed out.

RAM you should start stocking fuel and buy more insulation.

If you convert the graph to Degree Celsius you will find your worst fears confirmed.

Actually 1.54 deg F is -16.92 Deg Celsius. This would mean the climate on Earth is closing in on an ice age.

Watch it! It will get you.

The temperature scale is not the Fahrenheit scale, but deviation in degrees F from the 20th century average.

So now that we have this out of the way we just need to find out if we are talking maximum values or average as in measured over 24 hours 365 days in every possible spot. You know that there could be a huge difference.

Its a pretty badly defined statistic. I stick to deg C and it was the coldest ever this morning.

Arizona temperatures yesterday tied the highest "recorded" temperature for June 18 of the calendar year but did exceed it.

It was so hot I saw two lizards riding piggyback on a horned toad just to get across the highway in front of my office.

No doubt the horned toad has stumbled upon a new niche in the global transportation market that can and will effectively address some of the global warming symptoms.

It is my understanding that he will be expanding the business immediately and stock options will become available to the public as soon as the SEC approves his application.

The name of the new transportation company: Hot-Hot-Hot or Not-Not-Not

The company slogan: "Let us take the heat off you no matter what you do."

The company spokesman: Gilbert Gottfried

Stay tuned to your local TV for a running update on the company's progress.

Look at that ES CAR GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, GROAN!!!

Was this the toad you saw?

Just stay away from the Iguana........ He has CRABS!

Sometimes I think that some climatologists end up swimming in the numbers and are unable to pull their head out (no pun intended) long enough to step outside and feel the actual temperature.

The Earth is a living entity and is going to go through climate changes when ever it wants or needs to.

Are we able to stop a volcano from erupting.. NO!!!

Are we able to stop a tsunami... NO!!!

Wake the hell up people and smell the coffee.

There is little we can do as humans other than try to keep our emissions down (HAHAHAHA) even I couldn't keep a straight face on that one!!!!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance..... Baffle them with Bullsh*t.

Without the complete buy-in of every person and business in the world, there is nothing we can do about emissions. Look at how much coal China burns daily... (UGGHH... choke.. choke.. cough...)

The unintended consequences of plans to improve are also a huge factor, often ignored.

Take the example of China burning so much coal. I am by no means a proponent of coal and believe that all electric production should be put on equal footing for emission requirements (which would end coals viability today). Still, it may be that China's significant coal burning and lack (until very recently) of strict emissions controls, specifically on SO2, caused increased abledo, acting to limit any temperature rise.

China's very recent addition of SO2 scrubbers on numerous coal plants should improve air quality in many cities, but it might also allow much more rapid temperature rise.....maybe.

.

One of the biggest problems is that the cultures in control are biased more towards action than thorough understanding.

.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...and seems to be getting warmer and warmer.

I remember the 1970's SMOG alerts in Southern California. The smog was never as bad as China, but at times it was difficult to see further than 100 feet.

Not sure when this picture was taken, but this is China during a severe smog alert!

Global warming is a fact, but is measured over decades, maybe even centuries. Therefore, I don't have to worry much because I'll be gone, but my descendants do have to be very concerned.

everyone expects me to tee off on this thread......I wont hopefully wool socks go on sale and I can stock up for winter

National Geographic had a article last year about the growing problems of feeding a rapidly increasing world population. In that article they stated the majority of human CO2 emissions resulted from the agriculture activities that feed us. The article went on to show those emissions are growing as fast as the world human population and that the burning of hydrocarbon fuel was becoming less and less significant. All in all it painted a grim picture regardless of your opinion on man made climate change. To think that human induced climate change will be our undoing is nothing short of stupid.

There are a many "laws" that people refer to when debating numbers. Being I am primarily a "human" engineer, the law I frequent is the law of unintended consequences. These wonderful little wake up calls range from the simple to the global. To pretend that 7 billion humans on this rock has no effect is as ridiculous as believing dropping a rock in a pond causes no ripples. Or denying that the bigger the rock the larger the wave.

But you know, like I used to tell people in therapy, your paying me. I'll keep taking your money as long as you keep believing in things that aren't working. Your choice.

Cooled down to the mid 30s (C) here last couple of days. It got cloudy too.

Coincidence?