Last Year At This Time, Global Warming(Climate Change) Was A Big Topic Here

[Tim Smith]

Pretty gratifying to see how far the understanding of this issue has come over the last 5 years.

[West Fork Jason]

An effect of climate change is wild fluctuations in weather, in theory.

From last year, to this year: we have gone from the earliest ever ice out to the latest. WTF???

The evidence is there for those willing to admit, green house gasses are in the atmosphere proportional to the advent of the industrial revolution which is also proportional to the rise in temperature.

FACE IT.

[West Fork Jason]

bump.

it's a nice small mouth.

[Jerry Rapp]

we tied a record high today from 1932. What was the CO-2 then?

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ST LOUIS MO
158 PM CDT TUE MAY 14 2013

...RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE SET AT ST. LOUIS THIS AFTERNOON...

A RECORD MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF 93 DEGREES WAS SET THIS AFTERNOON IN
ST. LOUIS AT LAMBERT FIELD. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 91
DEGREES SET IN 1932.

[jdmidwest]

we tied a record high today from 1932. What was the CO-2 then?

RECORD EVENT REPORT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ST LOUIS MO

158 PM CDT TUE MAY 14 2013

...RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE SET AT ST. LOUIS THIS AFTERNOON...

A RECORD MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF 93 DEGREES WAS SET THIS AFTERNOON IN

ST. LOUIS AT LAMBERT FIELD. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 91

DEGREES SET IN 1932.

There you go, after a brief period of global cooling, we again have global warming. Someone must have really put out the greenhouse gases today........

[Al Agnew]

we tied a record high today from 1932. What was the CO-2 then?

RECORD EVENT REPORT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ST LOUIS MO

158 PM CDT TUE MAY 14 2013

...RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE SET AT ST. LOUIS THIS AFTERNOON...

A RECORD MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF 93 DEGREES WAS SET THIS AFTERNOON IN

ST. LOUIS AT LAMBERT FIELD. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 91

DEGREES SET IN 1932.

Same answer, of course...one day has nothing to do with climate.

Just some statistics...a while back, I took the time to gather all the temperature data from the three main sites that monitor and gather it from weather stations across the globe. It's on the internet for anybody to find. If you take the global temperature average from all records dating from 1850 to 1920, let's call that the baseline, 0.0 degrees C over "normal". Keep in mind that a degree in C is 1.8 degrees F. The two warmest years in that whole 70 year period were about 0.5 degrees C above that average. The two coldest years were about 0.3 degrees below it.

From 1920 to 1940, the global average for those two decades was 0.4 degrees above the baseline, with the warmest year only 0.5 degrees above the baseline, and the coldest year right at the baseline of 0.0. Not as much variation in that 20 year period as in the 70 years before, but rising temperatures.

From 1940 to 1975, there was almost no change in average temps, interestingly. The average for the whole period was even a little below the 1920-1940 average, at slightly over 0.3 degrees above the baseline, and the variation was from baseline, 0.0, to 0.55.

From 1975 to 1990, however, there was a sharp rise, up to an average for that 15 year period of 0.7 degrees above baseline. The lowest yearly average was 0.0 right at the start of that period, the highest was 0.8 degrees near the end of the period.

Now, for the years beginning in 1990, I'm going to list the averages for each year, again taking them from the three main sites, but using the lowest and highest sites.

1990--0.65-0.69 (the 0.65 was from the site with the lowest average for that year, the 0.69 was from the site with the highest average. The third site fell somewhere in between.)

1991--0.60-0.68

1992--0.46-0.51 ( a colder than normal year...but still well above the average prior to 1975)

1993--0.46-0.54 (another cold year)

1994--0.56-0.75

1995--0.68-0.72

1996--0.52-0.62

1997--0.74-0.79

1998--0.90-0.92 (a much warmer than average year for the decade, one of those outlier years when records are set.)

1999--0.65-0.72

2000--0.64-0.70

2001--0.80-0.83

2002--0.86-0.89

2003--0.86-0.89

2004--0.81-0.85

2005--0.87-0.95 (note the fifth year in a row of high temps, and this one even broke the 1998 record in according to the data from one source)

2006--0.83-0.89

2007--0.80-0.91 (a lot of difference in sources that year, which as you can see is fairly unusual)

2008--0.71-0.78 (a "cool" year...but only when compared to the years since 1998)

2009--0.84-0.89 (back to cooking)

2010--0.90-0.96 (this year definitively broke the 1998 record)

That was the last year I had complete data for. Since, 2011 was a near record, and 2012 set a new high record.

As you can see, with the exception of the years between 1940 and 1975, the trend has been steadily upward. Not steadily as in each YEAR being warmer than the one before, but rising over decades. You'll always have an exceptionally warm or cool year now and then, but over a longer period of time the trend can easily be seen. And while at this point any exceptionally warm year will set a new record high, an exceptionally cool year is STILL warmer than any year since 1975. There can be no doubt that the planet is warming. And atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. When I first started paying attention to the issue, it was around 320 ppm. Now it's over 400 ppm. The only question is, how much of the observed warming is caused by CO2, how much is caused by other greenhouse gases, and how much is caused by more "natural" things. Or to put it in concrete terms, how much is human caused, and how much is natural cycles? We SHOULD be able to find those "natural" causes. Climate doesn't change for no reason whatsoever. So far, no natural cause we've found can account for the observed warming. Those who say that climate always changes are right, of course, but there have to be reasons for the changes. In the distant past, those reasons have INCLUDED major increases in CO2. Human activity is not the only source of atmospheric CO2. But none of the natural causes seem to be rising. All the rise in CO2 levels is coming from human activities, although it's not all coming from burning fossil fuels...but burning fossil fuels accounts for a lot of it.

[jeb]

Again????

No offense intended Phil, but I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that members here continue to step on your rules and wishes when you continue to allow these threads to go on, despite your posted warning. I know I sit on my hands as long as I can each time one of these comes up in deference to your rules, hoping you'll come along and lock it down, hand out suspensions, etc. But since that does not happen, you are simply inviting these to go on and on, IMO. Frustrating for a person who is trying to stay within the rules!

[Jack Jones]

Jeb, I'd say Phil does a good job of locking it when it starts to get too pointed or abusive. Like you, I remain passive until I can't take it anymore, but only because I like to watch the back and forth. There's plenty of other threads to read if it bothers you. Don't get too frustrated. Save that for the fishing....

[Tim Smith]

No offense intended Phil, but I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that members here continue to step on your rules and wishes when you continue to allow these threads to go on, despite your posted warning. I know I sit on my hands as long as I can each time one of these comes up in deference to your rules, hoping you'll come along and lock it down, hand out suspensions, etc. But since that does not happen, you are simply inviting these to go on and on, IMO. Frustrating for a person who is trying to stay within the rules!

You know Phil does have a message box here, Jeb. If you'd use it and talk to him about this, you could save a lot of keystrokes and forum space whining about how the rules are enforced as you would prefer.

When you do talk to Phil you'll find out (although you already know this) that he's not against free speech or against the topic. He's against the toward childish name calling that tends to crop up from some quarters. Most of the adults on the forum would like to be able to discuss things that are still in flux and likely to be important to the country and the planet over the long haul...

It's a free country. And it's a good forum. And that's one big reason why.

Sorry that doesn't mesh with your preferences.

[jeb]

You know Phil does have a message box here, Jeb. If you'd use it and talk to him about this, you could save a lot of keystrokes and forum space whining about how the rules are enforced as you would prefer.

When you do talk to Phil you'll find out (although you already know this) that he's not against free speech or against the topic. He's against the toward childish name calling that tends to crop up from some quarters. Most of the adults on the forum would like to be able to discuss things that are still in flux and likely to be important to the country and the planet over the long haul...

It's a free country. And it's a good forum. And that's one big reason why.

Sorry that doesn't mesh with your preferences.

You are obviously incorrect or he would not have posted as he did above.

BTW, freedom of speech does not extend to a privately owned internet forums. You agree to follow the rules of the owner when you sign up.