Major analysis confirms global warming is real

In article ,
Peter Webb wrote:

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that time.

Was the five-year average global temperature anomoly for the five
years starting at that time larger than for the five years ending
then?

IE 'is global warming occurring now' is a meaningless question; 'did
the world warm over some time period' is one that has an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl...10_(Fig.A).gif

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

The world was not warmer in 1961-66 than it was in 1956-61; so, no.

But the mechanisms that are causing the world to warm quickly at the
moment were mostly still there in the 1960s; I think the current
explanation is that sulphate aerosols produced by burning low-grade
coal without care were making the Earth cloudier, and causing it to
reflect more light.

Tom

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:21:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

My news reader must have dropped it.

Then I will copy it out of my last post and post it again:

"The most common definition is the decadal average: at any point in
time, this is the average over the previous five years, and the
subsequent five years. Also seen commonly is the 30-year average, and
increasingly with improved modeling, the 5-year average.

These are normally compared with some sort of reference temperature,
such at a very long average about a particular year.

Rates are normally reported in degrees per year, with that rate
calculated over a five, ten, or thirty year interval."

What is the current warming rate?

Different studies give different rates (just like different news
stations give different values for the day's high and low
temperatures). Most scientists now agree that the global average
temperature has risen about 0.8°C in the last 100 years. As the
reconstruction of this record has improved, the non-linear rate of
increase has become easier to see in the historical data, and as
models have improved, increasing non-linearity is influencing
predictions. Because of the non-linearity, it seems more common these
days to give a difference in temperatures over some fairly long
period, rather than a rate corrected to an annualized or decadal value
(e.g. 0.1°C/decade).

Highly conservative and probably understated predictions like those of
the IPCC suggest a further warming of 2°C by the end of this century.
Reports using more sophisticated models over the last few years
indicate a larger change, most studies are now suggesting that 4-6°C
is increasingly likely.

If you want more details (which I expect you say you will, but in
actuality don't) you can trivially find these studies online, complete
with all the details of their models and definitions of rates.

"Thomas Womack" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Webb wrote:

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that
time.

Was the five-year average global temperature anomoly for the five
years starting at that time larger than for the five years ending
then?

IE 'is global warming occurring now' is a meaningless question; 'did
the world warm over some time period' is one that has an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl...10_(Fig.A).gif

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

The world was not warmer in 1961-66 than it was in 1956-61; so, no.

But the mechanisms that are causing the world to warm quickly at the
moment were mostly still there in the 1960s; I think the current
explanation is that sulphate aerosols produced by burning low-grade
coal without care were making the Earth cloudier, and causing it to
reflect more light.

Tom

Well, if you use a measure which involves knowing temperatures after the
time in question, you can never know the current warming rate.

Based upon this five years plus or minus formula, the latest date for which
we can calculate the warming rate is 2005, and the calculated rate is 0.3
degrees per decade. I checked with the GISS data at
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt which allows
warming rates to be calculated using your formula from 1885 and the first
time the warming rate exceeded the rate in 2005 was in 1895. Didn't have to
look far at all.

The most recent warming rate that can be calculated according to your
definition is hardly "unprecedented in recorded history"; it has been
exceeded many times even since 1880.

So either your definition is wrong, or climate "scientists" talk complete
crap.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:21:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:57 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.

No you didn't.

Or at least, I can't find it.

Then you need to learn to read! I could find it easily.

My news reader must have dropped it.

If so, re-read the post in Google Groups


How is the warming rate calculated/defined?
What is the current warming rate?
What was the second fastest rate of warming in the last 200 years,
when was
it, and what was the warming rate at this time?

I just want to see exactly how "unprecedented" the current "warming
rate"
is.

No, you want to avoid precisely that! That's why you keep re-asking
those stupid questions, claiming you've never seen any answer
althought they've popped up right before your eyes multiple times!!!
"My news reader must have dropped it" ..... you stupid fool, you
obnoxious troll....

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:21:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

My news reader must have dropped it.

Then I will copy it out of my last post and post it again:

"The most common definition is the decadal average: at any point in
time, this is the average over the previous five years, and the
subsequent five years. Also seen commonly is the 30-year average, and
increasingly with improved modeling, the 5-year average.

These are normally compared with some sort of reference temperature,
such at a very long average about a particular year.

Rates are normally reported in degrees per year, with that rate
calculated over a five, ten, or thirty year interval."

What is the current warming rate?

Different studies give different rates (just like different news
stations give different values for the day's high and low
temperatures).

They don't where I live. They all get them from the Bureau of Meteorology.

Most scientists now agree that the global average
temperature has risen about 0.8°C in the last 100 years. As the
reconstruction of this record has improved, the non-linear rate of
increase has become easier to see in the historical data, and as
models have improved, increasing non-linearity is influencing
predictions. Because of the non-linearity, it seems more common these
days to give a difference in temperatures over some fairly long
period, rather than a rate corrected to an annualized or decadal value
(e.g. 0.1°C/decade).

Highly conservative and probably understated predictions like those of
the IPCC suggest a further warming of 2°C by the end of this century.
Reports using more sophisticated models over the last few years
indicate a larger change, most studies are now suggesting that 4-6°C
is increasingly likely.

If you want more details (which I expect you say you will, but in
actuality don't) you can trivially find these studies online, complete
with all the details of their models and definitions of rates.

OK, you have given three different possible interpretations of what the
"warming rate" means.

When climatologists say "the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate",
which definition are they using?

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:21:33 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:57 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.

No you didn't.

Or at least, I can't find it.

Then you need to learn to read! I could find it easily.

My news reader must have dropped it.

If so, re-read the post in Google Groups


How is the warming rate calculated/defined?
What is the current warming rate?
What was the second fastest rate of warming in the last 200 years,
when was
it, and what was the warming rate at this time?

I just want to see exactly how "unprecedented" the current "warming
rate"
is.

No, you want to avoid precisely that! That's why you keep re-asking those
stupid questions, claiming you've never seen any answer althought they've
popped up right before your eyes multiple times!!! "My news reader must
have dropped it" ..... you stupid fool, you obnoxious troll....

Where has somebody said what the current warming rate is?

Where has somebody said what is the second fastest rate in "recorded
history" (another undefined term used by climatologists to vague things up)?

You claim one number (the current warming rate) is larger than another (the
previous fastest warming rate in "recorded history"), but you still haven't
said how the numbers are calculated or what their numerical values are.

Its like somebody claiming that Pluto is currently closer to the earth than
it was on Jan 1st 1900. If you wanted to check this fact, you would first
ask how far away Pluto was on Jan 1st 1900, then ask how far away it is now,
then see which is larger. Indeed, its difficult to see how somebody could
even make this claim without first working out the two distances.

If an astronomer made this claim (and it was correct), he could show from a
table of orbits that it was true, by comparing the two numbers.

However, if an astronomer made this claim, and then couldn't actually tell
you the distance to Pluto now, or on Jan 1st 1900, and indeed couldn't even
tell you how distance was defined or how to measure them, then you would
think he was a crank pretending to be an astronomer.

The claim is that the earth is warming at faster rate than at any time in
"recorded history". Putting aside the deliberately vague and undefined term
"recorded history" (you can interpret this how you like), to show this is
true you have to say how the warming rate is calculated. Then we can
actually determine whether the current warming rate is higher, lower or the
same as at previous times in "recorded history".

So, if we currently have the highest warming rate in recorded history, what
is that rate, and what do you claim was the fastest previous warming rate?
How did you work this out?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:08:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

OK, you have given three different possible interpretations of what the
"warming rate" means.

When climatologists say "the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate",
which definition are they using?

You're obviously an idiot. And I mean that in the clinical sense.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:08:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
| wrote:
|
| OK, you have given three different possible interpretations of what the
| "warming rate" means.
|
| When climatologists say "the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate",
| which definition are they using?
|
| You're obviously an idiot. And I mean that in the clinical sense.
|
Let me see now...
He asks you a question, you can't answer it and that makes him the idiot
in a clinical sense? You've been attending the wrong clinic.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:54:12 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

Let me see now...
He asks you a question, you can't answer it and that makes him the idiot
in a clinical sense? You've been attending the wrong clinic.

He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it makes
you one as well.

On Nov 24, 8:10*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it makes
you one as well.

Trolls, trolls, trolls.
Can't live with them.
Can't live without?