M.O 2007 second warmest year

[Hiya]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80104091616.htm

So even with a strong La-Nina we are still to expect another 'top ten' warmest years this year. Brrrrr, this cooldown is too much.......

Last year we had it force fed that 2007 would smash all records for warmth and it didn't did it?

[Gray-Wolf]

Last year we had it force fed that 2007 would smash all records for warmth and it didn't did it?

Were we? We were told that the Arctic would continue it's steady decline in ice levels it didn't did it?

[Bobby]

Last year we had it force fed that 2007 would smash all records for warmth and it didn't did it?

Did we?? Where?

[laserguy]

Were we? We were told that the Arctic would continue it's steady decline in ice levels it didn't did it?

Which means that 'they' haven't a clue what they're on about or massive unaccounted for natural factors are showing their hand? 2008 - the year AGW slips quietly into the night.

[Stratos Ferric]

Last year we had it force fed that 2007 would smash all records for warmth and it didn't did it?

Yes, but nor did it miss by a country mile. Had it come in, say, 45th in the all time list, or even tenth, then fairenoughski. Isn't it provisionally second in the all time list?

You might as well be moaning that your team only won 6-0, not 7-0.

...as I have always firmly believed that our warmings and coolings are due to the activity of the Sun.

...

Can you produce some hard and fast data to show how this has worked over last century please Noggin. I'm at a loss, as pointed out on the solar thread, how anyone can suggest any correlation at present when across two solar cycles we have had continued warming. Given that I'm looking forward to seeing the data that must obviously underpin your belief; or is it just one of those things that you 'know'?

[noggin]

Can you produce some hard and fast data to show how this has worked over last century please Noggin. I'm at a loss, as pointed out on the solar thread, how anyone can suggest any correlation at present when across two solar cycles we have had continued warming. Given that I'm looking forward to seeing the data that must obviously underpin your belief; or is it just one of those things that you 'know'?

I don't think I would use the word "know".........in the same way that an AGW proponent shouldn't use "know". None of us actually "knows" 100%. We give our opinions, that's all. Believe it or not, I try to keep an open mind, but I have seen absolutely nothing to change my mind.

That press release from the SSRC along with NASA's findings.......I went back to the thread yesterday but couldn't see that you had made much of a comment re the findings and predictions, you did not much more than dismiss it out of hand.

[noggin]

Here is the link again, should anyone care to make a comment.

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Personally, I feel that these findings deserve a thread of their own, but hey ho........

As I said before.....it will be interesting to see what media coverage this gets in a few weeks' time.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Here is the link again, should anyone care to make a comment.

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Personally, I feel that these findings deserve a thread of their own, but hey ho........

As I said before.....it will be interesting to see what media coverage this gets in a few weeks' time.

Noggin

Just read that myself whilst surfing. It does deserve a thread IMO. Re 2007 so we still cannot get the warmest year on record, even with the mountains extra on top of the mountains of CO2. 'Non linear' can't be quoted forever...but no doubt it will.

BFTP

[Stratos Ferric]

I don't think I would use the word "know".........in the same way that an AGW proponent shouldn't use "know". None of us actually "knows" 100%. We give our opinions, that's all. Believe it or not, I try to keep an open mind, but I have seen absolutely nothing to change my mind.

That press release from the SSRC along with NASA's findings.......I went back to the thread yesterday but couldn't see that you had made much of a comment re the findings and predictions, you did not much more than dismiss it out of hand.

I'm dismissing it because the article reads as if it's mischievious. NASA have said nothing about a cooling climate; I will take the author's words that they have said the sunspot count may dip to the levels suggested. The author seems to be alone in projecting a cooling climate as a consequence and is very clever in his use of phrasing to SUGGEST that NASA have said something which, in fact, so far as I am aware, they have not. I.e. that the climate is about to enter a cooling phase.

Here is the link again, should anyone care to make a comment.

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Personally, I feel that these findings deserve a thread of their own, but hey ho........

As I said before.....it will be interesting to see what media coverage this gets in a few weeks' time.

Agreed, why not start a thread?

[pottyprof]

Noggin.. There is no restriction on starting a new thread if it doesn't come under an existing thread.. Feel free..

[HighPressure]

I'm dismissing it because the article reads as if it's mischievious. NASA have said nothing about a cooling climate; I will take the author's words that they have said the sunspot count may dip to the levels suggested. The author seems to be alone in projecting a cooling climate as a consequence and is very clever in his use of phrasing to SUGGEST that NASA have said something which, in fact, so far as I am aware, they have not. I.e. that the climate is about to enter a cooling phase.

I am not dismissing it and as a questioner I am intrigued but I do agree with you that NASA are not really echoing the settlements of the SSRC are they? Now if NASA come out and repeat it in SSRC rhetoric that would be interesting? I will reserve judgement one way or another on this till NASA either back it or distance themselves from it.

[Bobby]

Who exactly is this SSRC? It seems they are commercial company, not a scientific organisation. I can also find very little if anything about it from Googling. Sounds very dodgy to me. Their website is hardly comprenhesive either.

Their idea of there being "20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold" is certainly not at all mentioned anywhere by NASA. They use NASA's data but then make it out as if NASA is saying there is going to be a massive cool down, which they do not say.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

All looks very dodgy to me.

[noggin]

Who exactly is this SSRC? It seems they are commercial company, not a scientific organisation. I can also find very little if anything about it from Googling. Sounds very dodgy to me. Their website is hardly comprenhesive either.

Their idea of there being "20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold" is certainly not at all mentioned anywhere by NASA. They use NASA's data but then make it out as if NASA is saying there is going to be a massive cool down, which they do not say.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

All looks very dodgy to me.

Magpie, nobody has said that NASA said we are heading for a cooldown. This matter has a thread of it's own now, so come on over. ;

I'm dismissing it because the article reads as if it's mischievious. NASA have said nothing about a cooling climate; I will take the author's words that they have said the sunspot count may dip to the levels suggested. The author seems to be alone in projecting a cooling climate as a consequence and is very clever in his use of phrasing to SUGGEST that NASA have said something which, in fact, so far as I am aware, they have not. I.e. that the climate is about to enter a cooling phase.

As I said to Magpie, Stratos.......nobody has said that NASA said we are heading for a cooldown. I certainly didn't and what is more, nor can I infer that the article did. Anyway, come on over to he other thread, for tidyness' sake.

[Gray-Wolf]

Which means that 'they' haven't a clue what they're on about or massive unaccounted for natural factors are showing their hand? 2008 - the year AGW slips quietly into the night.

For we are of 'nature' and that which we do is therefore also 'of nature'............., yeah that'd work, massive 'natural factors showing their hand'.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Gray-Wolf