In essence, these events are hp omnibook xe battery,hp omnibook xe2 battery stating pollution is okay, which is ridiculously idiotic.

Since 1659, the hottest Central England temperatures are:
winter – 1869, followed by 1834
spring – 1893 followed by 1945
summer – 1976 followed by 1826
autumn – at last success for global warming, 2006, but followed by 1730, 1731 and 1729. This year ranked number 42 out of 349 years.
Political propaganda is NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it’s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (a Party Line).

Over the last century the graph for temperature and the graph for CO2 actually bear little resemblance to each other.
If you look at ice core data to determine this relationship over the last series of ice ages then it appears that the temp rise leads the CO2 rise by about 800yrs. The logic is that the warming oceans released CO2 because the gas is less soluble in the warmer water.
I don’t think any one has replied to Jimbeaux, about how this year can be the 7th warmest etc if global warming has stopped.
It is certainly true that 1998 at 0.546 degrees Celsius above average was the warmest year since proper records began to be kept in 1850. Global warming is a bit like putting on weight. Once the pounds are on you do not start back at your ideal weight next year. The warming that happened recently will have its effect for some time to come. However using the Met Office Data these are the figures for how much the years 2001 -2006 were above average: 0.409, 0.464, 0.473, 0.447, 0.482, 0.422. The figure for 2007 is estimated to be 0.41 above average. The trend is now actually moving downwards (admittedly not yet in a statistically significant way).
All of these figures are higher than any other year in the list since 1850, except 1998. That is why we see some effects of warmer temperatures. However the word warming implies that we are getting more warm. David Whitehouse is therefore correct when he says that global warming has stopped. We are still warm, but we are not getting any warmer. The IPCC report assumed a trend of ever rising temperatures which is not happening at present.
http://www.inteliorg.com/co2_climate_change.html

1. Middle ages were warm. Its called the MWP and is a favorite sceptic/denialist counter-argument. But all global temperature reconstructions show the middle ages were colder than today.

But scientists dont depend on temperature reconstructions to know global warming will continue. Its the physics that matters

2. Not true. I dont know about the “thousands” of Siberian stations but any way scientists dont simply compute an average of all temperature measurements. The temperature data is area weighted so that smaller regions with lots of weather stations like Europe and US dont dominate the global mean temperature.

3. Not true. Study after study the last 3-4 years have all dismissed the Sun as a cause of the last 3 decades of warming. CO2 doesnt correlate 100% with global temperatures because CO2 is far from the only thing affecting climate.

You can even check for yourself. Compare the temperature-record with any graph over the Suns activity, TSI, sunspots, cosmic rays etc. You’ll realize the Suns been stable for 50 years while temperatures have skyrocketed. That does not mean solar acitivity doesnt affect climate or temperature but its not th cause of the current global warming.
-

Realclimate is a very good source of information on climate-change. A good start:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

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 most of 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.

Again, I’m simply wondering if anyone has found a reason for this.

Comment by thirdparty — March 4, 2008 @ 1:05 am

The story is based on a silly blogpost by meterologist and climate-sceptic Anthony Watts. Note just because you’re a “meterologist” doesnt mean you understand climate-science as Watts is the perfect illustration of.

Tamino at Open Mind picks the post (or a very similar Watts-post which is now removed) apart here
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/

1. What should I say when he brings up the weather records from 1,000 years ago that showed Greenland and other now tundran Northern Hemisphere land masses so warm that they were arable? The man-made carbon levels couldn’t have been anywhere near as high back then as they are today, and yet it was far warmer then than it is now.

2. He also showed me a chart that indicated that thousands of weather stations in the coldest parts of the world (such as Siberia) were shut down in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, and as a consequence some of the recent temperature averages were artificially skewed upwards. Is this true?

3. Finally, he said that carbon levels in the atmosphere do not correspond as closely to temperature averages in the last 100 years as “solar activity” corresponds to temperature averages. He had a chart that showed this. In other words, he said that the sun predominantly drives temperature, not carbon levels.

I’d really appreciate someone showing me some factual ways to respond to these challenges.

Thanks!

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 most of 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.

Again, I’m simply wondering if anyone has found a reason for this.

Solutions of ethanol are causing all things in the food chain to increase, corn fed beef, chicken, corn products much higher food bills all passed down to you.

Energy saving CLF bulbs have toxic mercury in them so when you break one just call out HASMET
(Hazardous materials) They clean up toxic mercury.

Sounds good and coming to your state soon! Do you know how you are affected in your state government?

Ah! Extrapolation can take you to some great places!

funny to watch these folks who deny real science but accept the bible as fact…..or rush…..they are interchangable as far as fact is concerned. They are a product of our American Educational process…..aren’t we proud?

This is how idiotic this ‘THEORY ‘ is:
Comment by jason54301 — March 3, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

Are you for real? You think we have only 130 years of data? Let me give you a word for the day: ROCKS. Not the rocks between your ears. Rocks. The history of Earth is preserved in strata of rocks all around the world. There’s all sorts of interesting clues preserved perfectly in rocks (as well as in other substances but I don’t want to confuse you). The iridium found in rocks was the smoking gun that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid over a hundred million years ago.

This comment of yours does deserve a response, despite my “adios” I’m not aware of any specific electrical abacus but I’m glad you have a a greater depth of knowledge than some I’ve met who have known how to use A PC (better than I it has to be said) for their own purposes but without knowing how they work and thus ignorant of how they sometime DON’T work!

NO I don’t want an entire history of computer, I know a fair amount of it–Babbage, Byron’s companion Ada who conceived the essentials of input, calculation, output and ‘memory’ as a system, the relevance of weaving machines, Boolean Algebra (something you seem not to apply in your arguments on ANY subject) and moving on about a century the Turing machine, Colossus, ENIAC, the origin of “bug” the invention of the transistor that replaced valves, the doping techique that reducec transisitors still further, the contributions of Neumann and Berners Lee cetera ad nauseum.
I also know how about the IEE and the ITU and Manchester encoding and RTZ encoding and packet routing and DNS and many of the particulars of ARCNET, and Token RIng and Ethernet and star, mesh and unbound networks and so on and so forth and funnily enough I worked for Dell and Acer and IBM and even Apple as a service technician and then as a consultant to fortune 100 companies because apparently I knew my stuff.

But what ballfes me is that you don’t seem to be able to apply your knowledge of the principles of computing which is defintievely ‘logic’
as described by Boole (long before the PC became a reality) who identified 7 operators that could be applied to any argument on their own or as part of a sequence, each output serving as a result and/or an input for the next argument.

Like I’ve been trying to point out to you, you don;t seem to apply what you know, and what you;ve learned in a coherent and practical fashion as far as your comments here are concerned.

So that’s definitely it from me.

Comment by Keith — March 3, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

yeah and daylight savings time starts march 9th! that means an extra hour of daylight, which will only make matters worse!
more daylight = more heat
;)

Comment by jason54301 — March 3, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

i don’t take you seriously because you and frauds such as the Heartland Inst, Media Research Center and Faux News are not credible. it’s that simple.

i’m not qualified to propose a theory on climate change and therefore, i trust and accept the explanations of those who are qualified. granted there are some climatologists who question the human impact of global warming, but the vast majority believe that it is real, significant and will intensify unless we take immediate action.

there’s 6.6 billion of us on the planet and we consume a hell of a lot! we’re taking carbon stores that took millions and millions of years to form and releasing it back into the atmosphere in a geologic blink of an eye! to think we can’t possibly have any affect on climate in either the short or long term is preposterous!

not long ago the prevailing thought was that the oceans were so large that they represented an unlimited source of food and could handle whatever crap humans dumped into them.
deplete or pollute the oceans? Little ol’ humans? Nah! Don’t worry! They’re vast!

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/ppt/figure01.ppt

The science behind anthropogenic global warming goes back almost 200 years. We’ve known for about 150 years that CO2 is a major greenhouse-gas. We’ve known about global warming due to increasing CO2-levels in the atmosphere for a hundred years. And about 30 years ago the science was pretty much settled (read my previous post and the NRC-report from 1979). The theory does not rely on temperature records. It relies on well known physics.

If you want to learn the history of climate-science I suggest you read this. Its a long read but really interesting. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Its by Spencer Weart a physicist and science historian.