[Vision2020] NOAA: 2007 Land Average Global Temperature Warmest In 128 Year Record

[Ted Moffett]

To "Off List" contact in this thread:

I presented the current data from NOAA, which contradicts your assessment.
You must think the NOAA data to be flawed:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp

In the statistical quicksand world of climate science, with more variables
and methods of adding and subtracting them then can be understood by most
people, the claims and counters claims can be incredible.

I hardly think that a world wide combined (land and ocean) average
temperature in 2007 as the fifth warmest in the 128 year record represents a
"significant decline in worldwide temperatures," as you wrote.  In fact, the
land temperature data from NOAA for 2007 indicates the land temperature
global average was the warmest on record.  The first set of numbers are the
anomaly above the average of the temperature record, ranking follows, and
the warmest or next warmest year is given last, with its anomaly:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp
  Land
Ocean
Land and Ocean
+1.02°C (+1.84°F)
+0.38°C (+0.68°F)
+0.55°C (+0.99°F)
warmest
9th warmest
5th warmest
2005 (+0.97°C/1.75°F)
2003 (+0.48°C/0.86°F)
2005 (+0.60°C/1.08°F)
-------------------
Winter 2007-8 may have shown a significant decline in world wide
temperatures, but one season does not qualify as a long term trend.  We
shall see what happens during the whole year 2008, as far as the continuing
trend of the past decade of yearly global average temperature being
significantly above the average for the 128 year record that NOAA sources.

No one expects anthropogenic warming to be perfectly linear from year to
year anyway, with every year warmer than the last, at least among the
scientists I have read who are not deliberately seeking to find flaws in the
consensus science on climate change.  Several variables, from both human and
natural sources, can cause cooling, so some future years may average
significantly cooler.  There is the increasing well understood impact of
global dimming to consider, the cooling effect of human sourced aerosols in
the atmosphere, which is masking global warming to a significant degree, and
volcanic activity alone can lower world wide temperatures due to emissions
blocking sunlight.

China is dumping huge amounts of dirty coal burning sourced aerosols into
the atmosphere, pollution that is drifting across the Pacific and hitting
the USA, so though the CO2 from this coal burning will have a long term
warming effect (CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for 100 years), the
aerosols have a short term cooling effect, till they dissipate.
--------------

>From NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gtemp

Temperature Trends

During the past century, global surface
temperatures<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif>have
increased at a rate near
0.05°C/decade (0.09°F/decade), but this trend has increased to a rate of
approximately 0.15°C/decade (0.27°F/decade) during the past 25 to 30 years.
There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910
and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976.
Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate
comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next
century with continued increases of anthropogenic greenhouse
gases.<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html>
----------------------------
Here is the URL to the temperature data under discussion that might
contradict NOAA's report on 2007 average global temperature, though I am not
not sure it really does contradict NOAA, if understood correctly:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/


------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


>
>
> Roger et. al.
>
>
>
> Do you believe the past decade has not revealed any average increase in
> warming over other decades in the past century for the global average?
> Because the data clearly shows otherwise, rather dramatically, given that
> ten of the warmest global temperature averages have occurred since 1997:
>
>
>
> From the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration:
>
>
>
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071213_climateupdate.html
>
>
>
> ·  Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have
> occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997.
> The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°Csince the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since
> 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.
>
>
> ----------------
>
> More scientific sources regarding global average temperatures the past
> decade:
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
>
>
> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25054&Cr=climate&Cr1=change
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
>
> On 3/3/08, *lfalen* <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> Ted Thanks for posting this. This is the kind of research we need,
> regardless of where any climate change may take us. There has bee no
> increase in warming for the last 10 years, although C02 levels continue to
> raise( Bob Carter, Cimate Scientist). It is not known with certainty whether
> temperature will go up or down. Because of air pollution and the fact that
> oil is finite we need research on alternatives.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:39:31 -0800
> To: "Donovan Arnold" donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Synthetic Life Forms: Craig Venter On
> ClimateChange
>
> > Donovan et. al.
> >
> > Actually, many do not concede that the Earth's climate is warming as a
> long
> > term trend, or if it is, that human activity is the primary cause.  This
> > skeptics point of view has been expressed by many on Vision2020.  So
> while
> > anthropogenic primarily CO2 emission related climate change is regarded
> with
> > a high probability it is a correct theory by most scientists, the debate
> > continues.  And of course there are things you can do to reduce your
> "carbon
> > footprint", as they say.  These options are so well known I will not
> list
> > them.
> >
> > What is interesting about Craig Venter is the technology of biology and
> > genetics that his business is developing, applied to the problems of
> > advanced energy sources that can mitigate CO2 emission induced climate
> > change.  This is both promising and frightening, given he is developing
> the
> > technology and advocating the advantages of creating synthetic life
> forms:
> >
> >
> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/venter.dimbleby07/venter.dimbleby07_index.html
> >
> >
> > Right now extensively modified bacteria are being used to make food
> > additives and industrial chemicals.  DuPont has a plant in the US state
> of
> > Tennessee with four very large silos where they are using metabolically
> > engineered bacteria to convert sugar into a new polymer, propanediol
> which
> > is the key component in their stain resistant carpets and
> clothing.  Several
> > teams, including my own, are modifying bacteria to make the next
> generation
> > biofuels.  For example, my team has a new fuel chemical made from sugars
> as
> > a starting material that has the potential to be one of the first green
> jet
> > fuels.
> >
> > But we don't always have to modify bacteria or design new ones.  What
> has
> > occurred on Earth from Darwinian evolution is pretty amazing in that the
> > unique metabolism of these microbial powerhouses can often provide
> exactly
> > what we need.  For instance, we have a team at my institute headed by
> Ken
> > Nealson that has developed microbial fuel cells using naturally
> occurring
> > bacteria.  These organisms can process human and animal waste to produce
> > electricity and or clean water.
> >
> > At my company Synthetic Genomics, we have a major program underway in
> > collaboration with BP to see if we can use naturally occurring microbes
> to
> > metabolize coal into methane which can then be harvested as natural gas.
> > While not a renewable source of carbon, it could provide as much as a 10
> > fold improvement over mining and burning coal.  We also have organisms
> that
> > can convert CO2 into methane thereby providing a renewable source of
> fuel.
> >
> > The biggest question in my mind is the one of scale.  Last year we
> consumed
> > more than 83 million barrels of oil per day or 30 billion barrels during
> the
> > year.  In addition we used over 3 billion tons of coal.  These are mind
> > boggling numbers and the only way that I can see replacing oil and coal
> is
> > through a widely distributed system.  If there were one million
> > bio-refineries around the globe each one would still need to produce
> 17,000
> > liters per day. For the UK my vision would entail thousands of
> > bio-refineries distributed around the country near where the fuel would
> be
> > consumed and where the starting raw material such as cellulose would be
> > available.  On a global scale there will be millions of new fuel
> producers
> > perhaps favoring the agricultural rich developing world.  This could be
> the
> > ultimate disruptive model by changing the entire infrastructure for
> energy
> > production and consumption and helping us toward a carbon neutral world.
> >
> > In closing:
> >
> > It is my hope that we can embrace, not fear, the necessary science to
> help
> > our planet.
> > I feel it is imperative that we begin to find ways to adapt to climate
> > change, while at the same time working to mitigate it. Unfortunately we
> are
> > already on a path toward significant change, but if we apply ourselves I
> > believe we can find ways to create alternatives to burning oil and
> coal.  We
> > need multiple simultaneous approaches to solve this problem, with the
> goal
> > of net zero carbon emissions to stabilize atmospheric concentrations and
> > ensure our survival.
> >
> > Craig Venter
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >
> > On 3/1/08, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So what do you want me to do about this, Ted?
> > >
> > > So the world is getting hotter. We are were aware before this report.
> Is
> > > there really anything I can do to cool it down? I think not.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Donovan
> > >
> > > *Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/venter.dimbleby07/venter.dimbleby07_index.html
> > >
> > > There has been much debate about climate change perhaps because we
> cannot
> > > see carbon dioxide when we exhale, or when we burn oil and coal to
> heat our
> > > homes, or use petrol to power our cars or fly planes. We do, however,
> have
> > > scientific instruments that can accurately measure what we humans
> produce
> > > and the increasing amount of carbon that we are adding to our
> environment.
> > > The data is irrefutable--carbon dioxide concentrations have been
> steadily
> > > increasing in our atmosphere as a result of human activity since the
> > > earliest measurements began. We know that on the order of 4.1 billion
> tons
> > > of carbon are being added to and staying in our atmosphere each
> year.  We
> > > know that burning fossil fuels and deforestation are the principal
> > > contributors to the increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in our
> > > atmosphere. We know that increasing CO2 concentrations has the same
> effect
> > > as the glass walls and roof of a greenhouse. It lets the energy from
> the sun
> > > easily penetrate but limits its escape, hence the term greenhouse gas.
> > > Observational and modeling studies have confirmed the association of
> > > increasing CO2 concentrations with the change in average global
> temperatures
> > > over the last 120 years.  Between 1906 and 2005 the average global
> > > temperature has increased 0.74 degrees C. This may not seem like very
> > > much, but it can have profound effects on the strength of storms and
> the
> > > survival of species including coral reefs.
> > > Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the warmest years since
> 1850.
> > > While no one knows for certain the consequences of this continuing
> unchecked
> > > warming, some have argued it could result in catastrophic changes,
> such as
> > > the disruption of the Gulf Steam which keeps the UK out of the ice age
> or
> > > even the possibility of the Greenland ice sheet sliding into the
> Atlantic
> > > Ocean.  Whether or not these devastating changes occur, we are
> conducting a
> > > dangerous experiment with our planet. One we need to stop.
> > > The developed world including the United States, England and Europe
> > > contribute disproportionately to the environmental carbon, but the
> > > developing world is rapidly catching up.  As the world population
> increases
> > > from 6.5 billion people to 9 billion over the next 45 years and
> countries
> > > like India and China continue to industrialize, some estimates
> indicate that
> > > we will be adding over 20 billion tons of carbon a year to the
> atmosphere.
> > > Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would
> cause
> > > further warming and induce many changes to the global climate that
> could be
> > > more extreme than those observed to date. This means we can expect
> more
> > > climate change; more ice cap melts, rising sea levels, warmer oceans
> and
> > > therefore greater storms, as well as more droughts and floods, all
> which
> > > compromise food and fresh water production.
> > > The increase in population coupled with climate change will tax every
> > > aspect of our lives. In a world already struggling to keep up with
> demand,
> > > will we be able to provide the basics of food, clean water, shelter
> and fuel
> > > to these new citizens of Earth? And will governments be able to cope
> with
> > > new emerging infections, storms, wildfires, and global conflicts?
> > > So is there any way of avoiding these apocalyptic visions of the
> future
> > > coming true? Many have argued that we simply need to conserve, to
> alter and
> > > regress our standard of living and block the industrialization of
> developing
> > > countries. In my view this is extremely naive thinking. Furthermore,
> even
> > > the most optimistic models on climate change show a dramatically
> altered
> > > planet Earth going forward even if we embrace all alternative options
> such
> > > as wind and solar energy, and electric cars. Our entire world economy
> and
> > > the ability of modern society to provide life's basics, depend on the
> very
> > > industrialization that contributes to our possible demise.
> > > Yet, sadly, very little thinking, planning or projections about how to
> > > cope with the carbon problem and climate change have taken into
> account the
> > > capabilities of modern science to produce what we have long needed to
> help
> > > solve these global threats.
> > > It is clear to me that we need more approaches and creative solutions.
> We
> > > need new disruptive ideas and technologies to solve these critical
> global
> > > issues.  This is where, I believe, biology and genomics, come in.
> > > ------------------------------------------
> > > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080308/25f7f95f/attachment-0001.html