just from my experience as a trader, its very hard to call a peak or a bottom. no odut though 2007 is very cool. i wish i could run some regression analysis on the data, or at the ver least see what some secondary indicators say on the data to see whether we are in a 'oscillating' or 'trending' phase.


regardless, it is a very small degree change like you said. not worth disturbing the masses. but what is the minimum degree change you see as a warning bell?

A 1 degree change in 46 years is nothing.

Now a -8 to -13 degree F in a couple of years would be alarming. That would cause crop failures and starvation. A +8 to +13 degree change would mean exspansion and being able to drill for oil in areas we cannot get to now, planting crops in areas we cannot plant now and various other things. Even with that degree of change I wouldnt worry about the south pole melting. The Mean Temps in Antarctica are:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)

So even with a + 15 F degree change you are still well below freezing. We would have to warm up +40 degrees on a global scale to really be worried. So a +30 or more degree in change would alarm me.

One thing we do not know is the effect of methane gas and how much there is. A +10 degree change could melt enough ice in the perma frost or be an indication of warmer oceans unlocking the vast methane hydrate fields frozen on the sea floor releasing it into the atmostphere. That then could in turn cause bigger issues....like an ice age or just gas us all out. What would a 10% mix of methane do up in the stratosphere? Can it even rise that high? Would it warm the planet or block the suns energy causing a cooling? Look into things like that and you can do a real service to mankind.

Here is a really good writeup on methane

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227

So more fear mongering, even by the UN?


http://www.breitbart.com/new...0/070130144355.3d4dht2o.html


Global warming: rise of 4.5 C if pollution doubles, says draft report

Jan 30 9:44 AM US/Eastern
Earth's surface temperature could rise by 4.5 C (8.1 F) if carbon dioxide levels double over pre-industrial levels, but higher warming cannot be ruled out, according to a draft report under debate by the UN's top climate experts.

The draft -- being discussed line by line at the four-day meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- grimly states that the evidence for man-made influence on the climate system is now stronger than ever.

And carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution spewed out this century will stoke global warming and sea-level rise "for more than a millennium," given the time it takes for fossil-fuel pollution to degrade, it says.

Among other things, the document declares it "very likely" that heatwaves and pounding rain will become more frequent, snow cover is projected to contract -- and typhoons and hurricanes will become less frequent but more powerful.

Before the Industrial Revolution, levels of CO2, the principal greenhouse gas, stood at around 280 parts per million (ppm).

Today, CO2 concentrations are around 380 ppm and are rising between two and three ppm per year as big energy-gobbling countries, such as China and India, pursue their economic rise.

According to the draft, a copy of which was obtained by AFP Tuesday, the temperature has already risen by 0.74 C (1.33 F) over the last century.

It considers it "very likely" -- a probability of more than 90 percent -- that the rise since the mid-1900s was caused by man-made greenhouse gases. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said this probability was "likely," or 66 percent or less.

Yes I just read that. They blame CO2 for everything. What they are saying is impossible. You can go here to dispel the CO2 myths...

http://www.globalwarmingisnotreal.com/co2.html

or try reading this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

The UN backpedaled no more than two months ago saying that methane coming from cows was more dangerous than man made CO2 emissions. Apparently they just got refunded to come out with the article you just put up.

Read this

http://www.gan.ca/animal+news.en.html?neid=123

And remember Americas plains had humoungus herds of farting and methane producing buffalo that didnt cause global warming that we pretty much wiped off the face of the earth. And we have hunted and slain several herds of animals in Africa that produced methane as well. Compare the number of beasts there used to be to todays numbers and you can dispel the cow myth as well.



Then read that there are two new books proving global warming is not caused by man....

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm


And make up your own mind. The UN needs to be disbanded and we need to get away from them. Nothing but trouble. They cannot make up their minds ..first global warming by man, then cows, now back to global warming by man. I guess cows cannot write checks.

Take that report you posted from Breitbart. They use a picture of damage from the tsunami of 2004 to enhance the fear of what things could be like. This terror machine will stop at nothing to get their message across.

BTW that chart does not represent surface temps. You all probably know that but since I haven't had coffee yet I thought I'd point that out :-)

Here is additional food for thought. If you look around the net for information on the number of tornadoes by year you'll see the numbers have gone up quite a bit going back many decades. You will see a couple of points in the graph where the numbers make significant jumps. On the surface you could say that man is responsible and it is global warming and what not. But if you take a moment to think of what else might be causing the jumps you will find the answers. The first jump times almost exactly with the invention of weather radar. The 2nd big jump times exactly with the invention of Nexrad. It wasn't that all the sudden there was an increase. It was that we now had the tools to find them.

I think the same is true with man made global warming. The biggest jump has come since the invention of the digital thermometer. Also the number of surface observation stations in the U.S. greatly outnumbers the stations around the world. So whatever happens here heavily skews the global reports. And since most stations are near or in population centers the data is contaminated by the urban heat island effect. There will be claims that adjustments have been made for that but it would be simply untrue because the exact impact to the degree has never been determined. So any claim that adjustments have been made is completely false.

recorder bias, great point

With a planet 4.5 billion years old, we have recorded enough data to do ....nothing with. We should be doing nothing more than making observations and forming a hypothesis based on those observations. We have no busines making claims and raising alarms. As indy has said, history is there to be observed. History is factual and it would be safer and smarter to make assumptions based on past historical facts then on miniscule amounts of data that we have been collecting. Even if global warming was true, they would need to figure out how to control a local storm system before they even attempted to control the climate on a global scale.

I would have hoped the human race would have evolved since we found out the earth was round. But througout history there has been some sort of fear that spread like wild fire only to be a huge disappointment later. As recently as y2k all hell was going to break loose. The human race has a long ways to go. Global warming is just the newest "witch hunt" for the 21st century. Only this time, everybody is the "witch". Funny how Time magazine named "You" person of the year, you nasty little witch

to be honest, i think we are actually losing ground year by year. probably just me, but i love the traditional ways of figuring out the weather, but we're losing it fast

take for instance the Tsunami of '04 that hit Asia, people in my home country of Bangladesh were running for the hills because the village elders saw the ponds, lakes and other water sources sink. A warning that has been passed down from generation to generation.

People in Indonesia, actually went to the beach to grab fish that were left floundering without water, before the wall hit. Meanwhile, animal life were running for the hills. There was almost no animal, large and small, deaths recorded in the islands

its not crazy stuff like that, but when was the last time you heard someone talk about using the farmer's almanac?

back to US, most people i know would rather sit through an hour long 'news' to see the weather in the end, to find out what its like outside, than look out the window

most people i know would rather sit through an hour long 'news' to see the weather in the end, to find out what its like outside, than look out the window
sad but true... cept for the members of this site of course.

Animals didn't die because they weren't stupid enough to stand around with a video camera watching the wall of water come at them. You can sense the change in the air. But I think so many people have lost that ability. Just like they have lost the ability to provide for themselves. We the people have become hamsters in a wheel.