Subscription Center
Nov 18, 2008 02:05 PM | 68
Despite broad consensus on the existence, origins and potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, a vocal minority continues to question the motives, methods and assumptions of climate scientists sounding the alarm. So when temperature data released by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), one of the leading monitors of climate change, showed an unusually warm October, climate change skeptics cried foul.
As it turned out, the GISS data were flawed. The relatively minor glitch was fixed and the figures updated. End of story? Of course not. Climate change skeptic Anthony Watts called the mistake a "data train wreck" in his blog. Global warming denier Christopher Booker, in a column in the U.K.'s conservative Telegraph, called the error a "surreal scientific blunder."
Reality check: GISS climate modeler Gavin Schmidt notes on the blog RealClimate.org that the problem occurred because a small but significant percentage of the hundreds of weather stations scattered around the globe mistakenly reported September instead of October temps. Hence, the seeming but erroneously higher global average. In an attempt to highlight the gaffe, Booker declared: "Across the world there were reports of unseasonal [sic] snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its 'worst snowstorm ever.'"
What Booker fails to mention—apart from the folly of relying on anecdotal evidence—is that even the corrected figures show one of the hottest Octobers on record. (This fact, and many others pertaining to Booker's article, are neatly addressed by blogger Tim Lambert.) It's also worth noting that Booker was recently dubbed the "patron saint of charlatans" by the left-leaning Guardian newspaper for his views questioning both global warming and the documented health hazards of asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Booker claims that the flub "raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming." Fact: The error was caught and fixed within a matter of days by eagle-eyed bloggers and commenters (Schmidt credits one of Watts's readers with alerting him to the problem) and supports long-published data suggesting that the globe is warming dramatically and will have consequences if it is not slowed or reversed. It's always distressing to discover an error in scientific data, and GISS may consider implementing stricter oversight. The bottom line: these figures were but a minor part of the climate change picture—and did little to change the equation.
The fact remains that October was significant for its high temperatures relative to the historical record. In other words, the example that climate skeptics seized upon to poke holes in the evidence of climate change served only to confirm that the world is warming because of humans' actions.
CREDIT: Ugur Evirgen/iStockphoto
Tags:
skeptics,
freezing heat,
climate change
More News Blog:
Next: Do scientists self-censor in politically charged grant applications?
Previous: LHC start-up date pushed back again
See what we're tweeting about
scicurious How are twins individuals? Same genetics, same environment, but it's all about how you experience it. http://t.co/NjvHTUYNdI
dbiello busier than beavers RT @alexismadrigal: On Average, Humanity Has Built One Large Dam Every Day for the Last 130 Years http://t.co/lZ0x2oxXsi
BoraZ Heat Deaths in New York City Predicted to Rise: http://t.co/4ADQ5wPIft
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
68 Comments
Add CommentIn the meantime, during "global warming scare week", NBC News said that global warming will cause the oceans to rise 200 feet. Wow!! Al Gore (foolishly) advertised 20 feet. The most rapid climate scientists quote 9 - 18 inches. Those who have actually done some calculations say about 3 inches.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's 3 inches in 100 years. And here we are preparing to spend billions (trillions?) to "fight" global warming. It's a hoax, folks. P.S. GE owns NBC; GE makes wind turbines and will profit from the GW scare. P.P.S.: Temps in the Arctic rose to the highest levels ever in the 1920s, and glaciers melted far more than in 2008. This is documented in U.S. Weather Bureau (old name) records.
In the meantime, during "global warming scare week", NBC News said that global warming will cause the oceans to rise 200 feet. Wow!! Al Gore (foolishly) advertised 20 feet. The most rapid climate scientists quote 9 - 18 inches. Those who have actually done some calculations say about 3 inches.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's 3 inches in 100 years. And here we are preparing to spend billions (trillions?) to "fight" global warming. It's a hoax, folks. P.S. GE owns NBC; GE makes wind turbines and will profit from the GW scare. P.P.S.: Temps in the Arctic rose to the highest levels ever in the 1920s, and glaciers melted far more than in 2008. This is documented in U.S. Weather Bureau (old name) records.
In the meantime, during "global warming scare week", NBC News said that global warming will cause the oceans to rise 200 feet. Wow!! Al Gore (foolishly) advertised 20 feet. The most rapid climate scientists quote 9 - 18 inches. Those who have actually done some calculations say about 3 inches.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's 3 inches in 100 years. And here we are preparing to spend billions (trillions?) to "fight" global warming. It's a hoax, folks. P.S. GE owns NBC; GE makes wind turbines and will profit from the GW scare. P.P.S.: Temps in the Arctic rose to the highest levels ever in the 1920s, and glaciers melted far more than in 2008. This is documented in U.S. Weather Bureau (old name) records.
Sorry about the multiple posts. I was having a problem with registration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo learn more about "global warming" in the 1920s, go to...
Part of the 1922 report... (and part of the 1905 report. I can't find the entire 1905 report)
Both are very brief.
http://sci--environment.googlegroups.com/attach/6513463f6658ba05/clip_image002.jpg?view=1&part=2
Here is the complete version of the 1922 report.. It's less than
one page in length.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
thank you chendrixstats
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi agree totaly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone reported any rise in sea levels to date? We have been hearing the "end of the world" type warnings, but again, is there any Documented
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdata on sea levels?
"Scientific" American should read both sides of the issue before putting down the dissent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly - “It’s all pipes!”
Author: Anthony Watts
Website Title: Watts Up With That?
Date: November 15, 2008
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/15/giss-noaa-ghcn-and-the-odd-russian-temperature-anomaly-its-all-pipes/
Accessed: Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:09:49 PM
* "... a plot of Russian Weather Station locations. ... Interestingly, the greatest magnitude of the GISTEMP anomaly plot for October is in these mostly unpopulated areas where the weather station density is the lowest."
* "I was curious if indeed there was any pattern to the Russian anomaly, so I decided to animate the last year and a half worth of images."
* January 2007 anomaly, large positive. February 2007 anomaly, almost gone. March 2007 anomaly, large positive. April 2007 anomaly, almost gone. "It was as if somebody threw a switch in Russia."
* "I also noticed that in the animation from the anomaly maps, there does not seem to be much of an anomaly in the summer months.
"This made me wonder what some of those weather stations in Russia might be like. " So he and colleagues looked for pictures.
o Apparently many northernmost stations are atop heated buildings.
o Considering a possible Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, he called up Verkhojansk , Russia on Google Earth. "... looking for what might be a weather station - it looks like pipes running across the surface".
o "These 'pipes' appear to go all over town. Here is a closer view, note the arrow to what I think might be the weather station location based on the fencing, objects on the ground that could be rain gauges or shelters, and what looks like an instrument tower" (in the midst of the network of pipes)
o This is followed by a discussion of the Russian practice of distributing heat from a central station through above-ground steam pipes.
Watts' conclusion:
"Of the many station lat/lons I looked at, Verhojansk was the only one I found with enough Google Earth resolution to see the steam pipes. Maybe the heart of our Russian temperature anomaly lies in central heating."
Watts does not address the far-ranging data used to adjust the temperature record for a station. This can extend to rural stations 500 or 1000 km from the target station. In sparsely-populated and instrumented northern Russia, this may spread the effect of error into many grid cells, thus affecting a larger proportion of the Earth's record.
My first post was truncated, dropping the source of the adjustment analysis. Note that McIntyre does not just "wing it" in questioning adjustments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGISS Step 2
by Steve McIntyre on June 13th, 2008
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3181
"First here are commands to download two files of GISS dset1 and dset2 versions (scraped Feb 2008 vintage)." [Code follows]
"Next the station information is downloaded" [Code follows]
"A utility function calculating the great circle distance is used:" [Code follows]
"The function ruralstations locates the "rural" stations within a distance of 1000 km (or 500km) of the target station." [Code follows]
Quote: "Hansen et al 2001 says: The urban adjustment in the current GISS analysis is a similar two-legged adjustment, but the date of the hinge point is no longer fixed at 1950, the maximum distance used for rural neighbors is 500 km provided that sufficient stations are available, "
Facts speak for themselves people, you just need to worry about where you get them. GISS is still a great place to get them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChendrixstats: as NBC, excuse me, GE overestimates their figures, what about the rogue scientists that the Oil companies hire to find the lowest stats to put out there. Just because NBC overestimates, doesn't discredit the data all together.
Look at the data, while the recent spike in carbon in our atmosphere may or not be the higest spike, it certainly is the most rapid.
You are completely correct, GE will profit from putting turbines up, but someone has to. Are you suggesting that we stay away from renewable energy forever? Just because the oceans may or may not rise a slight amount?
The numbers some random person is spitting out over a dinner conversation may be a hoax, but get with it, science recognizes global warming, its the effects the science community is unsure of.
"And here we are preparing to spend billions (trillions?) to "fight" global warming"
NO! We are going to spend billions/trillions on changing our energy infrastructure, which has to be done eventually. Would you like to spend 100 times as much having to do it in a short amount of time in 50 years, or spread it out and start small and work up. And another point, we would be giving much more money to a new technology company to put up turbines than we would be giving GE to put them up, or do you just want that money to go right to the Oil companies when the barrel gets back over $140(US).
Green Energy = renewable energy.
Just because GE is pushing for green energy, you think we should stay away?
I suggest all you doubters take a field trip to Glacier National park.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is really quite nice, it even used to have glaciers.
To agenthucky: I concur. It seems almost silly that all this debate surrounds this issue. Whether prompted by global warming, polluted air/water, economic pressure or other concerns its obvious man must dilute and eventually erradicated his dependence on oil. Renewable energy is just a good survival strategy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoopdedo. We've got a problem, that needs fixing, every way we look at it. And we've got an opportunity to start fixing it, shift our economy in such a way as to make it profitable, and not wildly destructive and costly down the road. The conservative side of me says, minimize the risk, act responsibly now while it's cheaper to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChange scares some people, I understand. It's natural to get lazy and resist change. However, you who think the world, or the economy, or anything at all in this reality will remain static for any length of time, are doomed to failure. Everything is changing, sometimes so slowy you don't see it with your eyes, but it is changing, and sooner or later you need to adjust.
Those who adapt to change prosper, those who fight it die. Welcome to the nature of all things.
Get over it already.
Scientific American in damage control mode again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is tantamount to outright cheating, causing unnecessary alarm. One wonders if the swap of data was done unintentionally, otherwise, such sloppy practice in any endeavor (let alone in the highly respectable field of science) would be unacceptable if not inexcusable.
Greater care and absolute focus ought to be exercised without fail in future.
10000 years ago, North America was covered with glasiers. No humans around. But the earth warmed and the ice melted and the wheather stabilized. With or without man the earth moves to its own music. Are we now contributing to global warming, yes. If it moves in ernest would shutting down the human races use of energy stop it? Highly doubtful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMother earth will change and destroy species and create new ones and mere humans who have only been here for the smallest of time may be one of them to go.
Fact: This was not a minor, easily missed flaw in the NASA data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: The mistake was identified by a blogger and not by NASA.
Fact: NASA claim that they apply robust quality control procedures to their data.
Question: How many lesser mistakes have been missed?
Fact: This was not a minor, easily missed flaw in the NASA data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: The mistake was identified by a blogger and not by NASA.
Fact: NASA claim that they apply robust quality control procedures to their data.
Question: How many lesser mistakes have been missed?
As the author of the post on Anthony's website, let me correct one of the artcile's statements. The Russian and other stations did not report September temperatures as October temperatures. Those stations correctly reported their October data to NOAA. NOAA somehow replicated September data as October data for some number of stations when they collated the information before passing it on to GISS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is NOT a new problem. It actually has happened several times this year that we now know of, but to a smaller number of stations. It was not until this happened in October to a larger number of stations concentrated in one region that we could visually see the error on GISS plots.
So while Mr. Schmidt is correct that the specific October surprise was fixed, he cannot claim that the root cause has been corrected.
If this was the first time the data were inaccurate, it could be over looked, but it is not. I happens over and over. Global warming is taken on the characteristics of a religion based on believe and not facts. Oh please, brother Al, save me, save, I believe brother AL, I believe. As I go to work just outside Atlanta Ga. I pass a bank time & temperature. The time was 6:20AM and the temperature was 23 degrees Fahrenheit. 15 degrees below normal for this time of year. I looked at NCDC website a few weeks ago and it said this year is one of the warmest years. I look at the graphs on that site now, and it shows this is one of the coldest. If it were not for the blogger would we now believe that the colder temperatures are actually warmer? As Pete said in "Oh Brother Where, Art Thou", said, "That don't make no sense " What is going on. SciAm once a great scientific magazine, seem to be headed towards being nothing but a political rag disguising itself as a science journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the correction the data still confirms a rapid warming of the globe. So the complaints of conspiracy are just the ranting of paranoid individuals and should be ignored in favor of more sober minded analysis. All any reasonable person need do is look at the actual GISS data before and after correction to confirm the trivial nature of the error but I note none of deniers have suggested doing so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion indeed, but a godless secular one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenesis; the mythical pristine paradise of environmentalists, the Garden of Eden; consumerism as man's sin (eating of the forbidden fruit) ; paradise lost but environmentalism as the path to redemption and return to Eden. Al Gore as our saviour in the church of the IPCC. Bloggers and media as its prophets.
Ah yes, the conspiracty theorists and climate change deniers are having a field day with a minor error that doesn't change the results one jot. The data raised suspicion because it showed an increase higher than the theory, not because the theory was incorrectly showing an increase. I guess the theory predicting a modest increase must be closer to correct than they would like to admit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a climate expert, but I am a scientist and if there is to be any questioning of motives, I suggest we should wonder why the naysayers insist on trying to drag scientific discourse into the public domain. They are trying to circumvent the universally-held method of scientific analysis, writing papers, attending conferences and most importantly, putting forth a theory that more accurately encompasses the data. They have failed completely to put together a cohesive argument (and no, exceptions to the trends do not disprove the trend, take a stats course) and so they try to sway public opinion so that any politician with enough vision and courage to act does so without the support of the voters.
I propose that if there really were a well-funded conspiracy with the involvement of the climate-change scientists as is alleged, then these scientists must be the stupidist people on the (slowly warming) Earth. With all the billions in funding they are supposedly getting they could much more easily and cheaply just buy ad time to sway public opinion their way and fight it out in the press.
Ah yes, the conspiracty theorists and climate change deniers are having a field day with a minor error that doesn't change the results one jot. The data raised suspicion because it showed an increase higher than the theory, not because the theory was incorrectly showing an increase. I guess the theory predicting a modest increase must be closer to correct than they would like to admit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a climate expert, but I am a scientist and if there is to be any questioning of motives, I suggest we should wonder why the naysayers insist on trying to drag scientific discourse into the public domain. They are trying to circumvent the universally-held method of scientific analysis, writing papers, attending conferences and most importantly, putting forth a theory that more accurately encompasses the data. They have failed completely to put together a cohesive argument (and no, exceptions to the trends do not disprove the trend, take a stats course) and so they try to sway public opinion so that any politician with enough vision and courage to act does so without the support of the voters.
I propose that if there really were a well-funded conspiracy with the involvement of the climate-change scientists as is alleged, then these scientists must be the stupidist people on the (slowly warming) Earth. With all the billions in funding they are supposedly getting they could much more easily and cheaply just buy ad time to sway public opinion their way and fight it out in the press.
I don't understand the opening sentance '...broad consensus...'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is a so-called science journal using this phrase? Science is not about consensus, it's about hypotheses that can be tested and verified. Anything other than that is not science, it's faith, propoganda, blind hope.
There is no evidence that either mankind or CO2 has caused or will cause any discernable global warming, so on that basis there is no scientific case to to answer (and computer models don't count, as any desired outcome can be produced based on the input data and model parameters).
Science Journal and others should be focussed on solving real world problems not ones invented using computer models
Can the author John Matson please explain why a so called scientific journal has an opening sentence that states '...broad consensus'? Science isn't about consensus, it's about hypotheses that have to tested and verified, not opinion, faith, blind hope or computer models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reality is that there is no, repeat no evidence that any meaningful warming in the latter part of the last century was because of mankind or CO2. Relying on computer models to predict weather and climate any time into the future as a basis for public policy is both foolhardy and non scientific.
Unfortunately, science has become corrupted by politics, advocacy groups and the media. The public has a right to be sceptical of claims that are based on non scientific principles and methods.
The alarmists and their supporters are running out of time (and they know it) - the world's climate is not behaving as they hoped it would - the computer models have failed to predict climate with any accuracy and other hypotheses about what causes climate change are slowly gaining scientific credence and will be in the ascendency. Global warming stopped some years ago and we may be heading for a cooling period. Too late, we'll then realise that a warmer world is much more preferable than a cooler one.
Bickers,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat evidence have you looked at that convinced you there is no evidence for AGW? You must have looked at something...
rwilliston: you claim to be a scientist. If so, then surely you understand how science works? On that basis can you please provide evidence that we can evaluate, test and verify that mankind and/or CO2 have caused any discernable warming in the latter part of the last century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo doubt there is climate change - always has and always will be - anyone doing any basic research can work that out. We've had warming and cooling in the last 100 years and the more recent warming may now have peaked. I suggest as a scientist you stick to the principles of your profession and examine all the possible hypotheses, that we're of that cause our extremely complex climate system to change over thousands of years.
Mark Schaffer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's the same nonsense as asking an aethiest to prove that there's no God. The onus is on those that support AGW to provide evidence to support their claim - why, because:
Does the climate change - Yes
Did the climate warm very slightly in the latter part of the last century -Yes
Do we know, definitively, what causes climate change - No
Is there any evidence that mankind and/or CO2 has caused global warming anytime in Earth's history - No
What's the main driver of the greenhouse effect - water vapour
Well Bickers,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have made a set of claims without providing ANY supporting evidence. Why should I or anyone reading this believe you?
"Relying on computer models to predict weather and climate any time into the future as a basis for public policy is both foolhardy and non scientific."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNon-Scientific? Excuse me? NON-Scientific? Have you looked at the medicine industry, genetics, astrophysics, mathematics, biochemistry, and engineering, just to name a few? What science are you thinking of?
In fact, mostly all of the scientific community has been using computer generated models to advance the reach of scientific though, speed up testing to where experiments that normally couldnt get done can be TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT when looking at various other data to come to a conclusion, while protecting people from untested experiments. New data can alter these models for better and more accurate preditctions.
These scientists aren't creating one model and saying "hey, we got what we want" but refine these models over and over when new information is discovered and all of these models trend towards one outcome. The models are made based one what we KNOW about how these systems work. The more we get to know from that data, the better we can refine the model and watch a trand. TREND. I'm so sick of you people saying "hey, it was 23 degrees today, thats cold! theres no way millions of years of comparison can be correct, this ONE DAY is cold, whaaa"
This is the most RAPID CO2 spike our atsmophere has experienced, since, hmm i dunno, forever! We can go back millions and millions of years by rocks and polar ice. Never has so much CO2 been put up into the atsmophere. The warming of the planet is just one piece of evidence the scientists are noticing, and they draw attention to it, like any scientist should!
So whether we are experience the effects right now (from octobers data) or if we wait for ignorance to bite us in our ass 200 years down the road, we aren't nearly seeing the complete effects from the recent spike in CO2. I guess to all you nay-sayers, since we aren't seeing huge variations in data right now, it isn't going to happen at all, and is worth ignoring.
Because yea, that's scientific!
Mark Schaffer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethinks you're trying to be too clever by half!
We both know that there's climate change - always has been
What no one has shown to a level that passes scientific muster is that CO2 causes or has any meaningful impact on any warming period. If you can do so Mark, then believe me I'll be the first to congratulate you and change my opinion.
Remember, most rational people don't believe we have a climate problem (as against local envirnmental issues) - a 'problem' has been created which doesn't exist - one that benefits all sorts of groups with an axe to grind, a craving for power and control over peoples lives and/or a financial stake in propagating a non existent 'problem'.
For readers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can either believe some entity calling itself Bickers or you can believe these institutions:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
Your choice.
what kind of scientist are you representing with your opinions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether people think we have a problem or not, the scientific community MUST continue on their studies. Why do people think the answer has been put out there, ONLY DATA!
"What no one has shown to a level that passes scientific muster is that CO2 causes or has any meaningful impact on any warming period. If you can do so Mark, then believe me I'll be the first to congratulate you and change my opinion."
Meanwhile, while you are waiting and waiting, scientists are going to continue to study it until a fact has been determined on the subject. What you are proposing is not a fact, but an attack on what work has been done.
Scientists haven't solved it yet, so what, stop? It is an ongoing investigation, something that wont ever stop, but just be monitored.
You cannot determine something by the lack of data, you can only infer based on what data you have.
Nothing will ever satisify people who look through the data rather than at the data.
agenthucky:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMedicine doesn't just rely on computer models - they have to test their drugs in the real world.
CO2 has increased in the last 50 + years, but mankind is only responsible for circa 3% p.a. The oceans have been warming over that period and therefore release more CO2. Regardless, even though CO2 levels have gone up temperature increase stopped 8-10 years ago and may now be in decline for the next 10-20 years. How's that work if CO2 is supposed to increase temperature?
As Keynes said: 'when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?'
Time for the AGW brigade to accept that they're heading for an emperor's new clothes moment - the Al Gore/Hansen hoax is over - more and more people are concluding that AGW is just like the other scares: Y2K, AIDS, SARS, Bird Flu etc. In the US and UK all the experts told us that Saddam had WMD - he didn't and 100's thousands have died and been injured for that orchestrated scam - AGW is just the latest
Readers: regarding Mark's reply - please do not buy into anything with the word consensus attached to it - do what I have done and extensively research the subject - you'll come to the conclusion I have - that is that the climate is a chaotic, non linear system and unless you know its original state you cannot predict its future state with any degree of accuracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead these essays to help you understand:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control
"CO2 has increased in the last 50 + years, but mankind is only responsible for circa 3% p.a."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would be very interested to know where you got this fact. Mankind is responsible for deforestation and releasing CO2 by turning up the land when farming. I not only wonder if these are accounted for, but if anywhere in your source if they account for how the CO2 is handled in the environment. Where it is getting pushed to/from. Yes, there is carbon in the soil that we are not responsible for creating, but we are responsible for how our environment has to deal with it.
Also, you clain that temperatures are falling. This very well might be a normal action for our atmosphere. The eartch has been somewhat of a sine wave when it comes to heating and cooling, we have gone through many iceages.
Dont mistake me, I am not blindly searching for an effect of CO2, but who knows how the earths temperature fluctuations are supposed to be? Mankind hasen't been around long enough to know, BUT we still have a fact of all the CO2 thats has been measured. This requires caution until we KNOW that it isn't effecting the earth's normal fluctuations, or if it is, to correct it, as soon as possible. Maybe this is all happening at a bad time to look at it, like the onset of an iceage and is making it hard to see the effects. Maybe the effects aren't there, but science has not proved either, and must continue the study. It most definitly requires observation.
If you left a hose on in your lawn, would you not check the effects of that much water on your grass before you went and flooded it? Imagine the first time someone found out that you could over-water a plant. Water is good, the plant needs water, but you wouldn't know until it is too much, too late.
Bickers wants us to believe a Science Fiction writer as a reliable source of information and an article written by a debunked Australian guy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI prefer these authoritative organizations:
The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion
By: Logical Science
Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.
Index
International Statements
Individual Societies and Organizations
Peer Review Scientific Journals
Individual Scientists (including a 11,885+ long petition) Industry
Military
Religion
Administrative Officials
Mainstream Media
Politicians
International Statements
anchor
Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom United States
G8 Statement
National Academy of Sciences: 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection:
The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day. A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts. . . .
We call on world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.
1. Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
2. Académie des Sciences, France
3. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
8. Science Council of Japan, Japan
9. Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
10. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
11. Indian National Science Academy, India
12. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
13. Royal Society, United Kingdom
Joint Statement I
Here is a press release from the National Academy of Sciences (USA) which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It recognizes the international consensus of the IPCC (2001), IEA (2004), and UNFCCC. It is signed by:
1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
3. Royal Society, United Kingdom
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Academié des Sciences, France
8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
9. Indian National Science Academy, India
10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
11. Science Council of Japan, Japan
Joint Statement II
Here is another press release from the Royal Society (UK) which says “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise* IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes”. It is signed by:
1. Australian Academy of Sciences
2. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
3. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
4. Royal Society of Canada
5. Caribbean Academy of Sciences
6. Chinese Academy of Sciences
7. French Academy of Sciences
8. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
9. Indian National Science Academy
10. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
11. Royal Irish Academy
12. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
13. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
14. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
15. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
16. Royal Society (UK)
*recognise is the british spelling of recognize
Individual Societies and Organizations Not Listed Above
anchor
Union of Concerned Scientists
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."1
Woods Hole Research Center
"We may recall the extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the addictive nature of nicotine and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. For decades, they successfully kept that reality hidden from the American public. The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth."1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Third Assessment Report (2001)
Fourth Assessment Report ( 2007)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive.”1
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch/), and the Joint National Academies’ statement (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)..- AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors 9 December 2006
"AAAS President John P. Holdren and CEO Alan I. Leshner Sunday called for the U.S. public and their leaders to “muster the political will for serious evasive action” to address climate change. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the two AAAS leaders said that there can be no doubt about the reality of climate change."1
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”1
"Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents ... [that] interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming. ... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders." - Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515
National Research Council
The following assessment was produced by the NRC, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, at the request of the White House in 2001:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. ... The impacts of [climate change] will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs." - Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questiosn, 2001
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." 1
Federal Climate Change Science Program
Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes has increased. Given this, there is no longer sufficient evidence to conclude that there exists any notable discrepancy between our understanding of recent global average temperature changes and model simulations of these changes. This represents a change from conclusions of earlier reports (see above) and should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.”1, 2, 3
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.” 1
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
Video of their Chairman, Tim Palmer
American Geophysical Union
Because human activities are contributing to and accelerating climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions.”1
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. ... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern." - Human Impacts on Climate, 2003
Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. ... GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate."- Position Statement, Global Climate Change, 2006
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
"Accumulating evidence clearly shows that our environment and the global climate system are changing. Global average temperatures, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, sea levels, and extreme weather events are on the rise. ... There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century. ... In addition to climate research, scientists, industry, and government should implement measures to cost-effectively protect the climate and intensify efforts to develop technologies that—in addition to meeting other societal goals—could help us mitigate and adapt to the potential effects of climate change." - Global Climate Change, 2004
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone. -Source
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
"Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. ... We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." -
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol." -Source
American Association of State Climatologists
"The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. ... The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate. ... [O]ngoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change." - Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
US Geological Survey (USGS)
The most authoritative report on this issue is Climate Change 1995: IPCC Second Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is part of the United Nations Environmental Programme. The IPCC has a large amount of information on their web site dealing with this topic.Geochange FAQ
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
To slow the rate of climate change, we can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere.”12
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
From my perspective, strong evidence is already accumulating that weighs heavily against the skeptics contentions that there is no significant global warming and that climate sensitivity is low.”1 –Dr. James Hansen, lead climate scientist and director of Goddard
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute
Global warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community. Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures.”1
World Meteorological Organization
WMO Stresses Importance of Adaptation Strategies to Complement Climate Change Mitigation Efforts”1
United Nations Environment Program
The potential consequences of climate change are profound, particularly on people in the less developed countries. The question is therefore not whether climate change is happening, but what to do about it.”1
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
90 Canadian climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors sent the Prime Minister of Canada an open letter. It says "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001,.....We urge you and your government to develop an effective national strategy to deal with the many important aspects of climate that will affect both Canada and the rest of the world in the near future."1
International Council on Science
"The Earth’s environment is changing due to human activities, and is undermining sustainable development"1
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
American Astronomical Society
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. -American Astronomical Society, 2004
The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society
The greenhouse effect is a natural and well-understood phenomenon [snip]
Most of the observed warming is highly likely due to human activity
It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity. Concentrations of a range of other potent greenhouse gases, such as CFCs[4], methane and nitrous oxide, have increased also as a result of human activity, and have contributed to the observed warming. Conversely, some other by-products of human activity, most notably industrial aerosols, have had a cooling effect on the atmosphere, and have offset some of the warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect. - The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Statement on Climate Change
American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.- American Institute of Physics, 2003
Pew Center on Climate Change
The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities... - Global Warming Basics
World Wildlife Fund
Climate change is among the most pervasive threats to the web of life, yet we have the power to address its root causes and limit its impact on the planet. Smart energy choices made by individuals and businesses can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and slow global warming. Without action, climate change will cause the extinction of countless species and destroy some of the world's most precious ecosystems. - http://worldwildlife.org/climate/
Peer Review Scientific Journals
anchor
Science / AAAS
In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.
We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Individual Scientists
anchor
The Petition - 11,885+ individual scientists listed by name
A petition signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ other scientists criticizing the misuse and politicization of science in Washington. The list is continually growing so these are minimum numbers. Here is an excerpt from that petition:
“For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.”
Texas A&M - Department of Atmospheric Sciences Unanimous Endorsement of the IPCC
We, the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:
1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.
Kenneth Bowman
Sarah D. Brooks
Larry Carey
Ping Chang
Don Collins
Andrew Dessler
Robert Duce
Craig Epifanio
Rob Korty
Mark Lemmon
Don Lucas
Shaima L. Nasiri
John Nielsen-Gammon
Gerald North
Richard Orville
Lee Panetta
R. Saravanan
Gunnar W. Schade
Courtney Schumacher
Thomas Wilheit
Ping Yang
Fuqing Zhang
Renyi Zhang
Sources:
Thebatt.com, Changes on the way Department unanimously endorses climate report, Kristin Leveille 7/10/07
Dept Texas A&M statement
Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impacts of Climate Change on the Pacific Northwest - June 15, 2004
The signatories of this consensus statement agree with the scientific findings about climate change as reported in the Third Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2001. [snip] The statement is signed by 50 Ph.D.-level scientists with expertise on the impacts of climate change in the Pacific Northwest. Names of the signatories appear below.....
Realclimate.org articles
“One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.”1
More articles at:
Statistical analysis of consensus
The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus
Just what is this Consensus anyway?
NASA's Gavin Schmidt
"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist." -gavin
Stephen H. Schneider Ph.D. - Professor at Stanford University
A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there. - Contrarians
Dr. James Baker - NOAA
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics". -Deltoid, ECOS Letter
Michael Tobis Ph.D. - University of Texas Institute for Geophysics
It's easy to refute all the contrarian arguments but that seems to have very little effect on how commonly they are believed. Refuted arguments seem to live on in the public imagination. To bring the public on board to a rational discussion of climate policy needs more than logical argument. So what should we actually do? -Only In it For The Gold
Steven Sherwood Ph.D. - Yale
"Things being debated now are details about the models," ... "Nobody is debating any more that significant climate changes are coming." - NYT's, Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data, ANDREW C. REVKIN, Aug, 12, 2005
Steven Hawking
"very worried about global warming." -Steven Hawking, China Daily, ABC (correction by gavin schmidt for accuracy)
Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
"Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point," said Mahlman, who lives now on a mountain in Colorado. "You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away." - The Star Ledger, Tempest brews in weather think tank
MIT
Video Link
Jason Pontin - MIT's Technology Review
Video Link
Industry
anchor
Shell Oil Co.
"It's a waste of time to debate it," he said. "Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." - President John Hofmeister : MSNBC: Shell Oil chief: U.S. needs global warming plan
Munich Re: Insurance
"We need to stop this dangerous experiment humankind is conducting on the Earth's atmosphere." - Thomas Loster
14 Corporate leaders urging the Prime Minister to take bold action on climate change
"In May 2005 the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change wrote to you about the need to take urgent action on climate change. We welcomed the leadership that the Government had shown internationally and offered to work in partnership with you." ... "Bold leadership on domestic climate change policy has the potential to deliver significant economic benefits to the UK. " 1, 2
Which is signed by:
1. Bart Becht, Chief Executive Officer, Reckitt Benckiser
2. Neil Carson, Chief Executive, Johnson Matthey
3. Ian Cheshire, Chief Executive, B&Q
4. Mike Clasper, Chief Executive, BAA
5. Jonson Cox, Chief Executive, Anglian Water Group
6. Mervyn Davies, Group Chief Executive, Standard Chartered Bank
7. Alain Grisay, Chief Executive, F&C Asset Management
8. Sir Stuart Hampson, Executive Chairman, John Lewis Partnership
9. Sir Julian Horn-Smith, Deputy Chief Executive, Vodafone Group
10. Gavin Neath, National Manager, Unilever U.K.
11. Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Company Secretary and Group Corporate and Legal Affairs Director, Tesco
12. Trudy Norris-Grey, Managing Director UK & Ireland, Sun Microsystems
13. Hugh Scott-Barrett, Chief Financial Officer, ABN Amro
14. James Smith, Chairman, Shell U.K. Limited
18 Major Canadian Industries
The following is from a letter given at the Montreal Conference:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment.” -[PDF] which is signed by:
1. Travis Engen, President & CEO, Alcan Inc.
2. Bob Elton, President & CEO, BC Hydro
3. Laurent Beaudoin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Bombardier Inc.
4. Russell Horner, President & CEO, Catalyst Paper Corporation
5. John Murray, President, CH2MHILL Canada Ltd.
6. Alban D’Amours, President & CEO, Desjardins Group
7. George Cooke, President & CEO, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
8. Doug Muzyka, President & CEO, DuPont Canada
9. Derek Pannell, President & CEO, Falconbridge Limited
10. Annette Verschuren, President, The Home Depot Canada
11. David Wilmot, Chair, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
12. John R. Wells, President & CEO, Interface Americas
13. Brian Foody, President & CEO, Iogen Corporation
14. Jack Cogen, President & CEO, Natsource Asset Management
15. André Desmarais, President & Co-CEO, Power Corporation
16. Clive Mather, President & CEO, Shell Canada
17. Frank Dottori, President & CEO, Tembec Inc.
18. Gregg Hanson, President & CEO, The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Virgin Trains and Virgin Atlantic
Sir Richard Branson is to invest $3bn (£1.6bn) to fight global warming. The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years. "We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels," Sir Richard said. - BBC: Branson makes $3bn climate pledge
British Petroleum
"Companies composed of highly skilled and trained people can't live in denial of mounting evidence gathered by hundreds of the most reputable scientists in the world."1,2 - Lord Browne. CEO
Wal-Mart
"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed." 1, 2, 3 - Lee Scott., CEO
Cinergy
If we stonewall this thing [carbon limitations] to five years out, all of a sudden the cost to us and ultimately to our consumers can be gigantic,"1 – James E. Rogers, manager of 20 coal fire plants
DuPont
"we came to the conclusion that the science was compelling and that action should be taken," 1 - Charles O. "Chad" Holliday Jr., CEO
Swiss Re. – (The world's second largest reinsurance company1,2)
"Risk of climate change is real. It's here. It's affecting our business today," 1 - John Coomber, CEO
"Property. Life. Health. Crops. D&O -- you name it. It's the perfect storm for insurers." 1 - Chris Walker, managing director, Swiss Re's Greenhouse Gas Risk Solutions
"Climate change is a phenomenon that is starting to have a major impact on Swiss Re, its partners and clients. The question is no longer whether global warming is happening, but how it will affect our business, as well as our personal lives." -CEO John Coomber, sponser of the documentary The Great Warming.
Fitch Ratings Ltd.
"Global warming is on the radar screen of a lot of financial institutions," 1 - Denise Furey, senior director, Fitch Ratings Ltd.
Turner Construction
Even the chance that [global warming] is a real issue should motivate each and every one of us to action,"1 - Thomas Leppert, CEO
;Goldman Sachs
"We support the need for a national policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions" -Environmental Policy Framework
JPMorgan Chase
"JPMorgan Chase advocates the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." -Environmental Policy
"[JPMorgan advocates] that the US government adopt a market-based national policy on greenhouse gas emissions, which includes all sources of emissions and is fair. Options include either a cap-and-trade or tax policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost. " - Climate change policy
General Electric
Ecomagination
Duke Energy
"I have become personally engaged in one such issue—global climate change. In the past, Duke Energy has supported voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2005, we decided it was time to take a more proactive leadership role and promote a federal, economy wide U.S. policy. We believe the best approach is a carbon tax, which would address greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy. A carbon tax would provide conservation incentives for everyone. It would promote higher utilization of power plants that are low emitters of carbon, and encourage low-carbon fuel choices for the future." -Paul Anderson, Chairman and CEO
NRG Energy
"companies and industries which deny the issue will be marginalized." - physorg,Power execs foresee carbon emission caps
Statoil
Has been working with BP on climate change mitigation since 1998.
Citigroup
Since 2002, Citigroup has collected data on the energy used in the 13,000 buildings that we own or lease globally in order to track and manage our greenhouse gas emissions as well as other elements of our environmental footprint. Earlier this year, Citigroup announced a goal to reduce our global emissions by 10%, from our 2005 level, by the year 2011. To further this effort, we have joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders Program, an industry-government partnership of leaders that are adopting aggressive goals to reduce emissions at facilities. -Climate Policy
Pfizer
To contribute to the world's efforts to reduce GHG emissions, we joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders program in 2002. - Climate Policy
AstraZeneca
"We are committed to minimising our impact on climate change" - Climate policyAn increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is widely thought by climate scientists to be causing a rise in the earth’s temperature, leading to climate change.
GlaxoSmithKline
"In 2004 we developed a draft position statement on our future use of energy, which will be finalised in 2005. This was in response to feedback showing that energy use is a key area of concern among our stakeholders. The draft position sets out a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency, renewable energy and emissions trading. It also acknowledges that climate change may affect disease patterns and proposes that GSK should support research to help society plan for the consequences of climate change." - Responsibility Report 2004
Business for Social Responsibility
"The global consequences of climate change - some of which we are seeing already - threaten to both disrupt natural ecosystem functions and jeopardize the natural capital that provides the economy's resource base." - Climate Change
EPA's Climate Leaders Program
http://www.epa.gov/stateply/partners/index.html
6 Business leaders including Westpac's CEO David Morgan
Their message is that Australia, and the world, needs to deeply cut greenhouse emissions, not just slow their growth. We cannot get there on the soft path the Government has taken. We need to switch paths, get tough, introduce a carbon charge, set targets and meet them. - The Age, Time to make tough choices on climate change
Military & Military Think Tanks
anchor
The Pentagon
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life. - Guardian, Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us, Mark Townshend & Paul Harris, Sunday Feb, 22, 2004
There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. ...With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment. - Report, Grist,
Six Retired Admirals & Five Retired Generals
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report. The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts. -CNN, Report (PDF)
Royal United Services Institute - British military think tank founded in 1831
Just a slight rise in sea level would plunge roughly half of that country underwater, forcing perhaps 17 million people to seek refuge in neighboring India But India is constructing a 3,000-kilometer fence along its border with Bangladesh, and could hardly feed or shelter such a huge influx of people. . - Conference Focuses On Terror Potential Of Abrupt Climate Change
Administrative Officials
anchor
Presidents from 319+ Universities and Colleges
We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities, are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of global warming and its potential for large-scale, adverse health, social, economic and ecological effects. We recognize the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is largely being caused by humans. We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80% by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.
-American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment
To see all the signatories please go here. I'm not typing out 319 different names.
Politicians
anchor
Arnold Schwarzenegger
"I say the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science," "We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now." - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, United Nations summit.
Tony Blair
"the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought." - Tony Blair 1,
"[Climate change is] Probably long term the single most important issue that we face as a global community". -Tony Blair
"Our effect on the environment, and in particular on climate change, is large and growing; he said." -Tony Blair
President Clinton
"The Earth is warming at an alarming rate, we are running out of fossil fuels, and it is long past time for us to take action to correct these problems," Clinton said. "This is also a tremendous opportunity and there are countless good new jobs to be created in the field of green energy." - Associated Press: Clinton conference raises $7B
British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks
"The people in denial now are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society,"-Get ready for freak weather, world's polluters told, Reuters, Catherine Bermer
Seattle Mayor Gregory Nickels
“The reality of global climate change is urgent. The stakes are high – locally and globally – and we need to act.” 1
Bill White, Mayor of Houston
Flannery allows the reader to understand and explain why humans ought to alter the atmosphere with humility. We and other species already have experienced climate change, and humans have tipped the 10,000-year balance between carbon dioxide emissions and absorption. Through a combination of personal responsibility and international law, we must slow the pace of change to give the global community a chance to reflect and plan.” —Bill White, Mayor of Houston
John McCain
"I'm concerned about climate change. I'm going to do something about it." -Meet Captain Climate
Map of ~300 mayors that have signed the Climate Protection Agreement:
Map of mayors
Climate Protection Agreement Text
List of majors who have signed
Mainstream Media
anchor
The Economist
The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction. America should lead the way - The heat is on, Sep 7th 2006
USA Today
“not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming.”- Dan Vergano
BBC
;‘An expert panel convened by BBC News has concluded that climate change is "real and dangerous". Temperatures are likely to rise by 3C to 5C by the end of the century, with impacts probably "severe" but perhaps not "catastrophic", the panel said.’ - BBC
"Several said they have never known such a positive atmosphere. Nobody doubted the reality of climate science anymore." - Mixed outcomes at climate talks, BBC News, Roger Harrabin
The Australian
"THE debate on climate change is over. As far as the Howard Government is concerned, Australians must accept that humans contribute to global warming and adapt their behaviour to save the planet." -Matt Price
Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs & Steel
At last, here is a clear and readable account of one of the most important but controversial issues facing everyone in the world today. If you are not already addicted to Tim Flannery's writing, discover him now: The Weather Makers is his best book yet.” —Jared Diamond, author of Collapse and Guns, Germs & Steel 1
Christian Science Monitor
Honest and spirited writing that makes this book a compelling read, and one that could melt public ambivalence. Flannery . . . deftly brings the complex field of climate science and its components such as greenhouse gases and global warming within reach of the lay reader.” —Lori Valigra, Christian Science Monitor 1
Religion
anchor
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops -(the official leadership body of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States)
WASHINGTON (June 1, 2007)—In an unprecedented action, the Presidents of the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of seven countries, including the United States, have written to the leaders of the Group of 8 Countries to urge bold action on global poverty, health care, climate change and peace and security, at next week’s G8 Summit in Germany. - Official Media Relations
“The G8 Summit will explore many issues of critical importance to human life and dignity,” the bishops said. “We pray that your meeting will be blessed by a spirit of collaboration that enables the G8 leaders to advance the global common good by adopting concrete measures on global poverty, health care, climate change and peace and security.” - Official Media Relations
Our national debate over solutions to global climate change needs to move beyond the uses and abuses of science, sixty-second ads, and exaggerated claims. Because this issue touches so many people, as well as the planet itself, all parties need to strive for a civil and constructive debate about U.S. decisions and leadership in this area. As people of religious faith, we bishops believe that the atmosphere that supports life on earth is a God-given gift, one we must respect and protect. It unites us as one human family. If we harm the atmosphere, we dishonor our Creator and the gift of creation. -Climate Statement
National Association of Evangelicals
"But support on the issue has broadened. God's call on his people is to care for his creation." - Jim Jewell, serving (52 denominations serving 30 million parishioners) Businessweek, The Race Againse Climate Change, 12, 12, 2005
Evangelical Climate Initiative
Human-Induced Climate Change is Real... The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest ... Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem ... The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change—starting now. -Climate Change An Evangelical Call to Action , Signatories
Medicine must be tested in the field, you are correct, but to ignore the work and progress that has been made by a computer model beforehand is unacceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe medicing industry can't possibly test all of the infinite combinations of checmicals on human (or other animal) life. You cannot discredit the help that computational modeling has brought to that industry. The modern advancements simply could not have been done.
We would be relying on scientific mistakes to come across some of the medicine we have seen, which is quite common before the addition of the computer to a scientist's lab
We can fold protiens and alter them slightly to rate them based on our understanding of how they interact in our body. We simply would not all we do of DNA was without it.
Mark, this is part of the problem, they aren't going to sort through all that information. They just mark you up as crazy and go along to the next big conservative group meeting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark - you're right Crichton was on a sci fi writer!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Crichton, who died in Los Angeles on November 4, 2008, was a writer and filmmaker, best known as the author of Jurassic Park and the creator of ER. His most recent novel, Next, about genetics and law, was published in December 2006.
Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
Crichton's interest in computer modeling went back forty years. His multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966. His technical publications included a study of host factors in pituitary chromophobe adenoma, in Metabolism, and an essay on medical obfuscation in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Mark & agenthucky:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience doesn't care whether you quote the status quo - throughout history there are numerous examples of scientists who went against the 'commonly' held view: Darwin, Gallileo etc
Science is based on verifiable hypotheses not faith
The Word is just fine - local pollution's a problem in some parts of the world and needs sorting
Hi agenthucky,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know they won't but anyone with an open mind will compare and stop listening to Bickers. Except those inside Bicker's echo chamber.
Correction for Bickers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrichton was a crappy writer with no expertise in climatology.
bickers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs," he told the meeting of governors and regional leaders convened by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to address climate change. Obama, however, will not be attending the next international meeting on climate change in Poznan, Poland, in December, because the U.S. "only has one president at a time," he said. "Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious."
i had never quoted anybody, but since you accuse me, i might as well. You can take this one from President Obama
at least i can feel good at the end of the day knowing no matter how hard some people preach, we are still going to continue our investigation and formulate some action!
is that even the corrected figures show one of the hottest Octobers on record???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs he crazy. This was the the 44th coldest in 114 years, not one of the warmest.
I just can't believe all this hype. We had 30 years of warming in the 20's 30's and 40's, then 30 years of cooling followed by only 18 years of warming and now it is cooling again. We were gyped.
Thank god James Hansen was not around in the Medieval Warm Period when it was warmer than now. He would have blamed it on agriculture which had just started then
GISS is not a great place to get the world's temperatures. Their data is compromised by the urban heat effect and by James Hansen who has been rewriting temperatures to make the old ones look colder for some time. He has been caught 3 or 4 times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, the world needs to use renewables, but wind power?? Hydro is renewable. One hydro plant can make 10 times the energy of a big wind power site and without annoying people as wind power is doing. Nuclear power has no emissions and when you condsider that the planet will run out of uranium about the same time the sun goes nova, not a problem. Solar may work in some places.
However we do not need this forced on us by taxing us to the point of extinction.
Eve,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould you provide the cite for your claims regarding this year? Even though this year isn't over? Also it would be nice of you to provide a source for your other claims. Was it three or four times that you claim Dr. James Hansen was "caught"? Why should readers believe you?
I don't know if I can get all this data in here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYear Mo Globe Land Ocean NH Land Ocean SH Land Ocean Trpcs Land Ocean NoExt Land Ocean SoExt Land Ocean NoPol Land Ocean SoPol Land Ocean USA48
1978 12 -0.20 -0.27 -0.16 -0.16 -0.26 -0.06 -0.24 -0.28 -0.22 -0.16 -0.12 -0.18 -0.19 -0.35 0.02 -0.25 -0.30 -0.23 -0.06 -0.85 1.20 -0.41 -0.40 -0.42 -1.67
1979 1 -0.15 -0.24 -0.10 -0.29 -0.45 -0.13 -0.01 0.19 -0.08 -0.09 -0.03 -0.12 -0.41 -0.60 -0.16 0.04 0.39 -0.05 -0.12 -0.73 0.84 0.10 0.32 -0.08 -3.31
1979 2 -0.15 -0.29 -0.07 -0.23 -0.34 -0.13 -0.07 -0.19 -0.03 0.04 0.16 -0.02 -0.40 -0.56 -0.19 -0.10 -0.34 -0.04 -2.43 -2.81 -1.83 -0.39 -0.67 -0.17 -2.14
1979 3 -0.14 -0.13 -0.15 -0.14 -0.09 -0.20 -0.15 -0.21 -0.12 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.20 -0.13 -0.30 -0.14 -0.19 -0.13 -0.52 -0.77 -0.13 -0.38 -0.73 -0.11 -0.31
1979 4 -0.17 -0.25 -0.13 -0.19 -0.33 -0.06 -0.15 -0.09 -0.17 -0.04 -0.01 -0.05 -0.29 -0.46 -0.07 -0.19 -0.06 -0.22 -0.46 -0.44 -0.49 -0.14 0.48 -0.63 -0.58
1979 5 -0.16 -0.22 -0.13 -0.24 -0.19 -0.29 -0.08 -0.27 -0.02 -0.11 -0.14 -0.09 -0.29 -0.21 -0.39 -0.09 -0.38 -0.01 -0.40 -0.03 -0.99 0.02 -0.05 0.09 -0.76
1979 6 -0.14 -0.17 -0.13 -0.18 -0.18 -0.18 -0.11 -0.15 -0.09 -0.06 -0.07 -0.05 -0.21 -0.19 -0.23 -0.17 -0.28 -0.14 -0.43 -0.65 -0.09 -1.06 -1.17 -0.96 -0.22
1979 7 -0.04 -0.19 0.04 0.08 -0.05 0.20 -0.17 -0.48 -0.07 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.06 -0.11 0.28 -0.26 -0.76 -0.12 0.03 -0.17 0.36 -1.14 -1.69 -0.71 -0.01
1979 8 -0.16 -0.27 -0.10 -0.09 -0.18 -0.01 -0.23 -0.44 -0.17 0.04 0.07 0.02 -0.17 -0.28 -0.04 -0.36 -0.80 -0.24 -0.01 -0.21 0.32 -1.14 -1.47 -0.88 -0.58
1979 9 0.02 -0.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 -0.03 0.05 -0.12 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.07 -0.03 0.03 -0.10 0.02 -0.37 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.03 -0.06 -0.32 0.14 1.00
1979 10 0.13 0.04 0.19 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.18 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.25 0.16 0.01 -0.05 0.09 0.19 -0.07 0.26 -0.13 -0.28 0.11 0.11 -0.41 0.52 0.26
1979 11 0.01 0.05 -0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 -0.04 0.06 -0.07 0.24 0.19 0.27 -0.05 -0.03 -0.08 -0.18 0.04 -0.24 -0.36 0.12 -1.13 0.11 0.23 0.01 -0.95
1979 12 0.10 0.30 -0.01 0.12 0.27 -0.03 0.09 0.35 0.01 0.04 -0.06 0.09 0.17 0.39 -0.11 0.11 0.66 -0.03 -0.51 -0.20 -1.01 1.13 1.31 0.99 1.57
1980 1 0.03 -0.16 0.14 -0.14 -0.37 0.07 0.20 0.24 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.12 -0.30 -0.57 0.04 0.23 0.31 0.21 0.64 0.48 0.91 0.71 0.69 0.73 -0.55
1980 2 0.12 0.19 0.08 0.02 0.09 -0.05 0.21 0.37 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.18 -0.06 0.09 -0.26 0.25 0.54 0.17 1.72 1.92 1.41 0.97 1.08 0.88 -0.88
1980 3 0.01 -0.11 0.08 -0.21 -0.45 0.01 0.23 0.54 0.13 0.08 -0.02 0.13 -0.38 -0.62 -0.07 0.32 1.07 0.12 0.21 -0.27 0.98 1.49 2.16 0.95 -1.26
1980 4 0.14 0.20 0.11 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 0.32 0.64 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.18 -0.16 -0.14 -0.19 0.40 1.04 0.22 -0.16 -0.09 -0.28 1.72 2.38 1.19 -0.18
1980 5 0.16 0.20 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.28 0.56 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.26 -0.05 -0.06 -0.05 0.29 0.81 0.15 0.16 -0.13 0.63 0.79 1.20 0.46 -0.25
1980 6 0.10 -0.08 0.21 0.05 -0.10 0.18 0.16 -0.06 0.23 0.26 0.18 0.31 -0.06 -0.18 0.09 0.10 -0.29 0.20 -0.23 -0.45 0.12 -0.46 -0.65 -0.32 -0.61
1980 7 0.08 0.18 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.48 -0.01 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.14 0.85 -0.06 -0.60 -0.69 -0.46 1.50 2.48 0.72 0.91
1980 8 0.12 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.08 -0.01 0.22 0.51 0.12 0.00 -0.08 0.04 0.06 0.14 -0.04 0.32 0.95 0.15 0.32 0.77 -0.40 1.20 1.93 0.61 0.19
1980 9 0.19 0.27 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.33 0.77 0.19 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.01 -0.02 0.04 0.44 1.28 0.21 0.02 0.13 -0.15 1.48 2.22 0.89 0.58
1980 10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.17 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.03 1.21 1.17 1.27 -0.30 -0.20 -0.38 -0.32
1980 11 0.11 0.35 -0.03 0.11 0.31 -0.08 0.11 0.44 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.39 -0.26 0.21 0.77 0.06 -1.05 -0.75 -1.52 0.94 1.73 0.33 0.45
1980 12 -0.07 -0.03 -0.10 -0.12 -0.08 -0.15 -0.03 0.08 -0.07 -0.01 -0.05 0.01 -0.18 -0.08 -0.30 -0.03 0.16 -0.08 -0.48 -0.19 -0.95 -0.10 0.23 -0.36 0.82
1981 1 0.12 0.39 -0.03 0.10 0.56 -0.34 0.14 0.06 0.17 -0.13 -0.16 -0.12 0.23 0.81 -0.51 0.28 0.17 0.31 1.71 2.94 -0.25 -0.15 -0.31 -0.03 0.91
1981 2 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.18 -0.08 0.29 0.24 0.30 -0.15 -0.11 -0.17 0.11 0.26 -0.08 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.22 0.49 -0.21 0.55 0.52 0.56 0.42
1981 3 0.13 0.33 0.01 0.12 0.35 -0.09 0.14 0.30 0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 0.22 0.51 -0.15 0.25 0.54 0.18 0.68 0.59 0.83 1.44 2.18 0.85 -1.26
1981 4 0.00 0.08 -0.06 0.08 0.24 -0.08 -0.08 -0.22 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 0.11 0.32 -0.15 -0.07 -0.32 0.00 0.18 -0.15 0.69 0.06 -0.79 0.74 2.14
1981 5 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.04 -0.02 -0.04 -0.01 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.05 -0.08 0.09 0.45 0.54 0.30 0.18 -0.14 0.43 -0.48
1981 6 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 -0.08 -0.15 -0.06 -0.09 -0.04 -0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 -0.05 -0.21 0.00 0.12 0.25 -0.09 0.07 0.46 -0.23 0.35
1981 7 0.05 0.19 -0.03 0.03 0.09 -0.03 0.06 0.37 -0.04 -0.12 -0.19 -0.08 0.12 0.19 0.04 0.15 0.81 -0.03 -0.42 -0.40 -0.46 1.06 1.95 0.35 0.40
1981 8 0.05 0.20 -0.04 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.39 -0.12 -0.18 -0.05 -0.24 0.22 0.14 0.32 0.12 0.80 -0.06 0.56 0.67 0.39 1.35 2.47 0.47 0.33
1981 9 0.02 0.13 -0.04 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 0.07 0.43 -0.05 -0.03 -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.11 0.80 -0.07 0.28 0.09 0.58 1.12 1.47 0.84 0.16
1981 10 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 0.03 -0.03 0.09 -0.06 0.03 -0.09 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.00 -0.09 0.11 -0.11 0.08 -0.16 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.39 0.83 0.04 -0.51
1981 11 -0.02 -0.04 0.00 -0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.14 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 -0.04 0.03 -0.12 -0.05 -0.34 0.03 0.96 1.14 0.69 -0.56 -0.64 -0.51 0.76
1981 12 0.12 0.24 0.05 0.09 0.24 -0.06 0.16 0.24 0.13 0.04 0.22 -0.04 0.09 0.23 -0.09 0.24 0.31 0.22 0.35 0.31 0.42 0.17 0.43 -0.05 -0.47
1982 1 -0.11 -0.32 0.02 -0.25 -0.56 0.05 0.03 0.15 -0.01 -0.10 -0.05 -0.12 -0.30 -0.72 0.23 0.08 0.31 0.02 -1.00 -1.73 0.16 0.50 0.46 0.53 -1.46
1982 2 -0.10 -0.28 0.00 -0.22 -0.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01 -0.15 -0.13 -0.16 -0.24 -0.52 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.09 0.71 0.45 1.13 0.00 0.23 -0.18 -0.51
1982 3 -0.25 -0.66 -0.01 -0.38 -0.71 -0.07 -0.11 -0.56 0.03 -0.09 -0.10 -0.09 -0.53 -0.89 -0.07 -0.13 -0.99 0.10 -0.67 -1.24 0.26 -1.21 -2.20 -0.42 -0.42
1982 4 -0.14 -0.23 -0.09 -0.05 -0.01 -0.08 -0.23 -0.67 -0.09 -0.15 -0.21 -0.11 0.00 0.06 -0.08 -0.27 -1.05 -0.07 -0.16 0.12 -0.62 -1.30 -2.01 -0.74 -1.15
1982 5 -0.15 -0.14 -0.16 -0.29 -0.28 -0.29 -0.02 0.12 -0.06 -0.10 -0.19 -0.05 -0.39 -0.32 -0.49 0.03 0.40 -0.07 -1.03 -0.88 -1.27 0.77 0.91 0.65 -0.18
1982 6 -0.10 -0.31 0.01 -0.24 -0.39 -0.09 0.03 -0.14 0.09 0.00 -0.07 0.04 -0.38 -0.51 -0.21 0.06 -0.15 0.11 -0.41 -0.55 -0.20 0.47 0.40 0.54 -1.41
1982 7 -0.25 -0.21 -0.28 -0.23 -0.21 -0.25 -0.27 -0.20 -0.29 -0.10 -0.08 -0.11 -0.32 -0.27 -0.37 -0.34 -0.24 -0.37 -0.07 -0.04 -0.12 -0.01 0.35 -0.29 -0.19
1982 8 -0.19 -0.23 -0.16 -0.28 -0.29 -0.27 -0.10 -0.14 -0.09 -0.13 -0.22 -0.08 -0.37 -0.33 -0.42 -0.07 0.01 -0.09 -0.33 -0.47 -0.09 -0.40 -0.66 -0.19 -0.07
1982 9 -0.15 -0.19 -0.12 -0.25 -0.16 -0.34 -0.05 -0.26 0.03 -0.10 -0.12 -0.09 -0.37 -0.22 -0.56 0.02 -0.26 0.10 -1.17 -0.90 -1.60 -0.32 -0.72 -0.01 -0.45
1982 10 -0.23 -0.35 -0.16 -0.35 -0.37 -0.34 -0.11 -0.32 -0.04 -0.25 -0.33 -0.20 -0.38 -0.37 -0.40 -0.06 -0.35 0.02 -0.73 -1.11 -0.11 0.27 -0.22 0.65 -0.34
1982 11 -0.13 -0.19 -0.10 -0.43 -0.53 -0.33 0.17 0.47 0.07 0.04 -0.08 0.10 -0.63 -0.64 -0.61 0.19 0.82 0.02 -0.97 -1.15 -0.68 1.05 1.69 0.55 -0.58
1982 12 -0.01 0.09 -0.07 -0.07 -0.08 -0.06 0.05 0.43 -0.08 0.19 0.12 0.23 -0.18 -0.15 -0.21 -0.06 0.69 -0.26 -0.36 -0.40 -0.30 1.16 1.82 0.63 0.53
1983 1 0.12 0.21 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.37 0.05 0.58 0.31 0.72 -0.07 0.17 -0.38 -0.17 0.15 -0.25 -0.61 -0.19 -1.28 0.70 0.64 0.75 0.87
1983 2 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.18 -0.24 -0.13 0.14 0.37 0.06 0.57 0.49 0.61 -0.54 -0.42 -0.68 -0.12 0.13 -0.19 -0.15 0.23 -0.75 0.32 0.10 0.50 0.15
1983 3 0.25 0.16 0.30 0.17 0.11 0.24 0.32 0.27 0.34 0.60 0.53 0.63 -0.03 0.00 -0.07 0.16 -0.01 0.21 0.67 0.49 0.95 -0.20 -0.36 -0.07 -0.69
1983 4 0.16 0.09 0.21 -0.01 -0.06 0.05 0.33 0.39 0.32 0.47 0.48 0.47 -0.24 -0.23 -0.25 0.24 0.29 0.23 -0.26 0.08 -0.80 0.60 1.08 0.22 -2.79
1983 5 0.19 0.20 0.19 -0.01 -0.15 0.12 0.39 0.86 0.24 0.39 0.51 0.32 -0.22 -0.37 -0.05 0.40 1.15 0.20 -0.60 -0.80 -0.28 1.48 2.51 0.66 -1.41
1983 6 -0.08 -0.17 -0.02 -0.17 -0.25 -0.10 0.02 -0.01 0.03 0.23 0.24 0.22 -0.39 -0.41 -0.36 -0.08 -0.21 -0.05 -0.13 0.27 -0.76 0.41 0.19 0.58 -0.64
1983 7 0.13 0.05 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.11 -0.13 0.19 0.41 0.48 0.37 -0.01 0.04 -0.07 -0.03 -0.64 0.13 0.06 -0.04 0.23 -0.74 -0.95 -0.58 0.34
1983 8 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.18 0.02 0.02 -0.06 0.05 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.05 0.17 -0.10 -0.06 -0.27 0.00 0.04 -0.05 0.19 -0.64 -0.67 -0.62 1.11
1983 9 0.08 0.25 -0.02 0.03 0.13 -0.06 0.13 0.49 0.01 0.10 0.16 0.07 0.03 0.15 -0.11 0.10 0.68 -0.05 0.21 0.48 -0.20 1.32 1.63 1.07 -0.10
1983 10 -0.09 -0.11 -0.08 -0.17 -0.07 -0.26 -0.02 -0.19 0.04 -0.10 -0.13 -0.08 -0.21 -0.09 -0.36 0.02 -0.16 0.07 -0.55 -0.42 -0.75 -0.56 -0.70 -0.44 0.41
1983 11 -0.04 0.03 -0.09 0.02 0.28 -0.23 -0.11 -0.46 0.01 -0.08 -0.09 -0.07 0.05 0.40 -0.39 -0.11 -0.75 0.06 0.02 0.52 -0.78 -0.91 -1.51 -0.44 -0.10
1983 12 -0.31 -0.46 -0.23 -0.33 -0.44 -0.23 -0.29 -0.48 -0.23 -0.34 -0.39 -0.32 -0.33 -0.48 -0.14 -0.26 -0.50 -0.20 0.30 0.24 0.40 -0.49 -0.88 -0.17 -2.59
1984 1 -0.32 -0.41 -0.27 -0.38 -0.46 -0.31 -0.25 -0.31 -0.24 -0.45 -0.48 -0.43 -0.32 -0.47 -0.14 -0.18 -0.11 -0.20 -0.60 -0.50 -0.78 0.51 0.48 0.53 -0.51
1984 2 -0.19 -0.34 -0.11 -0.33 -0.38 -0.29 -0.06 -0.28 0.02 -0.27 -0.23 -0.29 -0.36 -0.47 -0.22 0.04 -0.21 0.11 -0.11 -0.20 0.04 -0.10 -0.46 0.19 0.27
1984 3 -0.12 -0.13 -0.12 -0.34 -0.30 -0.38 0.09 0.18 0.06 -0.11 -0.09 -0.12 -0.48 -0.42 -0.54 0.22 0.56 0.13 0.04 0.11 -0.07 0.99 1.58 0.52 -1.05
1984 4 -0.22 -0.35 -0.15 -0.33 -0.47 -0.19 -0.12 -0.10 -0.12 -0.19 -0.18 -0.19 -0.41 -0.60 -0.17 -0.06 0.06 -0.10 -0.93 -1.24 -0.43 0.40 0.69 0.17 -0.93
1984 5 -0.04 0.09 -0.11 -0.21 -0.11 -0.31 0.13 0.47 0.02 -0.28 -0.22 -0.31 -0.17 -0.06 -0.31 0.34 1.02 0.16 0.17 0.53 -0.41 2.04 2.90 1.35 -0.42
1984 6 -0.22 -0.25 -0.21 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.28 -0.40 -0.24 -0.35 -0.37 -0.33 -0.03 -0.07 0.03 -0.29 -0.50 -0.24 0.38 0.39 0.36 -0.83 -0.89 -0.79 -0.55
1984 7 -0.26 -0.37 -0.19 -0.29 -0.29 -0.28 -0.23 -0.51 -0.14 -0.44 -0.40 -0.46 -0.20 -0.25 -0.14 -0.12 -0.62 0.01 0.47 0.42 0.56 -1.30 -1.13 -1.43 -0.30
1984 8 -0.20 -0.26 -0.17 -0.17 -0.15 -0.18 -0.24 -0.46 -0.17 -0.25 -0.20 -0.27 -0.15 -0.18 -0.10 -0.21 -0.55 -0.12 0.02 -0.22 0.39 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.06
1984 9 -0.49 -0.68 -0.37 -0.46 -0.66 -0.27 -0.51 -0.71 -0.45 -0.54 -0.62 -0.50 -0.42 -0.69 -0.07 -0.50 -0.74 -0.44 0.45 0.00 1.16 -0.34 -0.17 -0.46 -0.97
1984 10 -0.19 -0.33 -0.11 -0.25 -0.34 -0.17 -0.13 -0.31 -0.07 -0.34 -0.34 -0.33 -0.21 -0.35 -0.04 -0.02 -0.27 0.05 0.63 0.25 1.24 -0.14 -0.57 0.21 -0.71
1984 11 -0.42 -0.53 -0.35 -0.58 -0.60 -0.56 -0.25 -0.39 -0.21 -0.50 -0.49 -0.51 -0.59 -0.62 -0.56 -0.16 -0.35 -0.10 -0.53 -0.78 -0.12 -0.50 -0.64 -0.39 -0.72
1984 12 -0.39 -0.79 -0.15 -0.60 -1.17 -0.05 -0.18 -0.07 -0.22 -0.39 -0.47 -0.35 -0.68 -1.37 0.20 -0.10 0.20 -0.18 0.06 -0.66 1.22 0.76 1.30 0.34 0.64
1985 1 -0.16 -0.14 -0.17 -0.22 -0.23 -0.21 -0.10 0.03 -0.14 -0.28 -0.14 -0.35 -0.19 -0.28 -0.09 0.00 0.22 -0.05 1.60 1.27 2.13 0.44 0.83 0.13 -1.62
1985 2 -0.22 -0.26 -0.19 -0.16 -0.22 -0.10 -0.28 -0.34 -0.26 -0.26 -0.14 -0.31 -0.09 -0.25 0.12 -0.31 -0.48 -0.26 -0.28 -0.47 0.04 -0.81 -1.25 -0.46 -1.42
1985 3 -0.13 -0.14 -0.12 -0.32 -0.35 -0.29 0.06 0.26 -0.01 -0.22 0.03 -0.36 -0.34 -0.48 -0.18 0.19 0.46 0.12 -0.71 -0.83 -0.53 0.06 0.56 -0.34 0.35
1985 4 -0.20 -0.14 -0.24 -0.31 -0.17 -0.44 -0.10 -0.08 -0.10 -0.51 -0.47 -0.53 -0.17 -0.05 -0.32 0.08 0.18 0.06 -1.41 -1.27 -1.62 0.04 0.61 -0.42 1.03
1985 5 -0.24 -0.19 -0.28 -0.20 -0.07 -0.33 -0.28 -0.43 -0.24 -0.35 -0.30 -0.38 -0.12 0.00 -0.28 -0.25 -0.53 -0.18 -0.08 -0.26 0.21 -0.78 -0.87 -0.72 0.82
1985 6 -0.24 -0.20 -0.26 -0.34 -0.33 -0.35 -0.14 0.05 -0.20 -0.42 -0.41 -0.43 -0.31 -0.33 -0.30 0.03 0.49 -0.10 -0.04 -0.23 0.25 0.26 0.47 0.09 -0.27
1985 7 -0.37 -0.60 -0.24 -0.53 -0.62 -0.44 -0.21 -0.54 -0.10 -0.59 -0.61 -0.58 -0.48 -0.61 -0.33 -0.02 -0.53 0.11 -0.45 -0.93 0.30 -0.82 -1.99 0.11 0.03
1985 8 -0.20 -0.15 -0.23 -0.36 -0.24 -0.48 -0.03 0.02 -0.05 -0.34 -0.28 -0.38 -0.36 -0.24 -0.53 0.12 0.28 0.07 -0.62 -0.61 -0.63 -0.03 0.43 -0.39 -0.65
1985 9 -0.20 -0.26 -0.16 -0.34 -0.25 -0.42 -0.06 -0.29 0.01 -0.33 -0.34 -0.32 -0.33 -0.22 -0.48 0.07 -0.26 0.15 0.05 0.19 -0.18 -0.44 -0.41 -0.47 -1.11
1985 10 -0.29 -0.37 -0.24 -0.31 -0.29 -0.34 -0.27 -0.53 -0.18 -0.23 -0.28 -0.21 -0.38 -0.34 -0.43 -0.27 -0.60 -0.17 -0.21 -0.30 -0.07 -0.30 -0.64 -0.03 0.38
1985 11 -0.15 -0.26 -0.08 -0.12 -0.15 -0.09 -0.17 -0.47 -0.08 -0.26 -0.33 -0.22 -0.09 -0.14 -0.02 -0.10 -0.46 0.00 1.70 1.68 1.73 -0.77 -1.35 -0.31 -0.53
1985 12 -0.14 -0.22 -0.09 -0.07 -0.09 -0.06 -0.20 -0.47 -0.11 -0.21 -0.16 -0.23 -0.03 -0.07 0.01 -0.17 -0.71 -0.03 1.45 1.48 1.40 -1.05 -1.41 -0.77 -1.24
1986 1 -0.03 0.14 -0.13 -0.02 0.26 -0.28 -0.05 -0.09 -0.04 -0.12 -0.11 -0.12 0.02 0.36 -0.40 0.00 -0.02 0.01 -0.30 0.03 -0.82 -0.15 0.20 -0.43 1.36
1986 2 -0.17 -0.06 -0.23 -0.33 -0.28 -0.38 0.00 0.37 -0.12 -0.36 -0.33 -0.37 -0.31 -0.28 -0.36 0.18 0.97 -0.03 0.80 0.74 0.90 1.52 2.72 0.58 0.61
1986 3 -0.15 -0.11 -0.18 -0.18 -0.18 -0.17 -0.13 0.01 -0.18 -0.33 -0.36 -0.31 -0.11 -0.14 -0.08 0.00 0.38 -0.11 -0.96 -0.90 -1.06 0.55 0.89 0.28 1.41
1986 4 -0.03 0.04 -0.07 -0.08 0.03 -0.19 0.03 0.06 0.01 -0.17 -0.14 -0.19 -0.04 0.07 -0.18 0.13 0.25 0.10 -0.60 -0.44 -0.84 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.82
1986 5 -0.04 -0.05 -0.03 -0.10 -0.13 -0.06 0.02 0.11 -0.02 -0.17 -0.14 -0.18 -0.06 -0.14 0.04 0.11 0.32 0.06 -0.21 -0.46 0.18 0.32 0.50 0.18 0.16
1986 6 -0.15 -0.21 -0.11 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.17 -0.39 -0.10 -0.21 -0.20 -0.22 -0.07 -0.08 -0.05 -0.15 -0.57 -0.04 -0.04 -0.23 0.25 -0.44 -1.25 0.21 1.01
1986 7 -0.18 -0.32 -0.10 -0.25 -0.29 -0.22 -0.11 -0.38 -0.02 -0.29 -0.37 -0.24 -0.26 -0.29 -0.21 0.00 -0.32 0.08 -0.62 -0.37 -1.01 -0.05 -0.49 0.30 -0.28
1986 8 -0.23 -0.38 -0.15 -0.28 -0.34 -0.22 -0.19 -0.45 -0.10 -0.11 -0.05 -0.14 -0.42 -0.47 -0.37 -0.16 -0.69 -0.02 -0.97 -0.85 -1.17 -0.64 -1.01 -0.35 -0.46
1986 9 -0.26 -0.42 -0.17 -0.35 -0.43 -0.27 -0.18 -0.41 -0.10 -0.18 -0.30 -0.12 -0.44 -0.47 -0.41 -0.18 -0.50 -0.09 -0.95 -0.82 -1.16 -0.86 -1.43 -0.40 -1.23
1986 10 -0.26 -0.31 -0.23 -0.27 -0.29 -0.25 -0.25 -0.36 -0.22 -0.11 -0.24 -0.04 -0.37 -0.33 -0.43 -0.31 -0.37 -0.29 -0.23 0.04 -0.65 -0.29 -0.15 -0.39 -0.28
1986 11 -0.11 -0.30 -0.01 -0.22 -0.35 -0.10 -0.01 -0.20 0.05 -0.08 -0.17 -0.04 -0.31 -0.43 -0.15 0.05 -0.16 0.10 0.12 0.31 -0.19 0.33 -0.07 0.65 0.20
1986 12 -0.14 -0.33 -0.02 -0.23 -0.40 -0.07 -0.04 -0.21 0.01 -0.02 -0.13 0.03 -0.32 -0.47 -0.13 -0.07 -0.34 0.00 -0.72 -1.11 -0.09 -0.61 -0.90 -0.38 0.08
1987 1 0.14 0.23 0.09 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.05 0.24 -0.01 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.25 0.23 0.29 0.02 0.37 -0.07 0.08 -0.39 0.83 0.10 0.71 -0.39 0.18
1987 2 0.19 0.43 0.05 0.26 0.62 -0.09 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.75 -0.27 0.08 -0.03 0.11 -0.13 0.28 -0.80 0.15 -0.20 0.43 0.67
1987 3 -0.08 -0.17 -0.03 -0.02 -0.11 0.06 -0.14 -0.27 -0.09 0.13 0.15 0.11 -0.09 -0.19 0.04 -0.28 -0.63 -0.19 -0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.46 -0.79 -0.19 0.24
1987 4 0.11 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.17 0.09 0.19 0.25 0.18 0.29 -0.04 0.01 -0.09 0.11 -0.04 0.15 -0.25 -0.59 0.29 -0.86 -1.02 -0.73 1.27
1987 5 -0.04 -0.12 0.00 -0.11 -0.07 -0.15 0.02 -0.21 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.03 -0.17 -0.09 -0.27 0.00 -0.45 0.12 -0.43 -0.68 -0.03 -0.48 -0.66 -0.33 1.22
1987 6 0.15 0.05 0.22 0.06 -0.11 0.21 0.25 0.36 0.22 0.35 0.22 0.42 -0.11 -0.23 0.05 0.21 0.50 0.13 -0.46 -0.88 0.22 0.45 1.08 -0.04 0.64
1987 7 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.18 0.12 0.18 0.10 0.43 0.57 0.36 -0.06 -0.13 0.03 -0.02 -0.04 -0.01 -0.11 -0.26 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.22 -0.26
1987 8 0.03 -0.13 0.12 -0.01 -0.09 0.08 0.07 -0.19 0.16 0.36 0.32 0.38 -0.19 -0.23 -0.13 -0.09 -0.61 0.05 -0.42 -0.48 -0.33 -0.43 -1.42 0.34 -0.39
1987 9 0.05 0.14 -0.01 0.12 0.21 0.03 -0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.42 0.49 0.39 -0.05 0.11 -0.26 -0.24 -0.37 -0.21 -0.79 -0.42 -1.37 -0.27 -0.32 -0.22 -0.34
1987 10 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.08 0.35 0.20 0.42 0.13 0.53 0.51 0.54 0.08 -0.04 0.22 0.01 0.28 -0.06 0.97 0.87 1.14 0.20 0.55 -0.08 -0.37
1987 11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.51 0.51 0.50 -0.15 -0.10 -0.22 -0.09 -0.16 -0.08 -0.63 -0.64 -0.61 -0.64 -1.02 -0.33 0.81
1987 12 0.36 0.45 0.30 0.52 0.62 0.43 0.20 0.13 0.22 0.62 0.59 0.63 0.44 0.61 0.22 0.00 -0.20 0.06 0.26 0.25 0.27 -0.14 -0.47 0.13 0.16
1988 1 0.27 0.36 0.22 0.34 0.39 0.29 0.20 0.29 0.17 0.40 0.45 0.37 0.28 0.36 0.18 0.12 0.19 0.11 0.10 0.28 -0.19 0.32 0.28 0.34 -0.88
1988 2 0.03 -0.13 0.12 0.04 -0.15 0.22 0.01 -0.08 0.05 0.27 0.31 0.25 -0.10 -0.31 0.16 -0.11 -0.38 -0.03 0.62 0.00 1.61 -0.69 -0.79 -0.61 -0.99
1988 3 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.23 0.16 0.26 0.33 0.23 0.44 0.50 0.41 0.04 0.09 -0.02 0.18 0.32 0.14 0.07 0.53 -0.66 0.23 0.31 0.16 -0.45
1988 4 0.06 0.16 0.00 -0.04 0.14 -0.21 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.25 0.01 -0.11 0.10 -0.38 0.19 0.15 0.20 -1.16 -0.99 -1.44 0.19 -0.10 0.42 0.42
1988 5 0.10 0.18 0.05 0.21 0.16 0.27 -0.02 0.22 -0.10 0.15 0.24 0.10 0.24 0.12 0.39 -0.10 0.23 -0.19 0.53 0.17 1.11 0.08 0.74 -0.44 0.07
1988 6 0.10 0.25 0.01 0.14 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.28 -0.02 -0.09 0.00 -0.13 0.25 0.28 0.21 0.14 0.57 0.03 0.22 0.27 0.14 0.40 1.11 -0.16 0.96
1988 7 0.19 0.31 0.13 0.27 0.44 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.43 0.59 0.23 0.13 -0.01 0.17 0.68 0.73 0.59 -0.16 -0.74 0.30 0.29
1988 8 0.16 0.38 0.04 0.30 0.37 0.22 0.03 0.38 -0.09 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.47 0.52 0.41 -0.02 0.49 -0.15 0.31 0.25 0.41 1.09 1.15 1.04 0.85
1988 9 0.28 0.59 0.10 0.30 0.57 0.05 0.26 0.63 0.14 0.03 0.19 -0.05 0.48 0.75 0.14 0.34 0.83 0.21 0.45 0.96 -0.37 0.67 0.84 0.54 0.64
1988 10 0.12 0.41 -0.04 0.17 0.26 0.09 0.08 0.70 -0.13 -0.06 0.15 -0.17 0.30 0.35 0.24 0.14 1.02 -0.09 0.19 0.38 -0.12 1.09 1.75 0.56 -0.22
1988 11 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.13 -0.05 -0.20 -0.02 -0.14 0.01 -0.40 -0.23 -0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 -0.05 0.24 -0.53 -0.40 -0.74 0.04 -0.09 0.15 0.22
1988 12 -0.13 0.02 -0.22 -0.15 0.18 -0.46 -0.12 -0.30 -0.06 -0.64 -0.39 -0.76 0.11 0.36 -0.20 0.15 -0.20 0.24 0.19 0.72 -0.65 0.09 -0.65 0.67 -0.22
1989 1 -0.33 -0.40 -0.30 -0.37 -0.34 -0.40 -0.30 -0.50 -0.23 -0.52 -0.35 -0.60 -0.29 -0.35 -0.23 -0.18 -0.61 -0.06 -2.29 -2.26 -2.33 -0.57 -0.77 -0.42 1.37
1989 2 -0.18 -0.27 -0.13 -0.17 -0.26 -0.08 -0.20 -0.30 -0.17 -0.63 -0.49 -0.70 0.10 -0.16 0.44 -0.01 -0.20 0.05 0.28 0.61 -0.23 -0.25 -0.37 -0.16 -1.08
1989 3 -0.20 -0.01 -0.31 -0.10 0.17 -0.36 -0.30 -0.36 -0.28 -0.74 -0.72 -0.75 0.28 0.49 0.01 -0.11 -0.15 -0.10 0.16 0.43 -0.28 -0.27 -0.39 -0.18 1.05
1989 4 -0.11 0.00 -0.17 0.03 0.11 -0.05 -0.25 -0.22 -0.26 -0.48 -0.39 -0.53 0.30 0.26 0.36 -0.13 -0.03 -0.16 0.77 0.67 0.93 -0.34 -0.18 -0.46 0.79
1989 5 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22 -0.12 -0.03 -0.21 -0.32 -0.60 -0.22 -0.50 -0.47 -0.52 0.07 0.11 0.01 -0.22 -0.71 -0.08 -0.38 -0.22 -0.65 -1.55 -2.26 -0.98 0.17
1989 6 -0.21 -0.25 -0.19 -0.14 -0.05 -0.23 -0.29 -0.66 -0.17 -0.48 -0.32 -0.56 0.02 0.04 -0.01 -0.17 -0.91 0.03 -0.04 0.25 -0.52 -1.33 -2.26 -0.60 -0.05
1989 7 -0.10 -0.07 -0.11 -0.03 0.11 -0.16 -0.16 -0.41 -0.08 -0.29 -0.21 -0.32 0.09 0.20 -0.06 -0.08 -0.53 0.04 0.00 0.15 -0.24 -0.35 -0.93 0.10 0.34
1989 8 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.06 -0.24 -0.20 -0.26 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.20 0.02 0.49 0.34 0.32 0.35 -0.57
1989 9 0.06 0.19 -0.01 0.10 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.19 -0.03 -0.18 -0.06 -0.24 0.25 0.27 0.23 0.12 0.40 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.58 1.06 0.19 0.06
1989 10 0.04 0.21 -0.05 0.04 0.16 -0.07 0.05 0.30 -0.04 -0.13 -0.07 -0.16 0.15 0.26 0.01 0.12 0.54 0.01 -0.25 -0.17 -0.37 0.52 0.98 0.14 0.23
1989 11 -0.07 -0.23 0.03 -0.19 -0.29 -0.10 0.06 -0.11 0.11 0.01 0.12 -0.04 -0.30 -0.41 -0.15 0.07 -0.33 0.18 -0.81 -0.65 -1.07 -0.53 -0.87 -0.27 0.28
1989 12 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.11 -0.09 0.13 0.29 0.07 -0.20 -0.12 -0.24 0.09 0.19 -0.03 0.32 0.63 0.24 0.62 0.69 0.52 0.72 1.41 0.17 -1.67
1990 1 0.00 -0.09 0.05 -0.04 -0.19 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.01 -0.17 -0.05 -0.23 0.00 -0.26 0.33 0.17 0.31 0.13 -0.44 -1.43 1.13 0.61 0.62 0.61 1.84
1990 2 -0.14 -0.11 -0.16 -0.05 0.05 -0.14 -0.23 -0.42 -0.17 -0.28 -0.27 -0.29 0.10 0.20 -0.03 -0.23 -0.64 -0.12 -1.31 -1.58 -0.87 -0.55 -0.33 -0.72 0.59
1990 3 0.10 0.42 -0.09 0.32 0.73 -0.07 -0.12 -0.17 -0.10 -0.17 -0.19 -0.16 0.60 1.09 -0.02 -0.11 -0.30 -0.06 -0.05 0.74 -1.31 -0.93 -0.84 -1.01 1.26
1990 4 0.01 0.07 -0.03 0.08 0.13 0.02 -0.06 -0.04 -0.07 -0.01 0.10 -0.06 0.11 0.15 0.06 -0.08 -0.16 -0.06 0.26 0.60 -0.29 -0.10 -0.12 -0.09 0.80
1990 5 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.18 0.14 0.22 0.02 0.21 -0.04 0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.25 0.16 0.35 0.06 0.39 -0.03 0.33 0.10 0.69 0.32 0.96 -0.19 -0.73
1990 6 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.32 0.20 -0.06 -0.34 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.36 0.38 0.33 -0.10 -0.65 0.05 0.33 0.20 0.53 -1.13 -1.61 -0.76 0.76
1990 7 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.03 -0.01 0.09 0.18 0.06 -0.12 -0.16 -0.10 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.20 0.47 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.05 1.45 1.60 1.33 -0.22
1990 8 0.02 -0.10 0.09 0.06 -0.02 0.14 -0.01 -0.25 0.06 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.05 -0.07 0.20 0.02 -0.35 0.12 0.13 -0.31 0.85 -0.66 -1.04 -0.36 -0.33
1990 9 0.00 -0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.04 -0.06 -0.31 0.03 -0.02 -0.05 -0.01 0.08 0.07 0.09 -0.06 -0.43 0.04 -0.24 -0.57 0.29 -0.53 -0.79 -0.32 1.09
1990 10 0.13 0.20 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.32 0.07 0.11 0.19 0.07 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.41 0.06 -0.73 -0.73 -0.73 -0.13 0.30 -0.48 0.27
1990 11 0.32 0.44 0.24 0.30 0.38 0.22 0.34 0.57 0.26 0.20 0.29 0.15 0.35 0.41 0.26 0.41 0.79 0.31 -1.68 -1.71 -1.65 0.33 0.62 0.10 1.72
1990 12 0.22 0.31 0.16 0.24 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.39 0.13 0.14 0.24 0.09 0.27 0.23 0.32 0.24 0.63 0.13 -0.84 -0.68 -1.10 0.47 0.85 0.17 -0.33
1991 1 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.03 0.26 0.06 -0.05 0.08 0.15 0.22 0.04 -0.40 -0.31 -0.46 -0.34
1991 2 0.17 0.32 0.08 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.60 -0.01 0.19 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.23 0.13 0.92 -0.08 0.53 0.29 0.92 0.84 1.49 0.32 2.03
1991 3 0.29 0.24 0.31 0.43 0.38 0.49 0.14 -0.03 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.54 0.41 0.72 0.16 -0.10 0.23 0.40 -0.07 1.16 -0.42 -0.49 -0.36 0.06
1991 4 0.13 0.37 -0.01 0.23 0.42 0.05 0.03 0.28 -0.06 0.00 -0.04 0.02 0.33 0.54 0.07 0.07 0.63 -0.08 0.10 0.89 -1.17 0.79 1.37 0.33 0.53
1991 5 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.34 0.30 0.37 0.00 -0.03 0.01 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.43 0.37 0.50 -0.07 -0.11 -0.06 0.72 0.86 0.51 -0.31 -0.72 0.02 1.03
1991 6 0.34 0.46 0.27 0.32 0.40 0.26 0.35 0.57 0.28 0.29 0.32 0.28 0.34 0.41 0.26 0.38 0.80 0.27 0.39 0.67 -0.06 0.98 1.47 0.59 -0.10
1991 7 0.20 0.33 0.12 0.23 0.28 0.18 0.17 0.44 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.28 0.33 0.22 0.18 0.72 0.04 0.72 0.73 0.69 0.98 1.50 0.57 -0.04
1991 8 0.22 0.30 0.17 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.45 0.13 0.04 -0.01 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.76 0.17 0.45 0.41 0.50 1.00 1.40 0.68 0.20
1991 9 0.07 0.20 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.13 -0.01 0.24 -0.10 0.10 0.05 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.14 -0.06 0.47 -0.20 0.52 0.44 0.64 0.31 0.89 -0.15 0.14
1991 10 -0.04 -0.03 -0.05 0.01 -0.02 0.04 -0.10 -0.04 -0.12 -0.31 -0.39 -0.27 0.19 0.11 0.30 0.00 0.23 -0.06 -0.26 -0.12 -0.49 0.51 0.35 0.63 0.35
1991 11 -0.10 -0.01 -0.16 0.01 0.09 -0.07 -0.21 -0.20 -0.22 -0.17 -0.24 -0.14 0.09 0.18 -0.04 -0.22 -0.15 -0.24 -0.12 0.46 -1.05 0.18 0.31 0.07 -0.31
1991 12 -0.12 -0.13 -0.12 -0.14 -0.23 -0.05 -0.10 0.06 -0.16 -0.07 -0.16 -0.03 -0.16 -0.24 -0.06 -0.14 0.19 -0.23 -0.59 -0.62 -0.54 1.24 1.90 0.71 1.14
1992 1 -0.03 0.06 -0.08 0.00 0.12 -0.10 -0.06 -0.06 -0.07 -0.13 -0.29 -0.04 0.11 0.33 -0.16 -0.07 -0.09 -0.07 0.03 0.38 -0.53 0.29 0.29 0.30 1.05
1992 2 -0.13 -0.07 -0.16 -0.03 -0.08 0.01 -0.22 -0.04 -0.28 0.02 -0.14 0.11 -0.05 -0.03 -0.07 -0.36 -0.05 -0.44 0.00 0.23 -0.36 0.12 0.11 0.12 1.30
1992 3 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.06 0.00 0.01 0.16 -0.04 0.13 0.08 0.15 -0.11 -0.10 -0.12 -0.05 0.21 -0.12 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.25 0.06 0.16
1992 4 -0.18 -0.31 -0.10 -0.27 -0.43 -0.11 -0.09 -0.08 -0.09 0.11 0.07 0.13 -0.46 -0.57 -0.31 -0.19 -0.23 -0.18 -1.12 -1.34 -0.77 -0.08 -0.21 0.02 0.93
1992 5 -0.18 -0.31 -0.11 -0.40 -0.53 -0.28 0.03 0.12 0.00 -0.02 0.02 -0.04 -0.57 -0.67 -0.44 0.03 0.07 0.02 -1.31 -1.10 -1.65 0.71 0.92 0.54 0.47
1992 6 -0.19 -0.32 -0.11 -0.38 -0.56 -0.21 0.00 0.13 -0.05 0.01 0.00 0.02 -0.59 -0.73 -0.41 -0.01 0.20 -0.06 -0.88 -0.99 -0.71 0.55 0.75 0.40 -0.41
1992 7 -0.33 -0.50 -0.23 -0.55 -0.74 -0.36 -0.11 -0.03 -0.13 -0.27 -0.34 -0.23 -0.68 -0.86 -0.46 -0.03 0.21 -0.09 -0.90 -0.86 -0.95 0.20 0.32 0.10 -1.32
1992 8 -0.39 -0.47 -0.35 -0.44 -0.50 -0.39 -0.34 -0.41 -0.32 -0.23 -0.35 -0.17 -0.56 -0.53 -0.59 -0.40 -0.48 -0.37 -0.82 -0.53 -1.28 -0.32 -0.20 -0.41 -1.28
1992 9 -0.35 -0.64 -0.17 -0.31 -0.53 -0.09 -0.39 -0.87 -0.23 -0.29 -0.37 -0.25 -0.34 -0.59 -0.03 -0.41 -1.25 -0.18 -0.56 -0.87 -0.07 -1.36 -2.01 -0.83 0.01
1992 10 -0.13 -0.25 -0.06 -0.18 -0.25 -0.12 -0.08 -0.25 -0.02 -0.16 -0.16 -0.16 -0.21 -0.27 -0.13 -0.02 -0.34 0.06 -0.56 -0.69 -0.36 -0.20 -0.19 -0.21 0.41
1992 11 -0.15 -0.29 -0.07 -0.09 -0.15 -0.04 -0.21 -0.55 -0.09 -0.30 -0.41 -0.24 0.03 -0.04 0.11 -0.18 -0.75 -0.02 -0.37 -0.49 -0.19 -0.31 -0.65 -0.03 -0.66
1992 12 -0.22 -0.23 -0.22 -0.12 -0.09 -0.14 -0.33 -0.50 -0.27 -0.21 -0.21 -0.21 -0.08 -0.05 -0.12 -0.38 -0.75 -0.27 -0.42 -0.15 -0.85 -0.40 -1.08 0.13 -0.14
1993 1 -0.24 -0.10 -0.32 -0.19 -0.06 -0.32 -0.28 -0.17 -0.32 -0.30 -0.42 -0.24 -0.14 0.06 -0.39 -0.27 0.03 -0.35 -1.03 -0.22 -2.31 0.45 0.41 0.47 0.22
1993 2 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 -0.09 -0.07 -0.12 -0.28 -0.42 -0.24 -0.40 -0.54 -0.33 0.07 0.10 0.02 -0.22 -0.35 -0.18 0.38 0.49 0.21 -0.19 -0.37 -0.04 -1.01
1993 3 -0.35 -0.24 -0.41 -0.29 -0.15 -0.41 -0.41 -0.40 -0.42 -0.36 -0.42 -0.32 -0.26 -0.07 -0.50 -0.43 -0.37 -0.44 -0.71 -0.01 -1.82 -0.33 -0.53 -0.18 -0.38
1993 4 -0.22 -0.37 -0.13 -0.26 -0.41 -0.12 -0.18 -0.30 -0.14 -0.12 -0.28 -0.04 -0.32 -0.43 -0.17 -0.23 -0.39 -0.19 0.07 -0.12 0.37 -0.50 -0.95 -0.14 -0.69
1993 5 -0.17 -0.28 -0.11 -0.14 -0.14 -0.14 -0.20 -0.54 -0.09 -0.05 -0.08 -0.04 -0.17 -0.14 -0.20 -0.31 -0.96 -0.13 0.80 0.65 1.04 -1.13 -1.86 -0.54 -0.06
1993 6 -0.06 -0.18 0.02 -0.10 -0.20 -0.01 -0.01 -0.15 0.03 0.02 -0.08 0.07 -0.16 -0.23 -0.06 -0.03 -0.21 0.02 0.22 -0.01 0.60 -0.33 -0.99 0.19 -0.66
1993 7 -0.04 -0.07 -0.02 -0.09 -0.13 -0.05 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.04 -0.01 0.06 -0.14 -0.18 -0.10 -0.01 0.13 -0.04 0.30 0.33 0.26 -0.31 -0.16 -0.43 -0.55
1993 8 -0.18 -0.30 -0.10 -0.19 -0.30 -0.09 -0.16 -0.31 -0.11 -0.16 -0.23 -0.13 -0.23 -0.37 -0.05 -0.14 -0.25 -0.11 -0.18 -0.26 -0.05 -0.10 -0.49 0.21 -0.40
1993 9 -0.29 -0.45 -0.20 -0.35 -0.44 -0.27 -0.23 -0.46 -0.15 -0.19 -0.23 -0.17 -0.45 -0.55 -0.31 -0.24 -0.56 -0.16 -0.73 -0.99 -0.31 -0.67 -0.79 -0.57 -0.89
1993 10 -0.06 -0.17 0.00 -0.15 -0.23 -0.07 0.02 -0.06 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.14 -0.27 -0.32 -0.20 -0.03 -0.08 -0.01 -0.22 -0.24 -0.19 -0.33 -0.47 -0.21 -0.52
1993 11 -0.06 -0.27 0.06 -0.12 -0.35 0.10 0.00 -0.12 0.04 0.20 0.17 0.22 -0.28 -0.54 0.04 -0.11 -0.31 -0.06 0.01 -0.31 0.51 -0.28 -0.82 0.14 -0.56
1993 12 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.10 0.02 -0.22 0.11 0.32 0.27 0.34 0.05 0.14 -0.05 -0.14 -0.63 -0.01 -0.71 -0.53 -0.99 -1.11 -1.55 -0.77 0.01
1994 1 0.01 -0.03 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.20 -0.10 -0.17 -0.08 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.35 -0.20 -0.34 -0.16 -0.23 -0.66 0.46 -0.85 -0.88 -0.84 -0.36
1994 2 -0.13 -0.56 0.11 -0.11 -0.54 0.30 -0.16 -0.60 -0.02 -0.02 -0.07 0.00 -0.16 -0.71 0.54 -0.23 -0.97 -0.03 -0.23 -0.98 0.99 -1.24 -1.72 -0.85 -0.93
1994 3 -0.13 -0.12 -0.14 -0.02 0.07 -0.11 -0.24 -0.49 -0.16 -0.16 -0.20 -0.14 0.06 0.17 -0.07 -0.30 -0.73 -0.18 -0.76 -0.33 -1.45 -0.58 -1.11 -0.16 0.80
1994 4 -0.05 0.05 -0.11 0.09 0.11 0.08 -0.20 -0.06 -0.24 -0.12 -0.19 -0.09 0.21 0.21 0.21 -0.24 0.02 -0.31 0.76 0.60 1.02 -0.03 0.13 -0.17 0.83
1994 5 -0.06 -0.01 -0.09 0.15 0.18 0.12 -0.26 -0.37 -0.23 -0.08 -0.18 -0.03 0.27 0.29 0.23 -0.35 -0.52 -0.31 0.18 0.53 -0.40 -0.62 -1.03 -0.28 0.27
1994 6 0.06 0.24 -0.05 0.11 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.28 -0.09 -0.16 -0.26 -0.10 0.24 0.37 0.08 0.10 0.72 -0.07 -0.15 -0.04 -0.31 0.56 1.51 -0.20 0.94
1994 7 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.13 0.17 0.10 -0.04 -0.06 -0.04 -0.05 -0.20 0.02 0.21 0.28 0.13 -0.02 0.07 -0.05 0.27 0.58 -0.22 0.01 0.05 -0.02 -0.21
1994 8 -0.06 -0.16 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.01 -0.15 -0.56 -0.01 -0.08 -0.25 0.01 0.09 0.17 -0.01 -0.19 -0.90 -0.01 0.10 0.47 -0.48 -1.78 -2.22 -1.43 -0.09
1994 9 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.17 0.09 -0.01 -0.05 0.00 0.04 -0.11 0.12 0.17 0.27 0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.22 0.33 -1.09 0.23 0.02 0.40 -0.03
1994 10 -0.13 -0.06 -0.16 0.07 0.09 0.05 -0.32 -0.36 -0.31 -0.14 -0.25 -0.09 0.19 0.20 0.16 -0.42 -0.44 -0.41 0.04 0.47 -0.65 -0.19 -0.10 -0.26 -0.09
1994 11 0.14 0.29 0.05 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.02 0.29 -0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.38 0.40 0.34 -0.03 0.37 -0.13 -0.60 -0.72 -0.41 0.76 0.92 0.63 0.27
1994 12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.26 0.11 0.33 0.08 0.17 -0.04 0.00 -0.03 0.01 -0.17 0.15 -0.68 -0.31 -0.76 0.04 1.36
1995 1 0.13 0.23 0.07 0.38 0.53 0.24 -0.12 -0.35 -0.05 0.17 0.03 0.25 0.49 0.71 0.21 -0.28 -0.70 -0.17 1.02 1.55 0.16 -1.04 -1.56 -0.63 0.50
1995 2 0.08 0.28 -0.03 0.31 0.57 0.07 -0.15 -0.28 -0.11 0.04 -0.17 0.14 0.47 0.82 0.01 -0.26 -0.41 -0.22 0.93 1.42 0.14 -0.55 -0.48 -0.60 0.76
1995 3 -0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 -0.06 -0.10 -0.05 0.05 -0.06 0.11 0.02 0.11 -0.09 -0.12 -0.18 -0.11 -0.44 -0.12 -0.95 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.72
1995 4 0.21 0.18 0.23 0.37 0.27 0.46 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.45 0.31 0.63 0.01 -0.11 0.04 2.26 1.97 2.73 0.00 -0.21 0.16 -0.82
1995 5 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.22 0.15 0.29 -0.09 -0.21 -0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.30 0.17 0.47 -0.16 -0.42 -0.09 0.93 0.93 0.93 -0.82 -1.16 -0.54 -0.93
1995 6 0.13 0.28 0.04 0.29 0.42 0.16 -0.03 0.00 -0.04 0.24 0.31 0.21 0.30 0.45 0.13 -0.17 -0.20 -0.16 0.43 0.51 0.30 0.05 -0.33 0.36 -0.41
1995 7 0.10 0.30 -0.01 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.65 -0.07 0.14 0.27 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.84 -0.15 0.00 -0.27 0.44 1.25 2.10 0.58 0.04
1995 8 0.28 0.46 0.17 0.34 0.40 0.28 0.22 0.59 0.10 0.30 0.36 0.26 0.42 0.47 0.36 0.12 0.61 -0.01 0.80 0.76 0.86 0.30 0.50 0.14 1.34
1995 9 0.23 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.18 0.41 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.17 0.37 0.18 0.60 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.94 0.67 1.38 -0.48 -0.58 -0.41 -0.25
1995 10 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.08 0.23 -0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.04 0.08 0.26 -0.15 0.15 0.04 0.18 -0.63 -0.38 -1.02 0.12 -0.20 0.37 0.29
1995 11 0.15 0.31 0.06 0.38 0.42 0.35 -0.08 0.10 -0.14 0.03 0.13 -0.03 0.55 0.51 0.60 -0.11 0.08 -0.16 1.39 1.10 1.86 -0.49 -0.08 -0.82 -0.06
1995 12 -0.13 -0.29 -0.03 -0.25 -0.32 -0.18 -0.01 -0.23 0.07 -0.17 -0.18 -0.16 -0.30 -0.34 -0.24 0.09 -0.34 0.20 -0.10 -0.17 0.01 -0.63 -1.02 -0.33 -0.07
1996 1 -0.09 -0.26 0.02 0.00 -0.20 0.19 -0.17 -0.38 -0.10 -0.23 -0.08 -0.31 0.08 -0.27 0.53 -0.11 -0.56 0.01 0.96 0.44 1.79 -0.72 -0.96 -0.53 -0.25
1996 2 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.09 -0.04 0.08 -0.09 0.22 0.17 0.28 0.13 0.05 0.16 0.24 0.29 0.16 0.10 0.41 -0.14 0.73
1996 3 0.08 -0.07 0.17 0.05 -0.16 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.08 -0.03 0.07 -0.24 0.47 0.17 0.15 0.17 1.34 1.07 1.78 0.27 0.24 0.30 -1.00
1996 4 -0.05 -0.18 0.03 -0.24 -0.47 -0.03 0.14 0.37 0.07 -0.12 -0.10 -0.12 -0.30 -0.56 0.03 0.27 0.68 0.16 0.61 0.12 1.38 0.72 1.40 0.18 -0.24
1996 5 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.07 0.03 -0.16 -0.16 -0.38 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.08 0.06 -0.26 -0.17 -0.59 -0.06 -0.36 -0.28 -0.48 -1.21 -1.66 -0.86 0.22
1996 6 -0.12 -0.11 -0.14 -0.10 -0.06 -0.14 -0.15 -0.19 -0.13 -0.06 -0.10 -0.04 -0.10 -0.02 -0.21 -0.22 -0.34 -0.18 -0.63 -0.37 -1.06 -0.22 -0.59 0.07 0.78
1996 7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 -0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.07 -0.08 -0.03 -0.13 -0.02 -0.05 -0.01 -0.57 -0.18 -1.19 -0.27 -0.20 -0.32 0.13
1996 8 0.12 0.17 0.09 -0.08 -0.15 -0.02 0.32 0.80 0.16 -0.03 0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.19 0.05 0.47 1.30 0.25 -0.60 -0.68 -0.49 2.10 2.89 1.47 0.19
1996 9 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.01 -0.07 0.08 0.29 0.43 0.25 0.08 0.09 0.07 -0.05 -0.12 0.04 0.42 0.70 0.35 0.24 0.16 0.37 0.89 1.20 0.65 -0.94
1996 10 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.05 -0.01 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.12 0.19 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.06 0.33 -0.05 -0.26 0.12 0.31
1996 11 0.12 0.24 0.05 0.32 0.35 0.29 -0.08 0.03 -0.12 -0.10 -0.15 -0.08 0.54 0.52 0.57 -0.07 0.15 -0.13 2.01 2.07 1.93 0.57 0.70 0.46 -0.46
1996 12 0.01 0.11 -0.05 0.14 0.17 0.11 -0.12 0.00 -0.16 -0.15 -0.08 -0.19 0.31 0.27 0.36 -0.12 0.00 -0.16 0.87 0.57 1.35 -0.23 -0.05 -0.38 -0.19
1997 1 -0.07 -0.02 -0.10 -0.16 0.06 -0.37 0.02 -0.18 0.09 -0.31 -0.29 -0.32 -0.07 0.18 -0.39 0.18 -0.09 0.25 -0.54 -0.18 -1.13 -0.37 -0.42 -0.33 0.01
1997 2 0.01 -0.03 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.09 -0.03 -0.12 0.00 -0.24 -0.22 -0.25 0.17 0.09 0.27 0.11 -0.04 0.15 -0.54 -0.47 -0.65 -0.52 -0.81 -0.28 0.54
1997 3 -0.03 0.01 -0.05 0.05 0.01 0.09 -0.10 0.01 -0.14 -0.27 -0.18 -0.32 0.23 0.11 0.38 -0.03 0.04 -0.05 0.35 -0.10 1.07 0.37 0.25 0.47 1.11
1997 4 -0.21 -0.23 -0.20 -0.14 -0.09 -0.18 -0.28 -0.49 -0.21 -0.40 -0.53 -0.34 0.01 0.08 -0.09 -0.22 -0.54 -0.13 0.55 1.19 -0.48 -0.59 -1.07 -0.21 -1.56
1997 5 -0.05 -0.23 0.05 -0.03 -0.12 0.05 -0.07 -0.45 0.06 -0.16 -0.32 -0.07 0.02 -0.06 0.11 -0.01 -0.55 0.13 0.20 0.09 0.37 -0.67 -1.04 -0.37 -0.37
1997 6 0.00 0.14 -0.08 0.04 0.16 -0.07 -0.04 0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.01 -0.08 0.08 0.21 -0.08 -0.02 0.19 -0.07 0.43 0.34 0.58 0.72 1.02 0.48 0.14
1997 7 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.23 0.02 -0.04 0.04 0.42 0.37 0.45 0.02 0.01 0.04 -0.18 -0.39 -0.13 -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 -0.75 -1.40 -0.23 -0.01
1997 8 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.22 0.24 0.20 -0.03 -0.30 0.06 0.35 0.30 0.38 0.15 0.20 0.09 -0.23 -0.72 -0.09 0.16 0.54 -0.44 -1.19 -1.87 -0.65 -0.24
1997 9 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.27 0.24 0.30 -0.09 -0.03 -0.11 0.40 0.47 0.37 0.21 0.16 0.27 -0.35 -0.43 -0.33 1.00 1.02 0.97 -1.10 -1.20 -1.02 0.89
1997 10 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.11 0.20 0.00 -0.03 -0.15 0.00 0.42 0.59 0.15 -0.08 -0.02 -0.13 -0.33
1997 11 0.20 0.23 0.18 0.11 0.01 0.21 0.28 0.66 0.16 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.01 -0.10 0.15 0.17 0.86 -0.02 0.31 -0.23 1.18 1.37 2.15 0.75 -0.84
1997 12 0.31 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.18 0.36 0.34 0.61 0.25 0.73 0.61 0.80 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.67 -0.02 -0.21 -0.36 0.03 0.36 0.82 -0.01 -0.25
1998 1 0.58 0.47 0.64 0.61 0.45 0.75 0.55 0.50 0.57 1.09 0.98 1.15 0.35 0.28 0.43 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.87 0.70 1.16 -0.46 -0.74 -0.24 0.98
1998 2 0.76 1.08 0.57 0.85 1.13 0.59 0.66 0.97 0.56 1.31 1.25 1.33 0.59 1.07 -0.03 0.35 0.78 0.24 -1.29 -0.94 -1.85 0.70 0.79 0.62 0.88
1998 3 0.53 0.45 0.58 0.66 0.47 0.84 0.40 0.41 0.40 1.05 0.97 1.08 0.46 0.31 0.65 0.06 -0.08 0.09 0.45 0.24 0.77 -0.78 -1.01 -0.61 -0.34
1998 4 0.76 0.76 0.77 1.02 0.99 1.04 0.51 0.31 0.58 1.06 1.15 1.02 1.01 0.94 1.11 0.21 -0.35 0.35 0.96 0.44 1.80 -0.89 -1.76 -0.20 -0.59
1998 5 0.65 0.82 0.55 0.69 0.77 0.61 0.60 0.91 0.50 0.89 0.92 0.88 0.63 0.71 0.52 0.41 0.90 0.28 0.33 0.43 0.17 0.86 0.81 0.89 1.17
1998 6 0.57 0.78 0.45 0.64 0.72 0.57 0.50 0.89 0.37 0.53 0.58 0.50 0.74 0.79 0.68 0.44 1.06 0.28 0.95 1.26 0.45 0.88 1.28 0.56 -0.26
1998 7 0.52 0.64 0.45 0.67 0.78 0.56 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.45 0.60 0.38 0.82 0.89 0.72 0.29 0.04 0.35 1.10 1.13 1.06 -0.77 -0.89 -0.67 0.90
1998 8 0.51 0.61 0.46 0.56 0.66 0.48 0.46 0.52 0.44 0.46 0.53 0.42 0.65 0.74 0.54 0.43 0.39 0.44 0.86 0.80 0.95 -0.11 -0.06 -0.15 0.79
1998 9 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.56 0.59 0.53 0.29 0.11 0.35 0.28 0.31 0.26 0.72 0.70 0.74 0.30 -0.07 0.40 0.33 -0.15 1.09 -0.18 -0.57 0.14 1.74
1998 10 0.39 0.49 0.34 0.51 0.62 0.40 0.28 0.22 0.29 0.32 0.40 0.28 0.60 0.70 0.46 0.26 0.06 0.31 0.05 -0.20 0.44 -0.62 -0.62 -0.61 0.78
1998 11 0.19 0.16 0.21 0.27 0.22 0.32 0.11 0.02 0.14 0.13 0.23 0.07 0.34 0.20 0.52 0.11 -0.09 0.16 1.13 0.43 2.26 -0.68 -0.61 -0.74 1.07
1998 12 0.29 0.32 0.27 0.42 0.56 0.28 0.16 -0.16 0.26 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.61 0.66 0.54 0.20 -0.44 0.37 1.00 0.66 1.53 -1.01 -1.32 -0.76 0.86
1999 1 0.17 0.38 0.05 0.36 0.57 0.17 -0.02 0.01 -0.03 -0.16 0.05 -0.27 0.65 0.73 0.55 0.04 0.00 0.06 -0.16 -0.33 0.10 -1.14 -0.78 -1.43 1.27
1999 2 0.30 0.60 0.13 0.50 0.93 0.09 0.11 -0.04 0.15 -0.17 0.10 -0.31 0.84 1.17 0.42 0.26 -0.07 0.34 0.37 0.46 0.23 -0.49 -0.63 -0.39 1.82
1999 3 0.02 0.08 -0.02 0.14 0.12 0.15 -0.10 0.00 -0.14 -0.22 -0.01 -0.32 0.33 0.13 0.59 -0.05 0.12 -0.09 0.90 0.35 1.78 -0.22 -0.36 -0.10 0.53
1999 4 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.35 0.48 0.23 -0.24 -0.73 -0.08 -0.29 -0.20 -0.34 0.70 0.70 0.69 -0.23 -1.14 0.01 0.45 0.52 0.33 -1.16 -2.15 -0.38 0.53
1999 5 -0.01 0.10 -0.07 0.15 0.31 0.00 -0.17 -0.31 -0.12 -0.41 -0.32 -0.45 0.44 0.51 0.35 -0.04 -0.30 0.02 0.50 0.37 0.71 -0.80 -1.05 -0.59 0.15
1999 6 -0.13 0.08 -0.25 0.10 0.21 0.00 -0.36 -0.16 -0.42 -0.41 -0.28 -0.48 0.37 0.34 0.39 -0.33 -0.01 -0.41 0.58 0.55 0.61 0.41 0.62 0.24 -0.05
1999 7 0.00 0.12 -0.07 0.07 0.20 -0.06 -0.06 -0.04 -0.07 -0.27 -0.24 -0.29 0.26 0.36 0.14 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.33 0.07 0.75 -0.03 -0.37 0.24 0.53
1999 8 -0.06 -0.02 -0.08 0.03 0.06 0.01 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.22 -0.26 -0.20 0.19 0.18 0.21 -0.14 -0.11 -0.15 0.16 -0.22 0.77 -0.69 -0.89 -0.52 0.44
1999 9 0.09 0.27 -0.01 0.21 0.38 0.04 -0.02 0.06 -0.05 -0.30 -0.22 -0.35 0.47 0.57 0.34 0.14 0.31 0.09 0.87 0.68 1.16 0.36 0.51 0.25 -0.30
1999 10 0.03 0.11 -0.01 0.03 0.13 -0.06 0.04 0.09 0.02 -0.27 -0.24 -0.29 0.19 0.26 0.11 0.19 0.32 0.16 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.19 0.45 -0.02 0.71
1999 11 0.02 0.08 -0.01 0.24 0.35 0.13 -0.19 -0.45 -0.10 -0.22 -0.13 -0.26 0.44 0.46 0.41 -0.14 -0.60 -0.02 0.53 0.35 0.82 -0.52 -0.51 -0.52 2.51
1999 12 0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.27 0.53 0.03 -0.25 -0.88 -0.05 -0.22 -0.06 -0.29 0.55 0.74 0.31 -0.30 -1.58 0.05 0.17 0.38 -0.17 -1.84 -2.96 -0.95 1.03
2000 1 -0.19 -0.33 -0.11 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.32 -0.85 -0.14 -0.26 -0.03 -0.38 0.05 -0.10 0.24 -0.36 -1.45 -0.07 -0.43 -0.54 -0.26 -2.14 -2.90 -1.54 0.91
2000 2 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.21 0.38 0.06 -0.06 -0.35 0.03 -0.32 -0.28 -0.34 0.51 0.60 0.39 0.05 -0.44 0.18 0.91 0.99 0.78 -0.72 -1.10 -0.42 2.23
2000 3 0.06 0.16 0.01 0.13 0.34 -0.08 0.00 -0.20 0.06 -0.39 -0.27 -0.45 0.41 0.52 0.26 0.19 -0.09 0.26 0.76 0.77 0.74 -0.42 -0.51 -0.35 1.51
2000 4 0.11 0.36 -0.03 0.28 0.63 -0.05 -0.06 -0.17 -0.02 -0.27 -0.19 -0.31 0.58 0.89 0.18 0.05 -0.14 0.10 0.80 1.10 0.32 -0.65 -0.57 -0.71 0.77
2000 5 0.10 0.17 0.06 0.16 0.34 -0.02 0.04 -0.18 0.12 -0.18 -0.14 -0.21 0.34 0.50 0.14 0.16 -0.20 0.26 0.09 0.32 -0.26 0.06 0.02 0.08 1.51
2000 6 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.18 -0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03 -0.32 -0.28 -0.33 0.27 0.33 0.19 0.20 0.28 0.18 0.09 0.44 -0.46 0.57 1.01 0.23 0.21
2000 7 -0.01 0.14 -0.10 0.03 0.25 -0.19 -0.04 -0.06 -0.04 -0.26 -0.24 -0.26 0.14 0.36 -0.15 0.10 0.21 0.07 0.44 0.78 -0.10 0.71 0.92 0.54 0.20
2000 8 -0.05 0.07 -0.13 0.13 0.26 0.02 -0.24 -0.29 -0.22 -0.09 -0.13 -0.06 0.25 0.37 0.09 -0.32 -0.39 -0.30 0.57 0.55 0.61 -0.39 -0.16 -0.57 0.66
2000 9 0.08 0.19 0.02 0.18 0.21 0.15 -0.02 0.14 -0.07 -0.17 -0.11 -0.20 0.35 0.29 0.42 0.08 0.40 0.00 0.20 0.12 0.34 0.61 1.08 0.24 0.50
2000 10 0.06 -0.04 0.12 0.08 -0.02 0.17 0.05 -0.08 0.09 -0.01 -0.06 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.27 0.09 -0.13 0.14 1.04 0.76 1.47 -0.20 -0.51 0.04 0.16
2000 11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.21 0.09 0.29 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.09 -0.04 0.26 0.10 0.43 0.01 1.22 1.20 1.25 0.87 1.61 0.28 -1.29
2000 12 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.18 -0.04 -0.08 -0.02 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.09 0.22 -0.06 -0.21 -0.02 1.09 0.96 1.31 -0.53 -0.31 -0.70 -1.58
2001 1 0.10 0.18 0.05 0.20 0.34 0.07 -0.01 -0.11 0.03 -0.16 -0.12 -0.19 0.36 0.45 0.25 0.11 0.00 0.14 0.58 0.43 0.81 -0.36 -0.44 -0.29 0.29
2001 2 0.24 0.15 0.29 0.18 0.09 0.27 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.00 0.05 -0.03 0.27 0.09 0.51 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.92 0.37 1.79 -0.14 0.20 -0.41 -0.16
2001 3 0.16 0.37 0.04 0.33 0.61 0.07 -0.01 -0.08 0.01 -0.20 -0.26 -0.17 0.63 0.90 0.29 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.53 0.71 0.23 -0.01 0.17 -0.16 -0.65
2001 4 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.35 0.23 0.21 0.06 0.26 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.44 0.46 0.41 0.31 0.07 0.38 0.08 0.36 -0.39 -0.12 -0.16 -0.08 0.74
2001 5 0.24 0.47 0.10 0.40 0.66 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.07 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.60 0.87 0.27 0.15 0.26 0.12 0.48 0.86 -0.11 0.82 1.31 0.43 0.63
2001 6 0.04 0.15 -0.03 0.12 0.27 -0.02 -0.05 -0.08 -0.05 -0.26 -0.40 -0.18 0.33 0.49 0.13 0.04 0.19 0.01 0.71 1.10 0.08 -0.01 0.20 -0.17 0.18
2001 7 0.14 0.28 0.06 0.22 0.37 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.04 -0.01 -0.06 0.02 0.33 0.49 0.12 0.10 0.29 0.05 0.65 1.03 0.03 0.58 0.89 0.33 0.58
2001 8 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.49 0.55 0.43 0.13 -0.28 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.29 0.59 0.67 0.49 0.08 -0.64 0.27 1.09 1.14 1.00 -1.22 -2.40 -0.28 0.81
2001 9 0.13 0.08 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.27 0.04 -0.11 0.09 -0.09 -0.07 -0.09 0.36 0.24 0.52 0.13 -0.11 0.19 0.91 0.66 1.33 -0.46 -0.29 -0.59 0.22
2001 10 0.24 0.06 0.34 0.23 0.17 0.28 0.25 -0.14 0.38 0.17 0.11 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.28 0.32 -0.32 0.49 0.32 0.27 0.41 -0.23 -0.51 0.00 -0.07
2001 11 0.28 0.33 0.24 0.36 0.54 0.20 0.19 -0.07 0.27 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.44 0.66 0.15 0.20 -0.26 0.32 0.43 0.70 -0.01 -0.51 -0.47 -0.53 1.90
2001 12 0.28 0.07 0.40 0.34 0.22 0.45 0.22 -0.21 0.36 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.37 0.21 0.57 0.21 -0.61 0.43 1.90 1.62 2.36 -1.00 -1.16 -0.88 0.40
2002 1 0.39 0.45 0.36 0.55 0.64 0.46 0.24 0.07 0.30 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.78 0.86 0.67 0.29 -0.06 0.38 0.78 0.56 1.15 -0.11 0.13 -0.30 1.00
2002 2 0.41 0.54 0.34 0.59 0.92 0.27 0.24 -0.21 0.38 0.24 0.30 0.21 0.74 1.11 0.27 0.26 -0.58 0.48 -1.06 -0.56 -1.86 -0.47 -1.06 0.00 0.77
2002 3 0.38 0.54 0.29 0.52 0.59 0.46 0.24 0.42 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.71 0.74 0.68 0.27 0.65 0.16 1.47 1.09 2.08 1.11 1.39 0.89 -1.08
2002 4 0.30 0.21 0.34 0.26 0.10 0.42 0.33 0.43 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.39 0.13 0.72 0.44 0.68 0.38 -0.07 0.03 -0.22 0.60 1.13 0.18 1.02
2002 5 0.34 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.26 0.39 0.35 0.84 0.18 0.23 0.20 0.24 0.37 0.27 0.50 0.42 1.40 0.17 1.11 0.93 1.39 1.98 3.30 0.93 -0.45
2002 6 0.35 0.42 0.31 0.37 0.47 0.28 0.33 0.32 0.34 0.10 0.01 0.15 0.53 0.64 0.40 0.43 0.53 0.41 1.10 1.23 0.88 0.74 0.78 0.72 1.27
2002 7 0.30 0.44 0.21 0.42 0.53 0.31 0.18 0.27 0.15 0.34 0.28 0.36 0.42 0.56 0.25 0.13 0.39 0.06 0.48 0.60 0.30 0.13 0.69 -0.32 1.21
2002 8 0.24 0.08 0.33 0.20 0.16 0.23 0.27 -0.09 0.39 0.24 0.10 0.30 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.29 -0.21 0.42 0.75 0.54 1.07 -0.46 -1.03 -0.02 0.12
2002 9 0.28 0.21 0.33 0.26 0.18 0.33 0.31 0.26 0.32 0.11 -0.02 0.17 0.31 0.21 0.43 0.44 0.58 0.41 0.55 0.35 0.87 1.28 1.44 1.16 0.27
2002 10 0.18 0.11 0.22 -0.03 -0.22 0.15 0.39 0.75 0.26 0.15 0.14 0.16 -0.11 -0.29 0.12 0.49 1.13 0.32 1.78 1.23 2.66 1.39 1.80 1.06 -1.48
2002 11 0.35 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.38 0.52 0.33 0.27 0.20 0.31 0.37 0.40 0.33 0.42 0.73 0.33 1.65 1.49 1.90 1.09 1.30 0.93 -0.25
2002 12 0.25 -0.02 0.41 0.16 -0.08 0.39 0.34 0.09 0.43 0.45 0.38 0.49 0.02 -0.21 0.33 0.27 -0.20 0.39 1.55 0.77 2.79 0.04 -0.43 0.41 0.11
2003 1 0.48 0.64 0.38 0.63 0.77 0.49 0.33 0.39 0.30 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.71 0.88 0.49 0.25 0.32 0.24 1.03 1.09 0.94 0.37 0.26 0.46 1.13
2003 2 0.40 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.29 0.51 0.40 0.52 0.36 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.30 0.16 0.48 0.36 0.63 0.29 0.70 0.72 0.66 0.40 1.04 -0.10 -0.36
2003 3 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.30 0.20 0.26 0.18 0.21 0.15 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.32 0.21 0.40 0.16 0.91 0.92 0.90 0.22 0.56 -0.06 0.09
2003 4 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.31 0.20 0.41 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.38 0.21 0.59 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.82 0.68 1.04 0.09 -0.03 0.18 0.32
2003 5 0.24 0.33 0.19 0.43 0.46 0.40 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.58 0.54 0.62 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.78 0.73 0.85 -0.70 -0.43 -0.91 0.33
2003 6 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.23 0.21 0.24 -0.10 -0.17 -0.08 -0.14 -0.15 -0.13 0.44 0.36 0.54 -0.10 -0.25 -0.06 0.79 0.59 1.09 -0.66 -0.97 -0.42 -0.04
2003 7 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.28 0.12 0.17 0.06 0.20 0.13 0.06 0.17 0.26 0.38 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.20 0.91 1.25 0.36 -0.50 -0.66 -0.38 0.85
2003 8 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.34 0.42 0.28 -0.01 -0.43 0.14 0.15 -0.05 0.25 0.45 0.56 0.31 -0.10 -0.73 0.07 1.35 1.61 0.92 -0.44 -1.09 0.08 0.75
2003 9 0.23 0.32 0.17 0.38 0.41 0.35 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.05 -0.06 0.11 0.52 0.55 0.47 0.12 0.33 0.07 0.99 1.31 0.49 0.43 0.38 0.46 -0.28
2003 10 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.52 0.51 0.53 0.17 0.03 0.21 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.63 0.60 0.68 0.16 -0.12 0.23 1.88 1.79 2.02 -0.30 -0.17 -0.40 0.90
2003 11 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.42 0.34 0.49 0.23 0.19 0.24 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.47 0.35 0.61 0.20 0.12 0.22 1.24 1.03 1.58 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.15
2003 12 0.47 0.59 0.40 0.62 0.72 0.52 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.25 0.34 0.81 0.91 0.68 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.97 1.28 0.48 0.29 0.62 0.03 0.61
2004 1 0.37 0.32 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.36 0.25 0.40 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.42 0.37 0.49 0.37 0.18 0.43 1.50 1.36 1.72 -0.12 -0.08 -0.15 0.06
2004 2 0.43 0.69 0.28 0.73 0.90 0.57 0.14 0.29 0.08 0.31 0.20 0.37 0.88 1.08 0.63 0.11 0.50 0.01 1.26 1.45 0.96 0.27 0.69 -0.06 -0.09
2004 3 0.45 0.53 0.40 0.65 0.64 0.67 0.25 0.33 0.22 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.84 0.75 0.95 0.25 0.40 0.21 0.42 0.10 0.93 0.25 0.44 0.09 1.68
2004 4 0.20 0.06 0.28 0.20 -0.03 0.42 0.20 0.24 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.28 -0.02 0.66 0.27 0.33 0.26 0.72 0.00 1.87 -0.01 0.23 -0.21 0.35
2004 5 0.07 -0.02 0.13 0.22 0.14 0.30 -0.07 -0.33 0.01 0.00 -0.05 0.03 0.32 0.17 0.51 -0.10 -0.47 0.00 0.63 0.46 0.90 -0.59 -0.51 -0.66 0.30
2004 6 0.05 -0.04 0.10 0.02 -0.05 0.09 0.08 -0.01 0.11 -0.17 -0.30 -0.10 0.12 0.03 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.21 0.50 0.55 0.42 -0.03 -0.27 0.16 -0.61
2004 7 -0.12 -0.34 0.01 -0.09 -0.15 -0.03 -0.15 -0.71 0.04 -0.18 -0.22 -0.16 -0.04 -0.11 0.06 -0.13 -1.12 0.14 0.55 0.53 0.57 -1.66 -2.75 -0.80 -0.37
2004 8 0.00 -0.16 0.09 0.14 0.01 0.27 -0.15 -0.48 -0.03 0.15 0.06 0.19 0.13 -0.01 0.31 -0.29 -0.91 -0.12 0.84 0.69 1.08 -1.54 -2.15 -1.06 -1.19
2004 9 0.15 0.07 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.08 -0.26 0.19 -0.09 -0.15 -0.06 0.39 0.36 0.43 0.17 -0.34 0.30 0.45 0.36 0.59 -0.35 -0.93 0.11 0.31
2004 10 0.29 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.41 0.28 0.38 0.25 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.38 0.23 0.58 0.36 0.57 0.30 0.75 0.45 1.25 0.41 0.78 0.11 0.17
2004 11 0.25 0.38 0.18 0.41 0.51 0.31 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.28 0.22 0.31 0.47 0.60 0.31 0.01 0.07 -0.01 0.40 0.62 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.51
2004 12 0.20 0.09 0.26 0.25 0.02 0.46 0.15 0.20 0.13 0.35 0.32 0.36 0.20 -0.08 0.56 0.04 0.13 0.01 -0.51 -0.85 0.03 0.27 0.75 -0.11 0.40
2005 1 0.49 0.45 0.51 0.59 0.45 0.71 0.39 0.45 0.36 0.39 0.33 0.42 0.71 0.53 0.94 0.36 0.45 0.34 1.55 1.25 2.05 0.44 0.59 0.33 1.67
2005 2 0.41 0.27 0.49 0.46 0.17 0.74 0.35 0.45 0.32 0.68 0.83 0.60 0.32 -0.08 0.83 0.22 0.24 0.21 1.72 1.16 2.62 -0.42 -0.32 -0.50 1.20
2005 3 0.35 0.42 0.31 0.55 0.48 0.62 0.15 0.30 0.10 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.56 0.44 0.70 -0.01 0.23 -0.07 1.53 1.26 1.97 0.04 0.40 -0.25 -0.59
2005 4 0.41 0.52 0.35 0.58 0.68 0.48 0.24 0.20 0.25 0.36 0.34 0.37 0.68 0.81 0.51 0.19 0.04 0.24 1.31 1.51 0.99 -0.20 -0.67 0.17 0.36
2005 5 0.22 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.29 0.15 0.23 0.16 0.26 0.11 0.01 0.16 0.28 0.41 0.11 0.29 0.19 0.32 1.51 1.66 1.26 0.17 0.20 0.15 -0.55
2005 6 0.26 0.34 0.20 0.43 0.42 0.44 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.57 0.54 0.60 0.03 0.15 0.00 1.19 1.05 1.42 0.44 0.42 0.46 0.32
2005 7 0.33 0.41 0.29 0.43 0.41 0.46 0.23 0.41 0.17 0.30 0.15 0.37 0.53 0.51 0.55 0.17 0.56 0.06 0.89 0.85 0.96 0.21 0.51 -0.03 0.74
2005 8 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.31 0.27 0.36 0.07 -0.03 0.10 0.25 0.19 0.27 0.37 0.31 0.44 -0.04 -0.27 0.02 0.81 0.84 0.75 -0.44 -1.14 0.12 0.07
2005 9 0.35 0.40 0.32 0.43 0.49 0.37 0.28 0.23 0.29 0.23 0.17 0.27 0.50 0.57 0.40 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.42 -0.24 0.25 0.75 -0.15 0.64
2005 10 0.39 0.53 0.31 0.45 0.57 0.34 0.33 0.46 0.29 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.64 0.75 0.49 0.46 0.70 0.40 1.11 1.24 0.89 1.08 1.34 0.88 0.74
2005 11 0.40 0.55 0.31 0.48 0.66 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.31 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.59 0.79 0.33 0.38 0.45 0.36 1.70 2.00 1.23 0.53 0.57 0.50 0.91
2005 12 0.29 0.41 0.22 0.41 0.44 0.37 0.17 0.35 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.51 0.49 0.53 0.20 0.55 0.10 2.08 2.00 2.21 0.85 1.41 0.40 -0.33
2006 1 0.37 0.28 0.42 0.44 0.32 0.56 0.29 0.20 0.32 0.12 0.31 0.02 0.58 0.26 0.99 0.41 0.27 0.44 1.07 -0.17 3.05 -0.07 -0.30 0.11 2.46
2006 2 0.45 0.62 0.34 0.76 0.83 0.69 0.13 0.22 0.10 0.31 0.51 0.21 0.97 0.88 1.08 0.07 0.13 0.05 2.24 1.80 2.96 -0.17 -0.23 -0.12 0.09
2006 3 0.33 0.42 0.28 0.45 0.54 0.36 0.21 0.17 0.22 -0.02 0.06 -0.05 0.72 0.69 0.76 0.30 0.29 0.30 1.32 1.00 1.84 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.05
2006 4 0.18 0.12 0.22 0.21 0.14 0.27 0.15 0.08 0.18 -0.13 -0.17 -0.11 0.37 0.25 0.52 0.32 0.27 0.33 -0.16 -0.70 0.72 0.18 0.23 0.13 1.91
2006 5 -0.01 -0.05 0.01 0.21 0.26 0.17 -0.23 -0.64 -0.09 -0.24 -0.35 -0.18 0.44 0.45 0.43 -0.22 -0.85 -0.05 0.93 0.85 1.07 -0.97 -1.25 -0.75 0.81
2006 6 0.16 0.33 0.06 0.36 0.56 0.16 -0.04 -0.13 -0.01 -0.04 -0.12 0.00 0.58 0.78 0.31 -0.05 -0.13 -0.02 1.03 1.44 0.37 0.00 -0.22 0.18 0.74
2006 7 0.21 0.27 0.18 0.33 0.38 0.28 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.38 0.42 0.33 0.04 -0.09 0.07 0.63 0.66 0.58 -0.67 -1.16 -0.28 1.22
2006 8 0.26 0.36 0.20 0.28 0.26 0.30 0.23 0.56 0.13 0.23 0.14 0.28 0.33 0.32 0.34 0.21 0.84 0.04 0.74 0.89 0.48 0.33 1.21 -0.37 0.22
2006 9 0.27 0.33 0.24 0.39 0.47 0.31 0.15 0.04 0.19 0.04 -0.06 0.09 0.57 0.64 0.48 0.21 0.14 0.23 1.67 1.80 1.47 -0.18 -0.36 -0.04 -1.05
2006 10 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.36 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.29 0.37 0.35 0.40 0.41 0.60 0.36 0.94 0.61 1.47 0.50 0.54 0.46 -0.80
2006 11 0.29 0.39 0.23 0.32 0.38 0.26 0.26 0.41 0.21 0.16 0.08 0.21 0.42 0.50 0.33 0.29 0.63 0.20 0.94 0.76 1.24 0.31 0.64 0.04 0.78
2006 12 0.31 0.37 0.27 0.54 0.70 0.40 0.07 -0.27 0.18 0.42 0.33 0.46 0.62 0.82 0.37 -0.13 -0.79 0.05 1.35 1.36 1.35 -1.10 -1.52 -0.76 1.05
2007 1 0.59 0.88 0.42 0.75 1.08 0.44 0.42 0.49 0.40 0.58 0.54 0.60 0.86 1.27 0.34 0.33 0.41 0.30 0.63 1.16 -0.20 0.31 0.46 0.19 0.37
2007 2 0.46 0.58 0.39 0.75 0.82 0.68 0.16 0.11 0.18 0.40 0.53 0.33 0.89 0.86 0.94 0.08 -0.07 0.12 1.29 0.47 2.60 -0.44 -0.72 -0.23 -0.15
2007 3 0.40 0.67 0.25 0.61 0.78 0.45 0.20 0.46 0.11 0.14 0.23 0.10 0.83 0.93 0.70 0.26 0.76 0.12 0.53 0.41 0.73 0.43 0.80 0.14 2.32
2007 4 0.24 0.46 0.12 0.34 0.48 0.21 0.14 0.41 0.05 0.00 0.10 -0.05 0.53 0.63 0.41 0.21 0.61 0.10 1.78 1.91 1.59 0.44 0.83 0.14 0.04
2007 5 0.21 0.50 0.04 0.24 0.40 0.09 0.17 0.67 0.00 0.01 0.08 -0.03 0.36 0.51 0.17 0.26 1.15 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 1.26 2.86 0.00 0.76
2007 6 0.21 0.41 0.10 0.39 0.50 0.28 0.04 0.23 -0.03 -0.02 0.06 -0.06 0.61 0.67 0.53 0.06 0.31 -0.01 1.58 1.27 2.07 0.99 1.52 0.57 0.41
2007 7 0.26 0.46 0.15 0.33 0.46 0.20 0.20 0.47 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.47 0.60 0.30 0.26 0.73 0.13 1.35 1.42 1.24 1.20 1.93 0.63 0.75
2007 8 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.33 0.43 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.52 0.59 0.43 0.25 0.16 0.28 1.06 0.99 1.16 -0.41 -0.28 -0.51 0.86
2007 9 0.20 0.35 0.11 0.24 0.31 0.17 0.16 0.43 0.07 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.18 0.53 0.09 0.00 -0.13 0.20 -0.63 -0.27 -0.92 0.33
2007 10 0.23 0.32 0.18 0.24 0.36 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.22 -0.14 -0.05 -0.18 0.46 0.52 0.37 0.39 0.38 0.39 1.17 1.21 1.10 0.17 0.28 0.09 1.20
2007 11 0.21 0.29 0.16 0.17 0.29 0.05 0.25 0.29 0.24 -0.06 0.10 -0.14 0.30 0.36 0.23 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.76 1.01 0.57 0.60
2007 12 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.09 0.07 -0.29 0.19 -0.19 0.06 -0.31 0.33 0.26 0.42 0.21 -0.51 0.41 1.12 0.80 1.63 -0.72 -1.37 -0.21 -0.13
2008 1 -0.05 -0.12 -0.01 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 0.02 -0.11 0.06 -0.23 0.02 -0.35 -0.05 -0.18 0.11 0.13 -0.20 0.22 0.13 0.26 -0.09 -0.80 -1.28 -0.42 -0.57
2008 2 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.25 0.28 0.23 -0.20 -0.46 -0.11 -0.34 -0.08 -0.47 0.54 0.35 0.77 -0.10 -0.67 0.05 0.64 0.29 1.19 -1.01 -1.67 -0.48 0.47
2008 3 0.09 0.64 -0.23 0.43 1.00 -0.12 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50 -0.22 -0.65 0.88 1.33 0.30 -0.07 0.28 -0.16 0.51 0.75 0.13 0.05 0.53 -0.33 -0.59
2008 4 0.02 0.15 -0.06 0.17 0.19 0.14 -0.14 0.07 -0.21 -0.54 -0.40 -0.61 0.51 0.39 0.67 0.10 0.47 0.01 0.19 -0.18 0.79 1.24 1.83 0.77 -0.23
2008 5 -0.18 0.01 -0.29 -0.04 0.11 -0.19 -0.31 -0.17 -0.36 -0.58 -0.46 -0.64 0.22 0.27 0.17 -0.16 0.12 -0.23 1.03 1.09 0.94 0.58 0.82 0.38 -0.33
2008 6 -0.11 0.01 -0.18 0.01 0.21 -0.17 -0.23 -0.38 -0.18 -0.34 -0.20 -0.41 0.21 0.35 0.04 -0.19 -0.54 -0.10 0.47 0.60 0.27 -1.11 -1.57 -0.75 -0.13
2008 7 0.06 0.24 -0.05 0.10 0.23 -0.01 0.01 0.26 -0.08 -0.12 0.00 -0.18 0.24 0.32 0.13 0.05 0.41 -0.04 0.56 0.58 0.53 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.19
2008 8 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.18 0.32 0.05 -0.20 -0.56 -0.07 -0.09 0.04 -0.15 0.37 0.46 0.26 -0.30 -1.17 -0.06 1.05 0.90 1.30 -1.21 -2.07 -0.52 0.05
2008 9 0.16 0.24 0.11 0.22 0.24 0.20 0.10 0.24 0.05 -0.02 0.13 -0.09 0.35 0.28 0.43 0.15 0.30 0.11 0.98 0.69 1.44 -0.05 -0.02 -0.07 -0.14
2008 10 0.16 0.40 0.03 0.25 0.50 0.02 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.03 0.37 0.62 0.04 0.06 0.19 0.02 0.67 0.99 0.14 -0.53 -0.53 -0.52 0.13
It went in, the coldest October of this century. Hoever I don't like to use GISS data at all because they keep rewriting the past temperatures as lower.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other times James Hansen got caught, claiming that 1998 was the warmest year in the US when 1934 was, the hockey stick graph, enoug
Perhaps a link to your source would work better for readers? Do you have that? Your claims regarding GISS lack credibility as a reader has no idea who you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know Eve, these figures would work better it you could use yearly rather than monthly numbers and in spreadsheet format people could see the trends much easier. That is assuming these are good numbers from a verifiable source. You wouldn't be trying to mislead people now would you???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose are GISS numbers and that is how they report them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEve, most AGW believers suffer from cognitive dissonance and an inability to think logically and apply independant thought. They've bought the AGW hoax hook, line and sinker. If you read the scientific reports behind the IPCC's politically motivated Sumary for Policymakers (not written by scientists, but read by politicians and a lazy media) you'll find that most of the 'predictions' and 'projections' are heavily caveated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI notice the AGW brigade have not had much to say about the recent record low temperatures in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere - you can bet your bottom dollar had it been warmer they'd have been claiming it was mankinds and CO2's fault.
Our climate is a highly complex system that any scientist will tell you we do not fully understand - there are forces beyond our comprehension that drive our climate - that very large object in the sky for starters!! It's becoming increasingly clear that the Sun's behaviour has a major impact on our climate - hardly surprising as without it the Earth would be a ball of ice floating in Space.
The AGW hoax will be over within the next few years as the weather and climate fail to behave as the virtual reality computer models predicted.
BTW: I didn't know Obama was a scientist able to pontificate on what causes climate change - he's like any other politician - he'll say what he needs to say to get voted in then when in power do something different. If he does take up the green agenda then the US is finished as an economic power - China and India have no intention of buying into the AGW faith, unless the West makes it worth their while, which again will result in the West becoming an economic slave to China and India.
When the AGW believers can provide some verifiable evidence that the recent warming period was caused by mankind and/or CO2 they'll deserve to be listened to. Until then we need to allow scientists that adhere to the scientific method to find out what influences and drives climate change.
Thanks, I am well aware of the IPCC's agenda......global government and taxation. The earth's temperature is below what was predicted if the Kyoto Accord was followed by all countries and still this continues, Ten years of global cooling and still it continues. In 5 years we will be halfway through this cooling cycle (I hope). I have no idea why the AGW believers want to trash the remains of the economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell it did take a moment, but I split Eve's dataset, claimed to be from GISS although she (or it) doesn't trust GISS, and found the global deviations trending upward. This contradicts her (it's) assertion above of a cooling cycle. Anyone wanting to see this can copy Eve's data dump from it's post above into Excel and split it into seperate cells and then graph the global monthly deviations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there anyone out there crazy enough to believe Bickers, outside of Eve of course?
"Chendrixstats: as NBC, excuse me, GE overestimates their figures, what about the rogue scientists that the Oil companies hire to find the lowest stats to put out there. Just because NBC overestimates, doesn't discredit the data all together. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay agnethucky, name the scientist and list the lies. Let's put the facts on the record don't just parrot what somebody told you.
agenthucky says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischendrixstats: as NBC, excuse me, GE overestimates their figures, what about the rogue scientists that the Oil companies hire to find the lowest stats to put out there. Just because NBC overestimates, doesn't discredit the data all together.
How about you give us a list of the names of the rouge scientists and listing the lies instead of repeating something somebody told you.
This is “Green Week,” NBC’s annual effort to show you how to “green your routine.” It sounds innocuous enough, but “Green Week” is actually part of a manipulative business strategy employed by General Electric (GE), the owner of NBC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGE is a world leader in the production of clean energy goods and services that people don’t want to buy, like compact fluorescent light bulbs. That’s why it spends millions every year to convince the Congress to pass laws like last year’s energy bill, which forces consumers to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Generally speaking, Americans don’t like being told what to do, so GE uses “Green Week” to propagate global warming alarmism and frighten Americans into accepting rules and regulations that force them to buy GE products.
Yesterday, Today Show co-host Meredith Vieira told viewers that global warming could cause sea levels to rise 200 feet. But that’s not what the experts are saying. Under its worst-case scenario, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that Sea levels would rise by 27 inches over the next 100 years. So Meredith was off by 99%.
Today, Meredith conducted an interview with an Antarctic ecosystem ecologist, who said that the bad news is that ice was melting on one side of Antarctica. Meredith then asked whether it was good news that ice mass was increasing on the other side of Antarctica. The ecologist replied that it was indeed bad news, because increasing ice meant that animals had to travel further to get food. When it comes to global warming, there can be no upside, at least not during Green Week.
Today Show weatherman Al Roker reported from Iceland, and he did a segment on that island’s success with geothermal energy. He finished his piece by noting that the U.S. could get 10 percent of its energy needs from clean, geothermal energy. Conveniently, General Electric, which owns NBC, just so happens to be a leader in the manufacture of conventional open cycle steam turbines used for geothermal power.
Scientific American could provide a valuable service by objectively presenting both sides of the global warming issue. Stories such as the above are exactly why I decided not to renew my subscription.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark said: '... Is there anyone out there crazy enough to believe Bickers, outside of Eve of course?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs usual, when AGW supporters are cornered and have nothing of scientific substance to say they revert to ad hom attacks - which is a sign that you've lost the argument.
Jackfrost: you're spot on - that's why I've a so called 'denier'. Two years ago I like many lazy citizens believed what I was being told about global warming and that mankind was responsible, however I became aware that this was the only view I was hearing which is always a concern. So, I began to search for a contrarian view and the more I found out the more I became alarmed at the quality of the science (i.e. lack if it).
The reality is that we do not fully understand all the Earthly and cosmic forces that influence our planet and its climate - our arrogance is breathtaking.
Instead of the affluent liberal left (who can afford to curtail their energy consumption) dictating what the world should do let's ensure that the poorest on our planet have access to cheap energy - if that means them burning fossil fuels let them do it, there's no evidence that burning them has any global impact
I think this excellent article succintly sums up the non-problem that has been foisted on us by AGW believers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal Warming? Bring it On!
by Gregory Young
The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent....
The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad.
In spite of this fact, it is likely that the new U.S. Democratic Congress and Administration will once again proclaim that they know better than we do about such things. Get ready for them to move surreptitiously under the guise of Global Climate Control in an effort to enhance their own legacies and pocketbooks. To be sure, the Left hears nothing but their own incestuous voices, despite the voices of clarity and reason that abound around them. And there are many, many distinguished dissenters against the charade of AGW.
Take for instance the Founder of the Weather Channel and eminent Meteorologist John Coleman who has stated:
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods". For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period.... [where] the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where's the global warming?
There is an abundance of solid data to back these conclusions up. For example, new measurements from the NASA/ESA spacecraft Ulysses show that the sun's current period of low activity goes beyond an extended dearth of sunspots. Solar activity has dropped to the lowest levels since recording began some 50 years ago. Current experts, such as Veizer, Shaviv, and most recently Svensmark et al., and Patterson, suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. They convincingly argue that increased cosmic radiation acts as a catalyst for cloud formation in earth's atmosphere. This, in turn, leads to a general cooling of the world's climate if the pattern persists.
Ironically, during the 1970s while some (including NASA's James Hansen) were hysterically promoting the schizoid fears of a new ice age hitting the world in a few decades, a new frenzy over Global Warming and Climate Change was just beginning at Scripps Ocenaographic Institute in San Diego, CA. It was started by one of their most esteemed scientists Roger Revelle, the father of Oceanography. His work correlated the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2 (a laboratory defined greenhouse gas) to atmospheric warming. Revelle later moved to Harvard and encouraged his students, including Al Gore, to rehash the data.
Since then the research methods have clearly gotten out of hand. Many avenues of research have proven repeatedly useless. Even Roger Revelle understood that there were greater variables at play than the trace gas of CO2.
Before he died, Revelle gave interviews and wrote letters stating that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. He told Omni Magazine, in March 1984, that "CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes" -- not cause them. One cannot argue that CO2 was a causative factor -- especially since CO2 was apparently following temperature trend -- not moderating it. It seems none of his followers, Gore in particular, heeded his words.
There is a huge problem with the idea that Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, is a globally polluting gas, much less one that causes climate change and global warming. Even though some data seemed to initially substantiate the AGW thesis, these ideas were later proven to be wrong. (Those derived from ice core data were especially damning.) Australian Climatologist Dr. David Evans has done yeoman's work on this issue.
Often forgotten in the argument is the fact that CO2 is only a trace component of the atmosphere. For every million molecules of other gases in the atmosphere (such as nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen), there are only 385 molecules of CO2.
It is a fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have varied widely over geological time. The peak was estimated to be some 20-fold higher than at present (+6,000 ppm) -- and the low about 200 ppm below today's. (Everyday office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.)
Meteorologist John Coleman perspicaciously asks:
How can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? How can a trace element possibly be the cause of systemic Global Warming? It can't. That's all there is to it; it can't.... Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
Increased levels of CO2 has more likely benefited all life forms on the planet, summarizes Coleman. Many other scientists have come to the same conclusion.
Robinson, Robinson & Soon, in their cogent 2007 published research paper found here, provided empirical evidence that invalidates AGW alarmists hypotheses. They also found overwhelming support for the general benefits that are derived from natural global warming.
Here is the summary of their findings:
1- A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.
2- Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence - actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate - shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing.
3- Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
4- While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.
5- Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated...., but U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon use are not correlated.
6- We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.
7- Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Dr. Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, looks at climate change in a refreshingly contrarian fashion. He has stated:
To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.
There are other fundamental objections to the AGW theory:
(1) The infamous "Hockey Stick" statistical debacle, nicely summarized here, effectively cherry-picked data from tree rings to estimate temperature change over the past 1000 years. The report erroneously declared that the largest increases in world temperature occurred in the 20th century. These results could not be reproduced by anyone. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) later found the statistical methods first employed inappropriate and the findings bogus.
(2) The reported NASA temperature data glitch discovered by Canadian Computer Analyst Steve McIntyre that wrongly kicked all temperature records up several tenths of a degree was a severe setback for AGW modelers. This software "failure" was overseen by one of AGW's fiercest proponents, the notorious Dr. James Hanson. NASA's GISS and Hanson have recently come under fire again for poor data collection methods and questionable accuracy.
(3) As recently presented in American Thinker, Lord Monckton competently summarizes for us that many of the highly publicized AGW "facts" are simple documented anomalies of natural climate cycling -- designedly misrepresented for the cause of AGW.
To wit: The Oceans are not catastrophically rising nor are they warming. In fact, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. The Snows of Kilimanjaro are not melting but ablating because of friction due to a cooling atmosphere and natural cooling trends. The world's 160,000 glaciers are not suddenly receding, but appear to be re-advancing, including those ice shelves in Antarctic and the polar ice sheets, all of which cycle regularly in ice mass. Lord Monckton, a science-journalist, provides even more evidence here.
(4) Finally let us not forget the astute investigation of automated weather stations by US Meteorologist Anthony Watts. Watts painstakingly discovered that a large fraction of the nation's 1,200 stations have been wrongly sited in man-made heat-absorbing centers. (Examples include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat absorbing concrete, next to air conditioners, diesel generators and asphalt parking lots, even at sewage treatment plants. Some are located in areas experiencing excessive nighttime humidity, and at non-standard observing heights, including one actually sinking into a swamp.) Watts' discovery profoundly undermined the veracity of historical temperature data documented in the United States -- data that had been used by AGW proponents.
There are three indisputable and fundamental facts that were wantonly ignored in the UN's IPCC sham of a report. The UN breathlessly but insidiously "forgot" to include the specifics that:
(1) The Earth has largely benefited by past warming cycle's and that these previous "warmings" had nothing to do with man's activities. These earlier natural cycles were not catastrophic events; they were, in fact, beneficial to all life forms. They provided warmer and longer growing seasons, more areas available for crops, etc. We know, for instance, that Greenland was once green, that Eric the Red planted and grew grapes in what is now Nova Scotia, Canada, that the Romans planted grapes in England, etc.
(2) Solar/Sun Spot activity is the originator of most climatic change and most weather patterns on Earth. It is king. There is no larger factor of influence. CO2 influence is negligible and pales in comparison. CO2 follows the trend of temperature; it does not cause it.
(3) Subordinate to solar activity alone, atmospheric water vapor/cloud formation and movement is the largest known variable that influences temperature changes in the atmosphere of the earth, and the earth's oceans. Water vapor in the atmosphere is around 1000-10,000 times as important as atmospheric CO2.
These three quintessential and pivotal factors are not even discussed in the UN's IPCC report. This exclusion should raise a red flag in any intelligent mind. That's why so many of us are yelling from the rooftops about the absurdity of the report itself!
Instead of a true and open discourse, we see the daily dribble from the MSM and various liberally usurped science journals, dishonestly and falsely alleging a "consensus" when there is none.
Indeed, arrayed against the arcane burlesque of the United Nations IPCC with its politically selected 2500 Scientists, of which a core group of 600 exists, and a relatively small number of mediocre "scientists" here and there across the American landscape who have suddenly found notoriety or grant money in the global warming cause, are 31,072+ legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here and here. We openly refute the UN's conclusions.
Here's the Petition Statement we dissenters signed in opposition:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Let me assure you that we're not in good humor, nor take it kindly to be slurred and ridiculed by taking the other side in this debate. And our numbers are still growing. Indeed, we're angry that the vast majority of American Scientists will not be heard by the media. We're dismayed over the fact that the Global Warming fiasco has become politically popular and expedient to those left-wing politicians and power-brokers whose sole aim is to literally tax everything with a carbon footprint and give them control over all life, hidden within their PC guileful pretence to save the planet. They wish to save no one but themselves.
And the tide turns further. Of the 2500 originally aligned scientists and putative authors of the UN's IPCC report some 500 are no longer faithful to Big Al's errand. Many of these scientists discovered that their individual findings and comments were willfully misrepresented. All participant conclusions were unilaterally changed to adhere strictly to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially useful energy. Since the original IPCC report (and there have been some 4 others now formally issued), the defecting 500 scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. Approximately 100 of these scientists are now open defectors. Others are currently suing the UN for the misuse of their good names and research. It is difficult to see why a thinking person would even consider the IPCC report as legitimate.
The entire IPCC process is but obfuscation by the secular and atheist Left. It has allowed the Left to conflate the vanity of secular opinion with scientific and/or moral truth. There is an easy and immediate remedy for their debacle. Will Rogers stated it simply: "When you are in a hole ... stop digging.... Please!"
Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He is currently involved with a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research.
Global Warming? Bring it On!
Proof of global warming: Alright folks, extra heat energy --> jet stream energy --> extreme cold winter/extreme hot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissummer.
Glaciers melting worldwide. Don't believe me?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf
And:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
[quote]1.1 Observations of climate change
Since the TAR, progress in understanding how climate is changing
in space and time has been gained through improvements and
extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographical
coverage, better understanding of uncertainties and a wider
variety of measurements. {WGI SPM}
Definitions of climate change
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state
of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests)
by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties,
and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or
longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether
due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This
usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change
refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly
to human activity that alters the composition of the global
atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability
observed over comparable time periods.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1). {WGI
3.2, 4.8, 5.2, 5.5, SPM}
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005)
of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]�C is larger than the corresponding trend of
0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]�C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The
linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13
[0.10 to 0.16]�C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years
from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}
The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is
greater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatures
have increased at almost twice the global average rate in
the past 100 years. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans
(Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the average
temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at
least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the
heat being added to the climate system. New analyses of balloonborne
and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric
temperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surface
temperature. {WGI 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, SPM}
Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1).
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm
per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4
to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longerterm
trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans
has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual
contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and
ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets
contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these
climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total
sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table
SPM.1}
Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent
with warming (Figure 1.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual
average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]%
per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]%
per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent of seasonally
frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%.
Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased
since the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3�C. {WGI 3.2, 4.5, 4.6,
4.7, 4.8, 5.5, SPM}
At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longterm
changes in other aspects of climate have also been observed.
Trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation
amount in many large regions. Over this period, precipitation increased
significantly in eastern parts of North and South America,
northern Europe and northern and central Asia whereas precipitation
declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and
parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has
likely2 increased since the 1970s. {WGI 3.3, 3.9, SPM}
Some extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/
or intensity over the last 50 years:
It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become
less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and
hot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent over
most land areas. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (or
proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased over
most areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}
It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3 has
increased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI
5.5, SPM}
There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical
cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestions
of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions
where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability
and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine
satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of longterm
trends in tropical cyclone activity. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second
half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least
the past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM}
2 Likelihood and confidence statements in italics represent calibrated expressions of uncertainty and confidence. See Box Treatment of uncertainty in the
Introduction for an explanation of these terms.
3 Excluding tsunamis, which are not due to climate change. Extreme high sea level depends on average sea level and on regional weather systems. It is
defined here as the highest 1% of hourly values of observed sea level at a station for a given reference period.[/quote]
Also: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
[quote]Causes of change
This Topic considers both natural and anthropogenic drivers of
climate change, including the chain from greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to atmospheric concentrations to radiative forcing4 to
climate responses and effects.
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
The radiative forcing of the climate system is dominated by the
long-lived GHGs, and this section considers those whose emissions
are covered by the UNFCCC.
Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown
since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between
1970 and 2004 (Figure 2.1).5 {WGIII 1.3, SPM}
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.
Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about
80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total
anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 (Figure 2.1). The rate of
growth of CO2-eq emissions was much higher during the recent
10-year period of 1995-2004 (0.92 GtCO2-eq per year) than during
the previous period of 1970-1994 (0.43 GtCO2-eq per year). {WGIII
1.3, TS.1, SPM}
4 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and
is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial
conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2).
5 Includes only carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphurhexafluoride
(SF6), whose emissions are covered by the UNFCCC. These GHGs are weighted by their 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), using values
consistent with reporting under the UNFCCC.
6 This report uses 100-year GWPs and numerical values consistent with reporting under the UNFCCC.
7 Such values may consider only GHGs, or a combination of GHGs and aerosols.
Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions and
concentrations
GHGs differ in their warming influence (radiative forcing) on
the global climate system due to their different radiative properties
and lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming influences
may be expressed through a common metric based on
the radiative forcing of CO2.
Alright folks, extra heat energy --> jet stream energy --> extreme cold winter/extreme hot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissummer.
Glaciers melting worldwide. Don't believe me?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf
And:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
[quote]1.1 Observations of climate change
Since the TAR, progress in understanding how climate is changing
in space and time has been gained through improvements and
extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographical
coverage, better understanding of uncertainties and a wider
variety of measurements. {WGI SPM}
Definitions of climate change
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state
of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests)
by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties,
and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or
longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether
due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This
usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change
refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly
to human activity that alters the composition of the global
atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability
observed over comparable time periods.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1). {WGI
3.2, 4.8, 5.2, 5.5, SPM}
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005)
of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of
0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The
linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13
[0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years
from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}
The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is
greater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatures
have increased at almost twice the global average rate in
the past 100 years. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans
(Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the average
temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at
least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the
heat being added to the climate system. New analyses of balloonborne
and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric
temperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surface
temperature. {WGI 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, SPM}
Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1).
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm
per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4
to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longerterm
trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans
has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual
contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and
ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets
contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these
climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total
sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table
SPM.1}
Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent
with warming (Figure 1.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual
average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]%
per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]%
per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent of seasonally
frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%.
Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased
since the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3°C. {WGI 3.2, 4.5, 4.6,
4.7, 4.8, 5.5, SPM}
At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longterm
changes in other aspects of climate have also been observed.
Trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation
amount in many large regions. Over this period, precipitation increased
significantly in eastern parts of North and South America,
northern Europe and northern and central Asia whereas precipitation
declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and
parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has
likely2 increased since the 1970s. {WGI 3.3, 3.9, SPM}
Some extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/
or intensity over the last 50 years:
It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become
less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and
hot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent over
most land areas. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (or
proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased over
most areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}
It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3 has
increased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI
5.5, SPM}
There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical
cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestions
of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions
where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability
and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine
satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of longterm
trends in tropical cyclone activity. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second
half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least
the past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM}
2 Likelihood and confidence statements in italics represent calibrated expressions of uncertainty and confidence. See Box ‘Treatment of uncertainty’ in the
Introduction for an explanation of these terms.
3 Excluding tsunamis, which are not due to climate change. Extreme high sea level depends on average sea level and on regional weather systems. It is
defined here as the highest 1% of hourly values of observed sea level at a station for a given reference period.[/quote]
Also: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
[quote]Causes of change
This Topic considers both natural and anthropogenic drivers of
climate change, including the chain from greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to atmospheric concentrations to radiative forcing4 to
climate responses and effects.
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
The radiative forcing of the climate system is dominated by the
long-lived GHGs, and this section considers those whose emissions
are covered by the UNFCCC.
Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown
since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between
1970 and 2004 (Figure 2.1).5 {WGIII 1.3, SPM}
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.
Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about
80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total
anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 (Figure 2.1). The rate of
growth of CO2-eq emissions was much higher during the recent
10-year period of 1995-2004 (0.92 GtCO2-eq per year) than during
the previous period of 1970-1994 (0.43 GtCO2-eq per year). {WGIII
1.3, TS.1, SPM}
4 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and
is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial
conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2).
5 Includes only carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphurhexafluoride
(SF6), whose emissions are covered by the UNFCCC. These GHGs are weighted by their 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), using values
consistent with reporting under the UNFCCC.
6 This report uses 100-year GWPs and numerical values consistent with reporting under the UNFCCC.
7 Such values may consider only GHGs, or a combination of GHGs and aerosols.
Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions and
concentrations
GHGs differ in their warming influence (radiative forcing) on
the global climate system due to their different radiative properties
and lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming influences
may be expressed through a common metric based on
the radiative forcing of CO2.
• CO2-equivalent emission is the amount of CO2 emission
that would cause the same time-integrated radiative forcing,
over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a longlived
GHG or a mixture of GHGs. The equivalent CO2 emission
is obtained by multiplying the emission of a GHG by its
Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the given time horizon.6
For a mix of GHGs it is obtained by summing the equivalent
CO2 emissions of each gas. Equivalent CO2 emission is a
standard and useful metric for comparing emissions of different
GHGs but does not imply the same climate change
responses (see WGI 2.10).
• CO2-equivalent concentration is the concentration of CO2
that would cause the same amount of radiative forcing as a
given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.7
Figure 2.1. (a) Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004.5 (b) Share of different anthropogenic GHGs in total emissions in 2004
in terms of CO2-eq. (c) Share of different sectors in total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (Forestry includes deforestation.) {WGIII[/quote]
[size=200]How can an entire group of international, unbiased scientists be totally wrong
on global warming?[/size]
Go visit the Alaska cities where people
living there have noticed the unprecedented changes, or visit people by the
glaciers.
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
Look at the map.
[quote]FINGERPRINTS: Direct manifestations of a widespread and long-term trend toward warmer global temperatures
Heat waves and periods of unusually warm weather
Ocean warming, sea-level rise and coastal flooding
Glaciers melting
Arctic and Antarctic warming
HARBINGERS: Events that foreshadow the types of impacts likely to become more frequent and widespread with continued warming.
Spreading disease
Earlier spring arrival
Plant and animal range shifts and population changes
Coral reef bleaching
Downpours, heavy snowfalls, and flooding
Droughts and fires
The map of early warning signs clearly illustrates the global nature of climate changes. In its 2001 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that, �an increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system."
While North America and Europe—where the science is strongest—exhibit the highest density of indicators, scientists have made a great effort in recent years to document the early impacts of global warming on other continents. Our map update reflects this emerging knowledge from all parts of the world.
Although factors other than climate may have intensified the severity of some of the events on the map, scientists predict such problems will increase if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not brought under control.[/quote]
Also: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
[quote]The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase.[/quote]
[img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-spm-5.gif[/img]
Actually I don't believe you since the glaciers are growing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd 11 of the last 12 years being among the hottest. Not a chance.
Best do your own science Nigel. BTW, what is your reason for posting that rubbish? Lobiest? Politian? Manufacturer of green products? There is always a money trail.
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
October 2008 Global Temperature Update:
...+0.17 deg. C above normal....still waiting for warming to resume....
November 9, 2008:
The two papers we had submitted to Geophysical Research Letters have both been rejected, with instructions to not resubmit either one. The first paper showed how none of 18 IPCC climate models, in over 1,000 years of global warming simulations, ever exhibits the negative feedback we have measured from global satellite data.
The second paper revealed new satellite evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation modulates the Earth's radiative balance by an amount that, when put into a simple climate model, can explain 75% of global warming over the 20th Century....including the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980.
Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book.
In anticipation of trouble getting these papers published, I had already started the book awhile back...it is now about 80% finished, heavily illustrated. The working title is: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. My book agent is currently scouting for publishers.
October 19, 2008:
NEW EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING AS A NATURAL RESPONSE TO
THE PACIFIC DECADAL OSCILLATION
October 8, 2008 Research Update #1:
Our Feedback Diagnosis paper to appear in J. Climate, Nov. 1 issue.
October 8, 2008 Research Update #2:
Recent satellite data invalidates IPCC climate models.
October 8, 2008: A Brief Comment on "Spencer's Folly"
For anyone who has stumbled across a rather condescending critique of our latest research on feedback by someone who calls himself "Tamino", I can only say that Tamino could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he would have noticed that all of my feedback work addresses TIME-VARYING radiative forcing (as occurs during natural climate variability), not CONSTANT radiative forcing (as is approximately the case with global warming). Tamino's analytical solution does not exist in the time-varying case, and so his holier-than-thou critique is irrelevant to what I have presented.
When one takes into consideration that the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the warming from the 1997-98 El Nino event were not part of any underlying long-term trend, we can imagine that globally-averaged temperatures were flat from 1990 until 2000, then there was a brief warming until about 2002, after which temperatures have once again remained flat. Note that the longer temperatures remain flat the greater the warming that will be required to put us back 'on track' to match the climate model projections used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The coming months and years should be interesting.
Fig. 9. UAH monthly globally averaged lower atmospheric temperature variations since 1979 as measured by NOAA and NASA satellites. The smooth curve is a 4th order polynomial fit to the data.
Turn up the heat, somebody. The globe is freezing. Even Al Gore is looking for an extra blanket. Winter has barely come to the northern latitudes and already we've got bigger goosebumps than usual. So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995. You may have noticed, in fact, that Al and his pals, having given up on the sun, no longer even warn of global warming. Now it's "climate change." The marketing men enlisted by Al and the doom criers to come up with a flexible "brand" took a cue from the country philosopher who observed, correctly, that "if you've got one foot in the fire and the other in a bucket of ice, on average you're warm." On average, "climate change" covers every possibility.
This is similar to the science practiced by Dr. James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the source of much of the voodoo that Al Gore has been peddling since the doctor showed up at a Senate hearing in 1988 and told ghost stories that Al swallowed whole. Only last month Dr. Hansen's institute announced that October was the hottest on record, and then said "uh, never mind." The London Daily Telegraph calls this "a surreal blunder [that] raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming."
In this account, the institute had to make the humiliating climb-down after two leading skeptics of the global-warming scam, Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, discovered that temperature readings from September had been carried over and repeated for October.
We should sigh, shrug and give the scientists at NASA the benefit of the doubt that this was a mistake and not a deliberate howl at the moon. A spokesman for the institute explains that readings borrowed from Russia, which had been described as 10 degrees higher than normal for October, distorted the figures but, after all, the data had been obtained from others. So we should blame someone else.
This is the science we're expected to take on faith. The false figures - we must be generous and not say "faked" - were supplied by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change. These are the most widely quoted readings, and consistently show higher temperatures than other "data sets." Would the United Nations lie? (No giggling, please.)
This sets a new standard for hubris, arrogance and haughty self-importance. Skeptics of the global-warming scam, even those with unquestioned academic and real-world credentials, are treated as ignorant pariahs by pundits, presidential candidates and other politicians who know better, or ought to.
Al Gore
This is not the first time, writes Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph, that Dr. Hansen's methodology has been sharply questioned. Two years ago, Messrs. Watts and McIntyre, the bloggers who caught the October fiasco, forced him to withdraw his published findings on surface temperatures in the United States, to correct his claim that the hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1990s. It was the 1930s, when the much-maligned sport utility vehicle was still a truck and Detroit made economical cars everybody wanted.
Man's notion that his science can realign the stars, adjust the orbit of planets and reorganize the universe leads him to say silly things and assert goofy claims. Saying silly things and asserting goofy claims is usually harmless as entertainment, so long as the claims are subjected to rigorous analysis and debate. But contrarian arguments about global warming, climate change and freezing heat are not tolerated by the scientists with an uneasy grip on the research money.
It's clear now that the earth has been cooling for the past decade, to the sorrow of the special pleaders and despite everything Al can do about it. The solar cycle peaked, the sun is quieter, the sunspots have faded and everybody but Al is cooling off.
Even the United Nations says so. The director of the U.N.'s panel on climate change concedes that nature has overwhelmed everything man can do and it might even be another decade before man can rally and the warming resumes. Until then, like it or not, nature rules the cosmos.
Q: "I have no idea why the AGW believers want to trash the remains of the economy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA: Power and revenue.
Permit me to make a modest proposal for the vaunted "QC" employed by GISS:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thirty days hath September ...."