Slashdot Mirror

I read this article a few hours ago from Drudge ... and while the article may be 100% accurate and irrefutable, there was another article that was also on there, also published today:

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

I'm not sure if the left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing ... but to me, it seems like two completely different scenarios.

Obviously, the earth has cooled before ... and it's warmed up before. Nobody is disputing this fact.

Certainly, in the past few decades, CO2 has risen. And, for the past 650,000 years, it has been fluctuating, but topped out around 360ppm. Though if you go back even further, you'll see that CO2 has been much higher (see pg 23) than recent times. One has to question what is the optimal level for the Earth? Is it now ... at 385ppm, or in pre-historic times at over 1000ppm?

By using 7g of CO2 emissions per search, the article really gives such a vague scare of global warming. By my interpretation, we should shut down that evil CO2 emitter, at least thats what they are implying. Alternatively, just create a new tax obviously, this will reduce levels ... somehow.

As far as a solution for the "global warming" problem ... I'll have to think about it while I turn up the heat in the house while I shovel snow outside.

BTW, yes I do know that Weather != Climate ... but currently, it is just fsck'n cold.

... was a job with NOAA. They're usually looking for young college grads with science degrees. It's considered a branch of the US government and is organized like the military, so the pay probably isn't that great, but the benefits should be good and there are plenty of travel and learning opportunities.

I regret not looking into it further, but by the time I had finished my degree I was married with kids and couldn't just go away for weeks or months at a time.

You can find out more here: http://www.careers.noaa.gov/

[Global warming] has the strange affect of causing the earths average temperature to drop over the last decade instead of rise.

If you're not being facetious...

Denialists keep saying: Hey you clueless sheep, there's been a recent drop in temperatures, so global warming is bunk. But where's the data for this alleged drop?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html has the graph, here's the data set:

Anomalies are now provided as departures from the 20th century average (1901-2000).
The Annual Global (land and ocean combined) Anomalies (degrees C) ...

1997 0.4615
1998 0.5765
1999 0.3948
2000 0.3631
2001 0.4935
2002 0.5574
2003 0.5566
2004 0.5338
2005 0.6066
2006 0.5524
2007 0.5491

1998 was awfully hot, then it wasn't so hot for a while but then it got hotter still. Soon denialists will shift to "It's gotten cooler since 2005, so global warming is bunk."

In other non-news, "Swimmers have gotten slower since Michael Phelps' world records in China"

Actually the choice of that wording was determined by the folks helping us with the press conference at AGU. Most folks don't even know what an ionosphere is, so we had to go with something that would at least give the average reader (not the Slashdot reader) a concept to start with. The BBC article did a good job of explaining the science and the concepts once you get past the headline.

There is no universally agreed-upon definition of "where space begins." What we were reporting is that the "transition height" or "topside" in the ionosphere, the altitude where the density of O+ and the density of the light ions (H+ and He+) are equal, is lower than we have ever seen before. Here's a link for the definitions of these layers:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/ionostru.html

Note that above this level we don't have much interference with radio communications, so the practical interest is with the ionosphere below this altitude. Also this site points out that the topside rarely is below 500 km on the nightside, but the C/NOFS results show that it's currently almost always below that height (down to 400 km in places) .

Here's a link to the press release that went with this press conference that gives a bit more information and a nice graphic of the topside measured by the CINDI instrument on C/NOFS.

http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2008/12/16-001.html

(Full disclosure: I am a member of the CINDI-C/NOFS project.)

It more like any normal change in weather patterns will be called "global warming". It's all about "climate change" now. Give it a few year and it will be "ice age" again, as when I was a kid.

Here's a great graph of the Vostok ice core data (you can also get the raw data yourself and toss it into Excel if you're skeptical).

You can clearly see that dramatic rises in temp (and CO2 levels) are normal events with a period of just over 100k years (and how remarkable recent CO2 levels are). You can also see that the relative stability of the climate over the past 10000 years is *not* normal. We're in an age age, and "normal" temperatures (a long term average) are much colder.

I think "wait, don't we *want* it to be warmer?" is a completely legitimate question. Keeping temps the same just isn't how the Earth works. Given that the historic pattern (past 100M years of the current ice age) would have glaciers covering Canada and most of Europe, maybe warming isn't so bad?

    Well, it's good to know that someone on here can do network design psychically. Remind me to have you send of the design specs for the next network I work on. I'll pay you, of course. You should have them done already though, since you're so good.

    Like I said, there were multiple suites in the same complex. It required 6 switches. I could have run them all back to one central switch, but that would mean running bundles of Cat5/6 along the roof of the building (the only wiring route there), an half of them to a central switch over a road. The total run on quite a few would be greater than 400'. Oh, and I should add, in a very lightning prone area. The city claims to be the "Lightning capital of the world". I don't know about that, but even NOAA marks the state as being the most lightning prone area in the country, and the city lands smack in one of the two big red blobs shown on NOAA's lightning map. That's enough for me to justify running fiber between suites.

    And, the old switches were Netgear 10/100 switches of various models. Some suites were linked via a wireless bridge. That part was fine, except when a truck would park in between them (happened about twice a day).

It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.

Don't confuse evidence with effect because then you misconstrue science. As a measure of global warming scientists have used qualitative measurements like average temperature as a gauge or baseline. In science you need qualitative arguments. You can't say "the earth is getting warmer" without basing it on something qualitative. The raise in temperature is also not absolute but relative. For example, the average temperature from year to year are being compared to another not to the absolute temperature. What the data shows isn't just that the earth is getting warmer (that has happened before), but that the rate of climate change is much faster than in any previous period in the last several million years.

It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.

This has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth in general. No one is using a thermometer in cities and averaging them out. What they using are polar snowfall thickness, air pocket analysis, vegetation studies, etc.

And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.

Again, temperature is relative and being used for comparison. Temperatures are not absolute. In this vein, a change of few degrees by comparison changed the Sahara a few hundred thousand years ago from a tropical forest into the desert.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

You haven't been paying close attention to NOAA. Or the warnings issued by the EPA. That's just within this government. Italy is concerned about Venice sinking into the sea that they are building sea barriers. They realize however Venice faces both rising sea levels and Venice was built on soft clay.

Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.

As a human you can change the temperature of your indoor surroundings or clothing. Many things in nature are triggered by temperature. Deciduous trees shed leaves and grow them back based on temperature. Some animals mate based on temperature (crocodile gender is determined by the egg nest's temperature). The world is bigger than your personal comfort level.

OK, The graph you link to has it's last data point at 1950. On the graph, CO2 never gets above 300 ppm going back 400,000 years. Your graph also shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.

This graph has come current data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It shows current CO2 levels at 385 ppm and rising.

The implication is that global temperature will see an equivalent rise above the norm of the past 400,000 years.

Your turn; ball's in your court.

You laugh, but that's just about right. After having storm chased with the meteorology students at college and some of the USAF meteorologists, I can tell you some of the stuff that's done on TV is often laughable and downright dangerous at times. They're melodramatic and they push the limits more than is safe, because it makes for a good show.

That's not to say we never did anything stupid... just never on purpose in order to have a good story. Here and here are some of the photos we've gotten (I'm Becky). The seventh set down on that second page were an accident. We almost got caught in that one - took a wrong turn and got stuck in a residential area near Indianapolis. Let's just say, when you start seeing the blue flash from power pylons blowing up closer and closer to you... well, you know you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It may look cool on TV but it worries me the number of people who think you can go do this without having a ground support team. Even trained people can make mistakes.

You laugh, but that's just about right. After having storm chased with the meteorology students at college and some of the USAF meteorologists, I can tell you some of the stuff that's done on TV is often laughable and downright dangerous at times. They're melodramatic and they push the limits more than is safe, because it makes for a good show.

That's not to say we never did anything stupid... just never on purpose in order to have a good story. Here and here are some of the photos we've gotten (I'm Becky). The seventh set down on that second page were an accident. We almost got caught in that one - took a wrong turn and got stuck in a residential area near Indianapolis. Let's just say, when you start seeing the blue flash from power pylons blowing up closer and closer to you... well, you know you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It may look cool on TV but it worries me the number of people who think you can go do this without having a ground support team. Even trained people can make mistakes.

I've seen more watts over more distance all my life. http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/lightning/ltg_damage.html You just don't want to stand between the source and the destination...

And how well have we been able to harness that power so far? There is a difference between more or less random phenomena in nature and being able to generate as well as capture an 800W power beam. I have also seen mountains that are higher than skyscrapers. So what?

I've seen more watts over more distance all my life.
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/lightning/ltg_damage.html
You just don't want to stand between the source and the destination...

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/sp08-13.pdf

This appears to be a current summary of the Prince William Sound fisheries. Since the oil spill, PWS has been quite well studied.

http://www.lib.noaa.gov/japan/aquaculture/proceedings/report22/kron.html

The above report gives a summary of the historical data, which seems damn hard to come by online. The short form is that salmon stocks fluctuate wildly for reasons that are little understood.

The cleanup effort was a media circus. Nobody had any idea what to do about it, there were no preparations*, no science, and very little thought involved. The primary method of oil removal was to spray boiling water on the beaches. I think the idea was that if the oil didn't kill everything, the cleanup would fix that. I was reading a NOAA paper earlier on the effectiveness of that technique, which was negative, but I seem to have lost the link.

Beyond that, I can try to dig up more local sources tomorrow, if you'd like. Certainly I could provide a wealth of anecdote, but I'm sure that more concrete data is available within the community.

Currently, we really don't know how the sounds we make in the water affects marine life. This includes sonar as well as all the other noise of traveling ships. There simply hasn't been enough research done. On one hand we have people in the Navy saying it doesn't do significant harm and on the other side we have environmentalists that think sonar "kills whales on contact" (Hawaii's Weekly magazine claimed this). Both are a bit off.

At Johns Hopkins University in May, I saw a lecture by Brandon L. Southall, a fisheries research biologist and director of NOAA's Ocean Acoustics Program within the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology. Currently he is in the Bahamas studying the behavioral response of marine mammals to audio. They would put a tag containing accelerometers on a whale for about 16 hours, and use it to observe the animal's normal behavior (data was collected in the tag which was retrieved later). Then they would play different noises, including mimicking other types of marine mammals, to see how the animal responded.

So far they had found that the sounds affected the animal's behavior: the animal would adjust its dive, sit still for long periods of time, make noises back, and usually travel away from the noise. However, there was simply not enough information to determine if this was a problem for the whales.

So my point being, not that they should be ignored, but the environmentalists in this case don't really have the information they claim to have about the detrimental effects to whales. All they really have right now are some incidents of beached whales, which isn't enough to draw good conclusions. We need more study.

This is a bit of a relief for those of us who study space weather and aurora and what not. It is hard to study things when they don't appear... There has been very little aurora or interesting weather in the last couple of years. Of course, studying the quiet time is important too... just not as interesting! Check out NOAA Space Weather for more information on space weather in the current solar conditions.

Climate has changed rapidly in the past without humans. Climate research shows that average temperatures have increased many degrees centigrade in a single decade. The old believe that climate changed slowly in the past is long gone. It is amazing that some people still believe it. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story.html

1. How much has the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gone up since the industrial revolution? How much has the temperature gone up?

CO2: Around 40%
Temperature: Around 1 degree Celcius

2. When and why were Europe and North America deforested? Why does it matter?

Europe experienced a lot of deforestation at the hands of mankind between 1100 to 1500 AD. There wasn't much after that until recent years, when it has again become a serious problem.
America experienced little deforestation until the arrival of European settlers, and there has been extensive deforestation since then, mostly over the last two centuries.

As for why it matters: Forests are a good CO2 sink. Losing them at the same time as releasing unprecedented quantities of CO2 in to the atmosphere will lead to a situation we have not had before and therefore can only make educated guesses as to what will happen.

3. What bad effects of the temperature rise have been observed since the industrial revolution? How sure are you that the bad effects are attributable to global warming?

If I may, I won't just concentrate on what the temperature rise has done, but instead the overall effects of temperature, increased CO2 and so on. It's not fair to look at only one part of the story...

Possible (debatable) effects: More flooding, tornadoes and extreme weather than we had before.
More definite effects: More swans in Siberia, colural foliage fading, severe damage to coral reefs, ocean acidification and more...

4. How much are you predicting that the carbon dioxide levels will rise?

I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.

5. How much are you predicting that the temperatures will rise?

I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.

6. What bad effects are you predicting due to increased temperature?

Similar to the effects we're experiencing today (see above), only worse relative to the amount of climate change inducing factors involved (including, but not limited to, CO2, temperature rises (from any source) and so on).

7. Isn't it true that without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice and life would be very difficult on the planet?

Yes, that is true, which is why no-one is suggesting we strip the atmosphere off the planet - things would be rather unpleasant.
This is a very silly question though, because you know full well that it's not a binary situation "we have a greenhouse effect"/"we don't have a greenhouse effect". What matters is how MUCH of a greenhouse effect we have. Too little or too much are both bad situations.

From the wiki:
This warms the air near the ground, and this air is prevented from rising and flowing away. This can be demonstrated by opening a small window near the roof of a greenhouse: the temperature drops considerably.

Now. If we add carbon particles to the atmosphere, it acts to trap the heat reflected off the planet.

Now, be convinced that man is contributing to the warming of the planet by adding carbon to the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

In short:
1) Stop hijacking threads.
2) Open your eyes to man's influence on the climate.
3) Accept that we are screwing the earth, not some "magical background radiation".
4) Take steps to reduce YOUR impact. Recycle, use clean energy, be selective with your purchases.

The Earth has been cooling for the last several years as solar activity has been lessening.

Not trolling, just pointing out scientific data that disputes that temperatures on earth are cooling. I will put the links here and everyone can form their own opinion. I personally had not seen this before so chances many others have not either.

(Note the chart was posted in 2006 yet does not show temperatures from 2000 - 2008. Some might find this disturbing, however I would suggest that the trend in the graph would suggest that the temperature is probably even warmer, not cooler.)

Here is the link to Global Temperature Anomalies.

This quote from the above link makes me believe these numbers are in reality more realistic as they increase the area of the earth covered over time. Mental note to self, if other posts about temperature are made, are they reducing sampling area or increasing sampling area by their choice of areas to cover.

After testing several cut offs, it was decided to exclude regions with a normalized sampling error of 0.5. The amount of global area excluded is greatest in the 19th century, when it is 20%-30%. For the 20th century the area excluded is 20% or less, and after 1950 it is less than 15%.

Even more on topic...

P.S. I came across the Temperature Anomaly chart from 1860 through 2000 in this document on Solar Current Feedback by M.A. Vukcevic MSc. I found his article on Evidences of a multi resonant system within solar periodic activity very interesting. Check out his conclusion where he states that while it cannot be conclusively proven, it should be a matter of further scientific consideration.

This reminded me of Albert Einstein's, spooky action at a distance which he studied and postulated on from 1935 - 1955 and Bell's theorem which he published in 1964, yet it was not until June 1997 when Dr. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues of the University of Geneva was able to show that a connection did exist between two photons over 6 miles apart.

I think it is amazing what Einstein (and many others even today) can prove with just mathematics. So often these great individuals come up with theories that are so out there, that they are derided by other jealous scientists. How many theories are here today that many are making fun of that will prove to be correct 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years from today?

Unlike scientists today, Einstein did not have access to the computers that we have today...imagine if he had, had access to computers.

Some believe that Bell's Theorem proves something, others believe it does not. One of the reasons cited is the inability of current science to monitor all the photons in the 1997 experiment, thus extra assumptions were required. I prefer not to look at it all as black or white, rather accept the results as phenomenal as they are with the caveat that more is left for science to explain. Who knows, perhaps it will tie in to String theory, Quantum theory of Gravity or some other theory related to either time, speed or mass.

All in all, its pretty interesting stuff IMO so I decided to share the links, enjoy.

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

Once again, this is why people who don't know anything about a topic shouldn't comment on it.

Earth's oceans, especially the Pacific, are truly massive heat reservoirs, and changing how they interact with the atmosphere can strongly affect the atmosphere's temperature in the *short term*. In the long term, the planet is still dominated by its radiation balance, of course.

The linked article was describing, quite accurately, how the early part of this year was in La Nina conditions. El Nino is caused by the weakening or reversal of the Walker circulation (an atmospheric flow around the Equator). The Walker circulation helps encourage the upwelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, so El Nino conditions prevent more of this cool water from reaching the surface. As a net change, the equatorial Pacific ends up much warmer on the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures. In La Nina conditions, the situation is reversed; a stronger Walker circulation encourages more upwelling, and thus colder surface (and hence atmospheric) temperatures.

This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the planet's long-term temperature, which even a six year old looking at a graph could recognize through the year-to-year noise.

Now, if you *really* want a breakdown of how it ranked (records since 1880), here you go (remember that the first half of this year was in strong La Nina conditions!):

January: 31st warmest
February: 15th warmest
March: Warmest for land on record, 13th warmest for ocean
April: 13th warmest
May: 8th warmest
June: 8th warmest
July: Tied for 5th warmest
August: 10th warmest
September: Tied for 9th warmest

Spring: 7th warmest
Summer: 9th warmest
January to July: 9th warmest

There appears to have been a significant jump in methane levels in 2007 based on this alarming graphic. Global methane (CH4) concentrations rose in 2007. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/methanetrend.jpg But wait, it all depends on how you present the data. Figure 2. Global averages of the concentrations of the major, well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig2.png Not quite as alarming when you present the data in its historical context. The methane horse is dead and the greenies are just going to have to come up with a new way to scare little children in the night. These tactics are so predictable that I am not finding much sport in the lies any longer. Earth to greenies, methane concentrations stopped increasing at just about the same time that global warming stopped. Could it be a coincidence? As the Sun sinks into an increasingly quiescent state, I find myself looking forward the big green spin machine explaining the Sun away. The games afoot and let the fun begin. You are going to have to be truly creative this time. Are you up to the task? How convincing a lie can be fabricated this time around.

There appears to have been a significant jump in methane levels in 2007 based on this alarming graphic. Global methane (CH4) concentrations rose in 2007. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/methanetrend.jpg But wait, it all depends on how you present the data. Figure 2. Global averages of the concentrations of the major, well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig2.png Not quite as alarming when you present the data in its historical context. The methane horse is dead and the greenies are just going to have to come up with a new way to scare little children in the night. These tactics are so predictable that I am not finding much sport in the lies any longer. Earth to greenies, methane concentrations stopped increasing at just about the same time that global warming stopped. Could it be a coincidence? As the Sun sinks into an increasingly quiescent state, I find myself looking forward the big green spin machine explaining the Sun away. The games afoot and let the fun begin. You are going to have to be truly creative this time. Are you up to the task? How convincing a lie can be fabricated this time around.

... it is going down.

#$@@!!

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig1.gif

CC.

maintaining geosynchronous orbit while tethered to the ground is not a good idea.

Sorry dude but that is the whole idea that makes it work.

there are so many factors that could turn a space elevator into a complete disaster. a cat-4 or 5 hurricane could potentially put so much drag onto the cable that the whole thing tumbles to earth.

Since you have it in GEO, it is tethered at the equator. Tropical cyclones(of which a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone is the extreme case) generally can't form within 5 degrees (300mi) of the equator. They require the coriolis force to initiate rotation and that's what gets the heat engine going. There are storms in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, but they are relatively small and a mobile sea platform should be able to avoid the worst of them. In addition, the equatorial zone's wet season is very short. In addition to that, there are very well known areas in the Pacific that see almost no storm activity at all.

an earthquake could yank it out of orbit.

Not if it's on a mobile sea platform. Even were it land-based, what's a couple feet of horizontal displacement on a 22,000 mile tether? As for tsunami, mid-ocean, they're only a couple cm tall and very long wavelength.

tidal pulls from the moon could rip it from the ground.

The tidal influence of the moon is very small 1/9,000,000 compared to earth's gravity. It doesn't pull the water away from the earth so much as drag it around in a heap like dirt swept before a broom. Other geostationary satellites don't get pulled out of orbit, why would the space counterweight?

lightning damage.

I don't have an answer for that one. Liftport does, however. Basically, they say, they'll stay out of the way just as with objects in orbit. In addition, they say that current materials could be used, but the mass required would make the thing financially infeasible.

i'd love to see this become a reality, but i just dont think that will happen.

I have more faith in materials science.

maintaining geosynchronous orbit while tethered to the ground is not a good idea.

Sorry dude but that is the whole idea that makes it work.

there are so many factors that could turn a space elevator into a complete disaster. a cat-4 or 5 hurricane could potentially put so much drag onto the cable that the whole thing tumbles to earth.

Since you have it in GEO, it is tethered at the equator. Tropical cyclones(of which a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone is the extreme case) generally can't form within 5 degrees (300mi) of the equator. They require the coriolis force to initiate rotation and that's what gets the heat engine going. There are storms in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, but they are relatively small and a mobile sea platform should be able to avoid the worst of them. In addition, the equatorial zone's wet season is very short. In addition to that, there are very well known areas in the Pacific that see almost no storm activity at all.

an earthquake could yank it out of orbit.

Not if it's on a mobile sea platform. Even were it land-based, what's a couple feet of horizontal displacement on a 22,000 mile tether? As for tsunami, mid-ocean, they're only a couple cm tall and very long wavelength.

tidal pulls from the moon could rip it from the ground.

The tidal influence of the moon is very small 1/9,000,000 compared to earth's gravity. It doesn't pull the water away from the earth so much as drag it around in a heap like dirt swept before a broom. Other geostationary satellites don't get pulled out of orbit, why would the space counterweight?

lightning damage.

I don't have an answer for that one. Liftport does, however. Basically, they say, they'll stay out of the way just as with objects in orbit. In addition, they say that current materials could be used, but the mass required would make the thing financially infeasible.

i'd love to see this become a reality, but i just dont think that will happen.

I have more faith in materials science.

Obviously people aren't going to believe that they are measuring CO2 from an active volcano, because it's just too stupid to be true. But it is true, take a look: CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. Yes, they measure carbon dioxide levels at the largest volcano on the planet. Do you see any problems with that?

Thanks for proving that volcanos don't influence CO2 levels much: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

Note the spikes in 1975 and 1984, when there where huge eruptions at Mauna Loa - No? Because there are none. Figure that.

Obviously people aren't going to believe that they are measuring CO2 from an active volcano, because it's just too stupid to be true. But it is true, take a look: CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. Yes, they measure carbon dioxide levels at the largest volcano on the planet. Do you see any problems with that?

Thanks for proving that volcanos don't influence CO2 levels much: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

Note the spikes in 1975 and 1984, when there where huge eruptions at Mauna Loa - No? Because there are none. Figure that.

Creationism is not a theory. Two properties of a theory are: must be possible to disprove; and must be able to predict results of a test. Creationism is capable of neither of these things.

Couldn't you say that about the theory that burning fossil fuels causes global warming? Let's try it out: Global Warming is not a theory. Two properties of a theory are: must be possible to disprove; and must be able to predict results of a test. Global Warming is capable of neither of these things. Hey, this science thing is pretty easy! Why is it that so many people jump all over these ID/Creationist "theories", but when it comes to global warming, they'll believe anything? For example, did you know that they've only been measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since 1959? Less than 50 years. And did you know that they measure the carbon dioxide levels on an active volcano? Did you know that volcanoes release carbon dioxide? It's like trying to measure humidity by putting your sensor on the beach below the high tide mark.

Obviously people aren't going to believe that they are measuring CO2 from an active volcano, because it's just too stupid to be true. But it is true, take a look: CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. Yes, they measure carbon dioxide levels at the largest volcano on the planet. Do you see any problems with that?

Yeah, something people don't realize is that most of the state is frozen for a good chunk of the year. You try doing businesses in an area that's a block of ice. See here for detailed climatology.

Not only does this make it hard to grow things, it also makes transportation a nightmare. They spend gobs of money every winter just to keep things moving while the state freezes-over.

Without oil money, sure, some areas will remain populated. There is, for example, a sizeable fishing industry based in Alaska that's not going anywhere. But I imagine everything north of Anchorage (except coastal towns) will simply be abandoned when the oil dries-up. At least that will make the conservationists happy.

You're suggesting that the your local TV station's Doppler 2008 15-minute weather segment is too long?

IMHO, the short answer is "Yes."

I can get info for the next 48 hours on ONE page, with all the data I'll need. Don't believe me? Great! Let's try something [for those in the US.]

First, got to the NOAA's page. Enter your ZIP code in the upper left-hand side of the page.

Next, scroll to the bottom of the next page and click "Hourly Weather Graph" in the "Additional Forecasts and Information" section. Read the next page carefully. Try mousing over the graph for information on a particular data point.

That page has all the data I'll need to plan my days/weekend in one place. I can read it in less than 10 seconds. If I want radar/doppler, it's a link at the bottom of that page, and I can even get the doppler in motion, with a limited zoom function.

So yeah, even counting the time to pull up the page, enter a zip code, and click a link, it's my opinion that 15 minutes is too long to get the same info I can get in around a minute.

Goes looks at water vapor. I would imagine they must consider it to some degree in calculations of weather, otherwise why look at it.....

"Things were much warmer [during the Early Mediaeval Warm]"

The latest palaeloclimactic data indicates that current global temperatures are higher than they were during the Early Mediaeval Warm:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

I happen to have a lot more faith in palaeoclimactic information derived from multiple high and low resolution proxy measurements than stuff that's based on instrumental data which is only available for around 200 years' worth of data, and becomes increasingly sparse and inaccurate as one moves back through those 200 years.

"He may even be going so far as to dare to suggest that solar output dominates the ~5% of CO2 emissions that humans contribute to the atmosphere!"

->Do you have a citation for your 5% number?

Actually, I only had my memory of what the IPCC's TAR had cited from several years back. That's why I used th ~5% instead of stating it was exact, but I'll dig up the exact citation if it will make you happy.

Here's one from the hippies over that the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration that says C02 increased by 5% in just the past 4 years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Now, I know it's not the same 5% you are talking about, but you tell me what 95% non-human factors are responsible for the increase.

I'm saying that 95% of the CLIMATE is controlled by non-human factors. And the link you give doesn't say a single thing about human contribution to CO2 concentrations, it only talks about the overall increase from human and non-human sources alike. Also it only talks about measurements from a particular site, which makes it more useful as a part of a larger sample set more than being definitive of it's own.

How about this from the nuts over at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in Cambridge: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ice-bubbles-reveal-biggest-rise-in-co2-for-800000-years-414711.html

The link you gave is down for me. If you go to look at the IPCC's fourth assessment though:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

You'll find pages 137-140 talks about human contributions to CO2 levels. It states that since 1750 CO2 concentrations have increased by 36%, but "using 1750
may slightly overestimate the RF, as the changes in the mixing
ratios of CO2, CH4 and N 2O after the end of this naturally
cooler period may not be solely attributable to anthropogenic
emissions." Which basically is saying that human contributions to CO2 concentrations since 1750 must be lower than 36%.

I haven't the time to dig through the entire report to get were my ~5% came from, but let's even settle for less than 36% for all fossil fuel emissions from humans ever. From the IPCC report you'll find that CO2 contributes approx. half the RF(radiative forcing) of the LLGHG(long-lived GHGasses). From basic climatology we all know that long lived GHG's are dominated by short lived GHG's like water vapor. So we are contributing less than a 36% increase to CO2, which contributes just under half the influence LLGHG's have on climate. LLGHG's in turn contribute less than half the changes of overall GHG's as things like water vapor are dominant. So even if we ignore solar output(which seems... foolish) we have human influence through CO2 emissions as 36%of50%of50% meaning a highly exaggerated estimate of 9% through out human history. If you use more realistic numbers though by adding things like solar output and the fact that LLGHG's aren't even near 50% of GHG forcings you can drop that 9% by another digit.

We aren't as significant as the fear mongers want you to think. And for methane increases, methane is only 17% of LLGHG's effect on climate, which is why it's not given as much attention by anyone, it doesn't affect the climate that much.

"He may even be going so far as to dare to suggest that solar output dominates the ~5% of CO2 emissions that humans contribute to the atmosphere!" Do you have a citation for your 5% number?

Here's one from the hippies over that the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration that says C02 increased by 5% in just the past 4 years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Now, I know it's not the same 5% you are talking about, but you tell me what 95% non-human factors are responsible for the increase.

How about this from the nuts over at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in Cambridge: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ice-bubbles-reveal-biggest-rise-in-co2-for-800000-years-414711.html

"The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb."

There's also what looks like an 11-year cycle in direct satellite measurements of solar output. Wikipedia's article "Solar Variation" has some more curves to peruse.

We have seen many spotless months in the last year. See http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ http://www.solarcycle24.com/ and various parts of the propagation reports and predictions at http://www.arrl.org./

Typical Slashdot- publishing crap without verifying a shred of it.

Another unfortunate example of our broken domain system.

Generally, no. Usually those who are watching these things happen they measure hundreds of sunspots and then try to do a statistical average over the course of a month to make up the monthly average. Sometimes sunspots are more heavily concentrated on one side of the sun rather than the other, so a monthly statistical average makes much more sense than taking a strictly daily number.

Instead, they are now grasping at straws to even mark off what might even remotely be called a sunspot. That is why this is such a big deal, as reporting the number "0" is often something used to mark off missing data than the actual number observed.

Even if you arbitrarily mark off some other set of 30 days to calculate this figure, this is something to pay attention to.

Here are some daily data sets to compare. First, for 2000:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/AMERICAN_NUMBERS/2000

And then for this year (2008):
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2008

There is a huge difference between these two datasets, and it is remarkable for all of the zeros that are noted in any given day. What is even being called a sunspot is something that is called into question here.

For a whole bunch of historical data, including measurements of sunspots by ancient Chinese historians and data going back several thousand years, see:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html

This includes daily measurements as well as the monthly averages.

Generally, no. Usually those who are watching these things happen they measure hundreds of sunspots and then try to do a statistical average over the course of a month to make up the monthly average. Sometimes sunspots are more heavily concentrated on one side of the sun rather than the other, so a monthly statistical average makes much more sense than taking a strictly daily number.

Instead, they are now grasping at straws to even mark off what might even remotely be called a sunspot. That is why this is such a big deal, as reporting the number "0" is often something used to mark off missing data than the actual number observed.

Even if you arbitrarily mark off some other set of 30 days to calculate this figure, this is something to pay attention to.

Here are some daily data sets to compare. First, for 2000:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/AMERICAN_NUMBERS/2000

And then for this year (2008):
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2008

There is a huge difference between these two datasets, and it is remarkable for all of the zeros that are noted in any given day. What is even being called a sunspot is something that is called into question here.

For a whole bunch of historical data, including measurements of sunspots by ancient Chinese historians and data going back several thousand years, see:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html

This includes daily measurements as well as the monthly averages.