No matter what the value of the climatologists' email hacked by our friends in Russia, the earth continues to warm as shown by scientific measurement.
Them therometers don't lie [though the persons using them potentially can lie].
So, whatever happened to this scandal?
Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
JOHN M. BRODER
Published: January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.
The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.
James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. “When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability,” said Dr. Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, “we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
A separate preliminary analysis from the National Climatic Data Center, a unit of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and at sea. The data center report, published earlier this week, also cited the years 2000 to 2009 as the warmest decade ever measured. The new temperature figures provide evidence in the scientific discussion of global warming but are not likely to be the last word on whether the planet’s temperature is on a consistent upward path.
Dr. Hansen, who has been an outspoken figure in the climate debate for years, has often been attacked by skeptics of global warming for what they charge is selective use of temperature data. The question of whether the planet is heating and how quickly was at the heart of the so-called “climategate” controversy that arose last fall when hundreds of e-mail messages from the climate study unit at the University of East Anglia in England were released without authorization.
Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations.
The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.
“That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. “The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”
Policy makers at the United Nations climate change summit conference in Copenhagen last month agreed on a goal of trying to keep the rise in average global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, to try to forestall the worst effects of global warming.
Earlier versions of this article referred incorrectly to the National Climatic Data Center. It is a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Follow the links. Watch the animation from the University of Deleware.
http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/Ghcn2_images/air_loc.mpg
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=nul&offset=0&page=1
-- Modified on 1/23/2010 3:14:52 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
Appears the IPCC reports are nothing but fabrications, with very little genuine scientific data, that have led to massive scaring of the world's timid, and meek, and brought the money grubbers to the forefront.
-- Modified on 1/23/2010 3:51:02 PM
And i'm glad, as this is making me thirsty. I won't LOL.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the bio of the expert cited in Booker's column, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. I've no ability to judge if he's the expert to listen to or not, and wiki is not an unimpeachable source.
The good Dr. however, has an interesting sideline as one of the worl'd leading authorities, I guess it's self proclaimed, on the practice of dowsing. You know, finding water with a stick. James Randi, a sleigh-of-hand artist and professional magician with a decades-long sideline in debunking claims of the paranormal, the supernatural, etc... [Randi single-handedly ended Uri Geller's "career" back in the 1970s] offered Morner a cool million if Morner could demonstrate dowsing in a controlled experiment. Morner declined the offer. I can't imagine why.
Now, Morner's belief in dowsing does not automatically mean he's wrong re his critique of climate change/rising sea levels, etc... but it does make you wonder. and i wonder, why throw in the mention of Venice? The damn city is built on a lagoon, it's been sinking for centuries, and i'm not aware that any climate change alarmist has stated that Venice's plight is due to rising sea levels.
From Wikipedia : "Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing..."[2]. In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[13] Mörner declined the offer.[14]
Just for the curious, here's the Wikipedia entry on dowsing. Which mentions that there is no scientific evidence to support it. It appears that Dr. Mormer may be a physician badly in need of healing himself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing
I hestitated to check the Wikipedia entry for Christopher Booker, but for the sake of completeness I did, and it turns out that Booker has no scientific training, and he began as a jazz critic [just like Nat Hentoff] and a writer for the satirical UK political program 'That Was The week That Was' [which aired for at least 1 year here in the states, around 1964, which my mom watched religiously, though i suspect pretty much all of it was well above her head].
But, all the info gleamed from wikipedia could be wrong.
XM1, are you critiquing the reporters for the stories, or their sources? Dowsing? Don't knock it if you've never tried it. Lol. American Indians were pretty good at it.
Oh yeah, TW3 was a good show. Never missed it.
What does all this have superfluous BS have to do with faulty, global warming theories?
Your link cites Dr. Morner as a expert on the debunking of climate change/rising sea levels, for which he claims there is no scientific proof.
That same expert Dr. Morner believes in dowsing, for which we are told thaere is no scientific proof.
Have you tried dowsing? If so, how did it go for you?
hacks emails, everyone pretends that scientists are involved in a scandal.
If we knew that's how things worked, we could have gotten a lot more done over the last few years. The Dems could have impeached Bush in 2006 and the news could say "Bush quits the White House".
oh hindsight, why must you be so cruel?
The Dems haven't been able to do squat with both houses and the executive branch!!
How the hell do you think they would have gotten all the stuff you cited done?
BTW!! READ THE FRGGIN EMAILS!! There was corruption and coverup to support that B.S. global warming theory!!
I've noticed each and every time when someone tries to say the climategate scandal is real they say "read the emails". well, there's a shot load of a lot of emails there. I personally don't care to read through pages and pages and pages of emails looking for a sign of corruption. If I was an investigative journalists, maybe I'd be glad to do it. But I ain't.
One of the first basic rules of debate is that if you make a claim, and someone questions the validity of that claim, then it is the person who made that claim who must prove it.
In short...I'm telling YOU to read the emails, and come back when you find something damning. I expect verifiable quotes Snow. Go fetch!
and you wonder why I call you a moron?
I would suggest you start taking your own advice, unless you consider one of the basic rules of debate is, "Make a claim, and when questioned about it's validity claim you can't, and that anyone that can't understand why is an idiot"
Go fetch yourself, Willie.
see, unlike your arguments, I can actually prove mine...
a link to a website that has a shit ton of emails ain't it. show me a particular email that proves the claim.
KInd of like the missing minutes on the Nixon tapes. They name climategate definately rings true.
Once again, you are welcome for the education
Admittedly, I am not a climate expert. But I have enough degrees in enough hard-sciences and stuff that if I ever listed it out, folks would be incredulous. I know enough about science to know politically motivated bullshit when I see it.
Most science of this sort is funded by our government. The very same trustworthy entity that funded the Tuskegee experiment and Project MK Ultra. You can bet your bottom dollar that this crap is being shoved down our throats for OUR ultimate detriment and someone else's ultimate benefit.
Another way of looking at it is this.
If you are a liberal, you know George Bush was a liar. George Bush acknowledged human-caused Global Warming.
If you are a conservative, you know Barack Obama is a liar. HE acknowledged human-caused Global Warming.
Wake the hell up before they "Cap and Trade" us into being a third-world hell hole.
..but could it really be at our detriment? I think what this is, is a political manisfestation of the reality that we are addicted to a finite resource.
At some point we have to make a transition away from fossil fuels. Either that, or just keep doing what we're doing and end up being screwed when it runs out.
What a lot of people don't fully appreicate is just how important oil is to our entire economy. To the world's economy.
People may have heard that we have a fiat dollar, but that's not really true. We, for all practical purposes, have an oil backed dollar.
If China wants to buy oil on the international market, that oil is traded in US dollars. For that reason, banks all over the world have to keep our dollars on hand. This increases the demand for US dollars, raising it's value.
But that paradigm isn't going to last much longer. Saddam tried to start trading oil in Euros. More nations are interested in this since the Euro is seen as more stable since it's less debt ridden.
If that happens around the world, then the US will have hyperinflation, and we'll be up shit's creek.
Some of the more libertarian minded folks are talking about going back to the gold standard, but that would be a disaster since this country is so heavily in debt. A currency that can't expand with economic growth would result in deflation, and when you're up to your neck in debt, the last thing you want is to make that debt worth more.
I think what some people are trying to do is change the rules of the game. Replace fossil fuels with some form of green renewable energy that we would control instead of cartels like OPEC controling.
The United States controlling renewable energy that's clean could be the thing that keeps the U.S. as the strongest nation in the world for another century. Getting that technology off the ground may not be possible without cap and trade.
Folks believe in it, although it can't be proved -- that is the definition of religion. Unfortunately its beyond science and religion and in the hands of politicians now. Get your wallets out.
by the friggin freezing temperatures we've had this winter. I live in the South and my swimming pool froze for Gods Sake!!!
The evidence that the data was phony and doctored really did not suprise a lot of people so the story did not keep going.
regardless of whether there is or isn't global warming. Once again, like many, you confuse weather with climate; it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Weather can be affected short-term by a number of causes... el Nino and la Nina, for example, which cause localized climate change yearly.
Global climate change would affect many factors such as the Gulf Stream, the Jet Stream, the Trade Winds, ocean tides, etc. that could alter weather patterns around the world, making some areas colder while making others hotter. If it makes more places hotter than it does colder, voila! Global Warming.
Lately, I've been avoiding the global climate change debate here when it became obvious to me that people who deny the POSSIBILITY of it are self-delusional. Why do I say that? Becuase it's one thing to question it and have doubts, but it's another thing to just flat out say it's a "myth".
If you can't acknowledge to yourself that BILLIONS of people, over 100+ years, releasing VAST amounts of CO2, methane, hydrocarbons, flourocarbons and other man-made solvents into the atmosphere might, just MIGHT be affecting the global temperature, than you're either an idiot or are in self denial.
I'm not arguing for or against whether global warming is real; I'm just saying that anyone so intractable not to see that it just might be possible isn't worth agruing with because they're obviously not open to reason.
That being said, PLEASE stop confusing weather with climate!
"stupid" is being very kind in this instance.
I'm a believer in climate change, not global warming. I also believe that there is not a god damn thing we can do to change the sun's periodic flare ups, and the effect it has on our planet. If you believe in man made global warming, and that CO2, and other mentioned gasses, cause global warming, please explain the higher temps that have occured on Mother Earth long before man was ever here. Now that is a scientifically proven historical fact I can believe in. Explain, if you can, why Mars, Saturn, and Venus, according to scientists, are also heating up. That's certainly not man made.
The IPCC has admitted on numerous occasions that their data gathering is faulty, but they continue to insist that the earth is warming because man is making it do so. Whatever happened to the man made hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole? Haven't heard much about that lately, have you? Seems that scientists discovered it got bigger, or smaller, based on seasonal conditions. Flora and fauna emit significantly more gasses than man, but politicians can't squeeze money from that source.
El Nino and La Nina affect more than localized weather conditions. When El Nino occurs in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the weather patterns on the east coast are also affected. Not very localized, is it, being 6,000 miles away.
eddie, like johngalt says, it's all about MONEY. Everything, is about MONEY.
-- Modified on 1/24/2010 10:50:45 AM
I used the word "local" in the sense that it wasn't global; it affected a finite, though large part of the world.
My point of the post though was to point out that there is a difference between weather and climate, and that one SHOULD be open to the POSSIBILITY of global warming.
You remind me of the Fedeal Government. They bemoan the nation debt and still spend too much money and can not see where the two are related.
Your childish comment about temperature and climate not being related is the last hiding refuge of those who have too much invested in the man-made global warming hoax to let it go.
BTW, you can link to scientific sources to try to prove your point, but then again, isn't the credibility of those sources what this thread is about?? DOH!!!
Give it up eddie, just give it up....
Why don't you just say "I know you are but what am I"?
Your reply was SO childish to border on the moronic.
You really addressed nothing in my post, expect to say that saying there's a difference between weather and climate (which you CHANGED to temerature and climate) is childish. C'mon Snow, even you're not that stupid not to know the difference.
And I don't know what you're smoking, but I didn't link to anything. My post wasn't about global warming, it was about how idiotic your's was.
You bemoan the fact that I say temperature and climate are not related, then you boast you linked to nothing to make your case, therefore implying your entire argumant is better than mine simply because you say so.
Lesson 1: Elitist Liberal - a person who is convinced that their beliefs are better than others on no true factual basis : These types of individuals are generally type cast as bad in the political arena and rigthfully so
You claim without a shadow of a doubt that climate and temperature are not related. Yet when they are trying to prove global warming, what do they use for scientific observation, AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE READINGS? Why would you measure one thing which is TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OTHER ACCRDING TO YOU and use it to try to prove the second.
Hmm, guess that kind of blows your theory to hell...
-- Modified on 1/26/2010 5:14:16 AM
YOU'RE the one who claimed I included a link in my post, which I didn't; I was merely pointing that out.
Secondly, you CHANGED my words in order to make your agrument valid. I said WEATHER and climate, not temperature and climate. LOCAL weather conditions in any one particular area are NOT related to global climate chage. Before you start giving lessons, maybe you should take remedial reading first.
By the way, there are just as many "eletist" conservatives as there are liberals.