PDA

View Full Version : Global Temperature Trend Upate: December 2010 - Warmest Year Or Not?



The Night Owl
01-11-2011, 12:50 PM
Some warmth for those feeling the cold...


Global Temperature Trend Upate: December 2010 - Warmest Year Or Not?

Ronald Bailey | January 6, 2011

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through December, 2010. Last year finishes in a statistical tie with 1998 as the warmest year in the past 32 years. As Spencer notes: 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.013 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_102.gif

...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/06/global-temperature-trend-upate

Articulate_Ape
01-11-2011, 01:07 PM
I don't think that chart means what you think it means, TNO. :rolleyes:

FBIGuy
01-11-2011, 01:11 PM
I don't think that chart means what you think it means, TNO. :rolleyes:

I don't think he knows what it means period. He posted it because it looks cool with all the pointy lines and all.

Lager
01-11-2011, 02:16 PM
I don't think that chart is the best choice for proving your point, if you have a point.

The Night Owl
01-11-2011, 03:28 PM
I didn't think I was being cryptic. The title of the article asks a question and the chart answers it. What is the problem? Does information about temperature trends not belong at the CU Weather Channel?

Articulate_Ape
01-11-2011, 03:29 PM
I didn't think I was being cryptic. The title of the article asks a question and the chart answers it. What is the problem?

So you are beginning to question your faith?

Lager
01-11-2011, 04:18 PM
Okay, you win. if that chart is accurate, it looks like 2010 had the second highest annual average satellite measured temperature of the lower atmosphere in the last 32 years. Congrats, you've done it. You've proven the left's entire global warming position is true.

The Night Owl
01-11-2011, 04:42 PM
Okay, you win. if that chart is accurate, it looks like 2010 had the second highest annual average satellite measured temperature of the lower atmosphere in the last 32 years. Congrats, you've done it. You've proven the left's entire global warming position is true.

The global temperature average of any given year neither proves nor disproves the global warming position. I offer this thread merely as a data point.

Articulate_Ape
01-11-2011, 05:03 PM
And prior to that 32 years? Kind of sounds like the temperature on Earth fluctuates up and down giving us warmer periods and cooler periods. You know, sort of like it's been doing for millions of years?

Rockntractor
01-11-2011, 05:04 PM
The global temperature average of any given year neither proves nor disproves the global warming position. I offer this thread merely as a data point.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/EpicFail.jpg

Articulate_Ape
01-11-2011, 06:48 PM
The global temperature average of any given year neither proves nor disproves the global warming position. I offer this thread merely as a data point.

Well, at least you aren't religious about it. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
01-11-2011, 08:10 PM
The global temperature average of any given year neither proves nor disproves the global warming position. I offer this thread merely as a data point.

This is so sad picking on the little birdie in one of his most pathetic times, everything he believes in is gone, Al has forsaken him. Go little birdie, drink some ethanol and forget.:(

Constitutionally Speaking
01-11-2011, 08:28 PM
Why such a short time frame?

FlaGator
01-11-2011, 10:20 PM
Why such a short time frame?

Because the complete and utter fallacy of AGW is demonstrated for all to see if longer periods of time are being evaluated.

m00
01-11-2011, 10:31 PM
I didn't think I was being cryptic. The title of the article asks a question and the chart answers it. What is the problem? Does information about temperature trends not belong at the CU Weather Channel?

So after 12 years of global warming, why aren't we any warmer than '98?

The Night Owl
01-12-2011, 02:28 PM
So after 12 years of global warming, why aren't we any warmer than '98?

Variability.

Articulate_Ape
01-12-2011, 02:54 PM
Variability.

And when the average global temp is -8 C colder in 2020, how have you Kool-Aid drinkers decided to connect that to global warming. Surely you have discussed that doctrinal dilemma at the Councils of Copenhagen or Cancun between cocktails and conga lines?

NJCardFan
01-12-2011, 05:34 PM
Variability.

*spits iced tea all over his living room, spooking the dog*

What, what, what? Variability? That's your argument? That's your rationale for global warming? Um, temperatures have been "variable" for, I dunno, EVER? Oh, and yeah, December has been so warm that the 12" of snow we got at the end of the month was indicative of that. Not to mention the 3 snowfalls so far this new year that's a lengthy 12 days old?:rolleyes: In a year we weren't supposed to get more than 14" of snowfall in total. Yeah, global warming...at 29 degrees.


And when the average global temp is -8 C colder in 2020, how have you Kool-Aid drinkers decided to connect that to global warming. Surely you have discussed that doctrinal dilemma at the Councils of Copenhagen or Cancun between cocktails and conga lines?

Wasn't the Copenhagen one held during one of the worst coldsnaps in recorded Danish history?

Rockntractor
01-12-2011, 05:39 PM
*spits iced tea all over his living room, spooking the dog*

What, what, what? Variability? That's your argument? That's your rationale for global warming? Um, temperatures have been "variable" for, I dunno, EVER? Oh, and yeah, December has been so warm that the 12" of snow we got at the end of the month was indicative of that. Not to mention the 3 snowfalls so far this new year that's a lengthy 12 days old?:rolleyes: In a year we weren't supposed to get more than 14" of snowfall in total. Yeah, global warming...at 29 degrees.



Wasn't the Copenhagen one held during one of the worst coldsnaps in recorded Danish history?

He took my advice, he is drinking ethanol.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 10:04 AM
Knowing that its the warmest year on record doesnt really demonstrate anything... except that it was the warmest year on record.

I take that back - it does shed some warmth on the new annual winter tradition of AGW skeptic crowd, where ritual victory dances are performed and celebrations are had during cold snaps (or even just when it snows really hard), to gloat over their enemies, in surety that their beloved deity has smote Al Gore and his heretic church, once and for all.

Think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think... observe.... hopefully things are starting to click.

Articulate_Ape
01-13-2011, 10:18 AM
The only thing clicking are teeth as multitudes of people freeze to death as a result of global warming. The only heretics in this equation are those that believe what they see more than what they hear.

Rockntractor
01-13-2011, 10:19 AM
Knowing that its the wawmest yeaw on wecowd doesnt weawwy demonstwate anything... except that it was the wawmest yeaw on wecowd. I take that back - it does shed some wawmf on the new annuaw wintew twadition of AGW skeptic cwowd, whewe wituaw victowy dances awe pewfowmed and cewebwations awe had duwing cowd snaps (ow even just when it snows weawwy hawd), to gwoat ovew theiw enemies, in suwety that theiw bewoved deity has smote Aw Gowe and his hewetic chuwch, once and fow aww. Dink of wast wintew... then obsewve the gwobaw tempewatuwe... think of wast wintew... then obsewve the gwobaw tempewatuwe... think... obsewve.... hopefuwwy things awe stawting to cwick.

Yes Elmer they are starting to cwick.:rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
01-13-2011, 10:22 AM
Think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think... observe.... hopefully things are starting to click.

You're right. Last winter, we had snow in south GA. This winter we had an ice storm. I had to pour water on the doors of our vehicles to open them. There is a trend.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 10:28 AM
The only thing clicking are teeth as multitudes of people freeze to death as a result of global warming. The only heretics in this equation are those that believe what they see more than what they hear.

I heard of record summers filled with droughts and extreme temperatures all over the globe last year... events which caused much death and suffering.... and they were enough to maintain 2010 as one of the hottest on record, despite the severe winter in the northern hemisphere. What's that sound like to you?

Rockntractor
01-13-2011, 10:30 AM
I heard of record summers filled with droughts and extreme temperatures all over the globe last year... events which caused much death and suffering.... and they were enough to maintain 2010 as one of the hottest on record, despite the severe winter in the northern hemisphere. What's that sound like to you?

Weather.

The Night Owl
01-13-2011, 12:12 PM
*spits iced tea all over his living room, spooking the dog*

What, what, what? Variability? That's your argument? That's your rationale for global warming? Um, temperatures have been "variable" for, I dunno, EVER? Oh, and yeah, December has been so warm that the 12" of snow we got at the end of the month was indicative of that. Not to mention the 3 snowfalls so far this new year that's a lengthy 12 days old?:rolleyes: In a year we weren't supposed to get more than 14" of snowfall in total. Yeah, global warming...at 29 degrees.

Wasn't the Copenhagen one held during one of the worst coldsnaps in recorded Danish history?

For the sake of argument, let us assume that global warming is happening. If global warming were happening, would it preclude the possibility of cold weather? Would it preclude the possibility of global temperature decreasing or staying the same for a decade or less? The answer to both questions is no. So, why are you holding up cold snaps and short temperature trends as evidence that global warming is not happening?

Articulate_Ape
01-13-2011, 12:43 PM
For the sake of argument, let us assume that global warming is happening. If global warming were happening, would it preclude the possibility of cold weather? Would it preclude the possibility of global temperature decreasing or staying the same for a decade or less? The answer to both questions is no. So, why are you holding up cold snaps and short temperature trends as evidence that global warming is not happening?

Because that is precisely what you Warmists told everyone back before the empirical evidence forced you to rename and rework your Ponzi scheme so that any and all weather, climatic, or environmental phenomena now points to the scam formerly known as Global Warming.


However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.


The rest... (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)



True science has its foundation in the principle of falsification. Any proposed theory must have some means, whether observable or detectable in a clear way, to falsify that theory. In other words, what needs to happen to indicate that the theory is false in whole or in part? The revamped scheme of "Climate Change" offers no such falsification criteria, but quite the opposite in that all data points to their desired outcome.

Not one voice from among the proponents who suckle at the financial teat of this ruse has offered a point of falsification (i.e. What needs to happen before they say, "Oops, never mind"?) So, I will ask you. What observable phenomenon(a) would convince you that AGW is not occurring?

I'm listening.

Bailey
01-13-2011, 12:56 PM
Because that is precisely what you Warmists told everyone back before the empirical evidence forced you to rename and rework your Ponzi scheme so that any and all weather, climatic, or environmental phenomena now points to the scam formerly known as Global Warming.




The rest... (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)



True science has its foundation in the principle of falsification. Any proposed theory must have some means, whether observable or detectable in a clear way, to falsify that theory. In other words, what needs to happen to indicate that the theory is false in whole or in part? The revamped scheme of "Climate Change" offers no such falsification criteria, but quite the opposite in that all data points to their desired outcome.

Not one voice from among the proponents who suckle at the financial teat of this ruse has offered a point of falsification (i.e. What needs to happen before they say, "Oops, never mind"?) So, I will ask you. What observable phenomenon(a) would convince you that AGW is not occurring?

I'm listening.

I dont think I've read a bigger logical beat down ever, almost like getting curbed stomped.. :D

Wei Wu Wei
01-13-2011, 02:17 PM
Because that is precisely what you Warmists told everyone back before the empirical evidence forced you to rename and rework your Ponzi scheme so that any and all weather, climatic, or environmental phenomena now points to the scam formerly known as Global Warming.




The rest... (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)



True science has its foundation in the principle of falsification. Any proposed theory must have some means, whether observable or detectable in a clear way, to falsify that theory. In other words, what needs to happen to indicate that the theory is false in whole or in part? The revamped scheme of "Climate Change" offers no such falsification criteria, but quite the opposite in that all data points to their desired outcome.

Not one voice from among the proponents who suckle at the financial teat of this ruse has offered a point of falsification (i.e. What needs to happen before they say, "Oops, never mind"?) So, I will ask you. What observable phenomenon(a) would convince you that AGW is not occurring?

I'm listening.

It would be falsified if the total amount of energy in it's various forms (heat, wind, ect) were showing a consistent decrease or no change over a significant period of time.

Wei Wu Wei
01-13-2011, 02:18 PM
I dont think I've read a bigger logical beat down ever, almost like getting curbed stomped.. :D

read more

Articulate_Ape
01-13-2011, 02:27 PM
It would be falsified if the total amount of energy in it's various forms (heat, wind, ect) were showing a consistent decrease or no change over a significant period of time.

Define "significant".

AmPat
01-13-2011, 03:03 PM
I'm sure that cave men from the Ice Age would agree that we are in a warming trend. I don't believe that cavemen were responsible fo rthe initiation of global warming by leaving their cars running to warm them up. I'm certain that the warming trend is going to continue throughout the spring and summer season.:cool:

wilbur
01-13-2011, 05:51 PM
Define "significant".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Articulate_Ape
01-13-2011, 05:57 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

In other words, you have no idea.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 06:06 PM
In other words, you have no idea.

No, in other words, the wiki has an in-depth explanation which tells you everything you need to know, if you're actually curious... but doesnt look like you are.

Articulate_Ape
01-13-2011, 06:36 PM
No, in other words, the wiki has an in-depth explanation which tells you everything you need to know, if you're actually curious... but doesnt look like you are.


The lower the significance level, the stronger the evidence required. Choosing level of significance is an arbitrary task, but for many applications, a level of 5% is chosen, for no better reason than that it is conventional.

It doesn't look like you know. I figured.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 07:53 PM
It doesn't look like you know. I figured.

Oh give me a break.... you thought you had a "gotcha" with your "what is significant" comment, but I called out the challenge.. I can only surmise you thought "significant" to be subjective and poorly defined, but it has a specific, objective, precise meaning in statistics.

And I have had similar debates over 'statistical significance' several times over, with CU's biggest all-time douche (Sonnabend), over the Peter Jones interview when he made comments about 'statistically significant warming' in the past 14 years. And not to mention, I am trained in statistics (the basics at least) so I do know what it means...

But even if you STILL don't want to believe that I know what it means... it's really irrelevant at this point. Now you know what it means, and now you should see that your earlier question "what is significance" is not only answered, but completely moot.

Rockntractor
01-13-2011, 07:55 PM
And not to mention, I am trained in statistics (the basics at least) so I do know what it means...



Trained by who, where?

wilbur
01-13-2011, 07:57 PM
Trained by who, where?

One of those crazy, evil universities!!!

Rockntractor
01-13-2011, 07:58 PM
One of those crazy, evil universities!!!

Which one Wilbur, what was the course?

Articulate_Ape
01-13-2011, 07:59 PM
One of those crazy, evil universities!!!

You have failed.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 07:59 PM
Which one Wilbur, what was the course?

Sorry, that's a little too personal for an internet forum.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 08:00 PM
You have failed.

Actually, I passed all of my stats courses with excellent grades. :D

Rockntractor
01-13-2011, 08:00 PM
Sorry, that's a little too personal for an internet forum.

The name of a school and a course, hardly.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 08:06 PM
The name of a school and a course, hardly.

You'd be surprised... not to mention there isnt a single good reason why you need to know.

Rockntractor
01-13-2011, 08:19 PM
You'd be surprised... not to mention there isnt a single good reason why you need to know.

Credibility, I guess you don't want it. You set yourself up all the time as somehow qualified to dictate this subject to us, yet when asked, you show no qualifications.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 08:22 PM
Credibility, I guess you don't want it. You set yourself up all the time as somehow qualified to dictate this subject to us, yet when asked, you show no qualifications.

I could easily just lie and peruse the course catalog at any university and post bullshit... if you don't believe me in other circumstances why would you believe that?

Rockntractor
01-13-2011, 08:23 PM
I could easily just lie and peruse the course catalog at any university and post bullshit... if you don't believe me in other circumstances why would you believe that?
I'm betting you read Al Gore's book, and slept at a Holiday inn!

NJCardFan
01-14-2011, 01:41 AM
For the sake of argument, let us assume that global warming is happening. If global warming were happening, would it preclude the possibility of cold weather? Would it preclude the possibility of global temperature decreasing or staying the same for a decade or less? The answer to both questions is no. So, why are you holding up cold snaps and short temperature trends as evidence that global warming is not happening?

Hey dick teeth, it's 12 degrees right now. And...

Macau: Coldest January in 30 years (http://www.macaudailytimes.com.mo/macau/21098-Coldest-January-years.html)

Accuweather: Coldest January since 1985 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110104/us_nm/us_weather_usa_cold)

Not to mention we had record snowfall last winter. And if global warming was happening, cold weather and record snowfalls would not be happening, genius. That's why it's called warming.



No, in other words, the wiki has an in-depth explanation which tells you everything you need to know, if you're actually curious... but doesnt look like you are.
You're looking to wikipedia to prove your point? Really?

NJCardFan
01-14-2011, 01:49 AM
You'd be surprised... not to mention there isnt a single good reason why you need to know.
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. If I had gone to such a prestigious university and actually graduated, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you what it was. You have been weighed, measured, and been found wanting. You're credibility, like Wee's, in floating around a cesspool somewhere.

wilbur
01-14-2011, 09:03 AM
You're looking to wikipedia to prove your point? Really?

Oh Jesus... you guys and your Wikipedia bashing. The blanket dismissal of Wikipedia articles when they cause your side to loose face in discussions, with no attempt to provide more reliable sources or address the content in any way, is as pathetic as it is transparent.

And guess what? Wiki has a particularly excellent record for being reliable on the more analytical subjects... like math, logic, comp sci, etc.

Beyond that, Wiki has a good record of reliability in general - its been found to a comparable error rate to print dictionaries, while having ~12 times the content per article. Obviously, you have to look at it with the usual caveats in mind, but all and all, its likely that any piece of information you read from it, is pretty accurate.

You obviously have to go to primary sources for term papers and research... but its perfectly fine for CU - especially considering that your average wiki article is going to be orders of magnitude more accurate than anything you hear from a pundit, or anything you read from news articles that get posted around here (and usually taken at face value - (liberal or conservative media). In fact, the negative opinion I'm willing to be most of you have about Wikipedia is based on little more than well-poisoning on the part of punditry and news outlets who want a monopoly on the information you trust.

So put up or shut up - address the content, provide a source of your own on statistical significance, or accept the Wiki article as accurate.

And good grief... statistical significance is a rather mundane and fundamental concept in statistics.... its not a matter of political controversy, its not a matter of opinion...

The Night Owl
01-14-2011, 09:20 AM
Trained by who, where?

Starfleet Academy. Duh! Look at the uniform.

:D

Rockntractor
01-14-2011, 09:43 AM
Starfleet Academy. Duh! Look at the uniform.

:D

Fine qualifications!:D

wilbur
01-14-2011, 10:23 AM
Starfleet Academy. Duh! Look at the uniform.

:D

haha

Wei Wu Wei
01-14-2011, 04:02 PM
Hey dick teeth, it's 12 degrees right now. And...

Macau: Coldest January in 30 years (http://www.macaudailytimes.com.mo/macau/21098-Coldest-January-years.html)

Accuweather: Coldest January since 1985 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110104/us_nm/us_weather_usa_cold)

Not to mention we had record snowfall last winter. And if global warming was happening, cold weather and record snowfalls would not be happening, genius. That's why it's called warming.


Listen up genius: increased heat in the atmosphere doesn't have to remain heat, energy changes forms all the time, that's what climate is.

Heat energy changes air pressure, and is converted into wind energy - kinetic energy. One cool thing that increased wind and changes in air pressure can do is move lots of snow to places that don't normally get that much snow.

I was going to horribly mock you for this but I'm nearly at a loss for words I can't even make this funny all I can think of is how terrible your posting is. This is seriously on par with: "hurf durf if evolution is real why are there monkeys??" or "if evolution is real how come i've never seen a fish turn into a man?!?"

Rebel Yell
01-14-2011, 04:08 PM
http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo133/NickBurns2006/random%20forum/jar_jar_we_gonna_die.jpg

Articulate_Ape
01-14-2011, 04:11 PM
Listen up genius: increased heat in the atmosphere doesn't have to remain heat, energy changes forms all the time, that's what climate is.

Heat energy changes air pressure, and is converted into wind energy - kinetic energy. One cool thing that increased wind and changes in air pressure can do is move lots of snow to places that don't normally get that much snow.




Then why did y'all tell everyone that snow was going to go the way of the dodo 10 years ago when a couple of mild winters hit, then do an about face when it started snowing like hell? You can pray at your altar for people to have short memories, but the only ones who forget the "evolution" of this hoax are those still trying to stack the deck (aka you).

Wei Wu Wei
01-14-2011, 04:15 PM
I didn't tell anyone anything.

You're talking to a made up homogenization of every Other into a congealed enemy called "liberals". There's no group, there's no club, there's no beehive or whatever you imagine in your paranoid delusions. We don't have meetings or compare notes, I'm not responsible for what anyone else says, and there's an extreme amount of diversity and heterogeneity amongst people who disagree with you.

This is just like pretending that everyone who shares your first name are actually the same individual.

Articulate_Ape
01-14-2011, 04:20 PM
I didn't tell anyone anything.

You're talking to a made up homogenization of every Other into a congealed enemy called "liberals". There's no group, there's no club, there's no beehive or whatever you imagine in your paranoid delusions. We don't have meetings or compare notes, I'm not responsible for what anyone else says, and there's an extreme amount of diversity and heterogeneity amongst people who disagree with you.

This is just like pretending that everyone who shares your first name are actually the same individual.

So, what are you going to tell your grandkids when you are sitting around in your igloo gnawing on the frozen flamingos you had to chisel out of the ice and they ask you if you were part of that whole Global Warming cult that showed up as the end of the last century? Have you come up with an alibi so they won't point and laugh?

Gingersnap
01-14-2011, 04:50 PM
http://i53.tinypic.com/8yhxkh.jpg

Sorry, but I was required to post this Nelson pic by the Friday Afternoon Rules. :D

Sonnabend
01-14-2011, 05:34 PM
I heard of record summers filled with droughts and extreme temperatures all over the globe last year... events which caused much death and suffering...and none of which can ever be PROVEN to be anything else than that thing called "the weather" There is no conclusive proof nor will there ever be that AGW had anything to do with it..this is your usual crap, point to some event and claim its AGW, yet when asked to PROVE that...you can't.

I will issue you the same challenge I did a while back.

Pick any event in the world, anywhere in the last.....forty years. Prove conclusively that that event was totally and incontrovertibly due to AGW and nothing else.

Can't be that hard now, can it?


... and they were enough to maintain 2010 as one of the hottest on record, despite the severe winter in the northern hemisphere. What's that sound like to you?The weather.

fettpett
01-14-2011, 09:19 PM
I guess the fact that the Ozone layer in Antarctica hasn't killed us and helps regulate the Earths temperature, that there aren't the heave cloud layer that was predicted in fact we've had somewhat fewer clouds. And the biggest thing that we are coming out of the a fucking "Ice Age"...one that dumped SNOW in JULY in 1816 and yes i'm going to bring up a point 200 years ago because it's relevant when talking about Global historical patterns that last thousands of years and not decades.

hell there were warming periods that far exceeded what we've experienced in the last 200 years, 50,000 years ago.

And guess what? Warmer weather is GOOD, more plants can grow and you get more precipitation bringing in bigger yields. I live in Western Michigan in an area that has a lot of fruit growers...they've had bumper crops because of the weather to the point that the prices that they get fall so far they can't sell them and have to let them rot.

Global Warming happens but WE as HUMANS are NOT the cause.

AmPat
01-15-2011, 01:28 PM
For the sake of argument, let us assume that global warming is happening. If global warming were happening, would it preclude the possibility of cold weather? Would it preclude the possibility of global temperature decreasing or staying the same for a decade or less? The answer to both questions is no. So, why are you holding up cold snaps and short temperature trends as evidence that global warming is not happening?

For the sake of argument, let us assume that global warming is not happening. If global warming were not happening, would it include the possibility of both warm and cold weather? Would it include the possibility of global temperature increasing, decreasing or staying the same for a decade or less? The answer to all questions is yes. So, why are you holding up cold snaps and short temperature trends as evidence that global warming is happening?:cool:

djones520
01-15-2011, 02:07 PM
I'm jumping a little late into this, but I'm curious where this was measured from. Europe and western Asia has one of the coldest decembers on record. When I was in Kygryzstan, two days in a row, we shattered the previous minimum temp record. It was so cold that when you looked at IR imagery, the ground looked like a mass of cirrus. For layman, that's really frikken cold.

Articulate_Ape
01-15-2011, 02:24 PM
I'm jumping a little late into this, but I'm curious where this was measured from.



Above Al Gore's mansion.

fettpett
01-15-2011, 02:53 PM
Above Al Gore's mansion.

there is a lot of hot air up there

The Night Owl
01-15-2011, 03:00 PM
I'm jumping a little late into this, but I'm curious where this was measured from. Europe and western Asia has one of the coldest decembers on record. When I was in Kygryzstan, two days in a row, we shattered the previous minimum temp record. It was so cold that when you looked at IR imagery, the ground looked like a mass of cirrus. For layman, that's really frikken cold.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

Sonnabend
01-15-2011, 11:12 PM
TNO

Pick any event in the world, anywhere in the last.....forty years. Prove conclusively that that event was totally and incontrovertibly due to AGW and nothing else.

Waiting.

The Night Owl
01-16-2011, 01:57 PM
TNO

Pick any event in the world, anywhere in the last.....forty years. Prove conclusively that that event was totally and incontrovertibly due to AGW and nothing else.

Waiting.


Well, that's easy. The global temperature increase over the past 40 years-- not explainable except with AGW.

Sonnabend
01-17-2011, 02:19 AM
Well, that's easy. The global temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature) increase over the past 40 years-- not explainable except with AGW...and you can prove this...how? I said incontrovertible proof. I want facts not fallacies. You have not explained how ANY OTHER FACTOR could not be involved, nor have you given anything with which to back up this unproven assumption.

I said


Prove conclusively that that event was totally and incontrovertibly due to AGW and nothing else.

What part of "proof" dont you understand?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 09:07 AM
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

You can't even grasp the basic principles and believes of Christianity and yet you expect people to believe that you can understand something as complex as long term weather forecasting? I'm not even sure if can adequately grasp the function of a laundry list.

Pulpfishin
01-19-2011, 04:09 PM
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

I would have to question the validity of the data, NASA has had problems with this in the past.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aBBQO5XgLQu4

"NASA Fixes Data; 1934 Ousts 1998 as Hottest U.S. Year"

But wait, theres more.....

World temperature data?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/

"Data pages are in the process of being rebuilt."

The data pages are in the process of being rebuilt???????

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

value-added, quality controlled, and homogenised data - "We fixed it to ensure our grant was approved"

Funny how those institutions and agencies that depend on public funding seem to continuously have “problems” with their data in support of AGW theory.

Billions of dollars of funding is on the line for these people, and they will do ANYTHING to keep the money flowing in!

How much funding do you think they would receive if their AGW was disproven?

If you really want to debate this in depth, I'm your hucklberry!

A word of warning, you don’t have a big enough gun to bring to this fight. I recommend you bring a pen and paper so that you can take notes and learn something.

I hold a bachelors degree in Environmental Management (1994) and a masters in Environmental Science (1996), and have over 20 years experience as an environmental professional.

AWG is a theory, and a very weak theory at that.
It is simply a revenue scheme that has been cooked up by some of the richest companies and people in the world.

Hit me with your best shot.

The Night Owl
01-19-2011, 05:24 PM
I would have to question the validity of the data, NASA has had problems with this in the past.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aBBQO5XgLQu4

"NASA Fixes Data; 1934 Ousts 1998 as Hottest U.S. Year"

You're talking about an insignificant error. The difference between mean temperatures for 1934 and 1998 is a few hundreths of a degree-- a statistically insignifcant difference.

Articulate_Ape
01-19-2011, 05:41 PM
You're talking about an insignificant error. The difference between mean temperatures for 1934 and 1998 is a few hundreths of a degree-- a statistically insignifcant difference.

So it cooled off between 1934 and 1998? That is quite remarkable given that industrialization (i.e. man-made CO2 generation) expanded exponentially in the years between. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too?

The Night Owl
01-19-2011, 09:28 PM
So it cooled off between 1934 and 1998? That is quite remarkable given that industrialization (i.e. man-made CO2 generation) expanded exponentially in the years between. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too?

Just read...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that

Pulpfishin
01-20-2011, 12:46 PM
You're talking about an insignificant error. The difference between mean temperatures for 1934 and 1998 is a few hundreths of a degree-- a statistically insignifcant difference.

Ahhh, the typical "minimize" the "error" approach.

The data is flawed, and flawed intentionally.

“Insignificant” only describes your ability to comprehend what I have pointed out.

NASA received a 38.5 million dollar increase for their Earth Science group (EOS - Earth Observing System) for 1999 based on their 1998 “monumental discovery”.

As I pointed out, it’s all about money, and $38.5 million is DAMN FAR from “insignificant”!

In addition, next time you want to post a reference “validating” your point, try using one that is not quite so biased by monetary gain.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists



Now let’s get down to the “nut-cuttin”.

How did we get a Global Mean Temperature (GMT) with an accuracy of ±0.14°C in 1880?

Do a little research on the historical accuracy of thermometers and tell me how accurate the first 90 years of their data is.

Even today mercury thermometers are very difficult to read the scale with accuracy better than the degree marks themselves, and their precision, at best, is ±0.2°C.

The temperatures listed by EVERY institute are ALL based on statistical models that “reconstruct" the extremely sparse historical data using modern correlations projected backward for 100 years.

Those models actually contain a vast amount of PURELY hypothetical presumptions for those areas where no readings were ever recorded until the mid 50s.

We can easily surmise that the accuracy of the majority of the data used in the models has an accuracy at minimal double what they utilized in their models based on the accuracy of thermometers manufactured in today’s modern facilities.

If you apply ±0.28°C the GMT profiles, they become damn near FLAT!

They skew the data in their favor, and they do it intentionally!

badswing
01-20-2011, 01:15 PM
I heard of record summers filled with droughts and extreme temperatures all over the globe last year... events which caused much death and suffering.... and they were enough to maintain 2010 as one of the hottest on record, despite the severe winter in the northern hemisphere. What's that sound like to you?
give me your estimate on how much hotter it is since 1900.

The Night Owl
01-20-2011, 01:42 PM
Ahhh, the typical "minimize" the "error" approach.

The data is flawed, and flawed intentionally.

“Insignificant” only describes your ability to comprehend what I have pointed out.

In what way was the error significant?

Articulate_Ape
01-20-2011, 01:45 PM
Just read...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that

That doesn't address my point in any way. It merely reaffirms that there was a "dip" in mean temperature during a period of enormous industrial expansion. You better go to a few more re-education meetings so your pastor can set you straight.

Zafod
01-20-2011, 01:59 PM
Knowing that its the warmest year on record doesnt really demonstrate anything... except that it was the warmest year on record.

I take that back - it does shed some warmth on the new annual winter tradition of AGW skeptic crowd, where ritual victory dances are performed and celebrations are had during cold snaps (or even just when it snows really hard), to gloat over their enemies, in surety that their beloved deity has smote Al Gore and his heretic church, once and for all.

Think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think... observe.... hopefully things are starting to click.

behold, a giant vagina speaking!!!!

Zafod
01-20-2011, 02:06 PM
http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo133/NickBurns2006/random%20forum/jar_jar_we_gonna_die.jpg

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

badswing
01-20-2011, 02:23 PM
"wikipedia's climate change doctors: which spoke of a group of radical climate change believers who in an attempt to remove the “Medieval Warm Period” from existence and to instead jam the hockey stick up our ass, coordinated efforts to alter Wikipedia’s climate change pages. One person in ths nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist, William Connolley, created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.

Since he and his cohorts were exposed by Lawrence Soloman in the Financial Post, fair and balanced Wikipedia members have been trying to correct the pages. But, Connolley and his brethren are back. And so are their distortions. Soloman said in his December 23 followup that in the three days following his expose, the Wikipedia page for the Medieval Warm Period, as an example, was changed 50 times in battles between Connolley’s crew and others.

The “rediscovery” of the Medieval Warm Period (through data and the doubting global warming scientists themselves, as revealed in the now famous climategate emails) has since widely discredited hockey stick graph, the supreme icon of the global warming religion. As you can imagine, the fight over this graph is the of the hottest battles. And the propagandists at Wikipedia have triumphed–the graph appears at the top of the page for the Medieval Warm Period, as if “the science is settled” still.

Battles over this and many other pages ensued, until finally the Medieval Warm period page, along with many others, were froze from future edits. The hockey stick is intact, as is much other invalid information
blah blah blah....

badswing
01-20-2011, 02:29 PM
Knowing that its the warmest year on record doesnt really demonstrate anything... except that it was the warmest year on record.

I take that back - it does shed some warmth on the new annual winter tradition of AGW skeptic crowd, where ritual victory dances are performed and celebrations are had during cold snaps (or even just when it snows really hard), to gloat over their enemies, in surety that their beloved deity has smote Al Gore and his heretic church, once and for all.

Think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think of last winter... then observe the global temperature... think... observe.... hopefully things are starting to click.
not sure of your point....it hasn't been statistically warmer for 12-15 years. in the last 110 years it has only increased by .7 degrees and probably that .7 was erased in the last 12.

badswing
01-20-2011, 02:37 PM
Just read...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that

realclimate is the real problem. its like asking the wolf what happened to the chickens. when he says nothing you say 'o.k.'

Molon Labe
01-20-2011, 04:16 PM
It's an agenda


the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud


It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. - Professor Harold Lewis


http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/1687-professor-hal-lewis-joins-the-gwpf.html

m00
01-21-2011, 01:38 AM
TNO - why do you believe in Global Warming?

PoliCon
01-22-2011, 11:03 PM
Remember 10 years ago when the alarmists told us that we're going to lose our winters?

2002:

"Global warming threatens future Winter Olympic Games because it is resulting in less snow, and shorter and warmer winters," said Jonathan Lash, WRI president, during a press conference held at Salt Lake City today. "Just as Salt Lake has done, we urge potential host cities to seriously consider the consequences of global warming in planning future Winter Olympic Games."
http://archive.wri.org/news.cfm?id=22

NJCardFan
01-23-2011, 02:51 AM
It's 11 degrees right now(up from 10 degrees an hour ago). Global warming is a real bitch.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 12:05 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

This graph shows the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised in 2008. It clearly shows that natural climate variability happens, and these proxies coincide with known events in human history.

Loehle also published in 2008 a paper that described why tree rings can not be trusted as a proxy for past temperature variations. Tree ring data have what is called a “divergence problem” in the late 20th Century where the tree ring data data suggests cooling, when in fact there has been warming. This, by itself, should cast serious doubt on whether tree ring reconstructions (such as Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” curve) can be used to estimate past global temperature variability.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/