brenthutch 388
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,436
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>>In general, yes. 2000-2010 is the warmest decade on record. On a
>>season to season basis, no.
>Not really, bill.
============
Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
By 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.
=============
>Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, not one model predicted
>the last 10 plus years of pause in warming that occurred without volcanic
> activity or strong la nina.
True. Nor did anyone predict the pause in GW from 1945-1975 - at least until they learned what high altitude aerosols do to insolation. Once they did learn about that effect, they realized that the basics of AGW were in fact valid, and an external factor they hadn't considered was causing a reduction in total insolation.
>Yes. AGW as a theory makes sense. Yes, you can demonstrate CO2
>warming in the lab. I get that.
Agreed.
>But if that were the case, then we would have seen between .2 and .8
>degrees C warming in the last decade considering the increase in CO2
>concetrations. It didn't happen.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions there. How much positive forcing occurred because of increased methane emissions? How much negative feedback did we get from increased snowfall and clouds? What effect did the reduced insolation from the low solar cycle we had over the last 11 years have?
More than one thing affects climate. That's why AGW effects are often described as "forcing" because it is one of the forces that affect the climate. Barring any other effects it will get warmer. Including other effects it will _tend_ to get warmer over time, but other factors will have their say as well.
>and I'll put my money on, "yep. It's real. But it's not looking as bad
>as they said."
Agreed. Nor is it as benign as the deniers claim.
>>season to season basis, no.
>Not really, bill.
============
Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
By 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.
=============
>Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, not one model predicted
>the last 10 plus years of pause in warming that occurred without volcanic
> activity or strong la nina.
True. Nor did anyone predict the pause in GW from 1945-1975 - at least until they learned what high altitude aerosols do to insolation. Once they did learn about that effect, they realized that the basics of AGW were in fact valid, and an external factor they hadn't considered was causing a reduction in total insolation.
>Yes. AGW as a theory makes sense. Yes, you can demonstrate CO2
>warming in the lab. I get that.
Agreed.
>But if that were the case, then we would have seen between .2 and .8
>degrees C warming in the last decade considering the increase in CO2
>concetrations. It didn't happen.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions there. How much positive forcing occurred because of increased methane emissions? How much negative feedback did we get from increased snowfall and clouds? What effect did the reduced insolation from the low solar cycle we had over the last 11 years have?
More than one thing affects climate. That's why AGW effects are often described as "forcing" because it is one of the forces that affect the climate. Barring any other effects it will get warmer. Including other effects it will _tend_ to get warmer over time, but other factors will have their say as well.
>and I'll put my money on, "yep. It's real. But it's not looking as bad
>as they said."
Agreed. Nor is it as benign as the deniers claim.
kallend 1,651
Not been paying attention, have you?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 388
I have, the war is over, science has triumphed!
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,380103,00.html?[url]
"The 'climate establishment', with a vested interest in maintaining climate scares and fanning fears, is desperately trying to save the IPCC and the AGW myth. A number of 'investigations' have been started, mostly trying to excuse IPCC errors and 'whitewash' the frauds committed. The latest such effort involves national science academies, called on by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. But it's too late: the public no longer trusts the UN, the IPCC, and its prophets of doom."
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,380103,00.html?[url]
"The 'climate establishment', with a vested interest in maintaining climate scares and fanning fears, is desperately trying to save the IPCC and the AGW myth. A number of 'investigations' have been started, mostly trying to excuse IPCC errors and 'whitewash' the frauds committed. The latest such effort involves national science academies, called on by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. But it's too late: the public no longer trusts the UN, the IPCC, and its prophets of doom."
rushmc 18
Quote>>In general, yes. 2000-2010 is the warmest decade on record. On a
>>season to season basis, no.
>Not really, bill.
============
Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
By 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.
=============
>Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, not one model predicted
>the last 10 plus years of pause in warming that occurred without volcanic
> activity or strong la nina.
True. Nor did anyone predict the pause in GW from 1945-1975 - at least until they learned what high altitude aerosols do to insolation. Once they did learn about that effect, they realized that the basics of AGW were in fact valid, and an external factor they hadn't considered was causing a reduction in total insolation.
>Yes. AGW as a theory makes sense. Yes, you can demonstrate CO2
>warming in the lab. I get that.
Agreed.
>But if that were the case, then we would have seen between .2 and .8
>degrees C warming in the last decade considering the increase in CO2
>concetrations. It didn't happen.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions there. How much positive forcing occurred because of increased methane emissions? How much negative feedback did we get from increased snowfall and clouds? What effect did the reduced insolation from the low solar cycle we had over the last 11 years have?
More than one thing affects climate. That's why AGW effects are often described as "forcing" because it is one of the forces that affect the climate. Barring any other effects it will get warmer. Including other effects it will _tend_ to get warmer over time, but other factors will have their say as well.
>and I'll put my money on, "yep. It's real. But it's not looking as bad
>as they said."
Agreed. Nor is it as benign as the deniers claim.
So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
you can chose your own source
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&q=nasa%20data%20worse&sa=N&tab=wn
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&q=nasa%20data%20worse&sa=N&tab=wn
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,651
Quote
So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
No, that is NOT what NASA stated. It is what some right wing sources misinterpreted NASA's statement to say.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
No, that is NOT what NASA stated. It is what some right wing sources misinterpreted NASA's statement to say.
Hi kallend
still avoiding reality I see
Have a nice day
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,436
>So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month
>that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
The same way you maintain your beliefs that climate change ended in 1998 I imagine.
>that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
The same way you maintain your beliefs that climate change ended in 1998 I imagine.
kallend 1,651
QuoteQuoteQuote
So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
No, that is NOT what NASA stated. It is what some right wing sources misinterpreted NASA's statement to say.
Hi kallend
still avoiding reality I see
Have a nice day
Please provide a link to the NASA statement where they stated that their data "sucks". Not to a right wing blog or to FOX, but to the original source.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
QuoteBy its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
Just in case
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
No, that is NOT what NASA stated. It is what some right wing sources misinterpreted NASA's statement to say.
Hi kallend
still avoiding reality I see
Have a nice day
Please provide a link to the NASA statement where they stated that their data "sucks". Not to a right wing blog or to FOX, but to the original source.
There is no source out there you will pay attention to if it goes against your predeterminded world view
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
Quote>So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month
>that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
The same way you maintain your beliefs that climate change ended in 1998 I imagine.
Ahhhh
so we can assume bad data is good data if you agree it
Thats cool.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,651
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
So how do you square this against the fact that NASA stated last month that their data sucks and that they know they have problems with it?
No, that is NOT what NASA stated. It is what some right wing sources misinterpreted NASA's statement to say.
Hi kallend
still avoiding reality I see
Have a nice day
Please provide a link to the NASA statement where they stated that their data "sucks". Not to a right wing blog or to FOX, but to the original source.
There is no source out there you will pay attention to if it goes against your predeterminded world view
I would believe a NASA press release on the issue, rather than FOX NEWS's interpretation of it. Is there some part of "original" that you don't understand?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,436
>so we can assume bad data is good data if you agree it
Nope. Nice try though. Perhaps you could throw an Al Gore attack in next; they're always popular with the denier crowd.
Nope. Nice try though. Perhaps you could throw an Al Gore attack in next; they're always popular with the denier crowd.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-06/arctic-sea-ice-melting-season-posts-latest-start-on-record.html[url]
The next few years will be a lot of fun as the Warmists will be forced to develop increasingly sophisticated mental gymnastics to deal with the basic fact that the globe is now cooling.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites