Hattip: BrotherDoc (again). NASA reports (scientifically based, so some of you may want to avert your gaze) that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. The next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, "which are statistically tied for third warmest year." The scientific measurements only go back to 1880, so there's wiggle room -- natch! -- for you global climate change deniers.Said the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, "Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature."
23 comments:
Are we talking about the same NASA whose own emails discredited the information they put forth on Global warming?
Oh snap! Wouldn't you know the first one on here would be a denier!
As predictable as the next televangelist coming out of the closet.
You mean a realist that pays attention. How many inches of global warming have fallen this year? If you guys were Eskimos, you would buy snow balls.
amused: its actually called climate change for that reason. Global warming is an average. too complicated?
The global climate model predicts more storms, bigger storms, and more moisture in the storms. Changes in the ocean salinity from melting ice could also disrupt the currents and throw Europe back into an ice age condition. It ain't as simple as the Fox "news" pundits proclaim.
Just wondering - Can you cite the source of what you said?
If the organization has a history of releasing not only false information, but knowingly doing so, nothing it releases can be trusted. Averages have nothing to do with this.
Do you comprehend, or is that to complicated?
Brushfire, the release of these falsified documents was on every news organization. If want to revisit the issue, look for the links yourself.
I don't follow the logic of those who have posted here saying that if one NASA official is caught making false statements we therefore cannot believe anything NASA says. That is senseless. I Googled around and found that a couple of months ago a former NASA official was convicted of fraudlently awarding some contracts--this happened during Dubya's administration, BTW. http://www.fedmanager.com/article.php?ID=1942
The case has nothing to do with climate change.
brotherdoc,
I don't think it's so much that as it is the fact that some scientists were revealed as advocates, willing to falsify evidence and intimidate those who questioned their bad scientific practices.
I think science and religion can coexist in this world just fine, but I don't appreciate religious leaders who pretend to be scientists, and I don't appreciate scientists who treat their fields of study as religion.
When one cannot question some thing without being called a heretic, the thing is no longer science. It is religion.
FYI the NASA finding has been confirmed by NOAA, and the Weather Channel has posted the story on its website:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/warmest-year-2010-record_2011-01-14
Science or a government plot? You choose (I can guess which a lot of you will pick).
I don't know of any problems with NASA data either. There was a manufactured hoohaw about some stolen emails from a British university that raised a big fuss on certain "news" channels. There was an independent investigation that thoroughly cleared the scientists of any bias or improper behavior. You may find the relevant summary of results on page 11. I wonder why the results of the investigation were not trumpeted as loudly and frequently as the so-called scandal?
Then you didn't look hard enough.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24
http://island-adv.com/2010/05/nasa-covers-up-global-warming-hoax-for-forty-years/
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5581
I don't know why you couldn't find anything. These took about 30 seconds.
Brushfire,
From Wikipedia article on Muir Russell:
"In December 2009 he was appointed to head an independent investigation[4][5] into allegations concerning the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. The inquiry reported on 7th July 2010, largely clearing the UEA of the allegations. However, the panel also concluded the scientists were insufficiently open about their work and unhelpful and defensive in response to freedom of information requests. [1]. Critics characterized the Russell Report as a "whitewash" [6]
Brushfire, I know the front of the review has the word "Independent" on it, but if you believe everything you read, there is a news channel known as Fox that would love to add you to its fan base. :)
We do not have to look overseas to see how global warming advocates have taken something that could be science and turned it into religion. In fact, we need look no farther or further than the first two posts in this thread, as it beautifully illustrates the religiosity of the movement. Let's revisit the top of this thread, shall we?
Just wondering asks: "Are we talking about the same NASA whose own emails discredited the information they put forth on Global warming?"
Henery replies: "Oh snap! Wouldn't you know the first one on here would be a denier!"
You see? An individual questions scientific data and is immediately labeled as a heretic. That is not how science works.
I did rather enjoy he second part of Henery's post, as it was inadvertently honest: "As predictable as the next televangelist coming out of the closet."
Yes, indeed, Henery, a televangelist immediately coming out of the closet to accuse the heretic has become highly predictable.
ITTRTLS - Your first citation is from a blog that claims NASA released revised data showing that recorded temperatures were highest in the 1930's. Here is the actual information on the NASA website.
The second citation was a blog containing a bunch of meaningless BS. (Maybe you can explain what the hell they were saying?) The last citation is again a blog - using a partial cherry-picked fragment of the IPCC report - to dispute their predictions. They left out the sentence where the report suggests that indisputable data will not become obvious for several decades. Of course by that time the tipping point will have been passed. Not one of these blogs deals with or demonstrates any understanding of the basic science. And no one can explain why it's so important that we risk destroying civilization by our continued reliance on dirty, dangerous, fossil fuels that are controlled by Arabs!!!
Even if it were only 50% of scientists who believe the models; wouldn't that be enough to take action now?
Mike- When someone questions scientific date that is accepted by most of the scientific community, they must present powerful evidence to support their claims. The old saying goes - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It was long believed that gastric ulcers were caused by stress. There were two young doctors who believed ulcers were caused by bacteria. They were not taken seriously until they presented clear and convincing evidence (by actually swallowing the germ) in support of their hypothesis. They subsequently won the Nobel Prize.
The basic physics of the greenhouse effect are not in dispute. The fact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not in dispute. The models created by all the major research organizations show a potential catastrophe in the making. Anyone who claims that 90% of climate science is wrong - had best present some overwhelming evidence in order to be taken seriously. Science requires evidence. Not one of the deniers can present evidence that disproves the current theory.
"When someone questions scientific date(sic) that is accepted by most of the scientific community, they must present powerful evidence to support their claims."
Brushfire,
I can do that, but I honestly don't know whether the data is accurate or not, so please understand... I am not a global warming atheist. I am a global warming agnostic.
So here is the root of my concern about the data. It has to do with statistical sampling. Seventy years ago, thermometers were filled with mercury. Seventy years ago, we were worried about cruise ships hitting icebergs and sinking. Seventy years ago, blimps were flying around with hydrogen gas in them. Seventy years ago, only a small handful of people had entered the regions we now call the arctic and antarctic. Seventy years ago, there were virtually no weather buoys stationed around various parts of the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans. Seventy years ago there was no Weather Channel. There was no NASA. There was no NOAA. Seventy years ago, people were lucky to get their weather forecasts on the radio, but more often, they got weather forecasts from the newspaper. When hurricanes arrived, they had very little time to prepare, and they certainly didn't know the central pressure, the wind speed, the diameter of hurricane force winds, or the direction of the storm!
So, in order to compare the high-tech digital readings and real-time information collected today from tens of thousands of locations which span the globe, complicated algorithms (or perhaps 'Al-Gore-ithms') must be designed. And when the same people who write those algorithms have billions of dollars invested in an industry whose success and growth depends on the results of the comparison turning out certain results, I am not sorry to say that I am a more than a little bit skeptical of the methodology of the research and the results.
Do you not accept that this, combined with obvious attempts to silence any dissent, constitutes legitimate ground upon which to question the conclusions of those involved?
Do you not accept that this, combined with obvious attempts to silence any dissent, constitutes legitimate ground upon which to question the conclusions of those involved?
Not on this blog which is censored so the left doesn't look so foolish.
Mike - When I took my first college science classes in the 70's, we learned about the potential problems of increased CO2 emissions. Predictions were made, and in the years since, those predictions are coming true. I don't know what you mean about algorithms or how anyone stands to profit from them. If you could educate me about that, I would appreciate it. But algorithms have nothing to do with the simple fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is increasing in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels. The data showing warming comes from many branches of science, from biology, to geography and geology. The actual history of this issue goes back to the the 1800's and it was in the 1930's that concern about possible warming effects began. This concern was not the mainstream view until the second half of this century when the weight of evidence became overwhelming. readthis
So whatever those algorithms are, they are not needed for a basic understanding of the issue. Another issue seldom mentioned is the issue of ocean acidification from carbonic acid formed when CO2 is absorbed by water. This has the potential to alter the ocean ecosystem (which supplies a huge portion of human food) significantly.
When you talk about an industry that stands to profit, what industry do you mean? No alternative energy industries are nearly as big or powerful as the fossil fuel industries.
"Do you understand that? When Al Gore goes on and on about what we must do to save the Earth, he knows – and everybody involved with the global warming alarmist movement knows – that none of their drastic proposals would have the slightest effect on global warming even if it worked the way their fantasies say it does.
So why do they propose it? There are many personal motives, of course, but when you look at the non-solution "solutions" they propose, the pattern is clear: They are not trying to stop global warming. They are trying to punish the Western democracies for being richer than the rest of the world." - Orson Scott Card
Brushfire,
If your spiritual leaders will permit you to read the heretical works of the nonbelievers, you can check out the rest of the story here.
So Mike, What exactly are you disputing? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That it is increasing? That the increased rate comes from fossil fuels? Do you claim that all that increase just magically disappears?
What do you think is happening to all the CO2 we are pumping into our atmosphere? What kind of evidence do you need to see before you are convinced that it may be harmful?
Brushfire,
The atheist disputes. The agnostic merely questions. But apparently, to the truly faithful, there is no difference, as even a mere question challenges the orthodoxy, and that cannot be tolerated.
"That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That it is increasing? That the increased rate comes from fossil fuels?"
Brushfire,
What I am saying is that the earth is overpopulated with almost seven billion, 150 pound carbon dioxide factories.
What I am saying is that your religion's attempt to justify stripping away rights from independent minded westerners might have a very slight slowing effect on the overall transformation of planet Earth before the next mini ice age, but as a cure for the root cause, the real problem, it is a laughable farce, a pathetic ruse to control people and destroy the spirit of uniqueness in our society.
The United States is slightly larger than China, but contains one fourth the number of carbon dioxide factories we call human beings. A similar ratio applies to a comparison of The United States and India. Yet your venom is spent attacking America.
Yes, yes, I know... you think we consume too much, that we are the bad guys, but do me a favor. Look at a close-up satellite photo-map like Google Earth, and scan around slowly, from Corpus Christi to Tampa, enjoying the vast, undisturbed wetlands, counting the staggering number of nature preserves. Then do the same thing along the shoreline of the South China Sea. I have a really hard time believing that your hatred of your country has anything to do with the environment. It's something else, and the environment is simply a convenient tool that works on people who don't know better, so your people exploit it.
Oh Mike - I am so disappointed in you. Argumentum ad hominem- impugning my motivation is so cheesy. Can you show any example of where I "attacked America"?
The carbon dioxide we humans and animals emit by breathing is part of the natural carbon cycle between plants and animals. This cycle has been relatively constant over the past hundred thousand years since humans have been present in significant numbers. The carbon we emit by burning fossil fuels is carbon that has been locked up underground for 250 million years or so. Is it reasonable to assume it won't change the environment? Civilization is only possible thanks to our cereal crops which have evolved (been bred) during the recent post-glacial climate. If the climate changes faster than our crops can adapt, our civilization will fall.
Do you really think we humans can't change direction if it means saving civilization for our children? What is so noble about destroying our environment? Do you think freedom really entails the right to create filth and harm for others? Do you resent the laws that forbid you to defecate in the creeks or on public lands?
And that tired canard about my "religion" is pure bs. My concerns are founded on the observations and data produced by thousands of scientists. There is nothing supernatural about the theory or the data.
You show me one data set that is disputed by some people and claim it invalidates the entire body of work.
Do you think the Piltdown skull proves that evolutionary theory is false?
Post a Comment