backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by christojojo.. on Jan 30 at 7:49 PM

James Hansen puts an interesting spin on reports of the ninth warmest year on record

2012 was a kind of glass-half full, glass half-empty year in terms of global temperature.  

I. Climate Chief: Don't Worry, We're Still Doomed

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) in-depth analysis of satellite and other forms of climate data ruled the year was the ninth warmest on record.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) independent analysis of ground and sea-based climate stations reported that the year was the tenth warmest on record.

The NASA report states that the average global temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 Celsius), which is 1.0 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline, or 1.4 F (0.6 C) warmer than the earliest comprehensive observations from the 1880s.

Still, the year marks the fifth year of a relative flatline in global temperatures after a decade in which the record was regularly broken.

Global warming proponents like James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, blame this deviation from their "doomsday" calculations on a specialized cooling phenomenon called "La Nina", which lowers temperatures in the Eastern Pacific.

Surface temperatures
Despite flat-lining surface temperatures over the last five years, some climate researchers insist we're headed to doomsday warming and should keep our fingers on the panic button.
[Image Source: GISS]

The climate official claims that aerosols, which reflect solar radiation, also had a cooling affect on temperatures.

Mr. Hansen argues that the public shouldn't just look at the numbers, but look at more nebulous and abstract observations, which he sees as supporting his beliefs of runaway warming.  He writes, "The observant person who is willing to look at the past over several seasons and several years, should notice that the frequency of unusual warm anomalies has increased and the extreme anomalies."

He and other global warming advocates have pointed to the summer's drought in central North America and high temperatures in the Rocky Mountains as such "extreme anomalies".  

II. A Hot Year for the U.S., Arctic, but a Cool One Elsewhere

2012, according to a separate NOAA report, was the hottest year on record for the U.S. The year did mark a new low for summer Arctic sea ice, according to NASA.  However, that could bring some benefits for mankind, such as opening up oil resources.

NOAA map
Parts of the globe cooled, others warmed in 2012. [Image Source: NOAA]

And temperatures for the year were actually cooler than average in several regions -- Alaska, far western Canada, central Asia, parts of the eastern and equatorial Pacific and parts of the Southern Ocean.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts, a known critic of doomsday predictions from folks like James Hansen, casts the U.S.'s record year in a different light, commenting, "If anything, U.S. temperatures are warming at a slower rate in recent decades compared to the early warming period, even with all of that lovely warm weather last year."

He points out that the recent increase (1980-2012) in U.S. surface temperatures was dwarfed by a sharp rise between 1919-1934, which was followed by a period of cooling.

In a follow-up piece, he argues the overall flatline may indicate that natural forces (including in a cooling direction) have a greater impact on global temperatures than human ones, based on his independent analysis over the last half decade.

Sources: NASA, NOAA, Jame Hansen [note]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By zozzlhandler on 1/16/2013 5:40:07 PM , Rating: 5
I would have an easier time swallowing this if their continued employment didn't depend on climate change continuing towards the warm.




By Argon18 on 1/16/2013 5:47:00 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah it's interesting how they consistently attribute any cooling, no matter how small, to natural phenomenons of the Earth, while simultaneously attributing warming, no matter how small, to human activity and pollution.

Amazing how junk science with an agenda gets passed around as fact.


RE: I know the truth, don't confuse me with the facts...
By FaaR on 1/16/13, Rating: -1
By connor4312 on 1/16/2013 9:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
Young man, regardless of illogical it is comparing reducting one's carbon output to suicide, if a scientist told you that eating healthy would, according to decades of research on the subject, improve your lifespan (but cost more), would you do it?

I believe that is a more apt comparison.


By Duwelon on 1/16/2013 9:37:37 PM , Rating: 5
To blindly accept that research, peddled by hate mongers and control freaks, and ignore the fraud and science to the contrary, makes you and every other fool who gives up liberty in the name of global warming, cannon fodder for tyrants. In the end you will be a slave, more so than you already are.


By maugrimtr on 1/17/2013 8:30:49 AM , Rating: 1
The comments above are fascinating. Who sponsors those who achieve conclusions in opposition to the other 90%+ of climatologists? Surely they also are being paid and so much be held in deep suspicion since this may encourage them to resist the global scientific communities concensus all the harder?

The money argument cuts in both directions, people... That's why it doesn't make any damn sense.


By othercents on 1/17/2013 10:43:05 AM , Rating: 4
We should just put it all in prospective...

quote:
He points out that the recent increase (1980-2012) in U.S. surface temperatures was dwarfed by a sharp rise between 1919-1934, which was followed by a period of cooling.

So we had an larger increase before and a cooling period and probably for some unknown reason.
quote:
In a follow-up piece, he argues the overall flatline may indicate that natural forces (including in a cooling direction) have a greater impact on global temperatures than human ones, based on his independent analysis over the last half decade.

How can natural forces have a greater impact on lowering temperatures, but not on in raising them?

So in reality, we don't really know if the earth just usually has periods of hotter and colder temperatures and if human impact has made any significant differences. And if human impact has made a difference who has been the largest contributor to the issue.

My vote is we should sue China for causing global temperatures to rise: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinese-sta...


By TheEinstein on 1/17/2013 9:18:29 AM , Rating: 1
No you're incorrect. See I can prove 100% of the AGW scientists incorrect. Yes 100%.I call most of them liars and cheats... the rest are duped and ignorantof the truth.

And I bring science for my proof.


By tng on 1/17/2013 10:11:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
climate change being a real problem greatly outweighs the small percentage of numbers that have been found to be questionable/faulty.
Questionable? The data sets were manipulated to achieve an outcome, that is far from faulty.

I think that there is a large trust issue involved here. How can you trust the guy that has manipulated the data about this very thing before and thought no one would find out? The reason behind that manipulation is also in question, why? Money, personal beliefs, larger agenda?

I also think that we would all agree that there is "Climate Change", maybe not so much "Global Warming". The real issue is if man is contributing as much as the IPCC says or is it just to push for UN control.

Lots of trust issues with people nowdays and it is understandable, why people would be skeptical.


By Dr of crap on 1/17/2013 12:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the fact that the measuring places are skewing the temps higher. Look it up. A LOT of temp readings are taken near large blacktops, near AC hot air ouputs, ...ect.

AND for all you warming belivers, are you doing ANYTHING to help stop our HUMAN part in adding to the warming we are suspose to be making?????


By marsovac on 1/18/2013 5:01:40 AM , Rating: 1
Why would that screw the <delta>?

If we measure temperature year after year close to a hot blowing air output, well that air output will blow hotter if the global temperature is raising, and will blow cooler if it is decreasing.


By theapparition on 1/21/2013 12:20:37 PM , Rating: 3
Completely correct, the delta should not be affected.

However, the sharp spike in reporting also coincided with the closing of 60% of world weather reporting stations. It is also not coincidental that when the USSR dissolved, many weather reporting sites had a sharp uptick in reported temperatures, since their funding for fuel oil was based on how cold it was.

The other problem is some scientists aren't looking at deltas, but actual temperatures. We can't use delta's when referring to Medieval Warming periods. The data from that time period is suspect to be within an error of +/-3deg C. If the data is estimated within a generous tolerance band, than how can one reasonably extrapolate temperature rises that are eclipsed by that tolerance. It is also estimated that 90% of US sensors don't meet site quality standards, hence many of the closings leaving a much smaller sample size.

Delta's work fine, but the sample size is no longer the same, yet researchers are looking at the data and trying to compare the same deltas. Also, the deltas can be easily influenced. Take a look at some of these surface stations. There's one where a window AC unit is only a few feet from the sensors. The homeowner simply switching the unit, running it more or any number of other factors can affect the reporting done at that one station. A tree cut down can now allow direct sunlight, where shade was once offered. And in the interest of being fair, a tree could have grown offering more shade than before.

Point is, the data is somewhat suspect in it's own right. Combine that with scientists who have gone on record with preconceived conclusions and have cherry picked their data to support those conclusions makes them untrustworthy and their conclusions suspect. I just think we need to have more true scientific scrutiny of the data and results.


By Paj on 1/18/2013 8:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
Guess what - they've already accounted for this! That's right, the scientists whose job it is to study the data have already anticipated this, completely independently of you!

They even wrote some actual, scientific papers about it, and you can read them for yourself!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD0...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG0...

And guess what? Yep, still getting warmer.


By Ammohunt on 1/17/2013 11:29:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's how science works. You obviously is NOT a scientist. That's why you think climate change have something to do with "liberty".


This is typical of a certain ideology they need an authority to define their reality they can't make any judgements on their own. No one needs a scientist to tell them that water is wet, fire burns and excessive inertia with a sudden stop can be deadly nor do you need an education in the subject matter outside of common sense life experience. I reject the notion that i can't make a determination based on the evidence at hand using refined critical thinking skills on the topic of global warming. With the level of information saturation we have today skilled people can become experts on any topic without a formal education. This simple fact boggles the minds of the institutional dependent classes among us. They don't think for themselves and get their thoughts and opinions from others.


By maugrimtr on 1/18/2013 6:11:54 AM , Rating: 3
You're an idiot. I say that based on the fact that any scientist working on quantum mechanics (as a simple example) would laugh in your face. The average person is not capable of making scientific observations above a certain level - the point where conclusions must be reached by analysing hordes of data using advanced mathematics (i.e. almost all science).

An ideology that requires an authority to define reality is a stupid swipe. In politics, this is obviously bad news. It goes equally for the media who have decided to suspend objectivity and reporting of facts and entered the realm of pandering to one or another type of political party. Those who claim authority to define reality exist on both sides of the political divide in droves.

It's unfortunate, but conservatism is being associated with anti-science. As a conservative, this is deeply irritating. We have idiots supplanting science in favour of their religious beliefs (which are incorrect, non-factual and can only be true if God created fossils as some sort of inside joke on our stupidity).

The climate change debate is riddled with the same problem - contrary beliefs, lies (that data manipulation guy was found to have manipulated NOTHING once all the emails were accessed - but that lie keeps a lot of people warm), slander against scientists and the political genius (by those in authority) to make this into a "Liberal" invention.

quote:
With the level of information saturation we have today skilled people can become experts on any topic without a formal education. This simple fact boggles the minds of the institutional dependent classes among us. They don't think for themselves and get their thoughts and opinions from others.


Skilled people can become armchair experts. Being a scientist requires a lot of experience, education, real world research and...basically it's like most jobs. I wouldn't trust an unqualified accountant to do my books. Why should I trust an armchair "scientist"?

Science is also the opposite of what you claim. It requires, as a given, independent of thought and opinion. If scientists were sheep, we would still believe the Earth was flat, 4,000 years old, and was orbited by a ball of fire. Science is adversarial - the Scientific Method challenges everything. That's why almost everything is a Theory and not a Fact. Gravity, Evolution, Relativity - all Theories. So much for liberal scientists being unthinking drones dependent on institutional classes... I assume you were also referring to the Republican Party Institution and the Christian Institution - or do they get exceptions because they are on the right?

quote:
They don't think for themselves and get their thoughts and opinions from others.


Oh, the irony...


By rsmech on 1/21/2013 11:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
You are right. As soon as 1 man out of all scientists said the world wasn't flat he was praised. Wrong. Think of every example you gave and how long and hard it was to be accepted. Global warming is nowhere near a theory. I can't prove or disprove it and right now neither can any scientist. Neither side has solid ground to stand on. But don't tell me I need to do this or need to do that or take my money when you have no scientific leg (theory) to stand on. I am no scientist but I know the difference between theory and hypothosis and don't treat one like the other.


By Ammohunt on 1/23/2013 4:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Deference to authority is exactly what is taught in universities. Its not a exclusive club; in your post you have obviously succumbed to exactly that. What was lost on you as part of my post was the philosophical aspect of what I am saying; not religion but the human condition and our nature. Human nature dictates the path of least resistance as you demonstrated my point exactly you defer to scientist as your authority to define your opinion on topics that concern you not unlike religious people defer to God and church as their authority. No one can prove the other wrong so at the same time it validates both beliefs i.e. no one opinion is more correct. I believe it all derives from a deep seated need in the human psyche for superstition beliefs e.g. 911 truthers, Obamas birth certificate.
You may feel Conservatism is anti-science an opinion you are entitled to. Any conservative with any sense knows that the religious right is only one tiny part of the conservative movement and not the main platform thrust. I to lament things such as abortion and gay marriage being attached to any serious political discussion it distracts from the real issues.
In my opinion the Climate change debate is being driven by base Marxists spun out form the counter culture movement of the 60ies those that despise capitalism as an economic system and the consumerism that it breeds. Long ago they realized that a direct approach against capitalism was not workable they did however shrewdly figure out that you can attack and potentially destroy it by creating a mythos that portrays it as destroying something everyone has a stake in the “Environment”. Since this movement originated in universities and colleges worldwide they had direct access to the human capital needed such as research Scientists at major universities along with students to create and maintain whatever lie they wanted. All they had to do it stick with a narrative disseminate it as fact to impressionable students along with indoctrinating them with base deference to authority and we have what we have now generations of anti-capitalist environmentalists automatons. They believe in Climate Change because the authorities they trust believe in climate change.
So to recap applying the aforementioned critical thinking skills based we come up with a simple question “How can we be certain that we are warming the earth when the earth is 4 billion years old and we posses only the last 50-60 years of that 4 billion years climate data?”
Answer: Superstition and deference to authority.


By itzmec on 1/23/2013 9:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent


By Paj on 1/18/2013 8:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I reject the notion that i can't make a determination based on the evidence at hand using refined critical thinking skills on the topic of global warming. With the level of information saturation we have today skilled people can become experts on any topic without a formal education.


Er... you actually think that?

So you can determine if something is true or not by using your 'critical thinking skills'... and nothing else?

The irony... it burns.


By DougF on 1/17/2013 5:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
Young man, regardless of how illogical it is to compare apple to oranges, if a scientist who was funded by certain parties with a specific agenda, created models of eating and consumption such that eating certain foods would improve your lifespan at the cost of supporting certain food growers through your taxes and requiring you to live a lifestyle defined by others, who will benefit from this lifestyle, while stating contrary opinions as "deniers", would you do it?

I know this is a more apt comparison of the issues involved.


By Paj on 1/18/2013 8:28:58 AM , Rating: 1
Depends. As soon as other scientists reviewed her work, they could determine the efficacy of her research methods, and verify the data for themselves. See how it works?

Oh wait, but ALL scientists are in on it. Every one of them. In the entire world. To make money. Becuase, y'know, there's this secret cabal of trillionaires who are making the scientists say its warmer than it really is, so politicians can funnel billions in grant money to the scientists and get the public to spend all their cash on renewable energy, which makes them even more money! I guess that explains why renewable energy companies are so well represented in the Fortune 500, on account of how effective this plan is.


By NellyFromMA on 1/17/2013 4:49:04 PM , Rating: 3
Climate change is real. There's evidence of harsh climate change periods throughout Earth's existence as well as more modest ones.

Man made climate change on the other hand... idk, there's really no substantial conclusive evidence that any climate change at all is a result of MAN MADE activity in this generation or in any passed era.

You may arguably never be able to prove it. That shouldn't mean you impose the view upon society just 'cause it must be mans fault by default.

Just my two.


By TSS on 1/17/2013 11:26:15 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't it pathetic the skeptics first have to say "climate change is real" before their arguement will even be heard.

Ofcourse climate change is real. Climate. Change. The climate changes. It's so fricking stupidly obvious we SHOULDN'T have to acknowledge it.

The question has always been where is it changing to (warmer or colder), and how big an effect are we having on it? Of which there is *no* consensus. None what so ever.

All we have is the global institute that's supposed to track these things proven to fudge the data to whatever direction is benificial to their sponsors. Oh an national weather centers that half of the time get the termperature the next day wrong (biggest miss i've seen was about 4-5 years ago when i saw the website updated at 1 AM where temperature predictions for that morning/afternoon dropped 10 degrees celsius, lol). As these people can tell me it'll be 1 degree warmer on average in 100 years?

Oh, and we've classified airborne plantfood as a poison. Nobody even looks at watervapor/clouds, which is a much larger greenhouse "gas", and everytime i look at the sky when a plane passes by there's these giant trails of condensation, and air travel has absolutely exploded since, gasp, when termperatures started to rise on average.

Most likely not a direct cause, but another piece of the puzzle i'll bet very few have even bothered to look at. As long as you don't have all the pieces yet, you don't know jack, and it's best to assume what you've been assuming so far: we don't affect the climate of an entire planet.

We can poison a river, we can clog the air in a 50 mile radius, and that's about all we can do to the enviroment. Only now that there are so many humans we've started to become able to make species go exinct directly (tigers, dodo, etc) instead of introducing a non-native species of animal who'd do the work for us.

IMO a far bigger issue will be how we're going to explain this madness to the next generation, most likely while they're freezing their ass off. The economy's down and the winters are starting to get colder again here so that's what i predict.


By NellyFromMA on 1/18/2013 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think its a question of trending warmer or colder really...

I'm not gonna claim to be an expert in the field or anything but I do follow up on these thigns as a hobby...

IMO it seems to be more about the instablity of the common defined 'season' and the drastic ups and downs as a whole.

Averages are obviously important as well as the trend up or down or a given period of time, but the real question is how will this affect our lives on a day to day basis.

Personally, I'm not sure we'll see a global cool down so much as we may be seeing a shift in climate zones.

Inevitably, its all guess work. How educated that guess is, however, can only be trusted if there are no external biases being imposed on the data


By JediJeb on 1/16/2013 10:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...Or maybe you don't. Denialists typically lack all forms of logical reasoning abilities.


As do blind Acceptanists.

(hey it is as much of a real word as denialist is)


By phatboye on 1/16/2013 10:59:01 PM , Rating: 3
No one believes global warming is true because some highly educated guy in a lab coat says so. We believe it is true because of the scientific evidence they provide us.


By nocturne on 1/17/2013 1:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Asbestos was great.. lead too.. hell, even smoking.. do we always get everything right the first time?

More than anything, though.. being a living being, I need clean air to breathe and clean water to drink -- yet all the same entities railing against any consideration of these issues seem to want nothing other than to be able to poison my environment without considering any consequences. Maybe all those chemicals are just fine.. but why does my health/life insurance cost more because this county has 3 of the top 50 worst EPA sites and way above average cancer rates..? Pure coincidence, I'd imagine..


By dwhapham on 1/17/2013 9:01:18 AM , Rating: 3
Yes the evidence tells us that global temperatures are rising and it is very likely that humans activities may be accelerating it. So what? Global temperatures have been rising and falling in cycles for 4.5 billion years. We have only been keeping global temperature records for a little over 100 years so there is no way for any scientists to tell us whether or not what we are experiencing now is abnormal. What people need to realize is that there is no way to stop global warming. All we can do is plan for it and adapt.


By tng on 1/17/2013 10:29:48 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
We have only been keeping global temperature records for a little over 100 years so there is no way for any scientists to tell us whether or not what we are experiencing now is abnormal.
While that may be true, most of the people here who are skeptics just really wonder if someone is using it to take advantage...

After all we look at Al Gore who predicts doom and gloom if we don't change our ways, yet seems to be a worse offender than almost anybody, and all the while his personal fortune has grown considerably. Makes it look like he is in it for the money and really does not believe his own message.

Can you blame people for being skeptical? No not really, yet they get labeled and then they are talked about how they are just just not ignorant, but plain stupid by people who buy what the UN says.


By andrewaggb on 1/17/2013 6:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoy this topic. Not because I have much to add, but because people are worried about it :-)

Even if global warming is 100% human made and will lead to our complete and total destruction... I seriously doubt we'll curb it in time :-). Countries like China are still getting going. They aren't going to stop until they are a first world country, and neither is any other developing country.

People are so cheap and will do anything to save a buck that cleaner choices are often reserved for the minority who can either afford it/want it. World isn't going to change if only a few people make significant changes to their lifestyle.

Personally I'm hoping global warming is a hoax because otherwise I think we're screwed.


By Nutzo on 1/17/2013 11:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
If your doctor told you the solution for the skin cancer on your arm was to remove both your legs, wouldn't you tell him he's wrong, even though you are not the cancer expert?

There are so many things wrong with the so called evidence of man made global warming, that any thinking person should at least be skeptical of that these so called scientist are selling.


By dderby on 1/17/2013 5:10:18 PM , Rating: 4
I've actually taken several graduate-level planetary geology courses. One of the profs was a staunch anthropogenic global warming proponent (former senior NASA administrator). The other a proponent of global cooling. My global cooling prof (Ph.D. in planetary geology) was far more convincing. Remember the Time Mag cover from the seventies which warned of a coming ice age, based on the best evidence at the time. I believe it still has validity, based on evidence. We are currently living in a period called the "inter-glacial temperate period." This period last for about 5-10K years, with ice-ages lasting 100-200K years. By the by, this is relatively settled science -- so look it up. So I ask you, a person who puts faith in the opinions of 'scientist' to explain these fluctuations. Is it solar output? Planet X? Wobbles in the earth axis? If you are so knowledgable about settled science, tell the answer! He is a short mental experiment - what causes the growth of deserts on a global scale, global warming or cooling? If the planet warms, isn't more moisture available in the atmosphere and wouldn't cooling reduce the available moisture. Do you remember from your high school geology classes that when the earth was about 12 degrees warmer, wasn't the planet one giant rain forrest - to include the antarctic! So please tell me how these relatively settled science facts are explained by your experts?


By nocturne on 1/17/2013 1:31:30 AM , Rating: 3
Are you aware how clouds work, and how particulate pollution affects them..?

I'm guessing you are not a climatologist. Or made it past the basic physical sciences in high school.

It's not global warming, it's global climate change.. and still way more incredibly complicated to be completely understood by scientists, let alone comparably-described idiots such as you and I.


By TheEinstein on 1/17/2013 9:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
The fact is climate change has happened for the entire time there has been life on this planet . It is unpreventable, it is slow, it is methodical, it is thorough. Man does not cause it, we never caused it. There are deserts where lush life once thrived and forests that were once savanahs. Mountains have risen to block clouds and wind alike and they have fallen to water and wind as well.

However in the here and now our change is within a natural range that life can tolerate.

I can also show legions of evidence that disputes AGW and man made Climate Change as desired. Quite easily I cam dispute any portion.


By JediJeb on 1/17/2013 5:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The last time we had a year of below average global temperature was 27 years ago


This is one thing I have a problem with. Average over what time period? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, none of those are even relevant geologically. There are probably 100 year stretches in history that would make current temperatures look far below average and others that make them look far above average. Time wise where are we when it comes to the current interglacial period? Are we near the beginning of the post-glacial warming period, near the middle or near the end where temperatures begin to fall?

Current human society has made the same mistake as past human societies in that we have planned our cities, economies, societies based upon a very narrow time window of climate/global conditions. The current knowledge within our society tells us that there will be times of warmer temperatures with higher sea levels and times of lower temperatures with lower sea levels coming in our future, yet we still insist on building our main cities at the very edge of the worlds oceans. We know that even without man being on the planet those shorelines will move higher yet we make our plans as if they will never move. Governments, corporations and individuals all make plans for the very near future, less than one lifetime in most cases, never planning for the long term and then wonder why we suffer the consequences of a very predictable disaster. We know where the seismic faults are yet instead of banning further development in those areas such as San Fransisco and Los Angeles we continue to build those cities ever larger, putting more and more people in harms way. We know that New Orleans is build below sea level and will always be threatened by hurricanes yet we continue to rebuild there instead of moving further inland. Seems our wisdom has not kept pace with our increasing knowledge, therefore we as a society will continue to suffer destruction that is predictable and preventable.


By Paj on 1/18/2013 3:49:19 AM , Rating: 1
Sigh...

Its the TREND.


By Captain Orgazmo on 1/16/2013 6:01:26 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly.

All science depends on reliable and reproducible empirical evidence, demonstrable cause and effect, and lack of bias on the part of the scientist (i.e. the willingness to accept that the hypothesis is incorrect in light of the evidence).

True scientific research is done for the sake of knowledge, not for grants and job security.

Not one of these greedy quacks will explain why the data from weather stations constructed in farmland in the 1950s, now located in the middle of black asphalt parking lots, is valid, while stations in the middle of Siberia or Alaska that show cooling are discounted.


By Mint on 1/16/2013 9:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your excuse for satellite data?

It almost perfectly matches the surface data that you insist has been manipulated by "greedy quacks".


By JediJeb on 1/16/2013 10:05:13 PM , Rating: 4
Can you compare satellite data from today to satellite data from 1900? The big problem is that without using a lot of massaging of data with statistics you can't compare the total history of temperatures. Satellite data from the same area that is now asphalt paved compared to the ground data from that same location today will compare quite well if both are methods are correctly calibrated, but that still doesn't correct for the fact that temperatures at that spot will be warmer today than they were 50 years ago simply because the landscape has changed and that skews the data for determining rise of temperatures over history.

Sound science would reject the data from those sample points across the entire time because the measuring conditions are not consistent. In my work as a chemist data is not considered reliable unless the measurements are taken under the same conditions(unless you are quantifying the effect of the changing conditions). The only thing that data proves is that if you pave the area around a monitoring station the average temperature will increase.


By Mint on 1/17/2013 7:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
We're never going to be able to truly verify historical measurements. The best we can do is look at natural proxies, and so far the limited sources correlate well. Moreover, there has been plenty of changing landscape and economic growth in the last few decades, so if there was some sort of flaw in this correction methodology, it would have shown notable deviations from the 34 years of satellite data we have.

But this article is talking about "flatlining" in the last five years. The accuracy of data from 1900 isn't a factor here.


By TheEinstein on 1/17/2013 5:12:00 AM , Rating: 5
Allow me to correct you

1) There are weather stations then there are Weather Stations. www.SurfaceStations.org shows the stations in use by the NOAA (and NASA) are in error at 92% of the Stations.

2) This gets compounded by "Forcing" fake weather station locations (this is a laymans description, I can get more technical). They act as if the weather at a few thousand locations will match up to their algorithm. Algorithms that have never successfully patterned weather.

3) Statisticians, Politicians, and Truck Drivers. They all lie at times. Especially when it can get them money, fame, or otherwise benefit them. In any event this is fairly easy to lay out for a layman.

Politics... the surverys and polls always come with a 'margin of error'. There are several reasons for that, suffice to say sampling methods are imprecise to that degree. Sampling methods on humans can sometimes be way off but I digress.

Our sampling methods on temperatures is using computer (erroneous at that) generated samples, erroneous base samples (see point #1) and they come up with figures where temperatures fall definitively within a natural variability range adjusted with a margin of error.

4) Natural Variability and time of recordings is also interesting. The weather in X, Y, and Z locations may tend to be similar in nature across the entire spectrum of time. However their record temperatures on given specific days will vary. Even though, say perhaps, Z has had a high of 103 degrees on July 15th for a record for 100 years, Y may never have passed 100 degrees. Now suddenly Y has a 101 degree day and a new local record is made. This is still within natural variability.

5) Mounting evidence shows extreme efforts have been made to shut out opposition voices, to work together (by the cheaters) to create falsifications, to rig as much of the game as possible. They hide samples, evidence, methods, and formulae as much as they can. Normal scientists will be very open, will not stop peer review by critics, will provide methods and evidence if scrutiny shows it may be flawed and will not attempt to force others to comply with their outcome.

6) The scientists who are open to peer review have done significant work which disproves AGW (Man Made Global Warming) and man made Climate Change. Specifically let me name CRU as one of the parties which has done peer reviewable science which shows how clouds get formed and their effects upon our climate. Their work shows an outside source, Cosmic Radiation, plays a most significant role in cloud formation.

7) Solar requires use of rare earth metals currently to make effective panels, that or other costly methods. Wind power kills more birds that hunters do annually. The fact is a few new people are getting rich on Government Pork to make these projects.

8) The Northwest passage was first navigated in 1906. Since then a number of ships, including a Canadian War Ship, have navigated the passage, prior to claims of Global Warming. There is a famous picture of 3 submarines surface in the exact North Pole... in the 60's as well. The fact is the passage is accessible via improvements in ship hull designs and the usage of Ice Cutter vessels.

9) It was claimed Polar Bears would die out or at least become endangered... instead most groups are actually thriving.

10) Efforts to claim huge and significant ice loss in the Artic were undone by using actual NASA (and Google in one famous incident) images which showed typical melt in the summer followed by typical icing in the winter.

11) Efforts were once made to use ice berg counts to support AGW claims. "Look a tenfold increase!". This was found to be a situation where previously Ice Bergs were only noted if they entered shipping lanes... but as of (I forget the year) we were counting ALL Ice Bergs (interesting note... since we started counting them all there has been no cries of increases).

12) .... meh... if you want to bring up more points I will show them to be false as well.

Don't think of this as an attack.. think of it as me showing you were duped and start to want to destroy those who duped you.


By Captain Orgazmo on 1/17/2013 7:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
You can lay out the obvious over and over, but people like to imagine crises that don't exist. Makes 'em feel special, like something important is happening. First world problems, as they say.

The most important point you make is about the politics. Clearly, these discussions are entirely political. They were from the start, when Margaret Thatcher used the dubious theory of CO2 causing runaway global warming as a weapon against the striking coal miners in Britain. Coal production was virtually stopped, and the unions couldn't strike once their jobs were gone.

The whole bunch of BS was almost forgotten about (although I remember hearing some crap about the greenhouse effect and CO2 in school in the early 90s - same teacher who claimed the moon had no gravity), until Maurice Strong (former CEO of the hated state entity Petro-Canada who moved to Beijing) realized that the CO2 theory could be used as a weapon against the capitalist west, to the benefit of his new allies, the Chinese Communists.

He got the UN on board, and had most western nations sign the Kyoto Accord. Of course none of the nations that signed even came remotely close to their promised goals of CO2 reduction, and surprise surprise, I don't see Kevin Costner with gills swimming down the street.

Al Gore came in afterwards to make a buck, and ended up with a few hundred million more. In the process his ridiculously exaggerated claims (proven in court in Britain to be propaganda), scared the piss out of millions of dupes, who now call you names and say you are a "denier" for attempting to engage in a civilized discussion of scientific study.


By Paj on 1/18/2013 8:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
5) Mounting evidence shows extreme efforts have been made to shut out opposition voices, to work together (by the cheaters) to create falsifications, to rig as much of the game as possible. They hide samples, evidence, methods, and formulae as much as they can. Normal scientists will be very open, will not stop peer review by critics, will provide methods and evidence if scrutiny shows it may be flawed and will not attempt to force others to comply with their outcome.


If youre talking about the CRU emails, multiple enquiries have cleared them of any falsification, misinformation or scientific impropriety.

Not something the deniers can attest to unfortunately:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balan...

Could you give us information of this mounting evidence to shut out any opposition? Personally, I have yet to see any deniers have their families persecuted, their property damaged, death threats sent to them, or be pilloried on major world media, as has happened to legitimate climate scientists the world over.

That sort of action takes organisation.

The science is thoroughly peer reviewed, which is why its the AGW is the currently held position of virtually every major national science academy worldwide, including the US, and multiple global NGOs and the UN. Sure, mistakes are occasionally made, but that is the purpose of peer review in the first place.

Lol @ forcing others to comply with the outcome. You make it sound like the climate gestapo are driving around to deniers in the dead of night and making them an offer they cant refuse. Instead its very much the other way around.


By Mint on 1/19/2013 8:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Good God, how much misinformation can you put in one post?

1, 2) So why do surface measurements almost match satellite measurements for 34 years if the former is so flawed and corrupt as you allege?

3) Please, you can use this lame argument to discredit any scientist in any field.

4) Just because some fools think local records are evidence of GW doesn't mean you disprove the theory by disproving that strawman.

5) BS. There is nothing more hidden here than elsewhere. The tree-ring hockey stick was discredited through availability of the data and algorithms.

6) Nothing significant has been proven about cosmic radiation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at...
Svensmark's theory has been debunked with data since he published it.

Cosmic radiation has gone up in the last 25 years, which is supposed to increase cloud cover and cause cooling. It's rather telling that you chose this "specifically" as your best debunk of AGW, because it failed hard.

7) The one thing I agree on. I think rare earths and birds are the least of the problems with solar and wind. Their intermittence means they do not reduce the fossil fuel capacity we need. Moreover, they make that backup power ramp up and down, making efficient CCGT operation difficult and increasing maintenance costs. That results in higher costs and CO2 per kWh from the backup power. Until we figure out cheap energy storage, solar and wind are bad ideas.

To all AGW advocates, go nuclear or go home. Even Patrick Moore (cofounder of GreenPeace) knows that, which is why he left.

8, 9, 11, 12) Irrelevent. See #4 above.

10) Uhh, what? Sea ice coverage after each summer melt has been receding even faster than projected. In the winter, its been getting thinner. What on earth are you talking about?

You guys are all focusing on the wrong part. All predictions going against AGW have been proven wrong in the last decade. The science there is highly unlikely to be wrong.

The weakpoint in the AGW argument is with the cost-benefit analysis of taking action. You can use the IPCC's own figures to show that it costs $1 trillion per 0.02 deg of prevented warming even if you only spend 2 cents extra per kWh for CO2 free energy (e.g. the wind production credit), and that's under the generous assumption that we figure out how to efficiently run CCGT plants while ramping them up and down.


By TheEinstein on 1/22/2013 7:58:04 AM , Rating: 3
Oh no you didn't!

Time to pull my can of woop ass out. Prepare for link hell.

1) So why do surface measurements almost match satellite measurements for 34 years if the former is so flawed and corrupt as you allege?</> First I want you to provide proof of a satellite in 1978 which accurately measures ground temperatures. Then show continous recordings. Then show margins of error. Why do I demand this? Because if we had such satelites in the Cold War the Russians would have gone coockoo for cocoa puffs right then. This specious, unbacked, claim of yours dies here and now.

3) Please, you can use this lame argument to discredit any scientist in any field. I was not aware all scientists used flawed mathematical formula's, based on errenous sample data, with failed modeling past a single year. Why thank you for your broad assertion.

4) Just because some fools think local records are evidence of GW doesn't mean you disprove the theory by disproving that strawman. AGW is premised upon all local region's having a temperature. Ergo all local issues are relevent since they also contribute to the whole. Your claim of a strawman is in fact a strawman argument.

5) BS. There is nothing more hidden here than elsewhere. The tree-ring hockey stick was discredited through availability of the data and algorithms.
First I end the consensus lie: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Second I prove my point: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
For those wary of links the first shows that scientists reviewing the IPCC Report often disagreed but were edited out by those in control. The product included reviews and dissents but only what the Editors wanted got in the final report.

The 2nd link shows how the worlds best expert on Polar Bears was excluded from International AGW conferences about Polar Bears.

6) Nothing significant has been proven about cosmic radiation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at...
Svensmark's theory has been debunked with data since he published it.</>
CERN validated his work with their CLOUD unit. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-new...
Not only are your wrong, your way wrong.

7) The one thing I agree on. I think rare earths and birds are the least of the problems with solar and wind. {Snip}
Ignore the pork,make a politicql statement of your own. Nice...

8, 9, 11, 12) Irrelevent. See #4 above.
Aka ignored cause you cannot reply

10) Uhh, what? Sea ice coverage after each summer melt has been receding even faster than projected. {Snip}
Actually this is a misdirection fallacy. http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?i... The ice, paraphrasing, was at the largest known levels ever recorded. This was in 2011. The problem is more complex than 'it melted fast' or it melted more. In fact you did not specify a time limit but I will not take it to mean 100,000 years. The commonly quoted number is usually 8 years on awkward claims such as this. We suffer two equations, quicker and stronger. You chose quicker alone which makes this easier. Nominally a 2^8 outcome for quicker would result. This wouod normally be a once in 256 year result. However we also know about the 1910 to1920 temperature highs, which would indicate a 80-100 year cycle. Knowing of the past and that it is cyclical in nature allows us to refine our result to approximately 2^3.5 for any given 8 year period.

You guys are all focusing on the wrong part. All predictions going against AGW have been proven wrong in the last decade. The science there {snip} It is far more correct to say all AGW predictions have not come true.

I highlighted the best funniest ones. Child let us who do science lead, you stay quiet. I just knocked ALLof your statements down. Ifyou wish to learn, to become better... http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde...

The truth will set you free


By TheEinstein on 1/22/2013 8:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow posting while sick.

Italics and bold not closed properly, lol


By FaaR on 1/16/2013 8:17:24 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence that pretty much every year this century has been on the top-ten warmest years ever recorded, including last year.

Global warming is such a crock!

Lol. You guys are a riot.


By christojojo on 1/16/2013 8:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
could global warming be true...maybe.

should global warming be treated as absolute law....No

The data and the scare are too closely linked to politicians who do no take to anything that does not benefit them. That scares lots of people (yes a generalization.)

AS for the motives to prove and disprove this my Professor long long ago has said and I have heard elsewhere since, follow the money.


By connor4312 on 1/16/2013 9:28:53 PM , Rating: 4
On the same logic of "follow the money" one could just as easily conclude - and people have - that NASA's landing on the moon, Mars, etc. have been faked in order to bring money for them.


By christojojo on 1/17/2013 9:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the money in The lunar landings was government paying the bill for research and tool development and the search for viable materials. R&D was not affordable with so many smaller companies they had back then either.

The other thing was the first to go some where was highly marketable. Obviously you haven't had your Wheaties lately.

The US would not have gone to the moon if some advantage was not perceived.


By ppardee on 1/22/2013 5:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
I know I'm late on this, but we can prove we've been to the moon. We left a reflector on the surface and you can bounce a laser off of it.

You can't prove that AGW is a real thing no matter how many lasers you have.


By christojojo on 1/30/2013 7:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
lol yet you can warm the globe with ENOUGH lasers.


By FaaR on 1/16/2013 10:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Follow the money eh? Maybe you should take some of your own advice and check which entities exactly fund all the anti-warming FUD campaigns. Pretty much without exception, you'll find it's the oil, gas and coal industries, and/or people or organizations with ties to the oil, gas and coal industries.

Funny how that turns out, eh. But yeah, I'm sure that's just coincidences as well, like with all those chart-topping warm years we've been having since the beginning of the 80s.


By ResStellarum on 1/16/2013 9:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence that pretty much every year this century has been on the top-ten warmest years ever recorded, including last year.


We only started formally recording in the 20th century, and a century on the timescale of the earth doesn't even register, yet many climatologists are using it as the basis of their doomsday prophecies (Michael Mann aka Mr. Hockey Stick), and yes they are little more than nostradamus-like prophecies. Their models can't even predict day to day, month to month, or year to year, yet we are led to believe they can predict what it's going to be like twenty to thirty years in the future? Give me a break.

Then there's the age old rhetoric of. it's climate, not weather.. except when there's a drought or flood, and then it's definitely global warming. If I want faith based pseudo-science I'll turn to astrology, it's more likely to be correct than climatology these days.

quote:

Global warming is such a crock!


You should have told those medieval plebeians that had they made less camp fires, they could have prevented the Medieval Warm Period!


By FaaR on 1/16/2013 10:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
You know, statistics and modelling is its own form of science, which is pretty well understood. You would not be so easily confuddled and duped by liars in the denialist camp if you had some understanding of these matters.

All your questions could easily be explained if you were just willing to listen to people who have actual knowledge in this field.

You don't doubt quantum mechanics physicists for example, do you? So why all the skepticism regarding climate research? I mean, what's the fing worst thing that could happen by switching over to sustainable energy, that our air, soil and water gets cleaner? Jesus, the stupidity!

...I don't get it. You sound like a very irrational person who don't understand what's best for your own good. If nothing else can convince you, consider that fossile fuels will cease to be viable as an energy source due to scarcity and price increases. Soon. Like, within the next 100 years, and probably a lot less. The quicker we switch our energy economy over to something else, the longer we will have the minority of oil reserves remaining available for more productive uses than burning it in inefficient engines.


By nocturne on 1/17/2013 1:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
A word of sense, for once.. It always amazes me how those who claim to be educated technology professionals can be so incredibly shortsighted and resistant to any contrary beliefs.

If the DT readership decided this last election, we'd have Ron Paul for president right now.. xD

Now he's an honest person, relieving for a politician, but seriously -- the guy is an idiot. I could imagine why he got out of his medical practice to try politics, lol.

So, you don't have the slightest idea of how an economy works.. so let's go back to the gold standard, tank our economy just so it's easy enough for you to understand!


By Labotomizer on 1/17/2013 9:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
Statistics and modeling has a place. But they are NOT set in stone. Why is questioning the legitimacy of scientific research suddenly frowned upon? That's actually the point, scientific research is supposed to be doubted and questioned. Perhaps if you had some understanding of scientific process you would understand this.

And yes, I doubt quantum physicists because they are CONSTANTLY wrong. As are the vast majority of scientific theories. It's how we advance. By questioning what the person before them did. It's the entire point!

As for developing sustainable energy, not once have I seen an argument against that. We should absolutely look into better means of harnessing electricity, just not for the reason of mankind's ego. Which is exactly what AGW is, mankind is so full of itself that most can't accept the fact that changes on a global scale could be anything but our own fault. The other problem is that the alternative methods aren't far enough along to be worth the huge cost in development, unless we talk nuclear power but everyone seems to fear that as well. I'm not saying solar, wind and wave power doesn't have its place, even today, but it's not at a point where it could sustain the population. We should build out a Natural Gas infrastructure, as it would be a huge improvement over what we have now, and it would last us 50 years easily as science progresses and better energy alternatives are created. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand?

It's not unreasonable to think we'll be at a point in 50 years where concrete can convert heat to energy. Imagine what a breakthrough that would be. If suddenly all pavement and the outside of building were capable of using energy from the sun. Not only that but the friction of tires on the pavement would generate additional energy. But no, let's waste ridiculous amounts of money on solutions that can't fully sustain us today in favor of building out a viable alternative, that would generate more jobs, bring money back into the US instead of over seas and reduce emissions substantially. That's just crazy talk, right?


By drycrust3 on 1/17/2013 7:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is questioning the legitimacy of scientific research suddenly frowned upon?

Correct! You should question it.
In fact, one of the big failings of the Global Warming lobby is the fact that the University of East Anglia's Climate Research unit got caught rigging the peer review system, and they got caught adjusting their raw data so it matched their theories (which also makes anyones' research based upon that data suspect), and then, to make matters worse, when they were found out about this they couldn't figure out what they had done wrong.


By Nutzo on 1/17/2013 11:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean, what's the fing worst thing that could happen by switching over to sustainable energy, that our air, soil and water gets cleaner? Jesus, the stupidity!


How about doubling or tripling the cost of your electric bill, increasing the cost of you next car, or wasting taxpayers money on another failed company (after the CEO's get thier $$$ bonuses).

If the earth is warming due to man, then explain the midevil warming period. That's when the Vikings settled & farmed Greenland, and grew grapes in New England and eastern Canada. Something that is impossible today due to the much colder climate.


By mellomonk on 1/17/2013 3:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We only started formally recording in the 20th century, and a century on the timescale of the earth doesn't even register, yet many climatologists are using it as the basis of their doomsday prophecies (Michael Mann aka Mr. Hockey Stick), and yes they are little more than nostradamus-like prophecies. Their models can't even predict day to day, month to month, or year to year, yet we are led to believe they can predict what it's going to be like twenty to thirty years in the future? Give me a break.


Two words: ICE CORES. aka thousands of years of data. We didn't just dream up knowledge of the past climate.

Yes the models are flawed. It has warmed much faster for the given CO2 level then predicted.


By superflex on 1/17/2013 9:43:13 AM , Rating: 1
Yes Ice cores..And maybe if you had a lick of sense or any understanding of global climate history, you would know that the ice cores pulled from Lake Vostock in Antartica clearly demonstrate the earth warms and cools on a roughtly 400,000 year cycle known as the Milankovitch cycles, which is related to the Earths axial tilt, precession and eccentricity of orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The Earth has been much warmer than it is today based on CO2 and O2 isotopes samples pulled from those cores.
You still want to use ice cores to defend you bullshit AGW theory?


By drycrust3 on 1/17/2013 5:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you would know that the ice cores pulled from Lake Vostock in Antartica clearly demonstrate the earth warms and cools on a roughtly 400,000 year cycle known as the Milankovitch cycles,

You know that this planet is only around 6000 years old? Thought not.
Milankovitch's cycles may be right, but if so one cycle doesn't use a 400,000 year cycle.


By Flunk on 1/16/2013 7:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm only going to type this once. This is a long-term issue. A few years are not a relevant benchmark for global warming. 100 years is nothing when it comes to the climate of the earth.

We're really not going to know how bad this is or isn't for quite a while, but complacency is never a good policy. We need to keep watching and trying.


By Labotomizer on 1/16/2013 7:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, you need to stop that whole "thinking" thing. It could get you in trouble one of these days.

But in all seriousness, this is exactly how we need to look at it. Can we really say that anything before even the 1950s, on a global scale, can be truly accurate? And even if we say we have extremely accurate data over the last 100 years, is that enough? The earth works on a scale in the millions of years. We don't really know how much of this is caused by humans or how much is natural cyclic changes. We had ice ages before humans and we've had much, much hotter temps before humans. Life went on. Humans are the most adaptable species the planet has ever seen and people act like we won't be able to adapt to climate changes and variations.

Of course, in order to advance the human race as a whole we should be looking into more efficient uses of energy. I'm all for nuclear, solar, wind and hydrogen as energy sources. What I don't think we should do is threaten economies or break the bank in order to combat an issue we don't even slightly understand. Given the current US economic situation is it really wise to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into other programs? With the rate of population grown is it wise to use a source of food as fuel for our transportation? If that transportation is our feet, perhaps. But not cars. The smart thing to do would be to invest in a natural gas infrastructure to get us through the next 40-50 years and let science continue to develop more advanced sources of energy to sustain society. In the grand scheme of things we're barely cavemen when it comes to harnessing energy.


By boeush on 1/16/2013 7:57:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Can we really say that anything before even the 1950s, on a global scale, can be truly accurate? [We... We... We... etc.]
Speak for yourself there, ignoramus.

The thousands upon thousands of scientists who have been studying these issues for multiple generations now, do know quite a bit more about all those things you mentioned, than you ever will and certainly than you appear to know currently. Yes, there are still residual uncertainties on the margin, but the major questions are long since worked out. That you don't know about that, is your own fault; don't blame the scientists or the science.
quote:
people act like we won't be able to adapt to climate changes and variations
The victims of Katrina and Sandy sure did a fine job adapting. There are hundreds of millions of people right now throughout the world who are one drought or deluge away from death. There will only be more of them as time goes on, at least for the next several decades. Let's see how well they "adapt", and whether there might be hell for the rest of us to pay (the Pentagon and the CIA surely seem to think so in their projections...) And what about the rest of the Earth's ecosystems, which are already under tremendous strain and stress from human over-exploitation? Let's pile global warming on top of all the rest, and see how high we can spike those extinction rates and how much we could magnify any and all ecological disasters? Let's save a penny today (by continuing business as usual) and let our offspring pay a pound tomorrow (in terms of "adaptation" costs) -- seems like perfectly self-absorbed egotism to me. Carry on...


By dgingerich on 1/16/2013 8:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you're totally brainwashed.

1. generations?? seriously?? It hasn't even been 100 years since we've had a fully standardized temperature scale, let alone consistent measurement all around the globe. That didn't really get started until the 60s, and even then it wasn't fully scientifically accurate until the 80s.

2. Katrina and Sandy are provably neither developed nor made stronger by any sort of climate change. Hurricanes have happened, both stronger and later in the year, since before humanity came to be, however you believe that happened.

The flooding during Katrina was a result of poor engineering, a budget for improvements in the levy system being used for other things, and the fact that some idiot decided to build a freaking city in the middle of sinking swampland.

Sandy is a regular occurrence of a north Atlantic storm colliding with a hurricane that happens every 50 to 100 years. Combine that with more idiots living on the coast where such storms happen, and you get more damage. the damage, overall, wasn't that severe. it just happened to affect a lot of people and cost a lot because the population density is so huge in that cursed part of the world.

How about you get your head out of your behind and actually use your brain to think instead of lapping up whatever the media says you should know.

(Before you go accusing me of being some brainwashed Foxnews follower, you need to know that I don't even HAVE cable or satellite TV, and don't even use a tuner on my TV anymore. I gave up on TV and the big networks a long, long time ago. I get my news from various, reputable, internet sources these days, and I take a good look at it, disregard the journalist's opinions that he or she is trying to force on me, and come to my own conclusion.)


By Labotomizer on 1/16/2013 9:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
Why is an articulated thought met with such a foul reaction? Do you really need to insult me to prove a point? Or perhaps you think I care, in the slightest, what your opinion of me amounts to. Because I really, really don't. As the other response to your hate-filled thread so eloquently pointed out, there hasn't been consistent temperature standards for 100 years. We didn't have solid communications on a global scale, let alone the resources to measure oceanic temperatures properly, 100 years go. There have been worse droughts than we face today, there have been worse hurricanes in the last 100 years than Katrina or Sandy. In fact, NEITHER of those storms were all that powerful on our scale for judging a Hurricane's strength. Oh, and I'm on an Emergency Response Team to restore Telecommunications to government and public safety offices in the event of a hurricane. I rode through Ike on Galveston Island. I understand what a hurricane is capable of, first hand.

If we're talking about science, the major questions are NEVER worked out. Any scientist that believes that something is 100% proven should be called a scientist. Period. There are always unaccounted for variables, always new possibilities and the "facts" change on a near daily basis. To argue that anything has been proven, up to and including such basic concepts as existence and time, is an absolute absurdity.

As for Katrina, again. Poor engineering, a city built below sea level and people ignoring mandatory evacuation orders isn't exactly something I feel all that terrible about. In fact, the only tragedy that happened with Katrina is that FEMA garnered more power and now people seem to think the government should owe them something for their own stupidity in choice of where to live. There's this thing, it's called insurance, that is supposed to cover storm damages, property loss and all that good stuff in the event of a natural disaster. Instead people now think the government, and other tax payers, should flip the bill because they had to have a beach house on the east coast. Or because they decided to live 12' below sea level on the coast of the Gulf.

But I digress. The real problem is a lack of data. If you think you can draw 100% accurate conclusions based on 100 years of climate data, which is being generous, then I don't think I should even bother with insults. It's unlikely you could appreciate them anyway.


By JediJeb on 1/16/2013 10:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are hundreds of millions of people right now throughout the world who are one drought or deluge away from death.


Considering that 100% of the people alive today will be dead sometime in the future I would say that droughts and deluges are only two things out of a very large list they have to worry about.

quote:
There will only be more of them as time goes on, at least for the next several decades.


There were more in the past also. There is even archeological evidence that there have been hurricanes in the distant past in the Gulf of Mexico that were many times stronger than even Katrina was. What caused those? Maybe it was the methane given off by all that decaying plant material that formed coal causing ancient global warming or maybe it was from chipmunk farts in a more recent era, who knows for sure. As for being dead certain that the amount of extreme weather will increase so much in the next several decades not even the best models have been able to predict future climate/weather with so much accuracy over the past few decades that they have been trying to do so. If most of those models had been accurate we would already be having 130F summers across all of North America as many were predicting for now back in the 80s.


By lamerz4391 on 1/17/2013 1:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Go back to increased USE OF AEROSOLS. After all they have a cooling effect.


By juserbogus on 1/17/2013 2:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
by "their" you mean Anthony Watts right?


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki