Globally Warm my Frosty Buns

[mudwhistle]

January-June Global Surface Mean Temperature Anomalies 1880 to 2009 - Interlinked Challenges

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2009

Signs From Earth: NOAA/NCDC: 2009 5th Warmest Year So Far: Global Temperature Anomalies Jan-Nov 2009 (images fixed)

Now if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that every government agency, ours, and those of the rest of the world, are in on a global climate conspriracy, you can see from these sites these are the accepted figures from the data.

Another thing, Mud. When you make a bald statement such as you just did, it is incumbant upon you to provide the evidence that the chart is not correct. This is done by finding a credible scientific site that has evidence that contradicts the graph.

Well....for starters....

Seems NASA has been fingered as a dishonest broker in the Global Warming hoax. Why they've been lying to us all along I cannot imagine.

Maybe you might want to find a better source.

The first link reads like a fucken blog...not a science brief.

Click on links to other sites and it takes you to other blog sites.

Doesn't look official at all.

Basing your bullshit with someone else's bullshit is just that....Bullshit.
Nice try though.

So, NASA has figures that are very close to what every other government with satelites has, but they are part of the 'global warming conspiracy'.

No one to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

Further more, Mud, most of these sites are official government sites. Just because reality does not fit your ideological model does not change reality one whit.

Your fucken chart doesn't jive with historical records.

Reality is our government can't be trusted.

I'd rather believe scientists that don't have something to gain from fake findings then governmental officials and kook scientists that took bribes from Liberals.

Right now nobody can be trusted on this. Common-sense tells you that if they want to determine that CO2 is a poison then something shifty is going on here. I wouldn't be so suspicious if it weren't for all the assholes that are getting rich off of this hoax.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' dummy Mud. The chart is the historical record.

So if you can find another real chart that disagrees with this chart, show it to us.

You cannot, because there is not a credible one out there.

Otherwise, just go on with your unsubstantiated yap-yap.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

OldCrocks -- It may disturb you to know that your ballyhooed NASA and NOAA are currently, and have been for about 5 years, also resisting FOIA requests for raw data. It may disturb you, but probably not.

You are locked onto one idea, one solution, and have closed off your mind to the possibility that you might be being duped. You have disabled all of your critical thought processes, logic and also skepticism despite the huge red flags all around.

Why do NASA, NOAA, and the top climate scientists in Britain fight FOIA requests for raw data? If their conclusions are so sound, why can't they stand scrutiny?

If the science is settled, why hide anything? Why destroy requested data? Why the need to "fix" the numbers?

Isn't there just ONE of your brain cells punching alarm buttons?

 

[Lumpy 1]

The figure for the last forty years is about 0.4 C. I don't know where you got 3 F at, probably out of your ass like most Conservative posters.

Global Temperature

There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month (see the sections on how climate is measured ).

From these records, the ten warmest years in the instrumental record of global temperature (since around 1880) all occur within the 12 year period 1997-2008. Although 2008 data below show it was the coolest since 2000 due to the moderate to strong La Niña that developed in the latter half of 2007. However, the total global temperature increase from the 1850s throught to 2005 is 0.76°C (1.36°F) and the rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. So don't be lulled by one year where it is relatively cooler, what we need to look at is decadal or long term trends.

Yes..yes indeed I pulled 3 F from (my ass?) thin air because I would be mildly alarmed at a 3 F change over the past 40 years, 1.36 F as you say, not so much.

By the way, you seem like a fairly intelligent fellow, why so crude, especially with someone you don't know? I'd gladly afford you respect on different terms...

First, you made a bald statement. 3 F in the last 40 years. A figure really easy to check on. Therefore, you are posting opinions without checking facts. That deserves no respect on my part.

Second, that is an average worldwide figure. For the areas that count concerning positive feedbacks, Northern North America and Siberia, that figure is 3 to 5 degrees, very significant in creating huge CH4 and CO2 outgassing from the permafrost and yedoma.

I've never claimed to be an expert on this subject. In fact, many times I write post to learn more about a subject and get leads on where to go for information. I actually did do some research on the subject and as a novice, I find the information conflicting as further shown on this thread. Smart people with conflicting views.

So far, I don't think there's any real doubt that the earth has been on a warming trend.The arguments on severity and the trend in the future. You may spend your time insulting others on the issue but you still have to realize that others have just as valid points of view as yours. Further, both sides of the issue are extrapolating from information that maybe tainted for a variety of technical reasons and human motivations.

One more observation, it seems to me that these wild eyed visions from the likes of the Al Gore types only hurts your side of the issue and causes well deserved ridicule.

Finally.. I'm going to add this subject to the list of government, taxes, religion, etc. that can't actually be negotiated, deny resolution and end up pissing people off.......then again.. some people prefer to be pissed off...

 

[FactFinder]

OldCrocks -- It may disturb you to know that your ballyhooed NASA and NOAA are currently, and have been for about 5 years, also resisting FOIA requests for raw data. It may disturb you, but probably not.

You are locked onto one idea, one solution, and have closed off your mind to the possibility that you might be being duped. You have disabled all of your critical thought processes, logic and also skepticism despite the huge red flags all around.

Why do NASA, NOAA, and the top climate scientists in Britain fight FOIA requests for raw data? If their conclusions are so sound, why can't they stand scrutiny?

If the science is settled, why hide anything? Why destroy requested data? Why the need to "fix" the numbers?

Isn't there just ONE of your brain cells punching alarm buttons?

Yep, if their conclusions were so sound they would be open to any investigation. In fact that is what the peer process is supposed to do if not subverted. So bottomline is they stink to high heaven.

 

[Lumpy 1]

OldCrocks -- It may disturb you to know that your ballyhooed NASA and NOAA are currently, and have been for about 5 years, also resisting FOIA requests for raw data. It may disturb you, but probably not.

You are locked onto one idea, one solution, and have closed off your mind to the possibility that you might be being duped. You have disabled all of your critical thought processes, logic and also skepticism despite the huge red flags all around.

Why do NASA, NOAA, and the top climate scientists in Britain fight FOIA requests for raw data? If their conclusions are so sound, why can't they stand scrutiny?

If the science is settled, why hide anything? Why destroy requested data? Why the need to "fix" the numbers?

Isn't there just ONE of your brain cells punching alarm buttons?

Yep, if their conclusions were so sound they would be open to any investigation. In fact that is what the peer process is supposed to do if not subverted. So bottomline is they stink to high heaven.

Yep I've been reading up and on the warming side, allot of so-called experts with phony, missing, clerical inconsistencies and unprovable data.

Mann's hockey stick, up his butt.

 

[Toro]

People assume that global warming will be this massive disaster. Yet no one seems to talk about all the good things that would happen with global warming.

FFS, people like it warmer. After all, there aren't tens of thousands of people flocking from the south to North Dakota or upstate New York.

 

[Old Rocks]

People assume that global warming will be this massive disaster. Yet no one seems to talk about all the good things that would happen with global warming.

FFS, people like it warmer. After all, there aren't tens of thousands of people flocking from the south to North Dakota or upstate New York.

Toro, if it were just getting warmer, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunetly, we have been down this road before in geological history. And the path that history indicates we are on is a dangerous one. Dangerous to our agriculture, dangerous to our infrastructure of ports and transportation.

An adrupt climate change leads to inevitable surprise, most of them unpleasant.

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I talk about it Toro, and I think warming would be great. Just like in the Medieval Warm Period when everybody seemed to be doing great. Warmer temperatures mean more precipitation, a warmer, wetter, more lush, more arable world. It means that the greater than 50% of the Earth's surface which is currently frozen more than half of the year might actually be good for something.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes..yes indeed I pulled 3 F from (my ass?) thin air because I would be mildly alarmed at a 3 F change over the past 40 years, 1.36 F as you say, not so much.

By the way, you seem like a fairly intelligent fellow, why so crude, especially with someone you don't know? I'd gladly afford you respect on different terms...

First, you made a bald statement. 3 F in the last 40 years. A figure really easy to check on. Therefore, you are posting opinions without checking facts. That deserves no respect on my part.

Second, that is an average worldwide figure. For the areas that count concerning positive feedbacks, Northern North America and Siberia, that figure is 3 to 5 degrees, very significant in creating huge CH4 and CO2 outgassing from the permafrost and yedoma.

I've never claimed to be an expert on this subject. In fact, many times I write post to learn more about a subject and get leads on where to go for information. I actually did do some research on the subject and as a novice, I find the information conflicting as further shown on this thread. Smart people with conflicting views.

So far, I don't think there's any real doubt that the earth has been on a warming trend.The arguments on severity and the trend in the future. You may spend your time insulting others on the issue but you still have to realize that others have just as valid points of view as yours. Further, both sides of the issue are extrapolating from information that maybe tainted for a variety of technical reasons and human motivations.

One more observation, it seems to me that these wild eyed visions from the likes of the Al Gore types only hurts your side of the issue and causes well deserved ridicule.

Finally.. I'm going to add this subject to the list of government, taxes, religion, etc. that can't actually be negotiated, deny resolution and end up pissing people off.......then again.. some people prefer to be pissed off...

Were you to look at the majority of the threads on this subject, you would find that I have routinely posted articles by scientists in such publications as Science, Nature, and the Geophsics Research Journal.

Instead of just repeating the usual right wingnut deragutory insults towards Al Gore, why don't you point out where he is wrong in his assessment of global warming.

No, there is no negotiation on global warming. It is backed by solid evidence and data from all over the world. There is only mindless denial by those too damned into fantasy to see reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

I talk about it Toro, and I think warming would be great. Just like in the Medieval Warm Period when everybody seemed to be doing great. Warmer temperatures mean more precipitation, a warmer, wetter, more lush, more arable world. It means that the greater than 50% of the Earth's surface which is currently frozen more than half of the year might actually be good for something.

That is your opinion. Here is the opinion of people that actually study Agriculture.

The Impact of Global Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing Conditions
We link farmland values to climatic, soil, and socioeconomic variables for U.S. counties east of the 100th meridian, the historical boundary of agriculture not primarily dependent on irrigation. Degree days, a nonlinear transformation of the climatic variables suggested by agronomic experiments as more relevant to crop yield, gives an improved fit and increased robustness. Estimated coefficients are consistent with the experimental results. The model is employed to estimate the potential impacts on farmland values for a range of recent warming scenarios. The predictions are very robust, and more than 75% of the counties in our sample show a statistically significant effect, ranging from moderate gains to large losses, with losses in the aggregate that can become quite large under scenarios involving sustained heavy use of fossil fuels. Copyright (c) 2006 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

[Old Rocks]

I talk about it Toro, and I think warming would be great. Just like in the Medieval Warm Period when everybody seemed to be doing great. Warmer temperatures mean more precipitation, a warmer, wetter, more lush, more arable world. It means that the greater than 50% of the Earth's surface which is currently frozen more than half of the year might actually be good for something.

Really! Can I have the source of the 50% figure?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ultimate irony is that the Warmers are going to Hell for fudging then destroying the data.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Blast from the past

 

[AmericanFirst]

Well, after the Obama disaster that was Copenhagen, I warm my buns by the fire because (1) it's freezing outside and (2) the tree hugger bazaar showed pure hypocrisy and caused so much pollution that maybe the Earth will stop this darn cooling trend.

Honestly though, I'm glad Obama failed, yet again..

Except for a few idiots, there is no doubt that global warming is a reality.

The question is whether global warming is man made or part of a natural cycle that would happen whether man inhabited the earth or not.

You are one of the idiots that claims it does not exist at all. You are an embarrassment to the Leave it to Beaver show. Please use another name,

I feel Global warming is brought on by man and by natural cycles.

Actually the idiots believe in global warming, the earth has been cooling since 1998, on average it is 2 degrees cooler. Global warming is a myth put out by commies to gain control of society.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, after the Obama disaster that was Copenhagen, I warm my buns by the fire because (1) it's freezing outside and (2) the tree hugger bazaar showed pure hypocrisy and caused so much pollution that maybe the Earth will stop this darn cooling trend.

Honestly though, I'm glad Obama failed, yet again..

Except for a few idiots, there is no doubt that global warming is a reality.

The question is whether global warming is man made or part of a natural cycle that would happen whether man inhabited the earth or not.

You are one of the idiots that claims it does not exist at all. You are an embarrassment to the Leave it to Beaver show. Please use another name,

I feel Global warming is brought on by man and by natural cycles.

Actually the idiots believe in global warming, the earth has been cooling since 1998, on average it is 2 degrees cooler. Global warming is a myth put out by commies to gain control of society.

Liar!