temperatures, June, 2010

[Old Rocks]

Another warm month. If one looks at Dr. Spencers graph, you can see that since 1999, the 13 month mean has not touched the 0 line. The last decade has been much warmer than any since the records have been kept.

June 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.44 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm, +0.44 deg. C for June, 2010, but it appears the El Nino warmth is waning as a La Nina approaches.

For those keeping track of whether 2010 ends up being a record warm year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 30 June being +0.64 C in 1998 compared with +0.56 C for 2010. (John Christy says that the difference is not statistically significant.) As of 30 June 2010, there have been 181 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 122 (two-thirds) of them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It must be that Soviet genetically engineered CO2!

Unlike prior CO2 that needed a warming trend first, this CO2 causes instantaneous increases in temperature! When future generation drill Vostok ice cores for this time period they're going to crap!

They will take a 900,000 year core and see that for the first 898,000 years it warmed first and then 800 years later on average CO2 increased, but then the Soviets introduced CO2 Nine, like Vonnegut's Ice Nine, and it cause INSTANT, CATACLYSMIC AND IRREVERSIBLE changes in our temperatures!

Do you have a link to some psychologists blog to back up your science?

 

[konradv]

Regardless of what core data you cherry-pick, if CO2 goes up, more energy will be trapped and it WILL do something. According to Conservation of Energy, it doesn't just disappear. If statistically half would be re-emitted into space, where would the other half be going, except to warm the earth?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Regardless of what core data you cherry-pick, if CO2 goes up, more energy will be trapped and it WILL do something. According to Conservation of Energy, it doesn't just disappear. If statistically half would be re-emitted into space, where would the other half be going, except to warm the earth?

Right, because climatology is as solid a science as physics.

Physicists can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, but Climate Scientists can't seem to be able to find a way to add 200PPM of CO2 to a test tank to monitor the (non) changes in temperature.

 

[konradv]

That doesn't answer my question. Quit dodging the real issues, if you expect to be listened to.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I guess you better adapt or you'll die. Hot/Cold? It doesn't matter. Humans will either adapt to a possibly warming Planet or they wont. It really is that simple in the end. All the whining and anxiety wont change that. Humans have such big egos. They really do believe that they're so special. All other lifeforms on this Planet simply adapt or they don't. Humans are no different. The Planet warms and the Planet cools. It's just the way it is and has always been. Humans just need to get over themselves and deal with this. All other lifeforms already have. Don't live in fear. Just live.

 

[JimH52]

Frank and his kind could be eating frosties in Hell and they would still say climate change is a lie.

 

[westwall]

Frank and his kind could be eating frosties in Hell and they would still say climate change is a lie.

No, we just realize that climate change is natural and for the most part independant of human influence. If man really did have the impact that is claimed then the impacts would be immediately apparent after the 30 years of impending doom that we have bombarded with.

However, the record shows that there has been no worldwide increase in temperatures when measured by non contaminated weather stations.

On the other hand volcanoes, which the AGW crowd derides as a minor player in the climate world, allways seem to have immediate and measurable impacts on the worlds temperatures.

I wonder why that is? Let's think about this for a minute shall we. Maybe, just maybe, the Earths climate really is bigger than we think and a miniscule increase in a trace gas (which we as a race are responsible for) really does have no measurable effect.

Maybe, just maybe the only reason why the AGW groups are harping about CO2 is because that is the only thing they can actually regulate and make money off of. Nahhhh, it couldn't be that simple, could it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Or maybe ol' Walleyes just denies established science.

 

[gslack]

Regardless of what core data you cherry-pick, if CO2 goes up, more energy will be trapped and it WILL do something. According to Conservation of Energy, it doesn't just disappear. If statistically half would be re-emitted into space, where would the other half be going, except to warm the earth?

You dumbass, no one says it doesn't contribute to the planetary warmth, its the levels you try and attribute to it... Now for once start to use your dam head and stop looking like the forum retard..

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Oh Modern Humans,such giant egos. Modern Humans really do think it's all about them. Well it's not. Humans will have to adapt to a warmer or colder climate just like every other life form on this Planet has always had to. Many life forms have been around on this Planet a lot longer than humans have. Many humans have apparently forgotten this. Humans will have to bow to Mother Earth and simply hang on for survival. Humans have already had to do this in their past so it really isn't anything new. In fact we're better equipped to handle climate change now than humans were thousands of years ago. So buck up Humanity and start adapting...Or else. End of story.

 

[westwall]

Or maybe ol' Walleyes just denies established science.

Established by whom? The "scientists" who have manufactured their data for the last 15 to 20 years? Is that the "established science" we should be concerned about?

Not hardly.