UAH temperatures for November

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Spencer is a warming skeptic, yet his figures and graphs show a continued and strong warming. Look at the 13 month running mean. It will surely surpass that of 1998.

Nov. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October November, 2010.

2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:

1998 +0.538
2010 +0.526

December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not too many people will say the earth hasn't warmed slightly in the last century.

It's the catastrophic chicken little shit that most don't believe. it's just another excuse for government to separate us from even more of our money and to impose even more control over us.

 

[Si modo]

Dr. Spencer is a warming skeptic, yet his figures and graphs show a continued and strong warming. Look at the 13 month running mean. It will surely surpass that of 1998.

Nov. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October November, 2010.

2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:

1998 +0.538
2010 +0.526

December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.

Uh huh.

And, your point?

 

[Old Rocks]

Not too many people will say the earth hasn't warmed slightly in the last century.

It's the catastrophic chicken little shit that most don't believe. it's just another excuse for government to separate us from even more of our money and to impose even more control over us.

Oh yeah, that government is melting all those glaciers and ice caps. The government, Russian, US, or other, caused the extreme heat event in Russia this summer. And the floods in Pakistan.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Si, your peer group, Westwall, mdn, and Kookybill, all are stating that the temperatures are now declining. Doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not too many people will say the earth hasn't warmed slightly in the last century.

It's the catastrophic chicken little shit that most don't believe. it's just another excuse for government to separate us from even more of our money and to impose even more control over us.

Oh yeah, that government is melting all those glaciers and ice caps. The government, Russian, US, or other, caused the extreme heat event in Russia this summer. And the floods in Pakistan.

If you're too much of a fucking sheep to see that the alarmist hysteria is being used by the fucking government to exert more control over us then that's your problem.

The earth has been hotter in the past and will be hotter again. it has been colder in the past and will be colder again. Through all that people have been just fine.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, Si, your peer group, Westwall, mdn, and Kookybill, all are stating that the temperatures are now declining. Doesn't seem to be the case.

Naah.......I could care less about the temperatures. They dont matter anymore.THATS my point! Id suggest you take a gandor over to my two most recent threads s0n.........then come back and tell me that the temperature readings matter.

s0n.....you and your ilk have evidently become fossils in the past two years. But dont take my word for it.......head on over to RealClearPolitics any day this week and see if anybody cares about this shit anymore.......

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not too many people will say the earth hasn't warmed slightly in the last century.

It's the catastrophic chicken little shit that most don't believe. it's just another excuse for government to separate us from even more of our money and to impose even more control over us.

Oh yeah, that government is melting all those glaciers and ice caps. The government, Russian, US, or other, caused the extreme heat event in Russia this summer. And the floods in Pakistan.

Now provide some evidence that MAN caused it. That man can fix it.

 

[skookerasbil]

In fact.....heres one now from this weekend from a lefty publication............

Green Strategy Now Christian Parenti
December 2, 2010 |

In the wake of the midterm elections, environmental groups are rethinking their strategy for addressing climate change. The defeat of the green agenda is measured not only in Republican control of the House but also in the huge amounts of money, time, energy and good will green groups invested in the pursuit of failed comprehensive climate legislation.

The fight for that legislation also brought out the divisions between environmentalists. While the Beltway-oriented "Big Green" groups tended to see flawed legislative language as a glass half full, the more left-leaning "Little Green" groups—the climate hawks—saw the bills as dangerously inadequate. In particular, Little Green opposed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed in 2009 (earlier known as Waxman-Markey), because it set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets—17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020—that were nowhere near what scientists say is necessary to avoid hitting climate tipping points. The bill was larded with giveaways to nuclear power and offshore oil drillers. And perhaps worst of all, it took a dangerous step backward by stripping the EPA of its new ability to regulate emissions through a process known as "stationary source review."

Then, in the Senate, came complementary "tripartisan" legislation—the eponymous Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill—that contained most of the same sops to industry yet still died a long, slow death by a thousand cuts. The struggle for cap-and-trade legislation, now dead, is undergoing an autopsy. Green groups great and small are taking stock.

"Some Big Green groups thought with Obama as president they were really in charge, and they got lost in the minutiae of the legislation," says Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace. "The bills were watered down and watered down, and took up huge amounts of time. Meanwhile, the White House and the supporters of cap and trade left out the problem statement. In their efforts to be positive and focus on the economic benefits of clean technology, they forgot to mention the problem. No one was explaining how serious climate change is."

Following the defeat, and faced with an immediate deadline for averting global catastrophe, greens big and small are going more local and becoming more confrontational. But there is wide variation in what that means.

Greenpeace, which had lobbied to improve the proposed bills but did not support them, is refocusing on local actions and alliance building, particularly against coal mining and burning. The fight against coal is one recent bright spot in the environmental struggle. For several years the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, numerous local outfits and, more recently, Greenpeace have waged a grassroots campaign using mass protest and direct action like mountaintop occupations, as well as financial and political pressure, and so far have prevented the construction of 130 proposed new coal plants [see "Cracking Big Coal," Robert S. Eshelman, May 3]. Direct action against coal directly cuts emissions, and in so doing it supports the various regional cap-and-trade structures like RGGI in the Northeast and the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), Davies points out. "Those mechanisms only work if there are some real emissions reductions," he explains.continued>>


Green Strategy Now | The Nation













Keep posting up those temperature figures s0n...............

 

[Si modo]

Well, Si, your peer group, Westwall, mdn, and Kookybill, all are stating that the temperatures are now declining. Doesn't seem to be the case.

Given your consistent lack of comprehension - and misrepresentation - of my position and your calling Spencer a "warming skeptic", I have to ask: Are you sure they are?

 

[skookerasbil]

And another from a more balanced perspective that says it like it is............had me laughing my balls off!!! Plenty over at RealClearPolitics.............

Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave
The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker 7:30PM GMT 04 Dec 2010


If, last week, frozen behind a snowdrift, you heard a faint hysterical squeaking, it might well have been the sound of those 20,000 delegates holed up behind a wall of armed security guards in the sun-drenched Mexican holiday resort of Cancun, telling each other that the world is more threatened by runaway global warming than ever. Between their tequilas and lavish meals paid for by the world’s taxpayers, they heard how, by 2060, global temperatures will have risen by 4 degrees Celsius; how the Maldives and Tuvalu are sinking below the waves faster than ever; how the survival of salmon is threatened by CO2-induced acidification of the oceans; how the UN must ban incandescent light bulbs throughout the world.

“Scientists”, we were told, are calling for everyone to be issued with a “carbon ration card”, to halt all Western economic growth for 20 years.

Meanwhile, Dr Rajendra Pachauri was telling us that we must spend hundreds of billions on covering the world’s oceans with iron filings, on building giant mirrors out in space and on painting all the world’s roofs white to keep out the heat from the sun.

The most obvious thing about all this ritualised scaremongering was how stale it all was. Not one of these points hasn’t been a cliche for years.The only scientist who believes we should all be issued with carbon ration cards is a Prof Kevin Anderson, who has been saying it since 2004. It is only those same old computer models that predict that Tuvalu and the Maldives are about to drown, when real measurements show the sea around them not to be rising at all. Far from the oceans acidifying, their pH currently ranges between 7.9 and 8.3, putting them very firmly on the alkaline side of the threshold, at 7.0.

The prediction that global temperatures will rise by four degrees in 50 years comes from that same UK Met Office computer which five weeks ago was telling us we were about to enjoy a “milder than average” winter, after three years when it has consistently got every one of its winter and summer forecasts hopelessly wrong. (And the reason why our local authorities are already fast running out of salt is that they were silly enough to believe them.)

When Vicky Pope, the Met Office’s Head of Climate Change Advice, wanted to fly out from Gatwick to Cancun to tell them that 2010 is the hottest year on record, she was trapped by inches of the same global warming that her £33 million computer had failed to predict.

As for all that “geo-engineering” make-believe which has been peddled for years, about giant mirrors and covering the sea with iron filings, it comes straight from Swift’s Academy of Lagado – as fanciful as the idea that we can save the planet by forcing everyone to use those miserable mercury-vapour “low-energy” light bulbs, or that we can pipe away all the carbon dioxide from power stations to store it in holes under the North Sea.

continued>>

Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave - Telegraph












Still..........the mental cases will be posting up canned BS links as if they matter............

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;3055228]Dr. Spencer is a warming skeptic, yet his figures and graphs show a continued and strong warming. Look at the 13 month running mean. It will surely surpass that of 1998.

Nov. 2010 UAH Gl
obal Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October November, 2010.

2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:

1998 +0.538
2010 +0.526

December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.[/QUOTE]

Spencer is a scientist who has been heavily involved in measuring earth temps for decades. He just produces data, he doesnt make flaky claims about disaster. For this he gets called a skeptic by people like Old Rocks. There are a few of his lectures on YouTube, and you could do worse to pick up the basics of satellite measurements by watching them. As with just about every area of AGW, his area of expertise lays bare the notion that the science is 'settled' or that CO2 is the only factor that is important.

 

[daveman]

Well, Si, your peer group, Westwall, mdn, and Kookybill, all are stating that the temperatures are now declining. Doesn't seem to be the case.

In summary:

If a month's temperatures go down, it's weather, and is indicative of nothing.

If a month's temperatures go up, it's climate, and proof that the planet is heating up.

Is that about it?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Daveboy, that is not about it. It is about major signs of warming such as melting ice caps, receding glaciers, and a melt of the permafrost that is releasing major amounts of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. This on top of the increasing amount of CO2 that we are putting their from the burning of fossil fuels. And the fact that the present GHG level will not be fully felt until 30 to 50 years from now.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;3055228]Dr. Spencer is a warming skeptic, yet his figures and graphs show a continued and strong warming. Look at the 13 month running mean. It will surely surpass that of 1998.

Nov. 2010 UAH Gl
obal Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October November, 2010.

2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:

1998 +0.538
2010 +0.526

December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.

Spencer is a scientist who has been heavily involved in measuring earth temps for decades. He just produces data, he doesnt make flaky claims about disaster. For this he gets called a skeptic by people like Old Rocks. There are a few of his lectures on YouTube, and you could do worse to pick up the basics of satellite measurements by watching them. As with just about every area of AGW, his area of expertise lays bare the notion that the science is 'settled' or that CO2 is the only factor that is important.[/QUOTE]

Nobody has said that CO2 is the only factor. All the evidence does point to GHGs being the primary factory, however. And we are producing those GHGs.

Now Spencer thinks that there are more natural factors resposible for the change than manmade factors. Most other scientists involved in the field think otherwise.

I see two main factors involved here. One is the amount of energy we recieve from our sun, the other is the amount retained. For the last 30 years there is no evidence that the amount of energy has increased, in fact, as measured, we see an insignificant decrease in the TSI. What about heat retention? Well, according to the physicists, the best way to increase heat retention on earth is to add GHGs to the atmosphere. Have we done that? Absolutely. A 40% increase in CO2, more than a 150% increase in CH4. And a regular stew of industrial GHGs, some of which are thousands of times as affective as CO2.

Are we seeing predicted results? Yes. From the ice caps to the glaciers, we are losing ice at an accelerating rate. We are seeing unusual weather patterns that are playing havoc with agriculture from Australia, to Pakistan and Russia. We have seen the predicted increase in precipitation events.

Will we actually heed the warning signs, and start reducing emissions? NO. That would reduce too many corperations profits, and force people to do things differantly than they have for the past century. They will not do that, even when doing so would be to their advantage.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Elvis, ol' turd. A whole bunch of negs in a row, but when I click on yours, I cannot return the favor. Nice system there, old boy. Not that I give a damn. Just neg rep until there is nothing left, doesn't matter in the least to me.

 

[daveman]

No, Daveboy, that is not about it. It is about major signs of warming such as melting ice caps, receding glaciers, and a melt of the permafrost that is releasing major amounts of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. This on top of the increasing amount of CO2 that we are putting their from the burning of fossil fuels. And the fact that the present GHG level will not be fully felt until 30 to 50 years from now.

I'll bet you still believe in Santa Claus, too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[elvis]

Hey Elvis, ol' turd. A whole bunch of negs in a row, but when I click on yours, I cannot return the favor. Nice system there, old boy. Not that I give a damn. Just neg rep until there is nothing left, doesn't matter in the least to me.

The rules are the same for you as for myself or anyone else, dipshit. And if it doesn't matter, why did you bring it up, dumbfuck?