Global Cooling in 2009

[saveliberty]

That chart is a lie in so many ways it isn't funny.

First of all the source of the graph is the "what's up with that" website.
Secondly, it is not a chart of the annual temps. According to the NCDC annual temp data 2005 was the warmest YEAR globally in the history of direct instrument measurement, and 2007 tied 1998 for the second warmest year, and every year after 2001 was warmer than 2001. Your chart, on the other hand shows 1998 as the warmest and 2006 as second warmest and 4 of the 7 years after 2001 as cooler than 2001.

And thirdly what you dishonestly did was take a chart for the month of DECEMBER only over that time period rather than a chart of the yearly temps.

This is why I say CON$ are the lowest PREMEDITATED lying scum that ever crawled out of a sewer.

Your statement in bold is a lie. The source is NOAA. The rest of your comments are pretty much the same. This warmest alarm you sound is for years which never exceeded a temperature of 1.5 degrees warmer than the AVERAGE temperature. Climate goes in cycles and this is certainly no radical shift as you would like us to believe. Go yell fire in someone else's movie theater.

Here's the link to the chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png?w=520&h=374
It's from the what's up with that website and its a chart of the month of December only, not yearly. Just click on it and read the title bar at the top of your browser window.

Again this is why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after you give them the truth, they just continue to lie while accusing the person who dares expose them to the truth of lying. Honest people have nothing but contempt for CON$.

Note the bold sentence above. The only way you know its a chart from December is by visiting the website. Where it is clearly labeled as a chart from a division of NOAA. The graph represents results very similiar to the annual results:

NOAA Climate Services

You have been caught in your deception.

 

[Sinatra]

Your statement in bold is a lie. The source is NOAA. The rest of your comments are pretty much the same. This warmest alarm you sound is for years which never exceeded a temperature of 1.5 degrees warmer than the AVERAGE temperature. Climate goes in cycles and this is certainly no radical shift as you would like us to believe. Go yell fire in someone else's movie theater.

Here's the link to the chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png?w=520&h=374
It's from the what's up with that website and its a chart of the month of December only, not yearly. Just click on it and read the title bar at the top of your browser window.

Again this is why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after you give them the truth, they just continue to lie while accusing the person who dares expose them to the truth of lying. Honest people have nothing but contempt for CON$.

Note the bold sentence above. The only way you know its a chart from December is by visiting the website. Where it is clearly labeled as a chart from a division of NOAA. The graph represents results very similiar to the annual results:

NOAA Climate Services

You have been caught in your deception.

cynic is no cynic - just a lazy idiot...

 

[edthecynic]

Your statement in bold is a lie. The source is NOAA. The rest of your comments are pretty much the same. This warmest alarm you sound is for years which never exceeded a temperature of 1.5 degrees warmer than the AVERAGE temperature. Climate goes in cycles and this is certainly no radical shift as you would like us to believe. Go yell fire in someone else's movie theater.

Here's the link to the chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png?w=520&h=374
It's from the what's up with that website and its a chart of the month of December only, not yearly. Just click on it and read the title bar at the top of your browser window.

Again this is why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after you give them the truth, they just continue to lie while accusing the person who dares expose them to the truth of lying. Honest people have nothing but contempt for CON$.

Note the bold sentence above. The only way you know its a chart from December is by visiting the website. Where it is clearly labeled as a chart from a division of NOAA. The graph represents results very similiar to the annual results:

NOAA Climate Services

You have been caught in your deception.

You just can't stop yourself from lying!

What's up with that falsely labels the chart as made from NCDC/NOAA but if the chart was actually made by NOAA it would have their logo and would have been labeled as DECEMBER temps. The chart was made by what's up with that, they may have used data from the NCDC but NCDC is not the source of the chart.
Below is a real chart from NCDC for December, you can clearly tell it's labeled as a chart of Dec temps.

Your "source" has been exposed as a deliberate deceiver and you have been exposed as a gullible fool who swallowed the deception whole and you refuse to admit you've been had.

And if you go to your link and set the sliders to 1998 to 2008, the annual temp looks nothing like the what's up chart. If the Dec chart and an annual chart were so similar, you CON$ would have used an annual chart as an annual chart instead of a Dec chart as an annual chart. DUH

 

[saveliberty]

Here's the link to the chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png?w=520&h=374
It's from the what's up with that website and its a chart of the month of December only, not yearly. Just click on it and read the title bar at the top of your browser window.

Again this is why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after you give them the truth, they just continue to lie while accusing the person who dares expose them to the truth of lying. Honest people have nothing but contempt for CON$.

Note the bold sentence above. The only way you know its a chart from December is by visiting the website. Where it is clearly labeled as a chart from a division of NOAA. The graph represents results very similiar to the annual results:

NOAA Climate Services

You have been caught in your deception.

You just can't stop yourself from lying!

What's up with that falsely labels the chart as made from NCDC/NOAA but if the chart was actually made by NOAA it would have their logo and would have been labeled as DECEMBER temps. The chart was made by what's up with that, they may have used data from the NCDC but NCDC is not the source of the chart.
Below is a real chart from NCDC for December, you can clearly tell it's labeled as a chart of Dec temps.

Your "source" has been exposed as a deliberate deceiver and you have been exposed as a gullible fool who swallowed the deception whole and you refuse to admit you've been had.

And if you go to your link and set the sliders to 1998 to 2008, the annual temp looks nothing like the what's up chart. If the Dec chart and an annual chart were so similar, you CON$ would have used an annual chart as an annual chart instead of a Dec chart as an annual chart. DUH

NCDC requires a payment for most of their graphs and data. They supply government and private folks with information. As far as the chart you are talking about, the December label is lost when you click on the graph. The chart was labeled as a NCDC source. Just because you used a NOAA graph and are calling it a NCDC graph doesn't make it so. You would have to ask Smith and Reynolds, because apparently it is their chart from 2005.

 

[edthecynic]

Note the bold sentence above. The only way you know its a chart from December is by visiting the website. Where it is clearly labeled as a chart from a division of NOAA. The graph represents results very similiar to the annual results:

NOAA Climate Services

You have been caught in your deception.

You just can't stop yourself from lying!

What's up with that falsely labels the chart as made from NCDC/NOAA but if the chart was actually made by NOAA it would have their logo and would have been labeled as DECEMBER temps. The chart was made by what's up with that, they may have used data from the NCDC but NCDC is not the source of the chart.
Below is a real chart from NCDC for December, you can clearly tell it's labeled as a chart of Dec temps.

Your "source" has been exposed as a deliberate deceiver and you have been exposed as a gullible fool who swallowed the deception whole and you refuse to admit you've been had.

And if you go to your link and set the sliders to 1998 to 2008, the annual temp looks nothing like the what's up chart. If the Dec chart and an annual chart were so similar, you CON$ would have used an annual chart as an annual chart instead of a Dec chart as an annual chart. DUH

NCDC requires a payment for most of their graphs and data. They supply government and private folks with information. As far as the chart you are talking about, the December label is lost when you click on the graph. The chart was labeled as a NCDC source. Just because you used a NOAA graph and are calling it a NCDC graph doesn't make it so. You would have to ask Smith and Reynolds, because apparently it is their chart from 2005.

Again you show how your bias has completely blinded you to the obvious. Clearly the chart extends well beyond 2005!!!! LOL
"Smith and Reynolds, 2005" is the STANDARD the chart was constructed upon.

And the Dec label from the What's up site was never posted and can only be found in the title bar if you open the chart in a separate window. As stated in my earlier post, I recognized the data in the What's up chart did not match the annual NCDC/NOAA data for the years I cited, so I knew to try to trace the graph to it's real source.

 

[saveliberty]

You just can't stop yourself from lying!

What's up with that falsely labels the chart as made from NCDC/NOAA but if the chart was actually made by NOAA it would have their logo and would have been labeled as DECEMBER temps. The chart was made by what's up with that, they may have used data from the NCDC but NCDC is not the source of the chart.
Below is a real chart from NCDC for December, you can clearly tell it's labeled as a chart of Dec temps.

Your "source" has been exposed as a deliberate deceiver and you have been exposed as a gullible fool who swallowed the deception whole and you refuse to admit you've been had.

And if you go to your link and set the sliders to 1998 to 2008, the annual temp looks nothing like the what's up chart. If the Dec chart and an annual chart were so similar, you CON$ would have used an annual chart as an annual chart instead of a Dec chart as an annual chart. DUH

NCDC requires a payment for most of their graphs and data. They supply government and private folks with information. As far as the chart you are talking about, the December label is lost when you click on the graph. The chart was labeled as a NCDC source. Just because you used a NOAA graph and are calling it a NCDC graph doesn't make it so. You would have to ask Smith and Reynolds, because apparently it is their chart from 2005.

Again you show how your bias has completely blinded you to the obvious. Clearly the chart extends well beyond 2005!!!! LOL
"Smith and Reynolds, 2005" is the STANDARD the chart was constructed upon.

And the Dec label from the What's up site was never posted and can only be found in the title bar if you open the chart in a separate window. As stated in my earlier post, I recognized the data in the What's up chart did not match the annual NCDC/NOAA data for the years I cited, so I knew to try to trace the graph to it's real source.

Gee Ed, I just clicked on the source in the post and clicked on the graph. All I needed to know was right there. By the way, thanks for admiting the graph's real source is NCDC, not whats up. Your real complaint seems to be the NCDC used December of each of those years to construct a graph you don't like. Too bad.

 

[edthecynic]

Global Cooling in 2009

2009 was another year of global cooling, which saw numerous low temperature and high snowfall records smashed. ...

Source: National Climatic Data Center

NCDC requires a payment for most of their graphs and data. They supply government and private folks with information. As far as the chart you are talking about, the December label is lost when you click on the graph. The chart was labeled as a NCDC source. Just because you used a NOAA graph and are calling it a NCDC graph doesn't make it so. You would have to ask Smith and Reynolds, because apparently it is their chart from 2005.

Again you show how your bias has completely blinded you to the obvious. Clearly the chart extends well beyond 2005!!!! LOL
"Smith and Reynolds, 2005" is the STANDARD the chart was constructed upon.

And the Dec label from the What's up site was never posted and can only be found in the title bar if you open the chart in a separate window. As stated in my earlier post, I recognized the data in the What's up chart did not match the annual NCDC/NOAA data for the years I cited, so I knew to try to trace the graph to it's real source.

Gee Ed, I just clicked on the source in the post and clicked on the graph. All I needed to know was right there. By the way, thanks for admiting the graph's real source is NCDC, not whats up. Your real complaint seems to be the NCDC used December of each of those years to construct a graph you don't like. Too bad.

If the NCDC is the true source of the What's up chart, then please link to the same chart on the NCDC site!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And my real complaint was that the poster posted the what's up Dec graph as representing an annual 10 year global trend. Not only was the chart only for the month of Dec over the 10 years, it wasn't even GLOBAL temps. It was only a chart of North American temps for the month of Dec.
But you knew that already, thus your Straw Man.

 

[saveliberty]

Ed, it costs about $4.00 to get that from NCDC. I thought the North American data was relevant. It is part of the Arctic right?

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, it costs about $4.00 to get that from NCDC. I thought the North American data was relevant. It is part of the Arctic right?

It's not the GLOBE and the title of this thread is "GLOBAL Cooling in 2009."

And NCDC charts are posted on the internet for free.
Here are some links, including a search engine:

NCDC: Climate Monitoring Products; Global Temp and Precip - 2008

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | December 2008

 

[SwingVoter]

Except, of course, when 2010 comes in at warmer than 1998

30s all the way down to Florida today, are you willing to put any money behind your claims, or do you just regurgitate Al Gore's talking points like a sheep?

 

[saveliberty]

Except, of course, when 2010 comes in at warmer than 1998

30s all the way down to Florida today, are you willing to put any money behind your claims, or do you just regurgitate Al Gore's talking points like a sheep?

Have no doubt 2009 is warmer than ever and then 2010 warmer than that. The fix is in. That is our point. The global warmers are so far down the path, there's no turning back.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You guys can huff and puff that "all the scientists are part of a massive conspiracy", but that only makes you look like a jackass.

As soon as you can quote where anyone here has said that, you won't look like such a jackass.

 

[HyenaKiller]

it is 21 degree's in FL right now....

LOL...

MAN BEAR PIG LIVES!!

 

[Old Rocks]

So? We have had some record high low night temps here. 52 at midnight one night. So what.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except, of course, when 2010 comes in at warmer than 1998

30s all the way down to Florida today, are you willing to put any money behind your claims, or do you just regurgitate Al Gore's talking points like a sheep?

Have no doubt 2009 is warmer than ever and then 2010 warmer than that. The fix is in. That is our point. The global warmers are so far down the path, there's no turning back.

Dang, more lying data from one of them thar warmers

AOL Search

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.497 +0.422 +0.572 +0.495
2009 12 +0.280 +0.318 +0.242 +0.503