NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever

You didn't answer my question.

 

And Quebec and parts of Greenland, normally in a deep freeze by now, are experiencing above freezing temperatures and rain.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04272/2010/12/1/MonthlyHistory.html

My guess is you live in the southeast U.S..

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_07a.rnl.html

My first post actually had a link to the Arctic Oscillation page, and this sort of large negative index and weather pattern brings cold air far south and leaves the Arctic unusually warm is in place at the moment. Whether or not global warming and long-term melting of Arctic ice is influencing these sorts of patterns is an open question.

 

Whoa... slow down there. Let's not ruin such a perfectly good illusion for all these well-meaning folks.

 

Don't get me wrong; I know global warming fanatics believe the hockey stick graph is valid, but we're not really concerned about belief. The graph doesn't even contain a medieval warm period, or the more recent mini ice age. I bet I could make a 'pogo stick graph' if I handpicked data to my liking. It doesn't make it valid.

 

Hmmm could have fooled me.
We have more snow and colder whether this December than at anytime in at least 20 years.

But these are the same people that were forecasting an ice age back in the 70's.

People never learn.

 

These are only records if you limit yourself to the last 100 years or so correct?

In other words if we restrict the data then we have records, supposedly.

And we can't even be sure because these same governments control the meteorological services and we're talking about a 1 degree rise.

Yep, and US citizens are carrying bombs onto planes in their underwear too.

We had the greatest generation followed by the baby boomers, now we have the gullible dopes.

 

I was asking for evidence that climate change is not man made, not for where people holiday as that just a red herring. I was hoping that in the interests of fair and intelligent debate you might be willing to share your sources for evidence that climate change is not man made, it's not a loaded question but it's impossible and pointless to debate if opinion is the only argument.

This isn't the case, do you not understand the greenhouse effect? http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/greenhouse-effect This is the very basic, pre-school global warming lesson.

As for scientists, there is no real debate within the scientific community about whether climate change is affected by human actions, the debate is about how much it is affected and most are i agreement that we are a major cause of the accelerated warming.

 

I don't know where it is that you attended high school but that's not the way science is done.
You don't come up with a theory and then challenge someone to prove that it isn't so.

It is incumbent upon those who claim we have man made global warming to prove it, not the other way around.

It's embarrassing for you that I have to spell this out.

And no, the mere fact that Al Gore proclaimed that the debate is over doesn't qualify as proof.
What is proven is that he is positioned to profit handsomely if this scam ever gets off the ground, and you will pay, and pay and pay and pay.

 

I notice you did not address the fact that dinosaurs lived in the tropical age and there was also an ice age long before the "evil corporations" starting polluting Earth.

That Libertarian simply says there is no reason not to believe it... so why not believe it? Pity.

 

I was not putting forward a theory and challenging anyone to prove it, I was requesting Roy L to produce evidence to back up the theory he was putting forward. That is how debates work. You don't just make sweeping statements and expect them to be accepted. I haven't seen the Al Gore film so can't comment but if he is making unfounded claims then I'd happily lay the same question at his feet.

So far the evidence I have seen supports the theories that current climate change is at the very least worsened by mans actions if not caused by them. And so far I've only heard rhetoric and opinion against climate change being man made from non-scientific scources.

Interesting, related video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

No, it's not, because it shows why global warming is not a threat even if it were man-made.

Very simple: climate has changed constantly for billions of years. Why would it stop changing just at the moment men with thermometers arrived on the scene?

I understand the greenhouse effect. I also understand the fact that without all kinds of assumptions, logical fallacies, data manipulation, computer modeling and plain bad science, the amount of CO2 human activities have added to the atmosphere cannot possibly have caused the observed temperature increase.

It's trivially true that human activities affect climate. However, the key claims of AGW theory are much stronger than that, and much less well supported by credible empirical science:

1. That the measured increase in global temperature represents tru global temperature, and is not in any significant measure an artifact of changing land use around instrument stations or other human activities that affect the thermometer readings much more than they affect actual global temperature.

2. That increased atmospheric CO2 due to human fossil fuel combustion has been the most important factor causing increased global temperatures over the last century and especially over the last 40 years, because of presumed positive feedback effects.

3. That global temperatures are now higher than at any time in human history.

4. That continued increases in atmospheric CO2 due to human fossil fuel combustion will, through presumed positive feedback effects, cause additional large increases in global temperature on the order of 2C-5C, causing a rapid increase in sea level and other harmful effects.

5. That this increase in global temperature will be far more harmful than beneficial to humanity.

None of these five claims is well supported by valid empirical evidence. The truth, which I predict will be accepted mainstream science within 20 years, is:

1. Global warming as measured by the surface temperature record has been overstated due to problems with instrument siting.

2. CO2 is not the principal cause of global warming. Increased solar activity since the Little Ice Age and Maunder Minimum is.

3. Temperatures were probably higher during the Holocene Optimum about 6Kya, and were almost certainly higher during the last interglacial 120Kya.

4. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise, but global temperature will not follow the claimed associated rapid increase.

5. The modest and mainly natural increase in global temperature will on balance benefit humanity.

 

two things you must not have heard of
1. the sun
2. the hundreds of scientists who refute the man made global warming claims
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

 

The fallacies (one involving a non-sequitur) were already addressed in the first few pages. You might start with painting of the Jurassic period with all the cute dinosaurs and then read the responses.

It does speak volumes when every dubious skeptic argument put forth doesn't hold water. Be skeptical of the skeptics.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Some people don't. Thus, the same old talking points debunked over and over...

 

Incorrect. Science is not mathematics. Theories can never be proven correct - only falsified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Certainty_and_science

It's strange that global warming deniers are the only ones who seem to display this fundamental lack of understanding of science, as they're the only ones I routinely have to correct on this issue.

 

Trends for the year are not the question nor what I origionaly stated in my first post. Once agian you continue ot obfuscate. The question is how does the GISS show an increacing trend during a La Nina a La Nina that started in July. The only way Dr. Hansen gets this year to be the hottest year is to ignore the present La Nina and lie his ass off.

That said the only reason the GISS shows a stronger trend is because they so grossly over stated the El Nino effect in the spring showing a near two tenths of a degree increace in the anomly while the other records had less than half of that.

The accusation I made was that the GISS shows an increasing trend during a La Nina. Quite obfuscating. You strawmen are growing old. You cant keep burning that same one over and over again. You look like a hack.

 

I looked through and did not see your argument against this. Could you link me to where you already addressed the fact that there were extreme changes in climate before humans even existed?

 

You really don't understand this subject at all, do you Roy

We all know that the earth has gone through considerable changes over the last few billion years or so. That is not in dispute.

What concerns us is the observed climate change of recent decades and its impact on human habitation over a decadal timespan.

A discussion of AGW without context to human habitation is meaningless. As meaningless as the nutjobs we come across occaisionally with their stupid conspiracy theories about Margaret Thatcher or bizarres schemes to direct rising sea levels into Lake Eyre.

 

No one is disputing the fact that there were extreme changes in climate before humans even existed.

Try to learn something about the subject before posting this garbage please.

 

errrr...actually, that is exactly "how science is done". There is no such thing as scientific "proof". But theories can be disproved. Were you home schooled?

Your future contributions are not required.

 

I understand it far better than you.

A discussion of climate change mechanisms without reference to climate history is pseudo-science.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are sooooo funny!!! Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Also amusing since you're obviously oblivious to the fact that climate scientists have studied 'climate history' very intensively. Their conclusions about the current abrupt warming are based on an understanding of past climate changes and the physical processes that caused them.

Once again you display your total ignorance of this subject. Worse than ignorance actually. It's more a matter of your brainwashed acceptance of a whole lot of misinformation, lies and spin that have been fed to you by the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine and their front groups, the denier cult blogs.

 

We know what Obama thinks of NASA, so this data is obviously no good to him.

 

Actually, extreme changes of the variety seen recently in as little as a century is quite rare. It only occurs in a few places in the geological record. The larger changes, such as glaciations, occur over tens of thousands of years (not decades or a century). The warmth in the dinosaur era didn't happen overnight either.

You have to be more clear about what argument you're making. To "climate change has happened before", I would simply say "so?"

 

Well that's an odd way to go about measuring things. La Nina is present. So let's arbitrarily (with absolutely no rational justification) adjust measurements to match naive expectations. I would say that's fraudulent. Do deniers condone this?

Riddle me this, Batman. Let's use your logic for a moment. The 2009 el Nino started around June, peaking in early 2010. Should be a lockstep increase in global mean temperature, right? For most of the 2nd half of the year, GISS actually shows a declining trend. They must have been lying their asses off to prevent 2009 from being a record and thus appeasing denialists everywhere.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2009.5/to:2009.8/trend

Riddle me this too. Why is it that baseline-adjusted anomalies for GISS has been lower than UAH and RSS for 10 of 11 months this year? Has Roy Spencer of UAH been lying his ass off? Or perhaps the full lower troposphere responds somewhat differently to ENSO effects than the surface (one of the many points you ignored in my related post on the topic).

The graph I posted shows the exact opposite you're claiming, so I'm not really sure who's buttocks you're pulling this one from, although you should cite your sources. GISS is very much on the low side during the spring (better rethink your spin). Must have been lying their asses off to ensure 2010 wasn't as warm.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha...t:-0.24/plot/rss/from:2009/plot/uah/from:2009

That's not an accusation. It's an assertion followed by an accusation of fraud, which is based on nothing but willful ignorance.

Quick update: NCDC's November anomaly value is in: 0.6943, which also indicates the meteorological year is the warmest on record. Must be in on the conspiracy too.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat