Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More thoughts from a weatherman, too! The deniers are formidable now!
I am assuming you didn't read it? Would I be correct in that assumption?
A really interesting fact of that read is that it shows that the IPCC's data does not match any of the data taken from the Raw data and even after multiple additions and reads, it still does not match it.
That is, the IPCC's data is taken from the CRU's "value added" data.
So how do you explain this?
If the CRU is not manipulating the data to fit a bias, then why does it not match up with any of the raw data?
The only way they can get away with making this claim is to ignore satellite data.
The satellite data has diverged BIG TIME from the instrument record…
With all the proof out there that the instrument record is being twisted and manipulated and turned upside down, why would anyone believe anything that is based on it?
Because it fits in with what they want to believe?
After all, the new Scientific Method (tm) is:
1. Belief
2. Speculate
3. Find some agreement
4. Manipulate fact
5. Condemn all opposition
6. Declare proven theory
As I see it, there are three issues that need to be addressed with regard to AGW.
1) Is the global climate really warming over an extended time span? Given the quetions about how data was collected and manipulated, there is a significant question as to rather this is even true.
2) If global warming is actually occuring, is it actually due to manmade emmissions of greenhouse gasses? Most of what I have read indicates that climate temperatures fluctuate over long time spans and has natural components. IF you accept that greenhouse gasses, rather than other causes are to blame, don't manmade emmissions contribute to only 3% of greenhouse gasses?
3) IF one and two are true, the solution isn't necessarily to take civilization back to the stone age, or tax the heck out of everthing. Is it smarter or more cost effective to find ways to deal with a minor changes in temperature, rather than try to undo it? Most of the so-called scientists that promote AWG tend to say we're too late anyway.
That's the title given to press release no. 869 from the World Meteorological Organization:
Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.
And for those of us in the U.S. who have experienced colder-than-usual weather this year ....
This year above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents. Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average. Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.
The press release is fairly long and gives information on a variety of topics, including regional temperature anomalies, severe droughts, intense storm events and precipitation, and third-lowest Arctic sea ice.
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'
June 2009 saw another drop in global temps
Sunday, July 05, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
According to the latest global satellite data courtesy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and made into an easy to read graph by algorelied.com: "For the record, this month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore's film was released," noted algorelied.com. (See satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted, courtesy of ]www.Algorelied.com - Also see: Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps
So exactly what do you "believers" suggest as a course of action to correct one of the earth's oldest tricks? Temperature variance is nothing new and quite natural. The earth has gone through periods of warmer and colder weather since it's birth. Why some of you choose to allow yourselves to be manipulated into believing it's "all your fault" is beyond me. Sure, I've seen the data, I've read the reports, and I've watched the "specials" detailing our demise because we just won't walk to work or take the bus. And all the while, more freedom is slowly taken away and more controls over your lives are put in place. You are the ones who would embrace "Cap and Trade" as some sort of great achievement, then lament your losses later and blame the "polluters" for not taking this matter seriously. But you are the ones being dupped here, not us. We see this mess for what it really is. A power play and a money maker for the very ones responsible for most of the problems we currently have with pollution. But you go ahead, thinking farts and car fumes override the gases put into our atmosphere naturally by the earth all the time. It's all our fault, and we should be punished. Please, think for yourselves for once. Sticking with the PC herd may be the popular thing to do, but often it's also the dumbest thing to do.
Okay. Thinking for myself ....
When has the Earth ever had as many people as it has today?
When has the Earth ever had as much industrialization - cars and trucks on the road, power plants, factories, and so on, as it has today?
When has Man pumped so many toxins into the air as we do today?
I believe you are correct when you say that "temperature variance is nothing new and quite natural", but when will the activities of Man - numbering far more now than ever before - defeat the Earth's ability to naturally process and cleanse?
I believe you are correct when you say that "the earth has gone through periods of warmer and colder weather since its birth", but the Earth's ability to deal with the consequences of Man's activities has never been as challenged as it is today.
I think it is simply common sense to believe that Man's activities have had and are having a profound impact on this world. If that makes me a nut, so be it - I can live with that. The question is, can we live as we have in the past, with no concern or awareness of our impact on the Earth? I sincerely don't think we can.
When has the Earth ever had as many people as it has today?
When has the Earth ever had as much industrialization - cars and trucks on the road, power plants, factories, and so on, as it has today?
When has Man pumped so many toxins into the air as we do today?
I believe you are correct when you say that "temperature variance is nothing new and quite natural", but when will the activities of Man - numbering far more now than ever before - defeat the Earth's ability to naturally process and cleanse?
I believe you are correct when you say that "the earth has gone through periods of warmer and colder weather since its birth", but the Earth's ability to deal with the consequences of Man's activities has never been as challenged as it is today.
I think it is simply common sense to believe that Man's activities have had and are having a profound impact on this world. If that makes me a nut, so be it - I can live with that. The question is, can we live as we have in the past, with no concern or awareness of our impact on the Earth? I sincerely don't think we can.
We would not be where we are today in our understanding of science if we simply applied "common sense" as the key to our understanding.
This is why we have a rigours process for discovery using science. We can not trust our gut, make common sense declarations, or assume through our basic surface understanding of something that we can make conclusions.
While "reasonable" in a general way, your argument is that of a fallacious one. Some things can not apply common sense as its process of discovery because many things in reality (specifically science) do not follow proper rules of "common sense".
The "scientists" of Copenhagen are trying to appeal to the liberal's emotional side and hanging on the coattails of their degrees. It's pretty much epic fail.
While "reasonable" in a general way, your argument is that of a fallacious one. Some things can not apply common sense as its process of discovery because many things in reality (specifically science) do not follow proper rules of "common sense".
I obviously wasn't making a scientific argument - frankly, I don't know enough on the topic to come close to making a scientific argument. I was merely expressing what I believe to be true, based on what I see as an application of common sense; i.e., the Earth has done very well in the past despite periodic fluctuations - some drastic - in global temperatures, but for most of that time, Man wasn't around.
I don't know whether the Earth can survive Man without some help from Man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
