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.
They take it from a variety of sources, for recent temperature data (last 100 to 150 years) they have instrumental readings from all over the world. Prior to that they rely on natural indicators like tree rings. They'll put this all in a database and then look for problems with the data. e.g if the temperature at an Alaska station was a balmy 80 degrees in the middle of January or if there is significant divergence from neighboring staions then there is obviously something wrong with data. This is where the "Hide the decline" comment comes from because tree ring data which is one source and considered fairly accurate shows a divergence from other data starting in the 60's.
The how, when and why the temperatures are adjusted is a point of contention and the accuracy of the temperature record is quite controversial. For example they have no explanation for the divergence of the tree ring data. You'd may think to yourself that at least the instrumental record should be accurate but that too is questionable.
Once they get all the bad data removed they can arrive at a worldwide average for each year, whether accurate or not is questionable.
TOTAL CRAP--- When I was in first grade in 1988, they said that by 2010, NYC would be under ten feet of water. Well, last I checked, New York City is still there. Furthermore, it is getting COLDER, not hotter. When was the last time that Florida had snow?
GLOBAL COOLING (1970's)
In 1974, the National Science Foundation predicts that declining world temperatures herald the beginning of "the next glacial age." A bestselling book in 1976, "The Cooling," states, "As Earth cools, as sunlight diminishes, as the range of snow and the length of winter increases, the possibility of a snow blitz grows greater and greater....Ice and snow covers more area today than even a decade ago, and by some indications the cooling has only begun."
What happened?
Global temperatures start heating up, putting an end to the global cooling issue.
THE LIMITS TO GROWTH (1970's)
In 1972, in an influential and widely-publicized report entitled "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome predicts that the world's population will hit 7 billion by 2000. As a result, there will be worldwide starvation as population growth outpaces the world's ability to feed itself. The price of natural resources such as gold, copper, tin, and particularly oil will skyrocket during the remainder of the century as supplies dwindle.
What happened?
The world's population barely hits 6 billion by the end of the century. Natural resources are more abundant, and are less expensive in real terms, than they were when The Limits to Growth was published.
THE POPULATION BOMB (1970's and 1980's)
In a bestselling and widely quoted book, "The Population Bomb," Dr. Paul Ehrlich (Obama's Science Czar) writes, "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."
What happened?
The 1970's and 1980's end with a dramatic decline in worldwide famine and mortality.
THE IMPENDING JAPANESE ECONOMIC TAKEOVER (1980s)
The Japanese economy expands robustly and begins to dominate high tech industries, under the direction of the Japanese government's Ministry of Trade and Industries (MITI). A series of bestselling books argue that the American free-market economy can no longer compete against countries that establish a strong business-government partnership.
What happened?
The Japanese business-government collaboration collapses under its own bureaucratic weight, and is followed by fourteen years of economic stagnation in Japan.
NUCLEAR WINTER (1980's)
In bestselling books such as "The Fate of the Earth," anti-nuclear activists warn that the ongoing buildup of nuclear arms could result in "nuclear winter," and the end of virtually all human life on earth.
What happened?
The U.S. continues to build up its nuclear weapons, which results in the peaceful end of the Cold War.
THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF 1990 (1990's)
In his bestselling book "The Great Depression of 1990," Dr. Ravi Batra predicts a collapse of the Western economies and a world depression that will arrive in 1990 and last for seven years.
What happened?
A minor recession in 1990-1991 is followed by record-level prosperity throughout the rest of the decade.
Y2K (1990's)
Hysteria builds as the year 2000 ("Y2K") approaches. Most computer data bases only allow two digit years (for example, 1957 is entered as "57"), leading computer experts to believe that computers will read "00" as 1900. A series of bestselling books such as "Time Bomb 2000" argue that there could be severe economic shutdowns and shortages as a result of this glitch. In the words of one computer expert (but typical of many others), "The Y2K problem is systemic. It cannot be fixed. The interconnections are too many. A noncompliant computer will spread bad data and re-corrupt a compliant computer. Either the noncompliant computers will re-corrupt the compliant ones, or else the compliant ones must cease all contact with noncompliant ones, thereby shutting down entire systems, most notably the banking system."
What happened?
January 1, 2000 comes and goes uneventfully.
But the list goes on.
SARS pandemic 2003
H5N1 pandemic
In the late 70s Acid Rain had us doomed
April 1, 2009 attack of Conficker virus Killer bees (this is one of my favorites, bees killing us all!) 1976 swine flu outbreak Bird flu pandemic of 2005. Thankfully 150 million people didn't die after all.
Pending events that haven't happened yet
Climate Change
2009 swine flu epidemic (1976 billion dollar throwaway, wash, rinse, repeat....)
2012 Yellowstone Park Eruption (I had to throw this in, it's one of my favorites).
Now, about the climate change, glaciers and all that...
Since it was proven in the emails that models are manipulated to serve man made global warming theory, i do not trust one thing said about it. I prefer to listen to what people are saying then possibly manipulated models.
What I hear from people are colder winters and milder summers as I have also experienced that
Ummm... Seriously. It's very frustrating having a discussion with people who won't even read what is written, much less attempt to grasp the larger concepts.
Here's what I was saying, if you cared to read: the scientific process of CO2 and other gases (referred to as "greenhouse gases" for a reason) trapping heat is a fact. Whether they're trapping heat in a laboratory or in a forest, the principle remains a constant fact.
I explicitly stated there's still a little debate about whether that process is occurring globally, thus removing my entire comment from the realm of global warming - as the OP did with this entire thread.
Yet, somehow, you all seem to just see catch words and have your rants ready to go. Your response had nothing to do with my post.
the problem bluefly is these people that are saying CO2 is a bad thing
co2 levels were 3 times higher 20,000 years ago......current co2 levels are 325-370ppm
actually co2 is good:
science has proved that co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago
guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plant life is....700 ppm
its not theory, its scientific fact
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-800 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER
As the air's CO2 content rises, most plants exhibit increased rates of net photosynthesis and biomass production. Moreover, on a per-unit-leaf-area basis, plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductances. Hence, the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises. In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. Thus, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.
In summary, it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency. It is thus likely that food and fiber production will increase on a worldwide basis, even in areas where productivity is severely restricted due to limited availability of soil moisture. Therefore, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.
also:
there are plenty of other benefits to the planet from global warming. Because warming is concentrated at the poles, large sections of the continental landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere that are currently too cold to be used for productive agriculture would become usable. Current agricultural lands would be warmed, but not as seriously impacted as warming closer to the equator is less severe. Also, warming is supposedly more prevalent during the winter months, lessening the length and severity of cold months leading to longer growing and allowing us to spend less of our resources on heating (wood, fossil fuels, electricity). Furthermore, warming would increase air temperature near and water temperature in the oceans, leading to increased evaporation and moisture in the atmosphere. This moisture would then fall as rain on the continents, further increasing the land's agricultural carrying capacity, thus allowing us to grow more food (and lessen the severity of current water shortages).
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...so keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming people only want to talk about tailpipe exaust man created co2, and how to tax it.
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended about 9,600 - 9,700 BC. During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent.
The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refers to the time of maximum extent of the ice sheets during the last glacial period, approximately 18,000 years ago. This extreme persisted for several thousand years. It is followed by the Late Glacial Maximum.
At this time, ice sheets covered the whole of Iceland and all but the southern extremity of the British Isles. Northern Europe was largely covered, the southern boundary passing through Germany and Poland, but not quite joined to the British ice sheet. This ice extended northward to cover Svalbard and Franz Josef Land and eastward to occupy the northern half of the West Siberian Plain, ending at the Taymyr Peninsula, and damming the Ob and Yenisei rivers forming a West Siberian Glacial Lake. In North America, the ice covered essentially all of Canada and extended roughly to the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, and eastward to New York City. A person could theoretically walk from North America to Europe across the frozen north Atlantic ice sheet.
18,000 years ago much of northern Ohio was under a sheet of ice one mile thick and then came global warming. Good thing too seeing as how all of Canada and much of the northern third of the USA was under ice.
The maximum extent of the ice was just south of what is now Dayton, Ohio.
In a short time of less than 7,000 years the glacier receeded over 2,000 miles to north of the Artic Circle at a rate of 1,500 feet per year!
And here we got the idiots all in a tizzy over an Alpine glacier that been receeding at 160 feet a year for 100 years wanting to give $100 billion to dictators in Africa? Are they serious?
Sure. According the "data" manufactured by the global warming crowd? I love the temperature "monitoring stations" placed in cities near asphalt.
Citizens of the US have awakened somewhat and will not be conned further by global warming, cap and trade, "health care reform", higher taxes, and more secrecy.
Global warming has taken a worse beating than Obama's health care plan and is a political lightning rod for any democrat up for re-election who is dumb enough to grasp it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for two decades the most important guide for the global community to the causes and consequences of the phenomenon, is facing a series of challenge over its practices, both from within and without.
The sections on the risks of extinction from warming in the report and the panel’s summaries are, at the very least, confusing.
This is what happens when the process is inherently political.....the science, data and evidence can't back up the bogus claims.
Ever notice that people who claim to not care about homosexuals are the first to post on every thread about homosexuality?
Same thing here. One mention of temperature and you're guaranteed a raft of people attacking Al Gore and giving a weather report about their backyard before you get to the actual topic of your thread.
I had someone on another thread tell me that my belief that CO2 traps heat is 'junk' and a religion - even though the process itself is a well known and uncontested fact (whether that's happening globally is still up for a little debate, but any lab can prove the process)
It's a good thing that CO2 can trap heat or the planet would be uninhabitable by water based life forms. Average temperatures would be about 60° colder without the naturally occurring GHGs. What we are talking about of course is too much heat trapping CO2.
you're kidding, right? There have been pages of posts and threads started every time it snows or there is an unusual cold snap. not to mention Sunny's post that I quoted. She seems to think the recent cold weather in Florida means more than a decade of warmer temps.
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.
