You don't see this kind of thing reported here in the U.S.
The Australian Newspaper published an editorial with a transcript from an ABC Radio broadcast that featured some startling (for those who buy the global warming hysteria) news:
1) The planet has cooled since 1998, precisely the opposite of what the global climate models predict; and
2) The data from a new NASA satellite that can measure cloud formation (and therefore water vapor, thought to be a major player in the CO2 induced greenhouse effect) gives a result also precisely the opposite of the assumptions that underlie the climate models about the effect of H2O.
The satellite data is so strong a repudiation of the predictive ability of the models that the radio show guest said:
"A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience."
Actually, this is not at all likely. Far more likely is that all of these entities will do their level best to ignore this damning evidence, claim that the source of the data is tainted by "big oil," and ratchet up the volume of their calls for panic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Actually, it seems that the Left's latest tactic is to talk less about "global warming" and more about "climate change". This way, no matter which way the climate patterns go, they can still blame you, and impose ever-increasing restrictions on your life.
The issue now is more frequently being framed as "battling climate change".
However, in my limited experience, that which does not change is usually dead.
The problem with global warming theory from the beginning has been the assumptions fed into the models to predict future world temperatures. The two assumptions they missed by a mile are the one about water vapor, and the sun's cycle of warming and cooling. I'm sure there are others.
The idea that the earth's climate doesn't self-regulate is pretty funny considering its survived 4 billion years and has moved toward a moderating climate all that time.
Shouldn't we let scientific geniuses like David Appell explain this to us.
It's one thing to read this Australian editorial and learn the new NASA data etc. but we have David to walk us through it.
He must be working on a report right now.
Max, it was actually scientists who changed terminology, not the left. As they learned more about the climate, they realized that more carbon dioxide did not necessarily lead to warming, but could have more complex effects on the climate (such as the possible shutdown of the ocean current that warms England and Europe, causing temperatures to fall there) and other feedback effects. It's a more accurate term.
It is simply not true that the planet has cooled since 1998. Tim Lambert shows a simple graph, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php
As you can see: no cooling.
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006/05/more-lies-from-fact-check-boy.html
MORE LIES FROM FACT-CHECK BOY
Tim Lambert claims to be a fact-checker; in reality he's a crafty manipulator of information. His attempt to discredit the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is a classic of distortion.
In his post Lambert links to a flaky letter by "long range weather forecaster" Ken Ring, sarcastically claiming it is indicative of "the top-notch climate science that NZCSC promotes...". Typically, Lambert fails to note that Ken Ring is not a member of the NZCSC, with the NZCSC's link to Ring's letter being the only visible connection between the two. Lambert also fails to link to the NZCSC homepage which prominently displays this disclaimer:
The Coalition encourages the reading of a wide variety of opinion and information on climate change, from many differing viewpoints. We provide links to a range of such material, including some older writings that have historic significance in the public or scientific debate. For some items, we also provide an editorial comment or correction. Responsibility for the accuracy of the pieces that we link to rests with their authors and the publication in which they appear.
If Lambert was really interested in informing his readers he would have linked to Ken Ring's site, which sells long range forecasts generated "only by calculating the orbits of the moon". In other words, Ring does weather by astrology and his unlikely to be taken seriously by the NZCSC.
When commenter Hans Erren points out the lack of association between the NZCSC and Ken Ring, Lambert goes all evasive:
Hans, it's the Climate Science Coalition who has done the associating, not me.
Nope, the NZCSC doesn't endorse, recommend or comment on Ring's letter, it simply links to it for readers to consider on its merits. Lambert, on the other hand, uses lies of omission to attempt to make a link that isn't there. He's not to be trusted, ever.
Update: Here's another of Lambert's increasingly frequent distortions, this time regarding Africa Fighting Malaria's Roger Bate:
It is interesting to note that one of the authors of the criticism of the World Bank is Roger Bate, who last year wrote how the main failing of the World Bank's efforts against malaria was that it didn't support DDT use.
Lambert doesn't quote Bate because he's distorting what Bate said:
These programs entail spraying tiny amounts of insecticide, such as DDT, on the inside walls of houses to repel or kill (or both) the malaria-carrying mosquitoes. This method of control is safe and highly effective: Malaria rates have plummeted in the very poor northern parts of Zambia where this approach is currently employed. Yet RBM and the World Bank, always politically correct, have eschewed this method of control. The World Bank even went as far as to require that its of funding malaria control in Eritrea be conditional on non-use of DDT.
Bate summing up:
The World Bank's stinginess, lack of transparency, and overall malaria strategy need serious overhauls.
Deltoid is strictly for true believer lefties, and RWDBs looking for entertainment.
posted by J F Beck at 7:55 PM
3 Comments:
Jorgen said...
Tim Lambert claims to be a fact-checker; in reality he's a crafty manipulator of information.
It certainly doesn't give much faith in his academic research.
http://www.fumento.com/military/lancetboil.html
Internet troll Tim Lambert
August 2007 Archives
« July 2007 | Weblog | September 2007 »
Finally! Published studies that weight loss dramatically extends life
By Michael Fumento
"To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals." So observed Benjamin Franklin centuries ago. But Franklin didn't comment on whether food intake restriction worked by keeping people thin or by making them thin. Indeed, it's become a mantra of the "size acceptance" groups that there's no scientific evidence that losing weight increases longevity. And it's been true - until now, as I write in The American Spectator Online.
I also write about those who have found their life's calling in catering to delusional overweight people, which can be a lucrative market insofar as two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. One, Paul Campos, author of The Obesity Myth, insisted that 40 percent reduced mortality over seven years was "at best" a "very, very modest effect." Not just "very," but "very, very!"
Then there's Sandy Szwarc, nurse and cookbook author, properly labeled "a bigwig in the fat acceptance movement." Regarding the new studies, she calls it a "leap of logic" to assume that there is a correlation between the bariatric surgery and subsequent dramatic weight loss and the "purported improved mortalities." Purported? And apparently it wasn't the weight loss that extended survival time but either divine intervention or alien abductions.
August 31, 2007 10:19 AM � Permalink � Obesity
A reader comments on Troll Lambert and gigantic egos
By Michael Fumento
Dear Mr. Fumento:
I just read your article regarding the Lancet article and your comments about Tim Lambert and his web site, Deltoid.
Troll Lambert waiting to pummel somebody
smarter than him. He won't have to wait long.
Dr. D. Rutledge Taylor asked me to view the site and comment when they opened a new section dealing with Rachel Carson. I foolishly tried to engage them in an intelligent and mannerly discussion. I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. Any honest-hearted person who "reads and comments on Deltoid is spitting into the wind." Snotty juvenile manners and gigantic egos are the order of the day for Lambert and his acolytes. They clearly filter the comments and I think there is some back door discussion between them before the comments appear. They will take one or two words or one sentence (ignoring the entire context of what is said) and declare everything stated as being debunked in great triumph. What a waste of time. I would love to know what he does for a living. Can anyone that ridiculous do anything that is worth anything?
My response:
Probably not, and in Lambert's case certainly not. He is a computer professor, meaning he may teach as few as nine hours a week. (I know a professor who did, at full pay.) He's also only written a handful of published papers in his lifetime, none on issues that he blogs about. That gives him lots of time to troll the web for people to attack who make him feel insecure by being smarter than he is. (He started a vendetta against when I made him look like a fool, notwithstanding that doing so is easier than "dieting" on chocolate cake.) It's long been said that idle hands are the devil's workshop. Add in blogging software than can be used by a child and you've got a really bad combination. The troll also uses his free time (and perhaps money) to make sure his personal attacks appear in the top ten of a Google search of that person's name and to make sure his Deltoid postings are repeated over and over on blog search engines like Feedster and Technorati. That makes readers have to scroll through several pages to find the original of whatever it is that he and his little but vociferous gang are attacking, and as he knows many readers will not. In other words, he abuses science, he abuses individuals, he abuses search engines, and probably abuses himself as well - though we won't go into that.
One can only hope Troll Lambert will join "Second Life" (Do they have troll avatars?) and finally get a first life.
Anonymous, instead of denigrating the character of Tim Lambert, let's see your data.
Show me the plot of your time series, and the source.
That's all it really takes.
Just read the comments section on the link you provided david.
I was laughing pretty hard, thinking to myself "Why would David provide a link to a post that was so completely debunked in that post's comment section?"
Check out the graphs posted in the comment section that are more specific, from the last 20 years, not the last 100 yr graphs.
Climate is trending downward, no doubt about it. No denegrating needed; the data shows the downward trend. Climate is cooling.
In a year, when even the 'climate is now cooling' skeptics like David agree that the earth is indeed cooling, they can claim "Well, of course, Climate Change (was global warming) has caused that to happen".
Facts and data are hard to refute, eh david?
David,
That's real funny. The GW alarmists have denigrated every skeptic as a means to diminish the opposing science.
You want to see "my data"?
What a clown you are.
Your start all over again routine doesn't fly with me pal. I have no intention of spoon feeding you, once again, what has been provided many times and is readily available to anyone with a google search.
Here's one quick hit
The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.
Actually, global warming is likely to continue—but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950–1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD).
The stutter in the temperature rise should rein in some of the more apoplectic cries of panic over man-made greenhouse emissions. The strong 28-year upward trend of 1970–1998 has apparently ended.
Fred Singer, a well-known skeptic on man-made warming, points out that the latest cooling trend is dictated primarily by a very warm El Nino year in 1998. “When you start your graph with 1998,” he says, “you will necessarily get a cooling trend.”
Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist from Australia, notes that the earth also had strong global warming between 1918 and 1940. Then there was a long cooling period from 1940 to 1965. He points out that the current warming started 50 years before cars and industries began spewing consequential amounts of CO2. Then the planet cooled for 35 years just after the CO2 levels really began to surge. In fact, says Carter, there doesn’t seem to be much correlation between temperatures and man-made CO2.
For context, Carter offers a quick review of earth’s last 6 million years. The planet began that period with 3 million years in which the climate was several degrees warmer than today. Then came 3 million years in which the planet was basically cooling, accompanied by an increase in the magnitude and regularity of the earth’s 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles.
Speaking of the 1500-year climate cycles, grab an Internet peek at the earth’s official temperatures since 1850. They describe a long, gentle S-curve, with the below-mean temperatures of the Little Ice Age gradually giving way to the above-the-mean temperatures we should expect during a Modern Warming.
Carter points out that since the early 1990s, the First World’s media have featured “an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as ‘if’, ‘might,’ ‘could,’ ‘probably,’ ‘perhaps,’ ‘expected,’ ‘projected’ or ‘modeled’—and many . . . are akin to nonsense.”
Carter also warns that global cooling—not likely for some centuries yet—is likely to be far harsher for humans than the Modern Warming. He says, “our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 percent of the last 2 million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.”
Since the earth is always warming or cooling, let’s applaud the Modern Warming, and hope that the next ice age is a long time coming.
THIS COMMENT FROM DAVID'S LINK IS SPECIAL.
"Why not give us an interesting post on Dr Willis from Nasa telling us that the deep ocean has been on a slight cooling trend for the last five years, proving that Hansen's "Smoking Gun" has been extinguished? Or about the Gouretski and Koultermann's paper saying that ocean temperature gain over the fifty years before the Argo project had been exaggerated by a factor of 0.62? Or about the Nasa Aqua Satellite data that proves that clouds are a negative feedback which mitigate temperature rise?
Perhaps if you read those impeccable mainstream sources of information and analysis you will understand why there has been no global warming recently, and stop being denialist about it.
Posted by: Patrick Hadley | March 25, 2008 4:44 PM
> Bob Carter...points out that
> the current warming started 50
> years before cars and industries
> began spewing consequential amounts > of CO2.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing since about 1800 (see IPCC 4AR WG1 p 137, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf), from industrial activity and land use changes. So have other GHGs such as methane and N2O. By 1900 CO2 levels were already about 10% above the pre-industrial level, and about 20% by 1940.
By the way, Bob Carter is a geologist, not a paleoclimatologist.
> The official thermometers at the
> U.S. National Climate Data Center
> show a slight global cooling trend > over the last seven years, from
> 1998 to 2005.
First of all, the US comprises only about 2% of the planet's surface area. Why use US-only statistics from the NCDC when the issue is *global* climate change. You should use global data, not national data.
Secondly, 1998 was an anomalously warm year, and using it as the starting point of your analysis is simply cherry-picking in order to get the result you want. Long-term trends are what matter here, decades.... Why choose 1998 as the starting point of your analysis and not, say 1975, or 1900?
> "Why not give us an
> interesting post on Dr Willis
> from Nasa telling us that
> the deep ocean has been on
> a slight cooling trend for
> the last five years, proving
> that Hansen's "Smoking Gun"
> has been extinguished? Or
> about the Gouretski and
> Koultermann's paper saying
> that ocean temperature gain
> over the fifty years before
> the Argo project had been
> exaggerated by a factor of 0.62?
In science, you can always find a Ph.D. who takes any position you want, and there are always papers that disagree with the consensus. Why focus on one or two of them, except that they support a conclusion you prefer? What is superior about the science of Willis, compared to Hansen? That's what you need to explain to us?
A couple of papers rarely undo a complete field of study. AGW has been studied and verified in thousands of papers in the last 20-30 years. Why should one or two specific results, though interesting, be taken as disproof at this stage?
> The strong 28-year upward trend
> of 1970–1998 has apparently ended.
Take a look at Deltoid's graph at
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php
If this were the year 1990, you could be making the same argument as today, based on the ~0.05 C downturn at the time. Yet you would have been wrong -- warming increased strongly after that.
You could also have made the same argument after the slight downturn of 1982. You would again have been wrong.
What is different about the current slight downturn? How is 2007 different from 1982 or 1990?
Global warming is a long-term phenomenon, government by the physics of greenhouse gases. GHGs warm a planet -- this has been known for 150 years. Without them our surface would be ~20C cooler than it is. With them, it is ~20C warmer. Why, therefore, should increasing the fraction of GHGs in the atmosphere *not* lead to long-term warming?
Do you not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Why choose 1998 as the starting point?
Choose 1 million years ago and we have nothing to worry about.
But 1998 could be the leading edge of another long cooling period like from 1940 to 1965.
David and the other IPCC distorters cannot allow that to happen.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm
News Roundup September 13, 2007
Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears
By EPW Blog
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Antarctic ice grows to record levels
(By Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo)
Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now". Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004. This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent
Former Harvard Physcist Lubos Motl Weight in on Antarctic Ice
Excerpt: Satellites began to measure the Earth's cryosphere in 1979. Because of a warm summer, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area has reached new historic lows in 2007. Around August 28th, the new minimum of 2.99 million squared kilometers of sea ice easily surpassed the previous record of 4.01 million squared kilometers set in 2005. These numbers available at the web page of Dr William Chapman and his team at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were widely publicized. Some analysts have speculated that the new record could be evidence of global warming. But is it? Even though it may sound very complicated, it turns out that the Earth is round. At the global scale, there is not one polar region but, in fact, two. There is also sea ice on the Southern Hemisphere. It turns out that the Antarctic sea ice area reached 16.2 million squared kilometers in 2007 - a new absolute record high since the measurements started in 1979: see this graph. During the year, the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area fluctuates between 2 and 16 million squared kilometers or so while the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area fluctuates approximately between 3 and 14 million squared kilometers. The climate models predict warming in Antarctica and they are increasingly inconsistent with the observations.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html
Analysis finds over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears
Excerpt: Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery. Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate. Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted." "Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease."
"There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE=
Anonymous (still afraid to speak up under his real name) writes:
> Choose 1 million years ago and we
> have nothing to worry about.
> But 1998 could be the leading edge > of another long cooling period like > from 1940 to 1965.
Of course, 1Mya is really 1Mya +/- about 10K years.
1998 is one little singular year.
The chances that some new climate trend is going to start exactly in 1998 is very, very small -- 1% in the last century.
Therefore, your argument is illogical, which reveals it as desperate--which ultimately reveals it as very unlikely to be true.
Anonymous (again afraid to back up his opinions with his real identity) writes about ice in Antarctica.
Anonymous -- may I call you that -- you do realize, don't you, that climate is a long-term phenonemon that takes place over decades. Don't you? One-yr records don't mean anything. It's the long-term trend that is important here.
Do you understand this?
David,
You are dumb.
Very dumb.
We all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We all know that 1998 is a singular year.
We all have seen the IPCC report, modeling and claims.
We all know that it is the IPPC reliant Gore, local moron Bill Bradbury, you and other alarmists who are selective and incremental in perpetrating your hoax. Cherry pickers.
We all know that it is the skeptics who have considered and use the totality of available data.
We all know that broader analysis of factors and time thoroughly debunks the IPCC.
So why don't you stop pretending we are depending upon "1998" or any other singular tidbits
It is your foolish side who regularly [and falsely] attributes weather, polar bears, glaciers, ocean dead zones and a lengthy list of other non related observations to AGW. And does so as if AGW has ALREADY raised earth's temperature sufficiently to create these alarming results which would only be possible within the IPCC modeling many decades from now.
Among the vast and complete amount of historical data and other information the cooling from 1940 to 1965 and the lack of warming since 1998,,,,,lined up with many other contradicting happenings,,,,signals to anyone, who's intellectually honest, that the IPCC and you are indeed without integrity.
David Appell: you do realize, don't you, that climate is a long-term phenonemon that takes place over decades. Don't you?
JK: Yep. And we are 10 years into cooling after, what, 20 years of warming? So at what point will you admit that the earth does not have a fever? At what point will you admit that the current climate is nothing unusual? Of course you do know that the best record we have, the USHCN, puts 1998 as merely tied with 1934 as the warmest year since the little ice age?
David Appell: One-yr records don't mean anything. It's the long-term trend that is important here. Do you understand this?
JK: But do you? see above, or see:
NYT, Feb 24, 1895 - Prospects of another glacial period.
NYT, Oct 7, 1912 - Sees Glacial age coming.
NYT, May 15, 1932 - Melting Polar Ice Caps...
NYT, Feb 20, 1969 - Expert says arctic ocean will soon be ab open sea.
NYT, May 21, 1975 - Scientists ask why climate is changing; major cooling ,may be ahead
Harpers, Sept 1968 - Cover story - the coming ice age.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 - the cooling world.
Thanks
JK
Little Davey Appell! How nice to see you trolling the blogs again.
Apparently that special "freelance science writer" gig still isn't working out for you.
Really, what you should be doing is research into updated science, rather than just parroting AlGore and trolling though blogs trying to promote yourself as some sort of an expert.
Heck, you were never all that pert in the first place, so portraying yourself as an ex-pert is really a stretch.
I keep asking, and you never reply: what peer-reviewed scientific journals have you had your work published in?
Did I just hear a cricket chirp?
Of curse it matters if David has been peer reviewed or published.
With many of the alarmists having their cooked theories and modeling projections published and peer reviewed it's obvious that means squat these days.
I have a question for David.
Suppose the next 5, 10 and 15 years are like the last 10 years and AGW cannot not be shown with temperatures stable or slightly declining.
For how many years does your fairy tale stay the same?
I'm pretty sure you'll later claim that YOU were telling your tale based on the best science and that skeptics were premature.
But if and when you ever face reality you'lll learn that it was you and the IPCC who have been premature as well as severely lacking in ethics.
David Appell said...
It is simply not true that the planet has cooled since 1998. Tim Lambert shows a simple graph, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php
As you can see: no cooling.
JK: He is using world data which is recognized to be of crappy quality. Try using the best quality data available, the USHCN. It shows 10 years of cooling:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt (No www at the start)
Here are the years 1998 up:
------------------------------
U.S. Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------
............USHCN...Versions....... Note: Current version not only
Year......2000.....Current.........has data extended to 2005
............(data through................but also data for 1880-1999 have
............1999 2005)...............been cleaned by NOAA.
------------------------------
1998 1.23 1.24
1999 .93 .94
2000 .52 .54
2001 .76 .78
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .53
2004 .44 .46
2005 .69 .71
2006 1.13 1.15
Do you see any warming since 1998? Neither do I, therefore we have been cooling for 10 years.
Next you can download the whole data set from 1880 and tell us how many of the 10 warmest years are in the 1990s. I hope you will notice that 1998 is merely tied with 1934 as the warmest year since 1880 and likely since the little ice age, 400 years ago.
The fact the world data differs from the, best data available, the USHCN, suggests that the world data is not properly corrected for errors. Further support for this is the satellite data and now the recently publicized ocean measurements (no warming - what a surprise: get better data and warming disappears!). Or maybe you take the laughable position that the USA is NOT warming while the rest of the world “has a fever.”
BTW, did you all catch the recent peak oil story: It appears likely that a single oil field will multiply the USA oil reserves by as much as 10 times ( over 50 years of total current USA consumption in one field:)
nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
What a time: Two common fallacies, Global warming and peak oil, both appear to be dying in flames. Now what are the planning Nazis going to try next to get us herded int TriMeth’s cattle cars and Homer’s holes.
Thanks
JK
Global warming and peak oil, both appear to be dying in flames.
David, Sam Adams and other misguided fools think automobile use will soon be in decline.
Experts Communication is the leading Call Centers in Karachi.
Post a Comment