• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?


  • Total voters
    115
Oh, so when it says that the Eemian was 1-2 degrees warmer what it means it that it was some special kind of warmer, not what we call "warmer" today, and that sometimes "warmer" means "cooler", which begs the question of what it is you mean when you say this decade is "warmer" than the last one when it was measurably "cooler".

From your article:

"Kaspar et al. (GRL, 2005) perform a comparison of a coupled general circulation model (GCM) with reconstructed Eemian temperatures for Europe. Central Europe (north of the Alps) is found to be 1–2 °C warmer than present; south of the alps conditions are 1–2 °C cooler than today."

Here is what the World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report:

"2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record!

Now, however, it is official from the World Meteorological Organization, in their news release today “2000-2009, The Warmest Decade“:

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).

The NYT story was based on the WMO release early today, but NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center also reports today:

The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.

As for 2009, it is on track to be the 5th warmest the way WMO calculates global temps, which figures in the Hadley/CRU data. But 2009 could easily be as high as the second warmest in the NASA dataset (see “Must-see NASA figures compare 2009 to the two hottest years on record: 2005 and 2007“), which is almost certainly more accurate than the Hadley/CRU dataset (see “Why are Hadley and CRU withholding vital climate data from the public?“). We’ll hear from NASA in the next few days.

What makes these record temps especially impressive is that we’re at “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century,” according to NASA. It’s just hard to stop the march of anthropogenic global warming, well, other than by reducing GHG emissions, that is."

World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record Climate Progress
 
This is the most complete conglomeration of data and analysis I've seen. It's not particularly well organized but check it out and draw your own conclusions.

 
This is the most complete conglomeration of data and analysis I've seen. It's not particularly well organized but check it out and draw your own conclusions.



It is out of date, it does not consider data past 2008.

See the link above to more recent data by WMO and NOAA that shows the decade 2000 - 2009 was the warmest on record.
 
What makes these record temps especially impressive is that we’re at “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century,” according to NASA. It’s just hard to stop the march of anthropogenic global warming, well, other than by reducing GHG emissions, that is."[/I]
World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record Climate Progress

Oh.

I see.

The sun doesn't count for global climate except when you use it.

Meanwhile, how about if you start explaining why the last decade, which was cooler than the one preceding it, is called "warmest ever"?

Common English usage reserves the "-est" ending for the extreme, so if one decade is warmer than the subsequent decade, it's grammatically incorrect to call the latter decade the "warmest".
 
It is out of date, it does not consider data past 2008.

See the link above to more recent data by WMO and NOAA that shows the decade 2000 - 2009 was the warmest on record.

Oh, by the way, is that NOAA GISS that refuses to submit it's data for peer-review?
 
Is the menial global temperature warming? Damn straight it is. Facts is facts. Is this not a natural cycle of nature? Who can say? We've only been keeping records for so long. Is it man made? I think the jury's still out on that one but I prefer to caution on the side of error and besides, it doesn't hurt to try to clean the planet up if we can.

But, with the erratic and unusual weather patterns we're having lately, snowing in TX and FL, east coast getting pounded, etc., I can see how the term, "global warming" might confuse the simpleton.

But, all indicators prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, the earth is, in fact, warming. Even though it might be hard to convince a citizen in Florida with snow in his yard, of that. If one looks beyond the boundries of their county line, and look at the world as a whole, the globe is definitely going through a warming trend.

Case closed.
 
Oh.

I see.

The sun doesn't count for global climate except when you use it.

No, I don't think you see. What they are telling you is that despite the sun being at a solar minimum, we still had the warmest decade in history.

Meanwhile, how about if you start explaining why the last decade, which was cooler than the one preceding it, is called "warmest ever"?

It wasn't cooler than the one before. The study that makes that claim did not use annual data from 2009. That is why it drew the wrong conclusion.

The study by WMO and NOAA used data for 2009 to compare with the historical records and determined 2000-2009 is the warmest decade.

Common English usage reserves the "-est" ending for the extreme, so if one decade is warmer than the subsequent decade, it's grammatically incorrect to call the latter decade the "warmest".

Correct, that is why it is correct usage to say this decade (2000 - 2009) was the warmest as verified by the most up to date study by WMO and NOAA.
 
No, I don't think you see. What they are telling you is that despite the sun being at a solar minimum, we still had the warmest decade in history.

Since we don't have the warmest decade in history...well, we do, but only if you consider that last decade is still in our possession somehow, and only if you consider history to have begun after the Medieval Warm Period, which would be weird, since if history began at the end of the Medieval Warm Period, what was it in the middle of? But if you make all those unacceptable assumptions, and then cook the books and don't allow peer review of your data, you might be able to convince yourself that the current decade is warmer than the last.

If people try really really hard they can convince themselves that the Holy Ghost and the Father and The Son are at the same time completely independent beings and one being.

People with religious faith can do what you do.

Honest scientists and engineers cannot.

3005065:3005068It wasn't cooler than the one before. The study that makes that claim did not use annual data from 2009. That is why it drew the wrong conclusion.[/quote]

But since it was cooler than the one before....(Hint: I've lived through the time periods under discussion.)...there's clearly something wrong with claims that say it wasn't.

Since all the other predictions of AGW have also failed, the nails on the AGW coffin are being hammered in now. But just as Zeus had followers after the infection of Europe by Christianity, I'm sure AGW will have it's touts and pimps for decades to come.
 
Since all the other predictions of AGW have also failed, the nails on the AGW coffin are being hammered in now. But just as Zeus had followers after the infection of Europe by Christianity, I'm sure AGW will have it's touts and pimps for decades to come.


Thanks for your opinion!
 
Is the menial global temperature warming? Damn straight it is. Facts is facts. Is this not a natural cycle of nature? Who can say? We've only been keeping records for so long. Is it man made? I think the jury's still out on that one but I prefer to caution on the side of error and besides, it doesn't hurt to try to clean the planet up if we can.

But, with the erratic and unusual weather patterns we're having lately, snowing in TX and FL, east coast getting pounded, etc., I can see how the term, "global warming" might confuse the simpleton.

But, all indicators prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, the earth is, in fact, warming. Even though it might be hard to convince a citizen in Florida with snow in his yard, of that. If one looks beyond the boundries of their county line, and look at the world as a whole, the globe is definitely going through a warming trend.

Case closed.

Okay, the Earth is warming. So what? You think this is the first time it's happened?
 
Okay, the Earth is warming. So what? You think this is the first time it's happened?

Its the first time that man has been a factor in the warming.
 
It is the first time people falsely claim it is caused by man.

Thanks for the opinion! I've still got to go with the mainstream science consensus.
 
Thanks for the opinion! I've still got to go with the mainstream science consensus.

You mean the lies and the law breakers who will not release information under the freedom of information act?
 
You mean the lies and the law breakers who will not release information under the freedom of information act?

OK you go with the conspiracy theory and I'll go with mainstream science.
 
hmmmm it's actually global cooling, not global warming because as more and more ice melts, it messes up the currents and causes areas to warm up and other areas to cool down. really it's climate change and part of a cycle that's been going on for millions of years
 
OK you go with the conspiracy theory and I'll go with mainstream science.

Not conspiracy they are not releasing info under freedom of information act.


Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - Washington Times


Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
 
Not conspiracy they are not releasing info under freedom of information act.


Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - Washington Times


Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

Outdated info there. NASA's GISS FOIA data files are now online.

Have at 'em! ;)
 
3 months old is out of date? Nasa has fought not to release data. so now they post some data. Nice try but it seems they have something to hide. Just like being caught posting same temps for 2 months and claim warming. They have no credibility.

NASA has no credibility? lol :lol:
 
NASA has no credibility? lol :lol:

Thats correct.

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special -- WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --


In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
 
Okay, the Earth is warming. So what? You think this is the first time it's happened?

Well, that question is far above MY pay grade. :rofl

The data only goes back so far. I can speculate, however. And I speculate that it has gone through this before. Countless times.

Although, it doesn't take a global meltdown for me to feel that we do need to control our man-made pollutions. That's just common sense.

But earth has gone through so many radical weather changes, ice ages, etc., that I am certain that trend will continue, with or without, our pollution.

That's just my opinion though.

I do get a kick, however, how people can politicize the weather. That's hackery at it's finest. All hacks do it regardless of their political persuasion, I have noticed.

What's next? I know! Let's blame the president for littering up the moon with that staged crash last year, thus upsetting the natural balance, causing a shift in the natural rotation and gravitational pull of the moon, thus affecting our tides and weather patterns. It's ALL the democrats fault! :mrgreen: [/sarcasm]

Perhaps, that's just the way partisan hacks "talk about the weather." :mrgreen:
 
Thats correct.

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special -- WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --


In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.

Well if a meteorologist says NASA has no credibility I guess we should all just agree.
 
Well, that question is far above MY pay grade. :rofl

The data only goes back so far. I can speculate, however. And I speculate that it has gone through this before. Countless times.

Although, it doesn't take a global meltdown for me to feel that we do need to control our man-made pollutions. That's just common sense.

CO2 is not pollution. It's plant food.

But earth has gone through so many radical weather changes, ice ages, etc., that I am certain that trend will continue, with or without, our pollution.

That's just my opinion though.

I do get a kick, however, how people can politicize the weather. That's hackery at it's finest. All hacks do it regardless of their political persuasion, I have noticed.

What's next? I know! Let's blame the president for littering up the moon with that staged crash last year, thus upsetting the natural balance, causing a shift in the natural rotation and gravitational pull of the moon, thus affecting our tides and weather patterns. It's ALL the democrats fault! :mrgreen: [/sarcasm]

Perhaps, that's just the way partisan hacks "talk about the weather." :mrgreen:

Are you implying something about me?
 
Back
Top Bottom