Globe Cooled 0.7C in 2007

[Argus]

Just worth repeating, that's all.

The Goddard Institute? Those people who are so careful about validating climate data?

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

...

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Goddard Screws up Climate Figures

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

[White Doors]

unreal. Why do people even listen to this man? This is the same dude as the hockey stick, no?

Edit - nevermind, I think that was Mann.

Edited November 18, 2008 by White Doors

[Sir Bandelot]

Edit - nevermind

Exactly.

But erroneous measurements or not, the most compelling evidence is the measurements of ice thickness and satellite photographs of large ice shelfs breaking away. Ice-breaker ships are finding themselves unemployed. Polar bears threatened with starvation because there is no ice. Its obvious by now that something unusual is going on, with the potential to be a serious problem for civilization. The question is what, if anything can be done about it. True science is self-corecting, and research must continue. If nothing can be done, contingencies must be developed. The problem must be studied, not just ignore it and dance the night away.

Global warming deniers, time to get over it.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[White Doors]

So you don't think that this is a big deal? The Data for global warming was shown to be clearly defective and your only comments is about starving Polar Bears (who aren't starving) and unemployed ice breakers?

Do you have any proof of this?

And who is advocating ignorance of studying our climate? The only one's here that are advocating ignorance are the one's who seemingly are asking people to 'keep moving, nothing to see here'.

I don't think anyone denies that climate changes, the questions is if it is getting warmer because of CO2 or not. So far, it appears that CO2 and Man's contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere have very, very little to do with what the climate is doing - if anything at all.

Certainly the globe cooling 0.7C last year appears to contradict the findings among many many other things.

But I guess if you are a 'true believer' then these things are all very trivial and do not matter.

Afterall, there are the starving Polar Bears and unemployment lines of the ice breakers union to worry about right?

Edited November 18, 2008 by White Doors

[Sir Bandelot]

So you don't think that this is a big deal? The Data for global warming was shown to be clearly defective and your only comments is about starving Polar Bears (who aren't starving) and unemployed ice breakers?

Do you have any proof of this?

And who is advocating ignorance of studying our climate? The only one's here that are advocating ignorance are the one's who seemingly are asking people to 'keep moving, nothing to see here'.

I don't think anyone denies that climate changes, the questions is if it is getting warmer because of CO2 or not. So far, it appears that CO2 and Man's contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere have very, very little to do with what the climate is doing - if anything at all.

Certainly the globe cooling 0.7C last year appears to contradict the findings among many many other things.

But I guess if you are a 'true believer' then these things are all very trivial and do not matter.

Afterall, there are the starving Polar Bears and unemployment lines of the ice breakers union to worry about right?

blah blah blah

Why canst Johnny read?

[White Doors]

blah blah blah

Why canst Johnny read?

That's right, you run away with your tail between your legs. (again)

Edited November 18, 2008 by White Doors

[stignasty]

Certainly the globe cooling 0.7C last year appears to contradict the findings among many many other things.

Except that the claim of the globe cooling 0.7C in the post that started this thread was incorrect.

If you go to the Goddard Institute site quoted in the article you will not find that the earth cooled, you will find the following:

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

[Sir Bandelot]

That's right, you run away with your tail between your legs. (again)

I'm not the one who ran away, I been here all along.

But lets let bygones be bygones... So glad your back , and in top form too

[White Doors]

I'm not the one who ran away, I been here all along.

But lets let bygones be bygones... So glad your back , and in top form too

Perhaps you would like to talk about the subject at hand instead of limiting yourself to juvenile attacks?

[White Doors]

Except that the claim of the globe cooling 0.7C in the post that started this thread was incorrect.

If you go to the Goddard Institute site quoted in the article you will not find that the earth cooled, you will find the following:

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

I will look into it Stig, but with the CO2 levels much higher in the atmosphere than 1998, one wonders why we haven't beaten 1998 in the 10 years since... Makes one wonder how much of a driver of climate change CO2 really is, does it not?

[Riverwind]

I will look into it Stig, but with the CO2 levels much higher in the atmosphere than 1998, one wonders why we haven't beaten 1998 in the 10 years since... Makes one wonder how much of a driver of climate change CO2 really is, does it not?

The 0.7 degC cooling referred to the drop from 2007 to 2008 and there is nothing factually incorrect about even if there is not much significance in a 1 year cooling event. The claim that 2007 is the 2nd warmest year in a century is also true but it is an equally insignificant statistic because observing that the planet may be warmer than in the past tells us nothing about why it is warmer.

According to the CO2 theory the planet should already be 0.2 degC warmer than it was 10 years ago, however, that has not happened. Alarmists will (correctly) insist that 10 years of non-warming does not disprove their claims, however, it does cast a lot of doubt on them - enough to question whether it is worth investing in expensive anti-CO2 policies during these troubled times.

As the non-warming continues we are seeing alarmists discovering numerous 'explanations' that will all follow the same doomsday narrative. i.e. X is hiding the warming but it is temporary and the warming with start again soon and when it does the world will end.

These explanations are interesting and some may actually have merit, however, as these explanations appear it worth remembering that the people making the new claims insisted that that the 'science was settled' and there was no need for further debate. The fact that the climate does not seem to agree is evidence of how little we really know and why it is absurd to claim that we do know enough to predict the climate 100 years from now.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

Climate disruption may be a better term. Global cooling or heating is of little consequence other than to stimulate fear in the populace. The earth will aways maintain a perfect balance in order to maintain life - problem is that human life is a little to smart for it's own good and they disrupt natural order.

[Wild Bill]

I'm not the one who ran away, I been here all along.

But lets let bygones be bygones... So glad your back , and in top form too

Reading your arguments has made me think that perhaps you're not really seeing why your arguments aren't convincing. No matter what point is made that is contrary to your premise you blow it off and continue to believe in what you originally had faith in.

This is simply not scientific! You're arguing from faith, where you already have decided what's true and will only accept evidence or argument that agrees with what you already believe.

By any chance, are you a Creationist?

I don't mean this as a personal attack. You do sound like you make at least some attempt to be scientific in your arguments. Perhaps if you re-read your posts you might see what I see and may become a bit more open in your thinking.

It's very hard sometimes to get a good self-perpective. One just can't turn around fast enough!

[Oleg Bach]

As a possibly intrusive observer all I can say is that both of you are good natured and bright - mutual co-operation creates solutions - to forgive quickly is key - carry on.

[Riverwind]

But erroneous measurements or not, the most compelling evidence is the measurements of ice thickness and satellite photographs of large ice shelfs breaking away.

Really? Ice shelves form and then break off. It is part of their natural life cycle. Many of the ice shelves being lost are less than 1000 years old. Others are not much more than 4000 years old which indicates that they have broken up during recent climate cycles.

Its obvious by now that something unusual is going on, with the potential to be a serious problem for civilization. The question is what, if anything can be done about it.

A rediculous leap of logic. We only have reliable ice data for the last 30 years. We simply do not know whether the melt we see today is unusual. More importantly, there is no reason to believe the loss of the ice is anything to be concerned about. Especially when you note that rhe poles were much warmer than today 9000 years ago and greenland did not melt and the arctic permafrost did not beltch methane and cause run-away warming.

I True science is self-corecting, and research must continue. If nothing can be done, contingencies must be developed. The problem must be studied, not just ignore it and dance the night away.

Science is self-correcting but it usually takes a generation or more but the expensive policies are being demanded today. We should not be making radical policy decisions based on unvalidated climate models. Edited November 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

Really? Ice shelves form and then break off. It is part of their natural life cycle. Many of the ice shelves being lost are less than 1000 years old. Others are not much more than 4000 years old which indicates that they have broken up during recent climate cycles.

A rediculous leap of logic. We only have reliable ice data for the last 30 years. We simply do not know whether the melt we see today is unusual. More importantly, there is no reason to believe the loss of the ice is anything to be concerned about. Especially when you note that rhe poles were much warmer than today 9000 years ago and greenland did not melt and the arctic permafrost did not beltch methane and cause run-away warming.

Science is self-correcting but it usually takes a generation or more but the expensive policies are being demanded today. We should not be making radical policy decisions based on unvalidated climate models.

To interject again - climate models are just that - models - same as theory is not fact it is speculation. Science takes time to prove itself - There was a time when a doctor would bleed a lukemia patient..and kill them - that was science. If in one generation you see ten thousand square kilometers of ice that is ten kilometers thick disappear - you don't need a study based in science to say that something is wrong and NOT a natural cyclical occurence. It is like looking at a dead body with an axe submurged in the skull - you don't have to speculate that the gulf stream carried the axe for ten thousand miles and dropped it square on the victims head..we have the proof that human activity destroys the environment. The change is to rapid to be natural...simple..

[Riverwind]

you don't need a study based in science to say that something is wrong and NOT a natural cyclical occurence.

You are making a statement of religious belief - not science. If the historical records shows that similar events have occurred in the past then the people claiming that it is not just another cyclical occurance need to provide compelling proof of their claims. So far, the alarmists have no proof - they only have computer models which are best described as "playstation science".

[Oleg Bach]

You are making a statement of religious belief - not science. If the historical records shows that similar events have occurred in the past then the people claiming that it is not just another cyclical occurance need to provide compelling proof of their claims. So far, the alarmists have no proof - they only have computer models which are best described as "playstation science".

It's not religious - I never stated that God made the ice cap melt - It was people - my statement was observantly secular. Just because I have used the word God on occassion does not mean I am not capable of understanding science. I love science. I can be just as pragmantically secular and scientific as you - When I grew up north of Toronto in the meadows that was the Oak Ridge Morain - the first bit of land to pop up out after the last real ice age - I gradually say the sky turn from blue to green - as if humanity was burying itself in it's own waste - It appearded to me that grass was green and the top of the world was the sky and it was blue - THEN I saw a reversal - the sky became like the earth _ green in hue - It looked like the burial of a city taking place - This was obervation of polution -- it was not some silly badly translated biblical thing.

[Riverwind]

It's not religious - I never stated that God made the ice cap melt - It was people

People - God - same cr** different pile. Your statement is a statement faith - i.e. something you believe to be true and the scientific facts are irrelevent.

[Oleg Bach]

People - God - same cr** different pile. Your statement is a statement faith - i.e. something you believe to be true and the scientific facts are irrelevent.

You can get over loaded with facts - which slows down the scientific process. We really do not have the time to doddle and debate within the realms of science - the funny part is - science is telling us we are running out of time. Sometimes you have to make a decision based on instinct and observational logic - call it faith in your own perception if you want - but ----------- if it looks like smoke - there is fire - I don't need your science and debate to let me understand - nor do I need religion. To clarify - I am coming to the conclution that all science is man made - and all religion is man made - God or goodness - is a reality to me - and the ice caps melting at such a pace is simply not good....so debate if you want and hate goodness or God if you must - but.....I depend on my common sense which is good and if you want - religiously speaking is granted by God - or goodness - Listen my friend if it smells like poop it is poop - you don't need God or science to tell you the difference. Science is relevant of course. But it is slow - so you have to have faith in your own perception...call that faith or science if you must - but realty ignores science and religion - I am not religious for the record - I just believe that eternity and the endless cosmos has intelligence that we are not using.

[kittengirl]

Is Dion reading this as he prepares to increase the cost of energy ...for what reason?

Full Article

Why does the media jump all over a tornado in witchita or hurricane on the gulf coast (wow - what a revelation) as an example of "wild wacky weather" and evidence of global warming, yet they completely ignore a report from NASA clearly showing the planet cooled and hasn't warmed at all in more than 10 years? Just wondering.

I mean, regardless of whether or not you've already drunk Al Gore's kool-aid, shouldn't this at least be the headline on every major network for at least one night? Given the panic we're being fed, why can't this FACT be on my evening news on TV?

i don't think they could pull off the carbon tax if everyine knew about this

[Michael Hardner]

Really, all that should be needed to end this thread would be for somebody to post a full graph that goes back a few hundred years.

Instead, we have to endure pages of discussion based on one of Jerry's usual run-and-gun claims.

[kittengirl]

Really, all that should be needed to end this thread would be for somebody to post a full graph that goes back a few hundred years.

Instead, we have to endure pages of discussion based on one of Jerry's usual run-and-gun claims.

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/blogfiles/Global_Warming1.jpg

there ya go

[Michael Hardner]