So far, 2010 'tied for hottest year' | World | News | Toronto Sun - 2010 -Warmest year on record...So the Warming trend Continues- As the Climate Changes...and Yes Humans do have an effect on the weather, and ultimatley the climate...
It's the Sun, Stupid.
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Holy apologist excuse making batman!
Go figure, there are nine million reasons why the people that made up all of their data are right and the people that use basic reasoning with the sun spot theory, proven to be correct in predicting temperature forever, are wrong.
Go figure, there are nine million reasons why the people that made up all of their data are right and the people that use basic reasoning with the sun spot theory, proven to be correct in predicting temperature forever, are wrong.
Only 9,099 Of Last 10,500 Years Warmer Than 2010
By Brian Bolduc
On Watts Up With That?, Dr. Don J. Easterbrook notes the attention 2010 is getting as a contender for the warmest year of the century. And then he calms everyone down:
Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.
Figure 5. Temperatures over the past 10,000 years recorded in the GISP2 Greenland ice core
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
Figure 5. Temperatures over the past 10,000 years recorded in the GISP2 Greenland ice core
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]A Concise History of the Rise and Fall of the Enviro Establishment[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]How Green Became the Color of Money[/SIZE][/FONT]Jeffrey St. Clair: How Green Became the Color of Money
Where's the data for the last 95 years? There's no station data from the ice sheet where the ice core data comes from, and new snow layers are too contaminated, so the ice cores have nothing for the past 95 years.
Easterbrook's analysis is a farce, not surprising that the so-called skeptics haven't picked up on that. How do you compare the heat now to the reconstruction of temperature from the ice core?
The data apparently comes from here(see if you can find it):
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/books/qsr2000-papers/alley.pdf
And here's what Alley's analysis actually concluded:
The temperature estimated for the Younger Dryas using these techniques is about 15C colder than modern, with about half of the temperature change to today having occurred in an abrupt step and half in a ramp during the millennia following the Younger Dryas.
Easterbrook's analysis is a farce, not surprising that the so-called skeptics haven't picked up on that. How do you compare the heat now to the reconstruction of temperature from the ice core?
The data apparently comes from here(see if you can find it):
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/books/qsr2000-papers/alley.pdf
And here's what Alley's analysis actually concluded:
The temperature estimated for the Younger Dryas using these techniques is about 15C colder than modern, with about half of the temperature change to today having occurred in an abrupt step and half in a ramp during the millennia following the Younger Dryas.
So Tonnington old man have you figured out what holds clouds up in the air yet or do you still think it's hot air? Like I bean sayin, until the electrics are credited with prime movership of all weather systems regardless of the state of matter being examined then there will be no climatological science worth using. The present dip into fridgeidity is normal she gets warm she get cold she gets just right but she does nothing without electrical charge, period. Now because the sun is unadjustable by currency it simply does not meet the requirements of the lids lips and suits to stampede the public into forking over the fix based on the latest dogooder ribbon campaign engineered by the damn bankers. Yes it's as simple as that they intend to reap enormous profit from the consumer (that's us, well mostly yous) selling a fix for the climate which isn't even broken and never can be if you think about it, in fact mankind poses absolutly no threat to this planet whatever and to believe so you got to be one giant horse**** sponge. On the other hand mankind is being threatened and by the exact same forces it has always worked arround or not. There is not now nor will there ever be any way for humans to adjust the solar thermostat to comfortable.
If you believe a recent big snowstorm on the North American east coast disproves global warming, then you must be concerned about Global darkness phenomenon. I predict that sometime later today, it will become dark.
Skeptical Science
Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet.
However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.
So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
Skeptical Science
Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism
Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet.
However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.
So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
More fodder for the "that's not a News network" gang.
FoxNews.com - Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts
FoxNews.com - Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts
Is this the same network that was caught telling it's reporters how to report on climate?
" However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise."
"So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming."
You don't often see two stupider sentences in the same article but here we are. "Something else must be warming this planet" yes it's me and the beans. Idiotic is being sensitive. The sun warms this planet every day, even the church will admit that. Greenhouse gas is a disproved theory. Atmospheric gas can never radiate heat downward in defiance of thermodynamic basics.
"So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming."
You don't often see two stupider sentences in the same article but here we are. "Something else must be warming this planet" yes it's me and the beans. Idiotic is being sensitive. The sun warms this planet every day, even the church will admit that. Greenhouse gas is a disproved theory. Atmospheric gas can never radiate heat downward in defiance of thermodynamic basics.
Kind of similar to the Obama administration's choice of words regarding the Islamist menace.
Which, by the way, is REAL, while the Al Gore inspired Global Warming crap is just that: CRAP.
Heat flows from positive to negative, never ever the other way. Atmospheric CO2 cannot trap heat.
Couldn't resist eh?
Avro, once I put you on ignore, my world became an empty, joyless place without laughter.
I could not live without your wisdom, humour and wit.
To my everlasting shame, I had to break my word and remove you from the ignore list. Now I can face all that comes in my life, no matter how tragic or sad, because you never fail to provide the best medicine: LAUGHTER!
THANK YOU!!!!!
Wow, that lasted almost a week.
Perhaps I'll put you on my ignore list.....trust me...that will be the end.
Would you like that?
Faux News E-mail Shows Network's Slant on Geodesy
Faux News Channel's top Washington editor ordered the network's
reporters to couple any mention of a spheroidal earth with skepticism
about the data underlying such a scientific conclusion, according to an
e-mail released by a liberal media-watchdog group Wednesday.
Media Madness in America said the internal e-mail from Bill Trout, Faux
News's Washington bureau chief, called into question the network's
impartiality in reporting on the shape of the planet.
In an e-mail sent last December to Faux News's journalists after a
global conference on geodesy, Trout asked Faux journalists to "refrain
from asserting that the planet is round (or flat) without IMMEDIATELY
pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have
called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such
notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
Media Madness, a group that tracks alleged conservative favoritism in
the news media, said it obtained the e-mail from a Faux News employee,
whom it did not identify.
Trout and Faux News could not immediately be reached for comment.
Trout's shape-of-the-earth comments were in the second leaked e-mail
from him to Faux News's staff released by Media Madness in the past
week. Last week, the organization disclosed an e-mail in which Trout
directed Faux journalists to refer to the so-called public option
provisions of the proposed science-education overhaul bill as the
"government option" - language that Media Madness said was designed to
rally young-Earth creationists and other assorted loonies.
Ari Rabbit-Haven, Media Madness head of research, said the latest e-mail
showed that Faux News was attempting to create a false impression of
geophysics, astronomy, etc. by giving a "fringe" minority of
flat-earthers equal weight with those who have concluded the planet has
three dimensions.
"The overwhelming, vast majority of scientists who have studied science"
accept the oblate-spheroid hypothesis as fact, he said.
Rabbit-Haven asserted that Faux was tilting toward conservatives who
oppose potential legislative efforts to acknowledge that science exists.
Media Madness said it is in possession of other internal e-mails from
Trout and other Faux News executives that indicate other efforts to
slant news reporting. Those memos will be released in coming weeks, the
group said.