2010

[RWebb]

2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record, researchers say

[fingpilot]

It's change you can believe in.

[livi]

Not in Sweden, thats for sure. Coldest winter in memory.

Bloody typical really. If the global mean temperature really is rising, at least it could have affected the parts that need it, but noo..!

[DanielDudley]

I seem to recall them saying the extremes would be greater, large storms more frequent, etc...

But that was many years ago. Must be a coincidence.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

So where do I send my heating bill? Or do I just send it back to them saying "you're wrong"?

[jyl]

Interesting article. Some excerpts:

- the decade that just ended included nine of the 10 hottest years on record.
- record retreat of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the melt season and a near-record retreat of Arctic sea ice.
- Global temperatures have been above the 20th-century average for 34 consecutive years. In 2010, the combined land and ocean annual surface temperature was 1.12 degrees above average.
- Last year was also the wettest on record in terms of global average precipitation,
- 2010 managed to be a record-warm year despite the fact that two natural factors - less solar activity and the onset of La Nina, an irregular cycle that brings cooler temperatures to the Pacific Ocean - would have exerted a cooling effect.

And I liked this:

"The United States started off 2010 with extremely low winter temperatures and snowfall that broke records in several locations, including Washington and Baltimore, and prompted lawmakers such as Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) to question whether climate change was happening. But the overall average annual temperature for the contiguous United States in 2010 was above normal, resulting in the 23rd-warmest year on record."

Can we agree that anyone who offers an opinion about global climate change based on whether it is or isn't, warmer or cooler, or drier or wetter, where he happens to be standing at that particular time - is an evident idiot?

[Head416]

And how is this measured? Where are the thermometers? Next to factories and power plants? In warm tropical regions? How do you come up with a weighted-average temp for the globe based on location? Or do you just throw out a bunch of thermometers and average the temps? How many are placed in a given region? Is there one in every lat/long grid around the planet? Do they average the high from each day on each thermometer? The low? Do they take temp every hour and average that? Or do they wait until the sun is shining, then take a reading?

We should get a big meat thermometer and measure the earth's temp that way.

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by jyl

Can we agree that anyone who offers an opinion about global climate change based on whether it is or isn't, warmer or cooler, or drier or wetter, where he happens to be standing at that particular time - is an evident idiot?

Yes, I think we can all agree that anyone who stands outside on a cold day and says there is no such thing as global warming is almost as much of an idiot as anyone who notices a short term trend, extrapolates it into a long term trend, fabricates supporting evidence, redacts, deletes and edits opposing viewpoints, and uses it as an excuse to push a political agenda that results in their continued funding.

[Head416]

Originally Posted by jyl

Can we agree that anyone who offers an opinion about global climate change based on whether it is or isn't, warmer or cooler, or drier or wetter, where he happens to be standing at that particular time - is an evident idiot?

Unsolicited advice - take it or leave it - I'd recommend calling it a poor argument if you don't like it rather than insulting the person. When you call people idiots you come off as an evident jerk.

You're right that one man's experience may not be an effective measure of global climate change. However, it does reflect the climate of an entire region. My experience has been that 2010 was an abnormally cool year. That doesn't reflect on just me, but all of Southern California because those living around me experienced the same weather and temps.

I've seen plenty of Pelicans from various areas describing a cold year. I've seen news of record low temps and snow storms. Granted, most of this is US, but not all. How many people have you heard comment that they had an unusually warm 2010? I can't think of a single one that I've heard.

I suspect the day will come when some type of inaccurate process and/or fraud will reveal that these reports are crap. Maybe not. But it seems that "truths" are often retracted with an "oops" a few years later.

Most recent example: the study that reported the alleged autism/vaccination link. How many parents declined vaccination for their kids because of this fraud? How many kids died? (I have no idea, so maybe the answer is "none". But my gut tells me otherwise.)

Global warming example: the study the California Air Resources Board used to justify their regulation had falsified data regarding diesel particulates in the air. The head of CARB (I'm blanking on her name) presented the study to the board even though she new the man behind it was a fraud because she believed in the cause, regardless of the evidence.

So, when some people release a report that 2010 tied for the warmest year on record I just roll my eyes. They might be right. But I believe they start these studies knowing what they want their conclusions to be, and throw out erroneous data that doesn't agree with the conclusions they've already formed. No better than a high school chem lab.

I realize what I'm writing isn't evidence against the report, and I'm not trying to pretend that it is. It's my explanatin of why I don't believe them. I also realize there's actually a chance they might be right. But I don't trust them, so I won't just take their word for it.

[Deschodt]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Yes, I think we can all agree that anyone who stands outside on a cold day and says there is no such thing as global warming is almost as much of an idiot as anyone who notices a short term trend, extrapolates it into a long term trend, fabricates supporting evidence, redacts, deletes and edits opposing viewpoints, and uses it as an excuse to push a political agenda that results in their continued funding.

Excellent !

I'm definitely pro-science, but I also have issues with the scientists deriving a doomsday scenario out of barely 150 years of accurately recorded temperatures. So even if it is warming up now, who is to say we're not about to enter another ice age in 200 years ? Overreaction for funding purposes, I like that...

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by Head416

Unsolicited advice - take it or leave it - I'd recommend calling it a poor argument if you don't like it rather than insulting the person. When you call people idiots you come off as an evident jerk.

[...]

I realize what I'm writing isn't evidence against the report, and I'm not trying to pretend that it is. It's my explanation of why I don't believe them. I also realize there's actually a chance they might be right. But I don't trust them, so I won't just take their word for it.

I'm old enough to dimly remember the global cooling scare in the 70's.

We like to think of scientists as being impartial, but they either work for corporations (supposedly evil), or academia (98%+ Dem/lib). If they want to continue getting paid or funded, they need to provide results their bosses want to hear.

Some eventually get fed up with all the politics and lies and leave:

News - Telegraph Blogs
US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'


Sometimes, they get caught in the act of censorship, ad-hominem attacks and fabrication:

News - Telegraph Blogs
"William Connolley – a green party activist – took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."



At best, we're unsure if there is a global warming trend or not. 10, 20 or even 1,000 year trends upwards or downwards are common throughout history. Even less plausible is mankind's ability to affect these trends in any way. We already know that a single volcano eruption can cause more impact to the environment than the sum of human civilization combined, and we seem to get through those period OK, and quickly as well.

Anyway, this is getting PARF-y so I'll bow out, but I hope that people keep an open mind. This is not a sporting event where you pick a team and root for them right or wrong. We can enact policies that cripple economies and redistribute wealth to the undeserving that fund terror, genocide and repression.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Head416

I've seen plenty of Pelicans from various areas describing a cold year. I've seen news of record low temps and snow storms. Granted, most of this is US, but not all. How many people have you heard comment that they had an unusually warm 2010? I can't think of a single one that I've heard.

Here in TN it was the warmest year in my memory. It was brutal here in the summer (the warmest summer on record for TN, IIRC).

I think people deny climate change due to a phenomena whereby if they personally don't understand it, then it obviously isn't occurring. It's just like people who deny the theory of evolution. I realize that it is a natural human reaction to deny things that they do not understand (or that are difficult to understand), but just because one person (or a group of people) doesn't understand something, that doesn't mean that no one understands it. For instance, I was (and still am to an extent) skeptical of the whole "Dark Matter" explanation for the total mass of the universe. It reeks of a fudge factor to me. But, just because I don't understand it, that doesn't mean that no one does. In fact, there has been at least one actual experiment that has validated the theory.

I don't intend this as a criticism, but it is not rational to completely blow off years of research by thousands of scientists as "an inaccurate process and/or fraud". That simply exposes your lack of understanding.

[Head416]

Originally Posted by IROC

Here in TN it was the warmest year in my memory. It was brutal here in the summer (the warmest summer on record for TN, IIRC).

Thank you for sharing. (Seriously.) I think this is relevant evidence that should be considered.

I think people deny climate change due to a phenomena whereby if they personally don't understand it, then it obviously isn't occurring. It's just like people who deny the theory of evolution. I realize that it is a natural human reaction to deny things that they do not understand (or that are difficult to understand), but just because one person (or a group of people) doesn't understand something, that doesn't mean that no one understands it.
...
I don't intend this as a criticism, but it is not rational to completely blow off years of research by thousands of scientists as "an inaccurate process and/or fraud". That simply exposes your lack of understanding.

I think there's a big difference between not understanding and questioning. It would be a lot easier to just go along with it, and I think that's what most people do. They don't understand it, so when somebody claims some type of intelligence or expertise they say "okay, you must know better than me, I'll just accept what you say at face value".

But, as mentioned in posts above, I'm not convinced that their extrapolation from a small period of evidence is valid, or even if it is valid, I'm not sure it's relevant. So 1) I don't trust the evidence because I think those behind it have an agenda, and 2) even if the evidence is accurate how does that make the current time and different from previous long-term climate fluctuations? I don't buy into the "I'm really smart and you just don't understand" argument. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not an idiot either. Learning Calculus and Differential Equations doesn't mean I'm smart, but I'd like to think I can understand the math behind averaging a bunch of temperatures. But the math is easy. What I really question is the methodology. Receeding polar ice caps to me is easily measurable and quantifiable, but this idea of a global temperature to me has way too many variables going into it for it to be the basis of an entire belief.

[tabs]

And when did they start keeping these records? Would you say about 150 years ago or so? U must admit that is sufficient time to figure out what a 5 Billion year old planet is doing with regards to climate..

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

And when did they start keeping these records? Would you say about 150 years ago or so? U must admit that is sufficient time to figure out what a 5 Billion year old planet is doing with regards to climate..

When you use a thermometer to measure temperature, you seem to be able to comprehend that.

Can you comprehend that there are numerous ways to measure temperature other than a thermometer? Temperature records go back for a long time. Try millions of years.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Head416

And how is this measured? Where are the thermometers? Next to factories and power plants? In warm tropical regions? How do you come up with a weighted-average temp for the globe based on location? Or do you just throw out a bunch of thermometers and average the temps? How many are placed in a given region? Is there one in every lat/long grid around the planet? Do they average the high from each day on each thermometer? The low? Do they take temp every hour and average that? Or do they wait until the sun is shining, then take a reading?

We should get a big meat thermometer and measure the earth's temp that way.

don't know if your initial questions were serious, but methodology includes:
- ships

the "averaging" methodology is all laid out for those who want to dig it out
- buoys
- satellites with special scanners
- ground stations, NWS & others
- for older dates, ice core data and various indicia of glaciation, rock chemistry & etc. have been used

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by tabs

And when did they start keeping these records? Would you say about 150 years ago or so? U must admit that is sufficient time to figure out what a 5 Billion year old planet is doing with regards to climate..

blabs - you are smart enuff to know that 5 B years is not the time period of interest

we are concerned with what is happening now, and will happen to our kids, grandkids, and etc.

we are interested in history mainly since the industrial revolution, which is when large amts. of CO2 started to be spewed into the atmosphere.

it is of course interesting to look at plate tectonics, ocean circulation, changes in land use practices and the appearance of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) - all of which have changed the biosphere and atmosphere, but none of that is particularly germane to current issues

[RWebb]

we need a Dark Matter thread...

[oldE]

Originally Posted by tabs

And when did they start keeping these records? Would you say about 150 years ago or so? U must admit that is sufficient time to figure out what a 5 Billion year old planet is doing with regards to climate..

You know, the Norse colonized Iceland and the South West coast of Greenland 1000 years ago. That period is generally referred to as the global optimum. Within 300 years, ice patterns had shifted and the Greenland colony could no longer raise enough food to feed itself. Some of those families had lived there for a longer period than there has been a United States of America. That didn't stop the climate change, however.

Researchers are currently looking at the logs of whaling ships from the late 1700s to determine what were the temperatures and winds were in the oceans.

A story which interested me from a few years ago concerned anthropologists researching the oral histories of west coast First Nations. One story had been categorized as a 'Creation myth', as it told of islands rising out of the sea, then the sea rising over them again. Further study has indicated these stories may be oral documentation of sea-level changes from an ice age 10,000 years ago.

Climate change is very real, but we get so caught up in "whatever I am familiar with is the way things are", that we lose sight of the basic reality that for the most part, the Earth is going to change, whether we like it or not.

Les

[RWebb]

unfortunately, it is very likely to get a lot hotter than the fun times when my forebears were looting, ravaging, and pillaging Europe - I'm told it WAS good clean fun tho, and definitely kept them "off the streets"

DoD has done a lot of studies on this and the ones that have been released are not fun reading, nor is the thought of lower Manhatten and much of Florida being flooded