Global Warming Cont...

[Bill Pup60]

Not so hot

We keep hearing from the drive-bys that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States? That's what Al Gore and his CGW disciples have been telling us.

Wrong!! Once again, Reverend Al has faulty facts. It was 1934, according to newly revised figures from NASA, recently released rather quietly. The error is embarrassing. Global-warming alarmists ought to be unsettled. But one suspects the unquestioning faith in their dogma will ease any doubts.

Here are the top-20 hot years from NASA's Web site in order of finish, starting with record-keeping that began in 1880:

1934,1998, 1921, 2006,1931,1999,1953,1990,1938,1939, 1954, 1987, 2001, 1986, 1946, 1991, 2005, 1933, 1981 and 1941.

Ten of those "hot" years predate the period of the 1960s and 1970s, a much cooler period when global cooling alarmists were predicting a new ice age.

Just for context, the world has been around for a few billion years. Should we try to determine what the perfect temperature is and when we had it?

Steven Milloy, junk science debunker,. writes on the Fox News Web site that 80 percent of man-made carbon dioxide, allegedly a cause of global warming, was generated after1940.

With these revisions, the question arises whether we should trust NASA's numbers now, since the space agency was wrong before. This incident also brings to mind the fact that the National Weather Service “just happened” to lose 16 days of “official” data from April of this year which are not in the April average. Could it just be coincidence that the 16 days “lost” happened to be among the coldest days of April?

We don't have the science to predict accurately what the climate will be in 2 years, let alone 50 or 100 years. Now we find out that NASA didn't get the previous temperature averages right. In comparison to making climate forecasts, that ought to have been pretty simple.

[randerizer]

Not so hot

We keep hearing from the drive-bys that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States? That's what Al Gore and his CGW disciples have been telling us.

Wrong!! Once again, Reverend Al has faulty facts. It was 1934, according to newly revised figures from NASA, recently released rather quietly. The error is embarrassing. Global-warming alarmists ought to be unsettled. But one suspects the unquestioning faith in their dogma will ease any doubts.

With tens of thousands of scientists apparently on the GW bandwagon, don't you think AT LEAST ONE would have run across this in checking their facts? Oh wait, nevermind. IMO, this just proves the point that the "consensus" is really a meaningless term, as NOONE in the "consensus" has legitimately checked even a significant percentage of the calculations involved.

[Bill Pup60]

And some of the AGW weenies spouting off the most -- like a few we know - have absolutely no clue about how weak the so-called "science" is behind their outrageous claims. And even worse, how much of it is purely manipulated lies.

The latest point in this debate is the blatant atempt by Newsweek in their recent issue to claim that the AGW skeptics are financed in huge amounts by the "carbon criminals' , to the tune of over 19 million in the last 10 years. Of course they conveniently forget to mention that the AGW side has received over 50 billion (yes that's a "B") in UN and various governmental grants over the same period!!!!!! Yep, the "carbon credit industry" is becoming a hugh business in itself.

[saltydawg]

The data you guys (weenies) are so worked up about only applies to the USA, not the fu*king world. Here is the slightly change graph for USA temperatures:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

[saltydawg]

For the GLOBAL MEAN, the data shows that AGW is for real and is happening:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gr...Fig.A2_lrg.gif

[Dawgbitten]

Salty, it is obvious where he hears this BS. Ever hear the term "drive-by media"? Coined by none other than the greatest man ever invented, Rush Limbaugh. No use butting heads with people who listen to and believe that moron.

[Bill Pup60]

The cute charts have little meaning if the basic raw data is unreliable.

Global baloney

It turns out the last decade wasn't the hottest in history

By Jack Kelly, Columnist – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sunday, August 19, 2007
It was a small change, made quietly two weeks ago on the Web site of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. But it could have big implications.
Al Gore claimed in his 2006 crockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that nine of the 10 hottest years in history have been in the last decade, with 1998 the warmest year on record.

Not so, says the GISS, which is affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University, and is headed by Dr. James Hansen, scientific godfather of global warming alarmism. According to the GISS, the hottest years ever in the United States were, in order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

Only one year in the last five (2006, fourth) is on this list, and only three in the last 10, compared with four in the 1930s.

The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also publishes annual data on U.S. temperatures. Its estimates for the last decade are higher than GISS's. Data collected from NASA weather satellites do not show the warming trend GISS and NCDC do. (Satellites indicated a warming of only a third of a degree Fahrenheit between 1979 and 1999.)

The adjustments in annual temperatures from the GISS's original data to the corrected version are quite small (temperatures from the year 2000 forward were reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius), but the rhetorical implications are great. It sounds so much more alarming to say: "Nine of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade" than to say: "One of the last five years was almost as warm as 1934."
It is interesting to note how the GISS was made aware of its error. The GISS data are based on temperature readings collected at surface stations throughout the United States. California weatherman Anthony Watts suspected (correctly, as it turned out) the readings at some of these stations were showing more warming than had actually occurred, either because the area around the station had become more urban (asphalt and concrete reflect more heat -- the heat island effect -- than grass and dirt do), or because there was a heat source close to the station. Mr. Watts also noted that the number of functioning stations in the US has decreased dramatically in recent years as many rural stations have not been maintained. This apparently has skewed the means toward the urban stations, which are biased toward the heat islands.

A surface station in Detroit Lakes, Minn., showed a big jump in annual mean temperature in the year 2000. Mr. Watts figured this was because two air conditioning vents were installed near the station that year, blowing hot air on the sensor. He expounded upon his theory on his Web log (Watts Up With That?) and promptly got shot down. Several readers noted much of the spike occurred in winter, when the air conditioning units weren't running.

Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre, who reads Mr. Watts' blog, had another theory. Perhaps there was a Y2K bug in the software GISS used. He reverse engineered the GISS data, and discovered an error that went far beyond one surface station in Detroit Lakes. Data collected after 1999 wasn't being adjusted to account for the time of day when readings were taken.

Without disclosing how it arrived at its conclusions, the Goddard Institute quietly acknowledged that Mr. McIntyre was right.

The United States is only 2 percent of the world's land mass. It's possible the rest of the world's been getting hotter in the last few years, even if the United States hasn't. But as Lorne Gunter of Canada's National Post noted, we only have surface temperature readings for half the world today. Prior to World War II, we had readings for less than a quarter of it.

Many of those readings are suspect. Earlier this month, British mathematician Douglas Keenan accused Dr. Wei Chyung Wang, upon whom the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied for data on China, of research fraud.
Mr. Keenan was able to cry foul on the dubious data because the lead author of the paper to which Dr. Wang contributed his figures was a British scientist, Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Under British law, those who conduct publicly funded research must disclose the data and methodology on which they based their conclusions. So Mr. Keenan was able to personally examine the raw data and how it was averaged. He found numerous “problems” with the resulting conclusions.

No such law exists in the United States. Though publicly funded, neither the scientists at the Goddard Institute nor the National Climatic Data Center disclose how they arrive at conclusions so they can be independently verified. They ought to.
As the GISS was quietly acknowledging its error, Newsweek magazine, with exquisitely bad timing, declared in an Aug. 13 cover story that “the debate on global warming was over.”

"The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading," wrote Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson in the following issue.

[saltydawg]

Bill, here is something you might like:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

[altadawg]

salty, the beauty(hate to say that in such a serious problem) is that all we have to do is wait. wait for the data to collect. the seas and land temps to go higher. i love our Penn boys Noaa theory... Cant wait to see what they say in 10-15 years when THIS GETS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL!!!.....

Yes, the storms will get so big that we have to come up with cat 6(bye bye yucitan, dean is going to finish it off, as far as non cement and steel structure).

the floods, the droughts, the fires, the heat. get ready, boys. I cant wait to see all the smart repubs continue to squirm and deflect. good luck with that.

the real losers shall be the animals, the enviroment.... simple, innocent things.....the land, the history, mother nature.... but dont expect her to go down quietly boys..... See, the Good Book.....

[altadawg]

the pressure on this storm.....its 926 mb right now with about 34 hrs tell land interaction....not much time to drop....BUT im telling you, its going to drop like a rock to maybe even break Wilma's record.....

[FishingBack]

the pressure on this storm.....its 926 mb right now with about 34 hrs tell land interaction....not much time to drop....BUT im telling you, its going to drop like a rock to maybe even break Wilma's record.....

A big hurricane in August? Help, Chicken Little, HELP!

[Bill Pup60]

Salty, it is obvious where he hears this BS. Ever hear the term "drive-by media"? Coined by none other than the greatest man ever invented, Rush Limbaugh. No use butting heads with people who listen to and believe that moron.

Perhaps you should listen....... might improve your IQ!!!!!

[altadawg]

160 with 185 gusts. I guess the only good news is that it cant get too much stronger as it has increased its forward speed. Plus, its not going to hit any "major towns". But what it does hit will be gone. at 20 miles per hour, the north eyewall will have effective winds of 180 sustained and gusts over 200.

Probably EVERYTHING from 10-0 miles inland, all the way from Tulum to Santa Ana. Almost 150 miles. Pretty bad stuff.

It looks like, on the current track, it will spend almost no time back in the Gulf regaining strength, so a second landfall in Mexico will probably be as a cat 2 or less, also good news.

[altadawg]

Perhaps you should listen....... might improve your IQ!!!!!

Does one's IQ improve with the number of exclamation points they use? Just wondering.

[altadawg]

A big hurricane in August? Help, Chicken Little, HELP!

LOL. I bet you wouldnt have said that if this thing was 400 miles to the north on its track. And it aint big, its a freakin monster. Maybe this is the new big, and if it had 1 more day in open water....