Yes, a 130 year period compared to the 4.5 billion years the planet has existed. That certainly is some sample size.
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Yes, a 130 year period compared to the 4.5 billion years the planet has existed. That certainly is some sample size.
Actually that information came from the NASA study. The very NASA study that Drjkyllus cited as authoritative.
Just for good measure, McIntyre's website and blog. Lot of interesting stuff here. http://www.climateaudit.org/
Not only don't I believe in man created global warming-I dispute there's even a clear warming trend to begin with.
Reliance on reports from barren outposts in the sub-Arctic remind me of Judas singing in JC Superstar: If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.
Why if warming is caused by mans activity don't we just compare temperatures and precipitation rates from years past in places where man actually pollutes rather than unobservable from the masses anecdotes about diminished "ice caps and polar bears". I mean if the whole friggin universe is getting hot because of cars in L.A. or factories in Changchun then wouldn't it stand to reason that the climate of those cities would change?
I know a fair amount about domestic temperature collection and the process has flaws. For example, over the years within cities the location of where the "official" temperature resides have changed. Some parts of the country have dramatic temperature differentials within just miles of each other. The West Coast in particular. Even Chicago's-and other Great Lake cities-"lake effect" causes data differentials. Chicago's site has gone from the Lakefront to Midway to O'Hare in the past 70 years. Ever compared a warm, sunny mid May day out by the airport to a chilly damp Michigan Avenue?
Here's a pertinent article detailing the switch in L.A. from the Civic Center to USC.
"WILL THE REAL LOS ANGELES STAND UP: IMPACTS OF A WEATHER STATIONâS RELOCATION ON CLIMATIC RECORDS (AND RECORD WEATHER)"
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/119064.pdf
Knowing that Kansas City has virtually zero divergence from one part of town to the next, knowing it's in the center of the country-almost literally-and knowing in a weird way K.C. has a "typical" American climate, it becomes a nice case study.
Here's a century and a score of Kansas City. You'll see from the mid-90's to 2006 a rise from 51.2 to 58.5 degrees. Pretty dramatic. But look back and see how many similar moves were made. Perhaps a dozen. Buy 51's and sell 58's and you'd be rich. Now I know something none of you will learn from that last link. You'll notice the page was published prior to the inclusion of 2008. What do you think last years mean was? I'll post it later.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/localclimate/seasrank/springtrank.php
Reliance on reports from barren outposts in the sub-Arctic remind me of Judas singing in JC Superstar: If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.
Why if warming is caused by mans activity don't we just compare temperatures and precipitation rates from years past in places where man actually pollutes rather than unobservable from the masses anecdotes about diminished "ice caps and polar bears". I mean if the whole friggin universe is getting hot because of cars in L.A. or factories in Changchun then wouldn't it stand to reason that the climate of those cities would change?
I know a fair amount about domestic temperature collection and the process has flaws. For example, over the years within cities the location of where the "official" temperature resides have changed. Some parts of the country have dramatic temperature differentials within just miles of each other. The West Coast in particular. Even Chicago's-and other Great Lake cities-"lake effect" causes data differentials. Chicago's site has gone from the Lakefront to Midway to O'Hare in the past 70 years. Ever compared a warm, sunny mid May day out by the airport to a chilly damp Michigan Avenue?
Here's a pertinent article detailing the switch in L.A. from the Civic Center to USC.
"WILL THE REAL LOS ANGELES STAND UP: IMPACTS OF A WEATHER STATIONâS RELOCATION ON CLIMATIC RECORDS (AND RECORD WEATHER)"
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/119064.pdf
Knowing that Kansas City has virtually zero divergence from one part of town to the next, knowing it's in the center of the country-almost literally-and knowing in a weird way K.C. has a "typical" American climate, it becomes a nice case study.
Here's a century and a score of Kansas City. You'll see from the mid-90's to 2006 a rise from 51.2 to 58.5 degrees. Pretty dramatic. But look back and see how many similar moves were made. Perhaps a dozen. Buy 51's and sell 58's and you'd be rich. Now I know something none of you will learn from that last link. You'll notice the page was published prior to the inclusion of 2008. What do you think last years mean was? I'll post it later.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/localclimate/seasrank/springtrank.php
Actually temperature measurements can go back 500 years and this has been the hottest -- "they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
That's from the noaa.
Actually it came from the flawed NASA study, used by warming alarmist James Hansen to launch several hundred news articles parroting his errors.
Apparently what you don't understand is the difference between weather and climate.
Umm... so the NASA study that drjekyllus just cited as authoritative, which according to a blog shows that the sun is the primary variable behind global climate change -- is wrong?
Quote from TraderZones:
While the world as a whole warmed about 1 oF over the entire 20th century, parts of the Arctic have warmed by 4-5 oF just since the 1950s.
The Arctic continues to warm at a rate about twice as fast as rest of the world. Scientists, as well as the indigenous people of the Arctic, have noticed dramatic changes in the Arctic environment that has affected ecosystems and wildlife, human settlements and infrastructure, and the way of life of indigenous peoples.
Wait until the massive methane and CO2 start coming out of the northern and southern permafrost. So far we have been lucky. But a lot of permafrost is already thawing. The amount of greenhouse gases released could rise by several hundred %.
Many world glaciers and ice fields are reduced dramatically. Snow covered peaks like Mt. Kilimanjaro are quickly becoming snow free
Mountaintop species in places like the Rockies are being pushed to the top and eventual extinctions, one example is the pika. Some species have already become extinct.
"Old ice" in the Arctic has declined rapidly, the more ice we lose, the less heat is reflected into space. This cycle is growing rapidly.
Continued denials of this are similar to:
Do the monkeys refer to look on the global warming alarmists faces when the glaciers melt and they find old human settlements?
Or when they learn the fact that the glaciers have been melting for over 12,000 years? The glaciers extend all the way down to NY state at the time. Those cavemen, 10,000 years ago must have been using too many fossil fuels. If only they drove more fuel efficient cars then we too, could have enjoyed freezing our asses off.
Signatories of that "bulk email" petition are dentists, medical doctors, someone named "Mickey Mouse", Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," Geraldine Halliwel, etc. etc.