Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif


Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).


Human caused emissions of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere have caused a less than 0.05°C (0.09°F) increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 years.
……………………………………………………………
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Sure; but the problem is that you're assuming that the scientists are stupid and don't understand this when they put the stations there in the first place. What makes you think that you understand ANYTHING that they don't? Where's your degree in climatology?

The rest of your paragraph about 'contaminants' is ridiculous; Parados already pointed out to you, several times, how stupid your ideas in this area are. You simply ignored him because it doesn't fit the 'gotcha' narrative. You ought to go back and re-read the explanations for why you are so wrong; but, as you lack intellectual honesty, you won't do this, and I don't have the energy to repeat them all here right now.



Here's one: what makes you think you have what it takes to be a teacher? That's probably the funniest thing you've written in forever, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn
[/quote]
I did not assume it at first, but sadly I am compelled to come to that conclusion, along with a large portion of the world's population as well.

"Repeat after me....We are not brainwashed..."
We are not brainwashed..."again..."
We are not brainwashed..."again..."
We are not brainwashed..."again..."
We are not brainwashed..."again..."
We are not brainwashed..."again..."

Just exactly how many people who have been brainwashed admit it ? Clown ...

And the motive ?



The accusation of brainwashing is levelled at Christian groups for raising their children as Christians. Obviously dickhead and his like are not aware of green being taught in schools.

I think dickhead is complimenting you, okie, but he is so bizarre in his beliefs I dont think even he would know what he is thinking.

Obviously he is unaware that cities are warmer then the surrounding countryside. Where man made materials are concerned, okie, you are of course correct. You can not assume the mid-point is the average. An artificial high when the airconditioners are running during the day and are pumping hot air all over the thermostat raises the mid point.

Are you referring to the emails and bullying ? Or perhaps you are referring to the denied freedom of information requests ? Or the data shredding ?

As I had initially thought, you have no real response other then to assume that you are both smarter than people who work in these fields AND more knowledgeable about their own field of science then they are. I find this to be laughable and I'm quite sure that anyone else here familiar with your posting does as well.

Cycloptichorn

The Average and Mean Annual Global Temperatures increased less than 1°C (1.8°F) in the last 100 years, and in the last ten years this temperature trend has either leveled off or decreased, while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has annually increased.

Human caused emissions of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere have caused a less than a 5% increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 years.

Human caused emissions of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere have caused a less than 0.05°C (0.09°F) increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 years.

If a doctor places a broken thermometer under your tongue, would you believe the guy's body temperature results merely because he has the letters M.D. after his name? Maybe you would, but I am not so dumb as not to believe that most reasonable people would use some common sense and conclude the doctor is either incompetent or dishonest, and either change doctors or demand that he upgrade his equipment if he planned to continue having us as patients. The same principle applies to these climatology clowns. Either they get their act together and prove they can at least measure the temperatures accurately, which likely will require more stringent siting standards and perhaps some new equipment, or we need some new climatologists.

You aren't qualified to tell whether or not the stations are broken or not. You don't know enough about the science to tell this. You merely pretend you do, for political reasons. This is one of the reasons that you are not taken seriously on this issue.

Cycloptichorn

Someone deaf dumb and blind can tell the thermometers are incorrectly positioned. They are incorrectly positioned by the standards laid out by the weather bureau. By the way, I call them thermostats because they trigger Global Warming; CO2 certainly doesnt.

So you believe science is some sort of magic ? Only you can tell how this magic works due to you receiving special abilities ?

The first person who comes to mind as fitting this description is you.

Ionus, this subject is fascinating, but from my perspective I can tell you why I quit being intimidated by so called "experts" a long time ago. My own personal experience taught me to quit being intimidated a long time ago. Growing up as a farm boy, I sort of had this belief that doctors and scientists had some mystical inside track, they were super intelligent and super scientific and precise, and everything had been pretty well established beyond a reasonable doubt. After taking all of the courses necessary and graduating with honors in geology, minor in math, from college, I got my first job with the oil company. I worked there 16 years, but it did not take me nearly that long to wake up to the fact that at least one scientific discipline, the field of geology, was far from being dictated by long determined fast and hard facts to follow in our work. That is why there are so many journals and societies whereby new research and scientific articles espouse newly found data and evidence to change the thinking from what had been known and followed to that point. After that point, I also have been involved in a business wherein I found that long held impressions of things that I had previously thought were almost foolproof have been found to be flawed. I think my life experience in the scientific and technical world has taught me one valuable lesson, that being it is wise to approach science with a healthy skepticism. I also have a brother that was a doctor, and we have had many fascinating discussions about the medical world, but the long and short of it is that science and health is an extremely complex subject, and also so called facts are not always found to be ironclad, things change all the time, and patients are well advised not to take a doctors opinion without using a healthy measure of common sense.

Likewise, we are just plain stupid if we swallow the stuff put out by so called climatologists when it is been plainly demonstrated that their weather monitoring stations are severely lacking in regard to siting standards, and are very probably giving us bogus data. And claiming they can correct the numbers is frankly a silly claim on its face. Maybe they can get closer by considering corrections, but we are not in need of ballpark numbers or better estimates, we need reliable precise data. After all, politicians are proposing sweeping political policy based upon a fraction of one degree, a few tenths of a degree. When you consider what is really happening here, it seems rather bizarre that people could think like cyclops is suggesting.

Cycloptichorn, You aren't qualified to tell whether or not okie is qualified to tell whether the stations are broken or not. You don't know enough about okie or the science to tell this. You merely pretend you do, for political reasons. This is one of the reasons that you are not taken seriously on this issue.

I have posted this numerous times, but again won't hurt. Here is the update on the ongoing weather station survey, which shows about 60% of them in the U.S. are probably between 2 and 5 degrees off, or more, and another percentage is also off up to 1 degree or more. Also, this survey has knowledgable people conducting it. Also, "Recently, this project got a significant endorsement from Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado in Boulder in his weblog. I and all the volunteers appreciate the recognition."

"The survey project continues to move forward, even in these cold and snowy winter months. I’m pleased to announce that we have just passed the 500 mark for surveyed stations. Now with 41.1% of the network surveyed comprising 502 stations surveyed so far, that leaves 719 to go out of 1221 stations nationwide."

Here is the link again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/25/over-500-ushcn-stations-now-surveyed/

I totally agree with your intent. The one that annoys me is statistics. Some fool says there is a 70% likelyhood and everyone who has no idea assumes it to be 100% correct. What happened to the other 30 % chance ? Lets roll a ten sided dice and if 1-7 come up they get a million dollars. If 8-10 come up, they get a bullet in the head. That is the reality they leave out.

We wont even discuss sampling methods, survey size or statistically significant amounts.

If they are prepared to use data that is wrong, then assume the mid point between the max and min temperature is the average, then fudge the figures for "greater accuracy", then deny others the information, the shred the information, then threaten others who disagree...clearly we are not dealing with rational people let alone scientists and dickhead argues no-one understands the science but him.

This graph and accuracy rating are the USA alone. It beggars the imagination how bad the rest of the world's data collecting might be...all because it was accurate enough to help weather prediction...it was never accurate enough to change the world economy.

Ionus and Okie, even in the unlikely event that one or the other of the two graphs I have repeatedly posted were proven accurate, the CO2 demagogs still could not make their case that human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 100 years have caused either alleged increase in the mean or average annual global temperature over those same 100 years.

The Average and Mean Annual Global Temperatures increased less than 1°C (1.8°F) in the last 100 years, and in the last ten years this temperature trend has either leveled off or decreased, while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has annually increased over the same period.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CO2 Trend 1958-2008
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif


Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

Ionus and ican, what do you think about the following article in regard to the earthquake in Chile, and how this could relate to climate in the future. I think it only confirms the suspicions that we have posted, I have for sure, that there are so many factors that could influence climate that we simply do not know much about, let alone able to plug into any credible computer monitor to predict doomsday or lack thereof 50 years or 100 years from now.

" Chile earthquake may have shortened days
Seventh strongest quake in recorded history may have shifted Earth's axis

The massive 8.8 earthquake that struck Chile may have changed the entire Earth's rotation and shortened the length of days on our planet, a NASA scientist said Monday.

The quake, the seventh strongest earthquake in recorded history, hit Chile Saturday and should have shortened the length of an Earth day by 1.26 microseconds (millionths of a second), according to research scientist Richard Gross at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

"Perhaps more impressive is how much the quake shifted Earth's axis," NASA officials said in a Monday update."

I meant to say "computer model," sorry about that.

My first thought was oh no, okie what have you done ! Now they will claim it was caused by Global Warming !

There is no end to end of days scenarios. The moon is a great stabilising influence on the earth's orbit and has slowed the earth's day by 18 hours so far. We would also topple a lot more without it.

The change of polarity of the earth's magnetosphere is a real worry. It is due "soon" and might stop our protection from solar radiation. THAT would really be Global Warming.