Posted on 11/26/2007 5:25:19 PM PST by milwguy
The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.
This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.
On the other hand, we had Gordon Brown last week, in his "first major speech on climate change", airily committing his own and future governments to achieving a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - which is rather like prime minister Salisbury at the end of Queen Victoria's reign trying to commit Winston Churchill's government to achieving some wholly impossible goal in the middle of the Second World War.
Mr Brown's only concrete proposal for reaching this absurd target seems to be his plan to ban plastic bags, whatever they have to do with global warming (while his government also plans a near-doubling of flights out of Heathrow).
(Excerpt) Read more at drudge.com ...
When I was an undergrad at the University of Wisconsin in the late 60s, we had a professor who told us about how they used to collect climate data for years from one particular building on Bascom Hill, the original site of the UW. They determined over the span of 40-60 years how the climate numbers changed. Average wind speeds decreased, temperature changed, etc. He asked us why. After we struggled with a variety of theories, he said, “The Elm Trees around the building grew!”
LOL, very funny.
bump
ManBearPig played on our fears!
Then dutch ekm disease killed em....I was at the Badger game three weeks ago and all those beautiful trees are gone, however the bars on State Street were still there.
That appears to be a major part of what has happened generally. ...plus things like switching from whitewash to latex white paint...plus things like programs rounding to the nearest digit instead of dropping remainders...plus no one checking the math as part of peer review.
Don’t you know the glowarmers claim the warming temps will throw us into an ice age!!!!! Just a big bunch of SCAMMERS...and LIARS.
Not to mention putting measuring stations on heat sinks. Tough to take these guys seriously, very tough.
Last night in Ely Nevada it was colder than a well diggers arse. Froze my Thanksgiving celery and caused my Budweiser’s to pop. Damn global warming is supposed to help me in these difficult times.
And Hillery has a nice little warm Muslim to cuddle with.
And Oprah is trying to score with Obahma.
And...I know the church is not ..... Had to sneak in here on this thread so the morgbots don’t catch me speaking in a negative tone with a proud Apostate’s voice.
Now, you’re all brought up to date from my perspective.
Copenhagen on December 22-31. Working on my Danish with a Great Dane.
I am not sure the data which the author was referring to but I found this........http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series.........the salient point I picked up upon perusing the report was this “A global map of 28-year MSU/AMSU channel TMT trends shows large regions of significant warming over eastern and central Asia, and northern Canada, cooling over the southern oceans, with moderate warming over most other regions. A map of channel TLT trends shows a very similar pattern, but with more pronounced mid-latitude warming.....so when Al Gore says the planet is warming he is at least partly right, but this data only covers 28 years and how would one square the southern oceans cooling. I can see why with China burning so much coal and throwing their smog into the air, that the data would show a perceived warming over asia, but if global warming is really caused by man, how can we just heat part of the planet, whilst other parts cool?
I am not sure the data which the author was referring to but I found this........http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series.........the salient point I picked up upon perusing the report was this “A global map of 28-year MSU/AMSU channel TMT trends shows large regions of significant warming over eastern and central Asia, and northern Canada, cooling over the southern oceans, with moderate warming over most other regions. A map of channel TLT trends shows a very similar pattern, but with more pronounced mid-latitude warming.....so when Al Gore says the planet is warming he is at least partly right, but this data only covers 28 years and how would one square the southern oceans cooling. I can see why with China burning so much coal and throwing their smog into the air, that the data would show a perceived warming over asia, but if global warming is really caused by man, how can we just heat part of the planet, whilst other parts cool?
ping
Large trees growing close to your house does keep it warmer in winter and the shade keeps it cooler in summer.
LOLOLOLOL...someone send this to algore
Love it, love it, love it! Thanks for the ping!
I just posted the same story. You changed the title so your post did not show up on a search.
Bookmarked
Before that, the ONLY TIME that both CO2 and temperatures have risen at the same time in the past 150 years was the 27 year period from 1971 through 1998. At every other time, either CO2 was steady or decreasing (while temps rose) or temps were declining or steady (while CO2 rose.)
Neither makes a good trend - as far as the AGW extremist money crowd is concerned. Yes, he does not plot the graphs, and he should have: But the graphs (on several US national sites!) have been tweaked by the AGW extremists:
1) Surface temperatures graphs were previously “corrected” by Hansen himself at NASA - these corrections were needed to adjust for the heat bubble around urban cities - which are up to 10-12 degrees F hotter than farmlands: But Hansen’s corrections were (on average) too much early on (before 2000) and too little (post 2000): the result makes temperatures before 2000 seem low and those past 2000 too high, both of which makes GW seem MUCH larger than it actually is. You MUST accept ONLY graphs that use the “re-corrected” values assigned after 2006 - when his charade was discovered by a team of statisticians (not “peer-reviewed scientists!) from Canada.
2) Graphs of satellite data for the troposphere (the most accurate air temperature data) are truncated before 1985: this implies that temperatures in the mid30’s were NOT hotter than now, and that the very low points (cycling temps from 1950 to a low in 1972 back towards a high in 1998 were ONLY RISING from 1980 to 1998. This is a very, very different impression than what really happened.
3) Surface temperatures are greatly affected by the removal/failure/loss of many hundred Soviet temperature stations in Siberia and North Russia in early 1990-1992. Thus, if you average many thousands surface readings from 1950 through 2006, but you are NOT recording many hundred low-temperature readings from 1992 through 2006, the overall average reading will appear higher after 1992. This doesn’t mean the rest of them are wrong, but it DOES mean that the average temperature will be higher after 1992 - regardless of what the real air temps are doing.
4) But the measured temperatures ARE wrong in many places: These are the thermometers placed near parking lots, behind buildings, out in the sun without specified covers and sun shields. Others are near air-conditioner vents, fans, motors, and industrial areas. ALL of these violate siting requirements, but NASA (and other AGW agencies of the federal government) violently/viciously refuse to give out locations of their stations to verify how many are legally sited in legal covers.
Yes, I would also love a link to the satellite data. I would probably add it to my e-mail return address!
Use this one for starters:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.