"WTF Is A Chick'n To Do?"
Posted on 01/19/2009 7:21:49 AM PST by PROCON
Huh? I thought 2008 was one of the 50th coldest years?
Did they use Hansen’s data, with the “slight error” from last year?
I live near Chicago, and I haven’t seen any warming. In the summer of 1995, Chicago had several days when the highs were at least 105 degrees, and the heat killed a few people. Within the past five years, Chicago hasn’t been over 100 degrees. In Dec. 2007, Chicago had a record 13 days when the temp. remained freezing. A few days, last week, our low was about -20. So far, this winter, we got about 40” of snow, and that’s almost the amount that we usually receive, all winter.
In the Carolinas here today and sitting in the crosshairs of a predicted 4 to 6 inches of global warming starting this evening. Last few nights have been in the teens & low 20s.
Wasn't that completely debunked when some "global warming deniers" reverse engineered Hansen's formulas (after he refused to release them publicly) and found that they had a major bias for increasing temperatures. If you put in random numbers he would calculate that they were going up.
“How does this mix with the reports that the last 10 years have been cooler?”
The last 10 years, 1999 to 2008, have all been cooler than 1998. the last two years, 2007 and 2008 have been decidedly cooler than previous years.
Saying that 2008 is “8th warmest” and that the warmest years were in the last decade is another way of saying
2008 was cooler than 8 of the last 11 years. The trend in 2008 was down.
Most importantly though is that the magnitude of overall warming from average 20th C is now small enough to be ‘in the noise’ ... it’s under 1F.
"WTF Is A Chick'n To Do?"
SE Louisiana had a dang cool autumn and one of the earliest ever recorded snowfall in New Orleans.
Summer wasn't at all hot.
“another warmer than normal year, 2008 ties for 8th place, overall.....”
and 1979 was ties for 27th place as the warmest year overall.
“Wasn’t that completely debunked when some “global warming deniers” reverse engineered Hansen’s formulas (after he refused to release them publicly) and found that they had a major bias for increasing temperatures.”
I think people are confusing US temps and global temps.
Globally, the warmest year on record was 1998.
For the US, the 1998 numbers and 1934 numbers are very close. Hansen did some data re-manipulation to make recent years beat out the 1930s warm years. The climate audit crowd, ie McIntyre, caught Hansen’s abuse of statistics, as a “Y2K bug” (but it was really a switch in data sources that biased recent temps higher, so human error/fraud not computer error. Hansen’s data ‘fixes’/errors did also impact global temp trends but do not change the fact that the warmest year on record globally was 1998.
Details on the NASA/GISS errors and corrections here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070810111416AAttodt
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/did-nasa-cover-.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878355/posts
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/nasa-1934-1998-etc.html
Science, anymore, is total BS and about agendas and money. These scientists are (mostly) left wing extremists with a political agenda.
By the way, if science is so “accurate” how come science ALWAYS disproves itself and they keep re-writing science books!!
“it’s nt about science. it’s about ‘following the money’”.
all those psychotic liberals out there are now salivating at the prospect of free tax money by way of the “global warming emergency-crisis-we’re all gonna die-scenario”.
when taxes are raised the “crisis” will go away and we’ll all be magically saved by the benevolence of liberal government. (halleluia!!!)
IMHO
That's anecdotal evidence. It statistical (that can be manipulated) is the only data that matters. In order to have real proof, there needs to be a measured trend of upward average temperatures and sea level. However they manipulate the temps, sea level has actually gone down since 1998 along with real temperatures measured objectively.
The problem is that when you start messing with belief systems, people who hold strongly to them that have the power over other people's lives do not wish to look inaccurate. For them it is better to excommunicate the heretic than face the fact that they are wrong.
It is just a question of time however, since we are in a cooling trend and all indicators are that the sun is less active that it's peak in 1998 and man has very little to do with the global climate changes.
As in all cults, reality eventually steps on the fantasy and the truth comes crashing in.
These are preliminary calculations. I just wonder how well such reports are vetted by apolitical scientists to make clear the assumptions, data, and methodology used. Given so many different reports relating to global temperatures, the credibility of all of them becomes suspect.
The typical reader of such reports tends to accept them, but if the typical reader reads contradictory results, he or she may become more like the show me state. This is especially true because places like GISS were caught "cooking the numbers" to produce politically correct results and claims, but lacking science and logic.
I believe that the Earth, Mars, and Venus underwent a period recently ended of global warming caused by the Sun. I believe that the Sun is the cause of climate change.
There are localities on the Earth where local populations soil themselves; China comes to mind. Of course there are local problems with environmental damage caused by smog, and then we have the destruction of rain forests in South America and Africa. We have the responsibility to protect our environment, to husband our resources, become energy efficient, and to prepare for climate change, should it get warmer or cooler. But pushing Marxism on a false premise that mankind is causing global warming is insane and destructive. It is a dominance effort that will enrich the insane and give them control of the world on a false premise or hoax. Beware if you disagree with these crazy people because they now have political power.
I don't get this. If they only have records from 1880 how can they be so certain. 130 years of weather records seems like a drop in the bucket to me.
WE also had one helluva cool rainy spring in 2008 here in SE NY and the summer was average I would say as far as temps. with the obligatory heat wave for effect.
I really find this pronouncement hard to believe.
mark
the propaganda never ceases. The corrects get run on the backpage while the lies go on the front page.
This story still isn’t acknowleding the faked NASA temp data from that wackjob Hansen.
I know that I used anecdotal evidence. I hope to read more anecdotal evidence, from many other cities, to see that their areas are also cool.
Perhaps. But the United States temperatures are, by far, the most reliable.
Quality control and economic stability issues have led to some very poor ground-based temperature recording in Russia, many African nations and South America.
Trends in United States temperatures should not be discounted.
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.