2010 is the warmest January-though-June on record

[shira]

Can someone provide some unbiased feedback on these questions? They have probably been addressed, but I haven't been keeping up with the GW threads lately...

did these scientists 'cherry pick' their data (i.e., were lower temperature readings discarded)?
were their sensors place near heat sources which affected the readings?
did the scientists already conclude that temperatures were rising even before they began their analysis?

These were just some of the issues that I recall before I stopped reading these threads...

NOAA commissioned a peer-reviewed study on these questions, and the answer came back that regardless how you slice and dice the data, the data sets all show virtually the same results.

The issue of temperatures recorded in "heat islands" is particularly delicious to contemplate: On the one hand, the climate-change deniers say these temperature records bias the overall results. But researchers CORRECT these temperatures to remove the bias, which should make the climate-change deniers happy, right? Wrong. The deniers claim that the temperatures are being manipulated!

What it amounts to is that the climate-change deniers will do anything but actually engage in SCIENCE to refute the claimed change in climate caused by man-made CO2 changes. They just keep repeating the same, tired arguments that have already been refuted.

 

[monovillage]

shira is engaging in his typical Global Warming BS. You can read this story which points out NOAAs data quality and data manipulation. On the map shown they indicate above normal temperatures in the gridded areas. However they have no records (zero data) of temperatures in the gridded areas. If they were trying to be accurate (which they're not) those grids would be shown as being empty, not shaded with the big red evil global warming dots.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/...-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/

as for his attempt to say that researchers correct for UHI one of the methods they use is either population density or night time light levels. Neither is an accurate scientific method for correcting for UHI from poor siting.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03...ion-temperatures-and-population-density-data/

Who's not engaging in real, accurate, factual science? It's the Catastrophic Global Warming advocates.

 

[sandorski]

shira is engaging in his typical Global Warming BS. You can read this story which points out NOAAs data quality and data manipulation. On the map shown they indicate above normal temperatures in the gridded areas. However they have no records (zero data) of temperatures in the gridded areas. If they were trying to be accurate (which they're not) those grids would be shown as being empty, not shaded with the big red evil global warming dots.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/...-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/

as for his attempt to say that researchers correct for UHI one of the methods they use is either population density or night time light levels. Neither is an accurate scientific method for correcting for UHI from poor siting.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03...ion-temperatures-and-population-density-data/

Who's not engaging in real, accurate, factual science? It's the Catastrophic Global Warming advocates.

weak

 

[monovillage]

This is why the Global Warming advocates seem so bitter.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-punts-on-climate-legislation.html

 

[EXman]

Do you mean, does measuring global temperatures over time and determining that temperatures are getting warmer and warmer and warmer - and noting that the temperatures closely track the increase in CO2 levels, which in turn closely track mankind's use of fossil fuels - does all that constitute "evidence of something"? Only if you're not psychotic. But if you're committed to believing that this is all a conspiracy, it obviously proves nothing to you. Because those who believe in conspiracy theories are always pretty much immune to scientific evidence; because the scientific evidence is just part of the conspiracy, right?

And still the past two winters we have had more snow than as far as I can remember since '78. Not to mention what happened in Washington D.C.

I can prove it is a hoax just by the lames renaming thier religion from "global warming" to "climate change" which is is about as generic term as it comes. Gobal warming peeps have been caught lying, doctoring data and plain just not reporting actual data. That is a fact. Al Gores "movie" comes with a disclaimer in the U.K. that points out the fact that it contains inconsistancies, lies and BS.

 

[sandorski]

And still the past two winters we have had more snow than as far as I can remember since '78. Not to mention what happened in Washington D.C.

I can prove it is a hoax just by the lames renaming thier religion from "global warming" to "climate change" which is is about as generic term as it comes. Gobal warming peeps have been caught lying, doctoring data and plain just not reporting actual data. That is a fact. Al Gores "movie" comes with a disclaimer in the U.K. that points out the fact that it contains inconsistancies, lies and BS.

fail

 

[manimal]

Guys dont waste your time with the denialists....Peer review to them is reading drudge and poll data...

If everything is political then anything that doesnt fall into your simpleton world view must be wrong.


I think its the fluoride in the water making us this way.....

 

[dmcowen674]

Can someone provide some unbiased feedback on these questions?

Where do you live?

Simply visit any mountain range that used to have Glaciers, they don't anymore because they melted.

Simply visit any beach and see docks that used to be above water are now under water.

Pretty simple

 

[monovillage]

You could always look at this article which shows the San Diego coast over a span of 130 years which shows no devastating rise in sea level over that time frame. Of course you could always believe the photoshopped images that global warmists are so fond of publishing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/if-sea-level-was-rising-wouldnt-someone-have-noticed/

or here's a list of expanding glaciers, not to say that some aren't melting, some are, but others are stable or growing.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

 

[flexy]

And still the past two winters we have had more snow than as far as I can remember since '78. Not to mention what happened in Washington D.C.

I can prove it is a hoax just by the lames renaming thier religion from "global warming" to "climate change" which is is about as generic term as it comes. Gobal warming peeps have been caught lying, doctoring data and plain just not reporting actual data. That is a fact. Al Gores "movie" comes with a disclaimer in the U.K. that points out the fact that it contains inconsistancies, lies and BS.

What does your observation that "you had more snow" prove? Nothing.
Even if we assume that GW exists and avg temps would be several degrees higher....would that exclude the possibility to have snow?

Or are you seriously arguing that heavy snowfall would negate all theories (look: I even SAY "theories") of GW? What logic is that supposed to be.

The first time i personally heard about "global warming" (or climate change for that matter), believe it or not, was DECADES and decades ago back in school, back in the mid-70s i think.

We did NOT talk about "holy shit!! Two degrees more!"....instead the focus at that time was (as far as i remember) more how air pollution influences the ozone layer...the whole "greenhouse" effect and what it does to the environment and humans. (Remember the "Ozone-hole" ? )

The fact that "global warming" belongs to that theory with its few degrees increased avg. temp was maybe not as "spectacular" - probably simply because it doesn't sound "dangerous" to say that the avg temps raised 2 degrees or so. (Because the naive average person would simply not see this as a problem? Not every person is a climate researcher and can see consequences what it actually MEANS if the temp only raises a few degrees.)

But it is very legit to use the term "climate change", implying that the whole theory holds MUCH, MUCH more than simply an increased temperature. The problem is NOT the increased temps per se but the (global) consequences this has on the climate as a whole - INCLUDING the other effects as mentioned above, PLUS many , many more. Starting from effects on the [whatever]-sphere, ozone layer, UV radiation, weather patterns, etc..etc...

Now you use the world "religion"...like its even remotely comparable. You use the world religion ignoring the fact that we have released data which confirm climate changes and increased temps. We have data which confirm a shrinking ozone layer and increased UV radiation. We have hard statistics which confirm significant higher skin cancer cases in the last decades due to higher UV radiation. We have data which confirm higher avg temps and we JUST went through the hottest June/July in (recorded weather-) history. And you still think its a "religion"? Basically everything postulated and speculated already in the 70s is just total BS....you have the amazing ability to see the incredible complex relationships..and (of course!) you are able to disprove those theories here and now on ATOT?

 

[Jaskalas]

2010 is the warmest January-though-June on record

Here's something for you.

The satellites are missing
By Steve Goddard


Back in January, our friends were crowing about the warmest satellite temperatures on record. But now they seem to have lost interest in satellites. I wonder why?

Data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt


It probably has to do with the fact that temperature anomalies are plummeting at a rate of 0.47 °C/year and that satellite temperatures in 2010 are showing no signs of setting a record.



The attention span of our alarmist friends seems to be getting shorter and shorter. They lock in on a week of warm temperatures on the east coast, a week of warm temperatures in Europe, a week of rapid melt in the Arctic. But they have completely lost the plot of the big picture.


The graph below shows Hansen’s A/B/C scenarios in black, and GISTEMP overlaid in red.

Note that actual GISTEMP is below all three of Hansen’s forecasts.



According to RealClimate:
Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”.

In other words, actual temperature rise has been less than Hansen forecast – even if there was a huge volcanic eruption in the 1990s, and no new CO2 introduced over the past decade! We have fallen more than half a degree below Hansen’s “most plausible” scenario, even though CO2 emissions have risen faster than worst case.


Conclusions:

1. We are not going to set a record this year (for the whole year)
2. Hansen has vastly overestimated climate sensitivity
3. Temperatures have risen slower than Hansen forecast for a carbon free 21st century

So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?

 

[flexy]

nm