The current decade is the warmest on record

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Today's new study in support of ACC.

Kind of ironic. In the circle-jerk thread, one of the hyped out-of-context emails purportedly states that "we can't explain the cooling." So, clearly, there's a huge cover-up.

Except that there's isn't any cooling. The last 10 years are shaping up to be the warmest since temperature measurements were started, with 2009 the fifth-warmest year ever. And since there has been WARMING, not cooling, it's kind of confusing how scientists could be covering up a cooling trend.

The cooling, it turns out, is in the dead brains of the climate-deniers.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/warmest-decade-on-record.html

This decade is on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the top five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday on the second day of a pivotal 192-nation climate conference.

In some areas -- central Africa and southern Asia -- this will probably be the warmest year, but overall 2009 will "be about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, it said, although Alaska had the second-warmest July on record.

The U.N. agency noted an extreme heat wave in India in May and a heat wave in northern China in June. It said parts of China experienced their warmest year on record, and that Australia so far has had its third-warmest year. Extremely hot weather was also more frequent and intense in southern South America.

The decade 2000-2009 "is very likely to be the warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s, than the 1980s and so on," Jarraud told a news conference, holding a chart with a temperature curve pointing upward.

The data were released as negotiators at the two-week talks in Copenhagen worked Tuesday to craft a global deal to step up efforts to stem climate change, digging into the dense technicalities of "metrics" and "gas inventories."

Governments, meanwhile, jockeyed for position leading up to the finale late next week, when more than 100 national leaders, including President Barack Obama, will converge on Copenhagen for the final days of bargaining.

Scientists say without an agreement to wean the world away from fossil fuels and other pollutants to greener sources of energy, the Earth will face the consequences of ever-rising temperatures: The extinction of plant and animals, the flooding of coastal cities, more extreme weather, more drought and the spread of diseases.

If 2009 ends as the fifth-warmest year, it would replace the year 2003. According to the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been 2005, 1998, 2007 and 2006. NASA says the differences in readings among these years are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

The U.N. climate agency said the global combined sea and land surface temperatures for January-October 2009 was estimated at 0.44 degrees C (0.79 degrees F) above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00 degrees C (57.2 degrees F). The report had a margin of error of plus or minus 0.11 degrees C, and final data will be released early in 2010.

On Monday, when the conference opened, the Obama administration gave the talks a boost by announcing steps that could lead to new U.S. emissions controls that don't require the approval of the U.S. Congress.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants -- mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels -- should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution.

As Congress considers the first U.S. legislation to cap carbon emissions, the EPA finding will enable the Obama administration to act on greenhouse gas without congressional action, potentially imposing federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories.

The announcement gave Obama a new card in what is expected to be tough bargaining next week at the climate conference. In preparation, Obama met with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel for his climate change efforts, at the White House on Monday.

European climate change officials welcomed the U.S. move.

"This is meaningful because it is yet a sign that the Americans have more to offer. My evaluation is that the U.S. can offer much more," EU environment spokesman Andreas Carlgren told reporters Tuesday in Stockholm.

Yvo de Boer, U.N. climate chief, said the EPA finding gives Obama "something to fall back on."

"I think that will boost people's confidence" at the Copenhagen talks in the Americans' ability to offer more, he said.

The European Union has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, compared with 1990, and is considering raising that to 30 percent if other governments also aim high. Climate change will be high on the agenda at an EU summit this Thursday and Friday in Brussels.

The European Union had called for a stronger bid by the Americans, who thus far have pledged emissions cuts much less ambitious than Europe's. The U.S. has offered a 17 percent reduction in emissions from their 2005 level -- comparable to a 3-4 percent cut from 1990 levels.

Whether the prospect of EPA action will satisfy such demands -- and what China may now add to its earlier offer -- remains to be seen. And success in the long-running climate talks hinges on more than emissions reductions. Most important, it requires commitments of financial support by rich countries for poor nations to help them cope with the impact of a changing climate.

In Britain on Tuesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged fellow Europeans to raise their bid on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to pressure the U.S. and others to offer more at the Copenhagen negotiations.

"We've got to make countries recognize that they have to be as ambitious as they say they want to be. It's not enough to say 'I may do this, I might do this, possibly I'll do this.' I want to create a situation in which the European Union is persuaded to go to 30 percent," Brown was quoted as saying by Britain's Guardian
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Not that I'm disagreeing, but some scientist saying that this is so at a meeting hardly makes it true. While I'm not the biggest fan of the peer review process, it's still the standard by which science is vetted. When I give a talk at a scientific conference, there is no vetting process except whether the committee liked my abstract - a flimsy standard at best. When giving a talk to politicians, the standard is even weaker. As I said, this doesn't make what was said untrue, but it also doesn't make it true. The bottom line is that these "reports" are simply statements by the UN which may or may not be politically motivated, have not passed scientific muster, and should be taken with a grain of salt accordingly.
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average

I thought we were the worst offenders.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
The same NASA that is being sued for not releasing its data under a freedom of information request? The same UN IPCC that is using CRU's fudged data?

I'd call that conclusion highly suspect then.
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
The U.N. climate agency said the global combined sea and land surface temperatures for January-October 2009 was estimated at 0.44 degrees C (0.79 degrees F) above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00 degrees C (57.2 degrees F). The report had a margin of error of plus or minus 0.11 degrees C, and final data will be released early in 2010.

So they only took Jan-Oct of this year and compared it against the entirety of 1961-1990? This is useless information and false advertising. Nov and Dec represent lower temperature months in the northern hemisphere where there is far more land mass that'll cool down. They're generating hype over skewed results and they should have waited until the 2010 to release the real results.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
So they only took Jan-Oct of this year and compared it against the entirety of 1961-1990? This is useless information and false advertising. Nov and Dec represent lower temperature months in the northern hemisphere where there is far more land mass that'll cool down. They're generating hype over skewed results and they should have waited until the 2010 to release the real results.

Good catch.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,110
6,610
126
It all comes from having the temperature gauges set up where they paved paradise and put up a parking lot with a pink hotel, a boutique and a swinging hot spot.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Wow, the barrage of global warming alarmists coming out of the woodworks is astounding!

And yet they never actually address the issues that bring upon the skepticism, they only continue to beat the same old drum. I didn't buy it yesterday, and I ain't buying it today.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This is using Hansen's numbers. Remember when he got caught playing games with the last few years' worth of data and had to change decades of numbers? Why again would we pay any attention to anyone whose current measurements change measurements that are decades old?

Oh, yeah, because Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming demands it.

Kind of funny how the scientists cooking the data to show runaway warming were privately wondering how to explain the cooling, then the new data come in and presto! chango! there's no cooling to explain. I guess these scientists were so awesomely impressed by the settled science that the "climate deniers" momentarily confused them, huh?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
And they used the same flawed data and computer models as every other study you have posted.

It is all linked back to the CRU.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
I have a hard time believing that snow in places it hasn't snowed in 40 years constitutes "warming".

I also have a hard time believing that "warming" would be an inherently bad thing.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
It almost doesn't matter. Nothing will be done anyway of much meaning, not until the problem is literally inescapable. Kind of like the national debt. You see how much is being done about that and yet most people can agree it's a real problem. Until people agree on the problem of warming, just forget it. Stock up on ice cubes, it's the best you can do.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,110
6,610
126
I have a hard time believing that snow in places it hasn't snowed in 40 years constitutes "warming".

I also have a hard time believing that "warming" would be an inherently bad thing.

It isn't really that surprising that you have a hard time. Understanding requires education, ability, insight, and experience. You have to know something. For you it's all a matter of magic. You are at the salt over your shoulder stage of understanding.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
It isn't really that surprising that you have a hard time. Understanding requires education, ability, insight, and experience. You have to know something. For you it's all a matter of magic. You are at the salt over your shoulder stage of understanding.

Hey, Moonbeam, we have had our go arounds on this issue a couple of months ago. You did a great job in posting a lot of references in support of your position.

Seriously, do you still have faith or are you re-examining?
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
It isn't really that surprising that you have a hard time. Understanding requires education, ability, insight, and experience. You have to know something. For you it's all a matter of magic. You are at the salt over your shoulder stage of understanding.

Wow, straw man again. I think I'm going to start a tally for how many times it's used to refute things I say.

drebo: (rational, thoughtful post with evidence and conclusions)
liberal alarmist: "You suck, you're uneducated and don't know how to think for yourself"

+1 for the Straw Man-o-Matic(tm)
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,844
3,799
136
I have a hard time believing that snow in places it hasn't snowed in 40 years constitutes "warming".

I also have a hard time believing that "warming" would be an inherently bad thing.

Apparently they'd rather have another ice age. I'd rather be able to grow grapes in England (like during the MWP), than try to grow wheat or corn under a glacier.

The myth that the earth's climate is naturally static without human involvement is quite laughable.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I have a question. If this "report" is true, how does it bolster ACC claims? All this shows is that the latest decade was the hottest. It doesn't provide any scientific evidence as to why, and so far the studies that try to correlate temperature rise to greenhouse gas emissions have been, well, dubious at best.

iow, nothing in this report has ruled out at least a percentage of natural forces at work here. Instead the usual suspects immediately jump to a conclusion about AGW that remains unfounded and whose proponents, considering the CRU debacle, currently have a bigger PR problem than Tiger Woods.

Really, the best response they can come up with is calling names of anyone who doesn't instantly jump on their conclusions mat with them? How quaint.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
This has been known for a while. MMGW deniers aren't too different from evolution deniers so no point is wasting time convincing people otherwise. We'll have a sound solution eventually.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I have also wondered but received mostly blank stares (or no responses) on how a warmer earth is bad. Especially since historically it appears to have worked out well for inhabitants.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I have a question. If this "report" is true, how does it bolster ACC claims? All this shows is that the latest decade was the hottest. It doesn't provide any scientific evidence as to why, and so far the studies that try to correlate temperature rise to greenhouse gas emissions have been, well, dubious at best.

iow, nothing in this report has ruled out at least a percentage of natural forces at work here. Instead the usual suspects immediately jump to a conclusion about AGW that remains unfounded and whose proponents, considering the CRU debacle, currently have a bigger PR problem than Tiger Woods.

Really, the best response they can come up with is calling names of anyone who doesn't instantly jump on their conclusions mat with them? How quaint.

Not only that, but the whole "go green" thing has been going on for this decade so it shows efforts to reduce CO2 may actually RAISE temperatures.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I have also wondered but received mostly blank stares (or no responses) on how a warmer earth is bad. Especially since historically it appears to have worked out well for inhabitants.

20 meter higher seas, dead polar bears, earthquakes, droughts, monsoons, volcanoes, oceans boiling, etc.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
This has been known for a while. MMGW deniers aren't too different from evolution deniers so no point is wasting time convincing people otherwise. We'll have a sound solution eventually.
Evolution science doesn't have to cook the books and hide data to prove they are right. It has credibility that AGW science currently does not. I guess valid science doesn't matter to those atttending the Church of Al Gore though. Just keep chanting about "deniers" instead. Now THAT'S real science, eh?