Who knew I'd ever end up living is good-old southern California. It's truly a different culture here. California is the place where people feel guilty about all the wrong things. By and large the people here love to kick time-tested morality to the curb, instead choosing to fight for the most fashionable cause of the day - even if it doesnt make sense. Take catastrophic man-made global warming for example. Over in Santa Barbara they want to paint a $12000 blue line to represent the area that will be under water when the sea level rises due to the consequences of global warming. As if there was nothing better to do. Likewise you've never seen so many people proudly drive "eco-friendly" prius's as you do in this state. For all the non-sensible chatter we hear about mankind [i.e. america] causing global warming, I'm relieved to see that the tide is finally turning.
Read this story:
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
Though I'm sure it didnt make any headlines like the alarmist stories always do, NASA quietly corrected their mistake that led many greenies to believe 1998 was the hottest year ever recorded and thus fuel the fire that things are only getting worse as the economy expands. The corrected data now shows 1938 as the hottest year on record - confirming what we should all know by now- the earth warms and cools on its own and we dont have thousands of years of accurate temperature information to know if there is any sort of abnormal warming (or cooling) trend. Thankfully, more and more people are starting to realize that there's little more than environmentalist propaganda [*cough* al gore *cough*] to support the notion that your car exhaust is causing hurricanes, killing polar bears, and raising the ocean . Add this story to the mounting evidence debunking the myth of man-made catastrophic global warming and we may just start solving the real problems in this state. *sigh* I wish I could believe that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You must be crazy! Even the crazy leader of free world now admits to global warming (even with the oil companies in his pocket)The same thing you preach about is what you are claiming here...
KEY WORD: TREND
Check out the graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
Look at the trend in the graph!!! tends to ramp up... HUH! crazy...
original article here:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/
environment/2005_warmest.html
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
Image displaying the five warmest years in the past century. Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic.
In order to figure out whether the Earth is cooling or warming, the scientists use temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982, and data from ships for earlier years.
2005 Global Surface Temperature Analysis Image to left: This colorful global map of 2005 average temperatures shows areas that have warmed the most in red, to the areas that have cooled (in blue). Note that the Arctic has warmed significantly. These temperatures are from Dec. 2004 through Nov. 2005. Click image to enlarge Credit: NASA
Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures. However, what's significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino.
Newsweek Flubs the Facts Around Global Warming (UPDATED)
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 08.14.07
Business & Politics
email this article AddThis Social Bookmark Button
newsweek coverThough its intentions were sound — presumably attempting to shine a light on global warming deniers and their funding resources — Newsweek made several significant mistakes and used outdated science in its cover story last week. According to John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, the story erred in its portrayal of satellite collected global climate data — a dataset that they maintain — by misrepresenting a January 2000 report from the National Academy of Sciences.
"One of the more egregious errors in the Newsweek article is the misrepresentation of the satellite data relative to a January 2000 report from the National Academy of Sciences. That report did not 'skewer' the satellite data, as the Newsweek article contends. Instead, it found that the apparent disagreement between surface temperature records and the satellite record was not so significant as to invalidate either dataset," said Christy, who helped write the 2000 NAS report.
In addition to erroneously interpreting other results as indicative of the satellite data being wrong and the surface data right — a mistake the UA scientists attribute to the writers' lack of understanding of the scientific process' nuances — the Newsweek story wrongly stated that the satellite data didn't show signs of warming at the time the research was published.
"The other Newsweek error, which has unfortunately been widely repeated, is that the satellite data were showing no warming at the time that research was published," Christy said. "That is not correct. By 2000 the satellite temperature dataset was clearly showing a long-term global warming trend, albeit a trend that was slightly less than the warming seen in surface data. That is still true today."
Oops. As Spencer, a research scientist at the Earth System Science Center, put it: "It is troubling that a major news organization devoting significant resources to a story about an important environmental issue would choose to cite data from seven years ago rather than current data, and would still get it wrong."
UPDATE: As John Laumer, one of our writers, noted in the comments, Roy Spencer has long been a prominent climate skeptic. John Christy, though also considered to be one, did help draft a statement by the American Geophysical Union in late 2003 concluding that "natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures..."
We would thus caution readers to take their criticisms with a grain of salt (as will we) and to take Newsweek's article in good standing nonetheless.
Via ::Mongabay News:
Scientists: Newsweek Erred in Global Warming Coverage (news website)
See also: ::2007 According to Jeff McIntire-Strasburg: Mainstream Green, ::In the Media this Week: Global Warming, ::Green Media: Environmental News Network
Actually, what i'm claiming is that there is no way to discern a trend when our temperature measurements are so limited and inaccurate. What we do know is that the earth warms and cools on its own - it's ridiculous to think a warming or cooling trend is something we have any control over. This recent hysteria over climate change is nothing new - just read the articles about the coming ice age featured in 1974. They were wrong then, and thank God we didnt take them seriously.
Post a Comment