Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. link
It short, the warming alarmists are wrong.
5 comments:
Or the cooling alarmists are wrong. But I am pleasantly surprised to see that Donkey is supporting his position with actual data. Let me raise a few points.
1) If 40 years of warming doesn't prove global warming to you then you must admit that one year doesn't prove global cooling. There is a difference between long term climate and weather. But that one year (2007) is interesting.
Some climate scientists seem to think that most of it is due to the La Nina weather phenomenon which lowers temperatures. If that is true the cooling should be temporary.
And we see that the cooling trend has already turned around:
"The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth"
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_ncdcstats.html
So this is certainly consistent with a warming trend interrupted by La Nina. I wonder what the 2009 figures will show. We'll find out soon enough.
Although we've never met and Im almost certain I would hate you if we ever met, the fact remains that youve been lingering around here for about three years and with that comes some genuine concern. So understand that this isnt a dig or an attack but rather said as a friend.
Seek mental health care.
After my respectful and reasoned comment, which directly addressed the points of your post and the article to which you linked, and your answer is "seek mental health care?" Obviously you have no answers, and you only look at data that supports your pre-conceived ideas, regardless of any contrary information. But that is almost the definition of today's so-called conservatism, which is why the once-great conservative movement is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
This makes any reasoned discussion impossible and so, as you obviously desire, I will take my leave. I've left before, angry at the idiocy and the insults, only to come back after I've cooled down. But a discussion cannot be one-sided and so I hope that you and Rhino are very happy talking to each other.
I used to enjoy our exchanges, even with a few good-natured insults, but the level of ignorance combined with the hostility is a bit too much. I suspect Anita feels the same way and she may well have already left.
I said it as a friend, Im sorry should have said with all due respect.
Here's the thing Gary. I believe you to be delusional. I seriously do and think you need serious help.
We have done nothing but provide evidence supporting our opinions throughout the years, you in turn would rebut them with nothing more than ad hominem attacks. Global warming for example, you discredit the skeptic for receiving funding from Exxon while ignoring the financial interests of the alarmists. You deny the science just as the IPCC denied the impact of the sun on earth's temperature. It is you my friend that only sees one side of the argument.
I could for example tear your comment above apart but to what good? You are too blind to even see when you yourself bolster my argument as you did by admitting a cooling trend from 2001 to 2007. Or point out how pretty much every time NASA or NOAA has declared a year to be the WARMEST EVER, they correct it a few years later and admit they were wrong when the actual science comes in as it is now with the recent cooling trend.
Warming is as much a fraud as are you, the scientific consensus now agrees with me as does public opinion. It is just the sheep and the bureaucratic shepards left... so I bid you farewell... again.
.. and in all due respect, seek help.
I admitted a cooling trend in 2007, not from 2001-2007, which was the whole point of the article you linked to. Now it's warming up again, according to the data I linked to. How does one cooler year disprove global warming? I could conceivably be wrong but I don't think so. The National Academy of Sciences could be wrong too, but they're not crazy or delusional either. The Royal Society could be wrong but I don't think they are perpetrating a fraud. The handful of Exxon-linked scientists who never seem to do any actual research or publish on global warming, I just don't find as reliable.
Why AGAIN are your minority of scientists, who never publish in peer-reviewed journals better than mine?? Because they're not part of the liberal global-warming plot? Or what?
The parallel with the "smoking controversy" is apt. A large majority of science on one side, tobacco-industry funded scientists on the other. Sure the anti-smoking scientists received funding too. But they were right. Another paralled would be the ozone controversy, where virtually all scientists now believe the CFC chemicals were the culprit. (I said all scientists, not all wingnuts. The true mark of a wingnut is that they never change their minds.)
Maybe you need the help ...
Post a Comment