Tuesday, August 14, 2007
NASA Temperature Revisions Explained
Many of us know now that NASA had a computer glitch which mistakenly had most of the hottest years in history very recently. Now it's corrected. Here's what the correct record shows:
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Nor is it proof that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature. (It well could have been a lot hotter in the 1120s and it probably was). So the next time someone says, as Al Gore did in An Inconvenient Truth, that nine of the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade, you know that they are repeating a convenient (to them) lie.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Nor is it proof that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature. (It well could have been a lot hotter in the 1120s and it probably was). So the next time someone says, as Al Gore did in An Inconvenient Truth, that nine of the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade, you know that they are repeating a convenient (to them) lie.
Labels: Global Warming Hoax
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:40 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The melting Greenland glaciers; the framentation of the Antarctic ice pack; the open water in the arctioc sea: all brought to you by the same people who faked the moon landing lo those many years ago.
# posted by 
: 9:14 AM
: 9:14 AM 
So I guess the people on the pacific islands and my friends who have lived on the beach in L.A. since they were born are just imagining the ocean rising?
Interesting theory.
I can't figure this out. Sometimes you argue that the earth is warming but it is natural, and other times you argue that the earth is not warming at all.
Where do you actually stand?
Interesting theory.
I can't figure this out. Sometimes you argue that the earth is warming but it is natural, and other times you argue that the earth is not warming at all.
Where do you actually stand?
Prague, Sorry anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence. That's one of the problems with this whole thing.
Roger, do you have a more direct source for this information? Quoting a quote from a biased source is less powerful than quoting the original source.
Roger, do you have a more direct source for this information? Quoting a quote from a biased source is less powerful than quoting the original source.
About 25 years ago, my brother - the one who has a PhD in upper-atmospheric chemistry - said to follow the money; with the little ice age in retreat, there were papers on "global warming" beginning to appear. He said this would be the next big thing. And so it is.
Tony, I'd bet you on this, but neither of us is apt to be around here for 10,000 or so years to see how it all plays out. The bottom line is that the numbers the alarmists are using are based on false data. Try feeding in all of the data [datum?] we have for the last 2 - 5 years and work back to 1950. The results don't match what the weather was then.
OldeForce
Tony, I'd bet you on this, but neither of us is apt to be around here for 10,000 or so years to see how it all plays out. The bottom line is that the numbers the alarmists are using are based on false data. Try feeding in all of the data [datum?] we have for the last 2 - 5 years and work back to 1950. The results don't match what the weather was then.
OldeForce
# posted by : 10:41 PM
: 10:41 PM
Mike, yes, they are imagining the ocean rising--but that's not to say there hasn't been beach erosion. I used to think there was actual measurable warming which was a combo of nature and man-made CO2 mostly the former. Now I'm not sure there is actual measurable global warming. I don't know whom to trust for accurate figures just now.
Chemgeek, if that really is your name, I had direct links to this information in the first up date to the post on August 10th about reliable temperature numbers. Oldeforce, the inability of the computer models to predict the actual past, if 'predict' is the right word to use, makes me very skeptical of the ability of those computer programs to predict the actual future accurately. Cui bono?--almost as powerful an engine for producing truth as cross examination.
Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments. I really do appreciate them.
Chemgeek, if that really is your name, I had direct links to this information in the first up date to the post on August 10th about reliable temperature numbers. Oldeforce, the inability of the computer models to predict the actual past, if 'predict' is the right word to use, makes me very skeptical of the ability of those computer programs to predict the actual future accurately. Cui bono?--almost as powerful an engine for producing truth as cross examination.
Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments. I really do appreciate them.
Roger- Did you hear Dennis Prager, talking aobut a headline from 1922 in the Wash. Post warning that the ice was melting, seals were vanishing and polar bears were loosing ground, literaly? This was the headline: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Post a Comment
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
<< Home
