It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World Meteorological Organization 12.8.2009 Press Release: "2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE"

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by Animal
 

The "experts" you are citing are proven frauds.


No, one of the FOUR primary groups who produced this information have been ACCUSED of fraud. Nothing has been proven.

Those involved include:


he data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Link




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 





based on peer-reviewed methodologies


FRAUDS!



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Great rant! I sympathise with your disappointment at absence of a transformation to a delightful north Mediterranean style climate here in the UK 365 days a year.

However, peak summer temps alone are not the whole story, for instance, I was quite shocked at how late the first frost was this year - 1st December! I checked (you can obtain estimated first/last frost dates online for your locality/town), and sure enough, the data-base expectation was mid October! Much more like what I remember the UK pattern to be like.

We still have plants in flower that should have died back, and if you speak to farmers, gardeners or wildlife enthusiasts you'll soon uncover convening tales of observed changes to what were, for generations, previously observed, documented and relied upon patterns in both weather and nature. Especially Spring arriving earlier, Autumn/winter later, and this year especially out of character precipitation causing heavy snows nationwide and then throughout the year with 184% of average rainfall for the month in November (a new national record), plus rains/damp threatening harvests for the second (or was it third?) year in a row back in Aug/Sep/Oct time.

Anyway, averages are complex, it includes changes in day/night variations, and much that you could easily overlook, especially if you are simultaneously bombarded by regular extreme (by UK records) weather every month - rains, winds, snows, but which were predicted as symptoms of 'climate change:global warming' for our locale many years back.



[edit on 8-12-2009 by curioustype]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by curioustype]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by Animal
 





based on peer-reviewed methodologies


FRAUDS!


If you have something legitimate to add to the discussion I welcome it. However, if your contributions are going to continue to be dogmatic statements I very kindly request you withhold them. Thanks mate.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by pilot70
What about he decade 1995-2005 ...that one was a lot warmer ....

This is spin and pure bull#.

A way to spin the declining temperatures away by selecting an arbitrary timescale that gives the desired result .... nothing to see here ...


Could you please elaborate on this? Thanks.


Sure


When comparing those data you have to take into account all the decades
in the period 1990 to 2009, since there is nothing special about the decades ending on xxx9.

1990-1999
1991-2000
1992-2001
...
2000-2009

When you only compare 1990-9 and 2000-9, and call the last one the hottest decade ever, you filter out all the intervening 10 year periods for no good reason.

Several (most) of these were warmer.

But of course "the hottest decade ever" sounds better than "9 years of decline"




[edit on 9-12-2009 by pilot70]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by pilot70]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Wow, and here I was thinking that a bunch of emails quote-mined by anti-science ideologues was gunna change physics...

[edit on 8-12-2009 by melatonin]


Physics? what physics? the meaning of that word escapes the likes of melatonin...

BTW, nice to see the AGW lackeys are at it again trying to clean the dirt from their bosses. You are going to be doing a lot of cleaning up, so keep trying to inundate the forums with more bull....

Anyway why don't we ask for CRU to give us the raw data, oh what's that?... they DUMPED MOST OF THE RAW DATA TO MAKE SPACE?....


Obviously Pielke wanted to check for himself if some of what the leaked emails were saying was the truth and the conspirators had to think fast, and act fast, which coincidentally is one of the tactics they mention in their emails...to destroy all data that can be used against them....


Who knows, maybe even one or two of the people who keep posting in this website are actually one or two of these same scientists who fudged, and rigged the data, or they are their lackeys, because they certainly keep on trying to keep their religion alive...





[edit on 9-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You got nothing.
Prove the readings are wrong or move on troll.

Let me guess, you'll probably spam the thread with this -EU:"oh wait it is the sun, no, no wait, its galactic plasma....hang on its...its a volcano, no its the Obama on a socialist death star heating the planet up because I know, I read a blog and Fred Singer and Tim Ball are patriots like me and he told me that its a scam to bring down the Republic!".



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

You got nothing.
Prove the readings are wrong or move on troll.


i am not the troll, the troll are the AGWers continuing to try to keep their failed, and doomed religion alive...


Originally posted by atlasastro
Let me guess, you'll probably spam the thread with this -EU:"oh wait it is the sun, no, no wait, its galactic plasma....hang on its...its a volcano, no its the Obama on a socialist death star heating the planet up because I know, I read a blog and Fred Singer and Tim Ball are patriots like me and he told me that its a scam to bring down the Republic!".


And EVERY ONE of those factors have more of a case than "CO2, and mankind are the cause of it all"...

Wait, wait, don't say it... "CO2 causes the Sun, the Moon, and every other cosmic body to move around... It's the stuff that moves the entire galaxy" Or so would the AGWers would like us to believe...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by Janky Red
Animal, in this world nothing is provable



Not true.



anyhow, the rabbit hole just gets dumber and darker on all fronts -


? what ?


PARDON


In this political climate - people can use denial at will, they can ignore the facts, pretend
to be unaware of contrary information, cite source as biased, find just as much eformation to speak the contrary, DISQUALIFY ALL THE FACTS WITH CHERRY PICKED
AND WELL SPUN QUOTES...

Because these guys have WON a small "victory" using the tools of ignorance, (their fav BTW) they will continue to forge ahead regardless of any facts, any source. You should know better by now, they do it every week, same act, same shtick. While you dutifully
mind the entire intellectual battlefield these guys find a small hole, slip past, plant the victory flag and stick their fingers in both ears from here into eternity. I have observed you for a while, you need to get hip to the game, its three of the same plays applied to
everything.

Grandstand Oppose Pretend



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Nice Post OP.
What I find significant is that we have been at solar minimum for a while and this has been one of the slowest sunspot cycles in ages. Imagine what it is going to be like when the sun picks up.

Records will be broken again.

April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%).

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

science.nasa.gov...
science.nasa.gov...

Irradiance is also down.

A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996.


From the OP

Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850,


2009 was also one of the quietest years in solar activity alongside 2008.
Here are the monthly averages. First column is monthly averages and the second the standard deviation from international numbers.

2008 1 3.3 4.3
2008 2 2.1 3.8
2008 3 9.3 13.2
2008 4 2.9 4.4
2008 5 3.2 4.9
2008 6 3.4 3.9
2008 7 0.8 2.5
2008 8 0.5 1.9
2008 9 1.1 2.8
2008 10 2.9 4.3
2008 11 4.1 4.9
2008 12 0.8 2.6
2009 1 1.3 3.1
2009 2 1.4 3.0
2009 3 0.7 2.3
2009 4 1.2 2.8
2009 5 2.9 4.0
2009 6 2.6 4.2
2009 7 3.5 5.9
2009 8 0.0 0.0
2009 9 4.2 6.4
2009 10 4.6 7.3
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...

Here is 1998, one of the "hottest" to compare 2009 with considering it will likely make the top 10.

1998 1 31.9 21.0
1998 2 40.3 20.8
1998 3 54.8 13.7
1998 4 53.4 31.5
1998 5 56.3 19.1
1998 6 70.7 22.3
1998 7 66.6 20.0
1998 8 92.2 17.0
1998 9 92.9 30.2
1998 10 55.5 25.5
1998 11 74.0 28.9
1998 12 81.9 24.2

And that year was also a particularly nasty El Nino.

Considering that 2009 is so warm with so little sunspot activity is very noteworthy in MHO.
And the decade too considering that we have been in a deep solar minimum for almost 5 years.

I wonder what the next decade will be like.

Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.

But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.

I hope it is below average, because we are still warming in a deep minimum, what would an average Max be like?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by Animal
 

The "experts" you are citing are proven frauds.


No, one of the FOUR primary groups who produced this information have been ACCUSED of fraud. Nothing has been proven.

Those involved include:


he data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Link



LET ME SHOW YOU

So just magically all the data disappeared


I bet AL GORE is contemplating suicide


You guys need to find a new Jesus, cause this one is getting cold


Maybe the elite should hire better scientists


Maybe Obama will buy me a new jacket, cause this one is still wet from all the summer rain


At the end of the day Animal, any environmental state this planet has achieved can be used as proof that MMGW is NOT POSSIBLE OR PROVABLE.

You will be wise to recognize the motive to... Environmental concerns interfere with conserving the current state of business practices and compete with financial Darwinistic ideas. This last one is really the battle you are fighting...

This religion requires that the FREE MARKET and nature are in perfect lockstep, harmony. Or is it just coincidence that nature is vindicating the policies of slash and burn, no new taxes, small government, more more more?

I guess the verdict is - nature is a right winger, duh.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by Janky Red]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average.


I believe that much of the warming come from particulates(smoke) in the air and not CO2.

These particulates absorb heat a lot better then CO2 a transparent gas.

This is why its cooling in north America and the rest of the world is heating up.

The US and Canada have long had strict controls on particulates emissions from smokestacks.
many countries like China and India have little controls.

But the AGW people do not want to stop AGW they only want control so blaming particulates emissions would not give them the controls they want in North America.
for world wide control they must use CO2 instead.

Cleaning up CO2 will also bring particulate emissions under control because to remove CO2 means less particulates emissions.

It would also allow them to control the cars we drive that with the smog controls in the US put out little particulate emissions.

China put out so much particulate emissions that the US and Canada are now having a hard time measuring particulate emissions coming from local sources.
www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average.


I believe that much of the warming come from particulates(smoke) in the air and not CO2.

These particulates absorb heat a lot better then CO2 a transparent gas.

This is why its cooling in north America and the rest of the world is heating up.

The US and Canada have long had strict controls on particulates emissions from smokestacks.
many countries like China and India have little controls.

But the AGW people do not want to stop AGW they only want control so blaming particulates emissions would not give them the controls they want in North America.
for world wide control they must use CO2 instead.

Cleaning up CO2 will also bring particulate emissions under control because to remove CO2 means less particulates emissions.

It would also allow them to control the cars we drive that with the smog controls in the US put out little particulate emissions.

China put out so much particulate emissions that the US and Canada are now having a hard time measuring particulate emissions coming from local sources.
www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype

However, peak summer temps alone are not the whole story, for instance, I was quite shocked at how late the first frost was this year - 1st December!


Aye, it was 1st December here too. My first ever frost free autumn. It was almost a frost free spring too. Also my warmest November on record.

Although there was no searing heat in the summer, it was not cold either and, partly due to warm nights, yest another above average summer.

Of course, Britain is an evenn smaller part of the planet than the USA. But if you really want to find somewhere that has had a remarkably hot year look no further than Australia.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED

Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average.


I believe that much of the warming come from particulates(smoke) in the air and not CO2.

These particulates absorb heat a lot better then CO2 a transparent gas.

This is why its cooling in north America and the rest of the world is heating up.

The US and Canada have long had strict controls on particulates emissions from smokestacks.
many countries like China and India have little controls.

But the AGW people do not want to stop AGW they only want control so blaming particulates emissions would not give them the controls they want in North America.
for world wide control they must use CO2 instead.

Cleaning up CO2 will also bring particulate emissions under control because to remove CO2 means less particulates emissions.

It would also allow them to control the cars we drive that with the smog controls in the US put out little particulate emissions.

China put out so much particulate emissions that the US and Canada are now having a hard time measuring particulate emissions coming from local sources.
www.cbsnews.com...



GOOD call I think that makes sense plenty of sense - star for you

You cannot effect the root problem, but you can address the delivery system.

I also think the US is trying to take a dominant role in something that could prove to be the wave of the future economically. I believe this is the factor that is the practical motivator, when is the last time the US has not been at the forefront of a technological boom???



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
600 American scientists sign a petition stating they do not believe that humans are the cause of 'global warming' Japanese scientists state they think humans are not the cause of global warming, I think I will go with those guys, humans produce roughly one fifth of the crud that the 'natural world' doe's, time to sort out the natural world such as volcanoes, rotting vegetation, animal expulsions, methane hydrate, forest fires, I was surprised to hear on a tv program some time back that termites produce more methane than cows, I wonder who worked that out!
Anyway, I will never accept we are the cause, there are many people saying that the world has warmed up and cooled down many times, this is just another cycle.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Of course, Britain is an evenn smaller part of the planet than the USA. But if you really want to find somewhere that has had a remarkably hot year look no further than Australia.


Its true

On my internal email this morning we got this information. So far its been the 5th hottest year on record for South Australia. There's no denyig the observations this time round



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by pikestaff
But..... the British meteorological office has issued a graph showing global temperature has dropped since the year 2,000, so who is right?
The Brits have had three cold summers in a row, so have some parts of America, and NASA has said its been cooler than it was in the 1900's!
Can anyone sort this mess out?




The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The content of the WMO statement isverified and peer-reviewed by leading experts from other international, regional and national climate institutions and centres before its publication.


Hope this helps.




[edit on 8-12-2009 by Animal]


Yeah, that clears a lot up.



[edit on 9-12-2009 by angrysniper]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


2 out of 3 of those have been found to be "massaging" or falsifying data, ignoring other data, and selectively using other data.
With that kind of hit rate, is it any wonder that people don't trust them.

Especially when Hansen is a close friend of Gores and has shares in his carbon credit trading company, which is one of the "initiatives" to be unveiled at copenhagen.

Now if that were an oil company behaving that way, or with that level of collusion, all the CC proponents would be screaming "FIX" at the top of their lungs from the highest buuilding they could find.

But you guys want it both ways.

yeah right - that's "science" at work



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





Anyway why don't we ask for CRU to give us the raw data, oh what's that?...


Could you put on a new record please? That one is getting boring.

Climate Data Sources



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join