World Meteorological Organization 12.8.2009 Press Release: "2000

World Meteorological Organization 12.8.2009 Press Release: "2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE", page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 08:10 AM by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by endisnighe
I am just going to post these pesky little graphs put out by the high Priest Hansen himself.

And I will ask you, what is wrong with the three graphs? And what is wrong with the statement that this has been the hottest decade on record?

Not to hijack from the obvious effort which you put into your post (I love that .Gif Comparison Overlay

), but to actually reinforce what you have stated, I urge folks to also please take a look here:

Why AGW Activists Only Concentrate On Post-1970 Data

Now, allow for me to explain the first two graphs provided here:

Anyone who remembers the original and unabashed theory of AGW, knows that above all else, the Polar Regions were projected to Warm-up the quickest and most dramatically out of all Global regions. Some have even claimed that observations back this projection up, and therefore it is a fact (I just heard a politician tout this, yet again, on Television yesterday).

What these graphs show however, is not only the obvious cyclical pattern to Arctic Temperature Variation over the past Century, but also this pattern's direct relationship with the AMO(Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)/PDO(Pacific Decadal Oscillation) cycles as well. The AMO/PDO are well established natural variants which dictate the general Oceanic Current and Atmospheric Air Stream patterns over their corresponding regions (ie, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean). With such being established, it is a well placed conclusion that the Arctic Temperature Variations are brought about by these very natural and very real cycles.

Also, take note of how 1970 was roughly the lowest point in the Trough of the Cycle Decline, and therefore, if anyone wants to exaggerate and misrepresent "Dramatic Warming", they can simply (and do in fact often) use that very point as the jump-off from which to display Temperature increases (While conveniently ignoring the prior Established Patterns).

I could go on, and on, and on with the specifics of the entire systems and how exactly they have produced the effects which we have in fact witnessed as of recent, but I believe that the simple graphs can exhibit such in the most blatant and easily understood fashion possible. If anyone wishes for more of a clarification, please feel free to ask

[edit on 12-9-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 08:29 AM by pepsi78

No snow for me yet, somethuing is happening but it's not the human farts causing things to warm up. It has to do with our sun, eventualy in a far distant time it will consume the planet as it turns into a giant. It's what the sun does. Humans influence adds so little to the outcome of global warming. It's not global warming but rather solar sistem warming.

It's true the planet is warming up. Polar caps on mars are melting.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

We can't do anything about it, but some people use this to make some money, it's as simple as that.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by pepsi78]

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 08:37 AM by pepsi78

www.handpen.com...

Sun output has increased.

How the sun looks in 96 compared to the sun in 99

Eventualy we will all burn and the earth will become a hell reallity.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by pepsi78]

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 08:47 AM by downisreallyup

Well, here is a new thread with a video from a scientist who reveals some real truth, and he does it in a way that is unusual to say the least...

Interesting thread!

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 09:25 AM by Animal

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Now, allow for me to explain the first two graphs provided here:

What these graphs show however, is not only the obvious cyclical pattern to Arctic Temperature Variation over the past Century, but also this pattern's direct relationship with the AMO(Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)/PDO(Pacific Decadal Oscillation) cycles as well. The AMO/PDO are well established natural variants which dictate the general Oceanic Current and Atmospheric Air Stream patterns over their corresponding regions (ie, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean). With such being established, it is a well placed conclusion that the Arctic Temperature Variations are brought about by these very natural and very real cycles.

You do realize that these are the USA temperatures, nothing else?

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 09:33 AM by Stormdancer777

Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, NY

United States of America

8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Scientist names are listed below article.
www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org...

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 09:33 AM by Animal

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
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?....

Time to start reading Electric. In this press release they are talking about the data you have been cajoled into thinking was completely destroyed:

This preliminary information for 2009 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The 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). The content of the WMO statement is verified and peer-reviewed by leading experts from other international, regional and national climate institutions and centres before its publication.

The data did not exist alone at the CRU at U or East Anglia, it is still out there just waiting for your lot to see if they could prove that there is in fact a scandal. I could see why you would all choose to pretend like the data is gone, it is so much easier to just make accusations than to back them up, isn't it.

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.

Very interesting I will have to take a look at this.

Originally posted by pilot70

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 [BS].

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.

Well how does this explain the 2000-2009 being the warmest since 1850? Seems to be your grasping at straws.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by Animal]

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 10:46 AM by FritosBBQTwist

Since 1850?

Did we forget how old the earth is my friends?

3.9 billion years old or something, maybe even longer?

I believe we should not pollute our planet, and need to find ways to clean it up...but global warming itself is a joke.

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 01:57 PM by DocEmrick

Don't trust science. Only trust your intuition. These guys lie all the time to push agendas who offer them funding.

Trust yourself, not the media.

That is all.

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 03:05 PM by mirageofdeceit

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 ...

I completely agree.

By limiting the data set to that that shows warming is kind of fudging the figures.

Stataticians however just call it statistics.

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 03:09 PM by mirageofdeceit

reply to post by pilot70

You see - if I could just get to see this damned data that CRU etc.. refuse to re-distribute, I could do my own analysis of the data.

"Peer review" is a joke in this age of mass communication and easy data sharing. Let us peer review the raw data for ourselves.

Before, we relied on scientists etc.. to tell us what is going on, but scientists who are only called that because they are employed as such are not the only people around who are capable of analysing data or understanding this stuff.

Cherry picking data is not science - that's bull****.

Not only do I want the high day time temps - I want the night time lows. These can screw data sets when you start looking at averages, not because the highs were high, but because the lows were higher.

Which pair has the higher average temperature?

1) 20, 14
2) 21, 12

?

[edit on 9-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 03:17 PM by dariousg

Originally posted by pilot70

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]

How dare you make sense! I'm so flabberghasted that I just don't know what to say.

Oh, wait. Bravo! That's what I wanted to say. You see, it's the selection of 'convenient' timeframes that have gotten the people involved with 'climate change' or 'global warming that was' in trouble.

When it comes to 'peer reviewed' documents. Well, if I can destroy the careers of those 'peer reviewers' that put up contradictory data to mine then I will provide you with some very soundly peer reviewed garbage proving that the moon is actually made out of cheese.

Money rules all in this time and day. This is a HUGE cash cow for those that truly think they run the world. For the scientists involved in the 'pro warming' side they want to make sure the milk and honey doesn't dry up.

Present data for all 10 year periods over the past 160 years and then come back and say that indeed, the past 10 have been the hottest combined since records began and I'll listen. Until then, it's yet again a typical tactic of selecting the data that works best for your theory.

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 03:58 PM by MikeNice81

reply to post by Janky Red

When I took economics in college we discussed a scenario similar to Cap and Trade. It is actually a tax on corporations. If you exceed quota X you will be fined. However, if you produce less than quota X you receive a credit and the right to sell that credit. Eventually everyone is forced to clean up. However, it drives prices up on the consumer end.

The consumer gets stuck with the price of upgrades or credit purchases. With the lack of true competition in the market there is no real potential for relief. In the end consumers can see exponential growth in their energy bills. Many will get stuck paying for not only plant upgrades, but credits as well. Some can easily see thirty percent rises in cost.

Sounds like a great idea during the worst economy since the great depression, and the biggest deficit ever.

All of that being said, I do agree that we need to find ways to live more in line with nature.

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 05:34 PM by pepsi78

Originally posted by DocEmrick
Don't trust science. Only trust your intuition.

I would not go that far.
What science does, it proves global warming is not man made.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by pepsi78]

reply posted on 9-12-2009 @ 10:35 PM by Indy

It is a shame you cannot trust the WMO. Their numbers are seriously dishonest. Satellite data does not support their claims. In fact there is a huge disconnect. Why would someone take clean data like global temperature readings gathered from satellites and contaminate it with observations gathered from surface stations? I'll show you why. Look at the following link...

surfacestations.org...

They do this because satellite data doesn't give them what they want. So they incorporate bad data to bump the numbers up. They need this because without the contaminated data their theory sinks like the Titanic.

If you want to find the truth about global temperatures look at the satellite data that NASA/NOAA hasn't been able to doctor. Would you believe findings in the Monica Lewinski investigation if Bill Clinton were the one writing the report? Of course not. For the same reason you cannot trust data that comes from the group run by James Hansen.

reply posted on 10-12-2009 @ 01:28 AM by rnaa

reply to post by mirageofdeceit

You see - if I could just get to see this damned data that CRU etc.. refuse to re-distribute, I could do my own analysis of the data. "Peer review" is a joke in this age of mass communication and easy data sharing. Let us peer review the raw data for ourselves.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that record is getting old, please change the music.

All the data you could ever want is right here. And it has been online all the time, except for some that the various National Meteorological Services think they can get people to pay for. CRU has been trying to get that stuff online too, if you want to help, contact your own National Meteorological Service and tell them so.

reply posted on 10-12-2009 @ 06:09 PM by Animal

Originally posted by rnaa

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that record is getting old, please change the music.

All the data you could ever want is right here. And it has been online all the time, except for some that the various National Meteorological Services think they can get people to pay for. CRU has been trying to get that stuff online too, if you want to help, contact your own National Meteorological Service and tell them so.

Shhhh, this is one of the fundamental premises of their 'scientific conspiracy' arguments to refute any scientific evidence to support a link to climate change.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^