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.

 

NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

The 2010 meteorological year, which ended on 30 November, was the warmest in NASA's 130-year record, data posted by the agency today shows. Over the oceans as well as on land, the average global temperature for the 12-month period that began last December was 14.65˚C. That's 0.65˚C warmer than the average global temperature between 1951 and 1980, a period scientists use as a basis for comparison.


SOURCE
I am wondering if in 100 years, the world will look like Dune, or a giant ice cube...whats the current wager?

I got a good idea..lets keep denying whats going on.

and ya...I know the obligitory arguments

it's not warming
it's warming but only a little
more research is needed
hahahaha there's water in the atmosphere!
it's warming but it's not manmade
it's manmade but there's nothing we can do about it
sunspots
climategate
algorealgorealgore
libs libs libs
kill the recovery
jerbs jerbs jerbs


edit on 11-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: Forgot the source




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Ice cubes. Definitely Ice cubes. Global warming produces ice-age or ice-age-like events.
I'll wager 10 bars of gold pressed latinum.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
nasa disclosed "temperature data" a while back that, if accurate, indicated that the water in lake superior would be like 650 degrees fairenheit.

nasa's data is not solid, and has been corrupted by the fake "global warming" scammers.




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Don't you think your/NASA thread title is a little missleading?
Last I heard ever does not equal 130 years...!!!!!!

130 is not even a blink in the life of earth..
Making assumptions based on 130 years of records is crazy...
I just wonder why they don't include other data that is known from ice samples etc to show the real story dating back 1.000's of years..

Anytime someone makes an claim based on a minute part of known data then you MUST question their agenda..
edit on 11-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
nasa disclosed "temperature data" a while back that, if accurate, indicated that the water in lake superior would be like 650 degrees fairenheit.


Care to give a source?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Don't you think your/NASA thread title is a little missleading?
Last I heard ever does not equal 130 years...!!!!!!

130 is not even a blink in the life of earth..
Making assumptions based on 130 years of records is crazy...
I just wonder why they don't include other data that is known from ice samples etc to show the real story dating back 1.000's of years..

Anytime someone makes an claim based on a minute part of known data then you MUST question their agenda..
edit on 11-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


My thread title is actually the articles title...got a problem with it, call NASA

And 130 years is significant enough time to notice trends.

I question science...that is of course what your meant to do with it
but I question those whom dismiss science -far- more..because thats what your supposed to do to liars and politicians



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Ice cubes. Definitely Ice cubes. Global warming produces ice-age or ice-age-like events.
I'll wager 10 bars of gold pressed latinum.


sure, why not. in a ice age, a can of beans will be worth 20 bars anyhow.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



My thread title is actually the articles title...got a problem with it, call NASA
And 130 years is significant enough time to notice trends.


Yes I saw it was the article title and why I mentioned NASA...

So 130 years is enough to see a trend you say?
Are you saying then that that trend is for continued warming?
Haven't there been warmer periods in earths history?
Are you inferring it's natural or Man Made??

I'm just unsure where this thread is aimed..



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MMPI2
nasa disclosed "temperature data" a while back that, if accurate, indicated that the water in lake superior would be like 650 degrees fairenheit.


Care to give a source?


sure...here you go:

climatechangedispatch.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I'm all for global warming, I don't think its man made. I hate winter.. I love hawaii weather. The earth's vibration is quickening to the next dimension, when things vibrate faster they warm up. Mars's polar ice caps are melting to why is this?

The end.

- aoierueiorueio!!!!
edit on 11-12-2010 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



My thread title is actually the articles title...got a problem with it, call NASA
And 130 years is significant enough time to notice trends.


Yes I saw it was the article title and why I mentioned NASA...

So 130 years is enough to see a trend you say?
Are you saying then that that trend is for continued warming?
Haven't there been warmer periods in earths history?
Are you inferring it's natural or Man Made??

I'm just unsure where this thread is aimed..



Before we continue, please list your qualifications...because until you prove to me qualifications equal to those of nasa's argument, then your argument may just end up being the brainwashing a certain political party is trying to push to favor corporate interests over the health of the planet.

So ya..lets here it...whats your qualifications.

I am not saying jack, I am however listening to what -they- are saying, and if you don't know what they are saying, well, why are you even commenting in this thread?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Let's look a little closer at what is really going on here.
First of all, NASA has reduced the number of reporting stations that they used to come up with this data. The stations that they used tend to have higher temperatures than the average, if all of the stations in the past had been used. Second, NASA has gone back over previous years, and lowered the temperatures that they reported in previous years.
Don't just believe me. WIKILEAKS uncovered this fraud in documents that they have discovered.
Furthermore, the year is not over, and December has been unusually cold in most of the world. Finally, NASA released these "preliminary" figures, before the CANCUN conference, because they were afraid that no one would go, given the fraud that has been revealed over the past few years.

www.canadafreepress.com...


WikiLeaks And Claim Of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality

Question; How and why can a year be claimed as the warmest on record two months before it is over? Answer: To help participants in Cancun Climate Conference desperate because the public don’t believe, funding and power is being lost, as their deceptions are exposed.

Most believe 2010 is the warmest year ever, which is what government weather agencies, proponents of anthropogenic global warming and their supporters want. What is actually claimed is that 2010 is on the way to being the warmest on record, but they know media headlines will distort and USA Today along with others obliges with; 2010: Warmest year on record

Distortion and deception became necessary to support the collapsing exploitation of climate science (Figure 1) faced by all enjoying the warmth of Cancun Mexico while attending the Conference of the Parties (COP) 16 climate meeting. The paradox of record cold wasn’t lost on the public.


 
Mod edit:
From the Terms & Conditions:Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website
edit on 12/12/2010 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
nasa disclosed "temperature data" a while back that, if accurate, indicated that the water in lake superior would be like 650 degrees fairenheit.

nasa's data is not solid, and has been corrupted by the fake "global warming" scammers.



never mind if nasa and the global warming scammers are right

I KNOW I am feelign the summers are much hotter than ever and I hate it



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MMPI2
nasa disclosed "temperature data" a while back that, if accurate, indicated that the water in lake superior would be like 650 degrees fairenheit.


Care to give a source?


sure...here you go:

climatechangedispatch.com...


Really?
Your going with some random dude with a godaddy account over nasa..funny.

are you being serious btw?

man, ...PT Barnum was right.
there's one born every minute



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I haven't been following along Climategate too closely, but I'm assuming NASA typically produces data that supports global warming?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Before we continue, please list your qualifications...because until you prove to me qualifications equal to those of nasa's argument, then your argument may just end up being the brainwashing a certain political party is trying to push to favor corporate interests over the health of the planet.

So ya..lets here it...whats your qualifications.

I am not saying jack, I am however listening to what -they- are saying, and if you don't know what they are saying, well, why are you even commenting in this thread?


Not sure whether to laugh or cry about that response...
You posted an article and I asked YOU, the OP, what was the purpose for posting it..
Are you trying to point out natural trends or Man Made warming.

I certainly don't need ANY qualifications to know that a 130 year period is very unlikely to show a trend on a planet that is billions of years old.
Also, it is a FACT that there is data available that clearly shows the planet has been warmer in recent centuries and that throws this article and it's title into the skeptics box..

NASA's title to this article is missleading and I'd have to assume deliberate...
"EVER" is not a word you accidently put in there.
I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE...
So we must assume it's intended to deceive...

BTW, what are your qualifications and thoughts on this issue?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MMPI2
nasa disclosed "temperature data" a while back that, if accurate, indicated that the water in lake superior would be like 650 degrees fairenheit.


Care to give a source?


sure...here you go:

climatechangedispatch.com...


Really?
Your going with some random dude with a godaddy account over nasa..funny.

are you being serious btw?

man, ...PT Barnum was right.
there's one born every minute


you asked for a citation...i gave it. you immediately rejected it in a rather anti-intellectual manner.

did you even read the article? did you look at the graphs that were published by noaa and nasa, and were then deleted off of their websites?

yes, indeed. there is a sucker born every minute...especially those that buy into the global warming con.




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


-sighs-
I don't even know where to start, so will make it nice and simple

-the misunderstanding of what global warming/climate destablization continues and the corporations capitalize on the ignorance of their followers.
Yes, winter will always be cold.
summers will be hot
The key is, every year, the oceans get a little more warm..a few points of a degree here, a few there...
That is the problem here. not how there was also cold days in winter last year

- its from december to november rates..this weather we are having right now will be counted on next years report

-the wikileaks exposed spying to get an edge in the copenhagen meeting..yes, spying is bad, but you know what...it has nothing to do with the science


Lets stop for just a moment though...quick question. lets forget the cap and trade (omg, they will make corporations clean up)...lets forget all that nonsense
What, in your opinion, are you fighting for? Are you for keeping to fossil fuels forever without finding new and clean energy sources? Are you suggesting corporate carbon emmissions should never be monitored?
just want to see -your- angle on this.



Will also be helpful...because you will be explaing to your grandchildren what the argument was that destroyed the planet

(disclosure: I am not having children, so I find the argument funny and strictly academic...just a visitor here)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
see, guys...the problem with the folks that have really been duped by the "global warming" scam is that they have accepted this stuff with an almost religious fervor...facts, science, empirical data does not affect them.

you can show them absolutely contradictory data that deflates the basics of the algore con and they revert to ad hominem attack and acerbic retort rather than debating in a rational manner.

we are seeing that here, now, on this website.

there is no "global warming." it is a poorly organied con perpetrated by psychopaths on the less able of the MTV crowd.




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
you asked for a citation...i gave it. you immediately rejected it in a rather anti-intellectual manner.

did you even read the article? did you look at the graphs that were published by noaa and nasa, and were then deleted off of their websites?

yes, indeed. there is a sucker born every minute...especially those that buy into the global warming con.



I read the first couple lines of the "conspiracy".
an account created in september on godady had a chart up of nonsense that of course cannot be validated.

Sure, why not...lets go with that guy over the american science academy or the international science institute...
"that guy" is the truth...everyone else on earth is crazy

all hail "That guy".



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join