NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever

reply to post by SaturnFX

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

You know what is REALLY funny about this statement? NASA was founded in 1958, 52 years ago. Yet the article states that NASA's data consists of 130 years. Was time travel involved here? Furthermore, 130 years ago, who was collecting that data for NASA? Were the instruments as accurate as they are today? Perhaps 130 years ago, people didn't fudge data to prove future theory that they were not privy to/.

Furthermore, EVER is a long time, say around 5 Billion years. In fact, for most of the history of the Earth, our planet was much HOTTER than it is today, with the exception of the late Carboniferous Period, where temperatures were similar to what they are today.

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.

I was wondering how much data had to be distorted, manipulated, and deleted for them to come up with this?

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: saturn, I know you spend time discussing evolutionary theory with creationists. Although you might not see it clearly at this point, this area is very much the same. Indeed, both are based on science around about 150 years old, which has only grown stronger over the years. Mainly the ideologically motivated who have issues with them.

I think the thing about that is, those whom typically are full on creationists that refuse to listen to common sense, also are the ones screaming loudest on how global warming/climate destablization is a hoax.

That right there in itself brings up major red flags to me on how they view facts and science...by showing a complete misunderstanding and denial of actual science, then in another area saying the science is flawed and incorrect...well, lets just say that is perhaps the hardest thing to get past overall.

then of course I come across stupid graphs like that which make me wonder just what is going on overall. I am open to the idea..I hope the deniers are correct and we are just being over-reactionary babies about nothing much...would rather be wrong in a healthy world than saying I told you so as a ice age rips civilization a new one.

Actually, after 15 years of dealing with this argument...I am a bit tired of it overall. again, I am not having kids, so the actual effects is simply academic for me. Would be nice if my nephews and nieces had a good future ahead of them of course, but otherwise...meh.

Now, get those genetic age reversal treatments going and ya, suddenly I am all kinds of caring what the world will look like in 50-100 years...

Well one thing you can see from all the graphs
climate was changing long before man showed up
( so much for man made climate change)
Al "Occidental Oil" Gore is not allowed to show his shlockumentary in Britain
he has to provide disclaimers that the info is not accurate or true...
Nasa doesn't have any legal binding to tell the peeps the "truth"
in fact they can not cause terror.

Originally posted by Danbones
Well one thing you can see from all the graphs
climate was changing long before man showed up
( so much for man made climate change)

Just because the climate changed before man started influencing it doesn't prove that man has no influence.

I think the climate is influenced by both naturally occurring climate factors, and more recently, manmade activity.

How much it's influenced by each of those causes, seems to be part of the debate, and I don't know the answer.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Honestly this Global Warming stuff has me confused.

I have to ask these simple, obvious questions because no matter who I talk to about this subject I never get a straight answer.

If Global Warming exists then why is this Australian summer much cooler and wetter than the previous summer and the summer before that? We're even getting snowfall in the Alps, which is unusual for this time of year.

Why is the world currently experiencing colder temperatures than usual eg the big freeze in Europe and America?

Shouldn't temperatures all around the world be higher than average instead of below?

We should be seeing an increase in temperatures each year since the "discovery" of Global Warming shouldn't we? eg the year 2000 is warmer than 1999, 2001>2000, 2002>2001 etc. I don't see evidence of this.

The weather seems to be getting colder not warmer so I don't understand exactly how the conclusion can be drawn that we're experiencing Global Warming. Climate Change makes some sense but not Global Warming. I've got to admit this is isn't a subject I'm well versed in so could someone explain to me what I'm missing here?

reply to post by SaturnFX


Good catch, interesting.

...Saw a documentary a while ago. ...Some kid went on a skiing trip to Europe several years ago, never came home - just disappeared. His parents never gave up looking for him. The last time they'd heard from him, he was at a ski lodge near a glacier in Switzerland(?). But the lodge always denied he was there. Finally, the parents went there themselves - found his backpack, everything. Investigations proved he had fallen into/through "rotten" ice while staying at the lodge - just like LOTS of other skiers. Turns out the glacier was melting and receding so rapidly, the ski lodge sent out staff every morning to mark the 'unsafe' areas. But they always missed a few. Or else the melt was so rapid they couldn't keep up. And they never informed their guests of the dangers - when skiers disappeared without witnesses, they just went into denial mode.

Turns out skiers "go missing" every year because of melting glaciers and global warming - but the ski industry and governments cover it up. All the time. They don't want to hurt the tourist business.

...The parents DID find their son in a crevasse, and finally buried him. But they never found "justice."

reply to post by Beast Of Gevaudan


Seeing you asked so nicely, Beastie...

GHG-forced climate change will be associated with a long-term increase in global temperatures.

This doesn't mean that each year will necessarily be warmer than the last globally, or even regionally. The other important factors which underpin the earth's climate (and regional variations) still exist and will not disappear.

Indeed, even though certain regions might be experiencing different weather to that which we might have expected (e.g., cooler Oz and Snowy Europe) this doesn't speak to other areas of the Earth. For instance, here is some of the met station anomaly data for November (figure b):



This clearly shows regions which are warmer and others which are cooler than recent average. And the same is clearly obvious in the Jan-Nov anomaly data (figure a). In fact, 2010 is likely to be the warmest on record, certainly for the NASA-GISS data (and close for other datasets) when taking the global data as a whole.

Cheers.

reply to post by melatonin
Thanks for the info.

Is there a link to the source for that?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Sure, the data is from NASA-GISS.

Linky Here.

reply to post by melatonin


Ah, I see what you're saying.

Thanks for the reply and the link.

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks for the link.

That makes some interesting reading! The temperature anomalies are very non-uniform which explains why people in some places like Europe might not see the effects of global warming locally.

reply to post by MMPI2


Here's the point I don't get:

Most people who deny global warming/climate change have NO scientific background and NO understanding of science itself.

Sure, there are skeptical scientists. I'd rather hear an argument from an actual scientist than someone who has little or no understanding of how science works.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by MMPI2

 

Here's the point I don't get:

Most people who deny global warming/climate change have NO scientific background and NO understanding of science itself.

Sure, there are skeptical scientists. I'd rather hear an argument from an actual scientist than someone who has little or no understanding of how science works.

Well heres the point I dont get Al Gore recently stated that he thought the Earth was at a temperatue of 2 million degrees just two miles deep beneath the crust!

This is someone who was a hairsbreadth away from becoming president - he has been passionately advocating the case for GW for a long time and yet is clearly unspeakably ignorant about the most basic scientific facts, his personal Carbon footprint is the size of Texas - he is clearly not in any position to judge the merits of the GW case, and has clearly never bothered to educate himself as to eventhe basics.

So where does his 'passion' and utter 'certainty' for this come from!?

I do note that his personal wealth has increasde by 50 fold on the back of this , and he is heavily invested in it's future standing to make billions.

I do note that that this fits in with his political agendas down to a tee!

As for GW - you want my informed scientific opinion - it is the biggest and most transparent fraud ever perpetrated on the public - it is complete and utter bollocks!