Page 13 of 23 ... 31112131415 ...
Results 121 to 130 of 222
  1. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-21-2010, 01:54 PM #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    "it was the hottest April on record in the NASA dataset. More significantly, following fast on the heels of the hottest March and hottest Jan.-Feb.-March on record, it was also the hottest Jan.-Feb.-March-April on record.

    Those are what you call facts. The earth is not getting colder no matter what your opinion is john. Sorry.


    It was the hottest April on record in the NASA dataset. More significantly, following fast on the heels of the hottest March and hottest Jan-Feb-March on record, it’s also the hottest Jan-Feb-March-April on record [click on figure to enlarge].

    The record temperatures we’re seeing now are especially impressive because we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” It now appears to be over. It’s just hard to stop the march of manmade global warming, well, other than by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that is.

    Most significantly, NASA’s March prediction has come true: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010.″

    Software engineer (and former machinist mate in the US Navy) Timothy Chase put together a spreadsheet using the data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (click here). In NASA’s dataset, the 12-month running average temperature record was actually just barely set in March — and then easily set in April.

    Actually, NASA first made its prediction back in January 2009:


    Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”

    Of course, there never was any global cooling — see Must-read AP story: Statisticians reject global cooling; Caldeira — “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous.”

    In fact, the 12-month record we just beat was set in … 2007!

    Moreover, the overwhelming majority of recent warming went right where scientists had predicted — into the oceans (see “How we know global warming is happening”):



    Figure 1: “Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly] from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.”

    Another 2009 article (draft here) details an analysis of “monthly gridded global temperature and salinity fields from the near-surface layer down to 2000 m depth.”



    Figure 2: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

    Still warming, after all these years! And just where you’d expect it. This study makes clear that upper ocean heat content, perhaps not surprisingly, is simply far more variable than deeper ocean heat content, and thus an imperfect indicator of the long-term warming trend. And the surface temperature is even more variable.

    NASA’s recent draft paper reported: “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”

    NOAA points out that both satellite data sets show about the same amount of warming as the land-based record, “which increased at a rate near 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F/decade) during the same 30-year period” — once you remove the expected stratospheric cooling from the satellite records (see NOAA discussion here).

    For the record, it was the second hottest April in both satellite records (UAH and RSS), which appear more sensitive to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) than the land records.

    I asked NASA’s James Hansen last month about the apparent 12-month record confirming his prediction, and he noted, “that conclusion is sensitive to how the global mean is defined…. We will compare several alternatives in an invited review paper for Reviews of Geophysics — it should be ready within a few weeks.”

    That caveat noted, it is also worth point out that “there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest,” as New Scientist explained (see here and here). “The UK’s Hadley Centre record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.” Thus it is almost certainly the case that the planet has warmed up more this decade than NASA says, and especially more than the UK’s Hadley Center says (see Why are Hadley and CRU withholding vital climate data from the public? and Finally, the truth about the Hadley/CRU data: “The global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming”).

    After the endless disinformation-based global cooling stories of the past few years, it’s time for the media to start do some serious fact-based global warming stories (unlike this piece of he-said, she-said journalistic crap from the Boston Globe I’ll blog on Monday).

    Related Post: Arctic poised to see record low sea ice volume this year

    If you liked this post and want to get daily email updates of the latest news and analysis on climate science, solution, and politics, click here. To buy my new book on climate, click here.

    Share Print
    667
    This entry was posted by Joe on Sunday, May 16th, 2010 at 10:10 am and is filed under Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.



    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gr...s2005+1998.pdf



    Opps, havasucker you once again must have conveniently forgot to mention that yes ONCE AGAIN they have been caught in a LIE. Remember when you had said that Oct. was the warmest on record???? Then said it is fact because it came from these same people.

    "Deja Vu All Over Again: Blogger Again Finds Error in NASA Climate Data"

    http://www.dailytech.com/Deja+Vu+All...ticle13410.htm

    Yes havasucker I am not putting up what a theory is, NASA actually PULLED THE DATA and then blamed the NOAA for the mistake, The NOAA said nope not our fault we are only responsible for data in the USA.

    "Steve McIntyre informed GISS of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA).

    NOAA's Deputy Director of Communications, Scott Smullens, tells DailyTech that NOAA is responsible only for temperature readings in the US, not those in other nations."


    You see Havasucker uses people that are doing things like using data from Sep. FOR Oct., REALLY isn't Sep. always warmer in general then Oct., doesn't everyone know that. Yet these are the same people havasucker is using and find that not to be a big deal. Really just rolling over and USING Sep. data again for Oct. not a big deal. I guess that is until they get caught doing it.

  2. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-21-2010, 02:30 PM #122
    Quote Originally Posted by candleman View Post
    I've got a few minutes between meetings....

    I live in a mostly Republican county. And I would say that most of the Democrats here don't support Health Care Reform as it was passed.
    But, the Republicans here could almost be called socialists using your standards. My property tax will go up about 12% this year and that was enacted by a County Commission with mostly Republicans on it. They want to raise my taxes to support public services like schools, libraries, after school programs, employee retirements, public health, public recreation, and so on. Those are all social programs. They ALL ran on a platform of not raising taxes. For those of us that believed them, it turns out that we were lied to.

    My point being that both parties suck. And the Republicans can be just as bad as Democrats.

    Here's another point. I think Obama is our President because McCain chose Palin as his running mate. I was a McCain man all the way. He's a vet, he's moderate, and he seemed honest to me. But, I chose not to vote for a President in 2008 primarily because Palin scared me more than any other politician that I've ever encountered. And she has proven me correct as far as I am concerned. I'm not alone. I know of dozens of other voters that could not support John McCain because he proved that he couldn't make good choices. I think many people that wouldn't normally have supported a Democrat did in that election because McCain was such a bad candidate. That makes those folks sorry now. But honestly John, they don't deserve to be disrespected. They are hard working people that wanted to vote for a President and they just couldn't endure 4 years of McCain or if he died, Palin. Many of them had seen what George Bush had done to us and they just couldn't take that chance on McCain/Palin.

    Just wanted to share that thought with you.

    Gotta get back into the meeting again!


    I dont get into local politics (besides my own) because they are local if I dont like them I can vote with my feet. That is the difference between local and national. Point of fact, I dont care if Massachusetts wants to have a STATE wide health care plan, that does not effect me.

    Once again thats because many do not watch FOX. They are the same ones that are influenced by SNL and the comedy channel.

    Fact: She beat Biden in their debate (even MSNBC had to call it a tie, for god sake)

    Fact: Not a big deal that is true.

    Fact: Biden was Obamas pick.

    Fact: So what does that say about Obama's ability to make good choices.

    Fact: Palin had a 76% approval in her state.

    Fact: That was the highest approval rating of all the states governors when McCain made his pick.

    Fact: That has to mean she was doing ALOT right in running her state.

    Fact: She had more executive experience then all three of them combined.

    Fact: Not since the 60s has there been a senator elected as a president.

    Fact: Never had we had at least one person on the ticket without executive experience.

    Fact: McCains choice was better by far then Obamas pick.

    Fact: So that point of view has no logic behind it.

  3. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    05-21-2010, 02:36 PM #123
    Global warming is one of those issues where scientists from both sides of the argument present data to support their viewpoint. Whilst I tend to avoid the belief of impending disaster due to global warming, I will say that we should be good stewards of our Earth planet, and take measures to avoid potential damage.

    Did you know fresh water is reused around 7x? Yeah, you want your community to be as far upstream as possible lol.

  4. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    05-21-2010, 02:41 PM #124
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    I dont get into local politics (besides my own) because they are local if I dont like them I can vote with my feet. That is the difference between local and national. Point of fact, I dont care if Massachusetts wants to have a STATE wide health care plan, that does not effect me.

    Once again thats because many do not watch FOX. They are the same ones that are influenced by SNL and the comedy channel.

    Fact: She beat Biden in their debate (even MSNBC had to call it a tie, for god sake)

    Fact: Not a big deal that is true.

    Fact: Biden was Obamas pick.

    Fact: So what does that say about Obama's ability to make good choices.

    Fact: Palin had a 76% approval in her state.

    Fact: That was the highest approval rating of all the states governors when McCain made his pick.

    Fact: That has to mean she was doing ALOT right in running her state.

    Fact: She had more executive experience then all three of them combined.

    Fact: Not since the 60s has there been a senator elected as a president.

    Fact: Never had we had at least one person on the ticket without executive experience.

    Fact: McCains choice was better by far then Obamas pick.

    Fact: So that point of view has no logic behind it.
    John - you're kidding, right? My wife is a card carrying democrat who was going to vote for McCain until Palin. Palin is a dumbass, dude. It may have cost McCain the election.

    Though I will say that I'm glad she's energizing the conservative base. The founders knew what they were doing with the Consistitution. It's not a living document, but the supreme law of the land - period.

  5. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-21-2010, 02:51 PM #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Our President would reduce you to tears in a debate. Sorry. just the facts.

    S&L quote: "John your nuts." "... and by the way you spell "hear" H,E,A,R. Slow down. check what you're writing. Too many typo's and people may start to think you're some 8th grader here to agitate Lloyd."

    I just love that.
    I dont think so I am not McCain. I tend to call people out reguardless of how bad it makes them look. For instance I would have asked a simple question: So if you said you never heard any of Rev. Rights racist remarks then why in your book did you speak the very same words, "White folks greed runs a world in need", Then I would have said, isn't that racist or do you think that is true that white folks are greedy. Then after Obama did his normal: Ha, da, hum, ha, da, hum, I, I, I, well, da, humm. Hell I would have then asked him what did he mean when he wrote: "In college I search out all the radicals and marxist I could find." Then I would have said, is that what you think most Americans are. At that point Obamas brain would have exploded and that would have been the end of the debate.



    As for that mistake, that has been made by many here and else where I had already given you several examples of the others that have made it. If you noticed none of those people came back to say, no I never did, because they know they have.

  6. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-21-2010, 02:57 PM #126
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong View Post
    Global warming is one of those issues where scientists from both sides of the argument present data to support their viewpoint. Whilst I tend to avoid the belief of impending disaster due to global warming, I will say that we should be good stewards of our Earth planet, and take measures to avoid potential damage.

    Did you know fresh water is reused around 7x? Yeah, you want your community to be as far upstream as possible lol.

    You get the point, it is not settled science. Even Phil Jones has admitted that now and he was one of the biggest proponents of "man made global warming". Now there is a difference between pollution and a gas that is needed for ALL life to exist on the planet.

  7. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-21-2010, 03:30 PM #127
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong View Post
    John - you're kidding, right? My wife is a card carrying democrat who was going to vote for McCain until Palin. Palin is a dumbass, dude. It may have cost McCain the election.

    Though I will say that I'm glad she's energizing the conservative base. The founders knew what they were doing with the Consistitution. It's not a living document, but the supreme law of the land - period.

    SiriuslyLong, FIRST OF ALL, which one of those facts is wrong?

    Your wife most likely does not watch FOX to much ether. Listen there is a reason Obama stayed off FOX during most of the election and not until the VERY END OF IT. There is a reason the democrats canceled a debate with FOX in charge. Is that what Palin did??? No but maybe she should have gone on FOX first and only and only given a single interview with a week left to the election. That would have been the samething (except in reverse) as Obama did. McCain and his people ran a terrible campaign. He trusted the MSM to be fare (something Rush said would change as soon as he was running against the democrat, yes Rush called that one, he said McCain was the media darling but that will change as soon as he gos up against the democrat) and that is exactly what happen.


    Here is another fact: McCains campaign head said that he would have lost by a bigger margin if she was not the pick.

    That also confirms my thoughts because until he picked her I was not to pleased with him. Need proof: Once they split up and campaigned on their own, she had almost twice as many people at her rallies then McCain did. Obama started to run against her instead of McCain.

  8. candleman is offline
    Mentor
    candleman's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2009 Location: Outer Banks of North Carolina Posts: 1,511
    05-21-2010, 03:31 PM #128
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    I dont get into local politics (besides my own) because they are local if I dont like them I can vote with my feet. That is the difference between local and national. Point of fact, I dont care if Massachusetts wants to have a STATE wide health care plan, that does not effect me.

    Once again thats because many do not watch FOX. They are the same ones that are influenced by SNL and the comedy channel.

    Fact: She beat Biden in their debate (even MSNBC had to call it a tie, for god sake)

    Fact: Not a big deal that is true.

    Fact: Biden was Obamas pick.

    Fact: So what does that say about Obama's ability to make good choices.

    Fact: Palin had a 76% approval in her state.

    Fact: That was the highest approval rating of all the states governors when McCain made his pick.

    Fact: That has to mean she was doing ALOT right in running her state.

    Fact: She had more executive experience then all three of them combined.

    Fact: Not since the 60s has there been a senator elected as a president.

    Fact: Never had we had at least one person on the ticket without executive experience.

    Fact: McCains choice was better by far then Obamas pick.

    Fact: So that point of view has no logic behind it.

    I understand how you come to your conclusions about Palin. But, I don't think most Americans use that kind of logic. I think they want to actually like the person they are voting for. And for me, and obviously a lot of Americans, Palin just isn't a very likeable person. It might be all that makeup or those super duper high heels she wears....LOL

    Time will tell though. It sure looks like she's working towards running for the Presidency someday. I think if that day comes, she will not do well. I think she'll be something like a Pat Buchannon type candidate. She'll get the far right voters but not many in the middle, and that's who you need in order to win.

    I don't know why she would ever run though. She's a very rich woman now and it just wouldn't logic out that she'd want that job. And, I think quitting on the people of Alaska lost her a lot of respect that she would need. I think people would be afraid that Palin would quit on America if things got to tough for her.

    John, once again, I appreciate being able to [U]talk[U] about these things. A sharing of ideas is always a good thing in my book.

  9. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-21-2010, 04:05 PM #129
    Quote Originally Posted by candleman View Post
    I understand how you come to your conclusions about Palin. But, I don't think most Americans use that kind of logic. I think they want to actually like the person they are voting for. And for me, and obviously a lot of Americans, Palin just isn't a very likeable person. It might be all that makeup or those super duper high heels she wears....LOL

    Time will tell though. It sure looks like she's working towards running for the Presidency someday. I think if that day comes, she will not do well. I think she'll be something like a Pat Buchannon type candidate. She'll get the far right voters but not many in the middle, and that's who you need in order to win.

    I don't know why she would ever run though. She's a very rich woman now and it just wouldn't logic out that she'd want that job. And, I think quitting on the people of Alaska lost her a lot of respect that she would need. I think people would be afraid that Palin would quit on America if things got to tough for her.

    John, once again, I appreciate being able to [U]talk[U] about these things. A sharing of ideas is always a good thing in my book.


    That is the point most dont use logic to come to a good decision. Look before the Left wing media got involved she had a 76% approval rating. SHE DID THAT ON HER OWN AND BECAUSE OF THE GREAT JOB SHE WAS DOING. Point of fact you cant be a twit and run a state and have that huge of a approval rating. Point of fact, if that same media would have went after Obama like they did Palin then he would have looked like a bigger twit then they made Palin look like. Look need even more evidence, how many people even heard half of Bidens gaffs not to mention Obamas.

    Fact: She was then being mired in investigation after investigation by the democrats.

    Fact: All previous investigations up to that point were dropped because it was found that there was nothing to them or she did nothing wrong.

    Fact: It was taking up much of the time in the states Legislature to the point much else was not getting done.

    She said that the Legislature had become to partison due to her running for vice president and nothing else was getting done with alot of money being spent without anything coming from it.

    You see even you do it, you portray Palin as something different then Obama. Didn't Obama write a book and get alot of money from it, I think they call that a double standard.

    As for her doing well have you seen her ratings she also has the Tea Party backing and contrary to what you want to believe they are not right wing conservative wackos. There are many democrats and indepentants in there and many more that have a favorable opinion of them as a matter of fact more then that have a favorable opinion of them then they do of the democrats and republicans.

    You had better think again because like I said if you watch the MSM and not FOX you would think most disagree with the immagration bill Arizona passed yet the facts are much different with 70% of Arizona agreeing and 60 to 67% of Americans agree with it.
    Last edited by john; 05-21-2010 at 04:33 PM.

  10. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    05-21-2010, 04:08 PM #130
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    SiriuslyLong, FIRST OF ALL, which one of those facts is wrong?

    Your wife most likely does not watch FOX to much ether. Listen there is a reason Obama stayed off FOX during most of the election and not until the VERY END OF IT. There is a reason the democrats canceled a debate with FOX in charge. Is that what Palin did??? No but maybe she should have gone on FOX first and only and only given a single interview with a week left to the election. That would have been the samething (except in reverse) as Obama did. McCain and his people ran a terrible campaign. He trusted the MSM to be fare (something Rush said would change as soon as he was running against the democrat, yes Rush called that one, he said McCain was the media darling but that will change as soon as he gos up against the democrat) and that is exactly what happen.


    Here is another fact: McCains campaign head said that he would have lost by a bigger margin if she was not the pick.

    That also confirms my thoughts because until he picked her I was not to pleased with him. Need proof: Once they split up and campaigned on their own, she had almost twice as many people at her rallies then McCain did. Obama started to run against her instead of McCain.
    Well, all I can tell you is that in the circles I run in, most everyone rolled their eyes at the choice. In fact, my bosses endorsement of Palin was "she's hot".

    If Obama did chose to run against her, it was a wise move. Easy pickins.

Page 13 of 23 ... 31112131415 ...