At least 70% of South American immigrants are dumb twits or just lazy.

[Havakasha]

Past Decade the Warmest Since 1880
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 23 January 2010 10:50 am ET
Buzz up!
Comments (45) | Recommend (12)

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period. Credit: NASA/GISS
Full Size
1 of 1
When an unusually cold stretch of weather grips much of the world, as one did in December, it can leave people wondering what ever happened to global warming. The gradual inching up of temperatures popularly known as climate change is alive and well, according to NASA.

The decade 2000 through 2009 was the warmest since reliable modern records have been kept, going back to 1880. There are, of course, monthly and even annual variations that buck the trend.

According to NASA's Earth Observatory, 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, and 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures (despite that frigid December, which was unseasonably cool for much of North America, Europe, and Asia).

2009 was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, which is the warmest year on record. Importantly, 2009 tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since modern recordkeeping began in 1880.

Ads by Google Record StorageHigh Quality at lower price Save 30% or more now jdcrms.com AOL.com® - Official SiteView All Your Profiles Together & Do Your Social Networking at AOL. AOL.com Temperature and HumidityHow to measure & record temperature and humidity using data loggers www.acrsystems.com
Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.

Since 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, NASA said in a statement this week. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). "In contrast, the difference between, say, the second and sixth warmest years is trivial since the known uncertainty — or noise — in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said GISS Director James Hansen. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

And what about that chilly December? Climate experts say we can continue to expect stretches that vary considerably from the norm.

In December, high air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.

El Niño can have a great effect on any given month or year. El Nino is marked by warmer water in the Pacific off the coast of South America. It alters weather patterns in the United States and around the world.

An especially powerful El Niño cycle in 1998 is thought to have contributed to the unusually high temperatures that year, and Hansen's group estimates that there's a good chance 2010 will be the warmest year on record if the current El Niño persists. At most, scientists estimate that El Niño and its cool sister La Niña can cause global temperatures to deviate by about 0.2°C (0.36°F).

Warmer surface temperatures also tend to occur during particularly active parts of the solar cycle, known as solar maximums, while slightly cooler temperatures occur during lulls in activity, called minimums.

A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.

"In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn't stopped global warming from continuing," Hansen said.

Record Highs Outpace Record Lows
Record–Breaking Snow and Cold Reminiscent of the Late '70s
What Is El Niño?
Ads by Google Temperature and HumidityHow to measure & record temperature and humidity using data loggers www.acrsystems.com Electronic Medical RecordEClinicalWorks EMR Solutions For $250 P/M. Schedule A Demo Today! www.eClinicalWorks.com MS Energy Policy& ClimateAt Johns Hopkins in DC learn about energy systems & climate sciences environment.jhu.edu Temperature Data LoggerUnique for Designers & Engineers Adapters, Modules, Analyzers, etc. www.saelig.com Texas DPS Driving RecordCertified TX Driver Record for Defensive Driving w/ UPS Shipping www.tx-dps.com

Comments (45)
You must be logged in to post a commen


posted 23 January 2010, 12:19 pm ET
evoman wrote:
and half the people that will read this wont believe it.
Reply | Recommend (16) | Report Abuse

posted 23 January 2010, 12:52 pm ET
Aaronc wrote:
People can deny it all they want because of some political agenda. Regardless, I don't see us being able to change things, even if we had the political will, because the rest of the developed world will continue to use fossil fuels regardless of what any treaties say. So the anti-global warming people should just relax, because, in the end, we will end up doing nothing about the problem until its too late to fix anyway. So you will get your wish of sabotaging the life support system on Earth, in the name of corporate greed and laziness. In the end, we will have to count on some miraculous new technology to save us from ourselves, because we certainly can't count on people doing the right thing on their own.
Reply | Recommend (19) | Report Abuse
Expand to View Replies (3)

posted 23 January 2010, 1:00 pm ET
moldycheesehead wrote:
THIS IS PURE PROPAGANDA!!! How can they make such outrageous claims?!?!?

Oh.
You mean the article DIDN'T say this was all mankind's fault?
Hmmmm. My bad.
Reply | Recommend (3) | Report Abuse

posted 23 January 2010, 2:48 pm ET
northern_nonsense wrote:
Why, I do believe things are warming up! Whether it's the fault of humans or not just isn't in my authority to say, and frankly it doesn't matter anyway. It's right up there with the origin of the universe as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't change what I'll do today.

In this region we're all still waiting for that January deep freeze that usually frosts our jungle bells for a straight week, plunging our mercury deep into the negatives. Instead, the snow is melting! The hardpack on the side roads is turning to mush and the sled dogs have to wear booties to keep their toes from icing up. The window of opportunity for the freeze is closing fast, and the forecast says it just aint gonna happen.

So enough of this quibbling. The mercury is rising and the world is changing. Adapt already!
Reply | Recommend (5) | Report Abuse

posted 23 January 2010, 5:24 pm ET
rreilly656 wrote:
moldycheesehead:

posted 23 January 2010, 5:43 pm ET
Bytrat wrote:
rreilly656 : Prove that this may not happen! You can't tell me that burnng an already sequestered source of carbon (baried fossil fuels) won't eventually change our environment. It has been proven that the poles have had ice free periods in the past. What makes you believe that we can't be the source of this event happening again? There are alternatives available that won't contribute to global climate change. It's just a matter of getting them deployed and in general usage. It just takes a change in our collective thinking and the regulations that have been put in place to support the cheap energy available from the fossil fuels industry. You don't have to give up your current lifestyle to get environmental sustainability.
Reply | Recommend (5) | Report Abuse

[Havakasha]

There is this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8400905.stm

[Havakasha]

John i invite you to come to the Politics thread which seems like the right place to discuss the politics of climate change. This thread was about South Americans being lazy and dumb which you posted. Its a bit rude to change that in the middle. So i will no longer debate anything but the thread heading until you post a new one. Please try to keep to this thread. Thanks.

[john]

John, you seem to be a little confused. I said I had people come in my store that had looked at THIS thread. THIS thread that you started with the comment about American Citizens that were born in South America. THIS thread has had over 1600 hits on it. I couldn't buy that kind of advertising on a site like this for any reasonable amount of money. Your boycott has been mentioned on a few other threads on Sirius Buzz also. I think I read comments about it in both of the stock threads. Both of those threads seem to get a lot of hits also.

I just thought I'd clear that up for you.

Dumbass have you also noticed the number of post that there are. just divide the views by the number of post and you will get WHAT, ho yes about the same number of people that view a thread with a single post.

Jesus, I cant make it any clearer then this, dumbass just ask yourself; how many times YOU came to VIEW this thread ALONE. EACH TIME YOU CAME COUNTS AS A VIEW. I am sure that just between you, Havasuker, Sirusly Long, and myself we account for at least 600 to 800 of those views over the past month and ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO POST. Those post alone means from us 4 means that at least 172 of those views are us coming here to post ALONE. I also have no doubt that the same 9 to 13 people also view the same thread each time, A NEW POST IS ADDED.

The simple correlation is to look at the views of a single post thread BY YOU to see how many people that actually care what you have to say. Then take out your original view PLUS any of YOUR views because you went back to it again.

As for it being mentioned on the other threads, we have seem comments by many (to include YOURSELF) already they dont give a rats ass about what is said if it does not have to deal with the stock. The fact is the only ones we have seen make any comments on it is, YOU, HAVASUCKER, and MYSELF.


Dont you think it is the least bit funny that these same people you say came to your store because of my putting out the information that you are dishonest have taken the time to go all the way out to your store yet have not taken the time to make even ONE post on the subject. You tell me which would take less effert. Now you tell me how honest are you being.

[john]

John, one more thing.

I thank you again and I'd like to say that I admire you for carrying on this conversation in a pretty civil tone lately.

We obviously disagree on the topic of the thread. But, it's easier for me to understand your point of view by reading what you have written in the last few days.

I have a habbit of shutting people out who use what I think of as foul language. And I tend not to completely read statements when they are littered with that sort of talk.

Like I said before. I know that the election of 2008 didn't go your way. I understand many of your feelings. I don't agree, but I do understand your frustrations and feelings towards the current Administration.

Chuck

I am still waiting for you to show me where in Obamas book he says anything close to: I DONT AGREE, with what Rev. Wright had to say in the qoute I just gave.

So then how is using a qoute in agreement any different then saying it yourself. So I'll tell you what, you answer that conundrum in a logic way and I will not call Obama a racist. I am so confident you wont be able to, that I am willing to put a side all the other things Obama said about all the other racist statements and actions Obama made, if you could do that.

[Havakasha]

You lied just like Hannity and pretended Obama said it
as though it was coming from Obama's mouth and was his own words.
That is a clear sign of a deceitful person. None clearer.

[john]

You have said over and over that it is getting colder. You said that as little as 2 months ago. Just the facts. And now you say "its been getting warmer since then" after i provide overwhelming proof that this will be the warmest year on record.
You are just completely wrong about the temperature of the last 10 years but you prefer to keep spewing lies. Doesnt matter what i show you, you will dispute it . Hopeless. You are going to look like a fool in the years ahead mark my word just like you will with your comments that hybrids and electrics will never be technologically and economically viable It has not been getting colder the last ten years. Its been getting warmer. And when i show you scientific studies that show that you simply choose to disbelieve the science.

So ONE more time here is some science which John the science expert and hybrid expert and Palin expert and Obama the radical Communist expert will choose to ignore. Allergic to facts.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...de-100123.html

No what I have said is that in general the last 10 years has been getting cooler not warmer. What I also said is that the earth gos through NATURAL trends that MAN has nothing to do with. It is as foolish to thing the earth does not with so many, Ice ages, and then warming periods that has happen in the past, AS IT IS to think that MAN is responsible for this recent past warming trend, when it was warmer in the 1500s (we know this because Greenland was called GREEN for a reason. England used to be as well known for growing grapes as France) then it is now just before the "Little Ice Age".

What I have said (well before your UN "man made global warming" scientist Prof. Latif) is that we are heading for another long term cooling trend. Most scientist now agree that that is exactly what is going to happen NOW.

What you provide is information from people and organizations that have been later proven to have been wrong on their temperatures OR have blantantly mislead the data to show global warming. It is not like they have been caught ONCE doing it, they have been caught OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. The other problem Havasucker is then you still want to use the OLD DATA that has already been changed BY THOSE SAME organizations to show the true temperatures.

Here that same link AGAIN where is PLAINLY shows tempertures going south over the last ten years. In the link it also clearly shows EVEN Bill Nye (a believer in "man made global warming") does not disagree with that just that the graph does not go far enough back (BTW, Bill Nye wants the graph to go back to the 70s, you know just after the last cooling trend when those same scientist now saying this is "man made global warming" were then calling for another ICE AGE).

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4028904/b...-no-spin-zone/



You tell me are these the kinds of people you would be willing to believe.

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

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

REALLY, using tempetures from Sep. for Oct. Hey isn't it warmer in Sep. then in Oct. Isn't that common knowledge??? So wouldn't that be totally dishonest to use Sep. tempeture data for Oct. tempetures.

[john]

Past Decade the Warmest Since 1880
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 23 January 2010 10:50 am ET
Buzz up!
Comments (45) | Recommend (12)

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period. Credit: NASA/GISS
Full Size
1 of 1
When an unusually cold stretch of weather grips much of the world, as one did in December, it can leave people wondering what ever happened to global warming. The gradual inching up of temperatures popularly known as climate change is alive and well, according to NASA.

The decade 2000 through 2009 was the warmest since reliable modern records have been kept, going back to 1880. There are, of course, monthly and even annual variations that buck the trend.

According to NASA's Earth Observatory, 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, and 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures (despite that frigid December, which was unseasonably cool for much of North America, Europe, and Asia).

2009 was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, which is the warmest year on record. Importantly, 2009 tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since modern recordkeeping began in 1880.

Ads by Google Record StorageHigh Quality at lower price Save 30% or more now jdcrms.com AOL.com® - Official SiteView All Your Profiles Together & Do Your Social Networking at AOL. AOL.com Temperature and HumidityHow to measure & record temperature and humidity using data loggers www.acrsystems.com
Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.

Since 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, NASA said in a statement this week. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). "In contrast, the difference between, say, the second and sixth warmest years is trivial since the known uncertainty — or noise — in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said GISS Director James Hansen. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

And what about that chilly December? Climate experts say we can continue to expect stretches that vary considerably from the norm.

In December, high air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.

El Niño can have a great effect on any given month or year. El Nino is marked by warmer water in the Pacific off the coast of South America. It alters weather patterns in the United States and around the world.

An especially powerful El Niño cycle in 1998 is thought to have contributed to the unusually high temperatures that year, and Hansen's group estimates that there's a good chance 2010 will be the warmest year on record if the current El Niño persists. At most, scientists estimate that El Niño and its cool sister La Niña can cause global temperatures to deviate by about 0.2°C (0.36°F).

Warmer surface temperatures also tend to occur during particularly active parts of the solar cycle, known as solar maximums, while slightly cooler temperatures occur during lulls in activity, called minimums.

A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.

"In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn't stopped global warming from continuing," Hansen said.

Record Highs Outpace Record Lows
Record–Breaking Snow and Cold Reminiscent of the Late '70s
What Is El Niño?
Ads by Google Temperature and HumidityHow to measure & record temperature and humidity using data loggers www.acrsystems.com Electronic Medical RecordEClinicalWorks EMR Solutions For $250 P/M. Schedule A Demo Today! www.eClinicalWorks.com MS Energy Policy& ClimateAt Johns Hopkins in DC learn about energy systems & climate sciences environment.jhu.edu Temperature Data LoggerUnique for Designers & Engineers Adapters, Modules, Analyzers, etc. www.saelig.com Texas DPS Driving RecordCertified TX Driver Record for Defensive Driving w/ UPS Shipping www.tx-dps.com

Comments (45)
You must be logged in to post a commen


posted 23 January 2010, 12:19 pm ET
evoman wrote:
and half the people that will read this wont believe it.
Reply | Recommend (16) | Report Abuse

posted 23 January 2010, 12:52 pm ET
Aaronc wrote:
People can deny it all they want because of some political agenda. Regardless, I don't see us being able to change things, even if we had the political will, because the rest of the developed world will continue to use fossil fuels regardless of what any treaties say. So the anti-global warming people should just relax, because, in the end, we will end up doing nothing about the problem until its too late to fix anyway. So you will get your wish of sabotaging the life support system on Earth, in the name of corporate greed and laziness. In the end, we will have to count on some miraculous new technology to save us from ourselves, because we certainly can't count on people doing the right thing on their own.
Reply | Recommend (19) | Report Abuse
Expand to View Replies (3)

posted 23 January 2010, 1:00 pm ET
moldycheesehead wrote:
THIS IS PURE PROPAGANDA!!! How can they make such outrageous claims?!?!?

Oh.
You mean the article DIDN'T say this was all mankind's fault?
Hmmmm. My bad.
Reply | Recommend (3) | Report Abuse

posted 23 January 2010, 2:48 pm ET
northern_nonsense wrote:
Why, I do believe things are warming up! Whether it's the fault of humans or not just isn't in my authority to say, and frankly it doesn't matter anyway. It's right up there with the origin of the universe as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't change what I'll do today.

In this region we're all still waiting for that January deep freeze that usually frosts our jungle bells for a straight week, plunging our mercury deep into the negatives. Instead, the snow is melting! The hardpack on the side roads is turning to mush and the sled dogs have to wear booties to keep their toes from icing up. The window of opportunity for the freeze is closing fast, and the forecast says it just aint gonna happen.

So enough of this quibbling. The mercury is rising and the world is changing. Adapt already!
Reply | Recommend (5) | Report Abuse

posted 23 January 2010, 5:24 pm ET
rreilly656 wrote:
moldycheesehead:

posted 23 January 2010, 5:43 pm ET
Bytrat wrote:
rreilly656 : Prove that this may not happen! You can't tell me that burnng an already sequestered source of carbon (baried fossil fuels) won't eventually change our environment. It has been proven that the poles have had ice free periods in the past. What makes you believe that we can't be the source of this event happening again? There are alternatives available that won't contribute to global climate change. It's just a matter of getting them deployed and in general usage. It just takes a change in our collective thinking and the regulations that have been put in place to support the cheap energy available from the fossil fuels industry. You don't have to give up your current lifestyle to get environmental sustainability.
Reply | Recommend (5) | Report Abuse

You see hasucker you just did it again you just took old data that has since been changed to reflect the TRUTH and you are still using the old FALSE data. You just posted this:

"2009 was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, which is the warmest year on record. Importantly, 2009 tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since modern recordkeeping began in 1880"

Yet this is what has happen to that data:

"NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Fin...rticle8383.htm

[john]

John i invite you to come to the Politics thread which seems like the right place to discuss the politics of climate change. This thread was about South Americans being lazy and dumb which you posted. Its a bit rude to change that in the middle. So i will no longer debate anything but the thread heading until you post a new one. Please try to keep to this thread. Thanks.

Havasucker do you really think logical people did not see that it was you ONCE AGAIN that changed the subject here. I did not do that, I have responded to lies you put up. Like I have said before I basically will ignor your statements in that thread because You know full well I tend to get people to read your crap. That is why you have now not only changed this subject but have done the samething to the General Chat part of the site.

[john]

You lied just like Hannity and pretended Obama said it
as though it was coming from Obama's mouth and was his own words.
That is a clear sign of a deceitful person. None clearer.

That is because OBAMA DID. Just because someone else said it first does not mean he did not say it also and FULLY AGREES WITH IT. Listen you jackass pull up the part of the book where Obama says he does not agree with what he just qouted there, and then what you just said holds water. The problem you have and believe me most see it, is that you cant because when you qoute something you agree with it is the same as saying it yourself.

So come on pull up anywhere in the book where Obama says I dont agree with that qoute. The problem you have is Obama has already called Rev, Wright his mentor, You do know what a mentor is right.