Story of the Year: It's Global Warming, Stupid

Dec 31, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Common Dreams

My favorite headline of 2012 was " It's Global Warming, Stupid ," which appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek on Nov.

Comments
101 - 120 of 324 Comments Last updated Feb 19, 2013

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#116 Jan 8, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lie.
The science section of the IPCC report contains only peer reviewed artlicles.
<quoted text>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
Sure it did. And of course you went to a site known to be a propaganda front and has a proven track record of spinning the facts. Funny how skepicalscience site is anything but skeptical and realclimate is anything but real.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-sca...

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physi...

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#117 Jan 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
The aim of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is to improve scientific understanding in
past climate history and its impact on humanity
the course and causes of climate change during the present century
prospects for the future
[That's what they hate.]
Funny, but the CRU emails pointed that they had a different aim and it had little to do with improving scientific understanding.

Hear is something I sure you hate to remember, Climategate.
PHD

Overton, TX

#118 Jan 8, 2013
Well there you have it folks the factually incorrect spanking the factually incorrect.
PHD

Overton, TX

#120 Jan 8, 2013
Did you expect an answer from an empty chair?
Reid and Biden

Riverhead, NY

#121 Jan 8, 2013
PHD wrote:
Well there you have it folks the factually incorrect spanking the factually incorrect.
Who invited the Senate to get involved?
PHD

Overton, TX

#122 Jan 8, 2013
Reid and Biden wrote:
<quoted text>
Who invited the Senate to get involved?
You be the judge of that. Senate more empty chairs.
SpaceBlues

Magnolia, TX

#123 Jan 8, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but the CRU emails pointed that they had a different aim and it had little to do with improving scientific understanding.
Hear is something I sure you hate to remember, Climategate.
You are confused.

Go visit your friend in Spain.
SpaceBlues

Magnolia, TX

#124 Jan 8, 2013
A Met Office spokesman said "this definitely doesn't mean any cooling - there's still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s.

"Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.

"And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point."
[bbc]
keep gooose go

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#126 Jan 8, 2013
dam. U all steal on dis TOPIC;-000

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#127 Jan 9, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but the CRU emails pointed that they had a different aim and it had little to do with improving scientific understanding.
Hear is something I sure you hate to remember, Climategate.
A lie of course.

Half a dozen independent enquires found no evidence.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#128 Jan 9, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it did. And of course you went to a site known to be a propaganda front and has a proven track record of spinning the facts. Funny how skepicalscience site is anything but skeptical and realclimate is anything but real.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-sca...
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physi...
A lie of course.

Sceptikal Science and RealClimate discuss the scientific literature.

Wattsupmybum discusses any nonsense that seems to contradict AGW, however scientifically nonsensical, and attacks real climate science and scientists.

Not that an agenda driven ignoramuses like you know the difference- just which side you're on.
BS from the DNC

Riverhead, NY

#129 Jan 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
A Met Office spokesman said "this definitely doesn't mean any cooling - there's still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s.
"Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.
"And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point."
[bbc]
A "climate scientist" pushed a tale about 2012 being the hottest year in the US "on record", which was a news story today.

BS. And here's why.

First, there is no such category as "climate scientist". There IS meteorology, and these is "atmospheric science", but "climate scientist" is an informal term reserved for PR flacks.

Second, "hottest EVER in the US", means hottest since 1920. Reliable nationwide records did not exist before then. But we have plenty of evidence that much hotter periods existed in the past 1000 years - its just that we didn't have thermometers.

Third "hottest in the US" doesn't means there weren't colder regions within the US. And, curiously, they don't mention if there were any "record coldest".

Yes, indeed. You CAN have record highs and lows in the same year.

Fourth, a scientist does NOT jump to conclusions about the "past year" when the past year is less that two weeks from ending. They wait for at least a few more years to sort the data out.

And why isn't there a bit about "heating fuel consumption per capita lowest ever"?? Hmmmmm?

PS. No mention that 2012 was the hottest in Canada and Mexico. Why?

Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#130 Jan 9, 2013
BS from the DNC wrote:
<quoted text>
A "climate scientist" pushed a tale about 2012 being the hottest year in the US "on record", which was a news story today.
BS. And here's why.
First, there is no such category as "climate scientist". There IS meteorology, and these is "atmospheric science", but "climate scientist" is an informal term reserved for PR flacks.
Second, "hottest EVER in the US", means hottest since 1920. Reliable nationwide records did not exist before then. But we have plenty of evidence that much hotter periods existed in the past 1000 years - its just that we didn't have thermometers.
Third "hottest in the US" doesn't means there weren't colder regions within the US. And, curiously, they don't mention if there were any "record coldest".
Yes, indeed. You CAN have record highs and lows in the same year.
Fourth, a scientist does NOT jump to conclusions about the "past year" when the past year is less that two weeks from ending. They wait for at least a few more years to sort the data out.
And why isn't there a bit about "heating fuel consumption per capita lowest ever"?? Hmmmmm?
PS. No mention that 2012 was the hottest in Canada and Mexico. Why?
Wasn't it 2010 that was the hottest year?.55*G warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012. This is the year beginning November 2009 ending October 2010.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

the same time period for November 2011 to October 2012 was .44*C warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#131 Jan 9, 2013
Here's 2009, same time period..48*C warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2007,.52*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2006,.47*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2005,.54*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2004,.46*C warmer

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

2003,.46*C warmer; 2002,.53*C warmer; do you need another picture? For those who like the graphs,

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

At least according to NASA/GISS 2012 was not the warmest. But just wait, they'll fix the data so 2012 can be on top. They regularly fix the data. Last time was July 2012, before that November 2011. Want to be the warmest, not hard with changing data.
PHD

Overton, TX

#132 Jan 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
"And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point."
So you really really don't know climate change your contradicting yourself again.
brrrrrrrrrrr

Riverhead, NY

#133 Jan 9, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Here's 2009, same time period..48*C warmer than the average of 1881 to 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2007,.52*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2006,.47*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2005,.54*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2004,.46*C warmer
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
2003,.46*C warmer; 2002,.53*C warmer; do you need another picture? For those who like the graphs,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
At least according to NASA/GISS 2012 was not the warmest. But just wait, they'll fix the data so 2012 can be on top. They regularly fix the data. Last time was July 2012, before that November 2011. Want to be the warmest, not hard with changing data.
And the period from 950CE to 1350CE was the "Mediaeval Optimum", when grapes grew in Scotland and Newfoundland.

Followed by the "Little Ice Age" from 1350 to 1770, when glaciers advanced and the Hudson and Thames froze solid.

You caught a warm period, that's all.

Don't throw away the snow tires just yet.
PHD

Overton, TX

#134 Jan 10, 2013
Actually you should purchase more snow tires. When the money runs out global warming will change to global cooling.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#135 Jan 10, 2013
brrrrrrrrrrr wrote:
<quoted text>
And the period from 950CE to 1350CE was the "Mediaeval Optimum", when grapes grew in Scotland and Newfoundland.
Followed by the "Little Ice Age" from 1350 to 1770, when glaciers advanced and the Hudson and Thames froze solid.
You caught a warm period, that's all.
Don't throw away the snow tires just yet.
Won't find me throwing away the snow tires. Well we really don't use snow tires here, but I get your point.

I am on record here as the one who does think this is all natural cycles. I think we have completed the 'warm up' and now are looking at the 'cool down'.

The graphs I post are to demonstrate the very small variance in the average temperature of the years posted. When you consider that this is a single number that represents all the world's temperatures with variances less than half a degree, it's hard to get excited about 'global warming'.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#136 Jan 10, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You be the judge of that. Senate more empty chairs.
Actually Congress has more empty chairs and a lower approval rating than cockroaches. Then again the Senate also has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#137 Jan 10, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are confused.
Go visit your friend in Spain.
Am I confused or just reminding you of things you rather forget.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cuban migrant boat turned away from Caymans des... 10 hr Liger 3
Lake Superior's freezing weather is making amaz... (Feb '14) 11 hr Natural 2
Hurricane Cristobal unlikely to cause problems ... 11 hr Natural Disasters... 1
Marie and Cristobal: Two Storms and Lots of Que... 11 hr Natural Disasters... 1
Two Port of Long Beach terminals resume operati... 12 hr going to get worse 1
Kittens: The New Mascot Of Global Warming 12 hr FatLadyMe 4
Low temps, high bills (Feb '07) 13 hr Coletrane_exe 18
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weather People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••