2010 is hottest year on record

pmills

pmills

Active member
Take two. I tried to bump an old thread -- too bad people are too stupid to read the time stamp because they just have to post their grandpas' youtube video that's going to prove to everyone that they know what's up.

Well guess what, you want to post your skepticism -- do it in this thread:

https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/529621/page/3/

This is about GISS & NASA saying 2010 was the hottest year on record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_summary.pdf

Abstract. We update the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis of global surface

temperature change, compare alternative analyses, and address questions about perception and

reality of global warming. Satellite-observed nightlights are used to identify measurement

stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban

stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are

small. Because the GISS analysis combines available sea surface temperature records with

meteorological station measurements, we test alternative choices for the ocean data, showing that

global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions where

observations are limited. We use simple 12-month (and n×12) running means to improve the

information content in our temperature graphs. Contrary to a popular misconception, the rate of

warming has not declined. Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior

two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Nino-La Nina cycle of

tropical ocean temperature. Record high global 12-month

Do you have a fancy graph? No one cares. Do you like looking at graphs? Lucky you, here's the data from the GISS analysis, with plenty of them (and yes all the axes are labeled).

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

 
Look at how many years we've been taking temp records. Look at how many years the earth has been in existence..Oh shit the earth is about to blow up. Fucking global warming conspiracy people.
Plus this data is based of computer modules.
 
Due to Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen levels in soil layers, along with different species that we know what their desired climate is in those layers, we can pretty accurately assess what the global temperatures have been throughout the earth's history. While there certainly have been fluctuations in temperatures, never have the temperature increased so rapidly before in the earth's history.
A 95% scientist agreement on a topic isn't a conspiracy.
 
scientists can safely predict changes in climate in the distant past through soil samples etc. i dont understand why you think youre a better source on the subject.

im just curious, why exactly are you so against the idea that mankind contributes towards global warming? i dont understand why you assume youre a better source on the subject then scientist who have their entire lives deticated towards research in this field.
 
Hows this for global warming.....North Carolina Beeotch

2wgrubn.jpg


anybody can get on a computer and make shit up of how global warming is destroying the world. Face reality. Its cold outside
 
What would their motivation be for making such a conspiracy? These are professionals with Ph.D's. They put their careers and reputation on the line for putting their findings out there. Scientists make very little money for their education level. They don't get paid jack shit. If anything oil companies and big businesses should be paying them top dollar to stay hushed up about these findings.
 
addressed in paragraph 3... oh, what's that? you're a dunce?

here, this is what it says:

Communication of the status of global warming to the public has always been hampered by weather variability. Lay people's perception tends to be strongly influenced by the latest local

fluctuation. This difficulty can be alleviated by stressing the need to focus on the frequency and magnitude of warm and cold anomalies, which change noticeably on decadal time scales as global warming increases.
 
95% agree on man made global warming? fantastic, but that doesnt say much, it pretty much says that 95% of all scientists agree that all or our activity has some kind of an effect on the earths temperature. doenst mean they all think its an issue, or that the effect on temperature is significant at all, etc...
 
If you go see 100 doctors, and 95 of them tell you you have cancer, and 5 of them tell you you're in the clear. Are you going to just go sit on the couch and watch tv without a care in the world?
 
All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming.
 
If the 95 are say, foot specialists, and the 5 are cancer specialists than yes im in the clear. It depends what kind of scientists they are. A scientist studying quarks and anti-quarks wont know much about global warming at all, nor will he care probably.
 
cancer and the temperature fluctuations on a 4.5 billion year old planet are a little different. a warming period that follows warming and cooling periods for hundreds of thousands of years isnt going to kill our planet.
 
Sometimes it's hot and sometimes it's cold. And how long has the human race had semi-accurate world temperature recording technology?
 
Ok, then in this case we're talking climatologists from universities like MIT (I've actually been to a lecture given by an MIT climatologist), Yale, Cal Berkley, etc.
 
they can take the temperature over land mass, thats accounts for what 30% of the globe.... and scientists agree due to the wide propaganda of global climate change. The fact is that these areas which they are taking data from are from within cities, where as many of you know temperatures fluctuate widely in comparison to not only the top of buildings to the bottom, but to surrounding areas...
 
Not to mention computer models dont account for half of natures variability, which in essence makes the un-reliable. Ask your 95% of scientist this, can you distinguish the impact that human produced greenhouse gasses from natural climate variability???
 
I'm starting to wonder if I'm actually being trolled and I don't realize it haha. I wish I had time to thoroughly make responses in this thread and wasn't trying to study for two finals tomorrow (and one on Thursday that has large amounts of climatology involved). Why couldn't this have been posted in like a week, I literally live for this shit.
 
What about this guy? He's an atmospheric physicist professor at MIT yet he doesn't believe in global warming.
/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
 
You're right man, I don't know anything. I don't have a grad school interview tomorrow for a lab in which climate change implications are a major factor of what is researched or anything.
 
already had you at 10. but seriously, global warming is not a conspiracy, and the cold temperatures can be explained by the fact that global warming includes greater amounts of extreme weather.
 
whilst all this is very true, and temperatures are rising...and im sure there is a contribution to that from human influence in the global atmospheric gas balance.... "since records began" is a huge anathema...
In terms of geological time, the temperature changes we see are not even a grain of sand on a beach in terms of geological climatic events.... it's simply too little information in too short a space of time to do anything with.... if we had 5 millions years worth of data showing a constant upward trend... then maybe.... but 40-50 even a hundred years.... it's just nothing...
In 1000 years, we could easily be plunged into another ice age.
Global warming pisses me off, because in reality - it's not an out and out, exponential warming at all... the influence humans have had on weather and atmospheric gas balances is causing more extremes of weather..... not just a warming. Global warming is a huge marketing tool to generate more money from taxes and products - how much is the environmentally friendly industry worth every year? billions..... no matter what happens on this planet, good or bad, someone is always going to make money out of it...... nowadays, everything has an added cost to compensate for a climatatic effect.... as someone who is very scientifically minded- i just do not trust anything unless it is presented to me in a reasonable and proper scientific context - i.e. a respected paper or journal article... and i have read many, and spoke to many professors who study climate change... largely, whilst many agree there is a human influence - to accurately measure that, and quantify it is simply impossible.... no mater what the toyota prius gang says.
the biggest impact of emissions is simply air quality - particulates such as Pm 10's and Pm 2.5s that sensitize asthmatics etc... and carbon monoxide emissions... the shit that comes out of the back of a dirty bus should be much more of a concern then that that comes out of a brand new car......
We need to diversify our portfolio of energy sources, and we are - we have come so far in the last 10 years in terms of renewables technology and bio fuels etc.... the work being done by some of the biggest companies on the planet to find new energy sources is mind blowing..... and i am very confident a viable alternative to fossil fuels is around the corner when used collectively with other energy sources..... but that's not to say we will not need fossil fuels, because we do, but we will be much more diligent in how we use them and how much we use - because they are precious, finite, and need to not be taken for granted (american big ass truck owners take note.... ).

 
ok buddy, you have this one picture that it snowed in a place it normally does not snow.

wow, you are ignorant

Global warming will heat up certain areas more than others, and just because one place did get colder than it normally does, that does not detract from the fact that the average temperature has risen dramatically.

How about you get a college degree, go up to the arctic and take some ice core samples, analyze the data for several years, report your findings, and then compare that data with other scientists data and you might change your mind.

I have met several of these scientists and they know their shit.

Here is a chart from NOAA:

201010.gif
 
Except for the fact that physics says that if the earth was to get warmer then there would be a decrease in extreme weather activity.
/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

Notice my source is CNN. NOT FOX NEWS..
 
correction:

he does not believe that humans are causing global warming, he is one of few scientists in his field who disagrees.

this is very different than not believing in global warming
 
Word, I'll definitely check that out in a couple of days when I have more free time. That's a different professor than the one I saw speak, but I'm down to take a listen and see what he has to say.
 
that wasn't directed only at you. scientists can only guess, its rare that they ever know anything for sure.
 
I do realize i sounded like a bit of a right wing drill baby drill person there, but really im not..
I really appreciate scientific research - i have done plenty of it - my first degree was in environmental science and one of europes leading schools in the subject.... and i did my thesis in glacial retreat due to climate change....
bottom line - The earth's climate is becoming much more dynamic - have humans influenced this since the industrial revolution in the 1800's? no doubt, yes.... to what extent, comparative to what? it's very very difficult to accurately qualify....
if you take a dendrochronological record for example, you can find similar climatic periods hundreds of years ago, before industrialization, that match what is going on today.... very cyclically.
it's healthy sceptiscism that makes a good scientist.....
 
so the people with baseless assumptions and zero sources, should be held as truth against scientists who spend their entire lives dedicated towards solving these answers? trolls i tell you.
 
Some people are so idiotic I can't even believe it. At our current pace temp is rising on average 1.5 degrees celcius a decade, Not noticeable to you, very noticeable to a glacier. As for it being cold outide.....

IT'S FUCKING WINTER, HOLY SHIT. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE COLD IN WINTER FUCK.

and for the south carolinian(didn't capitalize because it's a shitty state) with the confederate flag icon. Fuck yourself you inbred racist fuck.
 
yes i'm trolling. and if you can prove the truth to me then by all means do it. but if you can't actually prove it, then don't.
 
Shit happens. It is plenty cold here in Montana. I will start worrying when it is 90 degrees in December and I am up to my dick in glacier run off water.
 
CNN is just a fucked up as FOX, just so you know.Do you really think that a 24 hour, basic cable news channel is a good source for scientific data?

 
Well when your looking for a televised debate between two intellectual educated individuals then yea I consider it a decent source. Its not like there lying about that guy being a professor at MIT ha.
 
i didnt watch the video cuz im too tired haha but im just basing this off what my dad has told me from the books he has read because he is very strongly believing in global warming (so yes im biased)
 
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

If you want non-biased news listen to npr

npr has so many different points of view from all over the US that it is very difficult to consider then biased.

Also they do not have opinion shows where their anchors express their opinion as the final verdict. MSNBC, FOX and CNN all have biased shows like this. Glenn Beck is paid by the gold industry to advertise gold withing his show so it appears to be significant news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top