2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year On Record

[gokanis]

[citation][nom]JohnMD1022[/nom]James Hansen has a long record of falsifying data to support 'global warming'.I wouldn't put too much faith in anything this serial liar has to say about climate, weather or anything else.[/citation]
And he is at it again, the rise in CO2 did not raise the earths temp (it dropped again), kind of an inconvenient truth for the Global Warming, err now climate change gurus. So now his new chart has some data modified:

From Icecap:

Hansen’s original data accurately showed the rapid warming during the 1920s, the 1940s temperature spike, and the rapid cooling during the 1970s.

By contrast, Hansen’s new corrected data makes no sense. He now shows early 1970s temperatures warmer than 1930s temperatures.

-end-

It appears the global warming goofs are at it again with falsified data, with NASA and the UN in their pockets and trillions of dollars in carbon credits on the line. In case anyone is interested, it doesn't matter how hot or cold it is locally, its the global themature that matters. Unfiltered satellite data is the most reliable way to measure this as most temperature and rain measurement data collection stations are now smack dab in the urban areas where man made sources corrupt the data and Hansen has decided to edit out the cooler ones. Yes, he has been caught doing this.

 

[dgingeri]

This still doesn't mean it's caused by men. Besides, would you really want to go back to 1880, the tail end of the "Little Ice Age"? We still aren't as warm as the dark ages (700-1500AD) when there were vineyards and wineries in Scotland.

 

[bak0n]

I'm looking forward to 1500 years of warmth, followed by the next ice age.

 

[Goldengoose]

We are coming out of an iceage still, of course things are going to warm up.

 

[Guest]

I like how they often take weather data from cities. Cities create micro climates that tend to have much higher temperatures and winds than the surrounding areas only miles away. To get a true picture of how temperatures are going use stations in areas unaffected by daily human use.

 

[jecastej]

Well, the Earth is getting warmer along with climate change cycles. It is not possible to reduce big forest all over the world and expect just a natural earth climate cycle. Falsified data and all.

As for the planet, in a longer term it may recover (in planetary and cosmic terms). Is us who need to worry, but why worry now. Pass all the trouble to your grandsons and granddaughters... Live happily and without consequences!, NOT.

 

[mstrbass2000]

wow putting sensors in hot areas will get you hotter temps

 

[msgun98]

Man, there are still that many people that deny the huge impact humans have on climate change and that it is a real threat to our security? Since I'm gathering most of these deniers come from the States it should also be mentioned that over 50% of the US population still denies the Darwinian theory of evolution and over 30% believe in the hop-on-pop theory from Genesis in the Bible.

 

[Uberragen21]

[citation][nom]JohnMD1022[/nom]James Hansen has a long record of falsifying data to support 'global warming'.I wouldn't put too much faith in anything this serial liar has to say about climate, weather or anything else.[/citation]
Your opinion of Hansen is wrong, but you're entitled to it just the same. I've read the reports of his "falsifying" data, however, when credible climate scientists reviewed the data it simply corroborated his findings.
http/berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf

I love it when republicans attack someone who doesn't believe their views, and tries their hardest to discredit them. However, it always back fires because in the end, the evidence in the data does not lie.

 

[NuclearShadow]

NASA said that the average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline

This is purely frightening. A 0.51 C change in such a short of amount of time with a clear pattern of constant growth is much bigger impact than most people realize. Just 2 C will have major impact on the world enough to cause serious harm. 6 C increase is pretty much apocalyptic levels. Though it would take sheer stupidity to reach that after already suffering the major effects before it. Though one should never doubt the power of human stupidity or greed....

 

[Uberragen21]

[citation][nom]Headstone[/nom]I like how they often take weather data from cities. Cities create micro climates that tend to have much higher temperatures and winds than the surrounding areas only miles away. To get a true picture of how temperatures are going use stations in areas unaffected by daily human use.[/citation]
This is true, asphalt and buildings artificially increase temperature in cities, but why ignore it? That makes no logical sense. An increase in temperature is an increase in temperature. It may not be directly related to an increase in CO2 levels, but it does increase temperature. Cities also account for such a small amount of urban heating it's inconsequential.
National Climatic Data Center: 2003 article
Indiana State University study 2003

I'm all for dissolving cities and going back to smaller towns, but that'll never happen.

 

[robaustin]

msgun98,
You just don't get it, do you. GHCN and consequently NASA fudge the numbers. Witness the dramatic change in the US temperature record post 2000 vs. pre 2000. Also note the egregious revisions to the Reykjavik and Godthab Nuuk Greenland temperature records recently. These unjustified changes serve to cool the past and warm the present. And with few northern station records, NASA global temperture reconstructions will smear these higher temperatures over vast polar areas. Ever wonder why the cute global temperature maps always show a huge blob of elevated temperatures in the Arctic? This is the kind of manipulative crap that makes me a denier and proud of it. also note the recent study from Harvard showing that climate skeptics test superior in mathematics and scientific reasoning.

 

[tomaz99]

[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom]i hope i get snow in spring. My Christmas without snow kinda makes me sad. damn you greenhouse gas! i recycle everything properly, I use paper bags and turn off/unplug unnecessarily electrical device.. come on, it takes all of us to contribute! it's not that hard.[/citation]

I know...you'd think the tuna can I recycled would off set the two coal plants China brings on line every two weeks; or coal contributing 55% of India's power, or 92% of South Africa, or 85% in Australia...or...or.

If you care about CO2 (which I don't) even jettisoning every person on the plant into outer space wouldn't make a difference...between water evaporation and volcano belches ...even my car idling for 30mins waiting for a drive through prescription (too offset the cholesterol of all the meat I eat) doesn't make a difference.

Now I appreciate recycling to get rid of all the garbage and pollution (every throw away a battery )...but for CO2

Just because somebody says "BOO!!" doesn't mean it's scary...

 

[robaustin]

To those saying the BEST (Berkeley) project corroborates the GISS (NASA) temperature reconstruction, note that BEST uses the same adjusted data as NASA. BEST is just hot off the press and the findings were touted before it had even received peer review. You might want to give it some time to see if it is truly a vindication of Hansen or just makes the same mistakes. The funny thing is that a minor bit of warming since the little ice age is a good and plausibly normal thing. Having warmer temperatures in recent decades in itself in no way negates the null hypothesis, that is that recent temperatures are within the bounds of natural climate variation. So there is no need for skeptics to examine what NASA purports to show. It is the outrage that we feel when we see organizations like NASA manipulating the data to enhance the message that drives us to put their work under the microscope.

 

[Uberragen21]

[citation][nom]robaustin[/nom]To those saying the BEST (Berkeley) project corroborates the GISS (NASA) temperature reconstruction, note that BEST uses the same adjusted data as NASA. BEST is just hot off the press and the findings were touted before it had even received peer review. You might want to give it some time to see if it is truly a vindication of Hansen or just makes the same mistakes. The funny thing is that a minor bit of warming since the little ice age is a good and plausibly normal thing. Having warmer temperatures in recent decades in itself in no way negates the null hypothesis, that is that recent temperatures are within the bounds of natural climate variation. So there is no need for skeptics to examine what NASA purports to show. It is the outrage that we feel when we see organizations like NASA manipulating the data to enhance the message that drives us to put their work under the microscope.[/citation]
You're mistaken...
“They’ve taken scientists’ words and phrases and quoted them out of context, completely misrepresenting what they were saying,” Mr. Mann told AccuWeather.com in an interview, calling it a “manufactured controversy.”

All the scientific data shows the evidence of climate change, more specifically global warming is occurring. Notice all the groups claiming NASA falsified data are non-reputable sources such as biased news papers, blogs and the such; NONE were scientific journals. You can't find even one scientific journal to back your claims.

But please, continue to bury your head in the sand so that one day, you'll wake up and realize we live in a climate too hot to sustain current food production, lacking of fresh water supplies, oil running out, and war raging because of all those issues.

What's wrong with trying to change for the better? Regardless of whether you believe the scientific data or thinking your opinions are more factual, you're as blind as the politicians who dreamt up SOPA.

 

[tomaz99]

[citation][nom]Uberragen21[/nom]This is true, asphalt and buildings artificially increase temperature in cities, but why ignore it? That makes no logical sense. An increase in temperature is an increase in temperature. It may not be directly related to an increase in CO2 levels, but it does increase temperature. Cities also account for such a small amount of urban heating it's inconsequential. National Climatic Data Center: 2003 articleIndiana State University study 2003I'm all for dissolving cities and going back to smaller towns, but that'll never happen.[/citation]


Very true, why not take the temperature in my living room in winter...my wife keeps it 78F. "An increase in temperature is an increase in temperature"...wow look at the global temp soar!

 

[tomaz99]

[citation][nom]msgun98[/nom]Man, there are still that many people that deny the huge impact humans have on climate change and that it is a real threat to our security? Since I'm gathering most of these deniers come from the States it should also be mentioned that over 50% of the US population still denies the Darwinian theory of evolution and over 30% believe in the hop-on-pop theory from Genesis in the Bible.[/citation]

heh...Imagine 50% of people denying a "theory".

I'm a scientist, I don't need proof...just tell me what to think.

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]JohnMD1022[/nom]James Hansen has a long record of falsifying data to support 'global warming'.I wouldn't put too much faith in anything this serial liar has to say about climate, weather or anything else.[/citation]

I don't really know this fellow, but I do know that among the scientific community that global climate change is pretty much considered truth. It happens, as to the cause - they aren't 100% but they do agree that humans have had SOME impact upon warming. Climate change = disruption any way you look at it. So we may want to start thinking about having fewer children and hence less impact upon our environment. I for one would rather be one of few who live well than one of many who live in turmoil. More people = more problems and less natural resources. If one man dumps chemicals into a river, the river is fine. If 20,000 dump 1% of that into a river, the river dies. It's common sense, but education about world population numbers is lacking. We don't realize how dramatically our numbers have increased during the last century. It's insane.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom] I use paper bags and .[/citation]
Theres your problem. They chop down trees to make your paper bags.

 

[tomaz99]

[citation][nom]srhelicity[/nom]I'm happy to see nobody replying here has confused weather with climate, nor local / state / country with "global". When we talk about global climate change, we're talking about stuff on the order of 1-5 degrees F. We had the hottest summer ever recorded in Oklahoma this past year, but that was a state/regional WEATHER event, just like the big northwestern US snow-storm last week was a regional WEATHER event, just like the super-snowy winter last year in the northern US was a regional WEATHER event. I doubt many of us can "feel" the observed global warming since I doubt many in here can tell when the average yearly temp has risen 1-2 degrees F. The world (glaciers, ocean current, trees, etc.) certainly does, though! (I'm a meteorologist finishing my PhD, so I have some experience with this topic )[/citation]

So that means you're going to teach others?...I suspect the planet will be getting warmer...