January 2007 -January 2008 Largest 1-year Climate Change in History

The bottom line is that we should have a debate on climate change. Making a one-sided movie and rounding up celebrities to pressure us into making policy decisions that will have very negative economic impacts on our economy is foolish.

Any cutbacks or self-inflicted punishments we levy against our great nation does nothing to alleviate 'global warming' when China and India are racing to build coal-fired plants and put cars on the road as soon as possible. It's like trying to put out a bonfire by urinating on it.

 

Al Gore

pwn3d

 

Here you go.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

What a ridiculous assertion. Judging by that graph than, in 1983 we also "wiped out" a century of warming. In 1988 we "added" a century of warming"

It's called scatter. Pointing out the extremes on either end of the scatter range is an absolutely assinine way to attempt to ignore the TREND.

 

So does this render Obama's green economy spending a complete waste?

His economic plan looks even worse than before, if that is possible.

 

didn't you say something about thoughts being dominated in another thread

 

The liberals heads are buried in the sand again when it comes to an issue like this one - are they willing to objectively look at the data?

 

I'm not a liberal, i'm willing to look at this objectively, weening off oil is about more than global warming

 

hard scientific fact my ***. Data like this is meant to be averaged over decades before coming to conclusions.

 

John McCain's website. Issues / Environment:


John McCain has a proud record of common sense stewardship. Along with his commitment to clean air and water, and to conserving open space, he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore.

 

He'll always have Manbearpig

 

I thought this was going to talk about a one year gain, and I clicked on the thread to point out that one year is a single data point, and you can't make judgments on that. I said the same thing a couple of years ago when there were all the hurricanes and people were trying to blame that on global warming.

The same is true of a one year loss.

This means nothing, as much as one side or other wants to spin it as 'proof'. One data point isn't a statistically valid sample.

 

Agreed. There are many good reasons to find an alternative fuel source which may be renewable.

 

Agreed. I'm also in favor of working to clean up the environment and moving towards a more conservation minded society for reasons beyond global warming. I just think the sky is falling rhetoric should probably mellow out a little bit.

I know this is one year, but to me there is enough evidence out their to muddy the water on this issue.

 

Uh, no.

Here's the Goddard Institute for Space studies on 2007:

and...

and...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

There is nothing on this page that supports the odious post you cited.

And once again we see the refuge the deniers take in anything that is not heat related. The predictions about Climate Change don't just foresee a gradual change, but also an increase in extremes. So record cold weather in winter is not a proof against the Climate Change seen happening by the IPCC and others. This clown takes January temps and intentionally applies the January trend to the previous year in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And really, of course ice is going to form in the Arctic during winter and of course that ice will cover more territory because the summer saw a record ice melt. And ice is growing in the interior of Antarctica because the temps are warmer and the atmosphere is producing more precip.

Also, there's nothing on the Goddard site that suggests solar activity has more of an influence than what's going on here on Earth.

Finally, I linked ot the Goddard site above. Here's the Hadley site:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

and the UAH site:

http://climate.uah.edu/jan2008.htm

Which says:

Hardly enough to "wipe out a century of warming."

And please reference the above links and show me anything that supports this:

This is not really even junk science. It's just made up crap dressed up with a chart that the author clearly does not expect his readers to read, much less understand... and all in the aim of what? Scoring a political point by keeping the intentionally ignorant on the reservation.

Disgusting.

 

so will there be a super storm a la "the day after tomorrow"?

good thing we live in texas. mexico isnt that far away.

 

More on the Sun:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anjana_ahuja/article649400.ece

 

Hilarious.