Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on April 30, 2012 By Draginol In Science & Tech

 

If you’re looking for a non-politicized (just the facts) site for global temperatures here’s a good one:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

All it does is use the NOAA satellite data to measure the atmospheric temperatures. No more. No less.  As a result, it doesn’t rely on readings ground stations which have tended to be somewhat inaccurate or affected by ambient temperature changes due to man-made construction (i.e. as an area gets urbanized, it gets warmer).

Regardless of where you stand on climate change, the numbers probably won’t make an advocate of either side very happy.


Comments (Page 2)
on May 03, 2012

We have one word for snow... 'again?'

on May 03, 2012

I'm waiting for the movies and documentaries to come out about this. Then we'll get to the truth!

on May 03, 2012

Well, currently humans through our various methods of burning crap release about 7-8 billion tons of CO2 every year.  Which sounds bad until you find out that the rest of the world (e.g. volcanoes and fauna and other natural processes) release about 200 billion tons in the same time.

on May 05, 2012

That's my point--so we cut back 8 billion tons by reversing technology and crippling economies and then realize, "Oh--it WAS the volcanoes!".

on Aug 16, 2012

Well, well.

Hottest summer on record in US preceded by... lowest 4-month CO2 emissions since 1992.

on Aug 16, 2012

Well, well.

Hottest summer on record in US preceded by... lowest 4-month CO2 emissions since 1992.

Lots of paradoxes to the Global Warming Fairy Tale, isn't there?

 

Nobody was screaming Global Warming in 1936, a year which set and still holds many records for the hottest year in Illinois. (however, quite a few of those were broken this year)  Before the latest warming trend started, where I live was under a mile of ice. I'll take warming over that kind of cooling. Yes,I know, global cooling is also caused by global warming according to the "experts" so I guess the weather could go the other way any year now.

Satellite temp records are fine, just give me some sat data from 100 years ago....500...1000.....10,000. to compare to current data. 

"On record" from a human standpoint is a very small speck of time. 

Greenhouse gasses?

It really is the cows.

on Aug 16, 2012

Wow.

I guess the glaciers are only appearing to recede because it's getting cooler.

on Aug 16, 2012

The glaciers have been receding for centuries, Doc. It's just a question of how fast and where.

If they were advancing, the alleged cause is the same. I find humor in that.  

on Aug 16, 2012

The rate is accelerating, Wiz.

How truly intelligent people maintain they have no effect on the environment amazes me, when it's abundantly clear they do.

on Aug 16, 2012

It's not clear (yet) what the significance of that effect may be.  Observations, associations and correlations do not cause and effect make, but I don't need to tell you that.

on Aug 17, 2012

Coldest, wettest summer on record here

on Aug 17, 2012

Hottest summer on record in US preceded by... lowest 4-month CO2 emissions since 1992.

It is not the short term CO2 emissions rate that really determines the intensity of the greenhouse effect. Its the total buildup. Some models predicted that even if the world stayed at 1992 levels (not going to happen as developing countries increase their energy consumption) the amount of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will lead to slowly rising sea levels for the next century at least. Any over that will increase the intensity and duration of the climate effect. That is why climate change is potentially so dangerous, these gases can stay in the atmosphere for so long that even if we stopped emissions completely, it would still take decades for the full positive effect to be felt.

It's not clear (yet) what the significance of that effect may be. Observations, associations and correlations do not cause and effect make, but I don't need to tell you that.

Absolutely true. What I find disturbing is that while the public is so busy debating whether climate change is real and man made, we are not even preparing ourselves for the possibility that it could be true. Proving it is a far smaller task than deciding what steps humanity should take to deal with the problem, and I assure you it will feature years of international political drama regardless of when we decide to have that debate. I'd rather keep our diplomats busy now and get something resembling a plan in place, so that if worst comes to worst we can start working on it right away. If it turns out its beyond our control, well its better to have a plan and not need to use it, then to need one and have over 190 countries squabble over who needs to do what and who should pay for it.

on Aug 17, 2012

The logic behind spending 2.4 billion dollars to study a lifeless, dead planet  as opposed to spending the money on preventing the Earth from becoming the same totally escapes me. None of us alive today plan on going to Mars, but do plan on an extended stay on Earth.

If global warming is such a huge concern, perhaps the scientific community should get their priorities straight. 

I didn't jump into this thread for a debate, only to voice my opinion.

on Aug 17, 2012

The two have nothing to do with each other. The "scientific community" does the research, not the funding.

It is a major concern, and doing nothing is not an option. Since politics can't be discussed here, and nothing seems ever to be resolved by discussing topics, I'll just leave with a simple thought.

Imho, what's at issue isn't whether the earth is in a warming or cooling cycle. It's probably in the former.

What is worthy of thought is that man and his enterprises are accelerating and accentuating these changes. I can't see how people can't accept this as true. But, continue on... 

on Aug 17, 2012

DrJBHL
The two have nothing to do with each other.

They don't?   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414-rockets-ozone.html