NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever

No, they very, very obviously are not.

 

It's happened before pollution... but this time, it must be pollution.

 

Back to the same old debunked lies and bullcrap, I see, without which, the entire Warmist Religion comes crashing down.

Once again, SCIENTIFIC METHOD is how "science is done", which is:

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml


The Warmists skipped the "perform an experiment" part, and jumped right to "draw your conclusions and report your findings", via their asinine, anti-science "consensus", without a SHRED of ACTUAL, SCIENTIFICALLY VALID ,PROOF.

Please cite the SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT, PROVING THE EFFECTS of 382 PPM ATMOSPHERIC CO2. (The basis of the entire Warmist Religion is based on UNPROVEN CLAIMS about this.)

Next, your asinine Leftdweeb Psuedo Science idiocy:"There is no such thing as scientific proof".

Horsecrap. Just because everything cannot be proven, does not mean that NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN.
Fore instance, it has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT:

rust is the oxidation of a metal;

penicillin destroys the bacteria it kills by rupturing the cell walls of the pathogen(s);

light travels at 186,000 miles per second;

the speed of sound is 740 mph;...


etc., ad nauseum.

Please spare us the Scientific Platitudes of the Scientifically Ignorant, stop the silly pretense that you have the faintest idea what actual "science" is, and stop making a fool of yourself here....

 

It's happened before manmade greenhouse gas emissions...so it can't be manmade greenhouse gas emissons this time. Non-sequitur.

An analogy I like to use: My car failed to start in the past due to a bad battery. Therefore, if it doesn't start this morning, I'll just assume it's the bad battery, even though checking under the hood reveals the battery is fine and all signs point to human interference.

 

Good analogy. You're blaming one piece of many pieces of a car that has not been proven to be the problem. There are many possibilities, yet you are focusing on just one.

Over nine thousand scientists with Ph.D.'s, who obviously know a lot more about science than you and I, have signed a petition stating the fact that manmade Global Warming is a hoax.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

Not that anyone was taking you seriously anyway - but this surely puts the matter beyond doubt.

 

You should actually read your own links more carefully. Click on the section tha texplains what a hypothesis is:

Popper's idea about doing science is that you formulate a hypothesis, try to prove it wrong, and, from your results, formulate a new hypothesis. Why not try to prove it right? Because you can't; you never know if there isn't one more experiment that will prove it wrong
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_learn_more_weaver.shtml


As I said - there is no such thing as scientific proof.
You could also read this link:



Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science...
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

I don't think I am the one making a fool of myself.

 

So, if I pour sugar in your petrol tank - using your logic, it would have no impact on how your car runs at all.

Though your car may have broken down in the past, due to a multitude of other reasons - it has never broken down due to sugar in the petrol tank before. Therefore, sugar in the petrol tank could not possibly hurt it.

One lump or two?

 

Before we get riled up about 2010 being the "warmest", I think it is necessary to remind ourselves that despite what the temperature IS...it's only a problem when it exceeds what it SHOULD have been.

So for all you warmist wolf criers...what were the Temps supposed to be this year? Surely you have these numbers and can show exactly where we exceeded them, and by exactly how much?


No...of course you can't.

Have fun making up your crisis.

 

So... what exactly is the "right" climate????

... that way I know when you Global Warming Cultists will quit attacking my economy and bank account with your dreams of heavy taxation and regulation.

We have had two record cold years here in SoCal... so where are these "hot" areas?

 

What the hell is that suppose to mean?

Okay... let's put another little hypothetical in there. Nine thousand mechanics with Ph.D.'s in engineering have discovered that petting sugar in the petrol tank does not affect the vehicle.

 

When all evidence points to that one and rules out the other possibilities, and nearly all mechanics agree, what is a rational person to conclude?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

The Petition Project is somewhat of a hoax. It's filled with fake names, unverifiable names, and anyone with a heartbeat can sign it. In other words, what's the denominator is quite large.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition

 

I'll use a graph that you used to illustrate this "all evidence":

It can easily be spotted that the '60s and '70s were colder than the '50s, even though pollution become much worse. Hence the fear of "another ice age" coming in those times.

Now that we up in the red, it's "Global Warming." Furthermore, "Due to pollution!"

What? The air has gotten significantly cleaner since the '70s

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2003/dude-ranch/environmental-issue-6.htm

They already make all these ridiculous regulations, which have cleaned the air, and what has it done? NOTHING. Why? Because manmade Global Warming is a hoax.

What a surprise... the Liberals say the only people telling the truth are just spreading lies.

How do you think those scientists would look if they did extensive research for the government after spending so many years in school, then reporting "Earth is doing just fine. Nothing needs to be done." Of course they're not going to do that! If they find nothing, what use are they? Their budget is cut, and they're out of a job after spending so much time in school! Nope, instead they claim that there's "Global Warming!!! Something needs to be done now!!! And of course, further research needs to be done!!!" What does the government do? It spends billions of more taxpayer dollars on this Global Warming crap. The scientists keep reporting "OH MAW GAWD, GLOBAL WARMING!!!! WE NEED A HIGHER PAYCHECK!!!! I mean... WE NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH!!!" Then the government gives them more billions of dollars!

 

You don't appear to understand the difference between sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases. Perhaps this will clear up a few wild misconceptions.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

I guess smoking doesn't really cause lung cancer then. Good to know. Moon landing never happened either.

 

If you click on your first link and scroll down to figure 1, you'll see that Global Warming papers did not exceed Global Cooling papers until 1970, the same year of the Clean Air Act, which, the EPA has admitted, has made the air cleaner.

I never said that nor implied it. There is substantial evidence that tobacco causes lung cancer; not just its science, but the fact that virtually every smoker dies 5-10 years early due to lung cancer. You see, THAT is evidence.

To land on the moon would be to spend money, and the government loves to spend money!

 

Studies in the early 70's projecting that cooling from sulfate aerosols might outpace the warming effect from greenhouse gases is far different from asserting "scientists predicted an ice age".

All circumstantial, just like observed global warming, satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation, warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere, Arctic amplification, observed positive climate feedbacks, lab experiments, paleoclimatic data, etc.. Those cancer researchers are faking their data because if they didn't, there goes their money. Better to trust tobacco-funded scientists, just like we should trust scientists funded by fossil fuels and associated with anti-government think tanks.

That's why it's all fake I tell you! If they admitted they couldn't do it, there goes their government funding!

 

More horsecrap.
I provided a child's link to explain scientific method, which , of course, you completely failed to grasp in the most basic sense,as always.

Here's the GROWNUP explanation: (don't hurt yourself)

Newton invented a scientific method which was truly universal in its scope. Newton presented his methodology as a set of four rules for scientific reasoning. These rules were stated in the Principia and proposed that (1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances, (2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes, (3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and (4) propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.

Please disprove that the speed of sound is 740 mph;

that water is H2O


that rust is oxidation....etc.

(IOW) What has been scientifically PROVEN, through SCIENTIFC METHOD, is TRUE until DISPROVEN.

Have at it, "Einstein"....



As for your Warmist Delusions, the primary assertion of the Warmist Religion HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN.

Figures that you quote an OPINION PIECE from an "EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGIST" concerning SCINETIFIC PROOF, as what they know about science wqould fit into a thimble. WTF is an "EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGIST"??? Now, there's a bullcrap pseudo-science if ever there was one, for people who couldn't cut the MATH in REAL SCIENCE.
What does he do...tell us all the thoughts of long-dead creatures??



Please quote a HARD SCIENTIST (aka: CHEMIST, etc.,) claiming that "nothing can be proven in science".

Your silliness grows with every desperate attempt to play silly semantic games to avoid facing the glaring failure in your position(s).

 

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

What has been repeatedly pointed out is that what you are arguing against is measurements! It's not theory, it's not even science. It's being able to read a thermometer.

Do you actually think reading thermometers is that hard? Do you think sampling elements in the atmosphere is difficult? What happens in 2020 isn't the subject of this particular thread, it's a simple measurement. This year, just like a majority of the last 25 or so years, it hotter than the previous ones.

We can save the arguments over why, (which is mostly physics), or what it will be, (which is mostly mathmatics), but the starting point is a very simple thing which most 3rd grade students have no difficulty in doing, reading a thermometer.

Why would you think that an agency that routinely sends men and machines into space and is capable of exploring the surface of Mars would have difficulty in telling what the temperature is?

 

Its not arbitary at all. We have 3 other temperature records that show a sharp decline coencieding with the ENSO shift to a La Lina and one that doesn't.

The GISS reconstruction relies heavily on land based weather stations for the reconstruction. It tends to lag the satellite record in recording ENSO events. But that slight lag does not explain the gross upward trend seen in the GISS record. Only Dr. Hansens promise of a record year truly explains why the GISS is so greatly diverging from the other records.

One again you are obfuscating jumping back and forth between adjustment and baseline. The change in the anomaly is independent of offset. y = mx + b. Do I have to spell it out for you again. Did you fail algebra.

A 0.6943 that no one else save for the GISS which they work lock step with. They are corrupt. No I dont believe temperature records that come from this guy and his friends.



I'll take the satellite records of the surface reconstruction. Its more accurate and based in far better science. They dont use Hansen's redicilous methods of extending stations out to 1200km and constantly revising historic temperature down. The NCDC's cumlative adjustment from 1936 to present has grown to almost 1.8 degrees. The entire concept of a reconstruction from surface stations is ad hoc and unreliable. Furthermore Spencer and others who maintain it have never been arrested at a protest with a bunch of leftwing loons.

In the raw data there is nothing anomalous. Its only when the easily fungible method is fabricated] adjusted do we see an anomaly.



The NCDC has been hard at work fabricating a trend.

 

I hate to say this but you are profoundly ignorant. Its a whole hell of a lot more than simply reading a thermometer. There aren't stations in every corner of the globe. There are in fact far fewer today than there were even 20 years ago. The end of the cold war saw a shap decline in the number of weather stations.

see this video to see how our surface stations have significantly declined in number over the years.

[ame]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/stationhistory_v10.wmv[/ame]

There is no one thermometer to read the earth. There is a network that is poorly controlled. It then has to be put together in a reconstruction where a great deal of error can be introduced. This is where we have the GISS extending single stations up to 1200km because there is no data.

Then there is the issue of adjustment. You say that the thermometers say that we have unprecedented warming. But they dont say that. This is what they say.



The blue graph is the raw data. That is what the thermometers say. The entire warming they profess is nothing but the product of adjustment. The data is adjusted and that adjustment produces a warming. Now there is an arguable need for adjustment but their method is largely ad hoc and unsupported. And when your entire trend is dependent on that adjustment such claims of unprecedented warming have to be take with great caution.

 

Your cluelessness is revealed once again with every post you make. You somehow manage to be wrong about everything.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
by Satoshi Kanazawa
Psychology Today
Published on November 16, 2008
(excerpt)
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

 

But still does not explain how when the Earth got less polluted, it also got warmer.

Now we're just going off-topic.

I see evidence of tobacco damages people all the time... those smokers are always coughing and they look 10 years older than they are.

Also, don't be silly. If they couldn't do it, they would get MORE government funding until they could.

Anyway... I'm not going to address these again since I'm digressing.

 

I don't think you're paying attention 'cause yes, it does explain that.

Industrial pollutants from Europe and America started to dim the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface starting in the 1940's and by the '60's it was causing perceptible cooling that almost overwhelmed the CO2 induced warming that had been slowly building for a long time. After some major efforts to curb some of the pollution, the air got clearer and the cooling effect diminished. This then allowed the warming effect to get stronger.

More of certain kinds of industrial air pollution = cooling effect

More CO2 emissions (different kind of 'pollution') = warming effect

 

Oh, I see... the government caused Global Warming. Ah, it all makes sense now.

 

Don't assume simplification for the layman is ignorance of a subject. I am well versed in how the data bases are constructed and the instrumentation used to perform the measurements. Since you profess an interest, HERE is a slightly more technical explanation of some of the basic processes.

I would have assumed you knew that most modern measurements aren't made from ground sources. Ground stations are used for calibration and cross reference verification of satellite data and supplimental for areas with poor observation angles. Interferometric temperature measurement techniques allow you to measure temperatures very precisely as well as temperature gradients. It also allows you to precisely control the spatial distribution. I'm not sure how many calibration points you think are necessary but even 2 or 3 per air mass is more than enough to establish any needed correction factors.

I don't know what your graph is suppose to represent. It certainly isn't a plot of a raw data base. Perhaps if you supplied the time series of the query and source request we could better understand what it is trying to say. Is it surface temperatures, is it mean average of some region, is it factored for altitude? There are simply a number of things I can't discern from the graph.