 |
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The key point this article makes is not that a mistake was made — that can happen. It’s that Gore’s guy screwed up. Again. And showing higher global warming figures (which, oddly, support his theories) than anyone else. Global warming is happening, but with inaccurate or falsified data, how can we determine why? Or is panic the goal?
But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world’s governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
#63 – Paddy-O,
# 60 Buzz said, “More than that, it means the balance has been tipped off nominal center.”
The Earth’s climate is ALWAYS moving from colder to warmer to colder again. There is no “nominal center” or “normal” climate for Earth.
Over very long time periods, you are somewhat correct. You are, however, failing to recognize that the current change is very rapid and dramatic.
You are also failing to recognize that we, as a species, have not lived through warmer times. Significantly warmer times are also closely correlated with mass extinctions, including the greatest of all, the P/T extinction 250 million years ago.
Large, warm-blooded species fare very poorly during mass extinctions. We are large and warm-blooded.
# 64 Misanthropic Scott said,
Wow can you really be that dumb??!!? The low arctic was covered by a large ice sheet and no longer is. So, this is well within the area you are talking about.
No. I was talking about a certain area and he was talking about the WHOLE area covered by the ice sheet.
Try again. Or, not as you keep getting it wrong.
# 65 Misanthropic Scott “Over very long time periods, you are somewhat correct.”
No, 100% correct. The climate is always transitioning. It may be slow in human terms but, it is always going in one direction or the other.
Thanks for playing though.
1998 warming wasn’t demolished by peer review articles in magazines, but by Scott McIntyre, who also demolished the hockey stick. Even your panel no longer stands by the hockey stick, only reaffirming from 1600 on, about 400 years. This of course is not the time period covered by the original hockey stick.
Just in case the political analysts of climate care to keep up-to-date, here’s another reliable information source on October. Not that it means much of anything to dweebs whose climate “investigations” appear to be restricted to talk radio.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/546585/?
#66 – Paddy-O-Troll,
No. I was talking about a certain area and he was talking about the WHOLE area covered by the ice sheet.
No! You weren’t. You never specified exactly what area you are talking about. Perhaps you’d like to do so now so that we can discuss it. Perhaps you’d like to post an article that talks about which 3 mythical acres of land you are discussing. Or, perhaps you’re just a troll.
#67 Paddy-O-Troll,
# 65 Misanthropic Scott “Over very long time periods, you are somewhat correct.”
No, 100% correct. The climate is always transitioning. It may be slow in human terms but, it is always going in one direction or the other.
Actually, you troll, you are incorrect again. For most of human history it has been surprisingly stable. It’s not clear that humanity can deal with the level of change that is occurring now.
It is also true that humanity emerged at a time of global cooling. We are adapted to the cooler climate. It’s not clear whether we can adapt to the much warmer climate to come. We haven’t lived through a warm period yet.
# 70 Misanthropic Scott “Actually, you troll, you are incorrect again. For most of human history it has been surprisingly stable.”
Since I’m talking about a geologic time frame (as evident in my posts so far) you have shown your extreme illiteracy once again.
But, even for the illiterate, we have a box of Rice-a-Roni. 😉
#71 – Paddy-O-Troll,
The climate is changing in a human time frame. The effects are visible and catastrophic. So, the fact that they changed many times before over the course of geological time may be irrelevant to the survival of the pathetic species that produced the likes of you.
# 72 Misanthropic Scott said, “The climate is changing in a human time frame. The effects are visible and catastrophic”
There have been rapid changes in the past. As long as we can use our technology humanity will survive.
Now, enviro wackos (yourself included) have for decades opposed practical, efficient, climate neutral energy sources. Pretty ironic, huh?
As long as the wackos can be kept at bay we’ll do fine.
#73 – Paddy-O-Troll,
There have been rapid changes in the past.
Wrong!! The climate is changing faster now than at any known time in the geological history of our planet. Point me to an article that says otherwise.
Now, enviro wackos (yourself included) have for decades opposed practical, efficient, climate neutral energy sources.
Presumably, you are talking about the single most expensive energy source out there, nuclear. Right? And again, do you think the real concerns have all been addressed? You can’t be that naive. If so, please point me to an article discussing the ways in which we have properly disposed of waste, including depleted uranium (a.k.a armor piercing bullets), solved the health issues of uranium miners, and addressed the environmental impact of uranium mining.
Good luck. I’ll wait. I know you know how to post a link now. Go forth and google.