2010 hits global temperature high
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
For all the climate change / global warming naysayers 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12241692
2010 was the warmest year since global temperature records began in 1850 - although margins of uncertainty make it a statistical tie with 1998 and 2005.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concludes 2010 was 0.53C warmer than the average for the period 1961-90 - a period commonly used as a baseline.
The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, it notes.
The WMO analysis combines data from three leading research agencies, and is regarded as the most authoritative.
The three records are maintained by the US-based National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) and National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and jointly in the UK by the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
They use broadly the same data from weather stations, ocean buoys and satellites across the world; but each analyses that data in different ways, leading to slight differences in their conclusions.
The University of Alabama at Huntsville team, which runs the satellite temperature record, has already called 2010 as the second warmest year in its 41-year series, just behind 1998.
"The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.
"The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998."
Other indications of 2010 warmth flagged up by the WMO include the lowest extent of sea-ice cover in the Arctic since the satellite record began.
Regions of the world experiencing particularly warm conditions during 2010 included Africa, southern and western Asia, and the northern extremities of North America, including Greenland.
The possibility that 2010 would emerge as the warmest year on record was raised by scientists after the year began with a period of El Nino conditions - unusually warm waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean, which transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.
However, a switch to the opposing La Nina conditions halfway through the year cast doubt on whether the record would be broken.
Although December was exceptionally cold in some places - the coldest for 100 years across the UK - other regions, such as Greenland and eastern Canada, saw unseasonably warm weather.
The WMO notes a number of extreme weather events ocurring during 2010, including:
* the summer heatwave in Russia
* severe monsoon-related floods in Pakistan
* the worst Amazon drought in recent memory.
Agencies including the UK Met Office suggest 2011 is likely to be cooler on average than 2010, as La Nina conditions dominate.
The variation between El Nino and La Nina can alter the global temperature by half a degree or so.
But the variations it produces sit on top of a slow, steady warming trend dating back half a century, ascribed to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from industry, agriculture, deforestation and other human activities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12241692
2010 was the warmest year since global temperature records began in 1850 - although margins of uncertainty make it a statistical tie with 1998 and 2005.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concludes 2010 was 0.53C warmer than the average for the period 1961-90 - a period commonly used as a baseline.
The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, it notes.
The WMO analysis combines data from three leading research agencies, and is regarded as the most authoritative.
The three records are maintained by the US-based National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) and National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and jointly in the UK by the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
They use broadly the same data from weather stations, ocean buoys and satellites across the world; but each analyses that data in different ways, leading to slight differences in their conclusions.
The University of Alabama at Huntsville team, which runs the satellite temperature record, has already called 2010 as the second warmest year in its 41-year series, just behind 1998.
"The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.
"The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998."
Other indications of 2010 warmth flagged up by the WMO include the lowest extent of sea-ice cover in the Arctic since the satellite record began.
Regions of the world experiencing particularly warm conditions during 2010 included Africa, southern and western Asia, and the northern extremities of North America, including Greenland.
The possibility that 2010 would emerge as the warmest year on record was raised by scientists after the year began with a period of El Nino conditions - unusually warm waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean, which transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.
However, a switch to the opposing La Nina conditions halfway through the year cast doubt on whether the record would be broken.
Although December was exceptionally cold in some places - the coldest for 100 years across the UK - other regions, such as Greenland and eastern Canada, saw unseasonably warm weather.
The WMO notes a number of extreme weather events ocurring during 2010, including:
* the summer heatwave in Russia
* severe monsoon-related floods in Pakistan
* the worst Amazon drought in recent memory.
Agencies including the UK Met Office suggest 2011 is likely to be cooler on average than 2010, as La Nina conditions dominate.
The variation between El Nino and La Nina can alter the global temperature by half a degree or so.
But the variations it produces sit on top of a slow, steady warming trend dating back half a century, ascribed to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from industry, agriculture, deforestation and other human activities.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i can't bear the typical responses that are sure to follow! ... :?
Yes, yes, it's trending up, up, up, until it's trending down again. The point is, there aren't alot of people who would deny climate change; but rather how well we understand it and, subsequently, the cause.
Now that that's out of the way, I would love to see a less wasteful society, less focused on consumerism and all its implications, but man, you're never going to get there with the climate change argument unless we have a movie-with-Dennis-Quaid-and-Jake-Gillenhall-whose-name-I'm-forgetting type event.
You are a better man than me for even trying to educate folks, Polaris. I pretty much gave up a long time ago.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
i challenge you to produce to us one peer-reviewed scientific article that proves that global warming is not caused by man ... sure, it's muddled when you allow yourself to be roped in by PR firms and pro-oil lobby groups ... but all it takes is about 23 minutes of reading and the ability to think critically to see that global warming is real and is caused by man ...
predicting the exact implications are a whole other bag ...
and people need to stop looking at trends in the temperature ... consider the temperature of the earth to be like your core body temperature ... we have been running a fever for decades ... just because it dips from one year to the next doesn't mean it's getting any better ... it's still way above what it should be ...
well ... part of it is that i enjoy when people post silly things to try and back up their argument ... then when it's pretty much debunked - they disappear ...
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myow ... 5-Soon.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 175711.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 092507.php
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/i ... ICS176.pdf
Here are just a few sceintific peer reviewed releases that does not reach the consensus of Man man global warming.
haha ... see ... case in point ... not a climate scientist amongst them ... just some geologists who get their funding from exxon ...
article 1 ... http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer
article 2 ... http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon
article 3 ... no reference whatsoever to global warming not being caused by man
article 4 ... no reference whatsoever to global warming not being caused by man just simply the last ice age was not the result of CO2
article 5 ... no reference whatsoever to global warming not being caused by man
I am not going to say I have read them, nor that I have a full grasp of climate science, but this seems like a list of peer-reviewed articles that make that claim.
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/20 ... f-man.html
I think it is going to be such a shift to business and job costs, I just think it is important to have a definitive answer before we start making huge costly changes.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
sorry ... those are not peer reviewed articles that prove global warming was not caused by man ... these are articles that postulate theories in terms of changes to climate ...
i could write a piece that massive volcanic eruptions would cause global climate change and i would be right ... and that volcanic activity is generally not caused by man ... however, it still doesn't dispute the basic scientific principle behind global warming ...
you need to take the partisanship thing out of the equation and study for yourself ...
edit: also i hate to harp on this but who are you guys gonna trust? ... the leading climate scientists that have been studying this for years paid for from gov't grants and universities or so called economists and geologists who are paid by the oil companies and right wing think tanks? ... c'mon now ...
it has nothing to do with partisanship for me my friend...it has everything to do with being sure before we under go a huge shift in how our world economy works. I am also amazed that you got through each of those links so quickly...amazing. I haven't made it past the first few
edit:
am I supposed to trust the guys who are paid by the right wing think tanks or the guys who manipulate their data in a giant scandel...seems like both sides are a little fishy to me
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i made it through because what you posted isn't anything that hasn't been posted a thousand times over ... the internet is a double-edged sword in that regard ... just google ... "obama was not born in america" and you will find a gazillion links but guess what ... all you need to do is look at his birth certificate and read that every official in hawaii has validated it and be able to think critically for yourself to know that it is a myth ...
global warming is the same thing ... there are huge dollars involved here ... there is a lot of misinformation out there ... like i said earlier ... take 30 mins and educate yourself ... it's fairly basic science here ... if you follow these threads ... they all play out the same ...
the deniers will copy and paste links to blogs, op-ed pieces, articles from right wing mags and they all lead to the same shameful road ... not a single one is actually capable of debating the science because not a single one has bothered to educate themselves on it ...
this is my point of partisanship ... this issue has fallen on traditional lines and people continually fall in ...
LOL
This is the EXACT thought that came to my mind after reading the post.......
not to push, but you did ignore my edit, why should I believe either side as gospel truth when both have done and more than likely will continue to do things poorly at times... it is hard for someone like me to be okay with having government involvement in something that I am not a hundred percent sure we can control. I certainly think that R-R-R is a great way to live and I practice it daily, but I am not going to force that way of life on someone until it can be shown that they are violating the human rights of others by continuing to live that way. I don't know.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i don't think i ignored your edit ... i think i addressed in my post ...
if you want to believe both sides are doing things poorly then there is nothing i can do ... similarily - if your personal bias is to be anti-government and you feel like this issue is all about gov't control - it is a huge barrier to overcome ...
again - educate yourself on the science and don't make it about gov't and sides ... that is my point ... you say you don't want to commit to a viewpoint without knowing 100 percent ... well, go and read about it and don't get your information from sources that are trustworthy ...
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html
Here is a Link to about 1,000 peer reviewed scientific articlies. again - educate yourself on the science and don't make it about gov't and sides ... that is my point ... you say you don't want to commit to a viewpoint without knowing 100 percent ... well, go and read about it and don't get your information from sources that are trustworthy ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Climate change / Global warming is like a religion, you guys don't even acknowledge the science that disagrees with you...
minnesota??? if so I feel your pain, had a pond hockey game this morning...brutal to say the least,
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It isn't even that I am anti-government, which I think we all know I am, it is that I am just not sure how much of an effect we can have on reversing the trend...I have tried to read, and what I have found is information saying how one thing is a hoax and how some people cannot seem to understand why others think it is a hoax...The earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth...blah blah blah...science can be wrong, I don't even really care if science is right here, I am more worried about drastically changing the lives of Americans in the name of reversing a process that we may not be able to have control over. Even if we do it, who is to say that China/india/other developing nations who cannot afford to change from fossil fuels right now will follow suit...taxing carbon output is a money grab...it will do nothing to solve the problem...***edited for grammar**** I guess I am as distrustful of government as you are of the scientists that disagree with climatologists
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You're not feeling the global warming yet either. With the exception of the odd day we've been below freezing for about 5-6 weeks, give or take.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
another? ... you haven't produced one yet ...
again - where does this article say global warming is not caused by man? ... are you just gonna copy and paste links that don't answer the question?
i will assume you are joking ...