Site Meter

2010 Hottest Year On Record (So Far)

Hottest year

And that’s according to NASA. Let’s see the climate change deniers argue with those nerds. “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”

Here’s the full report on the NASA site.

The yearly running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010, and all that despite the recent minimum of solar irradiance.

NOAA just released their monthly El Niño/Southern oscillation update, which notes:

“The majority of models predict ENSO-neutral conditions (between -0.5°C to +0.5°C in the Niño-3.4 region) through early 2011. However, over the last several months, a growing number of models, including the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS), indicate the onset of La Niña conditions during June-August 2010.”

I guess you’ll be needing these Tips To Stay Cool Without A/C for a while longer.

58 Comments For This Post

  1. Jared Lorz Says:

    Okay I’ll argue with them, remember when NASA said the Chilean Earth Quake shortened the length of days on Earth?
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth-20100301.html

    Then those smart Germans told NASA to get a brain.
    http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2010/03/03/chile-quake-axis-shifted/german-scientists-put-planet-earth-back-on-track.html

    I wouldn’t believe NASA nowadays.

  2. Al Says:

    Movement creates friction which creates heat. If everyone would stop moving around so much, the world would cool down again. Everyone should just chill the heck out!!

  3. Deraj Zorl Says:

    “A German tabloid article once tried to refute findings from NASA, the existence of such dissent proves that NASA is always wrong.”

    Congratulations, you chose to feign scientific intellect by choosing one article over another opposing article.

  4. Kyle Says:

    Jared: what is your basis for rejecting the NASA conclusions and accepting the GFZ conclusions? Aside from the fact that they are “smart Germans”?

  5. SKP Says:

    Jared-

    If you want to argue with NASA over their climate figures, then argue with them about their climate figures. Show how they are wrong.

    A link to a site which claims that two German scientists disagree with a NASA scientist about the effect of the Chilean earthquake is not proof of anything. Especially since the Germans state “That would only be possible through outside influences,” and then undermine their own position by speculating on what size earthquake it would require, agreeing on the principle that a large earthquake might perturb Earth’s axis. The Germans offer no proof at all in this article and simply say that NASA’s predictions are too small to measure, a very peculiar claim in this day and age.

  6. matt Says:

    so. the earth is how old …? 4.6bn years and records have been kept for how long ? a few decades ? thats way worse than calculating the temperature rise in my home based upon one morning’s data from my whole lifetime. crap science is crap science. Now… that 6.3 ltr car i was just looking at … meh

  7. Dopey Says:

    So being wrong (debatably so) on one thing automatically makes them wrong on everything? Nice try, Exxon-Mobil employee.

  8. TIN FOIL HAT MAN Says:

    THIS IS A JOKE. Earth is not heating up. 2012 will be OK. Martians exist.

  9. John Russell Says:

    I’ll argue with them too. I mean, any agency whose mission used to be to explore the vast regions of the universe and now is tasked with making Muslims feel all warm and fuzzy, is one to be questioned.

  10. DJ Baker Says:

    Well this has nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide! Lets put our thinking cap on…. What is a really powerful GHG? Carbon Dioxide? NO! Methane? YES! What has been pouring in to the Atmosphere for that last 86 days or so in record amounts due to the Oil Leak in the Gulf of Mexico and been getting pushed through out the atmosphere via the Gulf Stream? Hmm.. Methane.

  11. Patrick Says:

    Well Jared, you actually did not argue with them at all. You brought up an irrelevant time when NASA got something wrong based on their calculations, rather than argue with this monitoring report they’ve released. That has absolutely nothing to do with this argument, you don’t even address the data or topic being discussed, and is a truly flawed argument that holds no strength. Because NASA got something wrong once they can’t ever be trusted again? Give me a break and try thinking about the matter at hand more seriously.

  12. Sean Helling Says:

    Jared:

    The NASA article you linked to was filled with words like “may have” and “should” indicating that they were offering predictions, not making claims of fact. The other article you linked to consisted mainly of quotes from people discrediting NASA from making ludicrous claims, which they did not do.

    Personally, I would be much more cautious about listening to sensationalists that can’t distinguish between a tentative prediction and a claim of absolute fact.

    And I would specifically doubt your source discrediting NASA, since they offered absolutely no data to dispute the validity of NASA’s predictions, they just stated that NASA was wrong and left it there. Bad form, in a scientific debate.

  13. Mike Says:

    Hmmm, 100 years of records, 4,600,000,000 years of history, and of course EVERYONE knows that the state of the climate as of Jan 7, 1967 at 3:17:10:065AM was precisely the absolute epitome of the entire 4.6 billion year history of the Earth’s climate and varying from that at all is going to kill us all.

    I’m convinced. Really.

  14. Alex Bowles Says:

    Global warming is caused by rampant troll feeding. That’s a little known but incredibly important fact.

    Consider – In the space of a few short hours, this this one blog has already roasted a dozen polar bears, and has ruined the nicer parts of at least three innocent glaciers.

    I know Mr. Lorz is demonstrably an idiot. And I suspect he’d be hard pressed to find Germany on an unmarked map. But people, please we’re talking about the lives of penguins here. Baby penguins who have no hope of outrunning a flame war.

    Oh, I can just smell them roasting now. The horror…

  15. flek Says:

    I suppose undersea volcanoes don’t heat anything

  16. TheParadigmShift Says:

    When you put temperature sensors near heat sources you get higher readings (obviously)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/photos-noaas-carefree-climate-station/

  17. Lonestar Says:

    The usual suspects–left coasters, regulationists, tree huggers, peaceniks, atheists, gun prohibitionist– created the myth of global warming to destroy the state of Texas out of jealousy for its unparalled quality of life and dedication to the eternal values that once made America a truly great nation. As the prestigious CNBC declared yesterday, Texas is the best state in America for business, so hundreds of top drawer corporations have been coming to our state. Together with these new resources and existing great corporations headquarted in Texas, we have the resources to fight the climate change lies. This is war and Texans will win will it.

  18. Adam Brandt Says:

    First, let me state that I am not a scientist, but an engineer. I believe things that are quantifiable.

    For those who can’t read very well, NASA is claiming this is the hottest Earth year *On Record*, not hottest Earth year ever. Earth has been through multiple periods where it was much hotter – and unsurprisingly because of the greenhouse effects of an atmosphere with a different makeup than we are used to today.

    What kills me is the people with their head in the sand thinking the thermometers are somehow lying. Arguing that it is getting hotter is as silly as it gets. Argue *why* it is getting hotter all you like. That’s more difficult to prove.

    To use an analogy, picture this: You are in a room with friends in the evening and the lights unexpectedly go out, and you are in pitch darkness. Your friends will say things like “Did someone hit the lights?”, or “Did the power go out?!”, or “Is the bulb burnt out?”. Please don’t continue to be the dolt saying “Bah, how do we know it’s even dark in here. Prove it, cuz you were all wrong about the Superbowl too”

  19. Banni Nation Says:

    HEY FARKERS,

    proof of global warming can be found on http://www.BanniNation.com!

  20. CoolCanadian Says:

    You would think that americans would be more worried than they are as they will be some of the most affected people. Warmer summers in Canada, not such a horrible thing. Warmer summers in the US … not so good. People are already whining about triple digit numbers. I will be fun to watch the whining when that becomes the norm for months instead of weeks.

    Here you have the opportunity to perhaps turn the tide but you’d rather bitch about those dirty, cheating scientists. That says a lot about the whole anti-climate change movement.

    You’re going to whine just as much about not getting enough government assistance if/when climate change affects you. You can show us all how boot-strappy you are.

  21. Steve Says:

    OK, but the sun is behaving rather oddly of late. Maybe, just perhaps, that big ball of flame out there is impacting our warm weather just a bit?
    http://spaceweather.com/glossary/spotlessdays.htm?PHPSESSID=0gngdatvjb61pvb51f6g9rcf87

    Another report by NASA from just last year confirmed that the sun is behaving in ways we have not seen recently. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
    “A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts.” Sounds to me like we don’t have that nice cooling breeze blowing on our planet to help keep it cool…and its getting warmer.

  22. JaredBlows Says:

    jared, you should actually try reading articles before you start posting links with your stupid opinions attached to them.

    nasa did a computer simulation (not a observation). based on that simulation it was said that the length of the earth day MAY HAVE been shortened.

    the german article does not refute the claims of the computer simulation. the german article says that there is ‘no way to measure, in nature, a change in the length of day, if such a small amount, and be able to accurately attribute it directly to a particular earthquake’

    which of course is true. nasa made a computer simulation. the germans said it could be true, but there’s just no way to measure it.

  23. ButteBill Says:

    Several points…

    1) CO2 makes up approximately 385 PPM (Parts per Million) of our atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a football field, CO2 takes up roughly the thickness of a pencil. Now, shave off about 1/8 of the thickness of that pencil; that’s where we were 200 years ago. For fun, take your own non-scientific poll — ask 10 people what is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’ve done this for the last 50 years. I think the lowest answer I’ve ever got was 12%, the highest I’ve gotten is 70%.

    2) CO2 is not a pollutant (part 1). EVERYONE breaths out CO2 EVERYTIME you breath! 2nd part of your non-scientific poll; ask people if we should eliminate ALL sources of CO2. Most (un-informed) people say yes. Now ask them if we should attempt to clone Hitler; closest thing we’ll probably come to it.

    3) CO2 is not a pollutant (part 2). Plants require CO2. It’s a VERY IMPORTANT part of photosynthesis. Eliminate CO2 – you eliminate plants! Eliminate plants, you eliminate all critters; including your wife, mom, dad and your lovely children. (Note- do not informed cloned Hitler of this option!!!)

    4) The earth is probably 4 to 5 years old. Let’s say that scientists MAY be wrong. Let’s round it off to a mere Billion. We’ve been ACCURATELY measuring temperatures for maybe 200 years. Accuracy here is dependent on those mercury thermometers that may have been in the sun, not regularly calibrated, etc. 200 years, for the doubters, is GENEROUS. We’re basing our “observations” on roughly 0.00002% of observed time. I say before we raise a serious alarm…we wait until we hit at least 0.2% of recorded time, or what the hell, call it a million years and let’s call it even.

    5) I live in the Rocky Mountains. I’ve seen temperatures from -20 degrees F to about 100 degrees F. Before the “heaters” go ballistic, that’s -29 C to 37.8 C. According to NASA, we could see a .2 degree C (per decade starting in the 70’s – when, by the way, all the “experts” were predicting a impending global ice age). So, by 2050 we could see a rise of about 1.6 C. So, my extremes, will be from -27.4 to 39.4 C.; or from -17.3 degrees F to 103 degrees F. Not sure we’ll really notice. We’ll throw one less log on the fire in the winter and shave our legs in the summer.

    6) We have Ice ages about every 25,000 t0 40,000 years. I’ve read that the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere has been the highest DURING THE ICE AGES!!! Wow. Everyone, hold your breath and count to 10,000,000,000.

    7) To paraphrase Chicken Little…”The earth is warming, the earth is warming”

    8) I say we should be more concerned with the “AlGore Pants Warming”

  24. ButteBill Says:

    To be accurate…I just read over my comments and in my first point “1)”…I said, ” I’ve done this for the last 50 years”.

    I meant to say 5 years. Sorry!

  25. Jen Says:

    If global warming were real, then 2009 should be the second hottest. 2008 would be the third hottest. 2008 would the fourth hottest. Etc., etc. This is not the case. There is no proof here that the earth is getting hotter and hotter. Nice try.

  26. grannycandy5 Says:

    Cow poop? Another source of methane gas. Should everyone become a vegetarian? I vote yes. Until I want a big juicy hamburger.

  27. Alex Bowles Says:

    According to NASA, a ridiculous number of reports by NASA contain facts that malicious or witless people separate from meaningful context (also supplied by NASA) to support entirely un-scientific positions that actual NASA scientists find appalling.

    Jesus has a similar problem.

  28. LoneWolf Says:

    Most “climate change deniers” don’t deny that the earth is experiencing a period of increased temperature. What they contend with is that the cause of this increase is due to our behaviour as people.

    As far as I can see, there is no definitive proof either way — just a lot of speculation. There is evidence of warmer periods in earth’s history as well as cooler ones. But they were never “scientifically” recorded so we don’t know for certain how hot or cold it was.

    The fact that the pollution and rampant waste of our resources is bad cannot be denied. Whether it is causing global warming or not, the problem exists and should be dealt with.

  29. adiku Says:

    is it true about 2012?

  30. Billy Says:

    Of course there is global warming, there will also be a peroid of global cooling. The earth had to warm up another time at least….. We did have an ice age what happened to all the ice… hmmmm. The is no question that the earth is warming the problem is that it is caused by man made problems. every planet in our solar system has went throught a ebb and flow of climate change.. that “in my opinion is what is going on now” the only reason it is so relevent is the media has 2000 channels to fill 24 hours of up time.. Get back to me in 200 years when we have 10 of the coldest winters in 20 years.

  31. Jason R Says:

    Adam B. is correct. Many intro geology classes teach you that the earth has gone through many shifts in climate. Multiple ice ages? Check… The same is true on the heating side.

    Also, anyone remember that climate monitoring agency ‘adjusting’ statistics to conform to their desired trend of continued global warming? Me thinks they wanted more funding.

  32. KJ Says:

    Those of you who continue to talk out of your bums about the “global warming hoax” are hilarious, since your statements display the depth of your proud ignorance about scientific research, climate science, and basic science in general. It amazes me that, in a country where so many claim to have a mistrust of government and politicians, so many people are willing to believe the blatant propaganda of politicians and drug-addled radio pundits over scientists and, well, the entire scientific community. Because the consensus on global warming is overwhelming. But go ahead, continue to believe the ideological hacks. They’re the experts with the “facts”…

  33. mainegirl5 Says:

    But I like it hot!

  34. DavidMcG Says:

    I think the real argument should be about the cause of the suggested temperature rise. For one thing, there are a growing number of hotheads on the planet all letting off steam about things that so far science has not answered satisfactorily even if the temperature trends are accepted… and I am not suggesting they should be. The use of these temperature data are akin to the idea that speed kills when justifying road speed limits and their policing. Inappropriate driving (the ratbag syndrome) is the real culprit and not speed perse. Speed has never killed anyone. Neither will a very small rise in average temperatures over a few decades.

  35. Fanakapan Says:

    Even the Boys at the CRU, from whence NASA gets its figure’s had to admit that Global Temperatures have NOT been rising for at least the last 10 Years, indeed their now classic phrase ‘Hide the Decline’ might suggest that they have actually fallen a little.

    You Warmist Cult types, had better make the most of whatever credence your Hoax retains, it surely cannot last much longer :)

  36. Omega Says:

    Jaredblows it’s ashame you are so ignorant this post has alot of merit=your independent beliefs have no merit at all-you or NASA uhhhh Ithink NASA and next time keep your comments to yourself -I bet it was no slvery and the halocaust didn’t happen—–uhhhhh right!

  37. Dennis Says:

    Is it true that satellite temperature readings are excluded from the IPCC’s climate modeling but land-based (and that has meant, over time, more and more urban, heat-island influenced) readings are?

  38. pnguine Says:

    I find it incredible that so many people, at so many time, in so many places can pretend to have a ‘viable’ discussion about global warming without ever once mentioning ‘chem-trials’.

    And does anyone else find it suspicious that there have been absolutely no hurricanes in the gulf since the ‘oil spill’? There was one ‘tropical storm’ that seems to have been very quickly put-out and that’s it. Maybe ‘they’ are controlling the weather way beyond what even the most extreme of us have been imagining.

  39. Dennis Says:

    This is a small example of what I’m talking about:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/photos-noaas-carefree-climate-station/

    This is a small example of what I’m talking about:
    http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/study-model-in-good-agreement-with-satellite-temperature-data-suggest-cooling/#more-11900

    (Hmm. The Wikipedia article on Satellite temperature measurements says the data has now been ‘corrected’ so it is no longer contradictory to the climate modeling predictions of the IPCC or the ground-based temperature stations I referred to earlier.)

  40. mike Says:

    Is this the same NASA that figure out how to go back to the moon? NASA back in the day really stood tall. Today’s NASA is to wrapped up in political correctness and failure.

  41. SD Mike Says:

    The really sad part ?

    Farmers used to do this in their spare time to schedule their crop seasons.

    Farmers Almanac anyone ?

  42. Jared Lorz Says:

    If NASA talks about Mecca I might listen to them since that’s their primary goal to reach out to Muslims. NASA ceased to be a scientific endeavor in the 80’s and became a political tool

    Get real people you have your heads up your asses.

  43. Jeff Says:

    Al Gore’s a fraud, the IPCC is a joke, NASA is first and foremost an arm of the Pentagon (think Iraqi WMD) Climate-gate was real, Earth Hour is sponsored by the WWF who’s founder was a former Nazi SS officer, The Club of Rome invented global-warming in the 90s after their global cooling rouse didn’t work in the previous decades, Carbon taxes/Cap and trade is about de-industrialization and population control, if you have a problem with that, go research it yourself or you can blindly follow the world’s elite and hope they have your best interests at heart, some people know better.

  44. matthew Says:

    Hey here is some “real” weather going on this month!
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/08/grsq4th-straight-day-record-cool-weather-san-diego/
    Record cold weather in San Diego.
    Any coastal sunshine would be welcome change. Thursday was the fourth straight day in which the maximum temperature in San Diego tied or set a new low for the date. “This has been the coolest stretch of July weather that I’ve seen in the 15 years that I’ve been here,” said Mark Moede, a weather service forecaster.”

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/record-cold-at-lax-airport-as-july-gloom-continues-in-southern-california.html
    Record cold at LAX as July Gloom continues.
    “Unusually cold temperatures in Southern California continued, with Los Angeles International Airport setting a record low on Friday.
    LAX got to only 67 degrees, breaking a record set in 1926, according to the National Weather Service. Instead of daytime highs approaching the mid-80s, downtown L.A. has experienced temperatures in the mid- to high 70s. From June 1 to July 5, daytime and nighttime temperatures have averaged a relatively cool 69.8 degrees. That makes that stretch one of the cooler ones for that time of the year in the last 10 years, just slightly warmer than the same period in 2004 (69.4 degrees) and 2002 (68.9 degrees)”.

    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=jaspersnow_13_07_2010?ref=ccbox_weather_bottom_title
    Alberta walloped with Snow!
    “You’re not seeing or hearing things. It’s the middle of July and heavy snow is blanketing parts of Alberta. “I think it started snowing as early as this morning and since about 6:30 this morning, we’ve had around 18 centimetres fall at the lower chalet.”

    Gibson adds that even heavier amounts are expected higher up. Usually at this time of year crews are preparing for the next ski season instead of actually partaking in winter-like activities.
    While not completely impossible, heavy snow like this in July is pretty rare.
    This is totally out of the blue. To receive this much snow in July and have it stay on the ground is unheard of,” says Gibson”.

    So i guess its not completely hot everywhere! I wonder why this is not reported as fiercely as the hot tempatures are!

  45. Bruce Says:

    “4.6bn years and records have been kept for how long?”…Matt, Michael Mann can prove the temperature throughout Earth’s history has pretty much been a steady constant by looking at tree ring data. No Medieval warming period, no ice ages, nice and steady UNTIL NOW. He can also prove this to within +-.05 degrees Celsius accuracy. You can question his “science” (actually most scientists should) but don’t) but you would be considered a global warming denier. When NASA says it’s the hottest year on record just stand there with a smile and nod your head. TRUST THE “SCIENCE” MATT (unless it shows a cooling trend then the “science” was wrong and needs to be adjusted upwards).

  46. nilum Says:

    I’ve never understood how people can take this ‘science’ seriously. Wan’t it not too long ago that the idiots at Fox were claiming global warming wasn’t real because it was the coldest winter in years. Now you climate bozos are saying basically the same thing: it’s hot… global warming is real!

    First off… most of the ‘deniers’ BELIEVE in ‘climate change’, but not man-made ‘climate change’. How could we not believe? The climate is in a constant state of flux because of a number of factors, the least being humans. You eco-terrorists should realize that by now (yes you are eco-terrorists – spreading fear to get your way).

    Explain the direct correlation between solar activity and global climate change.
    Explain the carbon lag, which when graphed out shows carbon increases following a temperature rise which indicates that increased temperature is related to increased carbon activity.
    Explain the fact that humans contribute only 3% to total carbon emissions.
    Explain the fact that carbon is a natural occurring gas and makes up for only a small fraction of the total greenhouse gases.

    The point is most of you morons ignore these FACTS and just say “they’re scientists, they’re infallible.” You people are just religious zealots who believe anything an authority figure tells you.

    Maybe there is no great conspiracy like some think. Maybe these scientists really do believe it, but lets take a minute and think about how many climate scientists there are in the world compared to physicists, aerospace engineers, and medical doctors. Even if they have a large following, their own community is small compared to the other scientific bodies, and the fact that most of these other scientists (oh and politicians) aren’t experts on this particular science, means we should be more critical of anything that comes out of that field.

    You don’t see physicists publishing scientific papers with politicians.

    I believe this is a logical fallacy.

    An illusion created by mixing up causality with correlation.

    Think of this: Most people believe gun control would decrease violent crimes, this makes it harder for a person to legally own a gun for sport or self-defense. Yet only 1% of crimes are committed by someone with a gun license who legally owns the gun. Most criminals buy their weapons illegally so they’re untraceable if used in a crime and because it’s often easier to get them illegally because of all of the new gun laws! The truth is, we would probably all be a lot safer if before someone attacked you they would have to consider the risk of you being armed.

    By the way, even with all of the new gun laws, the number of violent crimes involving guns has increased.

    Again, it’s a well-meaning, but poorly reasoned logical fallacy.

    Other logical fallacies:
    1=2
    http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

    30=29
    http://users.ameritech.net/iamperfect/ridhotel.htm

    man-made carbon emissions = climate change

    Also, someone earlier made a good point about how long we actually have records of climate change. It’s a tiny period in the grand scheme of things isn’t it?

  47. nilum Says:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

  48. dave Says:

    I want address “hide the decline” and actually put it in it’s correct context, something which hasn’t been done correctly in nearly all mainstream media.

    For a long time, we’ve known that the size of tree rings is a very good indicator of temperature for a given summer/winter. Using tree ring data as a proxy for temperature is widely accepted, and not just for climate scientists. Anthropologists frequenly use such data to study effects of climate on extinct civlizations. The methods used to do this have been around for much longer than AGW theories, and have been discussed and refined in peer-reviewed, scientific literature for a long time.

    However, it has also been known that for the past 35 years or so, there has been a decline in the amount of outward growth trees experience during the growing season. The effects of this decline have been well studied, though an explanation is not apparant. When climate models are developed using this tree ring data from the past 35 years, there needs to be an adjustment to accomodate the fact that tree ring data has been displaying lower temperatures.

    This is the decline being spoken of in the “hide the decline” statement. It is not an attempt to hide a decline in global temperatures, but to adjust for a known decline in tree data. This is very much the same as making adjustments because your thermometer now has less mercury than it did before. If you were to design a climate model using this thermometer, you would need an adjustment to “hide the decline” in reduced levels of mercury, to bringe those lower temperature readings more in line with what they actually were.

  49. Tony Says:

    It’s amazing that even though the majority of scientists studying climate continue to say man made global warming is real and is happening right now, we still get the armchair climatologists telling us why we’re silly to believe the real scientists. I hope somebody shoots all of the armchair climatologists right in their collective foreheads. That’s the best thing that could happen to mankind, right there.

  50. nilum Says:

    @dave

    “For a long time, we’ve known that the size of tree rings is a very good indicator of temperature for a given summer/winter.”

    Your definition of ‘long time’ and mine vary quite a bit.

    A.E. Douglass who founded dendrochronology only started his research until about 1909. Studies in dendroclimatology didn’t start until the 1960’s and the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona wasn’t established until 1980’s. At most this science is 100 years old, and the science is obviously not precise.

    You said: “However, it has also been known that for the past 35 years or so, there has been a decline in the amount of outward growth trees experience during the growing season. The effects of this decline have been well studied, though an explanation is not apparant. When climate models are developed using this tree ring data from the past 35 years, there needs to be an adjustment to accomodate the fact that tree ring data has been displaying lower temperatures.”

    That is not how science works. You don’t see an anomaly in your data and try to cover it up. The data clearly showed that from samples taken all over the world that the climate was actually getting colder. It was then that the buzzword changed from global warming to climate change, as some scientists now believed the Earth was getting colder, but didn’t want to make any waves (which they inevitably have). What these climate scientists tried to do was hide the data, or rather perform some ‘amplification’ on the data to make it appear as if it was inline with their initial global warming hypothesis.

    The truth? We don’t have nearly enough data to make any conclusions. Even data dating back to 1000 to 2000 years are not enough to convince me, when we live on a planet billions of years old. The science implemented in these studies is still relatively new, and does not seem to have any credibility.

    It is absolutely possible that dendroclimatology is complete pseudoscience. It’s not like we are comparing these 1000 and 2000 year old samples with anything other than our belief they are accurate based on modern correlations between scientific measurements using thermometers and tree rings. It’s shortsighted science done by egotistical scientists.

  51. DaveMcG Says:

    Get this NASA article up yuz and then tell me the climate models are good and that CO2 is bad.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

  52. DavidMcG Says:

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

    This NASA article says that CO2 has a cooling effect. It also says they don’t understand the dynamics of the atmospheric systems. What hope for credence do current climate models have therefore?

  53. Scottar Says:

    Anything coming from NASA’s GISS should be read with a big grain of dinosaur salt. They are just doing the Jones trick of manipulating data.

    Read more here:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7373/Climate-Depots-full-statement-to-USA-Today-on-Hottest-Year-And-Arctic-Ice-NOAAs-Jay-Lawrimore-should-be-ashamed-of-himself-JayLawrimorenoaagov

  54. Varecia Says:

    Ocean foraminifera have been providing paleoclimate data for some time and have been used by paleontologists in paleoclimate reconstructions, well before climate change became such a controversy for some people. Yes, climate has been known to occillate between extremes of heat and cold, nothing new there, but these past cyclical fluctuations between extremes took *hundreds of thousands* of years. That’s what appears to be different now, and that’s what indicates that human activity is playing a role.

  55. Objectivist Says:

    NASA, climatologists, meteorologists, and all the other global warming theorists have just as good a chance of being right as they are of being wrong. Climate changes occur over millennium, and there is more involved than just the closed system that we call earth. The arrogance of some scientists who think they have the answers to what ails our environment, ought to remember and state that global warming is only a theory describing an environmental system that they have only been studying for a short period of human history. Any reliable scientist would agree that many times actual cause and effect can be misinterpreted, and that there just isn’t enough data to presume that human beings are the only reasonable explanation for global climate change. Wouldn’t it be a kick if all of a sudden we went through extreme global cooling and plunged into another ice age…maybe as a result of reducing greenhouse gasses?

  56. lucek Says:

    Reply to Jared Lorz
    I’d like to point to the fact the article you site to discredit NASA has as it’s proof an argument from authority based on a argumentum ad ignorantiam. IE he doesn’t show how the shifting mass of the plate in the earthquake can’t affect the angular momentum of the earth. on the other hand the people at NASA show how the mass moving downward would redistribute deformable matter and change the angular momentum of the earth. thus his claim can be dismissed and so can yours that nasa isn’t a reliable source of data.

  57. David in Kingsbury Says:

    Forgive my late arrival but data only arrives in its own time.

    Going through this claim I can now say:

    1) Hottest year is by a fraction of a degree by their figures
    2) Hottest since when exactly? And if so then are direct measurements comparable with earlier proxy ones?
    3) It now turns out the work put into gathering this data was based on selecting specific surface temperatures, ones which the NOAA already accepted were 90% inaccurate in the US alone due to urban heat islands.
    4) If you look at satellite data there is still no increase since 1998.

    So why was this particular figure picked up and run with by the media while it had so many anomalies in its creation? Could it possibly be they wanted data which supported an existing preference?

    http://bit.ly/9hxj7a

  58. Tony Says:

    “I’d like to see people who don’t believe in global warming argue this…”

    NASA Administrator Charles Bolden is a well-known climate truther. Which side of this issue do you expect him to publish on?

    Anyone who uses twitter to issue a challenge against another person’s opinion is not only chicken s, but also a total d bag. That’s you, Ashton.

Leave a Reply

DO YOU LIKE BEING SUSTAINABLE?
Advertise Here