NOAA: last decade was warmest, global warming "undeniable"

[Zer]

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ate-accord

[Me$$iah]

In light of the title of this thread, then THIS ARTICLE is very interesting.


Oh and as for the medieval warm period, Im sure even the most ardent global warming fans would agree with one of thier 'founders'- So also from this article:-

"Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now. "

I guess the last decade wasnt the warmest.

[garyb]

finally, the truth.

and after the midieval warm period was the little ice age and then the current period. so much panic, so little reason...climate is a bitch, but it's never stable with or without human involvement. and, as Me$$iah posted, the last decade was not even the warmest, and that is undeniable.

[wayne]

There we are, settled.

Meanwhile, doing some lovely musical cultural work over here at the moment, it's a wonderful time.

Let's get back to what we do best

[garyb]

Ultimate truths all around ?!

I think I read a different article than you did on the same page.
But since this has been the nature of these threads all the time why should the interpretation game change with this or another article interpreting science statistics this or the other way.

As long as it is driven by political and commercial interests on all sides (see before) I will stick to tangible facts of my life and reasonable thinking and acting.

CO2, Methan, micro particles and other climate balance impacting matter are also released by human civilisation at any point in time altering the natural budget.
As said before, any scientist is aware that not knowing beyond the accuracy of error calculation is not proving the contrary nor the pro.

Not knowing what the key climate balancing mechanisms are and how they work together in a non linear system does not mean that going on like before is right.

As said before, time will tell and I am sure all will get impacted by a climate change - whether ice age or warming....whether already measurable now or not.... whether man made or not....whether positively impacted and impactable by man or not. lets wait.

actually, the main engine is known to be water vapor, but that's just one of those details like the midieval warm period or the little ice age that is lost in poli speak. there are no "balancing" factors really, not in the sense of "stable" climate and actually, the mechanisms of climate change are fairly well known at least on the macro scale. the rest of this fear mongering is strictly political and unscientific. there's no "interpreting" a statement that says that the last decade was the hottest, and then an admission that the midieval warm period was likely hotter. there's no interpreting needed in the statement that we're experiencing a unusual warming period and then an admission that there's no actual statisical proof of that.

and no one says that it's good to just be wasteful pigs because it doesn't matter anyway, because this "warming" bugaboo turns out to be phony.

sorry wayne. blah, blah, blah is also something i'm good at....

[garyb]

why do you talk nonsense?

what does the midieval population, living standard, carbon use or political situation have to do with the fact that the weather was warmer than the present? what do these things have to do with the little ice age that followed, ending in the mid 1800's? what does any of that nonsense have to do with the fact that the main "greenhouse gas"(more than 75% of all greenhouse gasses) is water vapor?

back on topic, the title of this thread is "NOAA: last decade was warmest, global warming "undeniable"", a sentence which is shown to be quitre deniable by conditions only about 1000 years ago. this is admitted by the very "experts" who have claimed disaster, only to have the actual numbers refute their assertions that "everybody" believes these days. THIS ARTICLE that was posted earlier shows that principle off very nicely. there's no need to complicate matters with any of your gobbletly-goop.

[garyb]

hahaha!
you still haven't explained how global warming happened in the middle ages......

[Zer]

[garyb]

hanging around the equator, where it's WARM and pleasant, to have talks about what to do whith the rest of us...

[braincell]

Fox News on climate: skip the science, report the "controversy"

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... oversy.ars

[dawman]

Fox News on climate: skip the science, report the "controversy"

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... oversy.ars

[garyb]

the planet has certainly warmed. it has warmed and cooled many times, and will likely continue to do so.

[dante]

This thread seems stuck in a loop and has been fir some months. Some one says 'x is proof' then someone else refutes it.

I would be more interested in hearing what the skeptics would consider to be 'evidence of human / global warming causality'. If it was ever presented. What Would it take to be 'undeniable' ? Or would there never, ever be any credible evidence because humans causing global warming could never be possible ?

[valis]

This thread has had the same loop going that we had in the other thread that was about this very topic before this one was started... But there are occasional posts of 'new information' that isn't really 'new' in the sense of not mentioned in this thread, but is new in the sense that it shows a progression in this discussion in our culture via the 'outside sources' that are linked...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

[garyb]

personally, i haven't seen any undeniable evidence that humans are responsible for abnormal warming, or that the obvious warming is abnormal. i have seen a lot of projections about what could happen if a trend continued long enough, but then i haven't seen the dire predictions come true, either.

i have no doubt that humans can be responsible for catastrophic weather changes, espcially from high energy antenna arrays that can heat the stratosphere and do things like move the jet stream. the UN even signed an agreement about how to use such technology, so i wouldn't call anything impossible, but i'm not going to stir up hysteria over that either.

in any case, i see no reason for the poor, like myself, to reign in my uses of energy because of these possibilities. if they are that real, let the true elite and wealthy, the top of society that has more than enough of everything cut back. they'll still be quite comfortable and they'll save much more energy that way. remember, Al Gore, the man telling us that polar bears don't enjoy swimming hundreds of miles and that they were in danger when their numbers were exploding in the wild, the man telling us to all cut back, has an admitted year's electric bill on just ONE HOUSE of his many, of more than $30, 000.

•Al Gore's total electric consumption in 2006: 191,000 kilowatt hours (source: AP).
•Average annual electric consumption per U.S. household (in 2001, which includes heavy users like Al): 10,656 kilowatt hours (source: EIA).

i'm tired of these chicken littles and their minions.

and no one STILL has explained to me the answer to my very REASONABLE question about the VERY HOT midieval warm period or the VERY COLD little ice age that followed, that can have NOTHING to do with petroleum use or human co2, or why we should be surprised that it's hot again.

[dante]

Because I dont think it can be answered. Humanity needs to clean up its act without predicating action on outcomes of climate change debates.

[garyb]

blah, blah, blah

look, there are some very serious things being done in the name of something that can't even be expalined properly. that is simply wrong.

as to cleaner living, that's well within humanity's grasp. the question is, will the powers that be allow that for us all without requiring our lives as sacrifice? the owners of the money system like the present way of doing things. if they did things for people's benefit, it wouldn't be like this and we wouldn't be dabating such obvious falsehoods as 'NOAA: last decade was warmest, global warming "undeniable"'. that is patently and undeniably false. the only reason for such falsehood from "official" sources is to mislead. bad leaders, very bad. the only reason is greed and corruption and greed and corruption are NOT wanting light to see and a warm room when it's cold. greed and corruption is not the desire to move about freely. greed and corruption is everything about wanting to micromanage people's lives, and taxes that won't even help a problem that may not even be a problem.

does it really matter exactly which reason that the earth is warming or cooling if it's something that happens anyway? is there really anything to do but move if the water rises or if it become too hot or too cold just like human beings have always had too? or should we actually have the hubris to take absolute charge of the climate and make it truly stable, even though that might be much more dangerous and disastrous in the long run? will we really trust liars to make these desicions?

wow, some people really think a lot of themselves considering their actual place in the universe. they think everything should always bow to their whim, all of creation. sometimes though, it just won't go the way you want it to... whatever, this is just some internet message board, it's not any personal big deal, just some people like myself going blah, blah, blah. there's often nothing better for people to do...

[garyb]

while i want to attack the arrogance and conceit of that last reply, i'll simply point out that rather than reply to my points and questions, you have decided to simply attack my character.

again, IF THESE ARE NORMAL PHENOMENA WHICH HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION, EVEN IF HUMAN ACTIVITY MODULATES THE PHENOMENA TO SOME DEGREE, THEN WHY IS THERE ANYTHING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT? you might as well say, "let's tax everyone to stop global ground shifting. if earthquakes continue like this we'll have to leave LA and Tokyo someday.".

i haven't seen any compelling data showing that there's anything to be done. the last small ice age with began somewhere are 1200 AD and ended in the mid 1800's was NOT modulated by human CO2, that much is clear. it's also "undeniable" that the middle ages were MUCH warmer than the present over most of the world.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE SHOULD POLLUTE AND BE A PIG, AT ALL, but in my wildest fantasies, i'd never be as big of a pig as say, Al Gore. HE needs to cut back first. and as to the leaders, the "evil elite", THEY capitalize all major undertakings such as lobbying for raods fit for automobiles and building cities that require autos and advertising the hell out of cars to get people to buy them. we've been told how great cars are, and had our lives built for them. i'm not willing to give up my freedom of movement, when i know that it can be reasonably clean, if the powers that be fond it worth their while. THEY provide and I buy. i'm not capable of beinga producer in that scenario. DON'T BLAME ME FOR BEING BORN!


while you continue to degrade me personally, i won't lose focus, i'll keep the debate on point and on the subject, until my questions are answered, the thread is locked down, i stop frequenting this site, or you get tired of posting garbage about me in order to shift the debate away from things you don't want to address and think should be stifled. i don't care if milque-toasts find that scary or distressing, as i said, it's only an internet diversion....

[Cochise]

The most of your arguments are more than valid, garyb. Even I don't share tone and lot of arguments of these stardust's posts.
I wasn't been following this thread though and I couldn't say how the tone degenerated.

Essentially however, I'm not such in favour of conservative ideas or kind of passiveness; even though I agree often there's very few that can be done at a personal level, I think the most people sharing a certain kind of ideas, the most this increase the power of those ideas...
But now I'm speaking mostly political and few global warming.

...is there really anything to do but move if the water rises...

What about to only allow pale-dwelling building in places where's flood risk?
Here the gov mostly uses to patch things up, paying after disasters happen.
Looks like they're too busy in things like keeping power and privileges, instead of supervise thorough plannings...

[netguyjoel]

why are you guys still discussing the weather on an audio forum?