REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

U.S. Temp trend..1934 now hottest year, not 1998!!!!

POSTED BY: BARNSTORMER
UPDATED: Friday, August 10, 2007 05:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1343
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:11 AM

BARNSTORMER


Another blow to the Gorebal Warming crowd. Better start selling those Carbon Credits before Al Gore dumps his.


http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_ye
a.html








Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:36 AM

LEADB


Nit. The delta move is marginal; you need to look at trends, not single year peaks. 1998 is still # 2 and only by a slight amount.

But thanks for spreading FUD.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:44 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


You'r all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.
DOOOOOOOOOOMED I TELL YE.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 5:15 AM

BARNSTORMER


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Nit. The delta move is marginal; you need to look at trends, not single year peaks. 1998 is still # 2 and only by a slight amount.

But thanks for spreading FUD.






Ahhhh, but you miss the point, now don't you.

This just removes yet another brick from the Gorebal warming soothsayers wall. I can't remember how many times said soothsayers have pointed to 1998 being the hottest year. And the last decade showed a damning trend.

Now it's known that four of the top 10 years of US high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

Well, the trend is now made untrendy.......

Real science is winning out against the politically motivated trash.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 5:32 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999).


Dustbowl years in the '30s...makes sense.

Hmm...Alot of those years are marked by big Democratic blowharding. Perhaps Democrats cause global warming.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 5:50 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Nit. The delta move is marginal; you need to look at trends, not single year peaks. 1998 is still # 2 and only by a slight amount.

But thanks for spreading FUD.



Ahhhh, but you miss the point, now don't you.

This just removes yet another brick from the Gorebal warming soothsayers wall. I can't remember how many times said soothsayers have pointed to 1998 being the hottest year. And the last decade showed a damning trend.

Now it's known that four of the top 10 years of US high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

Well, the trend is now made untrendy.......

Real science is winning out against the politically motivated trash.

I don't care how many idiots pointed at 1998 as the hottest year and made a big deal about it, then as now, I make fun of them.

One point, 1930's already had an excess carbon load beyond what would be expected naturally; primarily from coal burning. You need to look at longer trends, and the problem with that is lack of solid data. Go look at the carbon loading indicated by ice cores.

So... real science time:
Look at the ice core carbon loading data.
Look at the best estimates of temperatures.
Look at longer trends, which take in account many factors; such as known long term cooling and heating from 'natural' causes.

Frankly, I'm moderately indifferent to global warming; I believe we need to cut our fossil fuel usage for these reasons:
1) Oil is good for a lot of stuff besides burning for vehicles, heat and electricity; lets save it for the other stuff.
2) Oil is currently plentiful only in places where the politics of our getting what we need is ... problematic.
3) Use of Fossil Fuels is driving up carbon loading well beyond anything we have ever seen in ice cores; it may well contribute to global warming. If so, we need to start curbing now to make an impact.

Problem is if you are 'wrong', and we wait another 30 years to get the science to the point to convince you of that, we are seriously in bad shape. If you are right, we still get the benefits of 1 & 2; well worth it in my book.

Anyway, I've never been a huge proponent of simply jumping off the cliff on this issue; however, I do believe that moving to renewable energy as quickly as possible for items 1 & 2 is a seriously good idea.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, May 17, 2024 04:11 - 3701 posts
Nancy Pelosi destroyed by Oxford student
Fri, May 17, 2024 04:07 - 3 posts
FLEE CALIFORNIA!
Thu, May 16, 2024 23:27 - 130 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Thu, May 16, 2024 21:29 - 510 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, May 16, 2024 21:08 - 2490 posts
Dow Nearing 30K. Time For You To Jump Off?
Thu, May 16, 2024 21:02 - 110 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Thu, May 16, 2024 20:59 - 7 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Thu, May 16, 2024 20:29 - 369 posts
China
Thu, May 16, 2024 14:21 - 459 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, May 16, 2024 08:12 - 151 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, May 16, 2024 08:00 - 36 posts
Mid-Term 2026 US Elections
Thu, May 16, 2024 07:56 - 20 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL