Shock News! : Half Of The Years Since 1880 Have Been Above The Median Temperature

There were never any floods prior to the PDO shift in 1977!

A few small, eccentric enclaves of nonbelievers are still convinced that the Earth is flat and that man never landed on the moon and that Elvis never died. Facts after facts, however, are exposing the argument that global warming is a “hoax” as a dangerous ploy to protect industry from cleaning up its act.

Two indisputably credible scientific organizations—NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—delivered reports last week showing a continuing warming trend created in no small part by human-created gas emissions into the air.

One report has 2010 tying 2005 as the warmest on record.
Since scientists began record keeping in 1880, global temperatures have been above the 20th-century average for 34 consecutive years. For those whose homes and businesses have been wiped out by floods, this fact is not surprising. The year 2010 was the wettest on record in global averages.

The likes of U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, the scoffer-in-chief of climate change, continues his “hoax” propaganda, thus revealing a sick blindness to reality and ably serving industries that would rather let the planet be damaged than spend profits on remedies for gas emissions.

He and others in Congress who have sided with industry rather than the environment should hark to the warnings of Daniel Weiss, climate expert for the Center for American Progress: “To reject this latest evidence is like ignoring strange spots on a chest X-ray and continuing to smoke.”

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005134987

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Shock News! : Half Of The Years Since 1880 Have Been Above The Median Temperature

  1. Mike Davis says:

    Yes!
    The Chicken Little Brigade is getting more shrill in their Bleating.
    BAHHHH! BAHHH! BAAAHHHH!

    • drewski says:

      In Mike’s case, the spots have migrated from his chest to his brain.

      • Mike Davis says:

        At least I am not suffering from Cranialanalitis.
        But sadly the last MRI and series of CT scans showed normal brain composition and the Electroencephalography showed normal brain function.
        I have no excuse for my condition of being a realist!

  2. Morgan in Sweden says:

    Yes and all the heat is in the Arctic, where they have very few stations, but the 1200 km smoothing saves the day!

    Only one problem, DMI that uses every available source to measure the temperatur in the far north, does not report this heat. Personally I prefer the gang that uses real values compare to someone that makes an approximation.

  3. BioBob says:

    “To reject this latest evidence is like ignoring strange spots on a chest X-ray”

    Oh, those are just from the rock salt we used to shoo you away…..run along now….nothing to see here….

  4. Andy Weiss says:

    A repeat of the 1930’s droughts and resulting crop failures would be far more devastating than a little too much rain. Rain makes grain!

    • drewski says:

      “Rain makes grain” or as they say in Queensland: “floods make mud”.

      • BioBob says:

        nits make lice

      • Mike Davis says:

        Drewski:
        Flood Plains are all about being flooded and acquiring deposited silt in the form of mud and that makes it the best location for planting crops between the floods. In my neck of the woods we call it bottom land and no structures are built on the best producing land. Also the folks here about are not dumb enough to build in locations were they might get washed away. That is for the City Folks to do!

      • BioBob says:

        but in OZ the water always swirls in the other direction when flushed — so all you on the high ground are sposta be flooded …..

      • Mike Davis says:

        HAAA! HAAA!
        I am afraid to live in the Southern Hemisphere because I might fall off and water swirling backward would addle my brain.
        I do have a nephew that married a girl from Australia and they moved back to live near her parents.

      • Russ says:

        And words of drewski means pukeski, and the pope was polishski!

  5. drewski says:

    Mike, you constantly astound me with your logic. Floods also cause topsoil erosion and in the case of Queensland, so much of it is flowing out to sea that marine biologists are worried about the runoff damaging The Great Barrier Reef. Floods also ruin crops and livelihoods not to mention homes and infrastructure.

    • BioBob says:

      It’s pretty clear that these floods occur on a more of less regular basis and therefore are a natural process. Yes, moving water erodes topsoil. Yes, flooding generates bottom land with flood deposited rich soils.

      What’s your beef with that, drewski ? You want to cancel natural processes with some magic wand ?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Biobob:
        But of course he does!
        Bangladesh and most of the Australian region that is now experiencing flooding would not exist if not for floods and erosion depositing soil in the bottom lands.

  6. PhilJourdan says:

    The first question – apparently above the heads of the alarmists – is what is NORMAL. If the temperature was NORMAL for the last 130 years, then the alarm of the last 34 would be more merited, however, other than a discredited hockey stick, they have yet to show that the temperature was not being normal by getting warmer. In other words, it usually does get warmer when leaving an ice age.

    • drewski says:

      Discredited? By whom pray tell? Now don’t forget — references, studies and citations. (PS when you have finished I will provide other — later — studies done by other scientists using different methodologies that come to the same conclusion as the ‘ahem’ discredited hockey stick). Good hunting.

      In regards to floods: “I think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change. “The waters off Australia are the WARMEST EVER MEASURED and those waters provide moisture to the atmosphere for the Queensland and northern Australia monsoon.” said Matthew England of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

      I thought a La Nina meant COOLER ocean temps!! Whats up with that!

      Derek Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch in the National Climate Data Center, said 2010 was “an exclamation point on several decades of warming.” He said NOAA is tracking disasters like the floods in Brazil and Australia. “We are measuring certain types of extreme events that we would expect to see more often in a warming world, and these ARE INDEED INCREASING. The added moisture in the atmosphere also explains the phenomenon we’ve seen this week at home — where snow blanketed the ground in 49 of 50 states” Arndt said.

      I say again: References, citations, studies.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Drewski:
        Your entire post is PBS!
        There were only a few INDEPENDENT paleo reconstructions and they came to a different conclusion.
        A small region of ocen around Australia is a bit warmer while the remaining oceans of the globe are cooler. The rain is more related to the difference between warm moist and cool dry air. In a warming world the cool dry air would not exist and the rains would fall in the cooler mountain regions. A lot of deserts are located in Rain Shadows behind mountains where the turbulence in the atmosphere causes the moisture to precipitate out of the clouds. In the Pacific North West they receive most of their moisture in the colder months of the year. Here in the South East my ground does not dry out completely during the late Fall to late Spring months. I have Spring fed streams running on my property from late September until early June.
        There has been no statistically significant global warming warming since surface measurements started. There is anecdotal evidence of some regions experiencing some warming while others remained within a range of natural variability and some even display a cooling trend.
        The only long term climate evidence I have seen shows the Globe has been experiencing a cooling trend for at least the last five thousand years with short periods of warm trends sprinkled throughout. The Little Ice Age was a dramatic cooling from what was known as the Medieval Warm Period as is evident in the difference in global biological activity. It is just as likely the globe has and will not recover to the temperatures experienced around 1000 CE. That period was not as warm as the Roman Warm Period which was not as warm as the Minoan Warm period.
        NCDC is a government funded advocacy group that needs to justify their budget. They as well as the other agencies within the NOAA do that by promoting AGW. If it were not for the AGW scare they would not have a job. It is possible that 75% of those employed by NOAA are a result of and are researching AGW.
        If climate research was ended tomorrow how many people would be out of a job?

      • Gator says:

        Hey Cool Whip Cowboy! For a decade the alarmists have said that warming would cause drought conditions in Australia, and now it is the same alarmists blaming the flooding on AGW? My question is this, what kind of weather disproves AGW?

      • Russ says:

        Cool Whip Cowboy, HAHAHA, that always cracks me up! HAHAHA!

    • Gator says:

      Hey Phil! The word “Normal” is a great example of a classic leftist ploy, control the language, control the language. In climate and in weather there is no “normal”, there are only averages over time.

      Cherry pick you dates and you can make any claims you want, and call it “normal”.

      The alarmists remind me of King Arthur in the musical Camelot…

      It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
      The climate must be perfect all the year.

      A law was made a distant moon ago here:
      July and August cannot be too hot.
      And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
      In Camelot.
      The winter is forbidden till December
      And exits March the second on the dot.
      By order, summer lingers through September
      In Camelot.
      Camelot! Camelot!
      I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
      But in Camelot, Camelot
      That’s how conditions are.
      The rain may never fall till after sundown.
      By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
      In short, there’s simply not
      A more congenial spot
      For happily-ever-aftering than here
      In Camelot.

      Camelot! Camelot!
      I know it gives a person pause,
      But in Camelot, Camelot
      Those are the legal laws.
      The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
      By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
      In short, there’s simply not
      A more congenial spot
      For happily-ever-aftering than here
      In Camelot.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Gator – I agree with you. But with a religion, you can use their own words against them (although they do not realize what is happening). Drewski is cluelesski.

      • Gator says:

        Hey Phil! Your “reply” link was missing, so now I am talking to myself, please do not tell anyone.

        Drewski (or the “Cool Whip Cowboy”, as he is known at CCD) is a zealot. He will never admit that he may be wrong, but he does provide entertainment as well as a classic example of a blinder-wearing alarmism. He relies on discredited studies appeals to authority, yet does not recognize any studies or authorities that do not agree with his world view.

  7. drewski says:

    Gee Mike — you managed (yet again) to make another long winded post without a single reference, citation or study — simply ignorant opinions.

    SCEPTICS = So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles

    • It is really getting hot out there.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Drewski:
      Your references and citations are not worth the digital bits required to post them. Your garbage is only supported by WAGs used to promote funding for the research growth industry.
      95% or more of all the research since 1945 has been just for the purpose of doing research and has resulted in providing justification for additional research. My job it real life was to find solutions and fix problems and the only thing that mattered was results in real world conditions. You can continue to live in your fantasy world of simulated biospheres that have little to no correlation the the real world we live in. It is your loss!
      You seem to have forgotten the fist step in becoming a scientist is to be sceptical of those research results in a particular field. Science is not about supporting a belief but discovering cause and effect for real world conditions. Without doubts there is no need to do research to find new things.

      • drewski says:

        Hey Mike — AT LEAST I HAVE references and citations (and, of course, the knowledge that EVERY major scientific society and organization on the planet believes in AGW) — what do you have except an inflated opinion of your own opinions?

      • suyts says:

        “Hey Mike — AT LEAST I HAVE references and citations …..”

        Really? You’ve failed to provide them. In this entire discussion, you quoted one guy from a nationally funded advocacy group without offering any proof of the assertion. You haven’t offered any references, or citations. Simply someone’s errant opinion.

        Apparently, this is the latest ploy of the alarmists. Drew, the onus of proof in entirely on the alarmists. Personally, I think after 25 years of making entirely wrong predictions, that its ridiculous to even discuss the legitimacy of climatology. Its been wrong on every count. It really doesn’t have the credibility to warrant a discussion. Its just a fantasy created by a bunch of Malthusian socialists that someone mistook for science. And you offer a reoccurring event as proof of the warming assertion? lol, just last year the alarmists were saying the reoccurring droughts were proof. Just like the snow, or no snow, or warm or the cold. I can’t wait until the lack of hurricanes will be touted as proof of GW. All most forgot, you want references and citations………..

        Go here, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dK7A8keCu7M/TOAWJMuE-ZI/AAAAAAAAAC4/Wd4rL0diwJA/s320/Cute-PolarBear-Cub-SittingOnSnow.jpg

        Yep, they’re still thriving. Then go here,

        http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=410510755319&id=78407d9365648e4aaee4489c701a7d3b Yep, still above water.

        Now go here, http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=436487656177&id=e78db10a728a4f4357f8c39bb31e4e26

        Yep, still there. So is this….. http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=425597020546&id=fd02ec168fe4aaee355691b72ae255c2

        There, all the proof you need, to know that for 25 years people have been babbling bs.

      • drewski says:

        From Suyt: “Really? You’ve failed to provide them. In this entire discussion, you quoted one guy from a nationally funded advocacy group without offering any proof of the assertion.”

        (1) Matthew England of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

        (2) Derek Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch in the National Climate Data Center.

        That is 2 references Suyt. And that is 2 more than all the references from all the sCeptic bloggers combined. Kind of sums up the sCeptic argument, doesn’t it?

        BTW, which one is the “nationally funded advocacy group” — the U of NSW or the NCDC?

        PS Any proof about the advocacy thing? Just joking — I know you don’t have any.

      • drewski says:

        Oh, and Steve Goddard cited the NOAA and NASA in his opening remarks, but they really belong in my camp. So, lets see, divide by x subtract y then multiply by the inverse of the cosign and carry over pi and. . . . .

        The score is: Science person 4 Anti-science mob 0.

        Looks like the sCeptics have been bageled again!

      • Adam says:

        Hi Drewski

        Remember me from before.
        Now; its been two months and you still haven’t replied to my comment on CCD
        http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8116-joe-romm-a-doomsday-cult-leader#comment-13425

        hmm….
        I wonder why……?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Drewski:
        You seem to be ignorant of the situation. This post was poking fun at those organizations so they would need to be referred to.

      • suyts says:

        Ok, drew, 2 different people’s opinions with zero citations to back up the opinions. Opinions. Its amazing what you people accept as proof. What’s the matter with my citations? I kept it nice and simple. Even an alarmist could understand pictures. Note the difference, my pictures are a statement of fact. They are their own citations. You said that someone else said something. Proof that GW alarmism is drivel.

        So, let’s look at the score again.

        Psuedoscience still 0 for over 25 years of wrong.

        Real science, recovering….

        The worlds population, on the way to a victory over the totalitarian socialists that like to pretend they know anything about science.

      • Adam says:

        By the way Drewski, you left so suddenly from our little debate, that I din ‘t have time to give you more info about santer 2008

        Read this to show more about how that paper is flawed
        http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/16/santer-et-al-2008/

        Jo Nova has summed it up here
        http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/not-found-the-hot-spot/

        “Even if Santer is right and the hot spot IS hidden in the noise, the most generous interpretation is that greenhouse gases must have a pretty weak warming effect…”

        And perhaps you might also be interested in reading this; to see how much corruption, censorship and bending of the peer review process that Santer did to get his paper published
        http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

        Enjoy!

  8. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    January 21, 2011 at 2:41 am

    I wil not play your bait and switch game. Once you state the null hypothesis and the refutation of it, I will gladly cite reference book and source of my statements. However I see no purpose in wasting energy to a close minded person who knows nothing of what they are talking about – just because they are ignorant and deceitful.

    Your move.

  9. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    January 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Can’t spell either. What is the null hypothesis again? I did not catch it when you stated it. Or perhaps because you did not? You can’t make statements of refutation until you have a common ground to work with – and so far, you are not even on the same continent.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Phil:
      Drewski is living in a Sim World environment created by the Climatologists. For a better understanding you might consider reading Terry Brooks or Anne McCaffrey!
      It is the difference between the real world and some fantasy planet where different rules apply!
      Drewski:
      The so called scientific societies are there for the purpose of promoting the need for scientific research and for them the more the merrier. The greater the alarm the more researchers are needed to do research. It is time the Pathological Science Bubble burst and that relates to a lot more than Climatologists.

  10. Russ says:

    Cool Whip Cowboy rides again, Giddy Up!

  11. drewski says:

    Of course I remember you Adam — you are the guy that made me look at graph after graph after graph after graph showing rising temperatures while you were telling me over and over and over and over that the graphs temps were going down.

    You are a kook Adam.

    Maybe you should run for Chief sCeptic.

  12. drewski says:

    The anti-science mob is bringing out the heavy artillery now — un-referenced articles AND comments. You guys must mean business.

    I guess that its time to scurry off — how can studies, observations and evidence possibly compete with a totally fabricated article from the American Thinker? I must capitulate.

    Enjoy your victory — until next time.

    Ciao

    • Adam says:

      “un-referenced articles AND comments. You guys must mean business.

      I guess that its time to scurry off — how can studies, observations and evidence”

      Drewski, I gave you 800 peer reviewed papers and you completely dismissed it for stupid reasons. Just so you know, the list has gone up to 850
      http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      By the way, you still haven’t answered me about why you didn’t reply to my comment a couple of months ago.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Careful Adam: Drewski will get a restraining order against you for internet stalking and you will be required to maintain a four the=read distance form Drewski in the future. At least Drewski promised to take his virtual evidence and go back to the fantasy playground he normally plays in.
        GIGO RULES!

      • PhilJourdan says:

        My tenure with him is not as old as yours and you will note he did not answer the question when I reposed it here. But it has only been about a month since he ducked out of answering mine. Do not hold your breath, he never does. He is like a seagull manager.

  13. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    January 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Ok, here are a couple just for you –
    #1: Shivani Chopra – http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview
    #2: Rossetos Gournellis, et. al. – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gps.483/pdf

    Mine are more relevant – at least in your case. Now the answer to the pivotal question is – (your turn again, or are you still in the Unbeliever’s world?)

    • Gator says:

      Typical Cool Whip Cowboy dribble. Has nothing to do with the AGW debate. Probably just regurgitating what he heard from his shrink.

      Come on CCW, explain what weather disproves AGW. Prove that man made CO2 is altering the Earth’s climate. We have had this discussion many times before and you have yet to answer my question. Still waiting…

      • Gator says:

        And for good measure, we have a Pew Research poll from october 22, 2009.

        “According to a Pew Research Poll released today, the number of Americans believing there to be “solid evidence that the earth is warming” has dropped 14% since last year. And the biggest drop – 22% — was among those identifying themselves as independents. And while 57% are still buying into the continuing warming hype, the number attributing the warming to human activity has dropped from 47% to 36%. What’s more, the number seeing global warming as a “very serious” problem is down 9 points to 35%.”

        And the number of believers in AGW continues to drop, despite indoctrination in our schools and media. So according to CCW the majority of Americans are delusion, this is a typical leftist elitist belief. The same as espoused by Edward Bernays (the father of spin), Bill Maher, Ed Rendell and many others who simply stamp their feet when we refuse to toe the line.

      • Adam says:

        Gator, it seems that Drewski has chickened out of this debate, just like he did last time.

        He always goes on saying stuff like “oh, I’m so great”, “you’re all so stupid”, “I’m sooooo much smarter than you”

        But when he’s confronted with actual facts, he just “scurries off” with his tail between his legs.

      • Adam says:

        But I’ve got a feeling that me and Drewski will meet again some time in the near future.

        And then he’ll run away again.

  14. PhilJourdan says:

    Gator says:
    January 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    the number attributing the warming to human activity has dropped from 47% to 36%.

    That makes it a consensus, so I guess it must be true!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s