While every snow flurry or cool snap is often cited as evidence of the folly of “global warming” by critics, scientists at the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies have released data showing that 2010 now ranks as the hottest climate year on record.
The combined land-ocean temperature readings from NASA’s Goddard Institute indicate that 2010 has surpassed what it identified as the previous warmest climate year, 2005.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows that 1998 was the warmest year on record with 2005 close behind. The findings have been released after another failure to reach a significant reductions in emissions in the Cancun summit.
Nations again refused to make the cuts necessary to prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
This report comes with the disclosure that a top FOX executive ordered correspondents not to cite global warming statistics and to question the basis for climate change claims.
Source: Washington Post
Well Well Well look what NASA tells us today. 12-13-10
Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast
This is exactly what Skeptics have been screaming all along.
Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
Nal: that ws good and it had a penguin! he’s no Opus though
If over 95% of climate scientists beleive that climate change is occuring and we are the cause and ever peer reviewed study published in reputable science magazines also support this theory, that good enough for me.
Show me where 95% agree
peer reviewed study published in reputable science magazines
Go back over this post and tell me about peer reviewed studies from the IPCC.
Bdaman 1, December 14, 2010 at 11:37 am
and those were off the top of my head.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
Climate Change Comic
This is very well done.
Considering how the Japanese have backed out of the Kyoto Treaty, it seems to be appropriate that song sort of sounds like a Japanese person.
It was a great song, the little green guy got it right to.
NGO perspective. From Friends of the Earth:
“The latest WikiLeaks show how rich countries are using underhand tactics to arm-twist developing countries to accept an agreement [the Accord] which will do nothing to prevent dangerous climate change – and enable them to escape their responsibility to cut their emissions first and fastest and provide money to developing countries to do the same.”
Bolivia today accused the US of disrespect and resorting to blackmail in the UN climate negotiations after studying the WikiLeaks papers published by the Guardian.
Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the UN in New York, said: “WikiLeaks confirms the pressures and blackmail exerted by the US administration in the talks. They accuse us [in the cables] of being ‘political and ideological’. But all we want to do is to hold temperature rise to 1.5C. Is that political or ideological?
“What is of concern to us all of us is that this type of diplomacy is exercised in a multi-state [UN] process. One country, because of its economic power, is resorting to blackmail. This is not a negotiating process between countries who respect each other. It’s an imposition.”
The US decides what is in its interests, then sets its massed ranks of diplomats around the globe to work.
Demarchés, statements of what the US wants, are delivered in person and pledges of support gathered. Only the strongest resist: a major developing power like Brazil or a rich and secure nation like Norway might bridle, but I saw dozens of cables from tiny nations immediately acceding to US demands.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-climate-change-reaction
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord
– WikiLeaks cables: Cancún climate talks doomed to fail, says EU president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord
How has your country responded to being targeted by US spying at the UN?
Has the Maldives received or been promised bilateral aid related to climate change from the US in 2010?
Did the Dutch government ask nations in receipt of Dutch financial aid to support the Copenhagen accord?
Has Saudi Arabia received or been promised financial help from the US to assist with the kingdom’s economic diversification?
What action has Iran taken in response to the US blocking the appointment of Dr Mostafa Jafari to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-climate-cables-questions
mcoville,
Those who believe humans have had an impact on the climate have advocated for people to make changes that could help to slow down the process of global warming. Those who deny humans have had any negative impact on the climate claim no changes need to be made.
My husband likes to make a point to climate-change deniers. He says if those who advocate for change are wrong–no harm will have been done to the planet and its atmosphere if changes are made…and maybe there will be less air pollution. Then he asks what if the deniers are wrong and we don’t address the problem?
I believe it’s naive to think that global warming deniers aren’t using the subject for political reasons.
are all scientists that believe the science mistaken?
what of the ones who don’t or come up with different conclusions,are they mistaken.
“It is also naive to think that “global warming” science is not being used as a political weapon.”
as any observer of politics can attest, anything can be used as a political weapon
“It is also naive to think that “global warming” science is not being used as a political weapon.”
It is also naive to think that “global warming” science is not valid simply because it is being used as a political weapon.
Mike Appleton, you forgot the 5 option: People who think for themselves.
All though I agree with you that people do effect the environment, we are not the only (or even the chief) agent of change on the environment.
It is also naive to think that “global warming” science is not being used as a political weapon.
bdaman,
Tell us again how well that ‘Birther’ thing worked out for you.
____
Mike A.,
Great post as always. All work and no play makes you go missing from time to time. Good to have you back though. We miss all our “Mike’s” when they aren’t around.
Mike,
“Skepticism is an essential characteristic of the scientist and serious debate is always welcome.”
The difference between a skeptic and a denier is the skeptic can be convinced.
BDAMan,
I don’t know if you were around for Wayne’s first couple of incarnations. But the Prof. repeatedly asked him not to post a huge volume of posts at once.
I’d hope we all remember who’s living room this little shindig’s held in, and when the host asks you to take our shoes off… we do so.
Everyone else,
I have two things to say on the matter: one data point is not a trend.
And,
Luckily this isn’t the only data point.
My little anecdote, I’d bet my humble home in the shadow of the foothills has had less than 2 inches of snow so far this fall. That’s really low.
My wife’s mad because all her maternity cloths (hey did I mention that the little one fermenting in there is a girl?) include a lot of “cute sweaters” she doesn’t get to wear.
Mike A.,
That was very well said!