Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows

[livefree]

More evidence that the Earth is warming and not cooling as the pathetic dogmas of the anti-science denier cult maintain. 2009 was the second hottest year since at least 1880 and this last decade was the warmest on record.

Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows

By JOHN M. BRODER
The New York Times
January 22, 2010

WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.

The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.

James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. “When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability,” said Dr. Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, “we find global warming is continuing unabated.”

A separate preliminary analysis from the National Climatic Data Center, a unit of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and at sea. The data center report, published earlier this week, also cited the years 2000 to 2009 as the warmest decade ever measured. The new temperature figures provide evidence in the scientific discussion of global warming but are not likely to be the last word on whether the planet’s temperature is on a consistent upward path.

Dr. Hansen, who has been an outspoken figure in the climate debate for years, has often been attacked by skeptics of global warming for what they charge is selective use of temperature data. The question of whether the planet is heating and how quickly was at the heart of the so-called “climategate” controversy that arose last fall when hundreds of e-mail messages from the climate study unit at the University of East Anglia in England were released without authorization.

Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations.

The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.

“That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. “The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”

Policy makers at the United Nations climate change summit conference in Copenhagen last month agreed on a goal of trying to keep the rise in average global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, to try to forestall the worst effects of global warming.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

[Nono]

Thanks for the scientific fact, free. But don't worry, no amount of cold fact will convince the Deniers because -- let's face it -- they refuse to be convinced.

It's an entirely emotional, irrational thing.

[RickSp]

The problem here is summarized in the first two words of the post - "more evidence."

The deniers are not interested in evidence. Just like creationists, birthers, 9/11 truthers or any of other crackpots out there, they know their conclusion and will twist the facts to suit. They don't need "more evidence."

[Derach]

I agree with the science! ...

Now please show me where they claim a 66 percent tax on my heating oil is going to cool the planet over the next 10 ( or 100?) years.

Show me the global amount of CO2 emission the planet can sustain ... then show me a realistic political plan to attain that goal.

hint hint

further redistribution of wealth from individuals, corporations, or even nations will not work.

[Questatement]

Better yet, show me where man even needs to intervene in the first place when CO2 is a naturally occurring compound and, depending on one's origins-related philosophy, has always (widely) fluctuated throughout history and yet... we're still here.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Derach I agree with the science! ... Now please show me where they claim a 66 percent tax on my heating oil is going to cool the planet over the next 10 ( or 100?) years. Show me the global amount of CO2 emission the planet can sustain ... then show me a realistic political plan to attain that goal. hint hint further redistribution of wealth from individuals, corporations, or even nations will not work.

OK, you agree with the science. At least that is some progress.

But who exactly is going to put a 66 percent tax on your heating oil?

I guess moving from hysterical denial to hysterical economic scare-mongering is some improvement, though not much.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Questatement Better yet, show me where man even needs to intervene in the first place when CO2 is a naturally occurring compound and, depending on one's origins-related philosophy, has always (widely) fluctuated throughout history and yet... we're still here.

Unbelievable.

Twenty years of intense research and debate, and Que wants us to start at square one. What next? The biggest greenhouse gas is actually water vapor? Volcanoes produce lots of CO2? The Sun heats the earth?

It's 2010, Que. If you haven't educated yourself beyond the 1990 point you seem to be stuck in, how are we supposed to provide you with a comprehensive tutorial to the basics of AGW.

Yes, CO2 has always fluctuated throughout history... DUH. But it hasn't fluctuated like THIS!

Quote by: Derach hint hint further redistribution of wealth from individuals, corporations, or even nations will not work.

Well then, hint hint, let's see some solutions that will.

Oh darn, that's right... the 'other side' is still busy denying the science. Guess it's up to you Derach.


.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Sonart . Unbelievable. Twenty years of intense research and debate, and Que wants us to start at square one. What next? The biggest greenhouse gas is actually water vapor? Volcanoes produce lots of CO2? The Sun heats the earth?

As a matter of fact, volcanoes do produce CO2 (as well as meteors) and a large -scale, global catastrophe of either/both type(s) (which I believe you believe wiped out the dinosaurs?) would produce great amounts of CO2. Hmmm, seems (according to you?) that mammals then thrived right after the K-T boundary incident, eh? Ever wonder how the earth managed to correct those high CO2 levels?

BTW - where did you get that hideous chart from?

[Nono]

Quote by: Q Ever wonder how the earth managed to correct those high CO2 levels?

Ever ask yourself how long it took?

[Questatement]

Yes but since I don't buy the uniformitarian perspective, I believe it took only several years (at the most) for oceanic algae to adsorb, then sink/dispose of the high levels of CO2 following the flood of Noah (creationist's K-T boundary).

[Nono]

Could that be how Jesus managed to walk on water?

[Questatement]

Get real will ya?

Related thread

[RickSp]

Quote by: Questatement Get real will ya? Related thread

LOL. You first.

[Questatement]

If you're not going to refute the science behind my links, what's the point of posting a opinionated comment on a debate site?

Maybe there is an opinion site out there... waiting with open arms for you?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Questatement As a matter of fact, volcanoes do produce CO2

My gawd, he actually went and did it... {{SIGH}}

Yes, Que, surprise, surprise, volcanoes produce some CO2, although mostly particulate Sulfur dioxide and ash. And they've been doing so on a regular basis since the world began, so their contribution is well factored into the global equilibrium.

Now as it turns out, volcanoes spew forth about 150 million tons of C02 a year. Human beings, on the other hand, create about 25 BILLION tons of CO2 a year... ON TOP OF what nature produces naturally.

Quote by: Questatement global catastrophe of either/both type(s) (which I believe you believe wiped out the dinosaurs?) would produce great amounts of CO2.

We have no idea how much we may end up releasing, given the variety of known and unknown feed back loops we'll be tipping over like so many dominoes as the temperature continues to rise.

Quote by: Questatement Ever wonder how the earth managed to correct those high CO2 levels?

Definitely without the aid of 7 billion technologically advanced human beings pumping 25 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

See...in the 3 billion years of life on earth, that's the one variable that's never ever occurred before.

Quote by: Questatement where did you get that hideous chart from?

It is hideous in it's implications, isn't it, but it was certainly clear. I can show you others if you'd prefer.









You can check these against actually figures, if you like.

Quote by: Questatement Ever ask yourself how long it took?

Thudda-bump!

You can't even see the rise in CO2 on some charts because in the geological scheme of things, the dramatic rise in the last 150 years is such a geological blink of an eye that it doesn't even register on a 400,000 year chart. 150 years is less than the thickness of a line stroke.

Quote by: Questatement If you're not going to refute the science behind my links, what's the point of posting a opinionated comment on a debate site?

So exactly what is it you're arguing here, Que??? That there is no global warming and this is just a natural cycle?

Or that we can mass produce algae to absorb all the CO2 we create... sorta... maybe.

Seeding the oceans with iron? Study Challenges Idea of Seeding Oceans With Iron to Curb Global Warming - National Geographic

"Then there is always bio-engineering although I am hesitant with this concept in general." We're going to bio-engineer our way out of the problem? Apparently you are right to be hesitant...

Climate Change Affects Harmful Algal Blooms - "Toxic blooms (HABs) occur when algal species produce neurotoxins, usually when stressed or dying. Unwitting fishermen get splashed and break out in searing welts, blistering, peeling lips, and burning, swelling eyes. Some people have problems breathing.

Mounting evidence, including recent work in the North Sea, links climate change to HABs. In studies off the coast of Netherlands, Louis Peperzak concluded that dinoflagellate and raphidophyte blooms will increase due to increased temperatures and salinity stratification resulting from climate change."

Global Warming to Create "Permanent" Ocean Dead Zones? - National Geographic - Fish and other marine life could be left gasping for breath in oxygen-poor oceans for thousands of years to come if global warming continues unchecked, scientists warn in a new study.



.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Questatement If you're not going to refute the science behind my links, what's the point of posting a opinionated comment on a debate site? Maybe there is an opinion site out there... waiting with open arms for you?

You have been ignoring the salient science including the topic at hand. You post links to another thread where you link to posts about algae! As Sonart demonstrates, you offer no science to refute.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Sonart Definitely without the aid of 7 billion technologically advanced human beings pumping 25 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

But the earth did manage to remove some huge levels of CO2 all by itself and without man needing to intervene, according to your beliefs?

Quote by: Sonart It is hideous in it's implications, isn't it, but it was certainly clear. I can show you others if you'd prefer.

So the ancient data you accept for CO2 levels is based on the Dobson Unit?

A measurement of various forms of solar UV radiation, some of which is absorbed by earth's surface due to ozone depletion and others deflected when the ozone is stronger... which is then factored into the uniformitarian philosophy to arrive at dates for CO2 levels.

I only see two problems with this. Your charts are going on the assumption that CO2 depletes ozone concentrations. If this is not the case, or (God forbid) CO2 has the opposite effect, these chart could even need to be turned upside down, no?

The impact of increasing carbon dioxide on ozone recovery

Annual mean column ozone is predicted to recover faster at all latitudes, and globally averaged ozone is predicted to recover approximately 10 years faster as a result of increasing CO2.

Wow, just when you thought you had this thing all sewed up neatly.

As far as uniformitarian assumptions *burps* maybe ten more beers plus a few shots of tequilla and it will start to sound plausable.

Quote by: Sonart So exactly what is it you're arguing here, Que??? That there is no global warming and this is just a natural cycle?

The planet warms and cools and just like most changes, it was designed to handle them.

Quote by: Sonart Or that we can mass produce algae to absorb all the CO2 we create... sorta... maybe.

Or just let it do the job it was intended to do, and is currently doing, with minor assistance from us.

Quote by: Sonart Seeding the oceans with iron? Study Challenges Idea of Seeding Oceans With Iron to Curb Global Warming - National Geographic

That article and associated research is a full 7-8 years behind current research. Do try and keep up will you?

Quote by: Sonart Global Warming to Create "Permanent" Ocean Dead Zones? - National Geographic - Fish and other marine life could be left gasping for breath in oxygen-poor oceans for thousands of years to come if global warming continues unchecked, scientists warn in a new study..

Whatever you say, Chicken Gore LIttle.

[Questatement]

Quote by: RickSp You have been ignoring the salient science including the topic at hand. You post links to another thread where you link to posts about algae! As Sonart demonstrates, you offer no science to refute.

It's probably good you stay on the sidelines anyway and cheer for your team... you might hurt yourself if you came out on the field.

[RickSp]

I wonder at times why Sonart bothers presenting evidence for those who are either willfully impervious to evidence or lack the the wit to understand and it, or both.

Quest, your denials are sufficiently idiotic to argue eloquently against your own case. What I do find especially funny is that you even include your braindead young earth creationism in the mix. No wonder you can't understand Sonart's charts. The numbers on the x-axis are too big for you. Amusing.

[Questatement]

Rick, don't leave your pom-pom's unattended, I understand the kids like to steal them when your back is turned.