NOAA (VIA DRUDGE):
The September 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 0.7 degrees F (0.4 degrees C) below the 20th century average of 65.4 degrees F (18.6 degrees C).Er, um... not just cooler than last year, BUT COOLER THAN THE AVERAGE TEMPEATURE FOR THE LAST CENTURY! Well, er, um... if man-made "greenhouse" gases caused global-warming, then this would be IMPOSSIBLE - because man-made gases are steadily increasing but OBVIOUSLY global temeraptures ARE NOT. Case closed.
7 comments:
"Well, er, um... if man-made "greenhouse" gases caused global-warming, then this would be IMPOSSIBLE - because man-made gases are steadily increasing but OBVIOUSLY global temeraptures ARE NOT."
This assumes that the greenhouse effect is the only thing that influences climate, something that absolutely no one claims is true. Obviously, there is more to climate than the greenhouse effect. If there is something like a solar minimum happening at the same time, then we might actually get cooler temperatures than years when it was at a maximum. Of course, your report is also just the continental US, so that means even less. Let’s see how the actual global average for the year of 2006 ends up.
Here’s a previous take on a similar claim (see point #5).
i guess the continental USA is not part of the GLOBE, huh!?
and i guess if yopu belive in something so strongly it doesn't matter if there are constant reminders - FACTS - which are DIPSOSITIVE.
i guess you guys have got yourselves an UNFALSIFIABLE creed here - IOW: something which is NOT RATIONAL because it is beyong proof and UNTESTABLE.
the sad bad evil part is that it is realy all just a PRETEXT for you Lefties to RAISE TAXES and ATTCK capitalism and indistrialism - the two engines which are MOST RESPONSIBLE for having lifted humanity out of poverty and degadation and short miserable lives.
you are dupes. wake up.
"guess the continental USA is not part of the GLOBE, huh!?"
It is very approximately 1/100th of the total surface area of the earth. Why rely on 1/100th when data for the whole is available, unless, of course, you're trying to mislead?
guess you guys have got yourselves an UNFALSIFIABLE creed here - IOW: something which is NOT RATIONAL because it is beyong proof and UNTESTABLE.
An interesting challenge. Let's see which one of us this applies to. I will certainly switch my position on global warming in any of the following cases:
1) Any two of the major scientific organizations that have accepted the theory publically change their opinions.
2) The average global temperature for a complete solar cycle (11 years) falls below the current MAXIMUM for a single year.
3) Any single global average yearly temperature falls below the average for the last century (1900-2000).
What would you accept as proof that the theory of global warming is correct?
if the globe is indeed warming because of atmospheric changes, shouldnt that include the USA?
not if you believe in an unfasifiable creed, guess.
thousands of scientists - including the Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT say that man-made global warming is BUNK. but joe yangtree knows mnorwe than him. heh.
the geolgical record is FILLED with previous instancse of natural warming eras. prove that this is not one.
btw, joe: you bore me....
Lindzen? Funny, I just posted another comment on him.
"Thousands of scientists?" At last count, I think that they were hard pressed to find 60. Note that this list includes economists, not usually noted for their climate knowledge. Please refer to this post to see the number of entire scientific organizations I have on my side. I'm in pretty good company.
"the geolgical record is FILLED with previous instancse of natural warming eras. prove that this is not one." Is this your answer to my question as what you would accept as proof that the theory of global warming is correct? I just want clarification before continuing.
Does "bore" mean "continually whip you in these discussions?" I guess it must.
"if the globe is indeed warming because of atmospheric changes, shouldnt that include the USA?
As I've noted about 20 times, your view of this is insanely simplistic. Global warming does not predict a unified warming trend that never, ever retreats, even in a single area, regardless of the other factors in play. Absolutely no one in science believes that. Anthropogenic global warming is a factor in determininig local and global climate, not the only factor. What is it about this that you can't seem to grasp? If yearly global trends start turning around, that's evidence that the theory is not correct. Single, monthly, regional data points aren't.
jojo: FIRST:
Visit Length 52 minutes 58 seconds
Page Views 31
thnaks for boosting my averages!
SECOND: al gore and inconvenient truth say the ice sheets are melting and it will raise sea level 30 meters. which is total BS.
as it the rest of "man made" global warming HYSTERIA.
if you want insane simplism look no further than al gore and the "eco-nutsies"!
global warming is natural. the geologival and ice core record proves this. the historical record does too.
before man made greenhouses gases oit got war,menr and thern cooler and then warmer.
neither you nor anyone else has ever predented any evidence that the current trend is different.
and you have never offered/countered with anything which MIGHT disorive the man-made co2/greenhouse hyposthesis.
it is UNFALSIFIABLE in your book.
and therefore it is NOT rational.
gnite
Post a Comment