Climate Change: 2009 Second Warmest Year on Record

NASA do you account Russian & Chinese data to your climate model?

The warmest since 1880. Wow! Yesterday was the coldest day this week.
In relation to the age of the planet, one record is about as relevant as the other.

It always amazes me that so many (who think that climate change is some giant hoax) fail to grasp the difference between weather and climate. Just because you had to wear your coat yesterday (due to the weather) doesn’t mean our CLIMATE is not warming. The evidence that it is, is overwhelming & undeniable in many parts of the world.

Zeke wrote: “If the United States only covers 1.5 percent of the world area…why do we get so much of the blame for “global warming”?
==================================
Because we use 25% of the world’s fossil fuels.
If only 1.5% of the people in a small room ate beans, they’d still get “so much of the blame” for the air quality in the room compared to those who didn’t.
We’re eating the beans.

Sanctis, There are some very credible studies that show without a doubt that C02 has no affect on climate what so ever. Research it before you spew party propaganda.

You have to love these conspiracy theorists. They provide no end of senseless entertainment. A few e-mails are found and taken out of context, and that translates into a story where every one of the tens of thousands of scientists researching this issue are organizing a hoax to change the world’s energy supply in order to make money. They’ve convinced politicians worldwide and most of the public. It’s an amazing conspiracy where nobody is in charge and nobody is spilling the beans. Watch much science fiction?

Nice try but global temperatures have been dropping over the past dozen years. Ice sheets are expanding, not shrinking. Oh, and the polar bears are thriving. Remember Climate-gate and how the global warming community falsified data to advance their own agenda (and keep the grant money coming in). Nope, I’m not buying this global warmiing snake oil.

Stunned American…you mean the Richard Lindzen of MIT who charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services? Sure, his science is untainted…you make me laugh.

Barbara, It’s time for you to get back to class, recess is over.

It is always interesting to listen to the morons who dismiss global warming as a giant science hoax or conspiracy.
What is motive of the science community? To make all of us look like fools? Yeah, right.
It is funny how folks dismiss scientific research when it is inconvenient for them but when it works for them “science is great!”. I don’t see the blogs clogged with rants from people who are complaining about the millions of lives that have been saved by eradicating a disease, hurricane warnings or advancements in nutrition—all due to scientic research.
Hey, I have a great idea. For all of you global warming research doubters, the next time the scientific comminity warns you to take action because a disaster is on the way– be it a tornado, hurricane, tidal wave, mass flood, epidemic, etc., just stay where you are and do the rest of a the world a favor.
I am sure those warnings are just a hoax, anyway. Right? :-)

be 1964, What I find even more disturbing than those dismissing global warming are those (you) who dismiss counter theory based on fact. Fear me if you will, but I am right.

Barbara…when you wrote, “Stunned American…you mean the Richard Lindzen of MIT who charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services? Sure, his science is untainted…you make me laugh.”, did you mean to leave off the rest of the quote from Lindzen’s biography from your cut and paste from Wikipedia? You “accidentally” left off the part that was exculpatory, and that’s so typical. Here’s the rest of the paragraph about his ‘conflict of interest’: (cut and pasted in its entire form) “According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine, Lindzen “… charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[32] was underwritten by OPEC.”[33][34] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from “fossil-fuel types” in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[35] Juliet Eilperin is of the opinion that “While Lindzen did accept the expenses, this doesn’t mean he’s on anybody’s payroll. He charges for his speeches, but so do prominent scientists who disagree with him about climate change.”[26] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a “slander” and as “libelous.”[36][37]
Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.[34]”
Now, don’t you think that puts a different light on your claim?
And do you think the PROPONENTS of Global Warming have their hands clean from conflicts of interest, since it is in their direct financial interest (as well as Al Gore’s) to have money poured into all of the alternative energy industries?? Just a thought

be 1964, I look at every topic (of interest to me) with an open mind. When I see blatant discrepancies in data, I look into the cause. In the case of climate change, I wonder why all angles are not being covered. There is data, clearly showing that Co2 is not the cause of climate change. Is the climate changing, yes. Are we causing it? Is it a natural phenomenon? Question all the answers.

Actually, it is a very reasonable assumption that CO2 does NOT cause global warming, rather that global warming causes CO2 levels to increase. IF you would look at Al Gore’s famous graphs in which he showed the relationships between the historical levels of CO2 and global temperatures, you will see his biggest Inconvenient gaff: The graphs clearly show that C02 levels LAGGED the increasing temperatures. In other words, the atmosphere and oceans warmed up first, then the CO2 levels started increasing. And that makes common sense. MOST of the CO2 in the world is trapped in the oceans. As a liquid’s temperature is increased, it can hold less gas (think of your soda..as it warms up, it releases the CO2, and becomes flat). If the sun or other natural phenomena causes the earth to warm up, it only stands to reason that shortly thereafter the CO2 levels will increase. Cause and effect. And for the sake of the billions of dollars at stake, the “climatologists” conveniently swap the effect for the cause and rely on us to accept their conclusions without question. And with that acceptance, so goes our tax dollars to fund them even more.

That’s exactly right, and that is why i was really taken aback by the post that be1964 posted at 12:27: “It is always interesting to listen to the morons who dismiss global warming as a giant science hoax or conspiracy.
What is motive of the science community? To make all of us look like fools? Yeah, right.” Especially the part that says, “what is the motive of the science comunity? To make us all look like fools?…” The motive is to rake in literally billions of dollars in grants and in ‘green’ industries. The greater the fear instilled, the more desparate and willing we are to give away our money to someone to FIX IT.

The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area … so this guy is saying it was warmer in Canada that winter? C’mon, it was cold in Canada too. That’s still only going to be, what, 5% but lets get the facts straight here. This is why people aren’t believing these guys, they’re either missing things or slanting the data.

Am I the only one who notices that almost all the above zero readings on that chart happend after we started removing (in the late 70′s and 80′s)sulfer from coal and gas emissions to stop acid rain?

…and an hour passes in silence. Gosh, it sure got quiet in here when the conspiracy theorists stopped calling me names and came to the realization that the only study they had to support their “truth” was one written by a scientist in the oil and coal industries’ pocket. Hmmmm…make you think, doesn’t it?
Posted by: Barbara | Jan 22, 2010 1:21:18 PM
Their just “flat earthers” Ancestors of those who continued to deny the earth was round not flat.

warmest where? Below? In our state it was a second recorded coolist. And besides this has been proven to be a farse. This is natural weather making natural weather. There are alot of people going to be millionaires to go green including the biggest liar of them all Al Gore.

150 years on the x-axis and 1.0 degrees Celsius on the Y-axis makes it look like a dramatic increase, but we’re talking only 1 degree over the course of 150 years — and we know that prior to 1880 there were several ice ages followed by periods of warming, so how is this snippet of time statistically relevant? Also interesting to note that in the 1970′s scientists were predicting global cooling, when the data between 1960 and 1980 seems to be relatively flat. I agree that money is the motivating factor here and the U.S. should not be footing the bill for an unproven “theory” which is as likely to be driven by natural fluctuations as it is man-made. Plus, we’ve already made great strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while China is building new coal-powered factories every day.

be1964…when did i make the claim that there is no incentive for the oil and coal lobby to try to create a denial of anything? I never made that statement, and i certainly do not believe it. So why would you post such an assumption? How can you possibly go from my statement that the “pro warming faction” does indeed have a monetary interest in their claims (which is my position) and change that to me saying the anti-warming factions have no such incentives? How did you make that leap? It doesn’t even make sense. If I made the statement that So-and-so A likes strawberry ice-cream, that is exactly what I mean. Please don’t try to change my words around to claim that I said that So-and-so B hates strawberry ice cream. You are just being dishonest

Interesting how the graph has 150 years on the x-axis and 1.0 degrees Celcius on the y-axis. Sure looks like a dramatic increase in temperature, but it’s only 1 degree over the course of 150 years. How is this statistically significant, when we know that prior to 1880 when records began being taken (the method, consistency and accuracy of which has changed during that time), we know from geological records that the earth has had several ice ages, followed by warm, thawing periods, which had absolutely no impact from mankind or industrialization? In relation to the estimated age of the earth (5 billion years), 150 years represents 0.000003 percent, so a rise of 1 degree over 150 years cannot be used to say anything of statistical significance, much less prove that mankind is in any way (much less solely) responsible. Let’s not forget that many of these scientists were predicting global cooling during the 1970′s based on this same data.

Interesting how the graph has 150 years on the x-axis and 1.0 degrees Celcius on the y-axis. Sure looks like a dramatic increase in temperature, but it’s only 1 degree over the course of 150 years. How is this statistically significant, when we know that prior to 1880 when records began being taken (the method, consistency and accuracy of which has changed during that time), we know from geological records that the earth has had several ice ages, followed by warm, thawing periods, which had absolutely no impact from mankind or industrialization? In relation to the estimated age of the earth (5 billion years), 150 years represents 0.000003 percent, so a rise of 1 degree over 150 years cannot be used to say anything of statistical significance, much less prove that mankind is in any way (much less solely) responsible. Let’s not forget that many of these scientists were predicting global cooling during the 1970′s based on this same data.

I blame Lady GaGa for global warming. She’s so hot.

PS. Barbara, I’ve collected a great number of significant studies disinfesting the current global cookbook of data. There are probably 30-40 of them. But of course you will counter by calling them all flat-earthers too. Typical of a closed minded person to label with an overused insult.

If they used the same “averaging” math as the folks over at labor do to calculate the unemployed, then there is a good reason to question the result.

Wow, ncpilot09 I must have really hit a nerve! :-) Clearly you are not able to digest my point. In response to my post you replied “The motive is to rake in literally billions of dollars in grants and in ‘green’ industries. The greater the fear instilled, the more desparate and willing we are to give away our money to someone to FIX IT.” So it appears from this that you are stating that the only reason that climate researchers are presenting what they are presenting is so “green idustries”, and themselves, can get rich from all the fear they are creating. And no, you never mentioned the coal and oil lobbies before in your posts. Why not? And I certainly never claimed that you thought that medical research was bogus, however, I was simply making a comparison (that cleary went WAY over your head) that both are scientific studies that come up with conclusions that when presented will hopefully lead others to come up with ways to fix what is wrong. And yes,shockingly, people WILL make money from it! That’s capitalism right? I mean how much fear was ther this time last year (and still some today)about the H1N1 virus. Thankfully, the scientific community was able through research to identify the virus, track its movement, come up with and convince people and governments to implement a plan to, so far, keep it from becoming a horrible mass killer. To the conspiracy theorists H1N1 was merely a means for the scientific community to mold the evidence they found and make money for the drug industries and themselves. See the parallel? By the way, keep your car…I walk to work.

Stunned American | Jan 22, 2010 11:45:18 AM and on: As there were dozens of “scientific” studies denying that cigarette smoking was linked to lung cancer… I could also say that lung cancer happens to people that do not smoke and are not exposed to cigarette smoke. Does it make smoking harmless? To those who say the majority of global warming is from natural causes I ask: If NATURAL summer heat warms your house to 85°F, do you keep heating it or do you turn the AC on, or at least turn the furnace off?

be1964, i know this will probably hurt your feelings, but i really and truly doubt that you can come up with anything that goes over my head. You seem to have trouble with non-sequitor reasoning (and i do realize that that is indeed an oxymoron, but it fits you so well). Your argument with me reminds me of Don Quixote and his windmills. You are fighting dragons that exist only in your mind. You allude to a statement that you WISH i made, then you refute it and that, i suppose, makes you feel superior? The reason that I didn’t talk about the oil companies bending data for their benefit? Simple: That wasn’t the subject we were discussing. We were discussing whether or not barbara was being totally honest when she posted a cut and paste statement about a particular scientist. She conveniently failed to include the part of that article that more or less proved that the scientist was not in the pocket of oil companies. And now, you attack my not getting a H1N1 flu shot as more proof that I think there is a conspiracy? Nothing could be further from the truth. I am 59 years old. My generation was around for the ‘original’ swine flu, and as such, I probably have a natural immunity to H1N1. The H1N1 vaccine was scarce. I forego the vaccine so that someone much younger (an more vulnerable to the virus) could have the vaccine. No conspiracy there…just common sense. And what in the world does my car have to do with anything i’ve posted? I offered to by YOU a car, not give you mine. But you had to show where I made any of the claims that you accused me of. Can you not stay on point? Please accept my sincerest apologies…i just realized that you are probably ADHD (assuming you are an adult). Gosh, i really am sorry..

Posted by: Phil | Jan 22, 2010 1:15:28 PM: Sorry to inform you from Canada: It has been an unusually warm winter both on the west and east coasts of Canada. The “cold” you refer to while there was that arctic air plunge in the southern US resulted in average winter temperatures in the Canadian prairies; YES 0 to-10°F even -20°F is NOT unusual in December or January in the prairies. The winter Olympics may feature “water-skiing” since it’s been 40-50°F in Whistler-Blackcomb for most of the last 3 weeks and any snow they had has all but melted. Here in Quebec (Eastern Canada) we have been 5-15°F over average for a solid 3 weeks, people here are worried for the ski industry in lower elevations. This being said, it’s all WEATHER, not CLIMATE, and I would not use these facts to prove or disprove global warming, since they are a minute part of all weather observations around the world. Take a few steps back from the US TREE, you might see the GLOBAL FOREST behind it…

Posted by: prm | Jan 22, 2010 1:36:40 PM: US had made great strides in reducing its CO2 emissions? Greenhouse gas emissions rose by 17% from 1990-2007 (Source EPA)China’s emissions rose significantly more but they are still half than those of the US per capita. I’m sure the 2008-2009 numbers will be lower: Recessions have a tendency to do that. I’m from Canada and we’re doing worse than the US in the western provinces due to tar(oil)sands exploitation, but much better in Quebec where I live, where 95% of our electricity is Hydro and wind sourced, and we tend to drive smaller cars and use mass transit a little more. So, I’m not US bashing here, just pointing out the need for “absolute emissions targets” as opposed to “intensity emissions targets” that only give the impression that there is a reduction while, in reality, the numbers are rising – more slowly – but still rising.

When the coasts are flooded and millions are displaced, when the earthquake in Haiti looks like an ant hill blown away in the breeze by comparison, we will know who to blame: the deniers of incredibly robust science, the drivers of Hummers, the burners of coal. Hopefully by then, we’ll all have some kind of united human spirit to salvage what’s left of our civilization. But we’ll all know. And you guys will feel like pretty big fools.

This graph was built using cherry-picked and inaccurate data. It has not been peer-reviewed.

This claim by James Hansen’s GISS is yet another flat out lie.
I recall when they called October 2008 the warmest October on record, a claim which was so quickly and thoroughly debunked that Hansen was forced to retract it. Hansen used September data in October.
Hansen and his cronies are government funded frauds.

Barbara and enenjay, Did you ever have a professor that you completely disagreed with. That you knew was wrong? Did you still write the thesis paper embracing his/her incorrectness? I’d guess you did. Why? You did not want to fail the class.

Stop your nonsense Enenjay!
We all know that Haiti’s earthquake wasn’t caused by global warming. It was caused by that super-secret earthquake-initiator the Bush administration developed.
Thankfully, we have Hugo Chavez to keep us informed.

Wow, “C02 has no affect on climate what so ever”. Imagine an earth without any greenhouse gases- the average surface temp would be around 0 Fahrenheit. Is this really what this poster believes?

You have the side of the argument that says Global Climate change is a hoax. I ask them how we can pull millions of barrels of Carbon out of the ground and spew it into the atmosphere with no effect? Is your faith in the oil companies overwhelming you last remaining logical brain cell?

DewyB, Have you ever considered all the natural CO2 generators? Plants love it. There is bad science behind the popular theory of CO2. Look beyond what is thrown in your face. Google up equatorial and ocean buoy data. Get the whole picture before you decide to do battle.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid

To put it simply, I don’t believe NASA’s climate claims. BTW, there’s an article out from the UN climate dollar shake down agency to say that apparently there are more unfortunate mistakes in their research analysis. What a waste and a shame that so many good people’s emotions have been manipulated by carbon market con men.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is warmed by the sun. And you can take that to the bank.

the article best describes the future effect of temperature on earth. if this temperature continues then the end of world begins

Can I get a bunch of grant money too if I cherry pick, er, I mean “normalize” the data and make dire dredictions?
FOLLOW THE MONEY.

2009 was the coolest year I can remember in my not inconsiderable lifetime. In the Midwest, we called it “the year without a summer.” In another week or so, some idiot will proclaim January 2010 as the third warmest on record, or some such nonsense, even though we;ve been freezing our keisters off. The only way these “global warming” nuts will be silenced is when they’re cruched beneath the glaciers of the next Ice Age.

So in other words, 2009 was cooler than 2005. Since 2005 we’re seeing global cooling. Thank you.

Stunned American….the problem with trusting in science is that those of us who don’t specialize in one specific science depend on the published folks to be reliable and trustworthy and actually use the scientific method…including data selection and retention. Now we find out that over the past 10 years, temperature were collected at more urban locations than in the previous 10 years. This means that if you move the temp measurement from Moose Lodge, Alaska to down-town Hong Kong, you are going to get warmer readings. But even with that, if you use those readings and then “lose them” on direction of your leader, where’s the science in that? No one questions the earth’s cycle of warming and cooling. What we question is the accuracy of the data and whether the variance is man-caused and can be man-corrected. 8 billion years of history (for you evolutionists) and 6006 for creationists indicate that the earth is going to do what the earth does and us little critters running around simply have to adapt.

OK!!! Enough free rides for scientist of global warming. The only reason this non-sense continues is because they dont want to really have to work and use their tax payer funded education. This new study just released is showing that the people of the US are realizing that this was a total hoax and want the funding to stop. How about focusing and shift the funding to something of real worth like a cure for cancer of all types. “Are you kidding that would mean we would actually have to work and show our efforts” Whaaaa There picking on us they want us to work. Whhhaaa

Ignore it all and worry not for scientists have only studied the issue for several decades, so how could they possibly know anything worth listening to about future devastation due to climate change? Of course everyone else knows better. And if it does happen, well, we could make a pitiful apology like…OOPS? sorry ’bout that, we didnt know. Can we do a do-over?

At this point I have stopped caring, I have done what I can. I grow some of my own food, have an electric car for short hops and try to recycle and use less of anything.
Yes, the climate is shifting, it is barely March and we are wearing Hawaiian shirts in Charlotte. It seems to be getting a little earlier year by year.