<< CHANCE TAKEN ~ MAIN ~ NO BEER FOR MOHAMMED DAWOOD >>
HEAT DOWN
Less heat is evidence of a continuing hotness trend:
2006 is set to be the sixth warmest year on record, continuing the trend of global warming and extreme weather conditions worldwide, the UN’s weather agency said.
As Andrew Bolt observes: “Only the sixth?”
Scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned six years ago that a significant part of global warming was caused by human activity.
Apparently we’re not doing such great job of this. Crank it up, people!
Y’all please notice the subtle propaganda approach and learn from it.
2005: “The global mean surface temperature in 2005 was 0.47°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C)”
2006: “The global mean surface temperature increased by 0.42 degrees Celsius above the 1961 to 1990 mean of 14 degrees which is used as a reference, the World Meteorological Organisation announced.”
No mention at all, for example, that the global mean surface temperature decreased by 0.05 degrees Celsius below the 2005 mean of 14.47 degrees.
Posted by ElectronPower on 2006 12 14 at 07:12 PM • permalinkWell, right now it’s cold and damp and raining and I have a cold coming on. I could use a bit of warming.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 12 14 at 07:18 PM • permalinkUmm, can someone shed some light of the reason behind the use of 1961-1990 reference period?
As I recall, the period to 1975 (approx) was cooling, with warnings for the next ice age abundant in the eco-nutter crowd.
OK, so 2006 may be the 6th warmest year on record, but over what period of time does the record consist?
And of course, does this “record” account for the urban heat island effect?
So many data points, so much useless information.
(That I am the third oldest, or the third tallest, in my family informs you of rather little useful information.)
(gawd, I always fill like I’ll taking marching orders from Oberfuehrer Blair).
Ok. Beginning tomorrow morning, I’ll warm up my Hummer 90 minutes before I leave. I’ll leave the windows partly down.
I want it balmy!
Posted by wronwright on 2006 12 14 at 07:43 PM • permalink#2 Ian
Tim, can I commend to you this article on climate change from the UK Daily Telegraph?
I presume you mean the article which I found at the foot of the front page of the UK Telegraph. The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom
Now, are you suggesting that this article be taken seriously? Because if you are, then look again at the graph in article showing Mean central England temperatures between April and October. That graph attributed to the Met Office / UEA supposedly shows the 20 warmest years, and dare I add ‘on record’. But the years on the graph are interesting and reading from left to right, warmest to coolest, the years read 2006, 1959, 1995, 1949, 1947, 1826, 1976, 1779, 2005, 2003, 1781, 1933, 1727, 1865, 1798, 1999, 1831, 1945, 1893, and 2004. Leaving aside for the moment all the questions that come to mind about how and what temperatures were actually measured and recorded, what can be made of this selective data. Are we supposed to believe from the chart that temperatures are rising and we are doomed? If so please enlighten me, because I see nothing other than a series of random events.
So how about a few questions about the data?
• What happened in 1945, 1947, and 1949 immediately after WW2 and a time when I’d guess industrial activity (that great emitter of shock horror greenhouse gases) was quite low?
• And what happened between 1779 and 1781 and perhaps the period 1826 - 1831?
• What data was measured and how?
• What methods have been used to ensure accuracy and consistency in recorded data, especially from the 18th century?
• Where were the measurements taken and is there consistency across the data set?
• What about an overall picture of central England temperatures across the entire time period, say for the last 300 years, and what does it show? [Is there actually one available or is it a construct of the University of East Anglia?]
• What would a similar graph showing coolest years for the same period show?I could go on, but actually don’t bother to answer because this graph makes no sense at all in supporting any case that temperatures are rising. The graph and the article prove nothing, then nothing from the GW doomsday crowd ever does.
Oh good grief, why can’t people decide upon what temperature they want?
My part to help (hinder) global warmering was to be 10% lazier. Now I have to be 20% more energetic! Whew. I’d better go to the gym and burn some O2.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 14 at 08:36 PM • permalink#2 “El Nino is likely to push the mercury up next year so it will rival 1998, the hottest year ever recorded.”
Yet the graph doesn’t show 1998 and the hottest six months shown is 2006, “the hottest year”.
Methinks these [people are scarywarmongering.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 14 at 08:38 PM • permalinkwe’re not doing such great job of this. Crank it up, people!
I’m trying, I really am. I always use 98 octane. I always try to redline my Bavarian gaia-raper atleast twice a day. I’m trying to work out how to fit a turbo pump from a Saturn V rocket engine to my household water supply, because I want a flow rate through my shower that’s sufficient to fill an Olympic swimming pool in about 4 minutes. I drink, I smoke, I don’t brake for baby ducklings crossing the road.Seriously, the importance and purpose of this graph isn’t that it shows facts, but that it displays a graph which is continuously rising on the Y-axis.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 14 at 08:40 PM • permalinkYeah, but “Climate change means more sex for seals”. So I guess it ain’t all bad.
Posted by David Crawford on 2006 12 14 at 09:12 PM • permalinkHey, I’m doing all that I can do what with my nearly sixty year old Dodge 4x4 that I converted to run on pureed panda.
Somebody else needs to take up the slack.
Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2006 12 14 at 09:13 PM • permalinkWand—global warming is so pernicious it transcends time and space. ALL those years are part of the same global warming trend separated by irrelevant quantum irregularities.
Incidentally, through judicious use of the Tardis it is now possible to buy carbon-credit RICHARDS from the Borgia Vatican to backdate your green cred.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 12 14 at 09:29 PM • permalinkHell hath no fury like a warmener scorned.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 12 14 at 09:34 PM • permalinkIncidentally, through judicious use of the Tardis it is now possible to buy carbon-credit RICHARDS from the Borgia Vatican to backdate your green cred.
Interesting use of a Tardis. But wouldn’t it be better to buy the actual CARBON, perhaps as CO2, then take it back to the, oh, I dunno, Carboniferous Age, and release it? You’d be reducing the amount of CO2 present today AND replenishing the supply of fossil fuels.
And, hell, since the Tardis has an effectively unlimited power supply, it’d be like printing money.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 12 14 at 09:37 PM • permalink#19 - ;;;;”“”“::::’;’;; CONGRATULATIONS 1.618 ::’‘’‘’‘’
1000 inciteful and illuminating posts. May you Sparkle eternally.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 12 14 at 09:41 PM • permalinkWell, the “scientists” will just look for more scant evidence of man made global warming, no matter where they find it - under the rocks, in the skies, in the earth.
Never let science get in the way of being a “scientist”.
And whats this minor detail about “on record” ? Don’t they have accurate weather records going back millions of years ?
Oh ... thats right, we’ve only got accurate records for the last few decades !
Thats something these global warming fanatics continue to ignore.
If 2007 turned out to be the coldest year “on record”, then these “scientists” would actually point out that the records aren’t so important because they don’t stretch back that far. If 2007 was the hottest year on record, they would all start publishing more articles calling for immediate restrictions on industry.
Its the same ploy used by other scientists and one Australian perfessor ... you can always be right no matter what happens !
Quick O/T question for WimpyC and AndyC:
I was voting in the Blog awards (voted for Tim Blair many times, like a Democrat voting in Detroit during a presidential election!) and I noticed that there was a Best Canadian blog category. I didn’t recognize any of them, and didn’t have time to do any research, so, in the spirit of North American comradeliness, eh?, what are some good righty Canadian blogs? And no, I’m not planning on doing any Sgt. Paco of the Mounties stories, I just want to know what’s good to read.
Paco, Damien Penny is a friend of this blog and runs a nice little blog of his own. He’s on the blogroll here and at Instapundit. He probably trends a little more leftwards than this crowd, but for a Canucklehead, he’s OK. ;-)
Caution: heavy Canadian content. Do not drive or operate machinery while reading.
1. Theres’s Small Dead Animals by Kate McMillan, she has a photo of a dead gopher in her title block, which reflects her view socialists and other pests.
2. Dust My Broom is eclectic and idiosycretic, with posts such as:
The single most brutal thing that has ever happened in Canadian Political History is the smearing of Stephane Dion by evil, twisted, corrupt heteronormative white male meanies. These cruel people, responsible for all known crimes, be it sexism, racism, or tearing product labels from new upholstery, have the unmerited gall to criticise a superior Canadian as Stephane Dion. Why are they mocking the future Supreme Leader of Canada? Why? Because Stephane Dion is a France-French-Canadian, he is a person with dual nationality, he is a Half-Canadian.
3. And there is The Torch which is focused on the Canadian Military.
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 12 14 at 11:55 PM • permalinkSmall Dead Animals is the best (and conservative) choice at the Blogawards’ [sp?] Canadian section, paco. I also highly recommend that you visit the site for your own amusement and information. Relapsed Catholic, that you might know from Right Wing News, is another good choice for surfing along with the two that J.M. mentioned, although neither is up for a Bloggie.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 12 15 at 01:29 AM • permalink#30
#9, 10 - Quite alright; we all make mistakes.
That sounds a little patronising to me.
However, I stand by what I said about “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”.
As for your link to “UN downgrades man’s impact on the climate”, with you commending the article on ‘climate change’, this is just more blather from the same old enviro-religious IPCC crowd.
So supposedly, “Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year,”
and
“The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.”
Oh how nice, we are not as naughty today as previously! Fantastic! And yeah sure no doubt, all this is true especially if you subscribe to computer models that are incapable of ever modelling the climate on the planet. But never mind there’s still a sting in the tail as there “might be bit of a time-bomb as the oceans have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere”... “at some point between 2030 to 2050 the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted.“ Yeah, sure.
Sometimes I think these people learned their craft from Marty Feldman
Anyway, you commended the article, so perhaps you’d care to explain why?
Wand: I certainly didn’t mean to sound patronising. It just seemed like an honest mistake. However, I think you’ve compounded your initial mistake by assuming I’m an environmentalist.
I am a climate change skeptic - and I recommended the article because I thought it was an important acknowledgement about the science behind global warming.
According to the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit, if 2006 is going to be .42C above the agreed upon mean, then 1998 is the hottest, then 2003/2005 (tied), then 2002, then 2004, then 2001 (tied with 2006) and then 1997.
1997 0.41
1998 0.58
1999 0.34
2000 0.29
2001 0.42
2002 0.47
2003 0.48
2004 0.46
2005 0.482006 will be .16C lower than in 1998 and only .01C above 1997.
A rise of .01C every 9 or 10 years is pretty low considering we are at the peak of the various solar energy cycles.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.dat
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htmBest Al Gore comment here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=965#more-965
“Gore has gotten a little stout over the years and a little jowly, as though he was subconsciously morphing into a shape more suitable to lead a penguin army.”
Paco: Relapsed Catholic is also a good Canadian blog.
PS: Damian Penny now has other posters on his blog—I think some of them are the source of the occasional leftward trend. Kate at The Roadkill Diaries has other posters too, but I don’t think any of them are lefty-leaning.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 12 15 at 07:42 AM • permalinkSydney Catchment Authority spun dry?
Bulk Water Storage & Supply Report for
14 December 2006 looks bare and dry
While:watergraph2.doc gives “The page cannot be found”Posted by stackja1945 on 2006 12 15 at 08:15 AM • permalinkI think Angry in the Great White North is often worth a click.
Small Dead Animals would get my vote though.
A hilarious account of Al Gore’s speech to the American Geophysical Union here.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 12 15 at 10:58 AM • permalinkThe NY Sun today reports on a Bloomberg/LA Times poll (here). While I question the accuracy of its results, I was gratified to see that there was no mention whatsoever of gerbil worming.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 12 15 at 02:26 PM • permalinkGreat link #41.
I think this idea of Gore’s explains why he is so fast and loose with the facts in order to create scary scenarios:
“there [is] an asymmetry between cognitive and emotional systems.”
He is sure that we can’t understand, so he has to scare us. I think this also explains why he used to address the nation, in his campaign, and as VeeP, as if we were a collection of five-year-olds. He buys the whole European way of thinking that spawns jokes like: “What do you call an American who has a PHD in both mathematics and physics? A stupid American!” (South Park Reference)
Gore worships his betters in Europe, and they love him for it.
My favorite bit is still the lead: Al Gore was welcomed by a standing ovation from about 4,000 scientists from the AGU convention in the Salon 8 Ballroom at the Marriott San Francisco. Gore has gotten a little stout over the years and a little jowly, as though he was subconsciously morphing into a shape more suitable to lead a penguin army.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 12 15 at 02:41 PM • permalinkAnd to add to the merriment:
LIGHTS OUT!Next year, at a pre-ordained time, ALL of the lights in Sydney are going to be turned off for one hour. Not only will this stop global warming, but because it’s organised and planned ahead of time, It presents an excellent opportunity for any criminal planning a heist or a crime, to take that into account.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
The MSM in Australia are currently trying to spin John Howard’s shock-horror observation that this might not be the last drought/bushfire season we ever see in Australia, into a full-blown Damascus-road conversion to holy-rolling Gaia-worship. Fran Kelly’s attempts to paint him into this corner on Radio National this morning were met with a patient explanation from the PM that there have, y’know, been bushfire seasons of comparable magnitude in the past. If there really is a bottom to the abysmal barrel of climate-ignorance, this new assertion that bushfires are a direct function of climate, in the same way as weather phenomena such as cyclones, would have to be it.