Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Global Warming – Exposing the Lies

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I did a little googling looking for the raw data from satellite temperature measurements and came upon this wonderful, objective web page at NASA with charts all updated in real time as new measurements arrive. I could start quoting all the frank admissions of broken atmospheric models, declining atmospheric temperatures that NASA documents but you never hear about in the mainstream media, and all sorts of fascinating stuff that just plain debunks the global warming bunkum. But I’d rather you all read for yourselves and have fun in the comments sifting through this treasure trove of objectivity about our global climate.

Atmospheric Temperature Data At NASA

Comments
RE #8 dodgingcars: I, too, am interested in seeing this blog remain about ID. When this blog discusses science related to ID, it really shines. That's the only reason I read the blog, is to find the ID treasures (and sometimes for the cheap laughs.)Atom
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Mike Dunford Guess what. The history of the earth's climate is one of change. Tell my friends in upstate New York it's too cold to snow. I'd do it from beyond arm's reach if I were you. Can you think at all before you comment here or does your knee jerk hopelessly faster than your brain can engage?DaveScot
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
It's worth noting that the increase in ice and snow over Antarctica is evidence for climate change, not evidence against it. That's fairly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of physics or meteorology. Warmer air picks up more moisture than cold air - that's one of the reasons that the old cliche "too cold to snow" contains a fairly large grain of truth. As the waters around Antartica warm, and as the warmer waters warm the lower atmosphere, the humidity will increase and you get more snow.Mike Dunford
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Maybe someone hears knows whether this is true or not. But supposely some organization measured the CO2 content of the air entering the US on the West Coast and found out it was higher than the CO2 content of the air leaving the East Coast. Or in other words, the US was not contributing to worldwide CO2 increases. I haven't found the source for this but it would be interesting if true.jerry
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: "1998 was a strong El-Nino year." Then, apparently, if we figure out what caused El Nino, then we'll have a grip on global-warming. What do you think caused El Nino?PaV
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
While I'm interested in the topic of Global Warming, I really rather this blog be only about ID. But it's not my blog.dodgingcars
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
We seem to forget, though, that there are TWO debates concerning global warming. The first is whether global warming is occurring at all. Some say yes, some no. The second, and far more important, is this: assuming global warming DOES occur, is it anthroprogenic? However, there is an ideology at work here that says that human beings are AT WAR WITH NATURE rather than simply a part of it. Thus the assumption that 1)greenhouse gasses are causing ambient temperatures to rise, and 2) human beings are to blame for it, which is why everyone should sign onto the Kyoto Treaty or else WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! If the UD blog is anything, it is a forum for those who wish to look at the underlying ideology of any given movement in science (which allows us to determine whether it is data driving the science or science driving the data) and to give those of us who do not simply parrot the mainstream viewpoint an opportunity to proffer a more level-headed explanation of what's going on in the world.TerryL
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
What about the unexpected discovery last year that the plant life of the world is pumping methane into our atmosphere? I have to agree with Mr. Scot in saying "what global warming?" I don't know what the state is currently but it seems like the climate models were such a collection of variables with uncertainties and error margins that the output was meaningless. One real trend in the climate is the downward amount of 'global warming we're going to be destroyed by. Remember when it was going to be 10 or 15 degrees by the turn of the century?butifnot
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Dave I wonder why you raise global warming issues on this blog when there are many other blogs specifically for this purpose - used by people on both sides who know a lot about the subject? e.g. Real Climate and Climate Audit. The global warming models predict stratospheric cooling. (http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/6-8-2-2.html) 1998 was a strong El-Nino year. Joseph there is masses of data on CO2. The Wikipedia pages on CO2 is quit a good place to start. It links to Muana Loa observatory which is a well-known measurement source. CheersMark Frank
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
DaveScot, Great job digging this up. That said I can't help but think that all we are pouring into the atmosphere is having some negative effects. And perhaps that is the key- "they" play on our pre-existing concepts. Is there any data anywhere that shows the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?Joseph
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
baxpin I'm afraid that doesn't justify blaming manmade CO2. Humans have been pumping C02 into the atmosphere for a lot longer than the last 10 years. Plus the stratosphere has been cooling big time since 1997 and the southern hemisphere isn't warming at all (check the interactive charts). The ice pack in Antarctica has been growing since 1998. Furthermore, the global warming brouhaha was in full swing in 1997 with Kyoto even though the data didn't support the alarm at all back then. It was politicized then and it remains politicized today. One might also wonder WTF happened in 1998. Did everyone leave their SUVs running constantly that year? Obviously not. You need to explain that and it can't be explained by C02 emissions. What the data shows is there's no correlation at all between manmade CO2, global warming, and global cooling. That's pure unadulterated BS. These itsy bitsy temperature swings which go in both directions and vary by latitude, longitude, and elevation are due to something else entirely, something that has nothing to do with human activity. DaveScot
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
I have now looked at more from this "treasure trove". It seems like most (all?) texts was written in 1997. Newer data (which is shown in the graphics) contradict the texts.baxpin
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
If you look at this page, the author claims that there is "[...] no definitive warming trend [...]". This was perhaps true when the article was written, in 1997. But the text and the graphic do not tell the same story... I think it is time for Dr. Roy Spencer to update his article.baxpin
February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply