Even after correction, though, the decade is the warmest on record. A single year isn't reflective about a long term trend and you're concerned about an error in a single month. I have no idea what you're talking about -- the Earth doesn't "want" anything. Not at all when we're talking billions of tons of CO2 over many years, it's just science.
This isn't about individuals, it's about data. I won't defend Hansen because I know little about him -- although it's clear that you think that the preponderance of evidence can be attacked by attacking one guy. I'm not sure what planet you're on that the Republicans have trouble firing people. Is this the latest fake conspiracy that the Fox news people are on about now? Local officials said that the investigation was pointless, filed no charges and the IG continued the investigation. Later the IG, who had asked to retire just a few months previously admitted that he couldn't remember conversations from 25 days before. Why you guys get into these fake controversies always amazes me.
In the absence of any evidence to prove any one of their outlandish stupidities, they resort to ad hominems, more ad hominems, and, when they can't think of anymore, picking a single data point or a single error that changes nothing, or pointing out some random condition in some single place - a slight variation on the single data point thingie - that they think will distract from the overwhelming evidence that they're full of hot air. Hand waving, in short. Or "Look! Shiny! Over here!" Like everyone has IQs equal to their age.
Since you zeroed in on 2008, I decided to do a map of that year, for the two people who actually look at evidence before opening their pie-holes. (Which, by the way, tells you why 90% of traders fail. Sheesh.) Looks no different than any other year. Temp anomaly vs a base of 1951-1980: .53 +.53, by the way. I've done five years, the earliest 1995. None are lower than that base. Also, the map clearly shows that warming at the poles was more extreme than it was elsewhere. So much for that.
congratulations, as the uninformed go, you are the commander. People who have no grasp of something and try to douse sound science are not debating, they are ignorant. We will pull it down here again, since you seem incapable of using your back buttons. =============== Science News Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases ScienceDaily (May 17, 2008) â The newest analysis of trace gases trapped in Antarctic ice cores now provide a reasonable view of greenhouse gas concentrations as much as 800,000 years into the past, and are further confirming the link between greenhouse gas levels and global warming, scientists reported May 14 in the journal Nature. They also show that during that entire period of time (800,000 years), there have never been concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane as high as the current levels, said Edward Brook, an associate professor of geosciences at Oregon State University, and author of a Nature commentary on the new studies. "The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm," Brook said in the report. "The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand." The latest research, done by members of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica, extend the data on trace gases back another 150,000 years beyond any studies done prior to this, Brook said. Ultimately, researchers would like to achieve data going back as much as 1.5 million years. The tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in polar ice cores have been used to provide records of trace gases in the atmosphere at distant points in the past, and better understand the natural fluctuations that have occurred, largely as a result of cyclical changes in Earth's orbit around the sun. "These natural cycles that occur on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years can help us understand both the forces that have controlled and influenced Earth's climate in the past, and the implications of current changes on future climate" said Brook, who is co-chair of an international group that organizes global studies in this field. According to the data, the current levels of primary greenhouse gases -- those that are expected to cause global warming - are off the charts. The concentration of carbon dioxide is now a bit more than 380 parts per million, compared to a range of about 200-300 parts per million during the past 800,000 years. The current concentration of methane is 1,800 parts per billion, compared to a range of about 400-700 parts per billion during that time. In every case during that extended period, warm periods coincide with high levels of greenhouse gases. Of some interest, the latest studies are showing that the temperature increases have been even more pronounced during the most recent 450,000 years, compared to several hundred thousand years prior to that. "It appears there may even be very long term natural cycles that have operated on much longer periods of 400,000 years or more," Brook said. "We still have quite a bit to learn about these past cycles and all the forces that control them." Most of the time during the past 800,000 years, the Earth has experienced long, cooler periods about 80,000 to 90,000 years long, which eventually lead to ice ages. Those have been regularly interrupted by "interglacial" periods about 10,000 to 20,000 years long that are considerably warmer -- this is the stage the Earth is in right now. Abrupt climate changes on much shorter time scales are also possible, researchers believe, possibly due to shifts in ocean circulation patterns or other forces. Extremely low CO2 content "The temperature curve over the past 800,000 years matches the CO2 curve beautifully -- during glacial periods in which the climate is cold, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere," says Professor Thomas Blunier from the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. He explains that when it is cold there is less plant growth, and so there are fewer plants to absorb the CO2 from the air, while more CO2 is absorbed in the oceans, so the final calculation is a low CO2 content in the atmosphere during glacial periods. This produces a lower greenhouse effect, and leads to an even colder climate. However, the new results show that during the glacial period that occurred between 650,000 and 750,000 years ago, the CO2 level was extremely low -- lower than any previous measurements have indicated. It happened twice in this period, while the temperature was not lower than during other glacial periods. Drop in sensitive greenhouse gases Methane, CH4, is a another important greenhouse gas and a sensitive indicator of climate changes and temperature fluctuations. Methane is formed by microorganisms and escapes from natural gas reservoirs. The biggest discharge from nature comes from bacteria in marsh areas which contribute 70 per cent of the air's methane content, while the remainder comes mostly from wild animals. Analyses of the ice cores from Antarctica show that the curve for methane matches the temperature curve -- when the climate is cold, there is less methane in the atmosphere. The measurements indicate a strong relationship between the atmospheric methane content in relation to the Earth's path around the Sun as well as the inclination and direction of the Earth's axis. They find evidence for an increasing strength of the monsoon circulation in the tropics over the past 400,000 years. Scientists are continuing to search for the optimal sites in Antarctica that will allow them to take the ice core records back even further, Brook said.
Read this only if you are bored.... Back in college several years ago I took Geo-science. I would say I was the "smartest" person in the room (it was a class of like 12 students and probably 10 were freshman) considering I was the most involved in the discussions and we generally knew each other's grades. Well I received a C+ in that class... and I think it was due to the fact I frequently argued (politely) with the professor about global warming. I claimed it was more of a political issue and that the earth goes through different cycles (won't bore you with the examples). He argued there was unprecedented growth of CO2 gas. Since I was a political science major, my final paper focused on global warming. I though it was a strong paper and yet I received a bad grade. I can't believe I finished with a C+ in that class. I don't think the scientific community has much patience for critics of global warming. I didn't like that hippie professor anyway.
There are two possibilities: one is that you weren't able to present an argument sufficient to overturn top world-class scientists along with their established temperature and atmospheric measurements, or the other is that you were able to present an argument which was sufficient to overturn top world-class scientists along with their established temperature and atmospheric measurements, but the prof didn't like you. Tough call... tough call...
It was a intro-class for freshman/sophmores.... I was a senior in there because I needed a science class to fulfill all my requirements for a B.A. You don't need to disprove scientists to get a good grade in a intro course. I had plenty of evidence. The professor was just a stubborn a$$hole though
Come on dave, give us a break. Don't repeat misstatements after they have been shown to be false. As I posted above: According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed. Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980. And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere. NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions. "Much of the current global warming fear has been driven by Hansen's pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent -- I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship," said Burnett.
I understand that the current talking points are to slander IG Walpin, a respected former prosecutor. It will be interesting to see if that tactic will fly. Certainly it is right out of the chicago mob playbook, but standards used to be slightly higher on the national scene. Now, who knows, considering the way the major networks vie for obama's aproval. I certainly don't see any of them championing an honest IG over a pack of sleazy crooks and thugs. I set out the facts in another thread on this outrage. Obviously your talking points are invented pretexts, all the more despicable as they seek to slime a respected public servant. The facts are this IG nailed a major obama friend and supporter for massive misuse of federal funds, plus he uncovered enormous waste in Americoprs biggest program. Neither achievement endeared him to Americorps board or obama.