Warmest temps on record.Did 'global warming' do this?

Question

These are the record high temp. years.

1. 2005

2. 1998

3. 2002

4. 2003

5. 2007

6. 2006

7. 2004

8.2001

9. 1997

10. 1999

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-01-15-global-temperatures_N.htm?csp=34

Answer 1

i now that it has been warm but today is cold. i wish i had a little warmth right now. burrrrrrrrr.

Answer 2

Probably not.  It is, at least in part, a result of microsite issues at the weather stations.  These issues cause a warm bias in the temperature record.  

Do you really think it was warmer in the 1990s than it was in the dust bowl years of the 1930s?  I don't think so.  Drought conditions in the US in the 1990s were no where near as bad as the 1930s.

To learn more about the warm bias in the temperature record, go to:

http:surfacestations.org

Answer 3

usatoday has a serious credibilty problem. the answer is no,

Answer 4

Global warming is a myth. Mother nature has spoken.

Answer 5

Of course it did.  To believe Tomcat right you have to believe that most of the the entire scientific community and EVERY major scientific organization is stupid.

And ignore the scientific data contained here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

CLARA NETT - The court case you cite did find 4 things to be scientifically proven.  If you like the case than do you agree to those?  They are:

Global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, and capable of being solved by us.

The "spin" on this on right wing blogs has been shameless.  The judge found nine details (not eleven) to be unproven, and specifically said he was not saying they were wrong.

The plaintiff against the movie LOST.  Read the full decision instead of the right wing nonsense.  I'll quote one thing they always leave out.

"It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that AIT was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

Answer 6

yes they say its part of global warming. and i believe it. we're letting it come slowly but we'll never see how bad it gets in a 100 years it should be very warm in parts where we think its coola nd vise versa. well anyhow that is how it works and we have known this but i do think its been doing this time of the earth it will go back in another bunch of years and they will be then saying waiting for the cold its nothing big deal i think it swings back and forth thourh years.

Answer 7

yes

Answer 8

On the face, it would seem that global warming is at work, but there are several things you need to keep in mind.  First a good portion of Al Gore's movie, "an Inconvient truth" had 11 of its salient points kicked out by an english court for being unsupported by scientific evidence:

http://tailrank.com/3169421/Court-Identi...

Secondly, one must remember, that even though "experts" like Al Gore (who is a lawyer by profession, not a scientest) are not in "total agreement" that global warming is due to anthropomorphic (human) causes.:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/arti...

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environmen...

http://weathereye.kgan.com/expert/warmin...

http://www.globalwarming.org/

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/in...

Not to mention that as time goes on, the expected fluctations of temperature would be expected to diverge as a normal function of time and statistics. . . for example. if you took observations for every day starting last year, Jan 1, might have a low of -12 and a high of 43 degrees. . next year it might 0 and 45 degrees. . as time goes on, you will get greater readings, two years alone is not enough time to get a reliable measurement. . .

Not to mention, that since the last ice age, of course there is warming. . .or we would still be in an ice age. .

There are lots of anomalies that the proponents of global warming do not consider, or mention. . .do some research on carbon dioxide levels and temperature. . you will find that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature elevations, not the other way around. .

Do a little research on the maunder minimum. . read a little about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_min...

Basically it comes down to the fact that those pushing global warming usually have an agenda. . . EVEN THE OIL COMPANIES!. . .

Also interesting is the fact that 2006 was the coldest year in a 5 year period:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/2006-p...

same about 2007:

http://www.minthegap.com/2007/01/09/2007...

Be skeptical, be very skeptical!

Note to Bob below. . .

Thanks for taking the time to at least address my points.  If there is one thing that annoys me, it is people that give a thumbs down without rebutting whatever it is that I offer. . If someone just gives a thumbs down without rebutting it, I feel it is just a cheap shot from someone with no valid argument. .

But, I do appreciate your rebuttal. . I would challenge anyone to read the decision. . basically it states that Al Gores film is somewhat lacking in its salient points. As a result, English schools were required to allow equal time to rebut his propositions. . .

And you did not directly address my points, for example Carbon Dioxide levels FOLLOWING temperature elevation. . if the cause is anthropomorphic, that is not logical.  Nor does history bear that out.

or the Maunder minimum. . , or perhaps the fact that we are receiving more energy from the sun?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/su...

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sun...

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

  About halfway down "Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?"

Or perhaps we should consider the uncertainly of the climatological models:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...

http://www.unisci.com/stories/20014/1010...

The point that I am making is not that global warming does not exist. . .I am only intimating that anthropomorphic causes have not been PROVEN" and there is still much to be learned before that question can be answered with the certainty that Al Gore would have us believe.   And I would remind everyone once again, that Al Gore is not a climatological scientist by training, he is an Attorney.  The job of an Attorney is to write briefs (propaganda) to attempt to sway a judge or juries position to his side.  Isn't it amazing that Al Gore has become the worlds foremost expert on "Global Warming" since loosing out on the white house?

If he really cared about the environment as much as he insists, why does he travel in a private chartered jet when he could save so many dreaded carbon emissions?  I have great difficulty believing anyone who is as hypocritical as the man is. If others choose to overlook his failings with regards to the issue, they do so at their own peril. . .

Once again, I'm not saying there is no global warming. . I am just letting people know that it is not as cut and dried as the "Left" would have us believe.

hope this helps

Answer 9

Are those based on surface station temperatures. If so, LOL. Not accurate and not meaningful.

Nice try though.

Answer 10

If you you are referring to increasing levels of greenhouse gases trapping additional heat in the mid troposphere and causing the surface to warm the answer is NO. There is absolute proof that contradicts the AGW theory, the AGW theory is not by any stretch of the imagination a fact, until you explain the graph below provided by the United States government agency responsible for monitoring climate. The surface record is a disaster contaminated by urbanization, deforestation and agricultural activities on a global scale.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

.

.