Why aren't we being told about the data that the earth has cooled in the last decade?

Question

Does even the UN accept the data?

Why is it Polar bears having to swim long distance and cracks in ice makes the front page, but we see nothing of raw scientific data that casts doubt on the AGW theory?

Answer 1

Can`t make money these days by telling the Truth

Answer 2

Your "cooling" is based on one unusually warm year.  The past decade has been essentially the warmest on record--so much for the cooling idea.

Answer 3

its so that people will still believe in the theory and aslong as theres always resistance from us so called "Deniers"(what are we denieng? a myth that doesn't have enough evidence?"  I believe a more sensible term is "Skeptic" they'll never be able to go too far with their schemes  

Answer 4

oh my, how much has it cooled?

how much cooler is it now than in 1998?

http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-w...

there's a piece of Antarctica that seems cooler.

that does seem the exception, however.

Answer 5

I agree with Jane.

Answer 6

because global cooling isnt in vogue right now. give it a few years, and the global cooling crowd(pretty much the whole global warming crowd changing their minds as soon as their leader al gore does) will get into full swing. remember that the global climate change crisis is all about money and power.

Answer 7

'BIG GREEN' put a stop to all that talk

Answer 8

The data is widely available.  But it doesn't show cooling, that's a ridiculous interpretation.

1998 was an unusually warm year.  That happens.  The true measure is what the LONG TERM AVERAGE is doing, the red line below.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

We're still warming.

Answer 9

Well the last time they tried it in the 1970s it flopped like a lead balloon and they lost money. They have made a lot of money on global warming and so they want to keep it going as long as they can no matter what the real temperatures are.

Answer 10

Heard on the news that Chicago, this summer, has had the fewest days over 90 degrees since 1930.  James W. Early, Jane, you have it right.

Found a forum link that made me laugh.  

Answer 11

THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM A SPEECH  I WROTE .



I.  For a long time people have been looking through glasses that have foggy lenses of deception regarding global warming.  In the next couple of minutes I intend to show you a more accurate eye chart and update your prescription.

A. My point for this response is to try and persuade you to see the light at the end of the dirty tunnel of humanities’ lies.

II.  Global Warming is the most debatable topic that was probably ever around.  You need to know this information.  If you don’t educate yourself properly on this topic you will live the rest of your life in fear of something that doesn’t exist.

A.  Global Warming is a natural cycle.  Everything about it is natural.  Carbon dioxide levels vary throughout time.  Humans can make little or no impact on the environment.

1.  In reality….  There is about one person who doesn’t believe in Global Warming to two people who do.  This means that only 60% of the world believes in global warming.  My goal by the end of this response is to have the 60% be persuaded that they do not believe in the accurate thing.  With the following facts, I am 100% sure that this goal is possible and will be achieved.



2.  Al Gore stated this quote in his movie “…The 10 hottest years ever recorded were within 15 years of today.”  Now this point is valid and true, but we have not been measuring the temperature or anything since the early nineteen hundreds.  Can we go down and see how the polar ice caps were doing in the early 1800’s?  We can not do that because temperature was not recorded.  You may say that they guessed using carbon dioxide levels, but whose to say that they are right?  I heard that scientific measures were not always accurate because they took a hundred year old log and did some carbon 14 testing on it.  Scientists thought that it was thousands of years old.  It was later proved to be younger after more tests were ran.  Who’s to say that our method of discovering weather is right?   We have been measuring temperature for only a short period of time.  Earth right now is in a heating process.  Thousands of years ago we were cooling which is when we had an Ice Age.  Now we are doing the opposite and are starting to warm up before cooling again. Look at this political cartoon.  What is one thing that you notice?  I notice it being freezing then gradually getting warmer. As my next point is about to prove, we have no effect on the environment no matter what we do.



.  In 1990 a volcano in the Philippines erupted violently.  It was by far one of the biggest explosions of the century.  We all have read about how volcanoes let off carbon dioxide, but did you know this… When the volcano erupted, it put more carbon dioxide in the air than all of humanity has ever produced…. More than humans have made since the creation of time.  All in just a matter of hours. Look at this picture (not included).  See all of this carbon dioxide being put into the air?  While, with all of this there was no temperature increase or decrease at all… just some carbon dioxide level changes, but nothing major.  If volcanoes put off this much carbon dioxide with no effect, then how could we be doing this?  When all this happened, then how could you be persuaded that humans who produce fractions of that amount could impact the environment in fractions of the time?  Humans if we tried could not severely impact the environment.  It is just too big.  Even if we are letting some off, plants and other natural recyclers of Carbon Dioxide are just transforming them to oxygen.

4.  During World War II, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.  We spilled tons of harmful green house gasses into Mother Nature.  This includes radiation, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide.  After all of that happened, again there was no effect to the environment that was found.  Hiroshima has been having radiation problems still, but there is no significant temperature problem.  Nothing humans do can severely change our environment.  We only occupy about 50% of the globe.  The other 50% is the ocean, ice caps, and land that are not suitable for humans.  How could two nuclear bombs not have an impact on the environment, but changing a light bulb in your house to fluorescent can save the environment?  It is just impossible that we could have an impact.    



5.  Another point is that if you look in your text book, I promise you that you will find these words… “When Washington was marching his troops, it was bitterly cold outside” Bitterly cold means freezing.  I know that they didn’t have supplies but Virginia in the summer (which is when they fought) is warm.  As you can see by these charts, it was 106 degrees outside in the summer.  This is without humidity too.  Now when we look at this chart it shows us that the battle was fought in Yorktown.  There isn‘t much of a distance between Yorktown and Richmond, were this was recorded.  How was it bitterly c

Answer 12

Whilst it has no doubt plateaued and even cooled slightly, it nots quite time to jump up and down on the IPCC saying your wrong

Bob, note that NASA are the only one of the 4 groups that monitor global temps that shows warming, and thats becauses they only use land based stations which are normally located in cities and this skews there data. The others use a wider range of data and use more accurate systems and hence give better results. Check out the Hadley data for example

NASA have also confirmed the sea in going into a cooling phase that could last more than 10 years, this will further bebunk the c02 warming theory if it happens

Fact is though we dont measure global temp very fairly so we never get a true picture, the temp stations used are not unformly distributed, and we dont monitor many areas where there is no human influence.

In am doing a study at the moment into temperature change in new zealand  and I have found some cities show slight warming and some show slight cooling or no change whilst temp stations out in the wildnerness also show slight cooling or no change, so depending on which stations and what time period of data you use you cam make the last 50 years either cool or warm based on the linear trend, its all about how the data is manipulated and whos to say which is right or wrong?.

I think if the cooling continues it will not prove any one wrong, instead the IPCC will adjust it models based on "new data" and come up with a global cooling scenario based on increased co2 emissions, this way they keep there cushy jobs.

The models didnt predict this but then there based on the assumption co2 causes warming, they are full of assumptions, and then "fudge" factors which are applied to force fit the model to give them the results they want (they call it feedback). they are not calibrated validated models and hence their projections cant be taken seriously. We just need to look at the data, its HAS been warmer in the past and colder in the past, but the world survived, the polar bears never drowned, the sea didnt rise up and swallow the earth. Thats whats important - the rest isnt important.

Arguing over whos right or wrong waste time and resources, instead the scientific community should be working together to investigate the "skeptics" arguments and the IPCC taking their comments on board, unfortunetly the AGW crowd shun them and ignore their research, that helps neither side. Good science is ignored, and the IPCC becomes less and less credible, meaning that even if they were right no one would believe them anyways.

The reason were not being told about the cooling? If you were a climate change reporter (they actually have reporters dedicated to the subject!) would you report it wasnt happening? It could be the end of your job! And if your a government trying to introduce new draconian measures and taxes to fight global warming, cooling isnt what you want the public to know about, that would lose you votes. It is very much about politics and media unfortunetly, the scientists are ignored

Answer 13

careful you'll anger the cult! but seriously why would the UN accept it? It's obvoiusly a distraction from our real problems [wars,econmey,dieseases.ect] also going green generates billions of tax dollars for ANY nation, also AGW was thought of by a man who has no degree in science what so ever and if you remember he said anyone who doubts AGW is stupid[not the true words but its what he meant] so thats many scientests even the guy who owns the weather channle! the one person who would most likely know alot about the climate! why would the gov.s want you to know about, our other problems also 52% of our[in the USA] econmy is based off of medicine? so its also taking away valubal time and money that could be used to cure theese deseiases[cancer & aids for the most part] so its turning our[USA's] time and money away from making the medicines that support our econmy as you can see with stocks contiung to drop. so see its all for money as always

Answer 14

Bob keeps directing us to this same graph, which appears to stop at 2005.

Anyone can go and look up global temperature and verify the trends for themselves. The graphed results look rather different to the one Bob offers us.

Below are listed the four sources normally cited as most reliable for a 'global' temperature representation, as they are all from Satelite sources. These are... Hadley, GISS, UAH and RSS. The links to the data are listed below in that order.

These are updated monthly, usually about 5-6 days after the months end.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/dia...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...

http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_tim...

To use the data, first 'save as' and open in Excel using 'fixed width'.

Have some fun comparing these to CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/mlo.html

Data from other CO2 sites are to be found here.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/data.htm...

Answer 15

Have you ever made a huge scene and insulted people for having a different opinion even calling them stupid, only to find out you were wrong.  How embarrassing!  Remeber classic SNL with Rosanne Rosannadanna?  lol

Think of CNN with their PLANET IN PERIL series.  How can they admit they were wrong now?  Think of Al Gore comparing people who don't accept global warming to those who think the earth is flat.  It's just too big a pill for them to swallow.