Why would anyone say GW is over and post data for the US only, then say it's from NASA when it's from NOAA?

Question

It is GLOBAL warming that we're talking about and not US warming, correct?

Answer 1

he was a bit silly linking to a site that has

U.S. Temperatures Average in March; Global Land Temperature Sets Record

Temperatures in March 2008 were average across the United States, but average global land temperature was the warmest on record according to data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

on its front page...

http://www.noaa.gov/index.html

Answer 2

Hmmmm look what Jason says...

5 May 08 - "The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a "cool" La Nina year, but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.

"The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic, but we don't know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year "double sunspot cycles" have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States' far southwest as well. These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth's temperatures.

"All of this defies the "consensus" that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. The evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth's warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the "scary" 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration, and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.

"Jason is run by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.

"How many years of declining world temperature would it take now, in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998, to break up Al Gore's "climate change consensus"?

Answer 3

If you chart my the links below.  Nasa may be appearing to be biased, government agencies do that so they can get more money the more relavent they are.

April 08 was not the warmest april on record.  For fun you can overly the 2001 models on this graph.

Answer 4

From the same website the skeptics linked to:

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

Note how inhomogeneous the spatial pattern is, with dramatic warming in the NE and large cooling in the W.  This is what is called classic short-term climate variability (a.k.a. weather).  

By and large, most skeptics are not particularly adept at making solid technical arguments.  Getting federal agencies confused is part of the total package that is being a climate skeptic.  

Anyway, from the NCDC website, the global numbers for April 08 will be out on the 15th.  Then we can see if the globe cooled.  Based on the March numbers, it didn't, it was just an exceptionally cold spring in the N. American west.

Answer 5

There is a common misconception that the effect of global warming will be warmer weather everywhere. If a warmer Atlantic causes the gulf stream to drop to the south (which many scientists believe has happened before) the result of global warming in the northern hemisphere could very well be a mini "ice age."

Once again, we have such a tiny amount of data that we really can't conclude anything with great certainty.

Answer 6

Have it your way,the North American Continent plays no part what so ever in climate. Look at the acronyms almost identical, but I'm glad you figured it out.

ed: (Ken), the response was a mirrored image of the question... "figuratively of course." We all know why it was ask?

Answer 7

Nasa is no longer a credible source of data anyway given the extreme bias expressed by Mr. Hansen. For Hansen's sake, I hope Al Gore's pocket is as big as his house, for this is surely where he resides.

Richard, my point is this. The debate has gotten to a point where we can no longer trust scientific data, mainly because of the vested interest many folks have of keeping this theory alive. Also the science itself is so ambiguous, human beings don't have the credentials to interpret it.

Why are we beginning to see so much waffling on your side.

There seems to be a extreme drive to explain away the observations that appear to contradict the theory with the theory itself.

It's almost like it's becoming the "theory of everything" that scientists for so long have been trying to form.

What will it take in your eyes Richard to disprove the CO2 theory. A sound honest answer, please.

Richard maybe I can make something more clear. Will you at least agree climate science is in it's infancy? Here, I think is a valid analogy. Take for instance a physician from the 18th century. Would you trust him to clear a valve in your heart? You'd probably rather have a 21st century doc. Climatology is about as experienced as the 18th century doctor. Do we really want them trying to diagnose and fix the planet. He's libel to end up just "bleeding" you.

In a hundred years climatology, if it distances itself from politics will be much more trustworthy.

Answer 8

Heretic - Are you being disingenuous trying to defend jello for being disingenuous or did you not bother to look at the link?  The link in question was for only the 48 states (only about 30% of NA), not all of North America.  And then there's those "little" areas known as oceans and 6 other continents that should probably be included when discussing "global" warming.

And while the acronyms for NOAA and NASA may seem similar to someone that's never heard of either, anyone that's spent more than a few hours researching global warming probably knows the difference.  So if a person confuses the two, you can bet that they are either careless in their research or new to the subject.

Answer 9

Quite simple - the global data disproves his argument, so he has to cherrypick what little data he can find to support his misinformation.  That's why he frequently links the lower 48 US temperature data table and claims it's global data.  He's counting on people not to notice that it's lower 48 US data, and not to actually graph the data, since you can't tell anything by eyeballing a table of 100+ numbers.

In short, the only way for deniers to make any sort of 'global warming has stopped' argument is to misrepresent the data, because the argument is obviously wrong.