By Here is an update from Dr. Roy Spencer on how it appears that the recent warming trend this year may be receding as the La Nina takes effect:
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm, +0.44 deg. C for June, 2010, but it appears the El Nino warmth is waning as a La Nina approaches.
For those keeping track of whether 2010 ends up being a record warm year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 30 June being +0.64 C in 1998 compared with +0.56 C for 2010. [Dr. Roy Spencer via Andrew Bolt]
As I have been saying repeatedly, what is important to take from this is how the temperature data does not match carbon emission outputs. The alarmists believe that the more carbon you put in the air the warmer it gets, yet obviously this chart does not match the alarmists claims.
Despite the overall warming trend this year the usual suspect alarmists have been uncharacteristically quiet, probably because of how much they were discredited during last winter’s ClimateGate Scandal and the economic recession has caused the public to tune out their doom and gloom claims.
By the way I recommend reading this column in its entirety from Andrew Bolt that offers the best advice for anyone wanting to vote for a global warming alarmist:
Fine, if that’s what you want for yourself. But, please, before you vote to inflict this on the rest of us, first try living as the Greens prescribe and see if it truly suits even high-minded you.
Lights out. Heating, too. Starve and shiver for your faith. At least live as miserably as you plan to vote.
She hasn’t seen...
3:11 pm on July 5th, 2010 1
I really enjoy the postings here about Korea and Korean issues, but please, why this barrage of propaganda? What does global warming, whether one believes it or not, have to do with Korea?
3:44 pm on July 5th, 2010 2
Here's what your source has to say about intelligent design:
"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world… Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."
Hmm, and by "creator and designer" he meant God… Ironically:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environmen…
4:19 pm on July 5th, 2010 3
Well at the end of Darwin's research he said that it would be nearly impossible for evolution to take us to where we are now without some sort of assistance. There is a very strong possibility that there is some universal intelligence at work, its probably unlike anything any religion has possibly predicted.
4:25 pm on July 5th, 2010 4
#1 and #2
I wondered the same thing. This could very easily go off on an irrelevant tangent and flood this site with real fanatics, worse than we've seen before.
4:37 pm on July 5th, 2010 5
"Well at the end of Darwin’s research he said that it would be nearly impossible for evolution to take us to where we are now without some sort of assistance."
Well, that's rich. No, what he said is that it's possible to be a theist and an evolutionist. Besides, he was an Agnostic so he clearly didn't believe evolution is impossible without God.
"There is a very strong possibility that there is some universal intelligence at work, its probably unlike anything any religion has possibly predicted."
Oh, so that's the loophole, the excuse you'll use to change your story every time you lose the argument?
4:41 pm on July 5th, 2010 6
WTF the troll appears.
I was summarizing, Darwin left the option open that because Evolution is amazingly complicated and apparently random, that there could be a guiding force behind it. But please continue your butt trumpeting, it makes you feel better.
And the last part was more a musing then any statement. -If- there was some universal superior intelligence, then I highly doubt it'll be anything like the Christians / religious make it out to be.
4:43 pm on July 5th, 2010 7
#4,
Nah, my point is that the Dr. Spencer clearly isn't a skeptic, despite what some would like us to believe.
4:44 pm on July 5th, 2010 8
Sorry,
…my point is that Dr. Spencer isn’t a skeptic…
4:58 pm on July 5th, 2010 9
#6,
You have to put yourself in his shoes. Back then, people were very superstitious.
"Astronomers do not state that God directs the course of each comet and planet. The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make natural selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science. . . . Why should you or I speak of variation as having been ordained and guided, more than does an astronomer, in discussing the fall of a meteoric stone? He would simply say that it was drawn to our earth by the attraction of gravity."
The point is that he very was conscious of the reaction his theories might produce. He just didn't want religious people to feel threatened, hence he left the "door open" for their benefit, not as an expression of his own beliefs.
5:21 pm on July 5th, 2010 10
#8,
Or rather, he's selective about his skepticism. But, hey, whatever.
PS. In which respected peer-reviewed scientific journal was the data above published? Please don't tell me it's from his personal blog.
6:29 pm on July 5th, 2010 11
The graph shows that it's warmer now than it was in 1979, so global warming is still on, right?
Reader 1 and JoeC 4, it's GI Korea's prerogative to discuss any subject he chooses. And of course the global climate affects Korea!
About the general discussion between Teadrinker and someotherguy, I suggest that those who say that intelligent design explains living creatures really ought to be able to detect the designer. They should be able to explain their method of detecting him so that anyone else, with whatever beliefs, can detect him, too. Just like a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, communist, capitalist, or jucheist, can detect carbon dioxide, regardless of their beliefs.
7:11 pm on July 5th, 2010 12
#11,
Yes, all good points.
9:48 pm on July 5th, 2010 13
It's true Global Warming affects Korea. Shoot man, I can't go outside during the day and get any sunlight from all the pollution in the air!
There's no way Global Warming is false. It's a fact the earth has gotten a lot warmer in the last 100 years.
Still, Global Warming is NOTHING compared to the big elephant in the living room: OVERSHOOT
10:13 am on July 6th, 2010 14
The temperature in Central Park, New York City, hit 103F, just over 39C.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/nyregion/07heat…
11:12 am on July 6th, 2010 15
If you actually read what I wrote instead of jumping the gun you'd notice I never supported Intelligent design. All I so was state its a possibility, improbable as it may be, its still a possibility.
And yes, if there was some sort of super being in the universe, their concept of time / space / conscious would be to radically different from our own for us to even begin to comprehend it. It takes the Sun 226 million earth years to complete one orbit around the galaxy's core. Anything living on that kind of time scale would view 1000 earth years as less then a blink of an eye. We would literally be of less concern then the dust floating around in the universe.
So… do I think there are super beings in the universe, most likely, do I think their some benevolent "god" that guides our existence, hell no.
2:31 pm on July 6th, 2010 16
#15,
Well, sorry I misjudged you. I totally agree. What string field theory sees as a possibility, religion proceeds to embellish, then claims it is the absolute truth while at the same time interpreting and reinterpreting the story as it sees fit.
8:38 pm on July 6th, 2010 17
SOMEOTHERGUY, I'm confused.
In #3, you write, "There is a very strong possibility that there is some universal intelligence at work, its probably unlike anything any religion has possibly predicted."
Then in #15, you write, "If you actually read what I wrote instead of jumping the gun you’d notice I never supported Intelligent design. All I so was state its a possibility, improbable as it may be, its still a possibility."
11:03 pm on July 6th, 2010 18
#17,
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he was speaking in terms of theoretical physics (an infinite number of alternate universes, and so an infinite number of possibilities).
6:06 am on July 7th, 2010 19
Why don't you chew on this GI:
BRITISH PANEL CLEARS CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/0…
10:13 am on July 7th, 2010 20
When you view the universe (and theoretical multiverse) in a grander view the chances of things happening they way they did is … so small to be nearly impossible. My personal belief is that the universe ~is~ god. Not god as some paternal figure walking around on water and raising people from the dead. God as something that created all existence and has an infinite / near-infinite intelligence of its own. Try to think of it as the universe being self-aware and we're likened to bacteria.
Again just my personal belief based on my own rationalizations and attempts to understand the greater picture/ purpose of existence. I'm also a firm believer of "to each his own". Religion is a personal thing between someone and the universe, nobody has any right to intervene in that.
10:54 am on July 7th, 2010 21
@19 – Here is the key statement from your link:
Better luck next time.
11:17 am on July 7th, 2010 22
@10 – Dr. Spencer was recognized by NASA and the American Meteorological Association for his work with satellite temperatures.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
If you want to challenge his work you are free to do so on his site. He has also had plenty of his work published:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scien…
His views on intelligent design are irrelevant to this discussion but if you read the complete statement of what he wrote he makes a logical argument for his belief:
http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/…
3:12 pm on July 8th, 2010 23
#22,
"Dr. Spencer was recognized by NASA and the American Meteorological Association for his work with satellite temperatures. "
Yes, he's recognized as the guy who misread satellite temperatures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/1…
11:55 pm on July 8th, 2010 24
@23 – You are passing on misleading information. This article is old from 2005 and has nothing to do with the information presented since the error was small and has been incorporated in his current measurements. Unlike the alarmists, Dr. Spencer has been willing to accept criticism to improve his temperature measurements and not hide and mislead. He is not corrupt like the alarmists to hide his data to where other people cannot look at it to find errors. He wants people to find errors in order to further improve the measurements. Once again if you find errors in his work you are free to challenge him at his site.
5:45 pm on July 13th, 2010 25
NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer — despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance”
(This posting at climateprogress.org is based in part on a spreadsheet of NASA data prepared by Timothy Chase, a software engineer and former US Navy machinist's mate.)
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/10/nasa-hottes…
11:59 pm on July 13th, 2010 26
@26 – Surface temperatures are always higher than the satellite measurements because of thing like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/photos-noaa…
Plus the data sets provided by NASA's GISS has already been proven before to be manipulated by alarmists:
http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/26/noaa-nasa-caught-ma…
http://rokdrop.com/2007/08/15/its-official-global…
With that said both satellite and surface data show that after a decade of flat lining and cooling temperatures that warming may be starting again due to the El Nino effect. There has been so far no proof that El Nino is linked to man made global warming and scientists cannot even through computer models connect El Nino to natural global warming.
8:52 am on July 15th, 2010 27
Actually, this is the warmest year on record:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-e…
9:50 am on July 15th, 2010 28
@27 – Did you even bother reading my above comment? You are citing surface temperatures which are always higher than satellite temperatures due to the placement weather stations and data manipulation by alarmists.
7:27 pm on July 16th, 2010 29
Last month was the warmest June on record.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_sc/us_s…
9:26 pm on July 16th, 2010 30
"Last month was the warmest June on record."
I don't know what to believe.
Korea was cold as funk for 7 months and hasn't exactly been a miserable summer yet.
Europe had record cold all winter.
California is STILL cold.
It always seems to be the OTHER place that is causing the global warming statistics to look so high.
The "record warming" in the link seems pretty undisputed. I wonder where that number comes from? Oh, it comes from the ground stations. I wonder what the satallite data says?
Doh!
12:06 am on July 17th, 2010 31
You guys going back and forth was amusing for a few minutes. My winter was as cold as I remember it ever being. July about as hot as any july here.
I assume all the other problems have been taken care of if weather is now a subject of serious discussion.
Drink hot coco in the winter and cold beer in the summer and you guys will be just fine. (a few shots of whiskey year round wouldn't hurt either)
Oh, and "global climate change" or global warming or whatever the PC term is today isn't more than the Progressive redistribution of wealth program. Liberals are being used as the tools they are.
12:31 am on August 23rd, 2011 32
Good news, maybe. The North Icelandic Jet may make the North Atlantic less sensitive to climate change. Deborah Zabarenko has the scoop at Scientific American.