world

2000-2009 likely warmest decade on record

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

Such an amusing article. There is unequivicable evidence that for the past 10 years, the earth is been cooling, but they keep trying to push this warming crap down our throats.

Newsflash... Nobody is buying it anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't agree. The data shows that the trend is up and the cooling seen is within the limits of error of the data. So things are warming up. You can argue how much of this is due to man's impact or natural cycle and there is plenty of room for discussion about "can we stop or even reverse warming?" but things are getting warmer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir

There is unequivicable evidence that for the past 10 years, the earth is been cooling

Can you provide a solid article on this? I only accept inserts from Science magazine and the likes. Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've been in Australia for the past few weeks. That is the best evidence I have for the fact that temperatures are rising. It was near 40 degrees in parts of NSW and Queensland, which is the hottest on record for November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was really hot in the 1930's and it was even hotter during the Middle Ages. The climate always changes and will continue to do so for as long as planet Earth exists. Are we to assume that the present average global temperatures are the most ideal and therefore must remain static for the rest of human history? Humans are adept at adapting to climate change. Accept it as a reality and move on people!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Molenir has moved himself down to troll status on global warming issues. To my knowledge, he never provides any data or reasonable explanation. He makes vague assertions and then repeats them.

Look, he even posted first, with nothing really to offer but an angry and wholly unsupported opinion. Maybe this post will elicit something more from him, but I doubt it. I think someone told him once that global warming was a conspiracy. If you think about it, once you tell someone that everything they will hear about X is a lie, then there is no means to convince them otherwise unless they know related subjects. Molenir does not understand climatology, meteorology, physics, mathematics, or chemistry, so he has no tools to make a rational judgment. Personally, I do not think he tries, but I might be wrong. All he knows is what he is told. There are many people who live their lives this way. He seems like a nice guy, but I wonder if he is being honest.

Smartacus. I remember when Arizona was bearable. That was over 20 years ago. I hear temperatures from there now... regularly... that blow my mind.

Temperatures are the effect and they cannot be controlled. The CAUSE is what worries me. Greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to increase, so the temperature increases will just continue, barring the effects of forest fires, which cool things short-term. This year and this decade are already over, so this is not really even "news."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack, were you there in the Middle Ages to state that it was hotter than now? If not, please show us some scientific data.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir and Wolfpack: Aside from the National Enquirer and Right-wing blogs, can you give us links with evidence that the Middle Ages were hotter, or that this decade is in fact cooler?

You guys crack me up.... you think because December 9th might be cooler than last year December 9th it's 'proof' that global warming is not happening. But hey, syllogism has often been the logic of the weak-minded and gullible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The effect of human activity on climate is insignificant. Those who are trying to control CO2 emissions have other motives, and I truly hope the world will not fall for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are we to assume that the present average global temperatures are the most ideal and therefore must remain static for the rest of human history?

Must remain static? Here we have the archtypical right-winger playing God. They, of course, know of a much better range of temperatures to impose on the planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Romans used to grow vineyards in England, that by itself prooves that there must have been warmer periods in the past and that it is still not warm enough in England nowadays to do it again. So, 'the warmest decade on record' means only since 1850 and has no meaning at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romans used to grow vineyards in England

Growing vineyards is quite easy, to make them thrive is quite a different thing. Again and for the 3rd time in this thread, please, show us some academic proof that they were successful with their vineyards versus they only tried to grow them and failed.

Moderator: Back on topic please. The story refers to the past decade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Romans used to grow vineyards in England, that by itself prooves that there must have been warmer periods in the past and that it is still not warm enough in England nowadays to do it again.

This is baloney. There have always been vineyards in southern England.

Michigan and New York are two of the top wine-producing states in the U.S. and both have colder winters than what is found in the UK. Therefore, using vineyards to attempt to disprove climate change is not very convincing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good point yabits. I didn't know England was a wine producer country, my ignorance...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course the Earth is currently on a warming trend. Most folks already accept that evidence. (Probably the ones who do not also believe that the Earth is static and has always had the same plants and animals for all its 7000 years where evolution doesn't occur.) NASA, for one, is a reliable American scientific source (they're very accomplished in their history).

What's most in contention is to what degree human activity contributes to this. Of course the most ever accomplished Earth species have an effect, but how much or how little. And if there's anything that can be done and to what consequences of action or inaction. That's where the brainstorming is.

As for both sides trying to cite claims, if you can please use accredited peer review scientific sources of data (even multiple sources if possible) and avoid op-eds of said data. We do our own op-eds here already. (Thanks sabiwabi. I wonder though, since those graphs were published back in 1990, how our following two "warmest since 1850 records" decades compare now.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Mail is not some blog. And The Mail say the warmening business was not about science, it was all about politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...and this information is according to which fudged figures????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course the Earth is currently on a warming trend. Most folks already accept that evidence. (Probably the ones who do not also believe that the Earth is static and has always had the same plants and animals for all its 7000 years where evolution doesn't occur.) NASA, for one, is a reliable American scientific source (they're very accomplished in their history).

Speaking of blindly parroting back what they hear... How about going back and reading the emails your pals sent. You know the ones who like yourself preach the doom and gloom scenario you and the rest of your fellow eco-religionists are so fond of. You know the ones I'm talking about. Where the gentleman is discussing how to fudge data to make it appear the warming trend is continuing. Where he says he doesn't know why its not warming, and its a travesty that they can't figure this out. Apparently even your own "scientists" admit that for the past 10 years the earth has been in a cooling trend. Since much of the IPCC stuff is based on their work, well read between the lines.

I think Molenir has moved himself down to troll status on global warming issues. To my knowledge, he never provides any data or reasonable explanation. He makes vague assertions and then repeats them.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this post. Speedracer makes so many allegations about what I post, that I'm starting to wonder if my placing him in the moderate and intelligent camp is accurate. Has he even read my posts? Does he follow the news at all? I mean everything I've mentioned can easily be found elsewhere. From the Climategate scandal which people are trying to ignore, to the levels of CO2 being emitted by people. If you know anything at all, or are able to follow a logical reasoned argument, you should be able to understand what I've written. I guess once you've drunk that AGW kool-aid, its hard to accept anything that doesn't fit your paradigm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if you can please use accredited peer review scientific sources of data

That is no guarantee the evidence is legit, especially if you consider the recent climate gate scandal. Some of them are "discredited" peer-review sources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The UN marches on, blissfully ignoring Climategate. So what if we know that source data were deleted, presented data faked, peer review sabotaged.... what counts is the result, isn´t it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Global warming may be a fact , how much or how little mankind contribute to it is still very much debatable...but one thing very much certain is that YOU will be taxed heavily ,like it or not!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir,

You may want to read my post here:

http://japantoday.com/category/world/view/un-climate-conference-opens-in-copenhagen#comment_395155

Just because a segment of scientists chose to lie does not necessarily invalidate the other rest of the data. Unless they are all lying. We'll see.

As scientists, that's abhorrent. Already trained to be skeptical of any evidence....

I don't preach nothing. Climatology not my direct expertise but could scientifically follow it. Actually prefer to see straight to the raw data first-hand, not after someone put an op-ed "news" piece on it. We're trained to follow where the experiment results lead us, not hold onto any preconceived beliefs. That's why I mentioned peer review sources, so any data can be scrutinized. Any fake unreplicable data submitted by authors hopefully would be noticed and discredited. Not to say some works still turn out just wrong - as I mentioned about DNA, the first works about DNA was that it was a TRIPLE-helix! But science corrects itself eventually. Just follow the experiment results without preconceived notions.

(BTW, NASA is a good American science formation. The U.S. EPA, however, is just a political agency of the federal government. (Recall during the Bush admin, the EPA didn't put credence into global warming, and now under Obama admin, it suddenly does?) So I don't put much credence into what the EPA says, whichever side it's on.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

man made global warming is a myth perpetuated by crackpot scientists and the Liberal elite who are out to make profit.

The only way climate changes is through God and mother nature, man has no influence, FACT!

Al Gore started off this idiocy and now he travels in a chauffer driven Limousine and flies around in private jets. The Pro warming scientific community provide fudged data to make their case believable, but many of us will never be hoodwinked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lostrune2:

" I don't preach nothing. Climatology not my direct expertise but could scientifically follow it. Actually prefer to see straight to the raw data first-hand, "

Then you must be delighted to know that the Uni of East Anglia deleted the raw climate data, so that now all we have to rely on is the processed, "improved" data that they created. Isn´t that nice?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's why I mentioned peer review sources, so any data can be scrutinized. Any fake unreplicable data submitted by authors hopefully would be noticed and discredited.

Unfortunately it cannot be scrutinized in this case. Climategate has exposed the peer review process as a scam (in the case of climatology). I find the American media surprisingly silent on Climategate, which came out just in time for Copenhagen.

Not to say some works still turn out just wrong - as I mentioned about DNA, the first works about DNA was that it was a TRIPLE-helix! But science corrects itself eventually.

Are you referring to Pauling's triple helix. I wonder how long people would have believed in Pauling's silly triple helix if they had spent millions promoting his model and suppressed Watson and Crick's work.

Just follow the experiment results without preconceived notions.

I agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yo, sabi's really on to something but like I've been saying for days, who cares real or not, hand us the silver platter please!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Fudged data?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. just got hit with a monster snowstorm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only way climate changes is through God and mother nature, man has no influence, FACT!

I really hate to sound like I'm on both sides of an issue, but I can't let this one pass. We know mankind has an effect on the earth. And while I have a hard time believing that the 4% of CO2 being released each year is effecting the earth as dramatically as the AGW proponents say, and I certainly don't buy the doom and gloom, run away greenhouse effect scenario they're pushing to get us to "act now". I also won't come out and blithely say, that it has no impact. I don't believe that. What I will say is, we don't know what effects it has or will have. I'll further say, that change is not necessarily a bad thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

The Anglia is just one source, now since discredited and disregarded. There are many other sources. That's the point of as many people doing replicable experiments as possible, to test it for themselves.

sabiwabi,

Yep, Pauling was a giant, and he did put pressure on his peers, even Watson and Crick who were relative neophytes. So that actually showed that science eventually corrects itself out, as the mountain of evidence kept coming against Pauling's way.

BTW, Climategate is all over US news lately.

Molenir,

You can have pros and cons on both sides. That's just being realistic - no one side is 100% bulletproof, both sides have points. That's what's being skeptical about.

BTW, the URL links sabiwabi provided indicate the warming trend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW, the URL links sabiwabi provided indicate the warming trend.

Yes, but they have been happening for millennia. The bigger question is what causes this apparent increase. One of the links also states that the human contribution to the Earth's greenhouse effect is about 0.2% - 0.3% (CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas).

So I think whatever measures are taken, no matter how drastic, will have no effect on climate change. I also think the temperatures will come back down as they have countless times before.

Yep, Pauling was a giant, and he did put pressure on his peers...

Yes, he was a giant, but it was just one guy, plus maybe a few colleagues. I don't think there was a world-wide "conspiracy" to tax people based on his results. Also, his triple helix model was just silly, he should have known better; was it just a proposed model or did he truly believe he solved the structure?

Also, I do not believe that science always eventually corrects itself out. There are some clear examples where science is simply pushed aside and ignored.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And while I have a hard time believing that the 4% of CO2 being released each year is effecting the earth as dramatically as the AGW proponents

This is a bit like saying that one has a hard time believing that 4% interest, compounded yearly over many decades, can lead to so much debt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites