Comments on: NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010

By: Cain

Cain — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:08:25 +0000

Wow the “rightosphere” has picked up ONE FLAWED BBC story and ran with it…

Here it is Debunked:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Sorry “Righties” Wrong as usual…

By: bily

bily — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:38:31 +0000

You can give full play to the ability to be employed if the company even if the correct environmental problems. At present, however, is to promote employment of disabled--障害者 people in employment is not about supply and demand. Our jobs and employment opportunities to bridge the gap between the two to achieve the best match.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:40:14 +0000

In 1997 the NASA site had the truth posted, Mars’ icecaps were showing signs of a heat-up. Period. End of story. Of course we got a blast of the heat from the sun. The oceans warmed, warmer water holds less gases, CO2 goes up dramatically. How about celebrating increased plant growth, that is happening. Everything will probably calm down and go back to normal or even get colder. It will be slow enough for us to adapt. Our problem isn’t climate, it is population. Government to the anti-rescue! Feed the lowest folks (non-evolved from apes) with the tax-theft from the producers!

BTW, now the NASA website say Mars’ heating is local, caused by roughing up of the surface by storms which make dark areas that absorb more heat… LMAO.

Need a political handle on peoples’ mind? What is it going to do to your credibility when the blast of heat is processed and Earth cools? Oh well, American’s will be finished then as a viable nation thanks to alarmists taking the helm. Since most Democrats live in the cities, they will face starvation, nature is just

By: Gregor

Gregor — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:37:15 +0000

Notice how, like fusion, the record heat is “just around the corner” and has been for how long now? Oh, I know, by measuring the “urban heat island” effect and stating that it’s due instead to atmospheric CO2 they mislead the weak minded. But not those who are paying attention… Hansen is making ever more ridiculous statements to try and save his tattered reputation. Reality is closing in and so he’s saying we must hurry and do the ridiculous – for by the time Obama’s first term is over he (Hansen) will certainly be revealed as a complete fraud due to the facts, which by then should be overpowering.

[JR: Huh? We're in the hottest decade (by far) since the instrumental temperature records began, probably the hottest decade in the past 2000 years. Hansen is just talking about single year records, here. It is the decade-old temperature trend that humanity needs to worry about -- and that ain't "just around the corner."]

By: bob

bob — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:49:08 +0000

the sky is falling…..the sky is falling….the sky is falling…….

you global wariming people are such idiots

By: William

William — Mon, 19 May 2008 03:54:05 +0000

Good to see many have noted you are using old NASA data. As the comments note, Hansen restated the post 2000 data when an error was found. NASA now states 1934 was the warmest year. 1998 was the second warmest. It has not warmed for the last decade. In the recent 16 months we have experienced cooling. The NOAA Argos data is in showing the oceans are cooling.

By: gutsmo

gutsmo — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:00:43 +0000

Help me out here. Figure a shows a significant rise from 1880. Dr. J. Hansen has acknowledgeded that 1998 is not the hottest year since whenever, rather the year is 1934. This is undisputed. So I don’t understand how the chart, using the annual basis, reflects that years after 1940 are significantly higher that 1934. Dr. Hansen has said that 1934 was the warmest this century but only slightly warner than 1998. So was 2007 hotter than 1998. If not, then there has been no temperature rise since 1998. Even more confusing are recent reports that the temperature dropped significantly in 2007. So what about all this?

By: Sonny Field

Sonny Field — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:19:29 +0000

Derek,
I don’t think that the skeptics of man made global warming deny that the climate changes. Actually we are the ones stating that climate change is the constant and not the norm.

Also to your question
“Let’s pretend for a moment that global warming has nothing to do with mankind.
Should we still not be doing everything we can to counter the trend?” My answer is no. We should help the starving people of the world and take care of the real problems which are not theories but fact. Perhaps when we get better data that is not full of anomalies that your group will get more believers.

Until then us Dumb illiterate flat worlders will keep pumping MTBE and ethonol into our cars, hoping there are a couple of spotted owls around (they are extinct by now right?) and hoping we are not going into global cooling like the science of 1976 thought.

When the batting average of environmental science gets a little better I’ll start drinking the Kool-Aid. Until then, enjoy

By: Derek Gunn

Derek Gunn — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:27:56 +0000

Amazing that climate change deniers still exist.
How do you explain the receding of nearly all glaciers world-wide?
How do you explain the massive loss of Arctic ice?

Let’s pretend for a moment that global warming has nothing to do with mankind.
Should we still not be doing everything we can to counter the trend?

When the Arctic summer turns from reflecting sunlight (-80% via ice/snow)
to absorbing it (+95% via sea water) some time within the next 10 years,
what is going to happen to the rate of global warming?

Some people here would deny an increase in heat if their socks went on fire.

By: ShawnS

ShawnS — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:15:01 +0000

That Skepticalscience.con site is misrepresenting what they refer to as “Science used by skepitcs”
They point to studies that are cherry pick studies no longer considered valid and ommit others that are far more current, well recieved. And only point to non- science blogs that are about politics rather than science blogs which are addressing the science.
Reading SkepSci’s highschoolish arguements makes me lean skeptical myself.