The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 07, 2008, 05:50:10 PM
-
UAH Satellite data for Jan08 in agreement with RSS data
6
02
2008
University of Alabama, Huntsville (John Christy) just published their UAH lower troposphere data for January 2008. Like the RSS data set, it shows a negative anomaly, and a steep decline in the past 12 months though the magnitude of the anomaly is slightly lower at ∆T -.588 than the RSS ∆T -.629 degrees Centigrade.
I’ve plotted the UAH data below, as I did for the RSS data in the previous post:
And a zoomed version with the Delta T highlighted:
click for larger images
So as before, we have an indication that the huge La Niña event going on in the Pacific may be responsible for rapid temperature changes in our atmosphere. There’s also the ongoing solar minima thats dragging on. But there’s more to it than that. Joe Bastardi of AccuWeather recently wrote this on ICECAP about the pattern that has emerged:
“It is straight out of the book of climate. The pattern is so much like the 1949-1950 La Nina, which was signaling the start of the reversal of the warming of the earth’s climate in the 1930s, ‘40s and early 50s. Only someone choosing to ignore it, or not wanting to see it, would not be cognizant of it. But because such a pattern leads to warmer than normal conditions in areas where the greatest centers of human induced global warming information comes out of, western Europe and the eastern part of North America, no attention is being called to the fact that the winter this year does have outstandingly large areas of colder than normal temperatures and in areas, the vast expanses of the tropical Pacific, and the vast expanse of the air above us.â€
There’s a lot to be said for human pattern recognition, and when somebody of Joe Bastardi’s experience and skill makes a statement like the one above, we should give it credence.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/uah-satellite-data-for-jan08-in-agreement-with-rss-data/
Again we must ask: Is AGW sufficiently proven/drastic enough to merit surrendering our livelihoods and liberties to schemes that are the delight of Marxists and socialists?
-
Well.....I'm still waiting for our resident AGW doomshouter TNO to give me specific recomendations on what should be done (with a cost/value analysis) to combat the mythical condition......
"tick....tick....tick...."
doc
-
it's just not a good day for global warming alarmists.
-
He'll probably quote something along the line of what I posted in another climate thread -
Have you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action.
In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed:
Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . .
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . .
We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.
On their book page they write:
[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNkMTRhN2Y1N2JiNGIzN2Y2OGU4OTBmMzk3NzUwMmE=
-
He'll probably quote something along the line of what I posted in another climate thread -
I read that piece in the other thread, and it just reverts back to my premise in yet another thread that the environmental movement (and the AGW crowd within the movement) is the new home of communism/socalism/facsism in the world today in developed countries. After the collapse of the USSR, they were forced underground, and now we know where they went.....
doc
-
Well.....I'm still waiting for our resident AGW doomshouter TNO to give me specific recomendations on what should be done (with a cost/value analysis) to combat the mythical condition......
"tick....tick....tick...."
doc
He will complain that the findings lack peer review.
Of course with a "science" as politically and financially charged as climatology we have to wonder if the definition of "peer" is "one accredited by AGW alarmists."
-
He'll probably quote something along the line of what I posted in another climate thread -
Have you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action.
In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed:
Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . .
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . .
We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.
On their book page they write:
[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNkMTRhN2Y1N2JiNGIzN2Y2OGU4OTBmMzk3NzUwMmE=
I love how they put out their ideas, thinking we'll never realize what is going on.
-
Well.....I'm still waiting for our resident AGW doomshouter TNO to give me specific recommendations on what should be done (with a cost/value analysis) to combat the mythical condition......
"tick....tick....tick...."
doc
He will complain that the findings lack peer review.
Of course with a "science" as politically and financially charged as climatology we have to wonder if the definition of "peer" is "one accredited by AGW alarmists."
I suspect that the discipline of "climate science" is very nearly the same age (and validity) as the only pertinent data on global mean temperatures......IOW a "discipline" that has grown out of the desperate need to legitimize the junk science that makes up the entire discussion of AGW.
Just because a university offers a degree in a specific field does not make that field "legitimate"....it simply reflects the desire of the faculty and administration to attract grants, students, and extort dollars from the alum's.
Having spent some time in the academy, I can attest to the fact that academic history is littered with the bones of "fields of study" that were launched for similiar reasons, and ultimately discarded.
doc
-
Well.....I'm still waiting for our resident AGW doomshouter TNO to give me specific recommendations on what should be done (with a cost/value analysis) to combat the mythical condition......
"tick....tick....tick...."
doc
He will complain that the findings lack peer review.
Of course with a "science" as politically and financially charged as climatology we have to wonder if the definition of "peer" is "one accredited by AGW alarmists."
I suspect that the discipline of "climate science" is very nearly the same age (and validity) as the only pertinent data on global mean temperatures......IOW a "discipline" that has grown out of the desperate need to legitimize the junk science that makes up the entire discussion of AGW.
Just because a university offers a degree in a specific field does not make that field "legitimate"....it simply reflects the desire of the faculty and administration to attract grants, students, and extort dollars from the alum's.
Having spent some time in the academy, I can attest to the fact that academic history is littered with the bones of "fields of study" that were launched for similiar reasons, and ultimately discarded.
doc
and yet, there are courses on Madonna, The Beatles, The Doors and Britney Spears still going strong. that ought to tell us a lot about where we're headed as a country..
-
[
and yet, there are courses on Madonna, The Beatles, The Doors and Britney Spears still going strong. that ought to tell us a lot about where we're headed as a country..
Fear not....those like myself who selected engineering, or other "hard science" disipline, as well as the business majors, will always make a decent living, and not end up flipping burgers for eight bucks an hour....even after your field of study is obsolete.
doc
-
I suspect that the discipline of "climate science" is very nearly the same age (and validity) as the only pertinent data on global mean temperatures......IOW a "discipline" that has grown out of the desperate need to legitimize the junk science that makes up the entire discussion of AGW.
Just because a university offers a degree in a specific field does not make that field "legitimate"....it simply reflects the desire of the faculty and administration to attract grants, students, and extort dollars from the alum's.
Having spent some time in the academy, I can attest to the fact that academic history is littered with the bones of "fields of study" that were launched for similiar reasons, and ultimately discarded.
doc
Maybe we should call it, "Climatological Phrenology".
-
Maybe we should call it, "Climatological Phrenology".
Perfect!
doc
-
Maybe we should call it, "Climatological Phrenology".
Perfect!
doc
:lmao:
-
I suspect that the discipline of "climate science" is very nearly the same age (and validity) as the only pertinent data on global mean temperatures......IOW a "discipline" that has grown out of the desperate need to legitimize the junk science that makes up the entire discussion of AGW.
Just because a university offers a degree in a specific field does not make that field "legitimate"....it simply reflects the desire of the faculty and administration to attract grants, students, and extort dollars from the alum's.
Having spent some time in the academy, I can attest to the fact that academic history is littered with the bones of "fields of study" that were launched for similiar reasons, and ultimately discarded.
doc
Maybe we should call it, "Climatological Phrenology".
:rotf:
-
New term for the globalwarming alarmists:
Sunbats
:lmao: