Tweet
Re: Tough to Reason
Only a few climatologists? Be patient Benoit.
The weather data from the year 2008 is so young it will take a while before you read a lot of reports about it.
The data from 2008 can suggest on charts:
1 - that there is no warming between 1979 and 2008 since the global temperature variation is only 0.0 to 0.1 degree.
2 - the sun has variations (before the launch of Cindy satellite in 2008 they thought there was no variations at all from the sun) and this is much more important than the human factor so far.
3 - the ice level could go back to 1979 in just one or two years and there is probably no problem at all with ice on long term.
4 - there is no global warming.
But on a scientific point of view, they have to wait for at least another year or more of data (2009-2010 winter results and 2009 sun black spots) before they can announce stronger conclusions. Who would announce such incredible conclusions base on only one year of positive data? The answer: some journalists who talks with the climatologists and this is why we had this report on the Finacial Post.
What next?
If 2009 data is like 2008 data then the climatologists will announce incredible positive conclusions like the one I listed here.
Lets wait 2009-2010.
Until then you will read more and more articles like the one presented in the Financial Post from which I recall this :
It's hard to be green when you're red-faced all the time. It's easy to be red-faced when your cause is global warming doomsterism.
This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years. To add to their frustration, they couldn't even lash out at the lead author, Marco Tedesco of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department of City College of New York -- the doomsters had praised his previous reports showing high rates of Antarctic melt.
The latest news from the Arctic -- delivered daily via satellite -- is no better. Two years ago with the Arctic ice in rapid retreat, the doomsters, convinced of the coming of an ice-free Arctic, could scarcely contain themselves. Now, with the Arctic ice in rapid return, their anticipation of disaster seems more a cruel hoax of Nature. The doomsters now dread to track the satellite data beamed down to us courtesy of the International Arctic Research Center and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency -- you can see why they cringe each day by going to the satellite website and following the red line: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm. The red faces aren't all caused by Nature's refusal to cooperate in Earth's demise.
From this article, if you follow the link they give, you will see this chart (I put my comments below):
Each line represent a year. In 2007 (yellow line) the sea ice level went to a peak-low which scared some people (Al Gore, Michael Moore, etc). But then see how it went back up in 2008 (orange line). And 2009 (the red line, it stop in october) so far is simply "fantastic" (in may 2009 the red line goes even higher than any of the 7 other years). Fantastic for all of us.
Base on this I suggest three things: 1 - Celebrate, 2 - Be green anyway to live longer, 3 Have kids, the end of the world is not for the next century.
Carl
Originally posted by Benoit St-Pierre
View Post
The weather data from the year 2008 is so young it will take a while before you read a lot of reports about it.
The data from 2008 can suggest on charts:
1 - that there is no warming between 1979 and 2008 since the global temperature variation is only 0.0 to 0.1 degree.
2 - the sun has variations (before the launch of Cindy satellite in 2008 they thought there was no variations at all from the sun) and this is much more important than the human factor so far.
3 - the ice level could go back to 1979 in just one or two years and there is probably no problem at all with ice on long term.
4 - there is no global warming.
But on a scientific point of view, they have to wait for at least another year or more of data (2009-2010 winter results and 2009 sun black spots) before they can announce stronger conclusions. Who would announce such incredible conclusions base on only one year of positive data? The answer: some journalists who talks with the climatologists and this is why we had this report on the Finacial Post.
What next?
If 2009 data is like 2008 data then the climatologists will announce incredible positive conclusions like the one I listed here.
Lets wait 2009-2010.
Until then you will read more and more articles like the one presented in the Financial Post from which I recall this :
It's hard to be green when you're red-faced all the time. It's easy to be red-faced when your cause is global warming doomsterism.
This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years. To add to their frustration, they couldn't even lash out at the lead author, Marco Tedesco of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department of City College of New York -- the doomsters had praised his previous reports showing high rates of Antarctic melt.
The latest news from the Arctic -- delivered daily via satellite -- is no better. Two years ago with the Arctic ice in rapid retreat, the doomsters, convinced of the coming of an ice-free Arctic, could scarcely contain themselves. Now, with the Arctic ice in rapid return, their anticipation of disaster seems more a cruel hoax of Nature. The doomsters now dread to track the satellite data beamed down to us courtesy of the International Arctic Research Center and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency -- you can see why they cringe each day by going to the satellite website and following the red line: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm. The red faces aren't all caused by Nature's refusal to cooperate in Earth's demise.
From this article, if you follow the link they give, you will see this chart (I put my comments below):
Each line represent a year. In 2007 (yellow line) the sea ice level went to a peak-low which scared some people (Al Gore, Michael Moore, etc). But then see how it went back up in 2008 (orange line). And 2009 (the red line, it stop in october) so far is simply "fantastic" (in may 2009 the red line goes even higher than any of the 7 other years). Fantastic for all of us.
Base on this I suggest three things: 1 - Celebrate, 2 - Be green anyway to live longer, 3 Have kids, the end of the world is not for the next century.
Carl
Comment