Previous in Forum: The Relative Size of Planets and Stars - A Great Website   Next in Forum: New Proposed NASA Budget
Close
Close
Close
5 comments
Rate Comments: Nested
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129

NASA: 2009 Second Warmest Year on Record

01/25/2010 10:37 AM

At least 1/3 of Americans don't believe in Global Warming, or that man is causing Global Warming. Meanwhile the 2000s were the warmest decade since they started keeping track thoroughly in the 1880s. 2009 was the second warmest year in the modern record (2005 was the warmest). This during a solar minimum, though sun output variability correlates poorly with Earths mean global temperature (the variations are too small).

Global warming is accelerating and nothing is being done to slow it down. Nothing will be done anytime soon either, so get used to the warming. We should continue to see increased deviation from global mean temperatures in the coming decade.

NASA has released the following story:

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since record keeping began.

"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said James Hansen, the director of GISS. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,' said Hansen.

In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880.

The article continues here

Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#1

Re: NASA: 2009 Second Warmest Year on Record

01/25/2010 6:29 PM

Guess the good news is that 2 thirds of Americans believe in environmental change.

Curious about your particular take on the pros and cons of cap and trade.

Other than melting icecaps and disappearing glaciers what has happened in the oceans of particular note?

If in fact no real mitigation of environmental change is in the offing, what other than moving inland is suggested?

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 859
Good Answers: 33
#2

Re: NASA: 2009 Second Warmest Year on Record

01/25/2010 11:24 PM

"Since 1880---"--So what ? 120 years? Look at the big picture--Climate changes that were much larger than anything we have seen, and without any "man made carbon dioxide influence"---Like the Little Ice age, also, when Greenland was named Greenland because it was a Greenland, with an Agricultural industry. Records of the Vikings Atlantic journeys. Look also at the Lindzen's studies, based on the same Goodard reports, about the Lindzen Heat Vent studies---Way too many theories over way too little time---By the way, your DNA "papers" are of extreme interest, and are very good. My daughter is finishing at Berkeley this year, in Molecular Biology/ Bio-Chemistry---She did an internship in Washington D.C. last summer, at the Genetics Institute, presenting Science-converted to lay terms- for the Politicians, presented each week to update our Politicians on the new and changing fields of Genetic Sciences.. She highly recommended your series for anyone wanting to get their toes wet in the area--Hats off!! We need more of that! Best, C-MAC (10 points for off-topic)!

Reply
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129
#3
In reply to #2

Re: NASA: 2009 Second Warmest Year on Record

01/26/2010 9:52 AM

You Wrote:""Since 1880---"--So what ? 120 years? Look at the big picture....."

I am, the point isn't that the temperature is higher now, the point is the rate of change of the temperature is way too fast to be natural. Imagine if you and I were standing on the side of a road and a car went from 0 mph to 100 mph in 1 second. I turn to you and say, "that's not a normal car, look how quickly it accelerated" and you respond to me "what do you mean, I've seen plenty of cars go 100 mph".

100 years in geological time is extremely fast. The fact that the temperature has risen 1.4 F in that time is remarkable. And please understand this if you understand nothing else, the temperature increase has been exponential. So most of that 1.4 F increase has occurred in the last 40 years.

Every major scientific organization has an official statement on climate change that indicates that: a. it's happening and b. it is largely caused by man

You are not going to believe me, that's fine, you have too much invested emotionally in climate change being wrong to be rational on the subject, I get that. You can convince yourself the American Physical Society, NASA, American Chemical Society, etc. etc. are somehow biased on this issue. You can convince yourself that a theoretical physicist who wrote a 4 part introductory series on DNA that is recommended by a person studying that field, hasn't thoroughly thought climate change through. You can convince yourself that half of the summer arctic ice cap disappearing every summer is "natural". Like I said, I get it.

Congrats on your daughter going to Berkeley, that is an excellent school and I'm sure you're very proud (as you should be). I'm glad she liked my write-up on DNA.

Roger

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 859
Good Answers: 33
#4

Re: NASA: 2009 Second Warmest Year on Record

01/26/2010 11:52 PM

Roger---Have you read "Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years"? (Singer and Avery) I am trying to find a common ground on the data that is being disputed. "Climate Confusion", --again a NASA climatologist--"Heaven and Earth"--Australian Geologist--Realize that there is no title of " Climate Scientist", or "GlobalWarming Science"--All the fields of Science that the data is being derived from, are in the Atmospherical, Geological, and Oceanographical fields, and their subsets. For the huge errors being made, by people that are receiving grants from forced "donations", in order to fund the "Science" behind the "assumptions", that receive "Nobel Prizes", that then again reap billions more of OUR dollars, it is amazing that the data is so "COOKED", and only being exposed by independent observers, who have had to fight to even get to the sources of the data being used to present this fraud. I am not saying that pollution does not exist---I am not saying that Man has no impact on the state of the Planet--I am saying that do we really know if the warming of the Planet is any different that other Geological periods in our Planet's History,(Not having the instruments back in the Dark Ages, that we have now, And the recorded histories of those times) and if so, do we really have an ability to change it? Are there GOOD benefits for having the planet a bit warmer? Just some other thoughts--C-MAC

Reply
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Ingeniería en Español - Nuevo Miembro - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 5060
Good Answers: 129
#5
In reply to #4

Re: NASA: 2009 Second Warmest Year on Record

01/27/2010 9:39 AM

Right now I'm reading "Evening in the Palace of Reason: Bach meets Frederick the Great in the Age of Enlightenment". I generally prefer non-fiction, so I'm probably not going to read the books you're suggesting.

You know, Doctors only get paid when your sick, following your logic doesn't that indicate that Doctors don't want us to get well? Also, the Army gets more money in wartime, no questions asked. Wouldn't your logic suggest then that the Army is purposefully prolonging the wars overseas? Police are only needed as long as there is crime. Doesn't that motivate Police to never effectively fight crime? You know, so that they all can keep getting paid.

Of course not. It's a ridiculous argument. It completely ignores human nature and long term motivations (a discredited scientist, especially anyone who manipulates data, becomes a pariah in the scientific community. It's our biggest sin).

Quite frankly, you don't know what your talking about. As I told you earlier, you are emotionally invested in your argument and believe what you believe as a matter of faith. You back up your faith with half-truths and nonsense from others that think like you and ignore what the vast majority of the most prestigious scientists in the world tell you because it isn't what you believe. Think about it, if you saw 10 doctors and 9 of them told you you have cancer and have to have the tumor removed and 1 of the 10 told you "you don't need to do anything" and provided a rational explanation of why the tumor was natural, would you really just ignore the 9 doctors? That is exactly, exactly what you are doing, whether you want to believe it or not. Don't believe me though? Lets see what the American Physical Society has to say on the matter:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."

Now if you want to believe that the largest association of Physicists in the world is not honest, that's your business, but don't expect me to have a conversation with some conspiracy theorist. I wouldn't do it with the Evolution deniers, I'm not doing it with the Global Warming deniers. Harsh? Yes I know, but you can't be all bad if your daughter is going to Berkeley, so you need a serious wake up call on this issue.

Roger

Reply
Reply to Forum Thread 5 comments
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Bayes (2); C-Mac (2); Transcendian (1)

Previous in Forum: The Relative Size of Planets and Stars - A Great Website   Next in Forum: New Proposed NASA Budget

Advertisement