<p>[GISS</a> Land-Ocean Index dives in Jan08, exceeding drops for UAH and RSS satellite data Watts Up With That?](<a href=“http://wattsupwiththat.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/02/11/giss-land-ocean-index-dives-in-jan08-matches-trends-for-uah-and-rss-satellite-data/]GISS”>GISS Land-Ocean Index dives in Jan08, exceeding drops for UAH and RSS satellite data | Watts Up With That?)</p>
<p>I blame global warming – ooops, I mean climatogical change. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And yet its clear from the rest of the graph that, while there is local variation, the overall trend is up. Right? Or do you imagine the data representing the last 100 years should simply be ignored?</p>
<p>drb: Give up. If you try to address climate change on a level any more complicated than the entire world suddenly acting like the thermostat just got pushed up to “90” some people’s eyes glaze over and they go all Beavis and Butthead on you. Heh-heh, heh-heh, heh-heh. </p>
<p>It’s hopeless - don’t wast your keystrokes.</p>
<p>i hope, however, that nobody wants to argue against global warming rite?</p>
<p>Well at least the next “Ice Road Trucker” season should be safe. With all the talk of rapid global warming, I thought we were going to see them building boats instead of an ice road.</p>
<p>100 whole years for a planet around 5 Billion years old. That’s like taking one second out of your day and saying it represents the entire day. And there are many folks who feel the measurements over the last 100 years were not all that hot. (yuk yuk)</p>
<p>…and then there are those who can’t be bothered to even read the data, let alone try to understand its significance. If you’d actually read the chart you linked, or, better yet, the source data: <a href=“http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt[/url]”>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt</a> you’d have understood that 2007 had the second highest average temperature on record (by this means of measurement) trailing only 2005. The huge DROP you’re looking at was a one-month reading for January, 2008, when temperatures were above the historical norm - just not as far above it as they were in most recent years.</p>
<p>But don’t worry – there will always be “many folks” who will be only too eager to tell you whatever it is you feel better hearing.</p>
<p>[January</a> 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months Watts Up With That?](<a href=“http://wattsupwiththat.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/]January”>http://wattsupwiththat.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/)</p>
<p>barrons, why do you continue to fight what the vast majority of the world sees> kind of cute, actually…holding on with the fingertips </p>
<p>and global warming doesn’t mean that it is gonna be hot all the time…it means the weather is going to be more erratic…and gee wizz…</p>
<p>but its okay, I understand wanting to see the flat world</p>
<p>Barron’s, your “many folks” have compared January 2008 month-to-month with January 2007 - which was the single month with the largest degree of raised global temperature over the monthly average in the last **130 years<a href=“and%20by%20a%20wide%20margin.%20%202007%20had%20a%20very,%20very%20warm%20January%20worldwide.”>/B</a> Since 2008 didn’t match that very large example of higher global temperatures he describes it as a “drop.” That’s like saying your body temperature dropped from 104 degrees to 101 - so we’d better wrap you in blankets before you freeze to death. January 2008 was still well above the historical average temperature for the month, although less so than most recent months.</p>
<p>Honestly - do you ever look at the source data of the blogmeisters who feed you this crap before you post their insipid goofiness?</p>
<p>In fairness to the source of the data, here’s a recent addition to the website you linked, Barrons:
</p>
<p>A little critique of your source data.</p>
<p><a href=“How much Estimation is too much Estimation? « Climate Audit”>How much Estimation is too much Estimation? « Climate Audit;
<p>[Melting</a> Glaciers On The Tibetan Plateau](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070720163907.htm]Melting”>Melting Glaciers On The Tibetan Plateau | ScienceDaily)</p>
<p>[TheStar.com</a> | Environment | The alarming redefinition of ‘glacial’](<a href=“Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star”>Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star)
[OregonLive.com:</a> Everything Oregon](<a href=“http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1202696711100340.xml&coll=7]OregonLive.com:”>http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1202696711100340.xml&coll=7)</p>
<p>[IcelandReview</a> - Online](<a href=“http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=300792]IcelandReview”>http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=300792)</p>
<p>[Read</a> Article](<a href=“http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=4425&blz=1]Read”>http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=4425&blz=1)</p>
<p>[Channel</a> 4 - News - Andes glaciers gone in 20 years](<a href=“http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/andes+glaciers+gone+in+20+years+/1471847]Channel”>http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/andes+glaciers+gone+in+20+years+/1471847)</p>
<p>[Summit</a> Daily News for Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper and Frisco Colorado - News](<a href=“http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20080204/NEWS/911783112/0/FRONTPAGE]Summit”>http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20080204/NEWS/911783112/0/FRONTPAGE)</p>
<p>The people who depend on glaciers for their water & /or livelihood will be happy to hear that they soon will be reforming.
What will we do in the meantime?</p>
<p>I guess that is why the “Politically Correct” have gone from saying global warming, to saying climate change. This way, no matter which way the climate changes; no matter how much or how little precipitation we receive; and no matter what the ice shelf in the north does compared to that of the south; people will still be able to blame mankind. Especially the United States for all the world problems. It won’t matter if it appears to be a natural phenomenon. The objective is to prove that mankind is the problem. If the data doesn’t support your political cause or hypothesis, then change the data until is does.</p>
<p>Do not read into this. I do believe that there is “Climate Change” happening in the world. I just don’t believe that mankind is a major contributor to the climate change; nor can we have a major impact on reversing anything.</p>
<p>barrons–It doesn’t really matter what the earth did over the past billions, what we are concerned with is the short time (geohistorically speaking) that humans are here. They say the sun will burn out in so many billions also, but I’m not going to suggest we do anything about it.</p>
<p>And if “climate change” isn’t a problem, how about pollution, loss of habitat, collapse of ecosystems? You can’t deny that mankind has not been so good to the earth.</p>
<p>Yet just the other day in some popular “home” magazine (doesn’t matter which one) I saw an article on fluorescent bulbs & saving electricity. How did they say to dispose of these mercury-containing bulbs? “If you’re just one person, not a large office/consumer, just toss it in the trash. You’re just one person.”</p>
<p>Now multiply jaw-droppingly irresponsible thinking like that by millions of people. Sheesh.</p>
<p>“Now multiply jaw-droppingly irresponsible thinking like that by millions of people. Sheesh.”</p>
<p>It won’t be the first time that the law of unintended consequences turns a noble but flawed concept into a far worse situation. To think that the billions of people that inhabit this earth are going to all dispose of CFs responsibly is pure pie-in-the-sky lunacy. Those who advocate for them had better take this reality into account.</p>
<p>So we should do nothing? Instead of throwing up my hands in despair, I can think of at least a couple of things that would make a start:</p>
<p>Education. Littering used to be a far worse problem until PSA’s (and possibly fear of fines) taught people not to just dump their litter bags out the window because they’re “just one person.”</p>
<p>Refund/deposit system. Build a surcharge into anything we want recycled, and people will bring them back for the cash instead of throwing them out. We just need a system. And probably legislation.</p>
<p>Face it, our current high-on-the-hog (petroleum-heavy), use-it-once and throw-it-away lifestyle is unsustainable, neither by us nor by the planet. I can’t believe I’m having to argue this.</p>
<p>OK, didn’t mean to hijack the thread, but “global warming” is apparently not a concrete enough concept for some people to understand or believe in. And it really doesn’t matter, because whether it gets hotter or colder, we still have to drink the water and breathe the air, right?</p>
<p>“And it really doesn’t matter, because whether it gets hotter or colder, we still have to drink the water and breathe the air, right?”</p>
<p>That’s precisely my point. There are those who take the view, “Even if man is not responsible for global warming or if there is nothing that man can do to turn it around, there is no harm in trying.” My point, beyond the fact that this overlooks significant economic harm that may result, is that there will be unintended consequences of this effort to stop global warming which may screw up other parts of the environment - like mercury in the ground water from mandated CFs.</p>
<p>I can agree with your point, but my point is there are unintended consequences of LIVING on this planet, and we need to do some work to fix it.</p>
<p>For instance: Sure, it’s great that every child is getting a cheap laptop. Have we thought of the disposal problem that will create in a few years when they all wear out? Third-world countries already have problems b/c we are shipping our junk to them for “recycling.” Relatively clean rivers are getting contaminated with heavy metals and other poisons. </p>
<p>WE, individually and collectively, are making a mess of the planet. And it’s much worse now than it was 40 years ago when I was a student and our textbooks pointed out we couldn’t keep on polluting the oceans indefinitely. And they told us that someday we would run out of oil, but don’t worry, scientists will find alternative energy sources.</p>
<p>Someday is here.</p>
<p>"And it’s much worse now than it was 40 years ago when I was a student and our textbooks pointed out we couldn’t keep on polluting the oceans indefinitely. "</p>
<p>Can you provide any data to support your view that polution in the US is worse than it was 40 years ago?</p>