With all the hype regarding the "consensus of scientists" on global warming, I thought I'd share this story I saw on the CBS News. For years medical scientists (a consensus) have preached the value of anti-oxidants to attain or maintain better health. But now there are new studies that show those scientists were WRONG. Yep, scientists being wrong may be difficult for some of you to believe, but that's the way science works. Controlled studies are done over and over before conclusions are reached, often after great debate. Then more studies continue and often overturn the previous consensus. Medical research now show taking too much of certain anti-oxidants may actually take years off your life. These are mainly vitamins A, B & E. I need not tell you how I think that story relates to the "crisis of global warming"...except one side doesn't want any debate. That's not how science works.
Our weather for the rest of this week will be summer-like...almost hot with only a slim shower chance. A cold front will approach on Saturday increasing rain chances late with a good chance for storms on Sunday. That may affect the second half of JazzFest weekend. Cooler & drier air arrives for Monday & Tuesday.
2 comments:
Yes, there’s a glitch in NASA’s data about U.S. air temperatures. But the corrected data still shows a warming trend that’s unmistakeable.
Many arguments against global warming require a carefully-slanted presentation of the statistics. Here’s what global warming skeptics are saying — and the evidence from NASA’s most recent statistics.
The new figures show global warming is a myth
These new figures don’t show anything about global warming. They’re exclusively for the United States.
The new figures show a huge discrepancy
Actually, the discrepancy isn’t that huge. A climate web site reviewed NASA’s figures and reported “an upward discontinuity” which would inflate the reported temperatures — by just one degree Centigrade in the winter, and only 0.8 degrees annually.
1998 was not America’s hottest year on record
This is true — but it’s the second hottest year ever recorded in the U.S., and the hottest in the last 73 years.
America’s hottest and third-hottest years were before World War II
This is also true. But the second- and fourth-hottest year were in the last nine years (1998 and 2006.) That argument is just a way of re-stating the statistics to downplay the significance of the recent hot years.
For example, at the Daily Tech blog, Michael Asher emphasized that the #1 and #3 slots are taken by 1934 and 1921 — but then blithely decided not to mention the #4 slot at all (though 2006 was the fourth-hottest year ever recorded in the United States.)
Sentences can always be constructed in several ways, to either include or exclude the recent hot years. For example, these statements are also true.
Two of the four hottest years have occurred within the last ten years
Four of the eight hottest years have occurred since the 90s.
5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.
No one ever disputed there were several very hot years before World War II. In fact, NASA’s old statistics had always shown that four of the ten warmest years were pre-World War II. The new stats now just show five hot pre-war years instead four — which is hardly a compelling revision.
The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20
I first read this on a blog called Grandma is an Idiot. Another way to phrase that would be “these five years are among the 25 hottest ever recorded” — but Grandma Is an Idiot chose to arbitrarily draw their line for a cutoff at “the top 20.”
3 (not 9) of the hottest years took place since 1995
NASA’s old statistics already showed this to be true, so this statement doesn’t reflect any change from our past understanding. Newsbusters makes this argument - but it requires a little misdirection. By referring to years “since 1995,” you can conveniently leave out 1990, which was one of the eight hottest years ever recorded in the United States.
But there’s always going to be a freakishly hot year — which is why NASA also calculated the mean temperature over a five-year period of time. If you graph those, you see a pretty clear pattern. Even with the new data, 7 of the hottest 10 five-year periods have still occurred in the last ten years. And we don’t have five-year means centered around 2005 and 2006 yet — though 2006 has already proven itself to be one of the 10 hottest years (again, using the updated statistics.)
Geez Caveman...you quote NASA like they are the bible of weather records...in fact, they can't even agree with another government agency (National Weather Service) with regards to how warm each year has been. If you do some reading (Google Roger Pielke) from a respected climatologist from Colorado, you'll understand why there is a warm bias to current temperature readings and why we can't compare past years to current without understanding we are not comapring apples to apples. For example, 1) there are far fewer temperature sensors now versus as recent as 1970 due to budget cut backs. 2) Many gages have been resited (moved) to areas nearer cities. Check where the Audubon Park gage (used to be on the golf course) is now. (next to a wharf by the Mississippi) If you take the time to go visit that site, you'll understand why they are always reading 4-5 degrees hotter than any surrounding sites. There is nothing "carefully-slanted" here. Just the facts. Remember, if NASA doesn't create a crisis regarding global warming, their funding to continue to study it will decrease. Hummm...who's slanting what?
Post a Comment