NASA says last decade hottest on record
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: online shopping
Next: car frum
From: C. E. White on 24 Jan 2010 17:54 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:YdOdnQw50sqYN8HWnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > C. E. White wrote: >> >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:mO2dncOb9ebnQcfWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hpw >> >> - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. > > I do. It is real. > >> - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global warming? >> Beyond a doubt. > > Really? Evidence, please. Or is the conspiracy coverup part of this? > >> - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is warming? >> No. Perhaps data from the last 50 years is reliable, but even that is >> open to doubt. Even the pro-global warming scientist acknowledge that >> they must "adjust" the data to correct for difference in measurement >> techniques and changes in the micro environment around measurement >> points. These adjustments can be (are?) tailored to suit the desired >> conclusions. > > I totally disagree. First, how do you have good data if one doesn't > correct for errors? Second, how do you figure that these adjustments are > tailored for anything? Again, evidence, please. > >> - Has the Earth's climate been stable for millions of years. No. > > So? > >> - Are there political reasons for promoting "man made" global warming and >> the need to control it beyond preserving the Earth's environment? >> Definitely. > > Really? Evidence please. > >> - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone >> adequately addresses this question. Certainly if global warming happens, >> there will be winners and losers. But will the "net" be good or bad? For >> certain the Earth's climates changes constantly. There are always winners >> (humans) and losers (dinosaurs). > > Well, with global warming, there will be plenty of human losers, like when > the sea level rises because the ocean is grow less dense (i.e., it is > expanding because it is getting warmer). In addition, humans are > definitely degrading our environment in many other ways. > >> - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on their >> opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. > > I don't really trust politicians at all. > > >> - Will the measures proposed to control global warming work? I don't >> think so. > > Please provide a better idea. > >> - Will the measures proposed to control global warming affect the world's >> economy? Definitely. Again, there will be winners and losers. > > And using less energy by becoming more efficient (which is not unlimited) > is a good thing for the economy. > >> - Do you trust politicians to make the sort of decisions proposed to >> control global warming? I don't. > > Then who should make the decisions? Mike Hunter? Me? I would hope not > either one. > >> My net is - I don't trust the science behind "man made" global warming. > > What's wrong with the science? > >> I don't trust the motives of the people "promoting" global warming. I >> don't trust politicians to make rational decision about how to control >> global warming (even if it is actually true). I can't even be sure global >> warming (if true) is a bad thing. > > Yeah, changing the concentration of a gas that has major effects on plants > and increasing the temperature of the planet - yeat, that sounds like a > good idea. > >> I have always been suspicious that certain factions have seized on "man >> made" global warming as a tool to be used to implement measures they feel >> are necessary. I might even agree with some of these measures (reduction >> in dependence on foreign oil for one, more responsible energy and raw >> material use for another). However, I think it is a bad strategy to try >> and use "man made" global warming as an excuse for implementing changes. > > It would be if the science did not back it up. > >> It leads to exactly the sort of distrust of science and politicians the >> whole "man made" global warming debate has engendered. >> >> Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I don't. > > I trust their conclusions after looking at the facts. > >> Ed I was expressing opinions, not facts. I don't have the resources to "prove" my opinions. I am sure I could find hundreds of references that dispute the existence of "man made" global warming. However, I am sure you would disparage those as the work of crack pots. Isn't this the usual tactic of the pro "man made" global warming faction? As to whether or not there is a conspiracy promoting the idea that "man made" global warming is a problem....what is there to prove? Do you doubt there are groups of scientist and politicians actively promoting the existence of "man made" global warming? You don't think they conspire together to promote this idea? Perhaps you think you can only conspire in back rooms about evil things. Perhaps you should look up the definitions of a conspiracy. Not all of the definitions imply evil (for instance - "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result"). You don't think that scientist often adjust data to put their theories in the most favorable light? Seriously? I don't believe the measured proposed to control "man made" global warming will work because I doubt "man made" CO2 is the actual cause. Increased CO2 concentration might actually stimulate plant growth. I guess I am a child of the 70's. I am still worried about the coming ice age. On my personal scale of potential ecological disasters, global warming is no better than fourth (asteroid strike, super volcano, ice age, global warming). Of these four, only global warming offers politicians a real opportunity to extend their control over society. I can see why it is so popular with liberal politicians. Again, I don't trust the science and I especially don't trust the politicians using the science (good or bad) to impose draconian measures. Ed
From: in2dadark on 25 Jan 2010 12:00 On Jan 24, 3:00 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote: > Mike Hunter wrote: > > Search "James E Hansen, Debunked" and "How can CO2, a gas that comprise less > > than one half of one percent of our atmosphere effect the temperature of the > > earth, up or down" THEN decide WBMA > > I have found this article:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=if-carbon-dioxide-ma... > > Thanks. > > Based on all the information that is available to me, including the info > supposedly debunk climate change, I have reaffirmed my conclusion > that climate change is real, humans are seriously harming our > environment and that CO2 is a major driver of climate change. > > Jeff > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges 'notion that human emissions are > > responsible for global warming' & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill > > Global Warming Fears ]. > > > Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of > > former Vice-President Al Gore's closest allies in the promotion of man-made > > global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at > > NASA. > > > Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former > > supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear > > soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that > > Hansen "embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen > > was "was never muzzled." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of > > international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming > > fears. > > > "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that > > global warming is man made," Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the > > Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. "I was, in > > effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate > > his resources, and evaluate his results," Theon, the former Chief of the > > Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of > > the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained. > > > "Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency > > position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast > > climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by > > coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before > > Congress," Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created > > worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials > > against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his > > claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite > > doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don't Panic Over Predictions > > of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran > > climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' - June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: > > NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes > > against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming - June > > 23, 2008 ] > > > Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning > > anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically > > simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid > > scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," > > Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed > > data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what > > they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They > > have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated > > independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science > > should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate > > model forecasts to determine public policy," he added. > > > "As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters' programs (1982-94), an SES > > position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the > > entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, > > Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, > > in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," > > Theon wrote of his career. "This required a thorough understanding of the > > state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by > > reading books and journal articles," Theon added. (LINK) Theon also > > co-authored the book "Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods." [Note: > > Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from > > man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and > > physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, > > Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to > > receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil > > Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning > > NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA > > Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7, Chemist and > > Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook > > Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years > > of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, > > Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, > > Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon > > Facility] > > > Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced > > in 2006 when his film "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. According to > > satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore's film was released, > > Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has > > slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists > > have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as > > peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. "Vice > > President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless > > claims that the "debate is over" appear to be ignoring scientific reality," > > Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works > > Committee. > > > A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 > > international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming > > fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are > > former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change > > that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow > > almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and > > a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist > > from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese > > scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added > > and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These > > scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by > > Gore and the UN IPCC. > > > The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' > > equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and > > prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global > > warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists > > overwhelmed the meeting, with '2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile > > to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ( See full reports here & here ] In > > addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed > > 68% disagree that global warming science is "settled." A November 25, 2008, > > article in Politico noted that a "growing accumulation" of science is > > challenging warming fears, and added that the "science behind global warming > > may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation." More evidence > > that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists > > "rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global > > warming". An American Physical Society editor conceded that a "considerable > > presence" of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists > > countered the UN IPCC, declaring: "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the > > Climate". India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. > > International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC "be called to account and > > cease its deceptive practices." > > > The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the > > key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made > > climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 > > in new Pew survey. Pew Survey: & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters - > > '51% - now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate > > change' - January 20, 2009 - Rasmussen Reports ] > > > The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady > > stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient > > developments challenged the UN's and former Vice President Al Gore's claims > > that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." > > > On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of > > man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the > > following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies > > predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the > > discredited "Hockey Stick"; inconvenient developments and studies regarding > > rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland's > > ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's a no brainer...
From: in2dadark on 25 Jan 2010 12:07 On Jan 24, 5:54 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhite3rem...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > > news:YdOdnQw50sqYN8HWnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > > > > > > C. E. White wrote: > > >> "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > >>news:mO2dncOb9ebnQcfWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >>>http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html > >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hpw > > >> - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. > > > I do. It is real. > > >> - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global warming? > >> Beyond a doubt. > > > Really? Evidence, please. Or is the conspiracy coverup part of this? > > >> - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is warming? > >> No. Perhaps data from the last 50 years is reliable, but even that is > >> open to doubt. Even the pro-global warming scientist acknowledge that > >> they must "adjust" the data to correct for difference in measurement > >> techniques and changes in the micro environment around measurement > >> points. These adjustments can be (are?) tailored to suit the desired > >> conclusions. > > > I totally disagree. First, how do you have good data if one doesn't > > correct for errors? Second, how do you figure that these adjustments are > > tailored for anything? Again, evidence, please. > > >> - Has the Earth's climate been stable for millions of years. No. > > > So? > > >> - Are there political reasons for promoting "man made" global warming and > >> the need to control it beyond preserving the Earth's environment? > >> Definitely. > > > Really? Evidence please. > > >> - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone > >> adequately addresses this question. Certainly if global warming happens, > >> there will be winners and losers. But will the "net" be good or bad? For > >> certain the Earth's climates changes constantly. There are always winners > >> (humans) and losers (dinosaurs). > > > Well, with global warming, there will be plenty of human losers, like when > > the sea level rises because the ocean is grow less dense (i.e., it is > > expanding because it is getting warmer). In addition, humans are > > definitely degrading our environment in many other ways. > > >> - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on their > >> opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. > > > I don't really trust politicians at all. > > >> - Will the measures proposed to control global warming work? I don't > >> think so. > > > Please provide a better idea. > > >> - Will the measures proposed to control global warming affect the world's > >> economy? Definitely. Again, there will be winners and losers. > > > And using less energy by becoming more efficient (which is not unlimited) > > is a good thing for the economy. > > >> - Do you trust politicians to make the sort of decisions proposed to > >> control global warming? I don't. > > > Then who should make the decisions? Mike Hunter? Me? I would hope not > > either one. > > >> My net is - I don't trust the science behind "man made" global warming.. > > > What's wrong with the science? > > >> I don't trust the motives of the people "promoting" global warming. I > >> don't trust politicians to make rational decision about how to control > >> global warming (even if it is actually true). I can't even be sure global > >> warming (if true) is a bad thing. > > > Yeah, changing the concentration of a gas that has major effects on plants > > and increasing the temperature of the planet - yeat, that sounds like a > > good idea. > > >> I have always been suspicious that certain factions have seized on "man > >> made" global warming as a tool to be used to implement measures they feel > >> are necessary. I might even agree with some of these measures (reduction > >> in dependence on foreign oil for one, more responsible energy and raw > >> material use for another). However, I think it is a bad strategy to try > >> and use "man made" global warming as an excuse for implementing changes. > > > It would be if the science did not back it up. > > >> It leads to exactly the sort of distrust of science and politicians the > >> whole "man made" global warming debate has engendered. > > >> Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I don't. > > > I trust their conclusions after looking at the facts. > > >> Ed > > I was expressing opinions, not facts. I don't have the resources to "prove" > my opinions. I am sure I could find hundreds of references that dispute the > existence of "man made" global warming. However, I am sure you would > disparage those as the work of crack pots. Isn't this the usual tactic of > the pro "man made" global warming faction? > > As to whether or not there is a conspiracy promoting the idea that "man > made" global warming is a problem....what is there to prove? Do you doubt > there are groups of scientist and politicians actively promoting the > existence of "man made" global warming? You don't think they conspire > together to promote this idea? Perhaps you think you can only conspire in > back rooms about evil things. Perhaps you should look up the definitions of > a conspiracy. Not all of the definitions imply evil (for instance - "any > concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result"). > > You don't think that scientist often adjust data to put their theories in > the most favorable light? Seriously? > > I don't believe the measured proposed to control "man made" global warming > will work because I doubt "man made" CO2 is the actual cause. > > Increased CO2 concentration might actually stimulate plant growth. > > I guess I am a child of the 70's. I am still worried about the coming ice > age. > > On my personal scale of potential ecological disasters, global warming is no > better than fourth (asteroid strike, super volcano, ice age, global > warming). > > Of these four, only global warming offers politicians a real opportunity to > extend their control over society. I can see why it is so popular with > liberal politicians. > > Again, I don't trust the science and I especially don't trust the > politicians using the science (good or bad) to impose draconian measures. > > Ed- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I don't need science. It's 59 today in ne Pennslyvania. It's JANUARY..! We never used to see the sun for 6 months up there and we'd have several snow storms a year. A major snow storm has become a rare occurance. Florida is also HOTTER than ever. It's a plain as the nose on my face that there is a shift in the climate in the warming direction. Of course you'll still see the odd cold days and records to the down side. But most of the records are on the up side. And the trend is OBVIOUSLY up, temperature wise. I'm not so political that I'm willing to ignore an obvious problem. No one should be. But I don't think Al Gore flying around the country in a jet is helping the issue. He's more of a hypocrite than anything..
From: C. E. White on 26 Jan 2010 08:22 "in2dadark" <in2dadark(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9b21d706-35a4-4570-aae5-169c6b2605ee(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > I don't need science. It's 59 today in ne Pennslyvania. It's > JANUARY..! We never used to see the sun for 6 months up there and > we'd > have several snow storms a year. A major snow storm has become a > rare > occurance. Not even the most dedicated pro global warming wacko would claim that a specific warm day, month ,or even year is evidence of global warming. It might be part of a trend, but there have been very warm days and months in the past. I am not sure where you are in Pennsylvania, so I looked up the infomration for Harristown, Erie, and Pittsburgh (www.intellicast.com). In Harristown the record high temperature in January is 70 degrees (Jan 14, 1995). The record high in January for Erie is 72 degrees (Jan 25 1950). The record January high in Pittsburgh is 74 degrees (Jan 24, 1999). All three locations had record highs for many days in January in the upper 60's/ lower 70's. Well except for Janruary 22, in Pittsburgh. The record high for that date is only 45 (1993). None of these record highs has been set in over a decade. According to the National Weather Service, so far the monthly average temperature for Pittsburgh is 0.1 degree Centigrade lower than average and the percippitation is 0.32 inches greater than normal (http://www.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=pbz ). It seems to me you are way off the mark in claiming this years wether is proof of global warming. If anything, the opposite is true. This is a colder and wetter than normal month, the opposite of what you think is happening. > Florida is also HOTTER than ever. It's a plain as the nose > on my face that there is a shift in the climate in the warming > direction. Again, I am not sure where you are talking about in Florida, so I checked Orlando, Pensacola, and Miami. The record January high in Orlando is 87 in 1991 (average high is 72). The record January high in Miami is 88 degrees (many different years, none since 2000 - average high 76). The record Janaury high in Pensacola is 81 degrees in 1941. None of these places has set a record high in a decade. Orlando's average tmeperature is 8.0 degrees centigradfe below the normal January average. Miami is only 5.4 degree centigrade colder than the average Janruary so far this moneth. The actual temepratures in Florida this year are hardly evidence that that part of Florida is HOTTER than ever. The opposite is true, this is one of the colder January's in FLorida in recent years. > Of course you'll still see the odd cold days and records to the down > side. But most of the records are on the up side. And the trend is > OBVIOUSLY up, temperature wise. I'm not so political that I'm > willing > to ignore an obvious problem. No one should be. It is not obvious at all that the trend is up based on the two location you mentioned. I think you are reacting more to new reports than to your personal observations. You are a classic victum of the pro man made global warming conspiracy. > But I don't think Al Gore flying around the country in a jet is > helping the issue. He's more of a hypocrite than anything.. If there is a problem with global warming, Al Gore is likely the main contributor. Where I live (North Carolina), this has been an unusaaly cold month. We have not set any record lows, but we have stayed very cold for very long periods of time. I suspect January will be one of the coldest months on record. We are 1.7 degrees centigrade below the monthly average at this point in the month.
From: Mike Hunter on 26 Jan 2010 13:46
A few weeks ago it was 34 degrees at my place in Key West Florida, the lowest ever recorded ;) "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:hjmqpu$ohj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "in2dadark" <in2dadark(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:9b21d706-35a4-4570-aae5-169c6b2605ee(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > >> I don't need science. It's 59 today in ne Pennslyvania. It's >> JANUARY..! We never used to see the sun for 6 months up there and we'd >> have several snow storms a year. A major snow storm has become a rare >> occurance. > > Not even the most dedicated pro global warming wacko would claim that a > specific warm day, month ,or even year is evidence of global warming. It > might be part of a trend, but there have been very warm days and months in > the past. > > I am not sure where you are in Pennsylvania, so I looked up the > infomration for Harristown, Erie, and Pittsburgh (www.intellicast.com). In > Harristown the record high temperature in January is 70 degrees (Jan 14, > 1995). The record high in January for Erie is 72 degrees (Jan 25 1950). > The record January high in Pittsburgh is 74 degrees (Jan 24, 1999). All > three locations had record highs for many days in January in the upper > 60's/ lower 70's. Well except for Janruary 22, in Pittsburgh. The record > high for that date is only 45 (1993). None of these record highs has been > set in over a decade. According to the National Weather Service, so far > the monthly average temperature for Pittsburgh is 0.1 degree Centigrade > lower than average and the percippitation is 0.32 inches greater than > normal (http://www.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=pbz ). It seems > to me you are way off the mark in claiming this years wether is proof of > global warming. If anything, the opposite is true. This is a colder and > wetter than normal month, the opposite of what you think is happening. > >> Florida is also HOTTER than ever. It's a plain as the nose >> on my face that there is a shift in the climate in the warming >> direction. > > Again, I am not sure where you are talking about in Florida, so I checked > Orlando, Pensacola, and Miami. The record January high in Orlando is 87 in > 1991 (average high is 72). The record January high in Miami is 88 degrees > (many different years, none since 2000 - average high 76). The record > Janaury high in Pensacola is 81 degrees in 1941. None of these places has > set a record high in a decade. Orlando's average tmeperature is 8.0 > degrees centigradfe below the normal January average. Miami is only 5.4 > degree centigrade colder than the average Janruary so far this moneth. The > actual temepratures in Florida this year are hardly evidence that that > part of Florida is HOTTER than ever. The opposite is true, this is one of > the colder January's in FLorida in recent years. > >> Of course you'll still see the odd cold days and records to the down >> side. But most of the records are on the up side. And the trend is >> OBVIOUSLY up, temperature wise. I'm not so political that I'm willing >> to ignore an obvious problem. No one should be. > > It is not obvious at all that the trend is up based on the two location > you mentioned. I think you are reacting more to new reports than to your > personal observations. You are a classic victum of the pro man made global > warming conspiracy. > >> But I don't think Al Gore flying around the country in a jet is >> helping the issue. He's more of a hypocrite than anything.. > > If there is a problem with global warming, Al Gore is likely the main > contributor. > > Where I live (North Carolina), this has been an unusaaly cold month. We > have not set any record lows, but we have stayed very cold for very long > periods of time. I suspect January will be one of the coldest months on > record. We are 1.7 degrees centigrade below the monthly average at this > point in the month. > |