Yet Another Atheist Blog

2010-02-01

I love women

Filed under: Canada, human rights, women — stone1343 @ 2:06 am

unfortunately, the National Post doesn’t seem to,

The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

That this kind of hatred comes from a Canadian newspaper is almost unbelievable. There is some ugly, ugly stuff under the surface in Canada, just read the comments after the article.

People tell me not to get too caught up in these things because there’s nothing I can do to change it. Perhaps, but I also think it’s our responsibility to stand up for what we believe in, or as greenfyre puts it, “We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.” So many basic human rights that we take for granted in Canada seem to be at risk these days.

2010-01-31

Corporate money and climate change

Filed under: USA, environment, media, news, politics, science — stone1343 @ 5:35 pm

Reading this, I was struck by this paragraph,

It takes more than a willingness to lie to convince Americans that health care reform is a communist plot or that Obama is an illegal alien. It takes contemporary media more welcoming of artifice than truth. And, it takes money.

What struck me was how, with trivial changes, the same statement could be used for my own favourite issue,

It takes more than a willingness to lie to convince Americans that global warming is a scam or that environmentalists are terrorists. It takes contemporary media more welcoming of artifice than truth. And, it takes money.

or,

It takes more than a willingness to lie to convince Americans that the “homsexual agenda” will destroy America or that homosexuality can be “cured”. It takes contemporary media more welcoming of artifice than truth. And, it takes money.

or,

It takes more than a willingness to lie to convince Americans that vaccinations cause autism or that it’s just a money-making scheme by doctors. It takes contemporary media more welcoming of artifice than truth. And, it takes money.

Anyway, it turns out there’s at least one Republican on the right side of global warming, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,

“Six months ago my biggest worry was that an emissions deal would make American business less competitive compared to China,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who has been deeply involved in climate change issues in Congress. “Now my concern is that every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy.”

Graham gets it, at least this issue, I have no idea what else he stands for.

Back to the original quote from Firedoglake, discussing the Citizens United v. FEC decision,

In order to believe that our own minds remain supremely rational and unbent by propaganda, we project that belief onto everyone (or almost everyone). It isn’t true of anyone. In order to believe the wealthy have no advantage in the universe of ideas, we believe that all forms of communication are equal. That’s not true, either. This essay can’t compete with $1 billion spent on TV advertising.

Yet, this is precisely what progressive defenders of the Court’s Citizens United opinion mean when they ask us to “trust the free market of ideas,” a phrase Adam Bonin used last week at Kos.

There is no more of a free market of ideas than there is a free market of health insurance. It is dangerous and destructive to believe otherwise.

The person with more money to spend on contemporary communications is almost always going to prevail. It puts the lie to the superstition that equal ideas have been openly discussed and weighed rationally by equally thoughtful citizens.

I’m glad this case has increased awareness of the problem, but for me, it always goes back to global warming. It seems impossible to “win” the battle for public opinion when we’re fighting against these people, coincidentally, a separate article at Firedoglake.

2010-01-30

Time To Change The Roll

Filed under: Canada, fun, politics — stone1343 @ 1:37 pm

(h/t BigCityLib)

2010-01-24

… and the liars’ response

Filed under: Canada, politics — stone1343 @ 8:01 pm

Here’s one example of a Blogging Tory’s response to yesterday’s rallies, where he claims he couldn’t find any rally at all. Nothing. When there’s video.  So then the echo chamber comments start flowing, all based on a complete and utter lie. The blogosphere is real, the media should be reporting on them as well. I understand letting the trolls shoot themselves in the foot, but I also think we need to shine a light on blatant lying to help outsiders who don’t know the issues come to an informed conclusion.

I view this as a war, and unfortunately, I’ve failed spectacularly. There’s just too much hate and ignorance and lies out there for me even continue fighting if I can’t convince even a single person to take it seriously.

An overwhelming success!!!

Filed under: Canada, fun, politics — stone1343 @ 2:03 am

Estimated between 10,000 and 15,000 people

2010-01-23

Rallies for Democracy in Canada today!!!!

Filed under: Canada, fun, politics — stone1343 @ 10:36 am

Find your rally here, or join the Facebook group, soon to be over 211,000!!!

2010-01-21

Things that DO NOT disprove climate change science

Filed under: environment, science — stone1343 @ 10:24 pm
  • Al Gore’s electric bill, or the fact that you desperately want him to be wrong
  • Large numbers of people flying to Copenhagen
  • A petition with 38,000 signatures that anyone can join by going to the site
  • Anything with words like “tax”, “sovereignty”, “scam”, “one world government” or “socialism”
  • Solar cycles, Medieval Warm Period, etc
  • You not understanding the science
  • Opinions of groups with a vested interest in energy, minimizing taxes, or reducing government
  • CO2 being “natural”, a “trace gas” or “plant food”
  • TVMOB calling people “Nazis” or me being told I have the deaths of a capital ‘b’ Billion people on my conscience
  • Minor errors or even inconvenient emails that don’t change the science
  • Record-setting cold weather
  • Saying “there’s no proof”
  • The fact that some areas might seem to benefit from warmer temperatures

To disprove climate change science, you need to prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on climate, or that the effects on future generations will be manageable. That’s the science part, let’s keep it separate from the politics, ok?

2010-01-20

Conservative support since prorogation

Filed under: Canada, fun, politics — stone1343 @ 8:20 pm

2010-01-18

In which I’m accused of killing a billion people

Filed under: environment, fun, morality, politics, science — stone1343 @ 12:04 pm

Had a delightful conversation with a troll on the Facebook page Canadians Against Proproguing Parliament (if you think democracy’s nifty, you should join), and was shocked to learn that Greenpeace Canada has the deaths of a Billion (not just a small ‘b’ billion!!) people on their conscience,

So Jeff you are a Greenpeace Canada member. Then you are guilty of the deaths of a Billion humans. I would say it’s be nice talking to you but it hasn’t been. A Greenpeace member could not add to the science discussion since you do not know any.

I felt pretty bad about that, until I realized that compared to me, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein are PUSSIES!!!

I’ve also been accused of trying to sell out Canada’s sovereignty, and supporting Robert Mugabe and genocide (I guess that’s probably related to the whole billion people thing, though how, I’m not quite sure!)

Another day in the life of a climate warrior…

I call Poe’s Law

Filed under: Christianity, atheism, fun, media, religion — stone1343 @ 11:43 am

on this,

Q: Why Trig Palin?

A: Trig Palin is well known in the media; people all over the world know just who he is, and they already care about him. It will be much easier for them to sincerely pray for someone they care for, instead of what to them is a random name.

Also, it is known publicly that Trig Palin indeed has Down Syndrome. Science has no way to undo this condition, which is the result of an extra chromosome; but God can. When Trig Palin is found to be miraculously healed, everyone but the most hardened atheist will have to acknowledge God’s Majesty!

One way or the other , we’ll know April 18th.

(h/t Friendly Atheist)

2010-01-12

A sign of the times

Filed under: Canada, politics — stone1343 @ 3:51 pm

Tony Clement, Tea Party of Canada

Filed under: politics — stone1343 @ 2:17 am

I’ve always detested the current neo-con government and their copying the lowest of the low from the GOP, including climate change denial; the overly-simplistic and polarizing “If you disagree with torture, you’re a Taliban-lover” or “If you criticize Israel, you’re anti-Semitic”; and now Tony Clement is using a page from the Tea Party handbook, vilifying people who have an education,

“I know it’s a big issue with the Ottawa media elite and some of the elites in our country, but I got to tell you if reaction in my constituency is any indication, I’ve had maybe three dozen emails.”

“It may not be what the chattering classes want, but we’re not here to govern on behalf of the chattering classes.”

Add to that canceling funding to the Canadian Council on Learning, while Parliament is prorogued, so there’s no accountability. That is all the proof anyone should need that this prorogation is anti-democratic.

Every time I hear a Conservative say “elitist”, it reminds me why I will *never* vote Conservative until the current gang of neo-cons is long gone. I completely reject their politics, in the strongest way possible.

2010-01-10

Now that we know online petitions are worthless…

Filed under: environment, politics, science — stone1343 @ 1:46 pm

surely all the references to 32,000 scientists who deny global warming science (Google gave me 13,000 hits) will be promptly removed. Because you can actually join that esteemed list yourself just by going to the website, printing off the petition, signing it and sending it back.

The Movement is Growing

Filed under: Canada, politics — stone1343 @ 1:23 am

Almost 135,000 members on the Facebook group, that’s 438 for every riding in Canada.

In 2008 the Neo-Con won my riding by 239 votes…

Find an event for January 23 here

2010-01-09

The Climate Killers

Filed under: environment, politics, science — stone1343 @ 1:55 pm

Rolling Stone has a very good summary of some of the leading climate deniers. My only comment would be in the sub-title,

Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming

There’s a helluva lot more than these 17, so “the” should be removed.

(h/t DeSmogBlog)

2010-01-08

Rudy Giuliani, a noun, a verb and… “no terrorist attacks under Bush”

Filed under: media, politics — stone1343 @ 12:10 pm

Are you fucking kidding me? Rudy Giuliani was on Good Morning America this morning, and had the audacity to claim,

“What he [Obama] should be doing is following the right things that Bush did – one of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama.”

Honestly, how do we continue to let these people be our “elites”? I guess as long as he gets away with saying it on national TV.

2010-01-07

“Joining a Facebook group is too easy”

Filed under: politics — stone1343 @ 2:34 pm

Some in the media have decided to de-emphasize the import of joining a Facebook group to express outrage at proroguing Parliament. “So you got 25,000 30,000 85,000 people to join your page? It takes no commitment to join a Facebook page.” How about this for commitment? My disgust for Harper and his gang is so strong that I have changed from “always been Conservative” to “anything but Conservative”. I have become more active in politics and write letters to the editor and to politicians, even when those things are very much not in my personality. I participated in a 24-hour fast to protest inaction in Copenhagen (in fact, I carried it on to 40 hours).

Actually, the prorogation itself doesn’t even bother me that much, it’s the thuggish, neo-con, hyper-partisan, anti-science tactics in general.

For me, joining the group was just one tiny action among many, all to try to get the neo-cons out of the Conservative party, and Canada, for good. So don’t tell me it’s not meaningful.

And anyway, today’s poll says a majority of Canadians disagree with the prorogue, and almost 40% think it was to evade the Afghan torture issue.

2010-01-06

Three things that rocked my world today

Filed under: health, politics, science — stone1343 @ 4:00 pm

Top 10 Worst Thing About The Bush Decade. This is not inherently about Conservative v. Liberal or Republican v. Democrat, this is about rich v. poor. But it gets to the core of everything that bothers me in the US and Canada today, and the oligarchs dominate conservative messaging.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth, it’s long but valuable. I think it’s safe to summarize as follows: Chronic fructose consumption is the cause of the epidemic of “Metabolic Syndrome” in North America today.

T Pyxidis is less than a kiloparsec away and seems to be overdue to become a Type 1a supernova, which would be very, very bad.

2010-01-05

Givin’ it my best shot

Filed under: environment, media, politics, science — stone1343 @ 1:19 pm

I don’t see much I can do to influence the conversation over global warming, but I have to do everything I can. So this morning, I emailed the following to Stephen Harper, Jim Prentice, Bob Dechert (my MP), The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail and The National Post. Ideally, I want everyone to know about this, and I want everyone to know that everyone knows. I believe this clearly shows that 1) the composition of the atmosphere is changing and 2) it is us that’s causing that change, two hurdles for many people to accept AGW.

Anyway, it’s quite long and has some basic calculations. If you can, please take time to familiarize yourself with the numbers, I think this is how we should be trying to get the message out. The extreme short version is that global annual CO2 emissions equal 1% of total atmospheric CO2, and CO2 is rising by about 0.5% every year but you should go through the numbers for yourself.

Dear sirs,

I am writing to beg you to take this letter seriously, listen to what I have to say and check the numbers for yourselves. It may sound like hyperbole but I truly believe this may be one of the most important letters you will ever receive. We are at a critical time, where we need a fair, ambitious and binding deal very soon or it may be too late. Obviously the media isn’t responsible for educating the public, but there are people that should be held acccountable for actively misinforming. Of course, I apologize in advance for sounding condescending if you already understand these numbers.

As you know there is substantial public confusion about whether climate change is real and whether it’s being caused by us. Part of the blame certainly lies with the scientists and their poor communication but the media in general is also partly to blame because of their instinct to provide “balance”. Of course, business and government have lead the disinformation campaign, as thoroughly documented in “Climate Cover-Up” by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. The issue has been completely politicised, but it’s not a political issue and it’s not appropriate to treat it as one. That said, though I’m *completely* opposed to the development of the tar sands at all, I think the future of humanity is important enough that everyone at least understand the issues and negotiate in good faith.

There are really two aspects, both quite unintuitive, that must be understood. First, that we are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere and second that changing the atmosphere is capable of changing the climate itself. Every scientific explanation I’ve ever seen focuses on the complicated physics of “radiative forcing” and how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. Meanwhile, activists assume people understand the science and that it’s just a matter of convincing them to take action. but I don’t think 1 person in 100 understands any of it, aside from their position on whether it’s a problem or not. This is the crux of the problem, if it doesn’t intuitively make sense, it’s easy to dismiss as a scam, which is exactly what many have done.

I can’t help with the physics part because I’ve never made much of an attempt to really understand it myself. I’m just a guy sitting on my couch and for the life of me I don’t understand how this angle hasn’t been publicized more but I’ve read a lot and have never seen these calculations. When I thought of it this way, it seemed so much more obvious. I hope you agree. I’ll just give you the numbers and let you confirm them in any way you seem fit. Contact an appropriate scientist to help.

First, the mass of the atmosphere. It seems like a completely impossible calculation, but it’s actually quite trivial to at least get an estimate. The mass of a column of air to the edge of the atmosphere is about 14.7 psi, the average air pressure at sea level. Calculate the surface area of the Earth in square inches, multiple by 14.7 psi, and presto, there’s the mass of the atmosphere. The Earth’s radius is about 3,960 miles and the area of a sphere is 4 π r2 (obviously the Earth isn’t a perfect sphere because of mountains, etc but as seen from space, it’s close enough for this calculation). So the surface area comes out to about 197,000,000 square miles, or about 7.91 x10^17 square inches! Times 14.7 gives the mass of about (from now on, I won’t continue repeating “about”) 11.6 x 10^18 pounds or 5.28 x 10^18 kg. It’s easier to call that 5,280,000 gigatonnes (divide by 1,000 for tonnes, divide by another billion for gigatonnes). This is easily verifiable fact #1, the atmosphere weights a bit more than 5,000,000 gigatonnes.

The atmosphere is currently approximately 390 parts per million CO2 *by volume*. At first, I thought that meant * 390 / 1,000,000, but CO2 is denser than air so you have to multiply the result by 44 / 29, the ratio of the density of CO2 to the density of “air”.
5,280,000 * 390 /1,000,000 * 44 /29 gives 3,100 gigatonnes total CO2 in the atmosphere, another easily verifiable fact (here’s a reference, http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/ and it also lists the weight of CO2 for a few different concentrations). Wikipedia confirms both of these numbers.

Now, find the global total CO2 emissions for 2008. One source is at http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9023772&contentId=7044468 click on the map on the right where it says download the excel workbook. In the contents worsheet, click on “carbon dioxide emissions”, it will take you to worksheet 40. Row 87 gives the total CO2 emissions each year from 1965 to 2008. Cell AS87 gives the value for 2008, 31,577.8 million tonnes, i.e. about 31.6 gigatonnes CO2. Here’s another reference that gives the same value http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5793BB20090810

I can again show you a calculation that helps make sense of this number. It’s more complicated, and quite shocking, but completely real. Let’s consider regular gasoline, which is basically 89% octane and 11% heptane. For order of magnitude calculations, let’s just consider the octane. The chemical formula for octane is C8H18 and the combustion equation is 2C8H18 + 25O2 = 16CO2 + 18H2O. Ignoring the oxygen consumed and water produced because they’re irrelevant here, for every 2 molecules of octane burned, 16 molecules of CO2 are produced! The atomic weights of H, C and O are 1, 12 and 16 respectively, so the molecular weight of octane is 8 * 12 + 18 * 1 = 114. Similarly, the molecular weight of CO2 is (12 + 2 * 16) = 44. The end result is that for every 2 * 114 = 228 g of gasoline, 16 * 44 = 704 g of CO2 is produced. This is “conservation of mass”, and is completely unintuitive because we tend to think the gas is burned up and disappears. The reality is the reaction consumes a lot of oxygen from the atmosphere, and we are converting gasoline into 704 / 228 = 3.1 times as much CO2 by mass! It doesn’t matter how fuel efficient your car is, either, regardless much gas you use, 3 times the mass is released as CO2 (this doesn’t even include the “carbon footprint” of producing, refining and transporting the fuel). Now, go to http://fueleconomy.gov pick a car and see how much CO2 it produces. For a 2010 Lexus RX 350 AWD with the default driving assumptions, 9.2 tonnes of CO2 a year would be produced. Now multiply by maybe 500,000,000 for the total number of cars in the world, very roughly 4.6 gigatonnes of CO2 a year, just from cars.

Add all the other uses of jet fuel, coal, natural gas etc., I think the 31 gigatonne number starts to seem more reasonable. That’s about 5 tonnes of CO2 for every human on the planet, *every year*.

Therefore, the numbers tell us that in 2008, we dumped 31 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere that already had 3,100 gigatonnes in it, i.e. 1% of the total. How did that affect the ppm? Check ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt In 2007 it was 383.71 ppm, in 2008, 385.57, an increase of 1.86 ppm or 0.48% (the reason it’s less than 1% is that about 50% is consumed by plants or absorbed into the ocean, causing acidification, another problem). That doesn’t sound like much, but consider that before the Industrial Revolution it’s been estimated to have been about 280 ppm, in 1959 it was 315.98 and in May 2009, it topped 390 ppm.

The argument that CO2 is “plant food” is misleading at best, because we’re creating way more of it than plants can use, simply because the CO2 level is rising. The benefit to plant growth is also likely to be offset by more severe weather. If you even want to try to blame volcanoes, you need to account for how the 1% that we’re emitting does nothing while only the volcanoes contribute to the increase. Finally, there is one difference that you must account for any other “natural cycles” argument – that difference is that it’s us changing the atmosphere faster than any natural cycle ever has.

Furthermore, once you have these numbers in front of you, saying things “CO2 is an infinitessimal part of the atmosphere” becomes deliberately misleading. I’ve shown you exactly how much it is. And despite what Michele Bachmann says, CO2 is a dangerous gas to humans and animal life in general. At 1,000 ppm, the effects of CO2 poisoning begin to be felt. The IPCC has predicted that CO2 could be as high as 970 ppm by 2100, when your grandchildren might still be alive.

The IPCC (and science in general) is very cautious about claiming certainty, but I believe that I’ve shown clearly 1) how the atmosphere is changing, and 2) that it’s human activity that’s causing it.

As for the “greenhouse effect”, CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for over 150 years (see John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius). To claim otherwise, you need a lot of very good evidence. In fact, Arrhenius calculated that doubling CO2 (from about 290 ppm at the time) would cause 5-6C of warming, *very* close to today’s estimates. As the atmosphere warms, the ocean has actually been absorbing a lot of the heat, this is what leads to more severe hurricanes, more extreme rain or snow events, etc. The next time you catch yourself thinking “What happened to global warming?” during a really extreme winter storm, this is exactly what has been predicted.

Now, what to do with this info? As I suggested, verify it with a scientist. Even more interesting would be to see if the denier scientists can confirm any of this. I expect Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition etc. won’t be able to because they’re not scientists, they’re conservative think tanks dedicated to the principals of free markets and limited government (see the About page on their websites). Might even make a good bit of investigative journalism for the newspapers.

If I’ve made a significant mistake, please let me know, otherwise, now that you have the facts, if you use contradictory numbers as “science” without the required proof, I will consider it deliberate fraud. By all means, debate the costs, the mechanisms, the checks & balances, etc, but government and the media have to start accepting facts as facts and being accountable for deliberate misinformation.

Jeff Stone
stone1343@gmail.com

2010-01-03

NEWSFLASH! Earth has been cooling since 2001!

Filed under: Uncategorized — stone1343 @ 5:59 pm

According to Marc Morano at Climate Depot, global temperatures have plunged 0.74°F since the release of “An Invconvenient Truth”. Oh no, not again… from DeSmogBlog’s Disinformer Database,

In 2009 Marc Morano became the executive director and chief correspondent of a new climate change website, ClimateDepot.com.  ClimateDepot is [a] news website that publishes information denying the existence of human-induced global warming.  ClimateDepot is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow–a conservative think tank, based out of Washington, D.C.

From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the majority chair of the EPWC.

In the 2002 election cycle, Inhofe received more in donations from the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. According to the latest available election financing data, in the last five years Inhofe has received just over $3.4 million in donations from 20 industry sectors – almost $1 million (29%) is from the Energy/Natural Resources Sector and their respective PACS.

Sen. Inhofe is well known for his infamous quote that “the threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” and as his communications director, Mornano has spent the last two years perpetuating this message.

Other contentious statements by Inhofe include: “If we were to embrace the Kyoto treaty, it would shut down agriculture, military and oil production in Oklahoma…” and commenting on Tom Brokaw’s recent climate change documentary: “It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie.”

Anything Marc Morano says should be taken with a truckload of salt. He may even have been involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!

Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

According to Sourcewatch, CNS and Morano were the first source of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign against presidential nominee Senator John Kerry. In the run up to the official launch of the Swiftboat campaign, Morano wrote, “[h]undreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is ‘unfit to be commander-in-chief.’”

That’s an inconvenient truth…

Anyway, back to our story. Climate Depot points to WattsUpWithThat, who, well you know the story by now

Then Watts refers to Dr. Roy Spencer,

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that “anti-smoking advocates” are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute

Spencer is listed as an “Expert” with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Since John Christy is mentioned, who’s he? From ExxonSecrets,

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed.

I’m becoming a one-stop-shopping site for clearing disinformation!

Here’s a chart from the National Oceanographic Data Center about the heat content of the oceans since 1955,Here’s just one chart from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies,where yellow-orange-red-brown represents warmer than the base period 1951-1980. This is how science is done.

And here are the 10 warmest years on record, from a document on the same page,

Top 10 Warmest Years and Temperature Anomalies (Base Period = 1951-80) in 1880-2008

These rankings should not be taken too seriously because the differences between these years are much smaller than the measurement uncertainties (~ 0.1C).

Rank Global N.H. (0-90N) N.H. (24-90N) Land U.S. (48 states)
Area 100% 50% 30% 30% 1.6%
1 2005 0.62 2005 0.82 2007 1.07 2007 1.07 1934/1998 1.24
2 1998/2007 0.57 2007 0.78 2005 1.00 2005 1.01
3 2006 0.76 2006 0.94 2002 0.91 1921 1.13
4 2002 0.56 1998/2003 0.69 2008 0.85 1998 0.86 1931/2006 1.08
5 2003/2006 0.55 2003 0.81 2003/06 0.83
6 0.54 2002 0.66 2002 0.79 1999 0.94
7 2001/2004 0.48 2004 0.63 1998/2001 0.75 2008 0.75 1953 0.90
8 2008 0.60 2001 0.73 1990 0.88
9 2008 0.44 2001 0.59 2004 0.72 2004 0.72 1938 0.86
10 1997 0.40 1997 0.49 1999 0.69 1995 0.69 1939/1954 0.84

Top 10 Warmest Years and Temperature Anomalies (Base Period = 1951-80) in 1880-2008

These rankings should not be taken too seriously because the differences between these years are much smaller than the measurement uncertainties (~ 0.1C).

Rank Global N.H. (0-90N) N.H. (24-90N) Land U.S. (48 states)
Area 100% 50% 30% 30% 1.6%
1 2005 0.62 2005 0.82 2007 1.07 2007 1.07 1934/1998 1.24
2 1998/2007 0.57 2007 0.78 2005 1.00 2005 1.01
3 2006 0.76 2006 0.94 2002 0.91 1921 1.13
4 2002 0.56 1998/2003 0.69 2008 0.85 1998 0.86 1931/2006 1.08
5 2003/2006 0.55 2003 0.81 2003/06 0.83
6 0.54 2002 0.66 2002 0.79 1999 0.94
7 2001/2004 0.48 2004 0.63 1998/2001 0.75 2008 0.75 1953 0.90
8 2008 0.60 2001 0.73 1990 0.88
9 2008 0.44 2001 0.59 2004 0.72 2004 0.72 1938 0.86
10 1997 0.40 1997 0.49 1999 0.69 1995 0.69 1939/1954 0.84

Blog at WordPress.com.