Climate change questioned after 2008 tipped to be coolest year of the century (1 Viewer)

[chicky_pie]

The weather refused to co-operate, offering mixed messages from record cold temperatures across North America to heatwaves across Europe and the Middle East earlier in the year.

Even in Australia yesterday there were flurries of snow on the highest peaks of a shivering Tasmania, while the north of the country sweltered in above-average temperatures.

A cool 2008 may not fit in with doomsday scenarios of some of the more extreme alarmists. But nor, meteorologists point out, does it prove the contrary, that global warming is a myth.


In Australia this year, on the most recent figures, the average temperature was 22.18C.

Last year it was 22.48C. In 2006 it was 22.28C, and in 2005 22.99C.

Senior meteorologist with the National Meteorological Centre Rod Dickson said that based on data from January to November, 2008 might be the coolest this century but it was still Australia's 15th warmest year in the past 100 years.

"Since 1990, the Australian annual mean temperature has been warmer than the 1961-1990 average for all but two years, 2008 being one of those years," he said.

In Australia overall, 2008 on the most recent date, was 0.37C higher than for the 30-year average to 1990 of 21.81C.

Worldwide, 2008 was expected to be about 0.31C higher than the 30-year average to 1990, of 14C.
Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide had well below average rainfall for the calendar year 2008, with just 449mm in Melbourne, compared with an average annual rainfall of 652mm.

Hobart received 407mm in 2008 compared with an average of 618mm. Sydney was also slightly below average at 1083 mm, compared with an average of 1213mm.

Brisbane, Perth and Darwin were all wetter than normal.

Climate change questioned after 2008 tipped to be coolest year of the century | Environment | News.com.au

Fucking hippies, Al Gore worshippers.

and Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto thing? LMAO!!

John Howard was right <3

I swear Global Warming is 21st century's new religion/cult combined.

 

[Trebla]

LOL, annual average temperatures oscillate in the short-term but are rising overall in the long term. It's still "Australia's 15th warmest year in the past 100 years". Expect 2009 to be one of the warmest years of the century .

Besides, just because it cooled a bit in Australia doesn't mean it also happened for the rest of the world!

 

[jb_nc]

Fucking hippies, Al Gore worshippers.

and Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto thing? LMAO!!

John Howard was right <3

I swear Global Warming is 21st century's new religion/cult combined.

You are stupid, though.

 

[spiny norman]

I swear Global Warming is 21st century's new religion/cult combined.

Scientific theories aren't religions/cults.

 

[bigb0yjames]

global warming = fucking bullshit = i couldnt really give a shit = fuck rudd

 

[Russdog]

'global warming' is a stupid thing to even consider. of course it's getting hotter.

it's global fucking intelligence that needs to be addressed.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

LOL, annual average temperatures oscillate in the short-term but are rising overall in the long term.

It's funny how whenever statistics turn up showing it has been warmer it is unquestionable evidence of global warming yet whenever you see some that that show it has been colder they are completely irrelevant because "temperatures oscillate in the short-term." The recent rise in temperatures that is referred to as global warming has only happened in the last 50 or so years. When you consider the age of the Earth 50 years is short-term... but apparently the same rule does not apply there.

 

[Serius]

What i hate about global warming is when we have a heat wave and everyone is all like " wow global warming is soo bad" then when i say that we dont know everything about it and the topic is still controversial they look at me as if i am an idiot "how bouts dat dere heat? whoooppeeee cantcha feel it? what areya daft boy?"

as if seasonal variation is some sort of proof for or against global warming.

Global warming predicts like a degree over a century, there is no way a human can detect that level of change and use some sort of bullshit anecdotal evidence of how it didnt use to be this hot back in the day.


We havent even been keeping temperature records for all that long, for all we know we are approaching the peak of a normal cycle which then cools down into another ice age.

 

[Trebla]

It's funny how whenever statistics turn up showing it has been warmer it is unquestionable evidence of global warming yet whenever you see some that that show it has been colder they are completely irrelevant because "temperatures oscillate in the short-term." The recent rise in temperatures that is referred to as global warming has only happened in the last 50 or so years. When you consider the age of the Earth 50 years is short-term... but apparently the same rule does not apply there.

That's because the journalist idiots who publish these know nothing about global warming. I mean, the article itself is so stupid because it's talking about the temperature of Australia with little consideration of every other country yet it decides to reignite the debate of "global" warming. The rest of the world isn't showing any cooling temperatures. To make a conclusion based on results of just one year out of a whole century is just stupid.

Global warming has supposedly been happening in the past few centuries, particularly since the industrial revolution. It has nothing to do with age of the Earth. It's only brought up this day because scientists have enough long-term evidence since the late 1800s to prove it is happening. A rise of between 1 - 6 degrees of average temperature over a century may seem insignificant and too gradual for some organisms, but considering weather patterns are chaotic (i.e. I mean that in a mathematical sense, i.e. they are sensitive to small changes), it does make a difference.

The phenomena of global warming refers to rise in OVERALL global temperatures. Cooler temperatures are not disregarded, they are included in data and do lower the average, but there are more hotter years than cooler years in the last century which means the average temperature has risen overall. Even counting the cooler years, the average global temperature is steadily increasing and there's more than enough evidence out there to show that. Even 2008 was still the 15th hottest year in the past century.

Whether or not you personally like to call that global warming is up to you. I'm not going to start a debate here. All I'm trying to say is that this article is stupid to even mention global warming within the context of only Australian 2008 weather data.

 

[bigb0yjames]

trebla. do us all a favor and stfu. im sick of Greenpeace/hippy wankers like yourself telling me how the fuck i need to change the world. yeah its great that YOU somehow are caring but stop fucking infiltrating the government and society in general. just fucking die.

thanks. bbj

 

[zstar]

Beam me to Planet Gore.

We must be saved.

 

[Graney]

John Stapleton is a hack. Scientists quoted in that article- 0. Year on year variation is a given and irrelevant to the bigger questions.

 

[chicky_pie]

You are stupid, though.

And you think you're smarter than my stupidity? I think NOT.

 

[chicky_pie]

Scientific theories aren't religions/cults.

THEORIES
THEY'RE THEORIES!
just like religion.
Not even facts yet, and all the environmental hippies are shoving it up to our assholes.

 

[bekmay]

a lot of people dispute the idea of climate change because there is no evidence throughout the past year in only Australia that the entire planet earth is heating up. i'm just sitting on the fence here, so taking no sides... but are the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' interchangeable? could the fact (as much as one journalist's opinion and combination of specific data could be called 'fact') that Australia's climate is fluctuating be put towards the arguement of 'climate change' and not 'global warming'?
as i said, i don't really have much of an opinion on this issue because i'm much too open to others' influence, but i do believe that humans for the most part do impact on the earth in a negative way.

P.S. i'm not a hippy!! =]

 

[zstar]

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

 

[bigb0yjames]

lol at loosers who believe in climate change.

 

[badquinton304]

Fucking hippies, Al Gore worshippers.

and Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto thing? LMAO!!

John Howard was right <3

I swear Global Warming is 21st century's new religion/cult combined.

In science we look at overall trends to try and see the big picture, as making judgment from limited data would result in an inaccurate conclusion, but most scientists are not ingrates so they usually do not do that.
An example of this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Although one particular year may be cooler than one previous year, this only really tells us that one year is cooler than a previous year. To come to a reliable conclusion we must encompass a wide range of data from all the recorded years so we can graph a trend showing the overall temperature.
We can also observe a correlation between atmospheric CO2-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
- and global temperatures.
From the fact that CO2 gas has greenhouse properties and that there is a clear correlation between temperature rise and CO2 we can infer that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming. The claim that global warming is not happening is bogus as there is a clear overall increase in temperatures.


I was right <3 you are an idiot.

Do not post if you know you are going to be so easily defeated.

THEORIES
THEY'RE THEORIES!
just like religion.
Not even facts yet, and all the environmental hippies are shoving it up to our assholes.

A theory is based on a body of evidence. So making a comparison between scientific theory and religion is ridiculous.

 

[chicky_pie]

In science we look at overall trends to try and see the big picture, as making judgment from limited data would result in an inaccurate conclusion, but most scientists are not ingrates so they usually do not do that.
An example of this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Although one particular year may be cooler than one previous year, this only really tells us that one year is cooler than a previous year. To come to a reliable conclusion we must encompass a wide range of data from all the recorded years so we can graph a trend showing the overall temperature.
We can also observe a correlation between atmospheric CO2-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
- and global temperatures.
From the fact that CO2 gas has greenhouse properties and that there is a clear correlation between temperature rise and CO2 we can infer that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming. The claim that global warming is not happening is bogus as there is a clear overall increase in temperatures.


I was right <3 you are an idiot.

Do not post if you know you are going to be so easily defeated.




A theory is based on a body of evidence. So making a comparison between scientific theory and religion is ridiculous.

Who's your global warming messiah? Al Gore?

 

[bigb0yjames]

whatever chicky_pie says about global warming is correct.