2016 even hotter than 2015 and 2014

[UncleBuck]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/14/february-breaks-global-temperature-records-by-shocking-amount

The Nasa data shows the average global surface temperature in February was 1.35C warmer than the average temperature for the month between 1951-1980, a far bigger margin than ever seen before. The previous record, set just one month earlier in January, was 1.15C above the long-term average for that month.


well, we just had the two hottest months on record, right on the heels of the two hottest years on record, right in the heels of the hottest two decades on record.

in other words, hiatus. benghazi. emails.

 

[bearkat42]

But Marco Rubio said that the climate is always changing, and we have nothing to do with it. I'm confused.

 

[akdoh]

between 1951-1980.

I would hardly call 29 years a great statistical sample.

 

[UncleBuck]

I would hardly call 29 years a great statistical sample.

are you aware how they use those years?

they use them as a fucking baseline. they measure months as they happen, and compare them to the average established in the baseline.

months can be warmer or cooler than the average established in the baseline. the fact that they use a 30 year baseline is not important. what is important is the variance away from the average in the baseline.

since you do not seem to grasp this concept, or what it means, i can clearly disregard you as a low intelligence person. probably right wing and thinks obama was born in kenya. just a guess.

 

[robbzilla]

Well there are a couple things to take in to account here, I mean, for instance, there hasn't been any global warming since 1997. If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

So maybe Marco is right......

 

[jarvild]

I find it hard to believe that from our experiences with soil and water pollution on Land, that the pollution of the atmosphere would be any different.

 

[ttystikk]

I find it hard to believe that from our experiences with soil and water pollution on Land, that the pollution of the atmosphere would be any different.

Then perhaps it's time to change tactics and take a more forceful stand against those who would bribe our representatives to allow them to steal our resources and destroy the planet in the process.

 

[akdoh]

are you aware how they use those years?

they use them as a fucking baseline. they measure months as they happen, and compare them to the average established in the baseline.

months can be warmer or cooler than the average established in the baseline. the fact that they use a 30 year baseline is not important. what is important is the variance away from the average in the baseline.

since you do not seem to grasp this concept, or what it means, i can clearly disregard you as a low intelligence person. probably right wing and thinks obama was born in kenya. just a guess.

I would say the person who takes the lowly approach of slinging personal insults is the one of lower intelligence.

At any rate - Month to Month temperature swings mean very little in the grand scheme of things. So developing a base line that is only 30 years does matter. Lets say for example we go through 250 year cycles. Then having a 30 year baseline shows nothing.

 

[OddBall1st]

are you aware how they use those years?

they use them as a fucking baseline. they measure months as they happen, and compare them to the average established in the baseline.

months can be warmer or cooler than the average established in the baseline. the fact that they use a 30 year baseline is not important. what is important is the variance away from the average in the baseline.

since you do not seem to grasp this concept, or what it means, i can clearly disregard you as a low intelligence person. probably right wing and thinks obama was born in kenya. just a guess.

When will the oceans start to boil ? Be nice to have a couple days notice.

 

[ttystikk]

I would say the person who takes the lowly approach of slinging personal insults is the one of lower intelligence.

At any rate - Month to Month temperature swings mean very little in the grand scheme of things. So developing a base line that is only 30 years does matter. Lets say for example we go through 250 year cycles. Then having a 30 year baseline shows nothing.

Having studied climate for many years, I've seen for myself that the overall trends are all in agreement, which is that climate change is real and is accelerating. Many of these records in fact predate America's existence and still show a long term, unmistakable statistically significant increase in average temperatures taken in many locations across Europe and Asia.

 

[Fogdog]

Well there are a couple things to take in to account here, I mean, for instance, there hasn't been any global warming since 1997. If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

So maybe Marco is right......

The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

That said, there is discrepancy between worldwide temperature readings and the best current model (CIMP-5). Doesn't mean "no" warming but maybe slower than predicted.

Gee, do you think there might be a relationship between global temperature rise and Arctic Sea Ice coverage?
Naah, because Exxon said its not.

And what about that greenhouse gas released by industrial activity?

How are the contrarians doing compared to the real scientists in the IPCC?

Answer: contrarians: 0; science: 4


All things put together, the earth is definitely warming and it is due to industrial activity. Maybe the warming rate is not as fast as the current model predicts but it is warming.

 

[pnwmystery]

There's a step before Step 4 "repeat" which is shout "Benghazi" at the top of your lungs.

 

[UncleBuck]

there hasn't been any global warming since 1997.

then why did we just have two two hottest decades on record, two hottest years on record, and two hottest months on record?

must be that hiatus.

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man

you better tell NASA about that then.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring.

i'd like to see you cite that scientific consensus of global cooling.

ya know, you really didn't have to do all that typing to prove how stupid you are. a few sentences and a citation of alex jones would have sufficed.

 

[UncleBuck]

I would say the person who takes the lowly approach of slinging personal insults is the one of lower intelligence.

well, you'd be wrong.

Lets say for example we go through 250 year cycles.

but we don't.

 

[Fogdog]

There's a step before Step 4 "repeat" which is shout "Benghazi" at the top of your lungs.

LOL

 

[Bugeye]

El Niño year, hot hot hot.

 

[robbzilla]

The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.

Gee, do you think there might be a relationship between global temperature rise and Arctic Sea Ice coverage?
Naah, because Exxon said its not.
That said, there is discrepancy between worldwide temperature readings and the best current model (CIMP-5). Doesn't mean "no" warming but maybe slower than predicted.

And what about that greenhouse gas released by industrial activity?

How are the contrarians doing compared to the real scientists in the IPCC?

Answer: contrarians: 0; science: 4


All things put together, the earth is definitely warming and it is due to industrial activity. Maybe the warming rate is not as fast as the current model predicts but it is warming.

It's funny how all your graphs start in the 1900's. Here are some that support my side of the argument.




So as you can see graphs can support both sides of the argument, but really you just need to open your eyes and stop being blinded by ignorance. As you can see, there have been hotter years in the past. The problem is when you look at something with horse blinders on you end up having an intellectual blind spot, it's not your fault though you've just been listening to what you've been told

 

[UncleBuck]

El Niño year, hot hot hot.

yep, it couldn't be a century of human activities drastically skyrocketing the PPM of CO2 from 280~ to 400~ and theregy causing warming, could it?

nah, that's a conspiracy.

 

[UncleBuck]

As you can see, there have been hotter years in the past.

name them.

 

[robbzilla]

then why did we just have two two hottest decades on record, two hottest years on record, and two hottest months on record?

must be that hiatus.



you better tell NASA about that then.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



i'd like to see you cite that scientific consensus of global cooling.

ya know, you really didn't have to do all that typing to prove how stupid you are. a few sentences and a citation of alex jones would have sufficed.

Doesn't it take a lot of time to break messages up like that so you can respond to each little part? I would think there are better ways to spend your valuable time Mr. Buck