2014 will be the warmest year on record

climatard facing lower revenue wrote:

Those damn rednecks always bring up that the Earth has never been warmer than 16 years ago. Let's put this year 0.01 degree above 1998 to make them shut up.

Did you know that scientists studying ancient Siberia pine trees in central Mongolia that date back nearly 2,000 years believe that Genghis Khan’s rise to power coincided precisely with a sudden shift in climate from the cold, arid period that immediately preceded his ascent as leader of the Mongol empire, to the warmer, wetter weather that allowed his horsemen to expand out from Central Asia.

The tree rings show that the normally cold, arid steppes of central Asia experienced their mildest, warmest weather in more than 1,000 years at the time when Genghis rose to power and established his enormous land empire with the help of his sons.

That’s from around 1180 onwards - so his horses must have been emitting a hell of a lot of CO2 back then according to our global warming wacktavists.

Binks wrote:

Fact checker wrote:

No, they were not.

Where are your ‘facts’ then, ‘fact checker?’

Here are mine and I don’t even live in the USA:

'Coldest November Weather in Decades Infiltrates Wyoming to Texas From the North Pole'

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/wyoming-colorado-exceptional-cold-nuri/37351786?http://news.yahoo.com/rare-early-season-storm-brings-record-setting-snowfall-153609628.htmlhttp://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/11/02/record-low-temperatures-hit-south-florida-during-cold-front/http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/kerry-warns-our-planet-warming-during-record-breaking-blizzard

It's obvious that you don't live in the U.S. Every school kid there knows that Miami, Wyoming, and Texas are not in the area "from Minnesota to Boston".

My "facts" are included in the links below. They are from one of the areas - Boston - that you specifically mentioned as having record low temperatures. The first refers to Christmas as being "unseasonably warm" while describing all of December as "balmy". The second discusses the possible record warmth predicted for Christmas Day.

Sally V wrote:

"Recorded" means like 135 years out of 4.6 Billion years. The Earth quit warming almost 2 decades ago. The ice cap same as 40 years ago.

Winter is coming.

Is that all you have to offer?

It’s a bit warm in Boston and some mickey-mouse town in Pennsylvania in December 2014?

How does that compare to the “COLDEST November Weather in DECADES Infiltrates Wyoming to Texas From the North Pole.”

Rare early season storm brings RECORD-setting snowfall to Maine

RECORD Low Temperatures Hit South Florida After Cold Front

Kerry Warns: 'Our Planet Is Warming'--During RECORD-Breaking Blizzard

What is it about records you don’t understand?

Looks as if that warm spell you are touting is about to end.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/winter-storm-2015-midwest-east/39895052

The point I am making is that 20 years ago, our global warming fanatics were confidently stating that by now, in Britain, our children will only have a virtual experience of snow, via the internet and pictures on television, they will never come into contact with the real stuff.

If that’s the case, I have no idea what all that white stuff was I was driving through on Boxing Day night with the police diverting us as the road we were on was impassable with all that white stuff a bit further on.

Tell me people, if all but 2 well known climate change skeptics say the earth is warming, why would you as a layman believe otherwise?

Conundrum wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/

How will the global warming deniers deal with this fact?

a) Natural temperature fluctuation

b) Data falsified or other data ignored to meet political agenda

c) Acknowledgement of the global warming trend

Curious, which choice will be the most popular?

Here's a brief list of all the disconnect associated with you global warming nutjotbs:

1. You are assuming that atmospheric CO2 levels ostensibly increasing from 0.02% to around 0.03% in the last 100 years would have any measurable effect on global climate one way or the other. (In case you are confused about the above percentages, it is simply the proper mathematical expression of the misused "parts per million" standard.)

2. You are denying that many so-called "climate scientists" were caught falsifying data, including the act of scrubbing temperature data from the 1930's (by consensus the warmest decade on record in the USA) which of course makes you a climate fraud denier.

3. You are taking as is the claims made by these same falsifiers when they state as fact that every year previous was/is the new "warmest year ever".

4. You seem to have serious dissonance in trying to piece together these "warmest year on record" claims when juxtaposed with atmospheric temperature measurements that have essentially flatlined over the last 17 years.

5. By it's very theoretical abstract, you cannot have this ambiguous unquantifiable "climate change" arising from a greenouse effect. The greenhouse effect can only warm the planet, it cannot fluxuate temperatures. And the greenhouse effect is strictly "clouds", not gases, as the "greenhouse effect" needs a measurable surface effect aka DROPLETS in order to keep latent heat from escaping Earth's surface at a given altitude Thus, you end up trying to turn the laws of physics upside down and inside out in order to facilitate the notion that such a miniscule increase in atmospheric CO2 (aka an increase of 0.01%, see above) would have any measurable effect on increased cloud production. And as far as I know, there have been no studies that have concluded an increase in global cloud creation. And there should be, given the increase in anthropogenic water vapor emissions.

6. Per all the above, there have been no quantifiable presentations as to how much we would need to decrease anthropogenic CO2 in order to achieve the as-yet-to-be-determined "reduction" in climate change, given how "climate change" itself is so inherently ambiguous and unquantifiable. Thus all proposals to reduce the usage of so-called "fossil fuels" (aka hydrocarbons) have no basis in any reality whatsoever, whether it be scientific, economic or sociological. The only reality of so-called "climate change" proposals always have been and always will be strictly political.

Now, I am painfully aware that all this cold water we've thrown on this anthropogenic climate change fraud promotion will go right over your head given the religiousity with which climate change promoters approach their particulare style of demigod worship, but hopefully we'll get through to enough neutral observers that we can finally put this idiocy to rest once and for all.

Because the others are lying and you, Randy Oldman (King Layman), are gullible enough to believe them versus facts. Does that help?

Randy Oldman wrote:

Tell me people, if all but 2 well known climate change skeptics say the earth is warming, why would you as a layman believe otherwise?

It is incredibly amusing that you think you are more of expert on this than the 1000's of top climate scientists that disagree with you, or even that think you clearly understand what you are rambling on about. In short: bro', ya coulda/should just said "AL GORE!" or "LIBTARD!" and left your rebuttal at that. At least that would have been an honest effort.(but you do get points for using the "double-speak" spin you science deniers like to often use by referring to those who believe in the majority scientific opinion as 'nut jobs', or 'religious zealots' and "cult followers" etc. It's an amusing and dishonest, but not entirely ineffective, tactic. Fox News taught you righties well with their Orwellian [e.g. "Ministry of Peace", actually in charge of perpetual war] "FAIR AND BALANCED!" and "We report, you decide!" slogans. )

And 2015 will be even warmer. Catching the trend?

Binks wrote:

Is that all you have to offer?

It’s a bit warm in Boston and some mickey-mouse town in Pennsylvania in December 2014?

How does that compare to the “COLDEST November Weather in DECADES Infiltrates Wyoming to Texas From the North Pole.”

Rare early season storm brings RECORD-setting snowfall to Maine

RECORD Low Temperatures Hit South Florida After Cold Front

Kerry Warns: 'Our Planet Is Warming'--During RECORD-Breaking Blizzard

What is it about records you don’t understand?

You said there were record low temps from Minnesota to Boston. I said you were wrong. I was right.

I sure hope its warmer.

Based on my calculations, the global temperature must rise 4.675 degrees F. To be the optimal temperature for mankind. We still have a long way to go.

Binks wrote:

Looks as if that warm spell you are touting is about to end.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/winter-storm-2015-midwest-east/39895052

The point I am making is that 20 years ago, our global warming fanatics were confidently stating that by now, in Britain, our children will only have a virtual experience of snow, via the internet and pictures on television, they will never come into contact with the real stuff.

If that’s the case, I have no idea what all that white stuff was I was driving through on Boxing Day night with the police diverting us as the road we were on was impassable with all that white stuff a bit further on.

Your obvious problem is that you are listening to British "scientists". These are the same fellows who believed they could turn lead into gold and who said rock&roll would cause brain damage.

Hint: if you want facts based on real science, listen to what scientists from the USA are saying.

Foolish comment.

Britain created the modern world we live in when we became the world’s first industrial nation.

They clearly don’t teach at your schools, (presumably concentrating on black studies) but you owe a special debt to us for the incredible good fortune that we colonised you - introducing our laws, language and literature and the idea of representative government.

Where does one imagine, the evolution of such things as habeas corpus, trial by jury, due process, and the rule of law come from?

One only has to look south of the border to visualise what would have been the fate of the US had other than Britain and British bloodstock colonised you.

Your War of Independence was virtually a civil war amongst the British settlers and the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written by those of British stock - a blueprint for greatness that gave the masses of European immigrants a flying start in the centuries to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_inventions

In sport alone - the sports that were first either invented or formalised into the sport we know today by the British, including British overseas. - and I’ve probably missed some:

Football

Rugby

Rugby League

Gaelic football

Australian rules football

Cricket

Hockey

Ice hockey

Golf

Curling

Tennis

Squash

Rackets

Fives

Hardball

Fencing

Billiards

Snooker

Downhill skiing (yes really)

Slalom skiing

Polo

Canoeing

Water polo

Table tennis

Rowing

Archery

Horse-racing

Yachting

Skating

Mountaineering

Boxing

Swimming

Cycling

Badminton

Motorcycling.

But not curling? Without curling, seriously, what good are you?

Cerebellums gave an interesting post. He puts much effort into explaining his beliefs of facts and his understanding of science to dismiss global warming. You bring up an obviously good point of the top scientists belief in global warming but he dismisses that by ignoring the degree of widespread scientific acceptance but referring to \"so called climate scientist\" who falsify data like they are an extreme group.To be honest, I can\'t really argue the science of it, because I don\'t presume to have that level of knowledge. But I find his lack of links very suspect. It would surprise me that he was clever enough to understand that the percentage of CO2 increase is so small not to have effect along with his cloud versus droplet theory negating CO2 effects. All the scientists looking into this didn\'t understand this but he does? I would give cerebellums response some greater attention if he had some links to reputable sources. And if he gave a better explanation as to why he thinks so many scientists falsifying records and denying his truth. I know he feels content with his response. I think its a good example of intelligence warped in a way to reduce dissonance created but contrary information. But then again maybe he is right and the whole scientific community is wrong.

Repeating myself from previous discussions, but here is an overview of the actual temperature data, looking at the global temperature anomaly with reference to 1960-1990, using HADCRUT4 (NH+SH)/2. First, the whole instrumented record, showing the annual temperature anomaly (peaky curve) and decadally smoothed data (to give a better impressin of overall trends:

Now, raw monthly anomaly data (much more noise):

Now the same monthly data, zooming into the last 65 years, and adding a 12 month trailing average (to give a better idea of trends):

Now the same thing, but zooming in closer, to post-1995, to focus on the recent "pause" people talk about:

And finally, a closer view from 2005-present:

Spend some time looking at and thinking about these plots of real data and you can draw your own conclusions. Some key points:

- average global temperatures have increased about 1C since 1850

- there is a fair bit of variability on the illustrated time scales, with some long periods of fairly steady increase and decrease

- 1975-1995 had the most dramatic overall increase

- 1995-present, temperatures have been relatively consistent (the "paus" in global warming)

- looking closer, we see a ~ 2 year cycle (as one of many)

- if you squnit while you look, you might expect (as I do) that the anomaly is due for a drop over much of the next year or so

- if you squint again at one of the other graphs, you might expect this current "pause" in global warming to last another 10-20 years before temperatures increas again.

My naive predictions from all this are the following, in descending order of confidence:

- this time next year, the 12-month trailing average anomaly (from HACRUT4 (NH+SH)/2) will be 0.1-0.15C lower than it is this month

- over the next 10-20 years, the 12-month trailing average anomaly will stay within a band between 0.4-0.7 above the 1960-1990 baseline average

- by 2100, the 12-month trailing average global anomaly will be abour 1.5-2.0C above 19660-1990 baseline values

That will be $0.02, thanks!

And to be clear, I'm not trying to imply anything, one way or another, about AGW hypotheses. Just presenting data, thinking about trends. I've written in these threads before that I don't think the AGW hypothesis can be "proven" one way or another since climate is chaotic, but I don't know that the technical question of AGW validity is necessarily the most pressing or meaningful issue to talk about in any event. Mind you, it is an interesting topic, if you have a scientific or mathematical inclination. And it makes for a fascinating large scale social experiment, simply watching the debate unfold.

Binks wrote:

Did you know that scientists studying ancient Siberia pine trees in central Mongolia that date back nearly 2,000 years believe that Genghis Khan’s rise to power coincided precisely with a sudden shift in climate from the cold, arid period that immediately preceded his ascent as leader of the Mongol empire, to the warmer, wetter weather that allowed his horsemen to expand out from Central Asia.

The tree rings show that the normally cold, arid steppes of central Asia experienced their mildest, warmest weather in more than 1,000 years at the time when Genghis rose to power and established his enormous land empire with the help of his sons.

That’s from around 1180 onwards - so his horses must have been emitting a hell of a lot of CO2 back then according to our global warming wacktavists.

So, basically you are saying that because the Earth has warmed and cooled at other times during its history that means that it is not possible that increasing CO2 levels over the last hundred years or so could be warming the planet at this time.

Is that your argument?