The five (globally) WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD are the last five.

There's no excuse wrote:

Deniers go home DEVASTATED! After all, Solyndra was at least a Biden-bet. This is an INVESTMENT!!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dyz8-PDXgAEu1yd.jpg

Timothy Foyle wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

"On records" means since 1880. So, even that the temps in recent years have been massaged and manipulated, we are only looking at about 137 years out of 4.6 BILLION. Do you nuts have any idea how 137 years of the Earth's life means given its age of 4.6 BILLION?!!

The Earth is really, really old. Therefore it is impossible that human actions are having a significant impact on the planet's climate at this time.

Yeah, I get your logic, chief.

No, I don't think you do. I was suggesting that it is silly to say "warmest years on record" when "on record" only means about 140 years out of 4.6 BILLION years. It is just silly because you are implying these "warmest years on record" are the warmest ever when that is not the truth.

I’m trying to imagine a scenario where Ocasio-Cortez was able to pass an econometrics course. Even the most basic one. Or calculus.

This woman can’t string together a coherent paragraph of thought and yet she has an economics degree. I realize it’s an undergraduate degree but surely the program has at least some rigor. How on earth did she pass?

Sally Vix wrote:

I was suggesting that it is silly to say "warmest years on record" when "on record" only means about 140 years out of 4.6 BILLION years. It is just silly because you are implying these "warmest years on record" are the warmest ever when that is not the truth.

Just so we have a common point of reference, on which temperature reconstructions do you base this statement?

To be clear, I don't disagree with the statement, so much as I find it curious that someone simultaneously doubts recent direct temperature measurements and has apparent confidence in proxy reconstructions and all that implies.

Sally Vix wrote:

I was suggesting that it is silly to say "warmest years on record" when "on record" only means about 140 years out of 4.6 BILLION years. It is just silly because you are implying these "warmest years on record" are the warmest ever when that is not the truth.

Actually, no. I suspect that a large percentage of people understand what "on record" means, particularly when the article makes clear that it's only talking about records since 1880.

If *you* aren't clear what "on record" means, that's on you.

earhh wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I was suggesting that it is silly to say "warmest years on record" when "on record" only means about 140 years out of 4.6 BILLION years. It is just silly because you are implying these "warmest years on record" are the warmest ever when that is not the truth.

Actually, no. I suspect that a large percentage of people understand what "on record" means, particularly when the article makes clear that it's only talking about records since 1880.

If *you* aren't clear what "on record" means, that's on you.

I do know what "on the record" means. But, I would probably guess if you asked all the people on this site who stay away from Global Warming threads, most would have no idea.

Sally Vix wrote:

I do know what "on the record" means. But, I would probably guess if you asked all the people on this site who stay away from Global Warming threads, most would have no idea.

On behalf of everybody who doesn't follow global warming threads, thanks for clarifying that the linked article with the lead paragraph, "NASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend, The New York Times reports.", means thermometer records haven't been kept for billions of years.

Here by accident wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I do know what "on the record" means. But, I would probably guess if you asked all the people on this site who stay away from Global Warming threads, most would have no idea.

On behalf of everybody who doesn't follow global warming threads, thanks for clarifying that the linked article with the lead paragraph, "NASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend, The New York Times reports.", means thermometer records haven't been kept for billions of years.

What does an "unmistakable warming trend" mean? The Earth is 4.6 billion years and it has maybe warmed a tiny bit in the last 10 years or so. It was warmer in Medieval times so we are talking about a slight warming over 10 years in 4.6 BILLION years!

qpqg wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

"On records" means since 1880. So, even that the temps in recent years have been massaged and manipulated, we are only looking at about 137 years out of 4.6 BILLION. Do you nuts have any idea how 137 years of the Earth's life means given its age of 4.6 BILLION?!!

Some guy was crowding me on a run yesterday so I punched him in the face and it made him very upset. He's 63 years old and this only represented a small portion of his life, and I know he's been upset and in a good mood at various points throughout his life, so I don't know if my punching him in the face caused him to be upset.

Haha, +1

Lobbyist offering $$$$$ wrote:

SeemsRighthere wrote:

I've felt different lately. Can we please at least listen to the authorities? They say we are harming earth and we need to change. Anyone against this?

You mean government authorities?

Government "authorities" that lifted an energy bill cap for suffering UK taxpayers, this week.

The reason for the rise was supplied by the government's energy watchdog authorities (aka Green global climate change bollocks-generators).

The authoratitive reason supplied by these vanguards of the planet's envronment was that oil prices are increasing - EVEN THOUGH UK ELECTRICITY IS GENERATED BY NUCLEAR REACTORS!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/07/energy-bills-to-rise-by-more-than-100-pounds-for-15m-households-as-price-cap-lifted

Serious question for you: Do you ever NOT lie?

1) From your article:

"the regulator Ofgem said it was lifting two price caps because of rising wholesale costs."

Nowhere, not once, in the article did it even mention rising oil prices.

2) UK electricity by source:

Gas: 40%

Nuclear: 20%

Wind: 11%

Coal: 9%

Other: 20%

So, your "EVEN THOUGH UK ELECTRICITY IS GENERATED BY NUCLEAR REACTORS!" probably should have had a qualifier; "EVEN THOUGH 1/5 of UK ELECTRICITY IS GENERATED BY NUCLEAR REACTORS!" Somehow doesn't have the same cache though, does it?

///

Seriously, do you ever NOT lie? Think about it. Is there any aspect of your life in which your communications with others are not dominated by you lying?

Sally Vix wrote:

Timothy Foyle wrote:

The Earth is really, really old. Therefore it is impossible that human actions are having a significant impact on the planet's climate at this time.

Yeah, I get your logic, chief.

No, I don't think you do. I was suggesting that it is silly to say "warmest years on record" when "on record" only means about 140 years out of 4.6 BILLION years. It is just silly because you are implying these "warmest years on record" are the warmest ever when that is not the truth.

Nope. "On record" means "on record". Doesn't mean "ever".

Care to try again there, chief?

Citizen Runner wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I was suggesting that it is silly to say "warmest years on record" when "on record" only means about 140 years out of 4.6 BILLION years. It is just silly because you are implying these "warmest years on record" are the warmest ever when that is not the truth.

Just so we have a common point of reference, on which temperature reconstructions do you base this statement?

To be clear, I don't disagree with the statement, so much as I find it curious that someone simultaneously doubts recent direct temperature measurements and has apparent confidence in proxy reconstructions and all that implies.

I notice that Sally Vix responded to other challenges to this particular post of his. But not this one. Gee, I wonder why.

Sally? Are you there, Sally?

Sally Vix wrote:

What does an "unmistakable warming trend" mean? The Earth is 4.6 billion years and it has maybe warmed a tiny bit in the last 10 years or so. It was warmer in Medieval times so we are talking about a slight warming over 10 years in 4.6 BILLION years!

Ah, I see that we are back to:

The Earth is really, really old. Therefore it is impossible that human actions are having a significant impact on the planet's climate at this time.

Good job, chief!

Timothy Foyle wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

Just so we have a common point of reference, on which temperature reconstructions do you base this statement?

To be clear, I don't disagree with the statement, so much as I find it curious that someone simultaneously doubts recent direct temperature measurements and has apparent confidence in proxy reconstructions and all that implies.

I notice that Sally Vix responded to other challenges to this particular post of his. But not this one. Gee, I wonder why.

Sally? Are you there, Sally?

I am here but entertaining friends. Which post should I respond to? sorry for the delay.

These idiots need to know the difference between temperature and heat.

Sally Vix wrote:

Timothy Foyle wrote:

I notice that Sally Vix responded to other challenges to this particular post of his. But not this one. Gee, I wonder why.

Sally? Are you there, Sally?

I am here but entertaining friends. Which post should I respond to? sorry for the delay.

Thanks for your response.

The one quoted above by Citizen Runner (and now bolded by me) is awaiting your reply. Should be interesting.

Timothy Foyle wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I am here but entertaining friends. Which post should I respond to? sorry for the delay.

Thanks for your response.

The one quoted above by Citizen Runner (and now bolded by me) is awaiting your reply. Should be interesting.

Bumped - just because I know Sally is going to provide an interesting and well thought-out answer to Citizen Runner's question.