2015 sets new record for warming

[normiss 635]

Stoopid politicians?

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>From Forbes

That's the difference. You post opinion pieces from the popular media - Forbes, FOX News, Freeper, and Breitbart. I post studies from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature and the American Geophysical Union.

So if your argument is "there is no consensus among right wing pundits that climate change is a big deal" then I agree, definitely. However, your argument seems to be that "among climate change scientists there is no consensus on what is causing the climate to change" - and on that you are dead wrong. Not because of what I say, but because of what those scientists say.

(BTW I find it funny that you go out of your way to blast the "drive-by media" the "lamestream liberal media" etc only until you find something from them that supports your point - then you post it as if their opinion is scientific proof.)

You consider forbes the main stream media???

Ahhhhh, Ok

And if you only had as many scientists as you claim to have

But then, we know you dont

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,463]

>And if you only had as many scientists as you claim to have

I don't claim to have any.

However, Scripps, UCSD, UCAR-Boulder and UCLA have a lot - and they agree. (And those places have a lot more scientists than all those mainstream media sources you posted.)

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>And if you only had as many scientists as you claim to have

I don't claim to have any.

However, Scripps, UCSD, UCAR-Boulder and UCLA have a lot - and they agree. (And those places have a lot more scientists than all those mainstream media sources you posted.)

Birds of a feather trying to keep the grant money coming. And even they do not all agree...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

rushmc

***>And if you only had as many scientists as you claim to have

I don't claim to have any.

However, Scripps, UCSD, UCAR-Boulder and UCLA have a lot - and they agree. (And those places have a lot more scientists than all those mainstream media sources you posted.)

Birds of a feather trying to keep the grant money coming. And even they do not all agree...

Your posts go to show that you know absolutely nothing about the way scientists work.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******>And if you only had as many scientists as you claim to have

I don't claim to have any.

However, Scripps, UCSD, UCAR-Boulder and UCLA have a lot - and they agree. (And those places have a lot more scientists than all those mainstream media sources you posted.)

Birds of a feather trying to keep the grant money coming. And even they do not all agree...

Your posts go to show that you know absolutely nothing about the way scientists work.


It sure as hell exposes the hypocrites that post here!

And is does not take proving a null hypothesis to show that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,952]

Birds of a feather indeed. Whole massive flocks of them. Compared to your tiny murder of crows, hanging out on a dead end street, in a dead tree.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Birds of a feather indeed. Whole massive flocks of them. Compared to your tiny murder of crows, hanging out on a dead end street, in a dead tree.

I should really feel sorry for you

But you are of your own making.

This and those who tell you what to think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

rushmc

*********>And if you only had as many scientists as you claim to have

I don't claim to have any.

However, Scripps, UCSD, UCAR-Boulder and UCLA have a lot - and they agree. (And those places have a lot more scientists than all those mainstream media sources you posted.)

Birds of a feather trying to keep the grant money coming. And even they do not all agree...

Your posts go to show that you know absolutely nothing about the way scientists work.


It sure as hell exposes the hypocrites that post here!

And is does not take proving a null hypothesis to show that

Ooooh, Marc has learned a new expression.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,463]

>Birds of a feather trying to keep the grant money coming.

Whereas coal and oil companies have no money, and don't even care about the stuff?

The argument that those rich fatcat grad students and PI's are all conspiring to keep the grant money flowing, while the noble, dirt-poor Exxon and Halliburton executives just fight the good fight for truth and justice, is one of the funnier pictures you have painted. Do you think anyone buys it?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

billvon

>Birds of a feather trying to keep the grant money coming.

Whereas coal and oil companies have no money, and don't even care about the stuff?

The argument that those rich fatcat grad students and PI's are all conspiring to keep the grant money flowing, while the noble, dirt-poor Exxon and Halliburton executives just fight the good fight for truth and justice, is one of the funnier pictures you have painted. Do you think anyone buys it?

I think he fully believes it himself. Any attempt to dispute it is just part of the lamestream lieberal media trying to brainwash people.

Same mindset you see from Trump supporters. The more the truth is shown, the more they believe the opposite.

[kallend 1,672]

Those hoaxers at the National Academy of Sciences are at it again:

As climate has warmed over recent years, a new pattern of more frequent and more intense weather events has unfolded across the globe. Climate models simulate such changes in extreme events, and some of the reasons for the changes are well understood. Warming increases the likelihood of extremely hot days and nights, favors increased atmospheric moisture that may result in more frequent heavy rainfall and snowfall, and leads to evaporation that can exacerbate droughts.

www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change

Those National Academicians are all in on the hoax. Good job we have Marc here to debunk it with good science from the former TV weatherman who runs wattsupwiththat.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,463]

Update:
======================
February 2016 Was the Most Abnormally Warm Month Ever Recorded, Topping January 2016, NASA Says
Mar 12 2016 08:15 PM EST
By Jon Erdman
weather.com

For the third month in a row, Earth's global temperatures in February 2016 were the most abnormally warm on record for any month, according to an analysis released by NASA Saturday.

February's global temperature departure of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average topped the previous record just set in January (1.13 degrees Celsius above average), according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

. . . Ingesting temperature data over the entire surface of the Earth, NASA's analysis found this was the largest monthly warm temperature anomaly in their database dating to 1880, topping a record set the previous two months in a row.

A separate analysis from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting also found February 2016 set a new record-warm anomaly for the globe, 0.86 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average. That reanalysis, however, dates only to 1979.

. . . .

Top Five NASA Global Monthly Warm Anomalies (Degrees C) Since 1880


February 2016	+1.35

January 2016	+1.13

December 2015	+1.11

October 2015	+1.06

November 2015	+1.02

February 2016 continues a string of 372 consecutive months at or warmer than average. The last colder-than-average month in NASA's database was February 1985, and Earth's last colder-than-average January was 40 years ago, in 1976.

Six of the last nine months have either tied or set new records in NASA's database for that month, helping to set the Earth's warmest year on record in 2015.
==================

[winsor 189]

billvon

Update:
======================
February 2016 Was the Most Abnormally Warm Month Ever Recorded, Topping January 2016, NASA Says
Mar 12 2016 08:15 PM EST
By Jon Erdman
weather.com

For the third month in a row, Earth's global temperatures in February 2016 were the most abnormally warm on record for any month, according to an analysis released by NASA Saturday.

February's global temperature departure of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average topped the previous record just set in January (1.13 degrees Celsius above average), according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

. . . Ingesting temperature data over the entire surface of the Earth, NASA's analysis found this was the largest monthly warm temperature anomaly in their database dating to 1880, topping a record set the previous two months in a row.

A separate analysis from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting also found February 2016 set a new record-warm anomaly for the globe, 0.86 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average. That reanalysis, however, dates only to 1979.

. . . .

Top Five NASA Global Monthly Warm Anomalies (Degrees C) Since 1880


February 2016	+1.35

January 2016	+1.13

December 2015	+1.11

October 2015	+1.06

November 2015	+1.02

February 2016 continues a string of 372 consecutive months at or warmer than average. The last colder-than-average month in NASA's database was February 1985, and Earth's last colder-than-average January was 40 years ago, in 1976.

Six of the last nine months have either tied or set new records in NASA's database for that month, helping to set the Earth's warmest year on record in 2015.
==================

Again, I submit that if Climate Change was one of the top 5 issues that threatened the survival of the human race, we would be in comparatively good shape.

As it is, Climate Change is but a symptom of the problems we face.

Maybe anything more formidable than secondary issues is too daunting. I hope not.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

Those hoaxers at the National Academy of Sciences are at it again:

As climate has warmed over recent years, a new pattern of more frequent and more intense weather events has unfolded across the globe. Climate models simulate such changes in extreme events, and some of the reasons for the changes are well understood. Warming increases the likelihood of extremely hot days and nights, favors increased atmospheric moisture that may result in more frequent heavy rainfall and snowfall, and leads to evaporation that can exacerbate droughts.

www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change

Those National Academicians are all in on the hoax. Good job we have Marc here to debunk it with good science from the former TV weatherman who runs wattsupwiththat.

So is John Cook
The fabricator of the 97% consensus bunk
From his emails
the bolding is from Mr Cooks email

Quote

I recently “hacked” Skeptical Science again to find CONFIDENTIAL material. By which I mean I download some PDF files from publicly accessible locations and found out one of them was a manuscript submitted for publication, which as a submitted manuscript was supposed to be kept CONFIDENTIAL. Instead, it was posted in a location anyone could access.

The paper is rather remarkable in that it admits several of the criticisms of the (in)famous Cook et al consensus paper, such as saying:

“
During the rating process of C13, raters were presented only with the paper title and abstract to base their rating on. Tol (2015) queries what steps were taken to prevent raters from gathering additional information. While there was no practical way of preventing such an outcome, raters conducted further investigation by perusing the full paper on only a few occasions, usually to clarify ambiguous abstract language.

Which acknowledges the raters on the project cheated and looked at material they weren’t supposed to look at (but insisting it is okay because the raters only cheated a few times, trust us). Similarly, the paper acknowledges the raters were not independent of one another like Cook et al claimed, but rather:

“
Raters had access to a private discussion forum which was used to design the study, distribute rating guidelines and organise analysis and writing of the paper. As stated in C13: “some subjectivity is inherent in the abstract rating process. While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves”. These “specific situations” were raised in the forum.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

One difference between us (one of many) is that I clearly stated what my source is, and it is the premiere scientific organization in the USA, the National Academy of Sciences.

You, OTOH, quoted rubbish from a proven liar, Brandon Shollenberger, without any source attribution. Shollenberger is, of course, a frequent contributor to fraudster Anthony Watts' denier blog.

Afraid to state what your sources are?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

One difference between us (one of many) is that I clearly stated what my source is, and it is the premiere scientific organization in the USA, the National Academy of Sciences.

You, OTOH, quoted rubbish from a proven liar, Brandon Shollenberger, without any source attribution. Shollenberger is, of course, a frequent contributor to fraudster Anthony Watts' denier blog.

Afraid to state what your sources are?

Nope

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Funny how you divert when your heroes are shown to be frauds

Ya
Talking about Cook and the 97 percent lie

which you repeat with many other lies

Here regularly on dropzone

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,075]

Hi rush,

Quote

which you repeat with many other lies

Here regularly on dropzone

I have said this before on here, I challenge you to find one post of John's in which he is wrong on the facts.

Not on what you disagree with him on; that is a subjective matter.

I'm waiting,

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,463]

>I challenge you to find one post of John's in which he is wrong on the facts.

There you go again, with your liberal loser "facts" and "data" and "results." You and your numbers.

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

which you repeat with many other lies

Here regularly on dropzone

I have said this before on here, I challenge you to find one post of John's in which he is wrong on the facts.

Not on what you disagree with him on; that is a subjective matter.

I'm waiting,

Jerry Baumchen

Bush lied

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

rushmc

Bush lied

Yes, we know that. Even Trump knows it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***

Bush lied

Yes, we know that. Even Trump knows it.


See Jerry
He keeps repeating the same lie
He cant help himself

Even Trump walked that one back

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

rushmc

******

Bush lied

Yes, we know that. Even Trump knows it.


See Jerry
He keeps repeating the same lie
He cant help himself

Even Trump walked that one back

Warrantless wiretaps - even GWB walked that lie back.
WMDs - "We found the weapons of mass destruction.", GWB May 2003. GWB himself admitted later (2006) that there weren't any.
Yellowcake from Niger - there wasn't any. Just another lie.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*********

Bush lied

Yes, we know that. Even Trump knows it.


See Jerry
He keeps repeating the same lie
He cant help himself

Even Trump walked that one back

Warrantless wiretaps - even GWB walked that lie back.
WMDs - "We found the weapons of mass destruction.", GWB May 2003. GWB himself admitted later (2006) that there weren't any.
Yellowcake from Niger - there wasn't any. Just another lie.

See
You just cant help yourself anymore

You really need to find someplace different to give you your opinions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln