2015 sets new record for warming

[rushmc 18]

wmw999

It's only in our nature to "destroy ourselves" to the extent that there is no stasis. People in the individual aren't all that good at dealing with change, but new generations sometimes are good at dealing with new situations. One just hopes that the old wise men really are wise and recognize that change is inevitable, rather than hollering about it.

Wendy P.

Change is good and ok for the right reasons. Not so much for lies...

"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]

Something more to consider



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/23/2015-global-temp-or-how-some-scientists-deliberately-mistook-weather-for-climate/

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

[wmw999 2,149]

Well, dealing with slow change is also better than dealin with fast change. At least when you're talking about change that can significantly impact billions of people.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,435]

"Despite what some scientists have said the large increase over 2014 is far too great and swift to be due to a resurgence of forced global warming. It must be due to short-term natural variability, and you don’t have to look far to find it."

So to sum up -

When one year is very warm, and it is shortly after that year, it's not due to warming; it is an exception. "It's just weather, not climate!"

When one year is very warm, and it is a long time after that year, it is due to warming, and in fact can be used to determine the end of said warming. "There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!"

I guess you can't determine the truth of something until you determine whether it supports your worldview or not.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

"Despite what some scientists have said the large increase over 2014 is far too great and swift to be due to a resurgence of forced global warming. It must be due to short-term natural variability, and you don’t have to look far to find it."

So to sum up -

When one year is very warm, and it is shortly after that year, it's not due to warming; it is an exception. "It's just weather, not climate!"

When one year is very warm, and it is a long time after that year, it is due to warming, and in fact can be used to determine the end of said warming. "There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!"

I guess you can't determine the truth of something until you determine whether it supports your worldview or not.

And on the other side of the coin, it it's warm, it's warming and climate change, if it's cooler, then it's warming and climate change.

Are you so biased that you don't see that it is the same side of the same sad coin?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

billvon

I guess you can't determine the truth of something until you determine whether it supports your worldview or not.

First off
Thanks for a reply to a tiny bit of the content
Second
Seeing how that only one out of what, 4 data sets, (and that one is heavily "adjusted") supports the warmists claims, it looks to be you picking what supports your world view, not me.

And on that note one needs to remember that my point has always been is one that says the science is not yet settled

So, with more and more info coming daily it seems, info that runs counter to the warmists claims (IE:, seas are rising because of, temp is rising faster than at any other time, less ice, polar bears are dying ect,) one should honestly look how they position themselves on this issue.

Really!

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

[EvilGenius 0]

rushmc

***

Seeing how that only one out of what, 4 data sets, (and that one is heavily "adjusted") supports the warmists claims, it looks to be you picking what supports your world view, not me.

Really!

Are you referring to the satellite data? There are 4 groups that have worked on providing a correct (Diurnal correction for when a reading for a given location is taken during different times of the day) satellite data set 3 of which support warming (NOAA, RSS & the new GMC study) and only one older study by the UAH which is contradictory.

Surface thermometers, weather balloons & ocean buoys are also all consistent with global warming. I think it's pretty clear cut that things are getting hotter, the tricky part is separating natural effects like El Nino from things like greenhouse gases.

[rushmc 18]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201513

Quote

NOAA v. NOAA: NASA-GISS has long ignored satellite measurements of global temperatures, though they are the most comprehensive, independently verified temperature measurements ever compiled. What is interesting is the NOAA atmospheric measurements that were ignored by the NOAA entity claiming the “hottest year.”

According to a NOAA web site on upper air, there are numerous measurements of atmospheric temperature measurements, which were ignored in the press release. There are two datasets of lower troposphere measurements by UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems). An additional NOAA web site places the lower troposphere in roughly at the lowest five miles (8km) of the atmosphere. [Since the depth of the troposphere varies with latitude and season, NOAA descriptions will be used.] The report states that for both sets 2015 was the 3rd warmest in the record (since 1979).

There are four datasets of mid-troposphere satellite measurements: UAH, RSS, UW-UAH, UW-RSS. The UW designation is for modifications of UAH and RSS data made by the University of Washington. The NOAA site states: “The mid-troposphere temperatures are centered in the atmospheric layer approximately 3–10 km [2–6 miles] above the Earth’s surface, which also includes a portion of the lower stratosphere.” The site also states there is an overlap of the mid-troposphere with the lower stratosphere measurements and that a “third analysis has been performed by Dr. Qiang Fu of the University of Washington (UW) (Fu et al. 2004) to remove the influence of the stratosphere on the mid-troposphere value.” These adjustments are the source of UW modifications. The NOAA site does not mention any adjustments for the apparent overlap with lower troposphere with mid-troposphere measurements. Except for RSS that ranks 2015 as the 4th warmest year, the three other data sets of satellite measurements of the mid-troposphere rank 2015 as the 3rd warmest year, with 1998 as the warmest year (1998 was a very strong El Niño year).

Based on satellite measurements, NOAA ranks 2015 as the third warmest year or cooler. This is very different than the press release claiming the hottest year. There is no justification for NOAA or NASA-GISS to make press releases ignoring these data.

Further, NOAA uses one set of weather balloon data dating back 58 years, RATPAC. This ranks 2015 as the warmest year. In its analysis of the performance of global climate models against observations, UAH uses four sets of balloon data, including RATPAC. The three additional datasets are: HadAT2, RICH, RAOBCOR. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, Measurement Issues, and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201513

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/25/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-213/

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

[DanG 1]

So, a best case is that 2015 was only the fourth warmest year on record. How exactly does that support a position that the Earth is not warming?

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

So, a best case is that 2015 was only the fourth warmest year on record. How exactly does that support a position that the Earth is not warming?

My position is the science is not settled

As for the 4th hottest?

In what context? 50 years?

How old is the planet?

We know temps have gone up faster in the past
We know CO2 levels have been much higher in the past
Polar bears are not dyeing
Ice extents are not about to disappear anytime soon as has been claimed they would
Storms are not worse or more frequent or less frequent
We know the only way the pause we eliminated (from historical temp data) was by major alteration of known data
We know the claims of today are being made based on only cherry picked data sets
We know temp data was altered to show the planet was cooler than it was so as to make the increases seem more extreme
And in the end, the argument should be, does man really contribute to ANY of the planet wide climate changes we see.

Is the planet warming because of man?
Who the hell knows for sure cause they keep f%$king with the data

I could go on

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

[normiss 622]

This way?

[DanG 1]

Quote

As for the 4th hottest?

In what context? 50 years?

Since records were kept, so more like 150 years.

Quote

We know temps have gone up faster in the past
We know CO2 levels have been much higher in the past
Polar bears are not dyeing
Ice extents are not about to disappear anytime soon as has been claimed they would
Storms are not worse or more frequent or less frequent
We know the only way the pause we eliminated (from historical temp data) was by major alteration of known data
We know the claims of today are being made based on only cherry picked data sets
We know temp data was altered to show the planet was cooler than it was so as to make the increases seem more extreme
And in the end, the argument should be, does man really contribute to ANY of the planet wide climate changes we see.

Just because the planet was different in the very, very distant past doesn't mean that we can't influence the climate today. Of course there are different reasons that the planet could be warmer or colder during any geologic period. That doesn't mean that man-made effects are not one of those reasons. It is entirely consistent with the very basic facts of thermodynamics that what we are doing to the atmosphere will result in a warmer climate. The science is settled on that. You can debate the extent of influence man is having, but you can't argue with any credibility that man has an influence.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

You can debate the extent of influence man is having, but you can't argue with any credibility that man has an influence.

I can and do
At least when looked at globally

"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 1,929]

rushmc

*** You can debate the extent of influence man is having, but you can't argue with any credibility that man has an influence.

I can and do
At least when looked at globally


Yes you do. But with zero credibility. The carbon levels are climbing, the glaciers are melting. Why are carbon levels climbing?

I can accept rationalizations and honest disagreements about the consequences of this warming. There will be winners and losers. But if you close your eyes and pretend it is not happening you are not really part of the conversation. You're just a distracting noise on the sidelines.

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

[rushmc 18]

Your thoughts of me are worthless

"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 1,929]

rushmc

Your thoughts of me are worthless

I know.

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

[billvon 2,435]

>So, with more and more info coming daily it seems, info that runs counter to the warmists claims

You mean:

2015 shatters temperature records
Lower atmosphere satellite records show warming
Upper atmosphere satellite records show cooling

info like that?

The preponderance of proof is becoming so great that even established deniers are giving up. About the only ones left are US politicians who need something to scare people with (and their supporters.)

[EvilGenius 0]

But there is change....in addition to the warming trends seen from satellites, ground stations & balloons we have physical trends that are very likely in response:

Sea Level Rising
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Decreasing
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Now whether this is pissing off the Polar Bears is anyone's guess as they're a pain in the ass to keep track of.

[winsor 187]

billvon

2015 was the warmest year on record by a wide margin. 2014, the previous warmest year on record, was .29F above average. 2015 was 1.62F above average.

I suspect we will hear less nonsense about the "pause" now. On the other hand, this will give some people the chance to say "there's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 2015!" in a few years.

One problem I have with any religiously held belief is that it tends to foster skepticism.

Gilding the lily to bolster one's point only serves to undermine it.

An analogy can be found in the work of "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy. Communists suck out loud, as anyone who has spent time in any variety of "Socialist Workers' Paradises" can tell you. McCarthy, by dint of his shrill, over the top attacks, achieved the seemingly impossible task of making real, honest to god communists look sympathetic by comparison.

The impact of humanity on climate and the environment is inescapable to anyone who has spent extensive time in venues terrestrial, marine and aeronautic. The vociferous ignorance of such morons as Al Gore, the tweaking of legitimate data to enhance the argument, and the religious fervor of True Believers in The Cause foster (calling perceived Climate Change Heretics "deniers," for example) cast doubt on the underlying premise.

It's the old principle of "whether or not your conclusions are valid, you, personally, are full of shit." There are some issues that I prefer the likes of Al Gore and his glassy-eyed followers do not espouse, since their endorsement alone is reason to doubt the underlying conclusions.

Scientific inquiry is predicated upon skepticism. Any solid proof is based on withstanding a challenge to fail. It is only the flimsiest of principles (Islam, for example) that is totally incapable of logical evaluation, and harshly punishes those who dare to criticize its basic fundamentals.

When anything takes on religious overtones, the underlying truths no longer matter. When valid arguments are only considered if they support the foregone conclusion, it begins to smack of bullshit.

Even Cold Fusion is granted greater credibility than challenges to the factors surrounding Climate Change (tm).

Spare me the credulous.


BSBD,

Winsor

[rushmc 18]

Why would 300 scientists need to tell NOAA this???

Quote

300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-tell-chairman-of-the-house-science-committee-we-want-noaa-adhere-to-law-of-the-data-quality-act/

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

[SkyDekker 1,147]

rushmc

Why would 300 scientists need to tell NOAA this???

Quote

300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-tell-chairman-of-the-house-science-committee-we-want-noaa-adhere-to-law-of-the-data-quality-act/

It wasn't 300 scientists, unless you take a pretty wide definition of the term scientist.

Why do you think you can ever convince anybody of your viewpoint if you can never post anything factual?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

***Why would 300 scientists need to tell NOAA this???

Quote

300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-tell-chairman-of-the-house-science-committee-we-want-noaa-adhere-to-law-of-the-data-quality-act/

It wasn't 300 scientists, unless you take a pretty wide definition of the term scientist.

Why do you think you can ever convince anybody of your viewpoint if you can never post anything factual?

It is more factual than the 97% claim

In the end I no longer care what you think.
My target is those who are still looking at the topic
So
You have proven over and over that facts do not mean anything to you
But that is normal for this kind of religious beliefs.....

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

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

In the end I no longer care what you think.

More bullshit, considering you keep responding, after stating this same thing before.

Quote

You have proven over and over that facts do not mean anything to you

Funny coming from a guy who posts something that isn't factual, but then defends it saying that it is "more factual" than something else.

Clearly facts are very important to you in all of this.

[rushmc 18]

Your reply here would indicate i have accepted the premise of your first reply

Wrong. I do not. But you are fun to play with

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

[normiss 622]

Tin foil has proven to prevent facts from entering into the conversation.
Facts and data have no place in some people's understanding of science.
What's up with that?