2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record <yawn>

You know I really don't even think you know what the hell that means.

 

Anyone here last year surprised by this announcement?

You can sell the ruse if the climate doesn't cooperate. Of course it was going to be the hottest year ever...

 

Anytime Alley sausage that ice cores are local proxies he is disagreeing with it.

 

Sun spots and solar storms have gone down perceptibly, but I don't think they are significant in the terms of net solar output.

Most scientists agree that they don't have enough accurate historical temperature measurements to accurately predict any trends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

 

I don't know, they juiced 1997 pretty hard as the Hottest Year and now they have adjusted 1997 down to the point where 2015 is now the "Warmest!" despite it being 3.5 degrees cooler than 2015 according to NOAA's published data. No wonder NOAA refuses to provide information requested by Congress.

But it seems that the "adjustments" are where the warming is, not in the actual temperature records themselves. So of course NOAA doesn't want anyone double checking their work.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus

 

You are free to believe what ever tripe you'd like.

http://surfacestations.org/

The NOAA's site specifications are quite clear on pages 9 - 10.

There it is, read it...............or don't.

 

Yes, man has........by doing this.......

If the warmies are serious about warming why a carbon tax instead of a deforestation tax?

 

Ah, so now facts are myths in your new religion.

 

I stand in awe of your brilliance as just a humble reader and interested commentator on the subject. Now, I'd like you to put that wonderful intellect to work and answer me this question, posted several times on this thread:

The next thing you'll have to explain is, if what you allege is true - across the world, then you'll have to explain a massive worldwide conspiracy theory involving almost every scientist on the planet that has even a remote connection to climate science and the governments of about 200 nations. Then tell me who is behind this and why. If you cannot do this, then you don't have much of anything, which is what I've been saying all along.

You assert a "big con", so who is behind it all? and why do all of the world's governments and nearly all of their scientists agree? I'd ask you to explain how it is exactly you have seen through this global nonsense, yet spend your time on a silly little chat board instead of broadcasting your findings and observations to destroy this conspiracy, tho I suspect I already know the answer. Now, stop dancing and explain - I'd love to learn from the best and brightest.

 

Here is a typical adjustment made by the US government.





According to GISS, the hottest past years have actually gotten hotter since the last claims.

 

Source of your "REAL" temps, please and an explanation of why they are so different from what NASA publishes. Thanks.

 

2015 is the hottest year on record. The "hiatus" is a cherry-picking trick. It would be very convenient for my beliefs if AGW were a myth, but I'm not going to rewrite facts to suit my ideology.

 

Again, great points, but you assume the two efforts are somehow mutually exclusive -- that we can only either curb deforestation or emissions.

 

Must be why there are over 60 explanations for the pause, one of which was to adjust past temperatures to make it appear to disappear.

Rewrite facts? No, ignore them yes.

 

As i understand it, lots of people are concerned about rainforest destruction
Much of which is illegal
How do you propose that we tax something happening in a different country?

 

The moment I start finding denialist arguments that don't depend on cherry-picking or quote mining is the moment I'll start paying attention. Until then, I can't see what sets its "methodology" apart from any other conspiracy theory or pseudoscience.

- - - Updated - - -

The moment I start finding denialist arguments that don't depend on cherry-picking or quote mining is the moment I'll start paying attention. Until then, I can't see what sets its "methodology" apart from any other conspiracy theory or pseudoscience.

 

Just to be clear
In this post you agree than mankind has globally changed the environment
AND
you claim that such changes have impacted climate
AND
you helpfully provide an example of how we are changing the climate
(By deforestation)
AND
YOU AGREE that a tax is the appropriate response
AND
tYOU suggest target of the taxation should be deforestation

Have i understood correctly?

 

Show me this vote of 'all the worlds scientists' I'll agree that most climatologists which has become a simple euphemism for 'the dedicated study of global warming' agree but that has no meaning than most homeopaths agreeing on the validity of homeopathy, or chiropractors agreeing on the validity of chiropractic. Without AGW "climatology" goes back to being a sub-field of geography relegated to a handful of university basements. Scientists aren't very keen on invalidating their entire livelihood. They are after all too old to go back to school and learn a new trade.

P.S. Its also laughable that you scream conspiracy theory when you truly believe that climate skepticism is an oil industry dark money funded conspiracy. Take the log out of your own damn eye.

 

You do realize that when the NOAA said

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model&#8217;s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.&#8221;

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...008-lo-rez.pdf

That means even if you cherry picked the best start point you still wouldn't get longer than a 15 year pause.

 

That is easy enough.



Now why do the satellites differ so greatly from the surface record. Well the reason is simple, between 80N and 80S the satellites have 100% coverage. The surface network however has vast areas of land and ocean where there is no station cover. So while satellites actually have readings most of the temperature in the surface record is infilled with what amount to little more than an educated guess.

 

Another instance of denialist "if you put on these blinders, then you'll see clearly" reasoning. Satellite measurements have their own limitations and drawbacks, especially when denialists often only look at one section of the troposphere. When we look at ocean energy absorption and rising sea levels, the story changes.

 

No we cant look at ocean energy absorption because any change would be so small that its within the margin of error. But that being said. When the AGW scare first started we skeptics said 'so what the ocean has orders of magnitude higher specific heat capacity than that atmosphere any warming would be buffered by the oceans'. Alamist screamed 'no blah blah blah etc.' Now that it stopped warming and alarmists are looking for their missing heat they are screaming oceans.

 

Then we have been reading/listening to entirely different people. We've known the whole time that oceans would absorb more energy than the air . . . because water. Rising sea levels and ocean temps seem to bear that out.

Again, the greenhouse effect is a thing. We have contributed significantly to its causes. The majority of the scientific community studying the issue, aside from a few conspiracy theorists, has come to the same conclusion: by contributed significantly to its causes, we have had contributed significantly to its effects.

 

Limitations like more coverage? Limitations like being able to take the temperature of the troposphere where warming is supposed to show first according to the CO2 hypothesis? Limitations like matching the radiosonde measurements?

- - - Updated - - -

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, long before the current CO2 hysteria. The latest craze is that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans where we have little coverage and the uncertainty is larger than the measurements.

 

Limitations like date range and ignoring ocean temps. It isn't "hysteria" to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we have contributed significantly to its concentrations. It is hysteria to claim that there is a global conspiracy among the majority of climate scientists to fake global warming in order to . . . well, denialist explanations range from some sort of weird get-rich-quick scheme (possibly the worst such scheme in existence, and one of the more hilarious instances of "Step 3, profit") to some sort of villainous depopulation strategy.