2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record <yawn>

Funny how people show two different charts showing two different things and pretend that they are the same in order to fake a controversy. Hmm, wonder why the maker of the charts didn't provide a source or label the y axis appropriately.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how people show two different charts showing two different things and pretend that they are the same in order to fake a controversy. Hmm, wonder why the maker of the charts didn't provide a source or label the y axis appropriately.

 

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

- - - Updated - - -

You'll need to ask the IPCC.

 

Like you I'll go outside and enjoy the nice day. 4-5 years ago I used to argue that yes, the earth is getting warmer but is it natural? When more and more of the people that should know these things say it's man.....I'll go with them.
P.S. It was below zero all week(so "nice day" is a figure of speech)....but it is SD. The thing is a decade ago the below zero would have been sooner and for a longer time. SOMETHING is going on.

 

I had expected another Climategate conspiracy theory rag.

If I had any reason to believe that both graphs represent global average temperatures (hint, they don't), I would need to ask the IPCC.

 

So the UK Telegraph is now a biased rag because they don't agree with you. A news outlet founded in 1855 and has operated continuously for 161 years isn't credible? By all means link to reasons why.

It's a shame what they are trying to pass off as legitimate science. 69% of their data comes from stations the NOAA itself classify's as poor or worst.

It's the NOAA that set up the temperature sensing stations in poor or worse locations. No need to believe me see for yourself, here's a sample.














Poor or worst quality stations due to artificial heat sources too close by.

 

funny how that works, and funny how libs can't understand why skeptics of the man-made part of the equation doubt the crap they tell us.

 

There is a reason the IPCC dumped the hockey stick in AR5. Bad science.

 

I'm talking about the article, not the publication. The whole Climategate conspiracy has been debunked for years.

[/quote]So you are just dropping the misleading graphs like a hot potato and moving on to the heat island argument?

- - - Updated - - -

A sharp rise can be seen in any graph of global average temperatures. This hasn't changed or been abandoned.

 

Climate change is real whether people like it or not.

 

So you are just dropping the misleading graphs like a hot potato and moving on to the heat island argument?

- - - Updated - - -

A sharp rise can be seen in any graph of global average temperatures. This hasn't changed or been abandoned.[/QUOTE]

You mean like Greenland temperatures to present?



Or Antarctic temperatures to present?

 

Do you know what "years before present" means in those graphs? And I'm not talking about either. I'm talking about global average temperatures, not local temperatures/hemispheric temperatures in isolation. There are many times when rising temperatures in the northern hemisphere coincide with falling temperatures in the southern hemisphere, and vice versa. Anyone who has ever played with a globe can easily figure out why. At least one scientist who was actually involved in collecting the GISP numbers you provide has commented about this heavily. I'll look for some of his links.

When all of those things are taken into consideration, there is (globally) a sharp upturn in average temperatures over the past century.

 

Then the same guy is now saying the temp went up 0.29F with a 0.18F margin of error.

 

I love these random pictures of American temperature measurement stations people post here. Like the US is the only country measuring the temperature.
Visit any official meteorological site of any country and they tell you the same. Records for almost every month of the year of 2015.

 

There was a sharp rise leading up to the Medieval Warm period too. No coal power plants, SUV's or jet airliners from 950 AD to 1250 AD, maybe it was the Horse Farts eh?

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. You can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

Deforestation is likely a driver of any man made warming far more than any emissions. An area the size of England, Wales and Scotland (50 million acres) is cut down every year around the world. Trees are nature's carbon sinks. When that much carbon sink is removed every year, they are fighting a losing battle by simply controlling emissions. Unless the main thrust of climate change "control" if that's possible, is putting a stop to deforestation, don't bother us with trivial pursuits.

 

The vast majority of the temperature sensing stations are "poor" or "worst". Got any proof they are better elsewhere?

 

I don't have much reason to trust any information that comes from you. Do I trust DMI or any other national meteorological institute? Yep. More than I trust you for sure.

 

Globally? With as quick of a rise as we are seeing now? There's a reason that almost any graph you see that records the MWP only charts one hemisphere's worth of data.

Maybe regional warming patterns are not the same thing as a rise in global average temperatures, eh? Maybe the causes of regional warming several centuries ago are not the same as the causes of global warming now, eh?

The greenhouse effect is a thing. It is caused by greenhouse gases. We are contributing significantly to its causes . . . the rational conclusion is that we will likely contribute significantly to its effect. And yes, we can rule out that the same process. Global temperature fluctuations are not magic cycles with no physical cause. Every other proposed physical cause has failed (quite spectacularly) to explain modern warming trends.

Aside from your strange assumption that it is only possible to do one or the other, there is quite a bit of sense here.

 

Are you not listening to your own scientists?

It's already too late.

Only the politicians are saying there's something we can do.

 

Jeez
How hard is it to answer a simple question
Has mankind demonstrated the ability to change the environment on a global scale?

 

Well, since there is no such thing as a global average temperature you are left with models using adjusted data based on many assumptions and poor coverage (with the exception of satellites) for a single temperature which, if you have not noticed, varies in all claims of a single temperature for Earth.

 

Obviously, you are neither a real scientist nor aware of what is happening to the world today and why. But thanks for stopping by.

Of course - and most of the deniers have no idea they are being played for fools.

Please provide proof in the form of credible links which support your comments.

Well, if we don't do anything, there will be millions of deaths from the changes which are already happening, drought, famine and the resultant wars which will follow (or are already in progress). I'd prefer to find other ways.

 

. . . you can't be serious.

In other words, even the most blatant denialist tampering can't produce a graph of global average temperature change that doesn't have a "hockey stick" curve. And I love how your solution for "poor coverage" is cherry-picking . . . for even poorer coverage.

Your complaint is like saying "well there can't be a single temperature for a whole year, so none of the GISP numbers can be trusted.

 

You avoid nothing
Fine,
then answer my question
Has mankind demonstrated the ability to change the environment on a global scale?

 

Changing the environment and changing the climate are two different things...

 

I'm sorry, sir, but it's already been proven and every day that goes by only confirms what we already know. The questions are now - what steps can we take and what happens if we don't? And since you allege a worldwide conspiracy, you've still got to answer this which neither you nor any other denier will tough:

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'd better take a look around the world at what is happening. It is not even close to just the U.S.A. that's involved, sacrificing or spending big bucks on these problems. The only way you can to that is to be informed, and that means a LOT of reading of decent news sources every day and turning off the f*****g idiots on Fox and similar outlets.

Yep, you sure do, as does every other person in the world.

Then you need to look. It's not hard to find, and I've posted multiple links to various sources of information.

You allege some worldwide conspiracy. Now, prove it or just go get the information and learn what is happening and why.

Drivel. You want the science? It's freely available. All you need do is look, but if you refuse to look and simply deny what is quite real, then that's just silly. Now, as posted before and above, just answer me this:

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.

OK, fair enough. Now, explain in scientific terms what is happening and why. Do that, and the Nobel committee is waiting with your prize. Sad part is, the deniers ain't got squat for proof.