NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever

Me too. Periods of warmer than normal temperature have been termed "optimums" because they are more favorable to human existence. There has never been excessive warming since human beings started walking on two legs, it isn't warming excessively now, and it won't be for the foreseeable future.

 

I look forward to all those sunny holidays in Alaska, after all that's how climate change works isn't it? The whole world turns into a tropical island paradise...what fun!

Did you get your "facts" from the 1950s? The affects of climate change are not going to result in a tropical paradise for all.

An increased average global temperate will cause land ice to melt and therefore increase sea levels thus flooding lowland areas, increase extreme weather systems and therefore natural disasters, spread desert habitats in tropical regions, change the ocean currents which could result in a mini-ice age in northern Europe and rising sea temperatures which would bleach coral reefs therefore stopping them from habouring the algae which other sea life live off, the knock on affect on the food chain would be catastrophic in the sea and on land. The list goes on.

The IPCC put the probability of climate change being caused by humans at 90%, that's an incredibly high probability. As the IPCC consists of around 2500 of the worlds most respected scientists from over 130 countries I'll put more weight in what they are saying over you on this occassion.

 

Garbage. He showed an unsourced plot of 4 data records without adjusting for their anomaly baselines, falsely claimed GISS was warmer than the others, and further claimed GISS is fraudulent as a result, and he was exposed in the process.

Interestingly, if we take this idiotic approach to analysis, but with the extra step of making the accurate baseline adjustment, we find that over the last year HadCrut (CRU is the organization political hacks libeled and slandered recently) is fraudulently biased low while UAH and RSS and fraudulently biased high relative to GISS.



http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha...t:-0.24/plot/rss/from:2009/plot/uah/from:2009

But instead of making (or in this case parroting) uninformed assumptions and declaring everything you don't understand to be a "fraud", how about taking time to understand the data you're looking at?

 

Actually, that probability applies to human activities causing most recent (last 50 years) of warming, which represents a very conservative lowest common deniminator estimate that takes other possibilities into consideration. I suspect that statement could strengthen a bit given that it's still warming, even with very low solar activity having a cooling effect. Humans having a discernable influence on climate is virtually certain.

 

The offset has absolutly no effect on the slope of the graph.

y = mx + b or did you fail algebra? The booming temperature during a large La-Nina is a farce. GISS has moved from activism to outright fraud. Hansen promised the warmest year on record and he is going to produce it no mater how much he and his institution have to lie their asses off. He is not going to let this La-Nina get in the way of his prediction.

 

Here are the linear trends of the graph I just plotted. RSS/UAH are frauds! Roy Spencer is lying! {more foaming at the mouth}



http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../rss/from:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2009/trend

And here are the trends since 1979:



http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../rss/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trend

 

There are warnings being issued by the climate science community. Their predictions are limited to expected physical impacts to the environment. There are another set of predictions of what would happen to animal life if the climate models are correct. We also have sociologists that predict the impact on human civilization if the climate models are correct. So there is an indirect path from climate science to some dire predictions, but you are correct there is 1 or 2 layers of separation between them. That's the beauty of the scientific community. Each specialist can contribute to an overall view without any single source needing to combine them.

From what I've seen, those big corporations that you seem worried about have been the leading detractors of climate change. There have been documented significant financial links between major oil companies and the leading centers of detracting research, notablably the Mercatus Center at George Mason University which was initially funded by Big Oil.

I would submit there are few mature industries that currently stand to profit from climate change with the possible exception of Mayflower Movers.

While sources may be debated, the physics is not. We have demonstrated in the lab for nearly a century that CO2 has a rather unusual radiation reflection property. When the calculations are made for what should happen in theory is then checked against both lab and natural system measurements, the theory does have a close correlation. So it's fairly easy through measurements and basic physics and chemistry to demonstrate that there is a directly proportional relationship between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures.

While you are correct there is not hard proof that CO2 has come from human activity, there is very persuasive evidence that this is the case. We do know our chemistry fairly well so we know what combination of events it takes to produce CO2. It is also fairly straightforward to measure CO2 output from any number of natural sources and measure CO2 output from human activity. So the thing we can say is with our understanding of chemistry and the existing measurements from both natural and man made causes, we do not know of any other naturally occurring process that would explain the rise in CO2 that we have measured. We can further state that if we sum all known man made sources of CO2 and integrate those sources over time, we could account for a significant portion of the measured CO2. Again, not proof but strong evidence.

I would submit that the statement "better" is subjective, not objective. If we had no need of any earthly resources, then you could well be right that a rise in temperature would be managable for humans. Unfortunately it is not the case for countless other organisms.

Examples of impacts are the Bark Beetle infestation in the western US and Canada. With the softening of hard winter weather in the region, the beetle population has exploded and devastated large areas of our forests. Climate change is cited as a major contributor of the unprecedented loss of Coral Reefs. Melting of the Polar Ice Cap is having a measurable effect on the Gulf Stream which has resulted in some rather dramtic weather effects in Europe. The Fishing Industry is experiencing changes in cold water fish stocks. And we won't be the only ones to adapt to a warmer climate, scientists are worried about the explosion of the Mosquito population bringing additional disease along with it.

I would submit that many of the results of climate change will make the planet a less welcoming place to live and severely impact the planet's ability to sustain all 6.7 Billion of us. While the human species may not be threatened, human civilization as we know it will face difficult challenges. I do not agree that the world will be a better place for the humans to inhabit, at least for the next several thousand years while all of the support systems adapt to the change.

 

On your final point I must disagree. There appears substancial evidence that the average temperature of the planet is currently undergoing a sustained and noticable rise. Are your objections based on the rate of change in temperature or the effects of the predicted change? There is ample evidence of the gravity of both.

 

The medieval warm period was comparable to our current warm period, despite hockey stick graphs. This was, by the way, long prior to the industrial revolution.

 

That's one of your denier cult myths but there is no scientific evidence supporting the idea that the MWP was global or warmer than it is now. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, showing that the warming was a regional temperature variation that occurred in Europe and eastern North America but that other parts of the planet were cooler at that time.

I can point to some real science explaining these points but all you've got to back you up is the foolish pseudo-science you get from denier cult blogs who in turn get fed this nonsense by the fossil fuel industry propaganda spin-meisters.

 

Oh, a little digging and I found what you were talking about. Sorry, it wasn't anything like the current changes.

 

You are still refusing to address the issue that I first raised and has been repeatedly asked of you. How does the GISS have increasing temperature in the face of a massive La Nina contrary to the other records?

 

No.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

The facts I identified are indisputable.

Did I say they would? Try not to go overboard on the strawmen.

The increase in sea level started before CO2 could possibly have caused it. If it continues to happen slowly, as it has since the glaciers melted at the end of the last Ice Age, and there is no reason to expect it won't, it will not be a significant problem. Our ability to adapt to increased sea level is growing faster than sea level.

Precipitation is likely to increase, but that is a GOOD thing.

Nonsense. Deforestation spreads deserts, not increased temperature. Increased temperature means the world will get wetter, cet.par., not drier.

You mean like the Little Ice Age? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: it didn't happen (according to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph) -- and if it did, it certainly wasn't caused by rising global temperatures.

Give your head a shake.

Nonsense. Temperatures have been far higher in the past, as has CO2, and no such thing happened. The oceanic food chain is being disrupted by overfishing, not warmer climate.

And it's all nonsense.

I will be proved right and the IPCC will be proved wrong. That is certain.

 

Yes, of course it was. The disgracefully dishonest graph you referenced uses proxies for medieval temperatures, then substitutes faulty and contaminated surface instrument records for proxies when the proxies fail to show a big enough temperature increase in the last 50 years. This sort of trick easily deceives people who are not familiar with the standard techniques of scientific fraud.

 

They don't. The trends for the year...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../rss/from:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:2010/trend

What you should answer is why you think a graph that doesn't adjust for baselines when doing data comparison, or fails to show even a basic linear trend when making silly accusations, is useful for anything. I would go back to the nutty blog you pulled that from and ask a few questions from the individual you copied that from. And when they dodge your questions, remove their blog from your Favorites.

Another thing you might consider if you're hung up about November's value for GISS, which does show a modest jump compared to the other records...

- the other surface data (HadCrut, NCDC) is not even out yet for comparison

- monthly anomalies never march in lockstep with ENSO

- similarly, ENSO is not the only short-term driver

- satellites measure brightness in the full lower troposphere, not specifically temperatures at the surface, so this is an apples/oranges comparison anyways

- some datasets don't include polar data

- lower troposphere is more sensitive to ENSO spikes than the surface, thus a sharper drop from very high levels is expected

Even so, anomalies in the satellite record are surprisingly high as well, with November 2010 being much higher than any previous la Nina. Check 1999, 2000, and 2007 for comparison.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/month...hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt

I do think it's likely that all records to drop a bit further by January (generally peak la Nina impact), but if they don't do as we expect, I wouldn't trip about it. Note that global mean temperature during la Ninas is trending higher long-term (hmm...why could that be?)

 

You've once again failed to offer any evidence to back up your "undisputable" statements, surely it can't be hard to find a link or two a a reputable scients to back them up if they are "undisputable"? For the sake of fairness my sources were the IPCC, National Geographic, wikipedia, The Guardian website amongst others.

You also failed to identify the obvious sarcasm in my openning statements.

If you believe you know more about this than 2500 world reknowned scientists you are clearly delusional.

 

Surely you know the hockey stick graph is a fraud, right?

 

Only in the denier cult bizarro-world you must inhabit.

In the real world, the United States National Academies of Science said in a special report on the subject called: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (short excerpt)

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.


Nature, one of the finest science journals, reported two years ago (short excerpt) -
Nature - The hockey stick holds up

A follow-up to the infamous 1998 'hockey stick' curve confirmed that the past two decades are the warmest in recent history. Although their earlier work had been largely vindicated, in September the same team revised their global surface temperature estimates for the past 2,000 years, using a greatly expanded set of proxies, including marine sediments, ice cores, coral and historical documents (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13252–13257; 2008 ). According to the Christian Science Monitor: "It still looks a lot like the much-battered, but still rink-ready stick of 1998. Today the handle reaches further back and it's a bit more gnarly. But the blade at the business end tells the same story."

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds

***

 

Where would you suggest I look for a link to peer-reviewed research showing that the tropics are densely populated and high latitudes unpopulated? Sorry, common knowledge can't be published in peer-reviewed journals. It can only be denied by fools and liars.

Is there perhaps a Proceedings of the Academy of Climatic Vacation Preferences where I would find peer-reviewed research demonstrating that people like to go on vacation in warmer climates because it's more comfortable there? Do you really need me to show you links to research showing human beings originated in equatorial Africa, not Siberia or Antarctica?

Give your head a shake.

I really don't care what your sources were. Facts are not altered by who states them.

Is that how you rationalize your lying? How convenient.

I am very accustomed to disagreeing with experts and subsequently being proved right. The logic of AGW claims just doesn't add up; it's all a big post hoc fallacy. I will be proved right on climate. The claimed AGW consensus will be proved wrong. That is certain.

 

And by some funny coincidence is the ONLY record to show 2010 as the hottest year...

It can't be because the sun warms the earth, because all True Believers know the sun doesn't warm the earth.

 

Of course you know there has been active Geoengineering(weather modification) going on for many decades,by many countries. It got so bad back in the 70's the U.N. had to present anti-warfare weather modification treaties so countries would stop wreaking havoc on this planet...I am sure you also know that referencing a government agency,or in fact any organization that relies on government grants is showing you have no clue about the corruption and agenda of the CLUB OF ROME...

If NASA is a credible source, then explain why they admit back in 2005 that we are altering the weather,and warming the globe by dumping poisonous toxic metal into the atmosphere..

5) Man-made Clouds
NASA noted in an October 2005 newsletter, and from other study results, notes that increasingly persistent contrails are turning into man-made clouds that are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…” NASA goes on to note that: “…Any increase in global cloud cover will contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate. Likewise, any change in Earth’s climate may have effects on natural resources…” (The Power Point Presentation begins at this point in Rosalind’s presentation.)

 

Are you aware of the IRON MOUNTAIN report?...Do you know the agenda of the Club of Rome?...the group that funds just about every green movement on earth...I doubt you do, but you should...

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

 

Yap it is the warmest year in the whole 4.6 billion years of the earths existence. How arrogant are these people in our blink of an eye lifetime well hell even in our blink of a lifetime of civilized humanity to say that the earth is warming? The earth has been through ice ages, heating periods, and everything in-between. The earth changes and will continue to change way after me, you, and everyone on this planet is gone. Now lets cut to the chase and get down to what this is all about, you guessed it money.

 

NCDC does as well, although November's value isn't in yet. GISS is also running cooler than UAH/RSS for the year. Maybe you should accuse them of fraud too.

Huh? Please point out what scientist doesn't believe the Sun warms the Earth.

 

I wouldn't call AGW True Believers scientists, but they do apparently believe that the sun cannot be warming the earth because only human CO2 emissions can warm the earth.