Climate Change...Again. Another View

[Wonky3]

The from George Will, political pundit, baseball fan, conservative spokesman, and a guy who reads widely and is considered and intellectually force. (And showers us with words huge and obscure). So, I read the following with some interest and it makes me wonder how Mr. Will can argue with what appears to be an overwhelming majority of earth scientists who feel climate change is due, in large part, to humans burning carbon based fuel. For instance, Mr. Will does not mention the huge increase in population since the Industrial revolution, and the use of carbon by almost all.
And still, he uses historical information to make his case. Interesting stuff.

Does he have a valid point?

ANOTHER VIEW
George Will: Climate change's instructive past
We know, because they often say so, that those who think catastrophic global warming is probable and perhaps imminent are exemplary empiricists. They say those who disagree with them are "climate change deniers" disrespectful of science.
Actually, however, something about which everyone can agree is that of course the climate is changing — it always is. And if climate Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim to be about weighing evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human activity? Before wagering vast wealth and curtailments of liberty on correcting the climate, two recent books should be considered.
In "The Third Horseman: Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century," William Rosen explains how Europe's "most widespread and destructive famine" was the result of "an almost incomprehensibly complicated mixture of climate, commerce, and conflict, four centuries in gestation." Early in that century, 10 percent of the population from the Atlantic to the Urals died, partly because of the effect of climate change on "the incredible amalgam of molecules that comprises a few inches of soil that produces the world's food."
In the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), from the end of the ninth century to the beginning of the 14th, the Northern Hemisphere was warmer than at any time in the last 8,000 years — for reasons concerning which there is no consensus. Warming increased the amount of arable land — there were vineyards in northern England — leading, Rosen says, to Europe's "first sustained population increase since the fall of the Roman Empire." The need for land on which to grow cereals drove deforestation. The MWP population explosion gave rise to towns, textile manufacturing and new wealthy classes.
Then, near the end of the MWP, came the severe winters of 1309-1312, when polar bears could walk from Greenland to Iceland on pack ice. In 1315 there was rain for perhaps 155 consecutive days, washing away topsoil. Upwards of half the arable land in much of Europe was gone; cannibalism arrived as parents ate children. Corpses hanging from gallows were devoured.
Human behavior did not cause this climate change. Instead, climate warming caused behavioral change (10 million mouths to feed became 30 million). Then climate cooling caused social changes (rebelliousness and bellicosity) that amplified the consequences of climate, a pattern repeated four centuries later.
In "Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century," Geoffrey Parker, a history professor at Ohio State, explains how a "fatal synergy" between climatological and political factors produced turmoil from Europe to China. What he calls "the placenta of the crisis" of that century included "the Little Ice Age" (LIA) between the 1640s and the 1690s. Unusual weather, protracted enough to qualify as a change in climate, correlated so strongly with political upheavals as to constitute causation.
Whatever caused the LIA — decreased sunspot activity and increased seismic activity were important factors — it caused, among other horrific things, "stunting" that, Parker says, "reduced the average height of those born in 1675, the 'year without a summer,' or during the years of cold and famine in the early 1690s, to only 63 inches: the lowest ever recorded."
In northerly latitudes, Parker says, each decline of 0.5 degrees Celsius in the mean summer temperature "decreases the number of days on which crops ripen by 10 percent, doubles the risk of a single harvest failure, and increases the risk of a double failure sixfold," For those farming at least 1,000 feet above sea level this temperature decline "increases the chance of two consecutive failures a hundredfold."
The flight from abandoned farms to cities produced "the urban graveyard effect," crises of disease, nutrition, water, sanitation, housing, fire, crime, abortion, infanticide, marriages forgone, and suicide. Given the ubiquity of desperation, it is not surprising that more wars took place during the 17th-century crisis "than in any other era before the Second World War."
By documenting the appalling consequences of two climate changes, Rosen and Parker validate wariness about behaviors that might cause changes. The last 12 of Parker's 712 pages of text deliver a scalding exhortation to be alarmed about what he considers preventable global warming. Neither book, however, supports those who believe human behavior is the sovereign or even primary disrupter of climate normality, whatever that might be. With the hands that today's climate Cassandras are not using to pat themselves on the back for their virtuous empiricism, they should pick up such books.

[tvguy]

NO

I read it this morning too. GW is a dick. I never could stand the guy.

BTW would YOU rather read italics or bold font. Maybe it's just me but bold font seems to be easier on the eyes than italics.

[Wonky3]

NO

I read it this morning too. GW is a dick. I never could stand the guy.

BTW would YOU rather read italics or bold font. Maybe it's just me but bold font seems to be easier on the eyes than italics.

I can do bold.
Traditionally when quoting someone, italics are used. I've noticed lately that some writers are including quotes using wide margins and then just using quote marks.

We should poll the group. Correction: YOU should poll the group.

PS: Not a fan of George Will either but he is read by lots of folks and has (for a while at least) national influence.

[tvguy]

NO

I read it this morning too. GW is a dick. I never could stand the guy.

BTW would YOU rather read italics or bold font. Maybe it's just me but bold font seems to be easier on the eyes than italics.

I can do bold.
Traditionally when quoting someone, italics are used. I've noticed lately that some writers are including quotes using wide margins and then just using quote marks.

We should poll the group. Correction: YOU should poll the group.

PS: Not a fan of George Will either but he is read by lots of folks and has (for a while at least) national influence.

You didn't answer my question . I wondered if maybe you like me find it a little easier on the eyes to read bold font than Italics.
Yes I know Traditionally when quoting someone, italics are used. I know that Mr Obvious.
I also know that if you make a post and YOU type YOUR words with standard font and then post the quoted text in bold.
That it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand the bold font IS the quoted part.

I've been doing it precisely that way for years and never once has anyone been confused.

I looked it up. The truth is , we are both wrong because Italics and Bold font are supposed to be used to make certain words stand out from other words.
So if we make an entire block of text italics OR bold then NOTHING stands out.


Anyway IMO.. to me, my personal choice.. is that a page of bold font is easier to read than a page of italics. I don't know if it's just ME. That is why I asked you the question.

[Cuzz]

From what I read above, those books seem to be dealing with the effects of previous episodes of global changes. I think I'd be interested in them. I'm less sure how that informs us as to the cause(s) of those or the current global weather changes.

[Wonky3]

From what I read above, those books seem to be dealing with the effects of previous episodes of global changes. I think I'd be interested in them. I'm less sure how that informs us as to the cause(s) of those or the current global weather changes.

Exactly. That was then and this is now.

And I think we should also be discussing what to do when "changes" start happening in dramatic ways. All well and good to scream about cutting carbon stuff, but if the damn ocean swamps Brookings and Gold Hill becomes the beach, we better be ready for it.

I mean other than learning to swim real good.

[SFLiberal]

another view:

‘Fears of man-made global warming exaggerated’ Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/45786412.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

[tvguy]

another view:

‘Fears of man-made global warming exaggerated’ Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/45786412.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Two of three scientists Wow must have been some whopping session on climate change?? I wonder if they had it in a pup tent?



From your link
MUMBAI: Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated. Their presence at the conference was particularly significant in light of the current 'development-versus-envir- onment' debates.

[Wonky3]

another view:

‘Fears of man-made global warming exaggerated’ Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/45786412.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Always good to have diverse opinions.
I'd point out however that this was a very small group of scientists from little known institutions, and the authors did not present any papers for peer review.
There is, and will continue to be, debate about the earth sciences but there is empirical evidence that the climate is changing. For whatever reason.
The debate seems to be if it's "man made" or not.
So...
If we make whatever changes we can to reduce carbon and we discover the problems were in fact not man made, we have lost little.
On the other hand if we deny the problem is man made, and it is, and we suffer catastrophic consequences we will be in deep do-do.

So we should be critical of those who claim the problems are not man made and hold them to a very high standard of proof that is subject to peer review.

On thing for sure: As lay people we are at the mercy of the experts. Our work is to try to nail down the most reliable and widely held scientific information available. I'm not sure I want to accept the information posted here as good science.

[Wonky3]

And now, 2015.

Date:
January 16, 2015
Source:
NASA
Summary:
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...153905.htm

Good science, not some obscure academic that George Will dredged up from some obscure place. This is NASA and NOA stuff, real science seen around the globe as good information.

But I wonder where he science is that is working on how we are going to adapt and survive the effects of drastic changes in weather? If we can't beat it, can we learn to live with it? It would seem important that science works on this part of the problem too.

Or, are humans just doomed? Some of us are old enough to not have to deal with the most drastic of these effects. But some of us have grandchildren we love.

[Hugo]

And now, 2015.

Date:
January 16, 2015
Source:
NASA
Summary:
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...153905.htm

Good science, not some obscure academic that George Will dredged up from some obscure place. This is NASA and NOA stuff, real science seen around the globe as good information.

But I wonder where he science is that is working on how we are going to adapt and survive the effects of drastic changes in weather? If we can't beat it, can we learn to live with it? It would seem important that science works on this part of the problem too.

Or, are humans just doomed? Some of us are old enough to not have to deal with the most drastic of these effects. But some of us have grandchildren we love.

Good science? Only in the eye of the beholder. To call 2014 the hottest year is pure bullshit.

Brian Sussman ~ Meteorologist

No doubt you’ve heard by now that both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA calculated that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

"The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years," said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University to the New York Times (she wasn't part of either research team). "Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind."

According to the government’s stats, nine of the ten hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000.

Wow. Sounds scary.

May I please step in? Just type DebateMeAlGore.com into your Internet browser and you’ll understand why I have some credibility in this area.

First of all, the temperature records are rigged. The vast majority of measuring stations have been erected and placed in operation since the 1980’s, purposely located in warm artificially warm locations (near airport runways, in the center of downtowns, etc.). This thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree. Additionally hundreds of temperature monitors in colder climates such as Siberia, Canada, the Alps and the Andes have been withdrawn from dataset. These huge voids are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. Thus the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is purposefully reading warm.

If NOAA and NASA would base their claims solely on state of the art satellite observations (which cover every square inch of the globe) they would find that their claim of “hottest year” is a bust. The satellite data soundly proclaims that there has been a pause in the earth’s warming for 18 straight years.

It should also be noted that the government’s current “hottest year” claim is not even really within the margin of error for temperature gauges. NOAA and NASA contend that 2014’s temperature was one-hundredth of a degree warmer than the previous record year of 2010.

One-hundredth of a degree from a unreliable data set!

So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures?

Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet. As I thoroughly reveal in my books Climategate and Eco-Tyranny, human-caused climate change is Left’s most important tool for employing worldwide socialism.

Try this link:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/s...continues/

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, had this to say about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’: “The ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures,” Curry wrote on January 16.

Curry predicts another decade of a global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade,” she explained

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations,” Curry told the Washington Post.

Curry continued: “Berkeley Earth (temperature analysis) sums it up well with this statement: ‘That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, mocked the notion of the “hottest year.” “Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen,” Michaels said.

Michaels continued: “John Christy and Richard McNider, from University of Alabama (Huntsville) recently compared climate model projections to observed lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by two independent sources: satellites and weather balloons. They found that the average warming predicted to have occurred since 1979 (when the satellite data starts) is approximately three times larger than what is being observed.”

Climatologist Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted satellites do not agree with “warmest year” claims. “The satellite and balloon data of the deep atmosphere have 2014 in a cluster of warmish years well below the hottest two of 1998 and 2010?, Christy said.

Christy continued: “With the government agencies reporting that the surface temperature as highest ever, we have a puzzle. The puzzle is even more puzzling because theory (i.e. models) indicate the opposite should be occurring – greater warmth in the deep atmosphere than the surface. So, there are just many very basic and fundamental aspects of the global climate we have yet to comprehend.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor of atmospheric science, Colorado State University, downplayed the accuracy of the surface temperature record. “There remain significant uncertainties in the accuracy of the land portion of the surface temperature data, where we have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.”

“More generally, we need to move beyond just assessing global warming, but examine how (and if) key atmospheric and ocean circulations, such as El Nino, La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. are changing in their intensity, structure and frequency. These are the climate features that determine if a region has drought, floods, and so forth, not a global average surface temperature anomaly,” Pielke added.

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse declared “talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’ “The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued,” Whitehouse wrote on January 16.

“According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record ‘beating’ 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.”

“In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” Whitehouse added.

“It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions,” Whitehouse concluded.

And for the record, on a local level, 2014 was the 34th warmest year in the lower 48 states of the United States.

[Wonky3]

And now, 2015.

Date:
January 16, 2015
Source:
NASA
Summary:
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...153905.htm

Good science, not some obscure academic that George Will dredged up from some obscure place. This is NASA and NOA stuff, real science seen around the globe as good information.

But I wonder where he science is that is working on how we are going to adapt and survive the effects of drastic changes in weather? If we can't beat it, can we learn to live with it? It would seem important that science works on this part of the problem too.

Or, are humans just doomed? Some of us are old enough to not have to deal with the most drastic of these effects. But some of us have grandchildren we love.

Good science? Only in the eye of the beholder. To call 2014 the hottest year is pure bullshit.

Brian Sussman ~ Meteorologist

No doubt you’ve heard by now that both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA calculated that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

"The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years," said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University to the New York Times (she wasn't part of either research team). "Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind."

According to the government’s stats, nine of the ten hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000.

Wow. Sounds scary.

May I please step in? Just type DebateMeAlGore.com into your Internet browser and you’ll understand why I have some credibility in this area.

First of all, the temperature records are rigged. The vast majority of measuring stations have been erected and placed in operation since the 1980’s, purposely located in warm artificially warm locations (near airport runways, in the center of downtowns, etc.). This thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree. Additionally hundreds of temperature monitors in colder climates such as Siberia, Canada, the Alps and the Andes have been withdrawn from dataset. These huge voids are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. Thus the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is purposefully reading warm.

If NOAA and NASA would base their claims solely on state of the art satellite observations (which cover every square inch of the globe) they would find that their claim of “hottest year” is a bust. The satellite data soundly proclaims that there has been a pause in the earth’s warming for 18 straight years.

It should also be noted that the government’s current “hottest year” claim is not even really within the margin of error for temperature gauges. NOAA and NASA contend that 2014’s temperature was one-hundredth of a degree warmer than the previous record year of 2010.

One-hundredth of a degree from a unreliable data set!

So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures?

Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet. As I thoroughly reveal in my books Climategate and Eco-Tyranny, human-caused climate change is Left’s most important tool for employing worldwide socialism.

Try this link:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/s...continues/

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, had this to say about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’: “The ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures,” Curry wrote on January 16.

Curry predicts another decade of a global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade,” she explained

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations,” Curry told the Washington Post.

Curry continued: “Berkeley Earth (temperature analysis) sums it up well with this statement: ‘That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, mocked the notion of the “hottest year.” “Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen,” Michaels said.

Michaels continued: “John Christy and Richard McNider, from University of Alabama (Huntsville) recently compared climate model projections to observed lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by two independent sources: satellites and weather balloons. They found that the average warming predicted to have occurred since 1979 (when the satellite data starts) is approximately three times larger than what is being observed.”

Climatologist Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted satellites do not agree with “warmest year” claims. “The satellite and balloon data of the deep atmosphere have 2014 in a cluster of warmish years well below the hottest two of 1998 and 2010?, Christy said.

Christy continued: “With the government agencies reporting that the surface temperature as highest ever, we have a puzzle. The puzzle is even more puzzling because theory (i.e. models) indicate the opposite should be occurring – greater warmth in the deep atmosphere than the surface. So, there are just many very basic and fundamental aspects of the global climate we have yet to comprehend.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor of atmospheric science, Colorado State University, downplayed the accuracy of the surface temperature record. “There remain significant uncertainties in the accuracy of the land portion of the surface temperature data, where we have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.”

“More generally, we need to move beyond just assessing global warming, but examine how (and if) key atmospheric and ocean circulations, such as El Nino, La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. are changing in their intensity, structure and frequency. These are the climate features that determine if a region has drought, floods, and so forth, not a global average surface temperature anomaly,” Pielke added.

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse declared “talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’ “The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued,” Whitehouse wrote on January 16.

“According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record ‘beating’ 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.”

“In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” Whitehouse added.

“It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions,” Whitehouse concluded.

And for the record, on a local level, 2014 was the 34th warmest year in the lower 48 states of the United States.

Look the sources and who you are quoting.

But you know what? We all have the right to chose our own sources, right?

So the earth is only 6,000 years old, Darwin was a nut-job, NASA didn't REALLY go to the moon, and president Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

Bet you a ten spot you didn't bother the read the quoted article from a SCIENCE publication, or that you follow science information in the popular press.

I'm no scientist, for sure! But I am capable of judging reputable information from trusted sources and discounting the political clouding of special interest groups. There is lots of "coal money" out there and they hire lobbyists by the gross who find marginal academics who are willing to shill for them for a price.

And if your sources are wrong there will be hell to pay.
If the sources I have referenced are wrong we will have wasted some time and effort but not have risked a tragic result.

[tvguy]

And now, 2015.

Date:
January 16, 2015
Source:
NASA
Summary:
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...153905.htm

Good science, not some obscure academic that George Will dredged up from some obscure place. This is NASA and NOA stuff, real science seen around the globe as good information.

But I wonder where he science is that is working on how we are going to adapt and survive the effects of drastic changes in weather? If we can't beat it, can we learn to live with it? It would seem important that science works on this part of the problem too.

Or, are humans just doomed? Some of us are old enough to not have to deal with the most drastic of these effects. But some of us have grandchildren we love.

Good science? Only in the eye of the beholder. To call 2014 the hottest year is pure bullshit.

Brian Sussman ~ Meteorologist

No doubt you’ve heard by now that both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA calculated that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

"The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years," said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University to the New York Times (she wasn't part of either research team). "Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind."

According to the government’s stats, nine of the ten hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000.

Wow. Sounds scary.

May I please step in? Just type DebateMeAlGore.com into your Internet browser and you’ll understand why I have some credibility in this area.

First of all, the temperature records are rigged. The vast majority of measuring stations have been erected and placed in operation since the 1980’s, purposely located in warm artificially warm locations (near airport runways, in the center of downtowns, etc.). This thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree. Additionally hundreds of temperature monitors in colder climates such as Siberia, Canada, the Alps and the Andes have been withdrawn from dataset. These huge voids are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. Thus the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is purposefully reading warm.

If NOAA and NASA would base their claims solely on state of the art satellite observations (which cover every square inch of the globe) they would find that their claim of “hottest year” is a bust. The satellite data soundly proclaims that there has been a pause in the earth’s warming for 18 straight years.

It should also be noted that the government’s current “hottest year” claim is not even really within the margin of error for temperature gauges. NOAA and NASA contend that 2014’s temperature was one-hundredth of a degree warmer than the previous record year of 2010.

One-hundredth of a degree from a unreliable data set!

So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures?

Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet. As I thoroughly reveal in my books Climategate and Eco-Tyranny, human-caused climate change is Left’s most important tool for employing worldwide socialism.

Try this link:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/s...continues/

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, had this to say about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’: “The ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures,” Curry wrote on January 16.

Curry predicts another decade of a global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade,” she explained

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations,” Curry told the Washington Post.

Curry continued: “Berkeley Earth (temperature analysis) sums it up well with this statement: ‘That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, mocked the notion of the “hottest year.” “Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen,” Michaels said.

Michaels continued: “John Christy and Richard McNider, from University of Alabama (Huntsville) recently compared climate model projections to observed lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by two independent sources: satellites and weather balloons. They found that the average warming predicted to have occurred since 1979 (when the satellite data starts) is approximately three times larger than what is being observed.”

Climatologist Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted satellites do not agree with “warmest year” claims. “The satellite and balloon data of the deep atmosphere have 2014 in a cluster of warmish years well below the hottest two of 1998 and 2010?, Christy said.

Christy continued: “With the government agencies reporting that the surface temperature as highest ever, we have a puzzle. The puzzle is even more puzzling because theory (i.e. models) indicate the opposite should be occurring – greater warmth in the deep atmosphere than the surface. So, there are just many very basic and fundamental aspects of the global climate we have yet to comprehend.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor of atmospheric science, Colorado State University, downplayed the accuracy of the surface temperature record. “There remain significant uncertainties in the accuracy of the land portion of the surface temperature data, where we have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.”

“More generally, we need to move beyond just assessing global warming, but examine how (and if) key atmospheric and ocean circulations, such as El Nino, La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. are changing in their intensity, structure and frequency. These are the climate features that determine if a region has drought, floods, and so forth, not a global average surface temperature anomaly,” Pielke added.

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse declared “talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’ “The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued,” Whitehouse wrote on January 16.

“According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record ‘beating’ 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.”

“In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” Whitehouse added.

“It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions,” Whitehouse concluded.

And for the record, on a local level, 2014 was the 34th warmest year in the lower 48 states of the United States.

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe this. I think a person has to really WANT to find some reason to not believe the climate is warming to buy in to this BS.
Kind of like not willing to notice how glaciers are shrinking and even some islands are being inundated with sea water.
But I guess the sea level isn't REALLY rising. Maybe it's all faked just like the HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of temperature stations


First of all, the temperature records are rigged. The vast majority of measuring stations have been erected and placed in operation since the 1980’s, purposely located in warm artificially warm locations (near airport runways, in the center of downtowns, etc.). This thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree. Additionally hundreds of temperature monitors in colder climates such as Siberia, Canada, the Alps and the Andes have been withdrawn from dataset. These huge voids are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. Thus the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is purposefully reading warm.

[SFLiberal]

And now, 2015.

Date:
January 16, 2015
Source:
NASA
Summary:
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...153905.htm

Good science, not some obscure academic that George Will dredged up from some obscure place. This is NASA and NOA stuff, real science seen around the globe as good information.

But I wonder where he science is that is working on how we are going to adapt and survive the effects of drastic changes in weather? If we can't beat it, can we learn to live with it? It would seem important that science works on this part of the problem too.

Or, are humans just doomed? Some of us are old enough to not have to deal with the most drastic of these effects. But some of us have grandchildren we love.

Of course there is a footnote to that report:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

Close enough for government work?

[tvguy]

IMO this is much more likely to be true than the BS coming from this conservative British crack pot Whitehouse.





Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.

It's also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend -- and hence Climate Change -- are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.










http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerrevi...s.php?s=80

[Hugo]

So the earth is only 6,000 years old, Darwin was a nut-job, NASA didn't REALLY go to the moon, and president Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

Brace yourself Wonky, but you earned it.

FUCK YOU

[Wonky3]

And now, 2015.

Date:
January 16, 2015
Source:
NASA
Summary:
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...153905.htm

Good science, not some obscure academic that George Will dredged up from some obscure place. This is NASA and NOA stuff, real science seen around the globe as good information.

But I wonder where he science is that is working on how we are going to adapt and survive the effects of drastic changes in weather? If we can't beat it, can we learn to live with it? It would seem important that science works on this part of the problem too.

Or, are humans just doomed? Some of us are old enough to not have to deal with the most drastic of these effects. But some of us have grandchildren we love.

Of course there is a footnote to that report:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

And the DAILY RECORD? Really?

And you didn't even read the summary, let alone the article.

"The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements."

The point was (is) that the body of evidence points to recent increases in global warming and that if it increases the global impact will be of real concern.

" This trend continues". Did you see that?

Science, unlike ignorant dogma, is self correcting and if the evidence should indicate another conclusion it will be published. Science NOW, is concerned that this trend might continue and they are suggesting that man made actions are a big part of the problem.

But you stick the THE DAILY MAIL. They also report from time to time about the woman captured by little space men who impregnated her and stole her baby. (It's never clear why the released her. )

[tvguy]

And now, 2015.

Date:
January 16, 2015
Source:
NASA
Summary:
The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...153905.htm

Good science, not some obscure academic that George Will dredged up from some obscure place. This is NASA and NOA stuff, real science seen around the globe as good information.

But I wonder where he science is that is working on how we are going to adapt and survive the effects of drastic changes in weather? If we can't beat it, can we learn to live with it? It would seem important that science works on this part of the problem too.

Or, are humans just doomed? Some of us are old enough to not have to deal with the most drastic of these effects. But some of us have grandchildren we love.

Of course there is a footnote to that report:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

Close enough for government work?

So it's real meaningful to you that scientists are only 38% sure that 2014 was the warmest year on record.

But it's probably not meaningful to you that the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998?

[Wonky3]

So the earth is only 6,000 years old, Darwin was a nut-job, NASA didn't REALLY go to the moon, and president Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

Brace yourself Wonky, but you earned it.

FUCK YOU

Hey, when you have no rebuttal, a good old fuck you works every time.

[tvguy]

Wonky.. They also report from time to time about the woman captured by little space men who impregnated her and stole her baby. (It's never clear why the released her. Big Grin )

Awesome can we get a separate thread about that?