Never not spring break, Earth in 2014 hotter than ever

[IrishinSyria]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/s...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

In the annals of climatology, 2014 now surpasses 2010 as the warmest year in a global temperature record that stretches back to 1880. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human emissions and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and to the natural world...

...Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño, a large-scale weather pattern in which the ocean dumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

Longstanding claims by climate-change skeptics that global warming has stopped, seized on by politicians in Washington to justify inaction on emissions, depend on a particular starting year: 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

But...it's cold somewhere today...

 

[Domina Nostra]

I can buy that it was the hottest year on record (+0.07 deg F higher in 2014 than 2005 and 2010), but I can't buy the records go back to 1880. When you are talking about global temperatures within 1/100ths of a degree, I have a hard time believing that data is useful.

Also, there is still the lag between the surface temperature data, and the satellite data. The satellites, which were supposed to be more accurate, don't support 2014 being the hottest year.

 

[nvirish]

Chicago welcomes some warmer weather

 

[Southside Sully]

I can buy that it was the hottest year on record (+0.07 deg F higher in 2014 than 2005 and 2010), but I can't buy the records go back to 1880. When you are talking about global temperatures within 1/100ths of a degree, I have a hard time believing that data is useful.

Also, there is still the lag between the surface temperature data, and the satellite data. The satellites, which were supposed to be more accurate, don't support 2014 being the hottest year.

Thats a fair point, but the fact that global warming is happening is a fact. Look at the polar ice caps. This isn't just a hypothesis. Things need to change and need to change ASAP.

 

[GowerND11]

Thats a fair point, but the fact that global warming is happening is a fact. Look at the polar ice caps. This isn't just a hypothesis. Things need to change and need to change ASAP.

Really think we need to push for these:

Solar Roadways - Introduction

 

[wizards8507]

Thats a fair point, but the fact that global warming is happening is a fact. Look at the polar ice caps. This isn't just a hypothesis. Things need to change and need to change ASAP.

Not your best argument.

Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now | Daily Mail Online

Now, somebody do regression analysis and tell me that 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit is statistically significant. Spoiler alert: it isn't. 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit is zero.

ETA: I'm sure the timing of this "fair and balanced" New York Times article has nothing to do with the Pope and Obama's upcoming focus on climate change.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Not your best argument.

Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now | Daily Mail Online

Now, somebody do regression analysis and tell me that 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit is statistically significant. Spoiler alert: it isn't. 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit is zero.

ETA: I'm sure the timing of this "fair and balanced" New York Times article has nothing to do with the Pope and Obama's upcoming focus on climate change.

If you want to talk scientific method, you might want to go with what the scientists have to say on this one.

Spoiler alert: We're contributing to global climate change.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Antarctic sea ice reaches record high, as Arctic hits 2014 minimum

Ice levels in the Arctic have recovered from their all-time low, but are still on a shrinking trend, said Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. ”We have been telling this story for a long time, and we are still telling it,” she said.

 

[wizards8507]

If you want to talk scientific method, you might want to go with what the scientists have to say on this one.

Spoiler alert: We're contributing to global climate change.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Antarctic sea ice reaches record high, as Arctic hits 2014 minimum

It's cute that we call it "climate change" now that "global warming" has been shown to be bullshit. Do you see no issue with the fact that "climate scientists" have been proven to fabricate data? You can show me all kinds of graphs and charts but the numbers behind them are fraudulent.

Also, I might take your information a bit more seriously if it didn't have .gov after it. Or list the federal government of this or another country as a financial supporter. When governments are trying to grab power and they pay for the "science" that supports their power-grab, forgive me for questioning the validity of the information.

 

[Crazy Balki]

Perfect. South Bend will soon be 75-90 degrees year round, which will help recruiting since the Southeast and Los Angeles will be 200 year round.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

The NYT is still being published?

The ranks very low on my concern list. You can't force countries like China & North Korea to lower emissions anyway. If all the doomsday predictions are true, I know where I'm going & I know where my wife & kids are going. THat's all that matters, I'll let the politicians & scientists w/ monetary agendas hash it out.

 

[ClausentoTate]

Really think we need to push for these:

Solar Roadways - Introduction

There is no way haha though they should be featured in a movie, I'd watch that. Maybe it could star Tom Cruise.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It's cute that we call it "climate change" now that "global warming" has been shown to be bullshit. Do you see no issue with the fact that "climate scientists" have been proven to fabricate data? You can show me all kinds of graphs and charts but the numbers behind them are fraudulent.

That's just demonstrably not true.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Also, I might take your information a bit more seriously if it didn't have .gov after it. Or list the federal government of this or another country as a financial supporter. When governments are trying to grab power and they pay for the "science" that supports their power-grab, forgive me for questioning the validity of the information.

You don't trust NASA scientists? What could possibly be their incentive to make stuff up? How about the "scientists" that work for carbon producers? Why trust them? How about the politicians who take the most money from carbon producers? Why trust them?

Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground

 

[IrishJayhawk]

HotWhopper: John Cook Uncloaks Fake 'Skeptics' of Climate Science

Conspiracy theorists are also immune to new evidence. When climate scientists were accused of falsifying data, nine independent investigations by universities and governments in two countries found no evidence of wrongdoing.

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

 

[wizards8507]

You don't trust NASA scientists?

In 2007, Al Gore cited U.S. Navy researchers who predicted that there would be ZERO North Polar ice cap in 2014. Fast forward and the ice cap is expanding at record rates. Why are the NASA scientists so brilliant when the Navy researchers botched things so badly?

Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We've had temperature data since what, 1880? My rough calculations say we have 135 years of data over a 4.54 billion year life for a total of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Forgive me if my panties remain unbunched that temperatures MAY have risen less than one degree in our observable window of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Basing your climate beliefs on that information is like investing in General Motors based on their last two minutes of financial performance.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yall are wasting your time arguing with wizards about the warming of the earth. I have provided several long, detailed posts directly to him refuting his flawed logic and analysis and complete misunderstanding of the principles at work here. I failed to receive any rebuttal but.... "Al Gore said..." His whole argument hinges on the premise that Al Gore is somehow important or vital to the discussion. Which he is not. He is a dumb shit politicizing an important issue.

 

[wizards8507]

Yall are wasting your time arguing with wizards about the warming of the earth. I have provided several long, detailed posts directly to him refuting his flawed logic and analysis and complete misunderstanding of the principles at work here. I failed to receive any rebuttal but.... "Al Gore said..." His whole argument hinges on the premise that Al Gore is somehow important or vital to the discussion. Which he is not. He is a dumb shit politicizing an important issue.

Take Al Gore out of my last statement and you get the same thing. NAVY RESEARCHERS (not Al Gore, Navy researchers, i.e. scientists, i.e. the smartest guys in the room) predicted there'd be no North Polar ice cap in 2014.

 

[Cackalacky]

In 2007, Al Gore cited U.S. Navy researchers who predicted that there would be ZERO North Polar ice cap in 2014. Fast forward and the ice cap is expanding at record rates. Why are the NASA scientists so brilliant when the Navy researchers botched things so badly?

Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We've had temperature data since what, 1880? My rough calculations say we have 135 years of data over a 4.54 billion year life for a total of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Forgive me if my panties remain unbunched that temperatures MAY have risen less than one degree in our observable window of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Basing your climate beliefs on that information is like investing in General Motors based on their last two minutes of financial performance.

Again. Our data regarding climate change is not limited to just the last 100 years. The process as it is currently understood has highly reliable data for hundred of millions of years. You clearly don't understand the issue. I have posted numerous papers, links and what not but I know for a fact you have not read them because you keep posting the same lame ass conservative arguments.

 

[Southside Sully]

Not your best argument.

ETA: I'm sure the timing of this "fair and balanced" New York Times article has nothing to do with the Pope and Obama's upcoming focus on climate change.

How about this NY Times article? I clearly trust the opinion of a NASA employee as opposed to a conspiracy theorist.

"“This is really happening,” Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research, said in an interview. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/s...-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?_r=0

 

[Cackalacky]

Take Al Gore out of my last statement and you get the same thing. NAVY RESEARCHERS (not Al Gore, Navy researchers, i.e. scientists, i.e. the smartest guys in the room) predicted there'd be no North Polar ice cap in 2014.

So what. Who are Navy researchers compared to 97 % of world wide scientists all analyzing the problem from multiple disciplines and multiple models all converging on the same conclusion. That is not a problem. That is as much a fact as the scientific method can generate. When multiple analyses and methods converge on the same conclusion that is a real phenomenon. It is corroborated. It is supported. It must be refuted with equally strong evidence, not flimsy anecdotal opinions amounting to " but but Al Gore and navy Researchers were wrong.!!!!!"

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We've had temperature data since what, 1880?

Climate data from periods long before 1880 is widely available. It's just less detailed than more recent records.

My rough calculations say we have 135 years of data over a 4.54 billion year life for a total of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Forgive me if my panties remain unbunched that temperatures MAY have risen less than one degree in our observable window of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Basing your climate beliefs on that information is like investing in General Motors based on their last two minutes of financial performance.

You recently became a father, right? How do you feel about vaccines? I've read some scary stuff about them being the cause of all sorts of health problems for children. Our species, after all, is roughly 200,000 years old, but America only began systematically vaccinating its populace about 100 years ago. Risking the health of one's child when our data set only covers 0.005% of human history seems mighty irresponsible, no?

Don't be this woman:

 

[wizards8507]

Climate data from periods long before 1880 is widely available. It's just less detailed than more recent records.

Yeah, but data prior to industrialization is irrelevant if you're trying to convince people of "man-made" global warming." We know the Ice Ages happened, right? How could that be, when they didn't have factories and fossil fuels and Chevy Suburbans?

You recently became a father, right? How do you feel about vaccines? I've read some scary stuff about them being the cause of all sorts of health problems for children. Our species, after all, is roughly 200,000 years old, but America only began systematically vaccinating its populace about 100 years ago. Risking the health of one's child when our data set only covers 0.005% of human history seems mighty irresponsible, no?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There might be risks with a vaccine but there definitely is a risk if you get polio. Given the choice of "might harm" versus "definitely will harm," I'll pick "might harm" every time.

ETA: There's also no political agenda behind vaccinations so there's no incentive for anyone to make shit up. Example: if I'm trying to convince everyone that my Health Exchange is a super success, I might include statistics for everyone who signed up but conveniently omit the fact that half of them haven't actually PAID yet.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

We have boned this world, now it's time to see the face of the baby we've made.

Can I demand a paternity test?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yeah, but data prior to industrialization is irrelevant if you're trying to convince people of "man-made" global warming." We know the Ice Ages happened, right? How could that be, when they didn't have factories and fossil fuels and Chevy Suburbans?

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Can we know data prior to 1880 or can't we (spoiler alert: we can)?

Also, no one is arguing that there aren't climate trends. What the data are showing is that our current climate has been altered from a normal trend due to human activity.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

In 2007, Al Gore cited U.S. Navy researchers who predicted that there would be ZERO North Polar ice cap in 2014. Fast forward and the ice cap is expanding at record rates. Why are the NASA scientists so brilliant when the Navy researchers botched things so badly?

Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We've had temperature data since what, 1880? My rough calculations say we have 135 years of data over a 4.54 billion year life for a total of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Forgive me if my panties remain unbunched that temperatures MAY have risen less than one degree in our observable window of 0.000003% of the earth's history. Basing your climate beliefs on that information is like investing in General Motors based on their last two minutes of financial performance.

Adjusting the timing of a projection /= The entire premise must be a lie

 

[wizards8507]

Also, no one is arguing that there aren't climate trends. What the data are showing is that our current climate has been altered from a normal trend due to human activity.

And what I'm saying is that, even if I caved and said the quoted is 100% true (which I don't believe), those "normal trends" have historically been WAY more drastic (ice ages) than the "alteration caused by humans," so who gives a shit?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There might be risks with a vaccine but there definitely is a risk if you get polio. Given the choice of "might harm" versus "definitely will harm," I'll pick "might harm" every time.

Similarly, anthropogenic climate change might be a myth, or it might work itself out naturally. But if the overwhelming scientific consensus is right, and we do nothing to slow the current trends, it will definitely represent the greatest challenge to our species' continued survival that humanity has ever faced before.

Given the choice between "might needlessly retard economic growth" versus "likely to trigger the apocalypse", I'll choose the former every time, politics be damned.

 

[NDohio]

Yeah, but data prior to industrialization is irrelevant if you're trying to convince people of "man-made" global warming." We know the Ice Ages happened, right? How could that be, when they didn't have factories and fossil fuels and Chevy Suburbans?


I'm not sure what you're getting at. There might be risks with a vaccine but there definitely is a risk if you get polio. Given the choice of "might harm" versus "definitely will harm," I'll pick "might harm" every time.

ETA: There's also no political agenda behind vaccinations so there's no incentive for anyone to make shit up. Example: if I'm trying to convince everyone that my Health Exchange is a super success, I might include statistics for everyone who signed up but conveniently omit the fact that half of them haven't actually PAID yet.

Well, money...

British Doctor Faked Data Linking Vaccines to Autism, and Aimed to Profit From It | Popular Science

Sorry - back to the weather ...

 

[Cackalacky]

Yeah, but data prior to industrialization is irrelevant if you're trying to convince people of "man-made" global warming." We know the Ice Ages happened, right? How could that be, when they didn't have factories and fossil fuels and Chevy Suburbans?


I'm not sure what you're getting at. There might be risks with a vaccine but there definitely is a risk if you get polio. Given the choice of "might harm" versus "definitely will harm," I'll pick "might harm" every time.

ETA: There's also no political agenda behind vaccinations so there's no incentive for anyone to make shit up. Example: if I'm trying to convince everyone that my Health Exchange is a super success, I might include statistics for everyone who signed up but conveniently omit the fact that half of them haven't actually PAID yet.

Utter horseshit and massive unverified assertions here. We need the data for trends and baselines and also to correlate to natural events before man etc... It is infinitely more important than 120 years of temperature data.

 

[NDdomer2]

ETA: There's also no political agenda behind vaccinations so there's no incentive for anyone to make shit up. Example: if I'm trying to convince everyone that my Health Exchange is a super success, I might include statistics for everyone who signed up but conveniently omit the fact that half of them haven't actually PAID yet.

I would say anything health care related is ammo for political agenda. These vaccines cause this....Try this one instead.....