http://phys.org/news/2015-01-record-breaking-hottest-modern-history-noaa.html
"...
Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA calculated that in 2014 the world had its hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping.
...
...
"The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years,"
...
"Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind."
Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler and other experts said the latest statistics should end claims by non-scientists that warming has stopped. It didn't, as climate denial sites still touted claims that the world has not warmed in 18 years.
2014's heat was driven by record warmth in the world's oceans that didn't just break old marks: It shattered them.
Nine of the 10 hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000. The odds of this happening at random are about 650 million to 1, according to University of South Carolina statistician John Grego. Two other statisticians confirmed his calculations.
Climate scientists say one of the most significant parts of 2014's record is that it happened during a year where there was no El Nino weather oscillation. During an El Nino, when a specific area of the central Pacific warms unusually and influences weather worldwide, global temperatures tend to spike. Previous records, especially in 1998, happened during El Nino years.
Every year in the 21st century has been in the top 20 warmest years on record, according to NOAA.
NASA's Schmidt says temperatures will continue to rise with year-to-year variations and he wouldn't be surprised if 2015 breaks 2014's record: "The increase in greenhouse gases is unrelenting and that in the end is going to dominate most things going on."
...
This was the 38th year in a row that the world was warmer than the 20th century average, according to NOAA data. Most people in the world and the United States were born after 1976 and have never lived in a cooler than normal year.
....
...."
I have just selected some of the quotes from the above link so you would need to go to the link to read it in its entirety.
I guess anyone that now denies man made global warming is well beyond merely ignorant.
2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years..
Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago - long before so called Global Warming.
The earth cools and warms because of that big bright thing in the sky, the sun, does not give out constant heat. At a average of 1KW per square metre, its contribution to the temperature on this planet far exceeds any of man's efforts.
Global Warming / Climate Change is a theory put forward by governments in an attempt to control the population - a bit like religion really.
Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years..
Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago - long before so called Global Warming.
The earth cools and warms because of that big bright thing in the sky, the sun, does not give out constant heat. At a average of 1KW per square metre, its contribution to the temperature on this planet far excee ...[text shortened]... put forward by governments in an attempt to control the population - a bit like religion really.
2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years..
Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago
No, it doesn't. It means we are not absolutely sure before 135 years ago because the temperature measurements for official records for temperature that far back were not reliable like they are today but were primitive at best or non-existent at worst thus we have to talk about probabilities rather than certainties when we go that far back.
As the link said:
“"The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years,"
The rest of your post is obtuse condescending nonsense. I take it you are obviously not a scientist so please don't pretend you know all about it better than us scientists. I am not a climate scientist and yet I don't pretend to know it better than climate scientists many of whom will be generally more intelligent than I as well as all of them being far more knowledgeable of climate than I and the vast majority of them are saying the climate is getting warmer and we are the cause. Obviously, we should trust their judgment on this far more than yours.
Originally posted by Duncan ClarkeNo, that is not what it means.
Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago - long before so called Global Warming.
Global Warming / Climate Change is a theory put forward by governments in an attempt to control the population - a bit like religion really
A pity then that it is governments that are putting up the most resistance to the idea. And doing their best to do nothing about it.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyThat has been true since at least the 1980s. Global warming has been an established scientific fact for a long time. We need to stop wasting time trying to deal with so called 'skeptics', and instead start actually doing something about it. We also need to stop concentrating on the 'everyone must do their bit to save energy' mantra and instead look at government policies and some of the really large causes of and solutions to climate change such as farming practices that have been largely ignored.
I guess anyone that now denies man made global warming is well beyond merely ignorant.
There are two key solutions to global warming:
1. Heavy investment in renewable energy and removal of subsidies from fossil fuels.
2. Improved farming practices that stop the loss of soil carbon and reverses the trend to carbon sequestration in the soils.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyA scientist would understand that if information is unreliable, then it shouldn't be used. So unreliable temperatures must be ignored.2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years..
Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago
No, it doesn't. It means we are not absolutely sure before 135 years ago because the temperature measurements for official records for temperature that far back were not reliable like they are today but were primitive at best or non-exis ...[text shortened]... mer and we are the cause. Obviously, we should trust their judgment on this far more than yours.
The earth was once mostly tropical forest, then it was mostly covered by ice, long before man came along. Are we to blame the dinosaurs and the mammoths for these changes?
You cannot dismiss what I say, simply because I don't agree with you.
It may be true that mean sea temperatures are rising, or average air temperatures are rising - but that doesn't mean that man is to blame, or even that man can do anything to change it.
I do agree that our environment in certain areas, such as the smog over LA, or the dirty air in China's city's is our fault, and we can (and have in the past) made changes to improve the environment locally.
The earth is a big place and man is small in comparison. The biomass of insects, fish and foliage far exceeds ours, so is therefore more likely to effect the environment.
There is a big industry based around reducing our carbon footprint (an what a ridiculous expression that is, considering that carbon is a solid element), and all governments take their slice.
I may or may not have a science based background, but what I do know, is that the most significant factor in the mean temperature of the earth is the energy from the sun. Cut that off and we'd all freeze.
Scientists today are measuring temperatures with great accuracy and have been doing so for about 100 years or so. The earth is likely to be 4000000000 years old. I really don't see that 100 years is a significant period.
You may recall that in 1988, 3 whales were trapped under the ice in Alaska, because the sea froze early. Was that evidence or not for Global Warming?
You may believe in Global Warming or you may believe in God. It's your choice. I don't even have to not believe, because I can simply not accept the concept.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by Duncan ClarkeThe evidence points to an unprecedented rise in global temperatures. It's not that temperatures haven't been higher in the distant past, but that they've never changed this quickly in the past. It's not a question of belief, but of evidence. The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that the observed increase of global temperatures since industrialization is anthropomorphic. Unless you are a climate scientist then I think your denial of their warning is hubris.
A scientist would understand that if information is unreliable, then it shouldn't be used. So unreliable temperatures must be ignored.
The earth was once mostly tropical forest, then it was mostly covered by ice, long before man came along. Are we to blame the dinosaurs and the mammoths for these changes?
You cannot dismiss what I say, simply bec ...[text shortened]... It's your choice. I don't even have to not believe, because I can simply not accept the concept.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtwill Scotland become a tropical paradise any time soon? Please say its so.
The evidence points to an unprecedented rise in global temperatures. It's not that temperatures haven't been higher in the distant past, but that they've never changed this quickly in the past. It's not a question of belief, but of evidence. The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that the observed increase of global temperatures since ind ...[text shortened]... orphic. Unless you are a climate scientist then I think your denial of their warning is hubris.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by humy"No, it doesn't. It means we are not absolutely sure before 135 years ago because the temperature measurements for official records for temperature that far back were not reliable"2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years..
Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago
No, it doesn't. It means we are not absolutely sure before 135 years ago because the temperature measurements for official records for temperature that far back were not reliable like they are today but were primitive at best or non-exis ...[text shortened]... mer and we are the cause. Obviously, we should trust their judgment on this far more than yours.
You are also making the case for why scientists have limited data to work with and therefore can't really conclude anything with certainty. Contrary to what deepthought says, his claim of hubris is misdirected. Any scientist claiming "not reliable" data proves something is where the true hubris is.
Theories for the global warming pause are inconclusive. Nobody really knows.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there-are-now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/
2014 was also a record year for food harvests. I think we can live with this trend. Most people will eat well.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/11/03/2014-sees-record-harvests-worldwide-demolishing-gloomy-myth-global-warming-would-lead-to-acute-crop-failures/#sthash.ZFLpzSNe.dpbs
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThought'Hubris', now there's a word. I had to look this one up. It means 'wanton arrogance'. Since I am not a climate scientist, then you think that I am wantonly arrogant. You don't know me.
The evidence points to an unprecedented rise in global temperatures. It's not that temperatures haven't been higher in the distant past, but that they've never changed this quickly in the past. It's not a question of belief, but of evidence. The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that the observed increase of global temperatures since ind ...[text shortened]... orphic. Unless you are a climate scientist then I think your denial of their warning is hubris.
I have read the same information as you and I have drawn my own conclusions. I do not think that it makes me wantonly arrogant.
I accept that temperatures have increased a little in the past 100 years or so, and that industrialisation has increased in the same time frame, but that doesn't prove a link. There are many scientists, those who are not funded directly or indirectly by governments with a vested interest, who can show that the concept of Global Warming is not proven, let alone that there is a proven link between that and industrialisation.
100 years in 200 millennia is not a statistically valid sample.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"No, it doesn't. It means we are not absolutely sure before 135 years ago because the temperature measurements for official records for temperature that far back were not reliable"
You are also making the case for why scientists have limited data to work with and therefore can't really conclude anything with certainty. Contrary to what deepthought say ...[text shortened]... e-demolishing-gloomy-myth-global-warming-would-lead-to-acute-crop-failures/#sthash.ZFLpzSNe.dpbs
You are also making the case for why scientists have limited data to work with and therefore can't really conclude anything with certainty.
NO, I am not.
I repeat what I just said to Duncan Clarke:
"...
Who said that the only way we can know the temperature before 135 years ago is with actual temperature measurements taken that far back i.e. by people that lived before 135 years ago?
Obvious, there are other sources of that information that IS reliable. There are several other sources of this info, ice cores from glaciers being just one of them. There is no evidence that this source is 'unreliable' in particular
..."
There is nothing flawed with scientists using or stating probabilities. Probabilities don't equate with 'no idea'. If the data implies a probability of 90% (of something ) , that doesn't equate with “unreliable” nor “no idea” but it does equate with “probably” and that has real meaning. There is nothing whatsoever erroneous or unscientific about a scientist merely saying something probably is so providing he can back that up with evidence and/or reason (such as both the evidence and reasoning explained in the OP link ) .
To deny this would to deny the whole of quantum mechanics that depends on equations that describe probabilities of both quantum states and events.
Theories for the global warming pause ...
It hasn't paused. Last year was the hottest year for at least 135 years and probably for the last few thousand years -that's official. Slightly earlier the temperature didn't increase by quite as much as some experts, that know a lot more than you and I do, expected it to, but it still increased i.e. it didn't stop increasing. How is that a "pause" in global warming?
There was no pause but, if hypothetically there was, it sure is over now thus I guess it would have been irrelevant anyway.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
A scientist would understand that if information is unreliable, then it shouldn't be used. So unreliable temperatures must be ignored.
The earth was once mostly tropical forest, then it was mostly covered by ice, long before man came along. Are we to blame the dinosaurs and the mammoths for these changes?
You cannot dismiss what I say, simply bec ...[text shortened]... It's your choice. I don't even have to not believe, because I can simply not accept the concept.
A scientist would understand that if information is unreliable, then it shouldn't be used. So unreliable temperatures must be ignored.
Who said that the only way we can know the temperature before 135 years ago is with actual temperature measurements taken that far back i.e. by people that lived before 135 years ago?
Obvious, there are other sources of that information that IS reliable. There are several other sources of this info, ice cores from glaciers being just one of them. There is no evidence that this source is 'unreliable' in particular thus we have no reason to believe we should “ignore” that source of info.
Thus, OBVIOUSLY, I never said/implied that we must rely on some unreliable info -you are just being obtuse here with that obvious straw man.
The rest of your post is flawed and therefore irrelevant because it doesn't get this point.
17 Jan 15
We had a few hot summers, so and they called it Global Warming. Then we had a few cold summers, so they called it Climate Change, incorporating both observations.
10000 years ago the earth was covered by ice. Now it isn't. So the earth has been heating up on average for the past 10000 years. That IS Global Warming. Not even the the most ignorant climate scientist would attribute that to humans.
Even today, there are glaciers, relics of the ice age which still persist. They are receding, and have been doing so for millennia; not caused by man, but by nature.
Who really knows what the cause of this measureable short term anomaly is, but to blame industrialisation may be unsubstantiated and the measure put in place pure folly.
Originally posted by Duncan Clarkewe are not talking about the last 10000 years.
We had a few hot summers, so and they called it Global Warming. Then we had a few cold summers, so they called it Climate Change, incorporating both observations.
10000 years ago the earth was covered by ice. Now it isn't. So the earth has been heating up on average for the past 10000 years. That IS Global Warming. Not even the the most ignorant cli ...[text shortened]... , but to blame industrialisation may be unsubstantiated and the measure put in place pure folly.
We are talking about the average increase in global temperature over the last few decades clearly proving man made global warming. Obviously there are going to be temperature cycles and variation superimposed on that temperature increase -so what? The general trend is still global warming.
It is spring. The temperature is increasing. We have an unseasonal cold snap. So the theory that there will be a warm summer is false? -same flawed logic. Except there hasn't even been any good analogous significant cold snap in global temperatures to allow you to use even this flawed logic -just trivial temperature variations that one would expect whether there is man made global warming or not.