2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by sonhouse
So tell me why the glaciers around the whole planet are disappearing. Why the melting of Greenland is accelerating, why are coastal villages in Alaska ALREADY being forced out because the ocean is drowning the town?

So tell me why the glaciers around the whole planet are disappearing.

We are coming out of an ice age.

Why the melting of Greenland is accelerating,

We are coming out of an ice age.

why are coastal villages in Alaska ALREADY being forced out because the ocean is drowning the town

They built the towns in the wrong place.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
So tell me why the glaciers around the whole planet are disappearing.

We are coming out of an ice age.

Why the melting of Greenland is accelerating,

We are coming out of an ice age.

why are coastal villages in Alaska ALREADY being forced out because the ocean is drowning the town

They built the towns in the wrong place.

We are coming out of an ice age.

There is no current ice age we are “coming out of” that accounts for the current SPEED of both the warming and melting of the caps.

Given the cycles for ice ages that span over many thousands of years, NOT just a few decades like the few we have seen with significant warming, strange coincidence that this warming is happening at its greatest speed right now i.e. exactly as the scientists say and exactly as all of us would expect if it was caused by our CO2 emissions, don't you think?

There is no evidence that the current warming is as a result of coming out of an ice age. In contrast, there is good empirical evidence of man made global warming and basic physics tells us that CO2 should cause such warming. Thus, unless you admit you arbitrary select what to deny as whatever happens to be what you don't want to be true, to deny man made global warming is to deny all empirical evidence and deny the whole of physics. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot accept the empirical evidence that heat gets trapped in a glass green house and the physics that says why it should do and yet deny empirical evidence and the physics that says we are causing global warming. You cannot arbitrary reject one part of science just because you don't like the particular facts it makes apparent while accepting the rest of that same science.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
So tell me why the glaciers around the whole planet are disappearing.

We are coming out of an ice age.

Why the melting of Greenland is accelerating,

We are coming out of an ice age.

why are coastal villages in Alaska ALREADY being forced out because the ocean is drowning the town

They built the towns in the wrong place.

Before you go about making up science, you should do a reality check on that. The last ice age finished some 15 THOUSAND years ago or more. The Ogallala aquifer in the midwest USA is a result of the multithousand year old ending since there were at the time of the last REAL ice age, many extremely large lakes in Canada that took thousands of years to drain and that water found its way underground to the midwest USA.

You really should do your homework before making ridiculous statements like that. There was what was called the 'little ice age' in Europe hundreds of years ago but even that has totally worked its way through the thermal system by now.

You are out on a VERY thin limb and need to come up with a better rational to support your obvious political stance. You are not interested in science, just like RJ Hinds is not but uses pseudoscience in his vain efforts to support the Young Earth creationism nonsense.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Before you go about making up science, you should do a reality check on that. The last ice age finished some 15 THOUSAND years ago or more. The Ogallala aquifer in the midwest USA is a result of the multithousand year old ending since there were at the time of the last REAL ice age, many extremely large lakes in Canada that took thousands of years to drain ...[text shortened]... not but uses pseudoscience in his vain efforts to support the Young Earth creationism nonsense.

Is that what it really amounts to ? a political stance? a denial of scientific data because its inconvenient?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is that what it really amounts to ? a political stance? a denial of scientific data because its inconvenient?

In the US there is a real conspiracy to stop all forms of environmental issues, like fracking which is ruining water supplies around the operations and to stop any effort to try to lower the CO2 load in the atmosphere because to do so requires a LOT of money and new science to deal with this growing threat of climate change.

It is as clear as the end of one's nose all this is caused 100% by the activities of man but there are literally millions of people, mostly right wingers who deny any such effect, saying mankind is way to small to have any measurable effect on the weather, which was maybe right a thousand years ago but not now.

So yes, it is a political stance people are taking, pushed by the politicians who are in the pockets of the oil industry, just like the push a few years ago to declare tobacco as causing disease, remember the tobacco executives who denied any health risk in the government hearings on that subject? Knowing full well there was a ton of health related issues they lied through their teeth.

The same thing is happening all over again in the environmental stage.
The politicians bought off by the energy industries, tire manufacturers, oil producers, fracking, all of those kind of industries are pushing hard to stop any report that the climate is changing because of mankind.

They want business as usual with the emphasis on business. it is no surprise the latest wealth figures show the richest 1% now own 50% of the entire planet's wealth and they want to keep it that way and being forced to deal with our own man made effects on climate is the last thing they want.

I think they would rather have the world go back to the way things were a thousand years ago as long as it is a few hundred years down the line so THEY will be able to keep their mansions and yachts, who gives a rat's ass what happens in a hundred years, I have mine NOW.

That is PRECISELY the mind set of that 1%.

Originally posted by humy

What extreme weather events? Show me a trend, not a wild theory without merit.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/11/extreme-weather-common-blocking-patterns
“Climate scientists in Germany noticed that since 2000 there have been an “exceptional number of summer weather extremes, some causing massive damage to society”.
“Si ...[text shortened]... relevant is just completely stupid. See above statistics.
Do you deny these weather statistics?

Your links are outdated. A trend should be shown with recent data and old data should be heavily scrutinized. There were probably more natural disasters than were reported before modern satellite technology. We are just better at detecting them now.

After 1940 there was a cooling trend that lasted until about 1975. I find it interesting that the earth cooled while CO2 increased. I'm not talking about a reduction in the warming either. I'm talking about cooling. How does your favorite climate scientists explain that?
Also, between 1900 and 1940 there was a warming before humanity used much energy. You can't blame that on CO2. How does your favorite climate scientists explain that?

Originally posted by sonhouse
In the US there is a real conspiracy to stop all forms of environmental issues, like fracking which is ruining water supplies around the operations and to stop any effort to try to lower the CO2 load in the atmosphere because to do so requires a LOT of money and new science to deal with this growing threat of climate change.

It is as clear as the end of ...[text shortened]... what happens in a hundred years, I have mine NOW.

That is PRECISELY the mind set of that 1%.

"It is as clear as the end of one's nose all this is caused 100% by the activities of man"

That is clearly a false statement that even you must admit was very careless on your part. You are letting your emotions affect your judgment. Why should anyone take you seriously now?

http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/01/noaa-nasa-2014-was-probably-not-warmest.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Your links are outdated. A trend should be shown with recent data and old data should be heavily scrutinized. There were probably more natural disasters than were reported before modern satellite technology. We are just better at detecting them now.

After 1940 there was a cooling trend that lasted until about 1975. I find it interesting that the earth ...[text shortened]... uch energy. You can't blame that on CO2. How does your favorite climate scientists explain that?

Your links are outdated.

Not the one that counts most: last year was recorded as the hottest since records began. Even the one's that where 'outdated' where only outdated by a few years. And, since history cannot be changed, they still show relevant statistical facts that clearly show a general trend in increasing frequency in severe weather.

There were probably more natural disasters than were reported before modern satellite technology. We are just better at detecting them now.

Nope, that couldn't account for the recorded increase in recent years as they occurred AFTER modern weather satellites were first giving good global coverage ( ~1980's onwards ) -try again.

After 1940 there was a cooling trend that lasted until about 1975. I find it interesting that the earth cooled while CO2 increased.

Why interesting? Obviously, natural temperature cycles are superimposed on any CO2-induced warming. Obviously, since nobody CLAIMS that the only factor determining warming is CO2, this is just obtuse straw man -and the same goes for the rest of your post.

It appears to me that those who are arguing against climate change due to human activity have taken a stance from what we do not know rather than what we do. Its a kind of wilful ignorance.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"It is as clear as the end of one's nose all this is caused 100% by the activities of man"

That is clearly a false statement that even you must admit was very careless on your part. You are letting your emotions affect your judgment. Why should anyone take you seriously now?

I admit nothing. It is EXACTLY the same as the tobacco industries totally denying any negative health benefits of smoking when they were before congress a few years ago.

Lying outright with a straight face. The climate change deniers are in exactly the same camp. Lying outright with a straight face. OF COURSE mankind is responsible for this rise in CO2, and OF COURSE the rise in CO2 causes an increase in temperature.

It has been proven time and time again just by looking at the ancient ice core samples that go back hundreds of thousands of years, the climate is written in the ice and stays that way till we drill down and analyse the ice rings just like tree rings.

They tell very well whether the climate in a certain century was up or down and the amount of CO2 in the ice ring shows very well the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time and it has shown a distinct pattern of higher CO2, higher temperatures. That is VERY well known, just denied by those with a special interest in maintaining the status quo so their particular piece of the pie will not be jeopardized.

That is such an obvious fact what gets me is the number of the middle class who have bought into the denials as well. It strikes me as something deeper going on, like maybe some religious component telling people we are too tiny, too insignificant to ever make some kind of negative effect on the climate.

Originally posted by humy

Your links are outdated.

Not the one that counts most: last year was recorded as the hottest since records began. Even the one's that where 'outdated' where only outdated by a few years. And, since history cannot be changed, they still show relevant statistical facts that clearly show a general trend in increasing frequency in severe weat ...[text shortened]... ning warming is CO2, this is just obtuse straw man -and the same goes for the rest of your post.

To elaborate on that:

Unlike what you make out, natural variation/cycles in global temperature is not evidence for or against man made global warming. This is your main flawed premise (although you have made several other seriously flawed premises ).

If just as you keep saying it is, whenever the global temperature drops due to natural variation/cycles, that is evidence against man made global warming, then, using exactly the same flawed 'logic' (if we can call that 'logic' ) as you use here, whenever the global temperature rises due to natural variation/cycles, that must be evidence for man made global warming.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I admit nothing. It is EXACTLY the same as the tobacco industries totally denying any negative health benefits of smoking when they were before congress a few years ago.

Lying outright with a straight face. The climate change deniers are in exactly the same camp. Lying outright with a straight face. OF COURSE mankind is responsible for this rise in CO2, ...[text shortened]... ple we are too tiny, too insignificant to ever make some kind of negative effect on the climate.

You are in denial. Only natural factors can explain the cooling between 1940 and 1975 as well as the warming between 1900 and 1940. You made a foolish statement and everyone who reads it will know it. You don't have to admit it, it is clear for anyone on here to see. You made a an obvious false statement and you know it. I can't believe you have embarrassed yourself in this way. It is not like you.

Originally posted by humy
To elaborate on that:

Unlike what you make out, natural variation/cycles in global temperature is not evidence for or against man made global warming. This is your main flawed premise (although you have made several other seriously flawed premises ).

If just as you keep saying it is, whenever the global temperature drops due to natural variation/cycles, t ...[text shortened]... s[/i] due to natural variation/cycles, that must be evidence for man made global warming.

No, your logic is flawed. You can't explain the rise in temps from 1900 -1940 and the cooling in temps between 1940 -1975 without natural causes. This undercuts your whole claim of CO2 being the driving factor in global warming. This also proves sonhouse to be a careless writer of false claims that are obvious to you and me.
This also undercuts your position that the last year means something significant. Eldar also posted a link that questions your whole claim that 2014 was really the warmest year considering the margin of error and the percentage of probability of that margin of error. It seems your claims are questionable at best.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In the US there is a real conspiracy to stop all forms of environmental issues, like fracking which is ruining water supplies around the operations and to stop any effort to try to lower the CO2 load in the atmosphere because to do so requires a LOT of money and new science to deal with this growing threat of climate change.

No, it does not cost a lot of money, and it can be done with current science.

What it will do is change the major players in the energy industry and that is why there is resistance to change. There is also a strong perception that it will cost money. Whether this is driven by the energy industry propaganda, or just a common mistake, I do not know. Where did you get the information that it would cost a lot of money?