Global Heat Record as Earth Continues to Warm!

[BillT]

Almost everywhere got warmer except the mid-west around the great lakes (map in article, along with a picture of a stretch of snow-free Iditarod).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?emc=edit_th_20150117&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=38810697&_r=0

[BallAquatics]

Well at least it's nice to know that when the planet fries, we're sitting on prime real estate!!!

I especially like the part of the article, "Skeptics of climate change.....", are there really folks that still think this is just a hoax???

http://youtu.be/fWInyaMWBY8

Dennis

[BillT]

Good one Dennis, that was a nice clear talk.

[Mugwump]

"If you are younger than 29 years old, you haven't lived in a month that was cooler than the 20th-century average"

[GraphicGr8s]

The science is far from settled. And yes I don't believe in the  "global warming" hoax. When I was a kid it was the coming of the next ice age. Now the earth is burning up. Hate to tell you but this earth. it's been warming since the last ice age. And many of the scientists sued Algore for putting them on the list. Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Folks have made millions from "global warming".

Two Smithsonian scientists, Charles Schuchert and David White, have just returned from the wilds of west Greenland, bringing back valuable collections. In a region of everlasting ice and snow they have been exploring luxuriant tropical forests. Far to the north of the Arctic circle they have been studying a flora consisting of palms, tree ferns, and other plants belonging properly to the neighborhood of the equator. These forests, however, and the trees and varied forms of plant life which compose them are exceedingly ancient. In fact, they disappeared from the face of the earth several millions of years ago, and only their fossil remains are found buried in the strata of the rocks. It was these remains that Messrs, Schuchert and White went to investigate. They wanted to get specimens for the National Museum, and other objects of a geological nature were in view.

Greenland was once upon a time a tropical country. That is proved absolutely by the remains of an extensive tropical flora which are found there. Where now a sheet of solid ice over a mile thick covers mountain and valley, and mighty frozen rivers called glaciers make their way to the sea and hatch icebergs, there was in earlier days a verdure-clad wilderness of luxuriant vegetation. Together with the palms and tree ferns, there were trees related to the giant sequoias of our own west coast; also representatives of the "gingko," the sacred tree of Japan and of the Eucalyptus family, which today is restricted to Australia. Climbing vines festooned the trunks of these monarchs of an ancient forest with draperies of foliage, while close to the ground grew those curious dwarf trees called "cycads," somewhat resembling palms in miniature, in the midst of a tangled undergrowth of ferns and other flowerless plants that carpted the densely wooded areas.

A newspaper article. From 1926

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19261226&id=Qr8hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5JwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2484,5437640

BTW to set the record straight, I know the climate is changing. It always has and always will. What I don't think is accurate is that it is man made.
Any viable theory must have a way to prove it wrong. Man made GCC has no way to be proven wrong therefore it is scientifically not a viable theory.

Even Einstein would reject GCC is man made. Just look at what he said about his own theories"



No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Albert Einstein

[BillT]

97% of scientists think global warming is real. 3% disagree. Pretty settled, for now anyway.

The only people making any real money from the global warming hoax are the oil companies that have seemed to have convinced you (without any real evidence) by funding wacko websites that predominately use character assassination and made up or irrelevant data.
Follow the money yourself!

Drop the personal attacks on people who you disagree with and come up with some modern evidence that can refute the huge amounts of evidence that are arrayed against your view that human caused climate change is wrong. Or maybe its not the people that are doing it, its the CO2 and methane (produced by people).

The oil companies are right up there with the cigarette companies when it comes using data supported arguments. I suppose you believed them also (of course they have finally changed their story now, but are nevertheless still fighting health warnings etc., due to their obvious monetary interests).
-------------------------------

As a scientist, I personally am personally insulted by your implication that anyone scientist disagreeing with you is just making things up to get money (in some completely undefined way).
Scientists live for being able to disprove someone else's theory or hypothesis. Not only is this an individual goal of any scientist, but would be far more likely to produce some kind of monetary award (which you seem to be so focused on) by getting a better job.

In addition, attitudes like yours could well destroy or greatly degrade the environment for any grandchildren I might have would grow up. Thanks a lot for your thoughts that are so carefully considered because of the importance of their potential impact! That's sarcasm by the way. Important effects deserve careful, not flippant consideration.
---------------------------------

A newspaper article. From 1926

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19261226&id=Qr8hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5JwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2484,5437640

What is the point of this??? Seems irrelevant to deciding if human caused climate change is real. Try getting some new data or disprovign that which exists.

Folks have made millions from "global warming".

Who are these guys?
How much did they make?
Where did the money come from?
I want some! How do I get it?

When I was a kid it was the coming of the next ice age. Now the earth is burning up.

Science advances by disproving previous ideas, collecting more data, coming up with new ideas, and further testing them.
This is exactly what you described and is why science "marches on" while some people stay stuck in their conceptual mud.

Any viable theory must have a way to prove it wrong. Man made GCC has no way to be proven wrong therefore it is scientifically not a viable theory.

This is exactly what was described above and could just as easily happen to the current theory.
However it takes real science, with real data, that an be reviewed by others for it veracity (this ensures that the data is not made up like the crap the cigarette companies used to spew out).

[Mugwump]

   The 'global warming' issue has become quite a heated topic now days. Each side disputing the others evidence as bunk. I know many species have been lost because of man' sometimes thoughtless approach to 'progress'. Those processes have been everything from population expanding, to blatant greed by industry. Man hasn't been a good shepherd to the planet.
   Carbon emissions have long been known to disrupt nature. How much tho, is now being explored in more detail. Who's right about which, if any, of these new findings are viable explanations? The data is there, and like an accountants ledger...which numbers do you want to believe?? What interpretation is correct?  Who's  got it right?
   My thoughts are we should err on the side of caution. That is to stop ruining what we as humans depend on...our water/air/soil.....our planet.


That being said....let's keep the banter civil folks.....ok? everyone's got an opinion...and allowed to expound upon it....respect that it may not be your's tho...

[PaulineMi]

   The 'global warming' issue has become quite a heated topic now days.

Pun intended Jon?   

[wsantia1]

   The 'global warming' issue has become quite a heated topic now days. Each side disputing the others evidence as bunk. I know many species have been lost because of man' sometimes thoughtless approach to 'progress'. Those processes have been everything from population expanding, to blatant greed by industry. Man hasn't been a good shepherd to the planet.
   Carbon emissions have long been known to disrupt nature. How much tho, is now being explored in more detail. Who's right about which, if any, of these new findings are viable explanations? The data is there, and like an accountants ledger...which numbers do you want to believe?? What interpretation is correct?  Who's  got it right?
   My thoughts are we should err on the side of caution. That is to stop ruining what we as humans depend on...our water/air/soil.....our planet.


That being said....let's keep the banter civil folks.....ok? everyone's got an opinion...and allowed to expound upon it....respect that it may not be your's tho...

Well my opinion is the same as yours.

[BillT]

Quote from: Mugwump on Today at 04:23:57 AM

       The 'global warming' issue has become quite a heated topic now days. Each side disputing the others evidence as bunk. I know many species have been lost because of man' sometimes thoughtless approach to 'progress'. Those processes have been everything from population expanding, to blatant greed by industry. Man hasn't been a good shepherd to the planet.
       Carbon emissions have long been known to disrupt nature. How much tho, is now being explored in more detail. Who's right about which, if any, of these new findings are viable explanations? The data is there, and like an accountants ledger...which numbers do you want to believe?? What interpretation is correct?  Who's  got it right?
       My thoughts are we should err on the side of caution. That is to stop ruining what we as humans depend on...our water/air/soil.....our planet.


    That being said....let's keep the banter civil folks.....ok? everyone's got an opinion...and allowed to expound upon it....respect that it may not be your's tho...


Well my opinion is the same as yours.

Sounds good to me too.

[Mugwump]

   The 'global warming' issue has become quite a heated topic now days. Each side disputing the others evidence as bunk. I know many species have been lost because of man' sometimes thoughtless approach to 'progress'. Those processes have been everything from population expanding, to blatant greed by industry. Man hasn't been a good shepherd to the planet.
   Carbon emissions have long been known to disrupt nature. How much tho, is now being explored in more detail. Who's right about which, if any, of these new findings are viable explanations? The data is there, and like an accountants ledger...which numbers do you want to believe?? What interpretation is correct?  Who's  got it right?
   My thoughts are we should err on the side of caution. That is to stop ruining what we as humans depend on...our water/air/soil.....our planet.


That being said....let's keep the banter civil folks.....ok? everyone's got an opinion...and allowed to expound upon it....respect that it may not be your's tho...

   The 'global warming' issue has become quite a heated topic now days.

Pun intended Jon?   

.....kinda.... .......

[GraphicGr8s]

Bill what would be required to disprove man made "global warming"?
Everything that happens, colder winters, more rain, less rain, the ice caps increasing, the ice caps decreasing all point to "global warming". So far all the science I see shows nothing that can prove it false. Every theory to be valid must be able to be proven wrong. What proves GCC wrong?

Where is the list of 100% of the scientists involved in the research and the names of the 97% of the scientists?  Then the next question is how do the 97% get their funding?

Another question I have is how are they getting the temperatures for comparison?

BTW I remember the science was also settled in the 70s about the next mini ice age.

[GraphicGr8s]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"?and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2014/06/05/real-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

To put it in plain terms, while scientists believe that global warming is happening, they?re not at all clear that this isn?t a natural process, that it poses any serious danger, or that attempts to mitigate it will do any good. And perhaps most notably, just 5% describe global climate change as ?fully mature? science.

Does that sound like a scientific consensus we should be building energy policy, our economy, and our future upon? Or maybe we should follow the consensus and give scientists a few more decades to figure it out before we change everything and trigger who-knows-what unintended consequences.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm

[Mugwump]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"?and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

  What I'm seeing is a case of semantics between those agreeing that folks here on earth are contributing to the warming....and those whom disagree. The same charts and graphs are seen by both sides of the issue....it's comes down to how each side wants to interpret the data. It goes nowhere.
  My question is why is there so much rhetoric thrown around by either side? If there is a real problem, we need to start addressing it as soon as possible. If there is not a problem, we win anyway by beginning to repair damage done environmentally to our earth. It would be great, IMHO, if the that were true.....but arguing about it??...we all lose by doing nothing. Why the denial?...It serves no purpose. 
  Money?......it's being thrown around by both sides.....conspiracy theorists ...LOL.....

[GraphicGr8s]

Jon, I have no doubt the earth is warming. And it's cooling. Yes, we don't think it is caused by man. The part that really gets me is the "agreements" we make with other countries like China. All it is doing is taking money out of our pockets with no ROI ever.

BTW we should all be glad for global warming. If it didn't happen we'd all be very, very cold since we'd still be in the Ice Age.

I just want to know how folks in the 1800s got thermometers so accurate.