2015 Was Hottest Year in Recorded History, Scientists Say

[jpn]

Bad news for the Earth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Bad news for the Earth.

Why? because the pundits say so?

I like a warmer earth!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Bad news for the Earth.

Please tell me what you think is bad about this.

Why do you think that the present conditions of record food production are bad as opposed to the large scale famines that happened during the cooler periods of the earth's history?

 

[Jack Hays]

Hottest Shattering Year since the last one: Five reasons it was not hot, and not relevant


Tell the world, 2015 is the hottest year since 2010.
The fuss made over contested decimal points in highly adjusted datasets of irrelevant factors only shows how unscientific the public debate is. It probably wasn’t the hottest year in the last 150, and even it was, who cares – that doesn’t tell us anything about the cause. (Remember when cause and effect used to matter to a scientist?) Natural forces like the Sun and clouds can cause hot years too. Even if it was “the hottest” in a short noisy segment, the world has been hotter before (and life on Earth thrived) and the climate models are still hopelessly wrong. If CO2 was a big driver of the climate, 2015 should have been a lot hotter.
1. It wasn’t the hottest year. Satellites have better, broader coverage, surveying almost the whole planet (rather than selected car parks, runways, etc. like the surface thermometers). The satellites say that both 1998 and 2010 were hotter. In any case, these kind of piddling noisy differences are just street signs on the road to nowhere — what matters are the long term trends, and the predictions of climate models. (If the models worked, “scientists” wouldn’t need to do a gala performance about nothing eh?)
2015 is the hottest year since 2010. So what?

2. 2015 was a failure for Global Worriers — not hot enough. Compared to 1998, the IPCC-endorsed climate models all say it should be warmer than it was. We had another El Nino in 2015, and since 1998 humans put out more than a third of their all-time CO2 emissions, yet 2015 was cooler than 1998 and 2010. CO2 is not driving the climate.
3. It’s been hotter before, and for thousands of years. It’s normal. Even if 2015 had been the hottest year in modern records (which start in 1850), the world was still hotter many times in the last ten thousand years. Antarctica didn’t melt. The Great Barrier Reef survived, and so did polar bears and penguins. Warm weather is not an apocalypse, and it wasn’t caused by CO2. . . .
4. Where is cause and effect? The latest batch of global warming started long before CO2 started rising. None of the scientists can explain why global warming started nearly 200 years before the first coal fired power station. Either coal affects the space-time continuum, or perhaps they read the tea leaves wrong?
Temperatures bottomed out around 1700AD according to scores of proxies (See Ljundqvist and Christiansen Fig 4a.)

[Graphed by Joanne Nova based on data from Jevrejura et al located at this site PMSML]

5. Since we are in a 300 year warming trend, it is inevitable that “hottest ever” records will be broken.Back in WWII we could have had the same headlines. If you were alive from 1938 to 1948, you could have heard about five of those records being broken. (H/t and graph thanks to Geoff Sherrington with red annotation from me.) Every year with an arrow is another “hottest ever year”.

6. Shattered? . . . They should be shattered that they still can’t explain the pause, the medieval warm period, the little ice age, or the missing hot spot.
MIT Professor, Richard Lindzen, says these “hottest year” claims are “spin on nothing”. . .

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hottest or not, I don't really care. I don't believe it is, but it's not worth arguing over either.

I still go with facts.

1) the solar radiance peaked in 1958 and has only slightly reduced since.

2) according to James Hansen, where the oceans are involved, it takes 100 years for 70% equalization.

It is completely possible that we have not seen the full effect of the solar warming since the Maunder Minima.

 

[jpn]

Please tell me what you think is bad about this.
Why do you think that the present conditions of record food production are bad as opposed to the large scale famines that happened during the cooler periods of the earth's history?

Okay, I'll go ahead and state the obvious. Record food production is due to advances in genetics, fertilizers, and mechanization.
It's doubtless true that some local climates are now benefitting from warmer temperatures. Canadians will probably benefit while American farmers will see more droughts. For every local climate that benefits, there will be one for whom higher temperatures are a detriment.
Meanwhile, sea levels are rising as glaciers slide into the sea. That's not good for people living near to sea level. Like in Florida. Were they are going to spend billions to fight the rising tides.

Quoted on the NASA web site:

Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

But that's okay. I know you understand science WAY better than NASA.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[jpn]

Hottest or not, I don't really care. I don't believe it is, but it's not worth arguing over either. It is completely possible that we have not seen the full effect of the solar warming since the Maunder Minima.

1. Greenhouse gas theory predicts warming as gasses increase in our atmosphere.
2. Greenhouse gasses have increased about 50% in the last 150 years, when the industrial age really started getting going.
3. The planet is clearly warming.

So. Are the vast number of scientists around the world who say that climate change is real and largely caused by human activity wrong and you're right? Or is your conservative ideology blinding you?

Occam's razor.

 

[Jack Hays]

1. Greenhouse gas theory predicts warming as gasses increase in our atmosphere.
2. Greenhouse gasses have increased about 50% in the last 150 years, when the industrial age really started getting going.
3. The planet is clearly warming.

So. Are the vast number of scientists around the world who say that climate change is real and largely caused by human activity wrong and you're right? Or is your conservative ideology blinding you?

Occam's razor.

The planet began warming about 300 years ago.

 

[jpn]

The planet began warming about 300 years ago.

Oh, really? Perhaps you should define "began."

Are you sure? The following chart from a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ("Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years," 2006) shows estimates of global average surface temperatures during about the past 1,100 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

1. Greenhouse gas theory predicts warming as gasses increase in our atmosphere.

Yes.

2. Greenhouse gasses have increased about 50% in the last 150 years, when the industrial age really started getting going.

Not true. H2O is a greenhouse gas and is so much greater than CO2 in content and warming that when you consider both, CO2 has increased them by only about 0.6%.

3. The planet is clearly warming.

The planet clearly has warmed since around 1700, and a couple other times since. It isn't so clear if the trend is continuing or not. Especially with all the controversial adjustments they keep making to the temperature records.

So. Are the vast number of scientists around the world who say that climate change is real and largely caused by human activity wrong and you're right? Or is your conservative ideology blinding you?

Just how many are claiming that? Do you have their names? Do you realize most do not take a stand on this controversial issue, and only a few make a living by accepting the billions in grant money?

Follow the money... they are the ones talking. They would get the money if they didn't support the purpose of the money.

Occam's razor.

Doesn't apply here because there are enough facts contrary to using it's simplicity.

 

[flogger]

1. Greenhouse gas theory predicts warming as gasses increase in our atmosphere.

The total volume of CO2 in our atmosphere has gone up from 0.0003% of total atmospheric volume to 0.0004% ...... big deal

2. Greenhouse gasses have increased about 50% in the last 150 years, when the industrial age really started getting going.

What would be worse for humanity ? Having that increase or having no industrialisation at all ?

3. The planet is clearly warming.

Just like it has dozens of other times since the last glaciation. Theres nothing unprecedented about todays conditions whatsoever its just another modest natural warming phase just like so many others before it

So. Are the vast number of scientists around the world who say that climate change is real and largely caused by human activity wrong and you're right? Or is your conservative ideology blinding you?

Yadda yadda yadda 97%. This is BS the vast number of scientists claim nothing of the sort because they were never asked

Occam's razor.

Yup. Natural forces are by far the most likely cause

 

[Tim the plumber]

Okay, I'll go ahead and state the obvious. Record food production is due to advances in genetics, fertilizers, and mechanization.

GM crops are opposed by the green lobby. Fertilizers and mechanisation would be gone without fossil fuels. Just stating the obvious.

It's doubtless true that some local climates are now benefitting from warmer temperatures. Canadians will probably benefit while American farmers will see more droughts. For every local climate that benefits, there will be one for whom higher temperatures are a detriment.

The incidence of drought is less than expected at the moment with places such as California having had much worse droughts in ity's time and a recent under investment in damns and the like. It is after all a natural desert which has been irrigated by the use of all the resources of human power.

Meanwhile, sea levels are rising as glaciers slide into the sea.

The amount of total mass loss of ice from the Northern hemisphere's various tiny glaciers and Greenland is less than the growth of ice in Antarctica. Over all the mass balance of ice has increased. It will never be able to make a substancial increase in sea level without any losses being increased by a factor of 100 or so. This would be impossible even if you had electric hair dryers blowing onto the ice sheet of Greenland every 10m. Thde maths is fairly easy to do. That the scientists who prattle on about mass losses they know are greatly exagerated do not say this is simply fraud.

That's not good for people living near to sea level. Like in Florida. Were they are going to spend billions to fight the rising tides.

Oddly, the seas around Florida don't seem to have risen. Odd that. And spending billions on sea defences over the coming century is hardly going to make a dent in the revenues from all the tourists who fly down there using fossil fuels to do so.

The costs of dealing with the slight inconvieniences resulting from a slightly warmer world are tiny compared to either the benefits or the colossal costs of not using the best means of doing stuff.

 

[Tim the plumber]

1. Greenhouse gas theory predicts warming as gasses increase in our atmosphere.

Yes and got it wrong. Or at least greatly exagerated.

2. Greenhouse gasses have increased about 50% in the last 150 years, when the industrial age really started getting going.

That would be in the last 65 years or so. And the warming started before that and the most rapid increase has been since 1980 or so and for most of that time there has not been any significant warming.

3. The planet is clearly warming.

The planet has clearly warmed a bit. It has stopped warming since 1998 and might be starting to warm a bit agin maybe. Or maybe cool. I don't know. I certainly hope it warms though the benefits far out weigh any exagerated problems.

So. Are the vast number of scientists around the world who say that climate change is real and largely caused by human activity wrong and you're right? Or is your conservative ideology blinding you?

You know that they think that it is largely caused by humans do you? I have not seen any such survey. I have seen that there is a 60-74% or so who say that it is mostly due to humans but not largely.

This slight alteration of the wording makes all the difference and is very strong evidence of your bias.

Occam's razor.

Yes. Why presume we are so powerful when there is so little evidence that we are the cause of anything big in climate?

It's like the priests sacrificing people to make the gods provide good weather for the harvest. We are not that important.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
The planet began warming about 300 years ago.

Oh, really? Perhaps you should define "began."

Are you sure? The following chart from a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ("Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years," 2006) shows estimates of global average surface temperatures during about the past 1,100 years.

Just as your graphs show the planet started warming around 300 years ago. It is especially clear if you ignore the tree ring data. Tree ring data is especially poor at being a temperature proxy.

If you like tree ring data as a reflection of warm times why do you think that plants will grow less well in warmer conditions?

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, really? Perhaps you should define "began."

Are you sure? The following chart from a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ("Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years," 2006) shows estimates of global average surface temperatures during about the past 1,100 years.

Yes. Even your own graphs show the upward trend beginning around 1700.

 

[code1211]

Oh look another unskeptic with no response.

Well, we have the revised, previously adjusted, revised again, and then revised just one more time, not including the more minor adjustments that are ongoing, data of about 135 years out of 4.5 billion years to examine.

Yep!

Nothing in any conclusion from this that could cause any questions at all.

:caution:

 

[code1211]

Yes. Even your own graphs show the upward trend beginning around 1700.

The first hints of an upward trend appear before 1700.

 

[Jack Hays]

The first hints of an upward trend appear before 1700.

Fair enough.

 

[code1211]

1. Greenhouse gas theory predicts warming as gasses increase in our atmosphere.
2. Greenhouse gasses have increased about 50% in the last 150 years, when the industrial age really started getting going.
3. The planet is clearly warming.

So. Are the vast number of scientists around the world who say that climate change is real and largely caused by human activity wrong and you're right? Or is your conservative ideology blinding you?

Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that if a thing has happened before, like climate change, then whatever caused it before is probably causing it again.

Why construct an exotic and unusual cause to explain a common and usual effect?

We are not as warm as the warming peak of any interglacial during the period of glaciation including this one. We are at the highest level of CO2 in that same time span. Your thoughts?

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, really? Perhaps you should define "began."

‘The Long Slow Thaw?’

A warming trend can be observed from 1659, the start date of Central England Temperature (CET)- the oldest instrumental record in the world- to today. It would be a notable coincidence if the warming started at the exact point that this record began. The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct CET from its current start point, through the use of diverse historical records, to 1538, in order to see if the commencement of this centuries long warming trend can be identified from within this time frame.

 

[polgara]

‘The Long Slow Thaw?’

A warming trend can be observed from 1659, the start date of Central England Temperature (CET)- the oldest instrumental record in the world- to today. It would be a notable coincidence if the warming started at the exact point that this record began. The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct CET from its current start point, through the use of diverse historical records, to 1538, in order to see if the commencement of this centuries long warming trend can be identified from within this time frame.

Interesting that this link was written in 2001, when Mann was riding high on his hockey stick! :lol:

Off topic, but what's happening at your house blizzard-wise?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The New York Times reported:



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html

The just reported GISS Anomalies:

December: +1.12°C (old record: +1.06°C, October 2015)
January-December: +0.87°C (old record: +0.74°C, 2014)


2015 had five months that were ranked among the 10 months with the greatest warm anomalies, including the 3 highest.

So far, the Berkeley, GISS, and RATPAC datasets have all shown that 2015 was, comfortably, the warmest year on record. The two remaining major datasets (NCDC and HadCrut) are very likely to do the same given their January-November data.

100% meaningless. Recorded readings only cover a tiny and insignificant slice of this planet's history.

 

[Jack Hays]

Interesting that this link was written in 2001, when Mann was riding high on his hockey stick! :lol:

Off topic, but what's happening at your house blizzard-wise?

Actually, 2011.:mrgreen:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

We have 19 inches so far and still coming down. Forecast to last until midnight.

 

[polgara]

Actually, 2011.:mrgreen:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

We have 19 inches so far and still coming down. Forecast to last until midnight.

:beam: :!: :thumbs:

 

[Jack Hays]

2015 Global Temp, Or How Some Scientists Deliberately Mistook Weather For Climate

From the Global Warming Policy Forum, 22 January 2016 The data for the global temperature of 2015 is in, and its a shattering record. It is claimed that global warming has resurged, terminating the warming ‘pause’ for good. But an important factor has been downplayed and one ignored altogether. Essay by David Whitehouse Nasa says…
Continue reading →