• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2019 2nd Hottest Year On Record

code1211 said:
With respect, your chart has absolutely nothing related with the topic of changing the published temperature data.
Click to expand...
Are you for reals? The chart tells you the size of the adjustments. And yes, that includes the 2012 changes.

More importantly: Steven Goddard = Epic Fail


Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?

A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as "adjusted USHCN" data. The adjustments and their effects are described here, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports, and reported on the differences this made in Hansen et al. (2001). A list of all changes to the GISS analysis and their impacts is presented in the History Section. (Emphasis added)
Data.GISS: GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions

As a reminder, The US is only 2% of the planet's surface area. Thus, no intelligent person should be surprised when the global impact of the change is small.

chrome_apRhmAHvWR.webp

Data.GISS: GISTEMP HISTORY


I strongly recommend you stop hanging your hat on cherry-picking denier blogs.
 
Sunsettommy said:
I see that you didn't look at the link for them, I saw the charts years ago on the PISS website, they were from PISS from day one.

Link to one of the charts LINK Which was already supplied to you.....

You must be new to this since NASA posted them back in 1999.

LINK

and this link shows the blinking chart, 100% based on PISS charts 1999 and 2016

LINK

You have been thoroughly refuted.
Click to expand...

Once again, two links to crappy blogs, and one link to NASA.

You guys aren’t real good at this ‘sourcing’ stuff, are ya?
 
Threegoofs said:
Once again, two links to crappy blogs, and one link to NASA.

You guys aren’t real good at this ‘sourcing’ stuff, are ya?
Click to expand...

Hypocrite.

I expect for now on, since you complained, you will source you graphs for us.
 
Threegoofs said:
So not the same graph.

Look- if you can’t do it, just admit it.
Click to expand...

I did cite them, you are too lazy to look through the link, this forum doesn't allow the charts size, this link is the only way to see them.

All the URLs are NASA GISS, you forget to wear glasses?
 
Hottest year ever: That's why we have air conditioning

Sea level rising: Hello Venice Italy was built on pylons pounded into the sea floor centuries ago for Christ's sake of course it's going to flood
 
Sunsettommy said:
I did cite them, you are too lazy to look through the link, this forum doesn't allow the charts size, this link is the only way to see them.

All the URLs are NASA GISS, you forget to wear glasses?
Click to expand...

Yes, and your second link is global temps with seasonal variation- completely different from the original US temp chart.
But besides the location, type of chart, seasonal data, etc etc... it DOES have temperatures on it, so at least you got that down.
 
Jack Hays said:
You never source them.
Click to expand...

I sourced the last one after much outrage.

And the response?

‘That’s a bad blog’.

Given that my source was Gavin Schmidt, and your sources are routinely ‘some guy with a pseudonym on the internet who says he’s a geologist’, I’m pretty comfortable not going the extra mile to cite my sources.
 
Threegoofs said:
I sourced the last one after much outrage.

And the response?

‘That’s a bad blog’.

Given that my source was Gavin Schmidt, and your sources are routinely ‘some guy with a pseudonym on the internet who says he’s a geologist’, I’m pretty comfortable not going the extra mile to cite my sources.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your post is not supported by the factual record.
 
Steve Case said:
Well you're right, there's so much focus on the fact, and it's a fact that the NOAA & GISS
and others are very busy adjusting temperature to show an ever increasing trend over the
years, that ordinary people get the idea that increases due to the "adjustments" are more
than they really are.
Click to expand...

Look, Steve... You need to face the facts:

NOAA and NASA are not intentionally increasing temps for any nefarious reason. All the changes are documented and explained in peer-reviewed and published studies that you consistently ignore. All you really have is insinuation.

The changes are actually so small that even if they were never made it wouldn't really change much. All the conclusions about the planet's warming and its causes would remain the same. You are just really good at creating graphs that look way more dramatic than the changes really are.

And the reason there are so many misinformed people like code 1211 out there is because of cherry-picked and highly misleading information coming from people like you.​

What you do is shameful!
 
Buzz said:
NOAA and NASA are not intentionally increasing temps for any nefarious reason.
Click to expand...
It just looks that way (Duck Test)

Buzz said:
All the changes are documented and explained in peer-reviewed and published studies that you consistently ignore.
Click to expand...
You mean there's a peer-reviewed published study that explains why all the changes
to the GISTEMP LOTI Jan-Dec annual averages made over the last decade result in
increases to those since 1980 and most of them prior to 1900 were decreases?
Do you have a link for that?

Buzz said:
All you really have is insinuation.
Click to expand...
What I don't have is a LINK to a paper that explains the pattern that you avoid mentioning.

Here, fill in the blank:

Steve, the reason NASA's GISTEMP consistantly over the last decade has increased
the 1980 and later anomalies in their Land Ocean Temperature Index as shown HERE
is because _______________________________ I hope that helps, Sincerely Buzz​

Buzz said:
The changes are actually so small that even if they were never made it wouldn't really change much.
Click to expand...
Much? The one graph shows that since 1997 all the changes result in a change to the trend
from about 0.75C° to 1C° per century. Well you can certainly argue that's not much, so why
then do the folks at NOAA and NASA even bother to make them? If there's a peer reviewed
published study that explains that and why it forms a pattern, I'd like to see it.

Buzz said:
All the conclusions about the planet's warming and its causes would remain the same. You are just really good at creating graphs that look way more dramatic than the changes really are.
Click to expand...
The changes are what they are, and they form a pattern.

Buzz said:
And the reason there are so many misinformed people like code 1211 out there is because of cherry-picked and highly misleading information coming from people like you.

What you do is shameful!
Click to expand...
Finding the earliest version of GISTEMP's table data LINK and comparing it to the
latest version LINK isn't a cherry pick.
 
We’re about to get some winter on Jan 19, with three days in the 20’s. Must be that global coming the deniers talk about.

Never mind that those “cold” days in January used to be below zero.
 
calamity said:
We’re about to get some winter on Jan 19, with three days in the 20’s. Must be that global coming the deniers talk about.

Never mind that those “cold” days in January used to be below zero.
Click to expand...

You are spot on with that one. Winters are warmer in my neck of the woods exactly as the IPCC says:


IPCC's AR4 Chapter Ten Page 750

Temperature Extremes
It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more
frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold
episodes are projected to decrease significantly in a future warmer
climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases
in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in
the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in
growing season length.​
 
Visbek said:
Surprise! Well, not really. 2019 was the second hottest year on record, and the 2010s was the single hottest decade on record. Copernicus confirmed it earlier today. I am confident NOAA, Hadley etc will concur soon.

2019 Was Second Hottest Year on Record - The New York Times

‘Alarming Signs’ As 2019 Officially World’s Second-Warmest Year On Record
Click to expand...

We don't have proper winter anymore in southern part of Finland. Only few days so far when I didn't saw any grass on my backyard (this winter).
 
Visbek said:
It indicates that you're incapable of reading the chart you yourself posted.

To start with, what's the baseline? 1960-1990 -- which is after decades of warming. Ooops.

To continue, you are flat-out wrong that "ALL" interglacials were warmer than today. There were multiple interglacials that were below the 1960-1990 baseline.

Third, your chart doesn't include CO2. Guess what happens when we put both on the same graph?

400000yearslarge.gif
Click to expand...

Interesting lack of comprehension you are presenting.

LOOK at the CO2 concentrations shown on your graph. How high do they go?

Look at the temperatures on your graph. How high do they go?

Just trying to help you out here.

On your chart, the CO2 Concentration between 300 and 350 Thousand years ago peaked above 280 ppm. The raving lunatics in the CAGW movement claim this does not happen without SUV's driving around.



In every case, the previous interglacials were warmer than the Holocene. In every case the previous interglacials CO2 Concentration were lower than the Holocene.

IF CO2 is the primary driver of climate, THEN this can't occur.

How do you square this circle?

Also, the world was warmer, much warmer than current and much warmer than the projected warming levels said to be catastrophic by the Chicken Little morons calling for action NOW. Yet, the world is still here and so are we.

How do you square THIS circle?

The cause effect is absent in the real world. The catastrophe is absent in the real world. The rationality is absent in the real world. The only thing present in the real world is the stupidity.

Apparently, Global Warming activists is the result of stupidity. Finally! A correlation that can be proven!
 
Visbek said:
Are you for reals? The chart tells you the size of the adjustments. And yes, that includes the 2012 changes.

More importantly: Steven Goddard = Epic Fail


Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?

A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as "adjusted USHCN" data. The adjustments and their effects are described here, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports, and reported on the differences this made in Hansen et al. (2001). A list of all changes to the GISS analysis and their impacts is presented in the History Section. (Emphasis added)
Data.GISS: GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions

As a reminder, The US is only 2% of the planet's surface area. Thus, no intelligent person should be surprised when the global impact of the change is small.

View attachment 67271811

Data.GISS: GISTEMP HISTORY


I strongly recommend you stop hanging your hat on cherry-picking denier blogs.
Click to expand...

Don;t you just hate it when a poster edits your words for no other reason than to change the meaning and then presents them as if they have not been changed?
 
code1211 said:
Interesting lack of comprehension you are presenting.

LOOK at the CO2 concentrations shown on your graph. How high do they go? Look at the temperatures on your graph. How high do they go?
Click to expand...
Are you for reals?!? It is screamingly obvious that temperature and CO2 are strongly correlated over hundreds of thousands of years. Nor is this spurious, as we know for a fact that CO2 is a GHG.

And no, it is not significant that the scale of the chart shows temperatures "going higher than CO2." Merely suggesting that's a problem indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.


On your chart, the CO2 Concentration between 300 and 350 Thousand years ago peaked above 280 ppm. The raving lunatics in the CAGW movement claim this does not happen without SUV's driving around.
Click to expand...
*BZZT* wrong. Not even close. It is that the CO2 increases we are seeing IN THE INDUSTRIAL ERA are due to human activity. I suggest you stop making up claims about things you deliberately refuse to understand.


In every case, the previous interglacials were warmer than the Holocene.
Click to expand...
No, read your own chart. There were multiple interglacials that were not as warm as the Holocene, more than 400k years ago. Nor do I have any idea why you think that matters, because nothing about those previous interglacials disproves AGW. And again, you utterly fail to accept the obvious evidence that increases in CO2 levels are strongly correlated with increases in temperatures.


Also, the world was warmer, much warmer than current and much warmer than the projected warming levels said to be catastrophic by the Chicken Little morons calling for action NOW. Yet, the world is still here and so are we.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Climate scientists do not say that the entire planet will be destroyed by an increase of 2-3C. If you actually bothered to read what scientists are saying, instead of listening to hyperbolic lies by deniers, you'd know that.


The cause effect is absent in the real world....
Click to expand...
:roll:

The cause is real. The effects are real. The science is rock solid. You just refuse to accept the evidence staring you in the face. Your lack of rationality is not a flaw on the part of the climate scientists.
 
Visbek said:
Hello? You cited no sources whatsoever for your post.
Click to expand...

Cycles that cause transitions from Ice House to Gas House ages: Milankovitch Variations | NOAA Climate.gov
Volcanism as related the Malonkovitch cycles: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/Kutterolf_Geology2012.pdf
Earth Changes Shape (i.e. tectonic plates shift): Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round - Scientific American
Ocean stores Methane Hydrates: Climate change and methane hydrates << World Ocean Review

1) Read the paper.
2) There are numerous models that predict climate changes (e.g. Error - Cookies Turned Off)
Click to expand...

No. There are no models that can accurately predict climate change using CO2 as the variable.

"The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions. But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been “running hot,” predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014. Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring, but, rather, that the models’ forecasts were exaggerated."

https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models



Cool story, bro. Back in the real world, tectonic plates move because of magma flows underneath the crust. I'm not seeing anything which suggests that plate tectonics are directly linked to Milankovitch cycles. The only effect I can think of is that when there is an Ice Age, the glaciers will push down on some of the plates; and when the planet warms, the glaciers retreat, and the plates slowly rebound.
Click to expand...

It isn't wrong that tectonic plates move on flows, but what did you think caused them to move? It isn't the magma, it is the Earth changing shape.

What nonsense. Of course the size of a sink matters. If permafrost is a major methane sink, and warming releases that methane, then yes it matters a great deal how much methane is locked into the permafrost.
Click to expand...

You aren't paying attention. I didn't say the size mattered or didn't matter. I said the first sink was to expel was the ocean. I also said the others will follow as the climate changes.

And again! Oceans are not methane sinks. They are carbon sinks.
Click to expand...

See the link above

I said nothing of the sort. In the US, 9% of GHG emissions are from agriculture. 1/3 of that is from livestock. And yes, it is made worse by giving animals the wrong kind of feed.



There are over 90 million cows in the US today, which is more than the estimated 60 million bison before human intervention. There are also around 70 million pigs, and 9 billion chickens raised just for meat.

Agriculture has other impacts, such as the use of nitrogen (which produces N2O), manure treatment, and the clearing of forests (notably the Amazon) for grazing.
Click to expand...


Ugh, such bull****.

Humans are pumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. Almost all warming in the Industrial Age is due to human activity. There is no single perfect "Everything Is Awesome" temperature, but that does not change the fact that humans are causing massive amounts of warming that is harming the environment. And again, the rapid pace at which it is happening has a big impact, including making it difficult for wildlife to adapt.
Click to expand...

You are assuming a lot more than can be reasonably assumed. Your first assumption is that any warming that was correlated with the industrial age must have been as a result of the industrial age. Nothing could be further from the truth. Correlation does not equal causation.


It is. The fact that natural climate cycles are very long (and that climate is long-term) in no way, shape or form disproves the scientific evidence that human activity has caused almost all of the warming during the Industrial Age.
Click to expand...

No, of course it doesn't. But neither does comparing cyclical lows to cyclical highs as you have done in previous posts. Normalized data does not vary significantly from past transitions other than it has been slightly slower in the transition.
 
Visbek said:
No, dude. The climate doesn't change this fast due to natural events. If you had actually read the Shakun paper, you'd see a good example of natural climate change, where it took around thousands of years for temperatures to rise as much as they have over the past 100 years.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

View attachment 67271809

By the way, a natural cooling cycle started 6000 years ago. If it wasn't for human activity, Earth would have continued to cool for the next 23,000 years. If you're going to ramble on about Milankovitch Cycles, maybe you should have checked where we are in those cycles first.
Click to expand...

Not true. In fact, we just exited a little ice age approximately 10,000 years ago. Our mean temperature is some where over 17C. We are currently at 15C and have yet to reach the peak that should last for about 100,000 years.


What are you, new?

This should get you started. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Click to expand...

New? I'm not the one that falls for the indoctrination of the chicken little climate "scientists".
 
bubbabgone said:
It's a trend that is over hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

Really? So the rate of warming has been generally the same the last hundredS of years? Got a graph?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom