Berkeley Earth- second warmest year

[Threegoofs]

Berkeley Earth

The official results are in, and it looks like 2017 has been the second warmest year on earth since 1850. The last three years, 2015,16 and 17 have been the three warmest years in the record, with the 21st century having most of the rest of the warmest years.

Pretty much just what the predictions decades ago were.

This agrees with the other groups analysis:



Research Groups with Confirmed Results for 2017:

Berkeley Earth2nd (after 2016)

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS)2nd (after 2016)

Copernicus Climate Change Service at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)2nd (after 2016)

UK Met Office Hadley Centre & Univ. of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU) 3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way (C&W)3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

 

[Phys251]

Wow.

Sadly, people will come in here and deny the facts. At this point I feel that denialism will continue until the Earth becomes a literal fireball.

 

[Threegoofs]

Wow.

Sadly, people will come in here and deny the facts. At this point I feel that denialism will continue until the Earth becomes a literal fireball.

It’s actually quite amazing that this was anticipated over 40 years ago, and the deniers are still crying about how horrible Al Gore was for making it an issue in the 80s!

 

[Phys251]

It’s actually quite amazing that this was anticipated over 40 years ago, and the deniers are still crying about how horrible Al Gore was for making it an issue in the 80s!

Al Gore was a Marxist-libbo-facist-commie who wanted us to live in huts off the grid while he lived in his multi-million-dollar ranch home. :2razz: :mrgreen:

 

[faithful_servant]

Berkeley Earth

The official results are in, and it looks like 2017 has been the second warmest year on earth since 1850. The last three years, 2015,16 and 17 have been the three warmest years in the record, with the 21st century having most of the rest of the warmest years.

Pretty much just what the predictions decades ago were.

This agrees with the other groups analysis:



Research Groups with Confirmed Results for 2017:

Berkeley Earth2nd (after 2016)

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS)2nd (after 2016)

Copernicus Climate Change Service at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)2nd (after 2016)

UK Met Office Hadley Centre & Univ. of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU) 3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way (C&W)3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

So the Pleistocene Epoch ended about 11,700 years ago and a span of time equating 1.5% of that time is supposed to be significant?? We don't know what kind temperature changes happened in the other 98.5% of time span, but we should be getting our panties in wad because of a change that we're seeing in the last 1.5% of the current epoch we're living in.

 

[Threegoofs]

So the Pleistocene Epoch ended about 11,700 years ago and a span of time equating 1.5% of that time is supposed to be significant?? We don't know what kind temperature changes happened in the other 98.5% of time span, but we should be getting our panties in wad because of a change that we're seeing in the last 1.5% of the current epoch we're living in.

But.. we kinda do have a good clue about temperature changes over that timespan.

And the concern is less about the absolute temperature compared to the rate of change.

 

[DaveFagan]

But.. we kinda do have a good clue about temperature changes over that timespan.

And the concern is less about the absolute temperature compared to the rate of change.

Ya' oughta' be ashamed o' y'self. Using a picture to replace a thousand words of truth to refute a blistering boil of hyperbole filled with bluster, blarney and popular local superstitions is a low blow. What if FaithfulServant is holding onto a figment of his imagination and loses his grip. Where might he land? The thousand words of truth would not have worked, but the picture probably won't either. Density is paramount, or not?

 

[Threegoofs]

Ya' oughta' be ashamed o' y'self. Using a picture to replace a thousand words of truth to refute a blistering boil of hyperbole filled with bluster, blarney and popular local superstitions is a low blow. What if FaithfulServant is holding onto a figment of his imagination and loses his grip. Where might he land? The thousand words of truth would not have worked, but the picture probably won't either. Density is paramount, or not?

I’m sure the next criticism will be that the Carboniferous Age has higher temps, so why worry?

 

[bubbabgone]

berkeley earth

the official results are in, and it looks like 2017 has been the second warmest year on earth since 1850. The last three years, 2015,16 and 17 have been the three warmest years in the record, with the 21st century having most of the rest of the warmest years.

Pretty much just what the predictions decades ago were.

This agrees with the other groups analysis:



Research groups with confirmed results for 2017:

Berkeley earth2nd (after 2016)

nasa goddard institute for space studies (nasa giss)2nd (after 2016)

copernicus climate change service at the european centre for medium-range weather forecasts (ecmwf)2nd (after 2016)

uk met office hadley centre & univ. Of east anglia’s climatic research unit (hadcru) 3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

national oceanic and atmospheric administration (noaa)3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

kevin cowtan and robert way (c&w)3rd (after 2016 and 2015)

------

Buddha say 175 years makes for weak record.
--Earth much older. You have much to learn--
--Not worthy of new thread, my naive child---

 

[Visbek]

Berkeley Earth

The official results are in, and it looks like 2017 has been the second warmest year on earth since 1850. The last three years, 2015,16 and 17 have been the three warmest years in the record, with the 21st century having most of the rest of the warmest years.

Pretty much just what the predictions decades ago were.

How closely are current predictions tracking earlier predictions?

I'd assume the predictions have changed a bit over the years, it'd be interesting to compare actual to the various sets over time. IPCC goes back to 1990, so that's probably a good yardstick.

 

[Visbek]

Buddha say 175 years makes for weak record.

See post #6.

 

[longview]

See post #6.

You mean that graph where that attach a line with 120 year average resolution (Marcott), to the
monthly HadCRU record? Beside not practicing good data handling,
it produces a meaningless graph.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, everyone agrees 2017 was cooler than 2016. The apogee has been passed, and since the increased solar activity that drove most warming through the 20th century has now subsided, we can probably expect a series of cooling years. I suspect 2018 will be cooler than 2017, and so on.

The great task for AGW advocates will be to preserve the CO2 warming hypothesis through cooling years. Meanwhile, the solar/GCR hypothesis -- offering a better explanation of observed phenomena -- will gain adherents.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, everyone agrees 2017 was cooler than 2016. The apogee has been passed, and since the increased solar activity that drove most warming through the 20th century has now subsided, we can probably expect a series of cooling years. I suspect 2018 will be cooler than 2017, and so on.

The great task for AGW advocates will be to preserve the CO2 warming hypothesis through cooling years. Meanwhile, the solar/GCR hypothesis -- offering a better explanation of observed phenomena -- will gain adherents.

Again, when you adjust for ENSO:

I’ll make it big this time since you seemed to miss the point the other time.

 

[Jack Hays]

Again, when you adjust for ENSO:

I’ll make it big this time since you seemed to miss the point the other time.

Doesn't matter how big you make it because it doesn't matter.

 

[humbolt]

See post #6.

Unfortunately, the database upon which that graphic representation is founded has already been proven to be highly corrupted.

 

[Threegoofs]

Doesn't matter how big you make it because it doesn't matter.

True. Your mind is made up irregardless of evidence.

I don’t know what I was thinking...

 

[Jack Hays]

True. Your mind is made up irregardless of evidence.

I don’t know what I was thinking...

Weather is not climate.

 

[bubbabgone]

See post #6.

I saw it.

You can create graphs that can't be said to necessarily be wrong but by clever averaging and careful selection of scales on the axes they can be made to say whatever you want.

Here's one you might like ... to me, the detail allows better understanding of climate over time.

If you noticed, the largest peak and the deepest valley are in the one in #6 too, but in #6 what came between was averaged into invisibility that made the graph an exercise in deceit.

 

[Threegoofs]

I saw it.

You can create graphs that can't be said to necessarily be wrong but by clever averaging and careful selection of scales on the axes they can be made to say whatever you want.

Here's one you might like ... to me, the detail allows better understanding of climate over time.

If you noticed, the largest peak and the deepest valley are in the one in #6 too, but in #6 what came between was averaged into invisibility that made the graph an exercise in deceit.

I understand why you like it.

It has no scale on one axis, is unreferenced, and is authored by one guy who (I swear to God) has written books on how the Bible predicts weather and climate!

Weather and Bible Prophecy: What Was ... What Is ... and What's To Come: Amazon.com: Books

A normal man would be embarrassed by disseminating stuff like this.

Edit: now that I think about it, I’m guessing it doesn’t go back much more than 4500 years because the earth is only a little older than that in the authors mind...

And what the hell are ‘nomanic times’??? Nomadic? If so, I’m not aware of a time where everyone on earth was becoming nomads...in fact, civilization was forming rapidly then, with Egypt, Mesopotamia, China and the Indus Valley All forming the first city-states.

Oh, wait... it must be a nomadic time for that tiny tribe in the Levant! It’s a biblical chart! LOL!

 

[bubbabgone]

I understand why you like it.

It has no scale on one axis, is unreferenced, and is authored by one guy who (I swear to God) has written books on how the Bible predicts weather and climate!

Weather and Bible Prophecy: What Was ... What Is ... and What's To Come: Amazon.com: Books

A normal man would be embarrassed by disseminating stuff like this.

How was the book?
Were the Bible prophesies better than those by Gore?

All the numbers you need are in the graph.
BTW, if you had your wits about you you could have really gotten yourself and the other armchair alarmists to soil themselves if you said 2017 was the warmest year in around 700 years.
They would have freaked.
It wouldn't be wrong, some here might have had a mild anxiety attack, and it wouldn't be out of character ... but it would still be as meaningless as your original graph.

 

[Jack Hays]

I understand why you like it.

It has no scale on one axis, is unreferenced, and is authored by one guy who (I swear to God) has written books on how the Bible predicts weather and climate!

Weather and Bible Prophecy: What Was ... What Is ... and What's To Come: Amazon.com: Books

A normal man would be embarrassed by disseminating stuff like this.

I'm not a religious man myself, but to me the most striking aspect of your post is the pride you take in your bigotry.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Sexond warmest despite the cooling effect of the El Nina.

 

[Threegoofs]

How was the book?
Were the Bible prophesies better than those by Gore?

All the numbers you need are in the graph.
BTW, if you had your wits about you you could have really gotten yourself and the other armchair alarmists to soil themselves if you said 2017 was the warmest year in around 700 years.
They would have freaked.
It wouldn't be wrong, some here might have had a mild anxiety attack, and it wouldn't be out of character ... but it would still be as meaningless as your original graph.

Wow. How embarrassing.

I should draw a cartoon.

 

[Visbek]

You can create graphs that can't be said to necessarily be wrong but by clever averaging and careful selection of scales on the axes they can be made to say whatever you want.

Or, you can make graphs that are just wrong.

If you noticed, the largest peak and the deepest valley are in the one in #6 too, but in #6 what came between was averaged into invisibility that made the graph an exercise in deceit.

What I noticed is that the graph Threegoofs posted is clear, concise and sourced based on two consistent sources.

I also noticed that the graph you posted is, as he noted, a total mess. It lists no sources. It has no scale. It interrupts itself with false claims. It ludicrously fails to note that volcanic eruptions temporarily reduce global temperatures, not increases them. It's a morass of misinformation and untenable positions, which displays the utter lack of scientific rigor of its author.