• 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!

Second hottest March on record, following the second hottest Feb on record.

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
67,315
Reaction score
34,009
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Remember when the deniers told us that 2016 was just an El Nino anomaly (and one especially deluded one thinks we should exclude it from the record because it was weather, not climate?)?

Well, the GISS data for March is in and its offical - March 2017 is only second to March 2017 as the warmest March ever.

ytd%2Bto%2BMar17.png


This, of course, jives exactly with the models that have been published since the 1980s that predicted that we would be experiencing the warmest recorded climate in history. The models were right, we are.

And the things the climate models predicted are becoming realized. Low sea ice at the poles, melting glaciers, tremendous Greenland melt, shifting growing zones and ecological disruption, and an increase in extreme weather.

Remember when everyone thought that receding Artcic ice was just a made up story? Heres what sea ice looks like at the end of March each year. See a trend?

index.php
 
Threegoofs said:
Remember when the deniers told us that 2016 was just an El Nino anomaly (and one especially deluded one thinks we should exclude it from the record because it was weather, not climate?)?

Well, the GISS data for March is in and its offical - March 2017 is only second to March 2017 as the warmest March ever.

ytd%2Bto%2BMar17.png


This, of course, jives exactly with the models that have been published since the 1980s that predicted that we would be experiencing the warmest recorded climate in history. The models were right, we are.

And the things the climate models predicted are becoming realized. Low sea ice at the poles, melting glaciers, tremendous Greenland melt, shifting growing zones and ecological disruption, and an increase in extreme weather.

Remember when everyone thought that receding Artcic ice was just a made up story? Heres what sea ice looks like at the end of March each year. See a trend?

index.php
Click to expand...

Our earth has been spinning for, what? The Bible tells us about 6,000 years, I think. Science says billions. In either case, detailed climate records have only been kept for the past, what? Fifty years? It is very difficult to believe we have enough data to believe, #1, the future of the earth is in jeopardy; and #2, that the United States can effect it in any demonstrable way.
 
MaggieD said:
Our earth has been spinning for, what? The Bible tells us about 6,000 years, I think. Science says billions. In either case, detailed climate records have only been kept for the past, what? Fifty years? It is very difficult to believe we have enough data to believe, #1, the future of the earth is in jeopardy; and #2, that the United States can effect it in any demonstrable way.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, why bring the Bible into a discussion on climate science?
 
MaggieD said:
Our earth has been spinning for, what? The Bible tells us about 6,000 years, I think. Science says billions. In either case, detailed climate records have only been kept for the past, what? Fifty years? It is very difficult to believe we have enough data to believe, #1, the future of the earth is in jeopardy; and #2, that the United States can effect it in any demonstrable way.
Click to expand...

What. The. ****?
 
MaggieD said:
I'm so surprised! Is it wrong to mention the Bible when talking about gravity, too?
Click to expand...

Pretty much...you know, since the Bible is pretty clueless on these matters.
 
Chomsky said:
With all due respect, why bring the Bible into a discussion on climate science?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing she is being a smart ass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MaggieD said:
Our earth has been spinning for, what? The Bible tells us about 6,000 years, I think. Science says billions. In either case, detailed climate records have only been kept for the past, what? Fifty years? It is very difficult to believe we have enough data to believe, #1, the future of the earth is in jeopardy; and #2, that the United States can effect it in any demonstrable way.
Click to expand...

The data we have from the last 10,000 years suggests we are living in, and causing, this period of unprecedented rapid warmth.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm so surprised! Is it wrong to mention the Bible when talking about gravity, too?
Click to expand...
That would depend on the angle you're using.

But I can't see using the Bible as supporting scientific evidence (age of earth).

Even the Catholic Church and other mainstream Christian religions agree much of Genisis is mythological.
 
Threegoofs said:
The data we have from the last 10,000 years suggests we are living in, and causing, this period of unprecedented rapid warmth.
Click to expand...
The proxies lack the resolution to tell much of anything about our recent warming.
In addition the the divergence between the RSS and the GISS for march is .36 C,
so one of the two got March 2017 way off!
 
Threegoofs said:
Real scientists.... disagree.
Click to expand...
Disagree about what?
It is a matter of record that the RSS temperature in march 2016 was .8728 and in march 2017 was .3486, a delta of -.5242.
The delta for GISS is only -.16 a very large difference.
Or do you mean the proxy resolution, here is what Shaun Marcott said in Real Climate.
Response by Marcott et al. « RealClimate
Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal
resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.
Click to expand...
And I am sure you consider Marcott a real Scientist since you have cited his graph plus the modern record so many times.
 
longview said:
Disagree about what?
It is a matter of record that the RSS temperature in march 2016 was .8728 and in march 2017 was .3486, a delta of -.5242.
The delta for GISS is only -.16 a very large difference.
Or do you mean the proxy resolution, here is what Shaun Marcott said in Real Climate.
Response by Marcott et al. « RealClimate

And I am sure you consider Marcott a real Scientist since you have cited his graph plus the modern record so many times.
Click to expand...

Marcotts paper:

"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
 
Threegoofs said:
Marcotts paper:

"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
Click to expand...
And yet he says both in comments and in the paper itself that his study has a a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from
examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.
And since you seem incapable of actually citing a paper properly, here is Marcott's paper,
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
And what he says about the temporal resolution.
The 73 globally distributed temperature re-cords used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a
median resolution of 120 years (5).
Click to expand...
It sure looks like resolving a 20 year jump in temperature (1978-1998) might be a bit of a problem
with an average resolution of 120 years.
 
Threegoofs said:
Marcotts paper:

"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
Click to expand...

So 25% of the past 11,700 years have been warmer than now.

And the projections that will not be happening might get above the highest maybe...
 
longview said:
And yet he says both in comments and in the paper itself that his study has a a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from
examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.
And since you seem incapable of actually citing a paper properly, here is Marcott's paper,
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
And what he says about the temporal resolution.

It sure looks like resolving a 20 year jump in temperature (1978-1998) might be a bit of a problem
with an average resolution of 120 years.
Click to expand...

A 20 year jump in temperature?

I think we've got a spike in temps that has gone on for a century, with a distinct increase in the last 40 years or so (with good data that shows that it will get even higher).

Generally, and its been done on the blogs you agree are fantastic scientific sources, that a spike in temp this high and this long would have been picked up, given that proxy resolution is not spaced out regularly at 120 years, but follows a normal distribution curve, meaning century long spikes of 1 degree C rise should be noticed most of the time.


But this is all irrelevant to the main point, that temps right now are higher than we ever saw them, it was predicted to be so thirty years ago, and the predictions are that it will get much, much warmer.
 
Threegoofs said:
A 20 year jump in temperature?

I think we've got a spike in temps that has gone on for a century, with a distinct increase in the last 40 years or so (with good data that shows that it will get even higher).

Generally, and its been done on the blogs you agree are fantastic scientific sources, that a spike in temp this high and this long would have been picked up, given that proxy resolution is not spaced out regularly at 120 years, but follows a normal distribution curve, meaning century long spikes of 1 degree C rise should be noticed most of the time.


But this is all irrelevant to the main point, that temps right now are higher than we ever saw them, it was predicted to be so thirty years ago, and the predictions are that it will get much, much warmer.
Click to expand...
A century you say, The data shows that over 59% of the warming to 2014, occurred in the 20 years between 1978 and 1998.
With and additional 20% being before the time when AGW would not have had much effect.
So in the 16 years between 1998 and 2014, the temperature only increased by .11 C.
Hum So 1978 was .07, 1998 was .63, a per decade rate of .28 C per decade.
from 1998 to 2014 the increase was .11 C, a per decade rate of .069 C per decade.
The infamous pause busting paper Karl, et al 2015, seems to agree with the rate since 1998,
but Karl looked at a longer range earlier period for comparison (1950 to 1999) which includes 3.8 decades of almost zero warming.
The real observed warming that looked out of the ordinary was between 1978 and 1998, where it warmed at more than 2.5 times
the normal observed rate. The period between 1998 and 2014 was back into the the observed long term warming of about .11 C per decade.
 
longview said:
A century you say, The data shows that over 59% of the warming to 2014, occurred in the 20 years between 1978 and 1998.
With and additional 20% being before the time when AGW would not have had much effect.
So in the 16 years between 1998 and 2014, the temperature only increased by .11 C.
Hum So 1978 was .07, 1998 was .63, a per decade rate of .28 C per decade.
from 1998 to 2014 the increase was .11 C, a per decade rate of .069 C per decade.
The infamous pause busting paper Karl, et al 2015, seems to agree with the rate since 1998,
but Karl looked at a longer range earlier period for comparison (1950 to 1999) which includes 3.8 decades of almost zero warming.
The real observed warming that looked out of the ordinary was between 1978 and 1998, where it warmed at more than 2.5 times
the normal observed rate. The period between 1998 and 2014 was back into the the observed long term warming of about .11 C per decade.
Click to expand...

'Infamous pause busting paper'.

The only reference that uses that phrase is....WUWT.

LOL.

Look, it's been getting much warmer for a while, and it didn't stop in your magical year of 1998, so pretending the last 20 years don't exist, and especially pretending the lat couple don't exist, is just basic dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
'Infamous pause busting paper'.

The only reference that uses that phrase is....WUWT.

LOL.

Look, it's been getting much warmer for a while, and it didn't stop in your magical year of 1998, so pretending the last 20 years don't exist, and especially pretending the lat couple don't exist, is just basic dishonesty.
Click to expand...
No, I just used the reference, so wrong again, I have no idea what WUWT says about Karl,
I just read it myself.
Are you contesting that Karl, et al 2015 says what I claimed, please cite the error!
 
Threegoofs said:
The data we have from the last 10,000 years suggests we are living in, and causing, this period of unprecedented rapid warmth.
Click to expand...

Do you have any of that 10,000 YO data available? Your charts go back no more than 35 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom