2014 hottest year on record

The science is solid as all hell, sorry. The only deniers are folks with either an anti-science or pro fossil fuels agenda. That can be amply demonstrated by folks getting angry when I say the the response to MMGW is what we ought to be doing anyway.

All you guys do is vilify people because they say something you don't like.

More B.S. Dr. Easterbrook made clear in his opening statement he's not being paid by anyone to state his views and he says your science is bunk. He predicted a cooling trend back in 1998 when temps were peaking, based on his study of ocean influences. So far, he's been right while your folks have been dead wrong.
 
Sadly, I have to agree with you here Gary. Everyone thought hurricane activity was going to increase. Heck, its pretty basic. But it didn't.

Does that mean the Earth isn't warming up? Hardly. All it means is that none of us really knows what a warmer Earth will really look like. Well, I know one thing, the seas will have much less life in them.

But as far as the weather, I don't know. I would guess more extreme weather, but that doesn't explain the global dearth of hurricanes. Whatever a warmer Earth looks like, I bet money it won't be as good for human beings as the one we have right now.

A hurricane builds energy as it moves across the ocean, sucking up warm, moist tropical air from the surface and dispensing cooler air aloft.

Perhaps cooler surface air explains that recent dearth.
 
That is a lot easier than believing in a 2 thousand year old book about an invisible man in the sky.

You mean the the book that supported 20th Century scientific discoveries 2000 years before they were made, i.e. an Expanding Universe? That book?

But I don't recall anyone arguing a Biblical perspective on MMGW in this thread. Did I miss one? :dunno:
 
More B.S. Dr. Easterbrook made clear in his opening statement he's not being paid by anyone to state his views and he says your science is bunk. He predicted a cooling trend back in 1998 when temps were peaking, based on his study of ocean influences. So far, he's been right while your folks have been dead wrong.

Unless I'm mistaken, you've brought this guy up before. So you like to talk about scientists manipulating data? Look no further. This is your guy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html
 
Global temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. You can look it up.


So you're saying they figured out this huge problem was headed our way but you think they should have just sat on their hands?



Venus is about the same size as Earth, and well within the "goldilocks" zone that produces habitable planets. The reason is is inhospitable to life is greenhouse warming.

Global temps have risen many times preindustrial also. We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. One thing that the scientists who say there is a greenhouse effect agree upon is that 1945 is when the human population began emitting CO2 in a big way. Instead there was a decline in temps from 1940-1975. So where the heck is the effect? What is laughable about this whole thing is that we are approaching the end of an interglacial warm period. Venus has an atmosphere of 97% CO2 and an atmospheric pressure 92 times greater than Earth, not a good comparison.
 
Sadly, I have to agree with you here Gary. Everyone thought hurricane activity was going to increase. Heck, its pretty basic. But it didn't.

Does that mean the Earth isn't warming up? Hardly. All it means is that none of us really knows what a warmer Earth will really look like. Well, I know one thing, the seas will have much less life in them.

But as far as the weather, I don't know. I would guess more extreme weather, but that doesn't explain the global dearth of hurricanes. Whatever a warmer Earth looks like, I bet money it won't be as good for human beings as the one we have right now.

Most of the last 10,000 years was significantly warmer than now. Seems to have survived just fine.
 
You mean the the book that supported 20th Century scientific discoveries 2000 years before they were made, i.e. an Expanding Universe? That book?

A fine example of Cognitive Dissonance if ever I saw one.
 
Most of the last 10,000 years was significantly warmer than now. Seems to have survived just fine.

I assume you meant to say that the "earth" seems to have survived just fine. And if so, yes, I agree with you. Heck, go back 1 million years and North America didn't even exist as a continent. (You aren't a Ken Ham follower, are you?)

The earth and its flora/fauna can happily adapt to a huge variety of environmental factors when the changes happen over many thousands of years. Human society, however, has become entrenched with infrastructure, geopolitical boundaries, and a populace that is becoming less and less self-dependent. Diminish food production, alter the water supply, lose some rain forests, give up untold thousands of square miles of coastline and we end up with a mess of monumental proportions.
 
Have scientists ever behaved like this before? I mean except for the scientific consensus of Eugenics in NAZI Germany.

It seems that in the past that when the facts didn't fit the theory, they didn't ignore the facts or casually toss them aside, or hide them. They would scratch their head and say "hmmm, something is not right here .
 
What caused the warm period before the Little Ice Age? Think there might be a chance that it is repeating itself? And, was the warmer climate back then a bad thing? I think it is the height of arrogance to think that climate change is "our" fault. The climate of this planet has been changing throughout its history. And I'm not going to quit breathing out CO2 just to make you feel good about yourself. As noted by others, not a single computer model that the scare-mongers are so proud of can correctly predict what is happening NOW, never mind in the future. That alone is enough to suggest to this engineer that those folks need to go back to the drawing board and try again.
 
Dinosaurs had an opinion on what should be the correct temperature of the earth. Too bad they didn't have any fossil fuels to burn to keep the planet warm.:lol:
 
A fine example of Cognitive Dissonance if ever I saw one.

Not at all.

The first direct scientific evidence for a big bang universe dates back to 1916. That is when Albert Einstein noted that his field equations of general relativity predicted an expanding universe.5 Unwilling to accept the cosmic beginning implied by such expansion, Einstein altered his theory to conform with the common wisdom of his day, namely an eternally existing universe.6

All these scientists, however, were upstaged by 2500 years and more by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible’s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, “This is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out.”

The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”7 The proclamation that God created (bara’) the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18). This principle of transcendent creation is made more explicit by passages like Hebrews 11:3 which states that the universe that we humans can measure and detect was made out of that which we cannot measure or detect. Also, Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:15-17 stipulate that God alone is the agent for the universe’s existence. Biblical claims that God predated the universe and was actively involved in causing certain effects before the existence of the universe is not only found in Colossians 1 but also in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and 1 Peter 1:20.

The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its being “stretched out.” Five different Bible authors pen such a statement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18 appears to be a twelfth verse. However, the word used for “heavens” or “skies” is shehaqîm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth’s atmosphere,8 not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.9 Three of the eleven verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.

BTW, that's from Dr. Hugh Ross, an Astrophysicist who taught at Cal Tech.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-bang---the-bible-taught-it-first
 
I assume you meant to say that the "earth" seems to have survived just fine. And if so, yes, I agree with you. Heck, go back 1 million years and North America didn't even exist as a continent. (You aren't a Ken Ham follower, are you?)

The earth and its flora/fauna can happily adapt to a huge variety of environmental factors when the changes happen over many thousands of years. Human society, however, has become entrenched with infrastructure, geopolitical boundaries, and a populace that is becoming less and less self-dependent. Diminish food production, alter the water supply, lose some rain forests, give up untold thousands of square miles of coastline and we end up with a mess of monumental proportions.

I respect Ken Ham's tenacity, but I think he's wrong. He means well, but he's wrong on the science.

Fortunately, none of the calamities you cited have any high probability of occurring. We've been listening to scaremongering for a long time. The number of examples is breathtaking.

Remember this one?

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

Did that come true?

You can't say we haven't give it time to happen. We've had 92 years to test that prediction since it was made in 1922.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/rahn-the-world-did-not-end/#ixzz3LdQAvgQO
 
Last edited:
Unless I'm mistaken, you've brought this guy up before. So you like to talk about scientists manipulating data? Look no further. This is your guy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

Um,,, I hope you realize, the source of all the info on the website is from -- IPCC? Widely discredited, and roundly joked about IPCC. The very people that published the crazy study.

Assertion by repetition isn't very useful except to people who have nothing else. Debunking a guy by using the same exact flawed data is hardly 'peer' quality.
 
Um,,, I hope you realize, the source of all the info on the website is from -- IPCC? Widely discredited, and roundly joked about IPCC. The very people that published the crazy study.

Assertion by repetition isn't very useful except to people who have nothing else. Debunking a guy by using the same exact flawed data is hardly 'peer' quality.

The good news is there's no shortage of people pointing up contrary science. See: http://youtu.be/HeCqcKYj9Oc

I'm sure he'll get attacked, too, since he's run afoul of the establishment. But his work has been validated by another independent climate research in Sweden, Dr. Pehr Björnbo:

http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rekonstruktion-av-Murry-Salbys-teori.pdf
 
You have to admit, the MMGW people had a heck of a run. Two years from now the Climate "Scientists" will be pointing fingers at each other.
 
You have to admit, the MMGW people had a heck of a run. Two years from now the Climate "Scientists" will be pointing fingers at each other.

Well, I thought we'd reach that point several years ago, so I'm not quite so optimistic now. But maybe by the 30th Anniversary for Jim Hansen's speech we'll see signs the reality is finally dawning on them.
 
Well, I thought we'd reach that point several years ago, so I'm not quite so optimistic now. But maybe by the 30th Anniversary for Jim Hansen's speech we'll see signs the reality is finally dawning on them.

Reality will NEVER trump the unending obsession with other people's money.
 
Does that mean the Earth isn't warming up? Hardly. All it means is that none of us really knows what a warmer Earth will really look like. Well, I know one thing, the seas will have much less life in them.

But as far as the weather, I don't know. I would guess more extreme weather, but that doesn't explain the global dearth of hurricanes. Whatever a warmer Earth looks like, I bet money it won't be as good for human beings as the one we have right now.

Frucking Al Gore seems to know all the answers and has told us many times. Doesn't seem like he's ever been right about anything.

Of course we also have Michael Mann running around telling folks he's a Nobel Laureate.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, I have to agree with you here Gary. Everyone thought hurricane activity was going to increase. Heck, its pretty basic. But it didn't.

Does that mean the Earth isn't warming up? Hardly. All it means is that none of us really knows what a warmer Earth will really look like. Well, I know one thing, the seas will have much less life in them.

But as far as the weather, I don't know. I would guess more extreme weather, but that doesn't explain the global dearth of hurricanes. Whatever a warmer Earth looks like, I bet money it won't be as good for human beings as the one we have right now.

More hurricanes isn't the only thing that hasn't happened that computer models predict. We've got too much data now from the ARGOS buoys, wx balloons and wx Satalites. So they can't play with the numbers as they have with the terrestrial thermometers.

Since the late 90's no rise is atmospheric temperature, no rise in ocean temperatures. No appearance of a tropical hotspot in the atmosphere. What a lot of people don't realize about the CO2 theory is that CO2 is really a trigger mechanism that will lead to more water vapor, the real greenhouse gas, which the models predict will create a tropical hot spot. The tropical hotspot is the smoking gun for the CO2 theory, should have happened.You have models and you have empirical evidence contrary to the models and the theory.

At some point there will be a mass exodus with a rush from the the theory, as no one wants to be the last one out the door.
 
Last edited:
That is excellent. Scientists have zero credibility left. Whatta I gotta say to get the money?

All those deserving scientists must be wondering if the gravy train will run out of fuel.
 
Are you switching sides now or just confused?
Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Real hockey stick finally located: Antarctic sea ice continues to blow through all-time record-high levels 5th year in a row
This marks the 5th year in a row that Antarctic sea ice extent has blown through prior all-time-high records, and the peak winter extent is probably still another few weeks away.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/real-hockey-stick-finally-located.html


Do you not know the difference between sea ice and glacial ice? The glacial ice was core sampled and CO2 levels measured in that ice core. You can believe the results were faked if you want, but the CO2 levels in the cores started their spike up with the industrial revolution. You even start finding particulate coal dust in it in the late 1800s that was pretty dense by the 1920s.
 
Do you not know the difference between sea ice and glacial ice? The glacial ice was core sampled and CO2 levels measured in that ice core. You can believe the results were faked if you want, but the CO2 levels in the cores started their spike up with the industrial revolution. You even start finding particulate coal dust in it in the late 1800s that was pretty dense by the 1920s.
Maybe things are a little more complicated. I'm still looking for the reference but ice core samples have showed abrupt changes in temperature and CO2 long before humans were burning hydrocarbons. Here's what I found on short notice.


CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new study shows that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago did not occur gradually, but was characterized by three “pulses” in which C02 rose abruptly.
Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which C02 levels rose about 10-15 parts per million – or about 5 percent per episode – over a period of 1-2 centuries. It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns, and terrestrial processes.
The finding is important, however, because it casts new light on the mechanisms that take the Earth in and out of ice age regimes. Results of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, appear this week in the journal Nature.
“We used to think that naturally occurring changes in carbon dioxide took place relatively slowly over the 10,000 years it took to move out of the last ice age,” said Shaun Marcott, lead author on the article who conducted his study as a post-doctoral researcher at Oregon State University. “This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle.” http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archi...ree-abrupt-pulse-co2-during-last-deglaciation
 
Maybe things are a little more complicated. I'm still looking for the reference but ice core samples have showed abrupt changes in temperature and CO2 long before humans were burning hydrocarbons. Here's what I found on short notice.[/URL]

So that's what you found when you Googled for something to refute what he said. Nice cherry picking. And note that I'm not denigrating the report you listed. It's thought provoking and comes from a good, unbiased source. Just noticing that you start with a bias then go look specifically for evidence that seems to support your bias.

It turns out that this article doesn't really support your implication after all.

Here's some more interesting stuff from the article you cited.

"Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which C02 levels rose about 10-15 parts per million – or about 5 percent per episode – over a period of 1-2 centuries. It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns, and terrestrial processes."

Using Mauna Loa data, CO2 concentrations have risen from 310-400 ppm in the last 55 years. This is a HUGELY faster rate than the episodes that were discussed in the article.

(10-15 ppm = 5% means that the peak concentrations at this time were 200-300 ppm)

"The researchers say that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the peak of the last ice age to complete deglaciation was about 80 parts per million, taking place over 10,000 years. Thus, the finding that 30-45 ppm of the increase happened in just a few centuries was significant."

Granted, this doesn't mention from what starting point, but it is interesting to note that we have seen a rise in the rate of CO2 that dwarfs what they found "significant" in the article.

You may argue their validity, but there are graphs all over the internet indicating that CO2 concentration has remained below 300 ppm for the last 600-800 thousand years. And this article confirms 300 ppm as the peak concentration in the last 10,000 years (the scope of the article). We're at 400 ppm now.

So, your article discusses three pulses that occurred in the last 10,000 years and covered a period of complete deglaciation. That's the part you highlighted. Naturally occurring pulses in CO2, all small in comparison to today's "pulse" and, correct me if I'm wrong, all below 300 ppm. Again, we're at 400 ppm now.
 
Maybe things are a little more complicated. I'm still looking for the reference but ice core samples have showed abrupt changes in temperature and CO2 long before humans were burning hydrocarbons. Here's what I found on short notice.


CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new study shows that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago did not occur gradually, but was characterized by three “pulses” in which C02 rose abruptly.
Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which C02 levels rose about 10-15 parts per million – or about 5 percent per episode – over a period of 1-2 centuries. It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns, and terrestrial processes.
The finding is important, however, because it casts new light on the mechanisms that take the Earth in and out of ice age regimes. Results of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, appear this week in the journal Nature.
“We used to think that naturally occurring changes in carbon dioxide took place relatively slowly over the 10,000 years it took to move out of the last ice age,” said Shaun Marcott, lead author on the article who conducted his study as a post-doctoral researcher at Oregon State University. “This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle.” http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archi...ree-abrupt-pulse-co2-during-last-deglaciation


Yes, there are also Volcanic and other natural phenomena that have caused these spikes and variation through history, no doubt. Nature is a finely tuned machine to regulate ALL the environmental factors, CO2 being one, that let this planet cultivate intelligent life, some times this requires growing thing just to plow them under for fertilizer. Many of the these things were of cataclysmic proportions. If we had another ice age today, 80% of humanity would die and all our technological infrastructure would be destroyed. Heck, a major Coronal Mass Ejection can threaten our speces, that is how fragile we have become. without our electrical grid and technology, we become instantly unable to support our population. Our technical evolution has driven our population growth. We have not protected our main energy distribution system from a single point of failure problem of events that have a reasonable likelihood of happening within a century.

The point though is we can show in the ice record where we do contribute on a SIGNIFICANT factor. One can deny it to rationalize selfish behavior, and that is the reason the energy industry sponsors 'scientists' to produce fuddlig arguments for you to look at and say, "See, there's nothing wrong, I can keep doing what I'm doing no worries." Not much different from the tobacco industry in the 60s and 70s.
 
Do you not know the difference between sea ice and glacial ice? The glacial ice was core sampled and CO2 levels measured in that ice core. You can believe the results were faked if you want, but the CO2 levels in the cores started their spike up with the industrial revolution. You even start finding particulate coal dust in it in the late 1800s that was pretty dense by the 1920s.

You have to read at least the headline of the article to see the hockey stick in the news relative to the Antarctic has to do with the recent spike in sea ice extent.

Real hockey stick finally located: Antarctic sea ice continues to blow through all-time record-high levels 5th year in a row
 
So we should have seen a really dramatic up-tick in temps if CO2 is the major driver, right? :dunno:

Where's the up-tick?

(1) Observable loss of glaciation
(2) Measurable rise in sea level
(3) Measurable upward trend in atmospheric temperature
(4) Measurable upward trend in deep ocean temperature
(5) Measurable change is ocean chemistry
 
Yes, there are also Volcanic and other natural phenomena that have caused these spikes and variation through history, no doubt. Nature is a finely tuned machine to regulate ALL the environmental factors, CO2 being one, that let this planet cultivate intelligent life, some times this requires growing thing just to plow them under for fertilizer. Many of the these things were of cataclysmic proportions. If we had another ice age today, 80% of humanity would die and all our technological infrastructure would be destroyed. Heck, a major Coronal Mass Ejection can threaten our speces, that is how fragile we have become. without our electrical grid and technology, we become instantly unable to support our population. Our technical evolution has driven our population growth. We have not protected our main energy distribution system from a single point of failure problem of events that have a reasonable likelihood of happening within a century.

The point though is we can show in the ice record where we do contribute on a SIGNIFICANT factor. One can deny it to rationalize selfish behavior, and that is the reason the energy industry sponsors 'scientists' to produce fuddlig arguments for you to look at and say, "See, there's nothing wrong, I can keep doing what I'm doing no worries." Not much different from the tobacco industry in the 60s and 70s.

I see your point, and it is the viewpoint of someone who has bought the IPCC conclusions hook, line and sinker . Man contributes 4% to all the CO2 released into the atmosphere, and if you were to double almost nothing you still have almost nothing. Current CO2 levels are about 380 parts per million. CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere forever, it comes back down in less than a year.

It is a big lie that the scientists speaking out (skeptics, deniers) are in the pay of special interests .

It is estimated that of all the CO2 released by man ,1/4 of has been released since 1998. And yet, none of the effects predicted has happened. They can't find any evidence of MMGW a because there is none, the theory is not valid.

I would not change my mind based on IPCC predictions, big I would change my mind on real evidence. We are chasing after something that doesn't exist.
 
(1) Observable loss of glaciation
(2) Measurable rise in sea level
(3) Measurable upward trend in atmospheric temperature
(4) Measurable upward trend in deep ocean temperature
(5) Measurable change is ocean chemistry

The problem with relying on IPCC sources is that they have earned the same status as papers at supermarket checkout counters.

The biggest lies are put out just prior to major climate summits. Not surprised to see all the crap in the media right now.
 
Yep, the press release that started this thread is just another lie, designed to alarm the public just prior to the climate summit.

Yup.

1) Make policy.
2) Schedule global summit(in a warm environment in summer)
3) Start feeding the lib media with lies and distortions, like this one.
4) Kick off summit with policy decisions completed and agreed to.
5) Tax/fee/charge industrial nations(oh - exempt China).
6) Buy your science to fit policy.
 
Yup.

1) Make policy.
2) Schedule global summit(in a warm environment in summer)
3) Start feeding the lib media with lies and distortions, like this one.
4) Kick off summit with policy decisions completed and agreed to.
5) Tax/fee/charge industrial nations(oh - exempt China).
6) Buy your science to fit policy.


Perfect analysis.........:yes::yes::yes:....:thumbsup:
 
Back
Top