2014 hottest year on record

steingar

steingar

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
29,248
Location
Land of Savages
Display Name
Display name:
steingar
So far, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year since temperature record keeping began, according to NOAA.
 
steingar said:
So far, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year since temperature record keeping began, according to NOAA.
Click to expand...

All lies told by liberal, socialist pigs, trying to destroy capitalism and the American way of life! Brought to you by the same people who believe in evolution, and that smoking causes cancer.

:popcorn:
 
steingar said:
So far, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year since temperature record keeping began, according to NOAA.
Click to expand...
Records were made to be broken.

I don't doubt for a minute that the climate is changing. And I have no problem with trying to clean up the environment, in fact, I am all for that.
But I just don't believe that man is a major contributor to climate change. If every human on earth died tomorrow, I don't believe the change in the climate would be measurably slowed. (and not just because there would be no one left to measure it).
 
Also the year with the most temperature recording units relocated to sunny parking lots. The earth was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs roamed and no one taxed or subsidized anything to fix it. Where I'm sitting now was covered in a glacier 10,000 years ago, which is a blink in geologic time. But of course we can't let a fake crises go by without adding gov't muckery. I say we start by banning those polluting, noisy little planes.
 
steingar said:
So far, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year since temperature record keeping began, according to NOAA.
Click to expand...

So we're still climbing out of the last Ice Age? Yippee!! Cold is a bugger! :yes:

So, prove this has anything to do with my SUV....
 
Oh well.....that increased density altitude can be a bear.:goofy:


hey, in other news .....how bout those polar bears? They're really making a come back.
 
Last edited:
The article is based on January-October. November was well below normal (globally) and Dec might be as well.

If you look at data from weather satellites only, probably the only reliable method of determining global temperature, using 1981-2010 as a baseline so far this year is only .1 C warmer than the average. The article claims we are .6C above average, but does not cite the period which determines the baseline or the source of the temperature readings.

If you look at weather satellite data only, this is what you get.

B3uMwspCIAAxoIo.png:large
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
So we're still climbing out of the last Ice Age? Yippee!! Cold is a bugger! :yes:

So, prove this has anything to do with my SUV....
Click to expand...

We are in an ice age now.

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial has persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
 
BTW, this comes from the U.N. I'm sure THAT'S trustworthy! Probably "peer reviewed" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, I just ran across this from Mark Steyne today:

Here's what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by "peer review." When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor," and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted." When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the*Wall Street Journal Europe*is unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That's "peer review," climate-style.

From <http://www.steynonline.com/6692/climategate-five-years-on>
Click to expand...
 
You all do understand that climate change, whether you agree with it or not, is about trends over long periods of time right? So a few unseasonably hot/cold days or even an entire year with high/low average temperature doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Please tell me people grasp this....
 
cowman said:
You all do understand that climate change, whether you agree with it or not, is about trends over long periods of time right? So a few unseasonably hot/cold days or even an entire year with high/low average temperature doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Please tell me people grasp this....
Click to expand...

Intelligent people do. The media knows this but doesn't care, because then it wouldn't be a story. The radical left and radical right wingers are too delusional to comprehend it.
 
OK, when it changed from 'global warming' disasters to 'climate change disasters', I pretty much knew the mantra was false. As the third world 'leaders' got on board, of course their answer was for the first world to write checks to the third world countries(as if the US doesn't do enough of that already) I was certain that this was a global ponzi deal.

Is the world getting warmer? I'm pretty sure it is. Are humans to blame in part? Yeah, I would go so far as to agree with that postulate. Should the large per capita energy consumers pay the rest of the world for improving their lives? Oh hell no. Modern agriculture developed in the western US, synthetic fertilizers, water use and irrigation, land management, biological farm animal antigens, disease prevention, chemical water improvements, basic sanitation - I could go on for pages on what the western civ has done to improve lives around the world. And now you think I should give you money because I helped you live a longer life? eff that.
 
LDJones said:
BTW, this comes from the U.N. I'm sure THAT'S trustworthy! Probably "peer reviewed"

Speaking of which, I just ran across this from Mark Steyne today:
Click to expand...

Oh the irony in those two sentences combined! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
At the risk of this ending up spin zoned...

Where we've messed up with the environmental movement is politics. Over time a lot of extremist left wing groups glommed onto the environmentalist movements... many positions ended up having more to do with being anti-capitalism or anti-industry than science. The result of this is, unless you're actually a climate scientist and have a direct understanding of this stuff the waters are muddied. It becomes difficult if not impossible to separate the good scientific research from the hordes of brain dead anti-corporation types.

The result is unfortunately, if you're right wing you tend to disregard it. If you're left wing you tend to just accept it because it meshes well enough with your own views.

Not being a climate scientist myself, I don't know what to think in this morass of information and counter-information. What I do know is that technology is good and we always could use another energy source so let's research, research, research.
 
cowman said:
You all do understand that climate change, whether you agree with it or not, is about trends over long periods of time right? So a few unseasonably hot/cold days or even an entire year with high/low average temperature doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Please tell me people grasp this....
Click to expand...


Yep, we sure do....which is why we can't figure out why we get newspaper headlines about global warming every time there's a minor heat wave.
 
When NASA becomes a muslim outreach, and man made climate change missionary, you know things have gotten out of control. The UN just wants to justify stealing more money from us.
 
Another fun tidbit:

Streisand v. Inhofe – Outrage over Inhofe singling out singer’s role in promoting ‘global warming’ – But Streisand admitted: ‘I, and others have spent countless millions on this issue’ – She funded UN IPCC Lead Author to tune of $250,000

Reality Check: Sen. Inhofe's assertions are correct and backed by evidence. Streisand admitted key climate role and gave at least a quarter of a million dollars to fund the climate activism of a lead author of the UN IPCC.

Scientist to the Hollywood Stars: UN IPCC Lead Author Michael Oppenheimer 'was the holder of the 'Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies' at Environmental Defense Fund'

Streisand: 'My Foundation started supporting climate change work in 1989, when I donated a quarter of a million dollars to support the work of environmental scientist Dr. Michael Oppenheimer at EDF. Since then, I, and others have spent countless millions on this issue.'
Click to expand...

Gee, if the guy Bab's was funding suddently said, "Hmmm....we can't find any man-made signal within the climate data"....do you think she would have kept writing him checks?
 
cowman said:
At the risk of this ending up spin zoned...

Where we've messed up with the environmental movement is politics. Over time a lot of extremist left wing groups glommed onto the environmentalist movements... many positions ended up having more to do with being anti-capitalism or anti-industry than science. The result of this is, unless you're actually a climate scientist and have a direct understanding of this stuff the waters are muddied. It becomes difficult if not impossible to separate the good scientific research from the hordes of brain dead anti-corporation types.

The result is unfortunately, if you're right wing you tend to disregard it. If you're left wing you tend to just accept it because it meshes well enough with your own views.

Not being a climate scientist myself, I don't know what to think in this morass of information and counter-information. What I do know is that technology is good and we always could use another energy source so let's research, research, research.
Click to expand...

Well put. That's actually where I find myself.
 
cowman said:
You all do understand that climate change, whether you agree with it or not, is about trends over long periods of time right? So a few unseasonably hot/cold days or even an entire year with high/low average temperature doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Click to expand...

The Earth has been doing that for eons. Man is NOT causing it. Those who stand to profit or gain control of others are feeding us a line of sh*t.
 
JOhnH said:
Records were made to be broken.

I don't doubt for a minute that the climate is changing. And I have no problem with trying to clean up the environment, in fact, I am all for that.
But I just don't believe that man is a major contributor to climate change. If every human on earth died tomorrow, I don't believe the change in the climate would be measurably slowed. (and not just because there would be no one left to measure it).
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

Have you ever seen a picture or diagram showing how very very very thin the atmosphere is that protects our planet? It's less than the skin of an orange. Closer to the skin of an onion. Not much air at all.

And there are hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, factories, power plants, houses, campfires, fireplaces, etc., etc, etc. pouring pollutants including CO2 into the air 24/7/365.

I have no doubt - none - that man is affecting our climate.
 
docmirror said:
OK, when it changed from 'global warming' disasters to 'climate change disasters', I pretty much knew the mantra was false.
Click to expand...


"although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326
 
RalphInCA said:
And there are hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, factories, power plants, houses, campfires, fireplaces, etc., etc, etc. pouring pollutants including CO2 into the air 24/7/365.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you Californians should stop driving, riding, using electricity, staying warm in front of the fire and breathing. That would go a long way to combat the so called problem.
 
RalphInCA said:
You're kidding, right?

Have you ever seen a picture or diagram showing how very very very thin the atmosphere is that protects our planet? It's less than the skin of an orange. Closer to the skin of an onion. Not much air at all.

And there are hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, factories, power plants, houses, campfires, fireplaces, etc., etc, etc. pouring pollutants including CO2 into the air 24/7/365.

I have no doubt - none - that man is affecting our climate.
Click to expand...

First of all CO2 is NOT a "pollutant". It is a natural occuring gas that is required by life on earth. So how do you have "no doubt", because you've heard it is so on TV?

:rolleyes:

This is why our country is in such poor condition, and our standard of living continues to erode.
 
you don't like Cadillac converters.....don't you? :yikes::hairraise::yikes:
RalphInCA said:
You're kidding, right?

Have you ever seen a picture or diagram showing how very very very thin the atmosphere is that protects our planet? It's less than the skin of an orange. Closer to the skin of an onion. Not much air at all.

And there are hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, factories, power plants, houses, campfires, fireplaces, etc., etc, etc. pouring pollutants including CO2 into the air 24/7/365.

I have no doubt - none - that man is affecting our climate.
Click to expand...
 
Skyscraper said:
"although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point entirely. This isn't a red/blue issue. This is a pickpocket issue. I don't give a wet dribbly shyte who came up with the BS climate change v global warming, and which side agreed with it. What I care about is to get your filthy hands out of my wallet, and quit the 'oh poor pitiful me I need your money because you use fossil fuels'. I say you'all can; consume feces, become very ill, and die in place.
 
RalphInCA said:
You're kidding, right?

Have you ever seen a picture or diagram showing how very very very thin the atmosphere is that protects our planet? It's less than the skin of an orange. Closer to the skin of an onion. Not much air at all.

And there are hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, factories, power plants, houses, campfires, fireplaces, etc., etc, etc. pouring pollutants including CO2 into the air 24/7/365.

I have no doubt - none - that man is affecting our climate.
Click to expand...

And I have no doubt we've had a barely discernible effect, so I guess your and my opinion have canceled each other out.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
I think you missed my point entirely. This isn't a red/blue issue. This is a pickpocket issue. I don't give a wet dribbly shyte who came up with the BS climate change v global warming, and which side agreed with it. What I care about is to get your filthy hands out of my wallet, and quit the 'oh poor pitiful me I need your money because you use fossil fuels'. I say you'all can; consume feces, become very ill, and die in place.
Click to expand...


It isn't about money IMO, it's about doing something irreparable. But...

Scare tactics work, just look at ammunition sales!
 
If you look at the "Big" picture it still seems to be we are cooling from the formation of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago...when it was really fricken hot...
 
Last edited:
RalphInCA said:
You're kidding, right?

Have you ever seen a picture or diagram showing how very very very thin the atmosphere is that protects our planet? It's less than the skin of an orange. Closer to the skin of an onion. Not much air at all.

And there are hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, factories, power plants, houses, campfires, fireplaces, etc., etc, etc. pouring pollutants including CO2 into the air 24/7/365.

I have no doubt - none - that man is affecting our climate.
Click to expand...

Do you know what happens when you increase the CO2 levels in a greenhouse from the current 400 ppm average to say 1,500 ppm? You increase your yield 30%

CO2 isn't a pollutant
 
Skyscraper said:
It isn't about money IMO, it's about doing something irreparable. But...

Scare tactics work, just look at ammunition sales!
Click to expand...

Ammunition sales are VOLUNTARY. If I make the call that I need more ammo, I go buy it. It is MY CHOICE.

Higher energy fees, and taxes, and other penalties for carbon emission, etc. are NOT VOLUNTARY, and represent a huge drag on the economy both to businesses, and individuals. Energy costs and taxes are VERY regressive, and hurt the poor the most.
 
Skyscraper said:
It isn't about money IMO, it's about doing something irreparable. But...
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

See what you did? Made Dr Pepper come right out my nose. Whew -- that was a good one. 'Not about the money'. Oh man, I'm laughing so hard I can barely see to type.
 
CharlieTango said:
Do you know what happens when you increase the CO2 levels in a greenhouse from the current 400 ppm average to say 1,500 ppm? You increase your yield 30%

CO2 isn't a pollutant
Click to expand...

When you increase it to 30,000 ppm, does the yield increase follow accordingly?
 
paflyer said:
So what. 2015 could be the coldest.
Click to expand...
I hope not. During the Thanksgiving holidays it plummeted down below 40 degrees. Some homeless people broke into my screened porch at work and set a fire in a trash can and left cigarette butts and empty colt 45 cans all over the place. They don't do that in warm weather.

I put a couple of blankets and a big ash tray out there and left them a note asking them not to set any more fires.
 
Skyscraper said:
It isn't about money IMO, it's about doing something irreparable. But...

Scare tactics work, just look at ammunition sales!
Click to expand...
You are right it isn't about the money, it is about the money and more control of us peasants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top