2017 was second hottest year on record, after sizzling 2016: report

[webfact]

2017 was second hottest year on record, after sizzling 2016: report

By Alister Doyle Environment Correspondent

 

Children play at a fountain on a hot summer day in central Lviv, Ukraine, August 11, 2017. REUTERS/Gleb Garanich/File Photo

 

OSLO (Reuters) - Last year was the second hottest worldwide on record, just behind a sweltering 2016, with signs of climate change ranging from wildfires to a thaw of Arctic ice, a European Union monitoring centre said on Thursday.

 

The Copernicus Climate Change Service, the first major international weather agency to report on conditions in 2017, said temperatures averaged 14.7 degrees Celsius (58.46 Fahrenheit) at the Earth's surface - 1.2C (2.2F) above pre-industrial times.

 

Last year was slightly "cooler than the warmest year on record, 2016, and warmer than the previous second warmest year, 2015", it said. Temperature records date back to the late 19th century.

 

"It's striking that 16 of the 17 warmest years have all been this century," Jean-Noel Thepaut, head of Copernicus, told Reuters, adding there was overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made emissions were stoking the warming trend.

 

The Copernicus study is in line with a projection by the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in November that 2017 would be second or third warmest behind 2016.

 

In 2016, an extra dose of heat came from El Nino, a natural event that releases heat from the Pacific Ocean every few years.

 

But last year was the hottest year without an El Nino, according to Copernicus, run by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

 

It pointed to a retreat of sea ice in the Arctic and prolonged dry conditions in southern Europe that helped trigger wildfires in Portugal and Spain in 2017 as examples of the sort of disruptions that are becoming more frequent in a warming climate.

 

"BUNDLE UP"

 

U.S. President Donald Trump, who doubts that climate change has a human cause, tweeted on Dec. 29 about bone-chilling cold in the United States and cast doubt on the need for action to limit emissions.

 

"Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!" he wrote.

 

Trump plans to quit the 2015 Paris Agreement, which has the backing of almost 200 nations and seeks to limit the rise in temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times, ideally 1.5 C (2.7 F).

 

High winds and heavy show barrelled into the U.S. northeast on Thursday, closing schools and government offices and disrupting travel.

 

Data on Thursday compiled by the University of Maine and the Climate Change Institute showed temperatures in the eastern United States, Greenland and parts of central Asia were indeed colder than usual, while most of the rest of the world was warmer.

 

Earlier on Thursday, German reinsurer Munich Re said insurers would have to pay claims of around $135 billion for 2017, the most ever, following a spate of hurricanes, earthquakes and fires in North America.

 

Thepaut said rising sea levels and higher temperatures that can produce more rainfall may have aggravated Atlantic hurricanes, even though it was hard to detect links between individual storms and man-made climate change.

 

The WMO will publish its review of 2017 temperatures, also drawing on Copernicus and other U.S., British and Japanese data, in about two weeks.

 

(Reporting By Alister Doyle, additional reporting by Tom Sims and Alexander Hubner in Germany; Editing by Robin Pomeroy and Alison Williams)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-05

[boomerangutang]

We're going to get much of the same two teams of CC commentators trotted out again. I'm on one of the teams.  We'll probably get mention of the cold-wave hitting the east coast of the US as proof (by the deniers) that CC is a hoax.   The cold wave is a factor in the overall trend, but it's a relatively small factor.  Looked at globally, the US's eastern sea board is tiny.  It's about as much territory as Sudan or Nigeria.  

 

I won't be surprised if 2018 continues the warming trend we've been seeing for two decades, when looked at from a ww perspective.

 

[canuckamuck]

I think everyone should be happy that we live at a time where global temperatures continue to be slightly warmer than average and changing only so slightly that even in a century you can't even notice the change. Warmer is better. We don't know when the cooling will begin, and no one will be happy when it comes. In so many ways this is a wonderful time to be alive.

[cliveshep]

i thought Global Warming had been debunked and is now seen as a cash cow"?  The current catch-all buzzword appears to be "climate change" with the plant food Carbon Dioxide trumpeted as the evil poison we all emit and must control. The fact that carbon dioxide levels used to be an order of magnitude higher in the historical past, leading to a cycle of massive plant growth, with it's cycle of death and decay giving coal and oil to this generation seems to have passed over the heads of the know-it-all pundits.

 

Climate change happens, but it has been turned into a money making machine for some with silly politicians getting on this populist bandwagon and throwing billions on wind farms, emission controls and all manner of expensive green non-working solutions. It's about as effective as trying to sweep the ocean up with a broom.

 

This much I know, I came to Thailand to live with my wife in late 2015, October, and it did not rain until the following October leading to water shortages for crops and the ground cracked and dry. It was relentlessly hot. I contrasted the conditions with those of October 2011 when I was courting my now wife - no water shortages then!

 

I was not looking forward to 2016 to 2017 if it was a repeat but to my joy it was not. It started raining in October 2016, my wife telling me it was the rainy season. A year later it was STILL raining! Not continuously of course, but we had showers, thunderstorms, localised flooding up country (still have it seems), the Government insisting that the floods of 2011 would not repeat, although for many they have repeated. For me it seemed much more pleasant, cooler with lots of breezes, and for the last month or so windy with less rain.

 

The weather has been almost temperate even allowing for my acclimatisation to the higher temperatures and humidity than the UK it has been a lot more pleasant than last year and our rice-farmer friend has been growing crop after crop without the hiatus that marked last year. If this is Global warming then let it come, it's good news. Just wish the government would get their act together over flood control to help the poor victims of flooding. It must have been going on for thousands of years so they cannot say it catches them by surprise!

[boomerangutang]

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

i thought Global Warming had been debunked and is now seen as a cash cow"?  The current catch-all buzzword appears to be "climate change" with the plant food Carbon Dioxide trumpeted as the evil poison we all emit and must control. The fact that carbon dioxide levels used to be an order of magnitude higher in the historical past, leading to a cycle of massive plant growth, with it's cycle of death and decay giving coal and oil to this generation seems to have passed over the heads of the know-it-all pundits.

 

Climate change happens, but it has been turned into a money making machine for some with silly politicians getting on this populist bandwagon and throwing billions on wind farms, emission controls and all manner of expensive green non-working solutions. It's about as effective as trying to sweep the ocean up with a broom.

 

This much I know, I came to Thailand to live with my wife in late 2015, October, and it did not rain until the following October leading to water shortages for crops and the ground cracked and dry. It was relentlessly hot. I contrasted the conditions with those of October 2011 when I was courting my now wife - no water shortages then!

 

I was not looking forward to 2016 to 2017 if it was a repeat but to my joy it was not. It started raining in October 2016, my wife telling me it was the rainy season. A year later it was STILL raining! Not continuously of course, but we had showers, thunderstorms, localised flooding up country (still have it seems), the Government insisting that the floods of 2011 would not repeat, although for many they have repeated. For me it seemed much more pleasant, cooler with lots of breezes, and for the last month or so windy with less rain.

 

The weather has been almost temperate even allowing for my acclimatisation to the higher temperatures and humidity than the UK it has been a lot more pleasant than last year and our rice-farmer friend has been growing crop after crop without the hiatus that marked last year. If this is Global warming then let it come, it's good news. Just wish the government would get their act together over flood control to help the poor victims of flooding. It must have been going on for thousands of years so they cannot say it catches them by surprise!

Clive, it looks as though you haven't been paying attention to what most scientists are finding.  There are too many off-kilter remarks in your missive to counter with facts.  I suggest, if you want to find out what's really been happening with the world's climate in the past 2 decades, to check in with scientists who study those things.

 

One of many examples:  Here's an amazing new map of ice-loss in Antarctica

[attrayant]

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

i thought Global Warming had been debunked and is now seen as a cash cow"?

 

Seen by whom?

 

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

The current catch-all buzzword appears to be "climate change"

 

Two separate but related things.  If you don't even understand something this simple, maybe it's best not to comment on such a complex issue at all.

 

 

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

with the plant food Carbon Dioxide trumpeted as the evil poison

 

Who (besides you) called it that?

 

 

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

The fact that carbon dioxide levels used to be an order of magnitude higher in the historical past, leading to a cycle of massive plant growth, with it's cycle of death and decay giving coal and oil to this generation seems to have passed over the heads of the know-it-all pundits.

 

No, everyone knows this.  What's it got to do with the impending crisis?

 

 

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Climate change happens, but it has been turned into a money making machine

 

NASA has had its budget cut and its administrators have been criticized by an ignorant congress for their work on climate science. Way to cash-in on this "money-making machine", NASA!

 

 

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

silly politicians getting on this populist bandwagon and throwing billions on wind farms

 

Which politicians have done that?  Climate change may mean slower winds.

 

 

17 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

This much I know, I came to Thailand to live with my wife in late 2015, October, and it did not rain until the following October leading to water shortages for crops and the ground cracked and dry. It was relentlessly hot. I contrasted the conditions with those of October 2011 when I was courting my now wife - no water shortages then!

 

I was not looking forward to 2016 to 2017 if it was a repeat but to my joy it was not. It started raining in October 2016, my wife telling me it was the rainy season. A year later it was STILL raining! Not continuously of course, but we had showers, thunderstorms, localised flooding up country (still have it seems), the Government insisting that the floods of 2011 would not repeat, although for many they have repeated. For me it seemed much more pleasant, cooler with lots of breezes, and for the last month or so windy with less rain.

 

Good example of some of the consequences of climate change.  Do you understand it now that you've personally experienced it?

[cliveshep]

Are you American? Work in the industry do you? In the UK we have a different perspective on the issue, no one doubts climate change happens, the contention that it is man-made is a horse of a different colour. I do not doubt climate change, and the fact that I experienced it is irrelevant to the central issue of whether I helped create it - that I doubt - and ridiculing me will not make facts fit what "scientists" claim,. The UK government penalised petrol cars, the EU forced emission controls - big bucks there to coin your terminology - and diesel was the thing. 

 

So we all bought diesel cars because less emissions. Now the UK does a U-turn, diesel cars are bad, so now they will penalise owners of diesel cars. Not a cash cow for some? Try and sell one of your cars in Europe without conforming to all their Construction and Use regs on emissions and carbon footprints. Look at how carbon offsets are traded internationally like Bitcoin and tell me no one stands to profit from the Man-made Climate change doctrine. 

 

Didn't Trump pull out of the Climate change thing? Good for him, Globalist Corporations are making fortunes out of it.

 

Meanwhile the East Anglian (in UK) scientists who started all this Global Warming rubbish, complete with graphs showing sea level rises of a meter or more, melting ice caps, polar bears dying out etc have had to back off red-faced because they are patently wrong. Ice caps melted at one pole, but are increasing at the other,. That iconic picture of the poor polar bear on an ice flo they used to arouse sympathy was not due to polar ice sheet melt as they tried to claim but an annual event when the fringes of the sheet break off. But hey, they got paid millions by the Government to carry out this research, make the facts fit the theory, pocket handsome salaries and keep the cash cow coming.

 

Don't tell me to study facts, they are manipulated to suit differing agendas and those pillocks in East Anglia are as guilty as any in the charade. About the only thing any of the scientists have got right is studies of deep geological cores that clearly show climate changes over millennia - it happens all the time and you think your vaunted scientific geniuses can stop it? Dream on. Meanwhile others will make money out of the delusion.

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Are you American? Work in the industry do you? In the UK we have a different perspective on the issue

 

This is a global problem.  Local "perspectives" aren't helpful.  

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

ridiculing me will not make facts fit what "scientists" claim,.

 

It's not my intention to ridicule any kind of ignorance (unless it's willful).  It seemed like you were a bit sketchy on some of the vocabulary (for example, confusing global warming with climate change) so I asked a few probing questions in that regard.  You, however, do seem to be in a mood to ridicule, given your use of scare quotes around "scientists".  I guess that means they're not really scientists?

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

So we all bought diesel cars because less emissions. Now the UK does a U-turn, diesel cars are bad, so now they will penalise owners of diesel cars. Not a cash cow for some?

 

People will continue to buy cars regardless.  I'm unfamiliar with the diesel penalty you're referring to, so I searched and found this:
 

Diesel car owners may be paid to trade in under new UK air quality plans

 

That doesn't sound like a penalty to me.  And regardless, particulate matter in the air is hazardous.  Something needs to be done and it's going to cost money.  Either pay for it in cash or pay for it with your health.  

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Try and sell one of your cars in Europe without conforming to all their Construction and Use regs on emissions and carbon footprints. Look at how carbon offsets are traded internationally like Bitcoin and tell me no one stands to profit from the Man-made Climate change doctrine.

 

People profit from all sorts of things.  That doesn't necessarily make those things evil.  

 

Increasing numbers of people with respiratory illness means we need to build more hospitals.  BUT WAIT!  We can't do that because construction companies would profit!  

 

That's the silliness of the "But somebody's going to profit" argument. 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Didn't Trump pull out of the Climate change thing?

 

You mean the Paris Accords?  Yes because he said he wanted a better deal - Oh no there's that evil specter of money again!  Anyway, what's a better deal that a non-binding agreement?  Many states have already said they're going to continue to honor its goals anyway.  

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Good for him, Globalist Corporations are making fortunes out of it.

 

A few examples would be nice.  Got any?

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Meanwhile the East Anglian (in UK) scientists who started all this Global Warming rubbish, complete with graphs showing sea level rises of a meter or more, melting ice caps, polar bears dying out etc have had to back off red-faced because they are patently wrong.

 

Is that your dramatization or did it really happen?  If so, can you provide a link to said scientists backing off red-faced?

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Ice caps melted at one pole, but are increasing at the other.

 

I'm going to have to ask where your numbers came from.

 

Here's a NASA study about the Arctic ice sheet gains, in which I think you might be misunderstanding the phrase "greater than losses": Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

 

"Greater than losses" means the gains of the ice sheet are greater than the losses on the same ice sheet.  Not greater than the net global loss of both major ice sheets combined.  This is given away in the first paragraph (my emphasis):
 

"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers."

 

Continuing:

 

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

 

Got that?  There are gains local to the Antarctic ice sheet, but those gains have been decreasing.

 

Here's the study on the Greenland ice sheet:  A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance:

 

With the aid of regional climate and firn modeling, we compute high spatial and temporal resolution records of Greenland mass evolution, which correlate (R = 0.96) with monthly satellite gravimetry and reveal glacier dynamic imbalance. During 2011–2014, Greenland mass loss averaged 269 ± 51 Gt/yr.

 

So what's the net global change?  A gain of 82 GT per year on the Arctic ice sheet and a loss of 269 GT per year on the Greenland ice sheet.  

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

That iconic picture of the poor polar bear on an ice flo they used to arouse sympathy was not due to polar ice sheet melt as they tried to claim but an annual event when the fringes of the sheet break off. But hey, they got paid millions by the Government to carry out this research, make the facts fit the theory, pocket handsome salaries and keep the cash cow coming.

 

Again with the cash cow.  You still haven't explained who is getting all the cash.  I surely isn't the research departments.

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Don't tell me to study facts

 

Wait - if your posts aren't based on the facts, then what are they based on?  Where are you getting the data you use to draw your conclusions?  

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

About the only thing any of the scientists have got right is studies of deep geological cores that clearly show climate changes over millennia

 

Your personal research has proven this, I guess?  What gives YOU the authority to say scientists have got "this" wrong but they got "that" right?

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

you think your vaunted scientific geniuses can stop it?

 

Where did I say that?

 

 

5 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Meanwhile others will make money out of the delusion.

 

You keep saying this, with not even a hint or example of how the money is being made.   Why won't you explain how that works?  Meanwhile I've given you examples of federal agencies and research departments that have had their funding cut because they continue to report on climate science. 

[NCC1701A]

weathers been really great here in Hua Hin.

 

nice and cool for months and low humidy.

 

 

[jaywalker]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I think everyone should be happy that we live at a time where global temperatures continue to be slightly warmer than average and changing only so slightly that even in a century you can't even notice the change. Warmer is better. We don't know when the cooling will begin, and no one will be happy when it comes. In so many ways this is a wonderful time to be alive.

It began day before yesterday in Southern Georgia, USA.

 

This is Vidalia GA on 1-3-18.

 

I'd like to see (err probably not see) Al Gore out here in his boxer shorts preaching global warming.

Edited January 5, 2018 by jaywalker

[riclag]

Record cold in the USA!        Global warming !  lol

[attrayant]

And just look how wealthy the USA is too!  That must mean there's no global poverty problem!

 

And what's with all this supposed global starvation?  That's got to be a myth right? Just look at how fat the Americans are!

 

Think of all the global problems we can ignore by focusing in on a small, preferentially selected part of the USA!

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by attrayant

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

And just look how wealthy the USA is too!  That must mean there's no global poverty problem!

 

And what's with all this supposed global starvation?  That's got to be a myth right? Just look at how fat the Americans are!

 

Think of all the global problems we can ignore by focusing in on a small, preferentially selected part of the USA!

 

 

 

 

What does this have to do with the topic on hand?

[attrayant]

Don't feign ignorance.  It has to do with your reply, in which you suggest that a few days of unseasonably cold weather in a small part of the world means that global warming must be false.

 

My response took that same "reasoning" and applied it to other global situations that would also appear not to be problems if you just looked at a small part of the USA.  

 

But now that you brought it up, what does YOUR post have to do with the topic at hand?  Here it is again, so you don't have to scroll up:  2017 was second hottest year on record

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by attrayant

[cliveshep]

13 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Don't feign ignorance.  It has to do with your reply, in which you suggest that a few days of unseasonably cold weather in a small part of the world means that global warming must be false.

 

My response took that same "reasoning" and applied it to other global situations that would also appear not to be problems if you just looked at a small part of the USA.  

 

But now that you brought it up, what does YOUR post have to do with the topic at hand?  Here it is again, so you don't have to scroll up:  2017 was second hottest year on record

 

 

Given that records go back just over 100 years I'd say that is hardly much of a scientific endorsement but don't forget that according to the University of East Anglia we'll all be drowned in ten years or so so the level of expertise is quite high wouldn't you say............or not? But then the Copernicus Climate Change Service also weighed in according to the OP so that's all right then isn't it?

 

Or is it? They are financed by the most corrupt unelected quasi-governmental body on Earth whose audited accounts have never in 40 years been signed off with billions of Euros unaccounted for. A body who are making all the so-called "Green" rules that 27 member countries are forced to follow based on.............not a lot actually.

 

With records only going back just over 100 years there isn't an awful lot of evidence around to support any claim that climate change is man-made, accusing the industrial Revolution of causing the blame doesn't stack up given that it also occurred 100 years ago.

 

On the other hand linking to known sun-spot cycles does show cyclical climate change indicators, but you cannot blame my car or yacht for those. Maybe you ought to be putting up a climate shield umbrella to protect the earth? Something gaseous like carbon dioxide should do it huh? Oh wait, scientists say that has already happened millions of years ago. Guess you'll just have to accept that your vaunted scientists are looking for facts to fit the theory again and just cannot accept that the change is cyclical. It happened before and will no doubt happen again. Man wasn't around in some of the most dramatic of those changes, perhaps it was farting cows or dinosaurs then?

 

So if it is cyclical change sun-driven as is the most likely scenario, what is in it for all the muppets demanding money be thrown at it to stop it unless it is some of that money, aka C3 and the EU.

 

This is boring, either turn on the heating or the air-con, climate will happen regardless so get over it, like they say, "what cannot be cured must be endured."

 

[attrayant]

24 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

With records only going back just over 100 years there isn't an awful lot of evidence around to support any claim that climate change is man-made, accusing the industrial Revolution of causing the blame doesn't stack up given that it also occurred 100 years ago.

 

Why do we need prehistoric data to support a hypothesis about something that happened in modern times?  We don't have any data on vaccine effectiveness earlier than about 200 years ago either.  I guess that means vaccine science and germ theory are myths too?  

 

Maybe you could clarify your argument.  If we're hypothesizing that something happened quite recently, and was largely influenced by recent factors, why do we need to search earlier than recent timeframes for the supporting data?

 

In any event, it's basic physics.  Even dolphins and crows understand basic physics.  If you wrap the earth in a blanket of heat-absorbent material, and then witness lots of snow and ice melting (which reduces the planetary albedo), what do you expect will happen?

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by attrayant

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

Given that records go back just over 100 years I'd say that is hardly much of a scientific endorsement but don't forget that according to the University of East Anglia we'll all be drowned in ten years or so so the level of expertise is quite high wouldn't you say............or not? But then the Copernicus Climate Change Service also weighed in according to the OP so that's all right then isn't it?

 

Or is it? They are financed by the most corrupt unelected quasi-governmental body on Earth whose audited accounts have never in 40 years been signed off with billions of Euros unaccounted for. A body who are making all the so-called "Green" rules that 27 member countries are forced to follow based on.............not a lot actually.

 

With records only going back just over 100 years there isn't an awful lot of evidence around to support any claim that climate change is man-made, accusing the industrial Revolution of causing the blame doesn't stack up given that it also occurred 100 years ago.

 

On the other hand linking to known sun-spot cycles does show cyclical climate change indicators, but you cannot blame my car or yacht for those. Maybe you ought to be putting up a climate shield umbrella to protect the earth? Something gaseous like carbon dioxide should do it huh? Oh wait, scientists say that has already happened millions of years ago. Guess you'll just have to accept that your vaunted scientists are looking for facts to fit the theory again and just cannot accept that the change is cyclical. It happened before and will no doubt happen again. Man wasn't around in some of the most dramatic of those changes, perhaps it was farting cows or dinosaurs then?

 

So if it is cyclical change svun-driven as is the most likely scenario, what is in it for all the muppets demanding money be thrown at it to stop it unless it is some of that money, aka C3 and the EU.

 

This is boring, either turn on the heating or the air-con, climate will happen regardless so get over it, like they say, "what cannot be cured must be endured."

 

So much falsity in so little space. Please cite the source for you assertion that East Anglia says we'll all be drowned in 10 years or so.. But if you can't, then stop with the falsehoods.

And get your history straight. "The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

And thanks to ice cores, there is good climate dating going back 400000 years.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

[Antonymous]

I used to be a supporter of the prevalent global warming theories...until I recognised that there is an alternative agenda behind the proclamations and that many scientists and institutions are bought and paid for to fit data to suit that agenda. It wasn't easy for me to admit to friends that I too had been duped by the mainstream media who parrot the government line.

 

There is in fact overwhelming evidence that global warming is cyclical and to know that OF COURSE you have to look at data that goes back more than 100 years! Here's just one example:

 

 

According to a report I read only today, we are looking at an unbelievable decline in the energy output of the sun which appears to be the most rapid decline in nearly 10,000 years. Yes it has been 'warm' in recent years, but the evidence is that we are now about to enter a mini ice age, one that will have serious consequences for agriculture and in turn humanity.

[cliveshep]

None so blind as they say. Ok, enough of this silliness, IPCC were struggling for acceptance as early as 2000 after hacked emails revealed cracks in the theories they propounded. The infamous "hockey stick" you guys have chosen to ignore gave rise to ice-cap melt and sea level rise assertions.

 

Go read and then deny the hockey stick ever got propounded.   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change

 

The plain fact is that your gas guzzlers run on solar power effectively, given that the sun is/was the engine that drives everything from tides to plant growth, giving organic material rot-down creating oil and coal. And you think your little power stations, vehicle engines and deforestation are responsible? Get real huh? Go read the effect Mt Pinatubo erupting had compared to man-made emissions. Anyway, no more from me, you lot can freeze or fry on your own. One cannot convert either a Jehovah's witness or a MMGW adherent, both have closed minds..

[cliveshep]

8 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

I used to be a supporter of the prevalent global warming theories...until I recognised that there is an alternative agenda behind the proclamations and that many scientists and institutions are bought and paid for to fit data to suit that agenda. It wasn't easy for me to admit to friends that I too had been duped by the mainstream media who parrot the government line.

 

There is in fact overwhelming evidence that global warming is cyclical and to know that OF COURSE you have to look at data that goes back more than 100 years! Here's just one example:

 

 

According to a report I read only today, we are looking at an unbelievable decline in the energy output of the sun which appears to be the most rapid decline in nearly 10,000 years. Yes it has been 'warm' in recent years, but the evidence is that we are now about to enter a mini ice age, one that will have serious consequences for agriculture and in turn humanity.

Well said, at last a voice of sweet reason!

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

None so blind as they say. Ok, enough of this silliness, IPCC were struggling for acceptance as early as 2000 after hacked emails revealed cracks in the theories they propounded. The infamous "hockey stick" you guys have chosen to ignore gave rise to ice-cap melt and sea level rise assertions.

 

Go read and then deny the hockey stick ever got propounded.   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change

 

The plain fact is that your gas guzzlers run on solar power effectively, given that the sun is/was the engine that drives everything from tides to plant growth, giving organic material rot-down creating oil and coal. And you think your little power stations, vehicle engines and deforestation are responsible? Get real huh? Go read the effect Mt Pinatubo erupting had compared to man-made emissions. Anyway, no more from me, you lot can freeze or fry on your own. One cannot convert either a Jehovah's witness or a MMGW adherent, both have closed minds..

Not only did the hockey stick get propounded but the Times and others who cast doubt on it in their so-called exposé, had to retract their accusations.

http://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

I used to be a supporter of the prevalent global warming theories...until I recognised that there is an alternative agenda behind the proclamations and that many scientists and institutions are bought and paid for to fit data to suit that agenda. It wasn't easy for me to admit to friends that I too had been duped by the mainstream media who parrot the government line.

 

There is in fact overwhelming evidence that global warming is cyclical and to know that OF COURSE you have to look at data that goes back more than 100 years! Here's just one example:

 

 

According to a report I read only today, we are looking at an unbelievable decline in the energy output of the sun which appears to be the most rapid decline in nearly 10,000 years. Yes it has been 'warm' in recent years, but the evidence is that we are now about to enter a mini ice age, one that will have serious consequences for agriculture and in turn humanity.

Cherry picking much?

"The Nordic Seas only make up about 0.75% of the World’s Oceans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Seas

[phantomfiddler]

My longterm friends and I have an average of close to 40 years here apiece, and none can remember a colder spell than that endured around Xmas.

We all do our part to combat global warming, however, leaving the refrigerator door open for twice the length of time it takes to extract a beer :)

[Antonymous]

37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Cherry picking much?

"The Nordic Seas only make up about 0.75% of the World’s Oceans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Seas

You are missing several points.

 

The chart proves that climate change is cyclical in nature and that a long period is needed for research. Please show us data of similar nature elsewhere on the planet that discredits this fact. I won't hold my breath. The man-made global warming arguments use data from about 100 years, which is completely useless.

 

Sunspot data does show a strong correlation to warming and cooling periods and is clearly the driving force behind climate change. There are long historical records to show this.

 

Over 35,000 scientists have signed a letter stating Global Warming is fake. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that proves Global Warming is caused by mankind when there have been warming periods and ice ages long before fossil fuels. It is one thing to say that our use of fossil fuels have “accelerated” the trend and something entirely different to argue that we have caused the trend.

Even the renowned Public Library of Science (PLOS) Organization has stated plainly there is no evidence of Global Warming caused by human activity.

 

“Only 18% of the stations showed increases in water temperature that would be expected from global warming, partially reflecting the limits in detecting trends due to inherent natural variability of temperature data. Decreases in visibility were associated with increased human density. However, this link can be decoupled by environmental factors, with conditions that increase the flush of water, dampening the effects of human influence.”

 

Even NASA confirmed we are going into a cooling period – not warming. They have put out a forecast of declining sunspot activity. They have reported that as the sun is experiencing a rapid decline in sunspots, it is also dimming in brightness or energy output. NASA’s Spaceweather station has recorded during 2017, 96 days (27%) of observing the sun have been completely absent of sunspots.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Antonymous

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, Antonymous said:

There is in fact overwhelming evidence that global warming is cyclical and to know that OF COURSE you have to look at data that goes back more than 100 years! Here's just one example:

 

 

The study this image comes from is titled "A Holocene North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature record and regional climate variability".

 

REGIONAL.

 

4 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

The chart proves that climate change is cyclical in nature and that a long period is needed for research.

 

Firstly, no one is saying that climate did not change or fluctuate in the past.  That's not what is at issue here.  The earth was much colder in the past and much hotter in the past, and consequent environmental conditions were equally extreme.  Sea level was much lower during cold spells, and much higher during hot spells. 

 

This chart does not prove that a long period of data collection is needed to support a hypothesis about what has been happening over the past hundred years.  

 

 

4 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

The man-made global warming arguments use data from about 100 years, which is completely useless.

 

You need to explain WHY it's completely useless, not just assert it as fact.  When trying to support a hypothesis about current events, the data should come from the same timeframe.

 

You even admit solar irradiance is down - although this decline is slight, not "unbelievable", yet the average global temperature continues to rise.  So what's the cause then?

 

 

 

[Antonymous]

13 minutes ago, attrayant said:

You need to explain WHY it's completely useless, not just assert it as fact.  When trying to support a hypothesis about current events, the data should come from the same timeframe.

 

You even admit solar irradiance is down - although this decline is slight, not "unbelievable", yet the average global temperature continues to rise.  So what's the cause then?

You have to put recent events into an historical perspective and clearly with climate change this must be over a period of thousands, not hundreds, of years. I could give you hundreds of examples of why you must look to as long a period as possible to understand almost any events, but just use as an example the trading of currencies. If you take a chart showing any currency trend over the past day you'll reach a conclusion (perfectly valid) about THAT DAY. Let's say the graph trend was up. If you were quite daft you'd then buy that currency due to the 'obvious' trend. However if you looked at a one month chart you might see that the overall trend is decidedly down and that today's movement is but a little blip in a downtrend. Your claim that you must look only at current events is very naieve. I hope you don't trade currencies!

 

Now about that chart you posted…

 

First of all, the chart starts in 1880. The historical record is millions of years.

 

Ice core samples prove there is about a 300 years cycle between the maximum and minimum energy output of the sun. Looking at just 140 years of data does not prove anything. If you want to argue the sun has nothing to do with this issue, then provide a study that goes back beyond 1880.

 

I am not going to post on this thread again. The evidence is there to see if you will just do a little digging, avoid articles in the mainstream press and for the love of Pete, please don’t rely on Wikipedia for your arguments.

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

You are missing several points.

 

The chart proves that climate change is cyclical in nature and that a long period is needed for research. Please show us data of similar nature elsewhere on the planet that discredits this fact. I won't hold my breath. The man-made global warming arguments use data from about 100 years, which is completely useless.

 

Sunspot data does show a strong correlation to warming and cooling periods and is clearly the driving force behind climate change. There are long historical records to show this.

 

Over 35,000 scientists have signed a letter stating Global Warming is fake. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that proves Global Warming is caused by mankind when there have been warming periods and ice ages long before fossil fuels. It is one thing to say that our use of fossil fuels have “accelerated” the trend and something entirely different to argue that we have caused the trend.

Even the renowned Public Library of Science (PLOS) Organization has stated plainly there is no evidence of Global Warming caused by human activity.

 

“Only 18% of the stations showed increases in water temperature that would be expected from global warming, partially reflecting the limits in detecting trends due to inherent natural variability of temperature data. Decreases in visibility were associated with increased human density. However, this link can be decoupled by environmental factors, with conditions that increase the flush of water, dampening the effects of human influence.”

 

Even NASA confirmed we are going into a cooling period – not warming. They have put out a forecast of declining sunspot activity. They have reported that as the sun is experiencing a rapid decline in sunspots, it is also dimming in brightness or energy output. NASA’s Spaceweather station has recorded during 2017, 96 days (27%) of observing the sun have been completely absent of sunspots.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, thanks to paleoclimactic scientists the temperature records go back as far as 400000 years with multiple climiate proxie studies going back 11000 yearas.. Historical thermometer records date back to about 1850.

No one denies that that is some cyclical element in climate. In fact climate scientists established a correlation between solar cycles and climate variablity. But then in about 1975 some other effect intervened that overwhelmed any detectable effect from solar cycles: and that was highly correlated with the increase of CO2. (As you probably don't want to remember, the climate denialists hired the eminent physicist Richard Muller to refute the temperature data and gave him the money to assemble the best scientests he could find. The result: he only confirmed what climate scientists had been saying.)

The big blind spot you display is your lack of comprehension of the importance of rate. Denialists don't seem to be able to understand that it isn't just increase that's relevant, but rate of increase. But I guess when you put your money into some kind of investment you don't care if the interest is .01 percent or 10 percent as long as there's an increase.

Temperature increase has occurred at a rate that is unprecedented. 

There are plenty of studies out there that refute your claims about the time span established by scientists. Here's one:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-average-temperatures-are-close-to-11000-year-peak/

[canuckamuck]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, thanks to paleoclimactic scientists the temperature records go back as far as 400000 years with multiple climiate proxie studies going back 11000 yearas.. Historical thermometer records date back to about 1850.

No one denies that that is some cyclical element in climate. In fact climate scientists established a correlation between solar cycles and climate variablity. But then in about 1975 some other effect intervened that overwhelmed any detectable effect from solar cycles: and that was highly correlated with the increase of CO2. (As you probably don't want to remember, the climate denialists hired the eminent physicist Richard Muller to refute the temperature data and gave him the money to assemble the best scientests he could find. The result: he only confirmed what climate scientists had been saying.)

The big blind spot you display is your lack of comprehension of the importance of rate. Denialists don't seem to be able to understand that it isn't just increase that's relevant, but rate of increase. But I guess when you put your money into some kind of investment you don't care if the interest is .01 percent or 10 percent as long as there's an increase.

Temperature increase has occurred at a rate that is unprecedented. 

There are plenty of studies out there that refute your claims about the time span established by scientists. Here's one:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-average-temperatures-are-close-to-11000-year-peak/

But that's not true at all, there have been some very rapid warmings. The last 20 years have been a statistical flatline.

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

But that's not true at all, there have been some very rapid warmings. The last 20 years have been a statistical flatline.

evidence for rapid warmings? I'm not encouraged to expect much given your assertions that the last 20 years have been a statistical flatline.

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

Record cold in the USA!        Global warming !  lol

Riclag, the eastern seaboard of the US is a small fraction of the world's surface.  Because many major newspapers are located there, plus influencial cities like NYC and Wash DC, it becomes headline news.  But on a global scale, related to weather, it's tiny.  Did you LOL when most other parts of the world keep posting record heat?  ....other parts which are much larger regions than the east coast of the US.

 

Regarding the post below, by Antonymous:  

It's interesting to look at historical perspective dating back thousands/millions of years. But the most pressing issue for today is HOW HAVE THINGS CHANGED SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION?  ....and more to the point:  how has climate been affected since the advent of 6+ billion people on the planet at one time, nearly everyone of whom generate CO2 and other pollutants, directly or indirectly.  CO2 generated by humans is estimated a 7 billion tons/annually.  ....and that doesn't take into account the plethora of other greenhouse gases, toxins, smog, plastic trash, etc ad nauseum.

 

38 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

You have to put recent events into an historical perspective and clearly with climate change this must be over a period of thousands, not hundreds, of years. I could give you hundreds of examples of why you must look to as long a period as possible to understand almost any events,.....