2015 was hottest year on record, say some scientists

[sirineou]

^^^

Exactly; some climate experts say global warming will cause more snow; other climate experts say it will cause less.

When we have more snow, they say it is "consistent with what we would expect from global warming." When we have less snow, they say the exact same thing.

That is global warming "science" in a nutshell.

I disagree with your premise, I dont know of any scientists who would claim that global warming does nor introduce additional moisture in the atmosphere,

and I dont know of any scientists who would claim that more moisture in the atmosphere will result in diminished precipitation.

"

Extreme precipitation is likely when a storm passes through a warmer atmosphere holding more water. In warmer months, it takes the form of torrential rainstorms; in winter,blizzards are more likely."

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/rain-and-snow.html

[Chicog]

It's not an exact science, but generally since the '90's they have been predicting that wetter regions will get wetter and drier ones drier. And certainly as far as rainfall goes, measurements appear to be confirming that.

In combination with the increase in temperature this means more rain and less snow, but lots of snow when it does happen. (And obviously lots of rain, which we've heard a lot about this year!).

[RickBradford]

I disagree with your premise, I dont know of any scientists who would claim that global warming does nor introduce additional moisture in the atmosphere,

That isn't my premise.

Every time there's a blizzard, a flood, a drought, unseasonably warm weather, unseasonably cold weather, more wind, less wind, some nimrod will inevitably stand up and claim it's due to global warming. Only the terminally dim fall for these pronouncements, particularly journalists and other activists, but they appear, regular as clockwork.

It's modern parallel of believing that all bad weather is down to "the gods are angry."

[sirineou]

I disagree with your premise, I dont know of any scientists who would claim that global warming does nor introduce additional moisture in the atmosphere,

That isn't my premise.

Every time there's a blizzard, a flood, a drought, unseasonably warm weather, unseasonably cold weather, more wind, less wind, some nimrod will inevitably stand up and claim it's due to global warming. Only the terminally dim fall for these pronouncements, particularly journalists and other activists, but they appear, regular as clockwork.

It's modern parallel of believing that all bad weather is down to "the gods are angry."

I thought that your premise was that some say more others say less

also your premise that anyone claims that weather event a blamed on global warming, What is blamed on GW is their increased intensity and frequency.

why would you say that only the terminal dim ' would make such a correlation?

Do you know of any scientists that claim increased warming will not increase precipitation???

I am not an expert and if needed I would not mind being corrected, but if I understand this correctly, global warming will raise surface temperatures between 2 and 6 degrees F .and the OP states the this year was the hottest on record beating last years record, which seems to support

the global warming theory.

so in a winter where the average temperature is let's say 20 degrees F, a 3 degree warming will not make much of a change in snow production,it will still be cold enough to make snow. but the additional moisture will increase precipitation.

[up2u2]

Some one once asked me, if we have global warming why do we have more snow? the answer is opviouse.

Because global warming puts more moisture in the air.

If only the climate scientists were as clever as you!

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

It is a little like the 4 year old boy in California who had never seen rain. Must have been an interesting day for the young lad when it finally did rain.

[up2u2]

There's none so blind as them that won't see....

This graph plots the change in temperature year on year comparing the six month average. Yes 1998 (Granddaddy of al El Ninos) was the greatest change in temp from the previous year. It doesn't really tell you much about the hottest year.

It is confusing Temperature Change with Temperature Anomaly Trend.

eg

Thursday temperature started at 10^OC and rose to 30^OC

Friday temperature started at 15^OC and rose to 33^OC

Which was the hottest day? Friday

Which day showed the greatest temperature change? Thursday

Which year was the hottest year on record? 2015

Which year showed the greatest temperature change from the year before? 1998

Punked by Joanne Nova and her husband David Evans again RB. She gets you every time mate.

[up2u2]

It is a graph showing rate of change of temperature.

Not a graph of temperature.

(*Sigh*) You have it exactly wrong. It is a graph of absolute temperature anomalies, as is made very clear.

If it were showing rate of change, it would dip below zero on some years (ie when 1999 was cooler than 1998, implying a negative rate of change).

If you can't read a simple graph correctly, I'm not sure you have much of value to contribute.

You are wrong RB it is not graphing the the absolute temperature anomalies it is graphing the change in temperature using a sixth month average comparative year on year using 1979 as baseline of zero.

This thread is discussing the hottest year on record not the greatest 'year on year' temperature change on record.

2015 was the hottest year on record.

1998 was the greatest temperature change compared to the previous year on record.

2015 beats 1998 as the hottest year on record by a country mile.

You have your apples mixed up with your oranges again

[RickBradford]

^^^

There's no stigma in not being able to understand basic graphs, but simply looking at some figures, from RSS or NASA GISS will show you how wrong you are.

Here's one:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Here's the data http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt

You will see that occasionally the annual mean temperature has been lower than the year before. For example 1998 (+0.63) down to 1999 (+0.42). A graph showing 'change of temperature' would have to fall into the negative. The graph I showed doesn't. It is showing absolute temperatures averaged over a six-month period.

You will also see from the data that NASA GISS estimates that 2015 was about 0.7C warmer than 1979. If you look at the graph I showed, you will see almost the same data presented. The two sets of data do not completely agree because NASA GISS uses surface station data, RSS/UAH use satellite data. The satellite data does not agree that 2015 was the hottest year on record, which is why Jo Nova showed it.

I am surprised, but not very, how you honestly can't tell the difference between actual figures and trends. But it makes any discussion of the results pointless. Plus I really have wasted far too much time on this already. If you still can't get it, never mind. Just think about it.

[up2u2]

^^^

There's no stigma in not being able to understand basic graphs, but simply looking at some figures, from RSS or NASA GISS will show you how wrong you are.

Here's one:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Here's the data http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt

You will see that occasionally the annual mean temperature has been lower than the year before. For example 1998 (+0.63) down to 1999 (+0.42). A graph showing 'change of temperature' would have to fall into the negative. The graph I showed doesn't. It is showing absolute temperatures averaged over a six-month period.

You will also see from the data that NASA GISS estimates that 2015 was about 0.7C warmer than 1979. If you look at the graph I showed, you will see almost the same data presented. The two sets of data do not completely agree because NASA GISS uses surface station data, RSS/UAH use satellite data. The satellite data does not agree that 2015 was the hottest year on record, which is why Jo Nova showed it.

I am surprised, but not very, how you honestly can't tell the difference between actual figures and trends. But it makes any discussion of the results pointless. Plus I really have wasted far too much time on this already. If you still can't get it, never mind. Just think about it.

Please RB you have made an error in confusing CHANGE in temperature and an INCREASE in temperature. If we are discussing the greatest CHANGE in temperature then yes 1998 would get the chocolates due to a horrendous record breaking El Nino of all time. This NASA report is looking at the HOTTEST year on record not the greatest CHANGE in temperature from one year to the next.

What Nova is comparing is the distance between the blue lines (greatest rate of change in temperature anomaly) between 1998 and 2015. What NASA has published is the hottest year on record and off course even though 1998 was hot 2015 is much hotter.

Is the mean temperature anomaly often lower than the year before? Of course it is, not sometimes, but very very often. Will 2016 be hotter than 2015? I doubt it VERY much. El Nino should begin to weaken by the northern hemisphere spring so that will reduce the heat put into the atmosphere.

No, University Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite data will not match. Satellite data is simply not accurate enough. Satellites slow down, lose altitude, cloud obstruction, humidity interference and shift orbit too much to be as accurate as the 6300 temperature measurements around the globe that NASA uses. Satellite data is a secondary reference point but requires far to much adjustment to be super accurate. Sea surface and upper troposphere, yes but lower troposphere not very accurate. That's why Nova uses this data to punk you.

Here is a video that explains some of the drawbacks in relying on satellite data only. Some really interesting world authorities in the video. Dessler is the guy that 'knocked off' Lindzen, Choi and Spencer (UAH) on 'climate sensitivity'. Mears (RSS) is an absolute scientific 'rockstar' he 'knocked off' Spencer (UAH) and Christie (UAH) on analysing satellite data. Mears actually corrected Spencer and Christie's methodology.

Very funny at the end of the video when Carl Mears is asked if Ted Cruz has contacted him lol. Like that is ever going to happen.

I don't think you have spent much time looking at the data in the slightest. You simply posted misinformation from a Climate Denier blogsite that is clearly misleading. I would really like to see you just once apologise to TVF members for intentionally / unintentionally misleading them on the issue of GW/CC.

Edited January 24, 2016 by up2u2

[canuckamuck]

^^^

There's no stigma in not being able to understand basic graphs, but simply looking at some figures, from RSS or NASA GISS will show you how wrong you are.

Here's one:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Here's the data http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt

You will see that occasionally the annual mean temperature has been lower than the year before. For example 1998 (+0.63) down to 1999 (+0.42). A graph showing 'change of temperature' would have to fall into the negative. The graph I showed doesn't. It is showing absolute temperatures averaged over a six-month period.

You will also see from the data that NASA GISS estimates that 2015 was about 0.7C warmer than 1979. If you look at the graph I showed, you will see almost the same data presented. The two sets of data do not completely agree because NASA GISS uses surface station data, RSS/UAH use satellite data. The satellite data does not agree that 2015 was the hottest year on record, which is why Jo Nova showed it.

I am surprised, but not very, how you honestly can't tell the difference between actual figures and trends. But it makes any discussion of the results pointless. Plus I really have wasted far too much time on this already. If you still can't get it, never mind. Just think about it.

Please RB you have made an error in confusing CHANGE in temperature and an INCREASE in temperature. If we are discussing the greatest CHANGE in temperature then yes 1998 would get the chocolates due to a horrendous record breaking El Nino of all time. This NASA report is looking at the HOTTEST year on record not the greatest CHANGE in temperature from one year to the next.

TempChange.jpg

What Nova is comparing is the distance between the blue lines (greatest rate of change in temperature anomaly) between 1998 and 2015. What NASA has published is the hottest year on record and off course even though 1998 was hot 2015 is much hotter.

Is the mean temperature anomaly often lower than the year before? Of course it is, not sometimes, but very very often. Will 2016 be hotter than 2015? I doubt it VERY much. El Nino should begin to weaken by the northern hemisphere spring so that will reduce the heat put into the atmosphere.

No, University Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite data will not match. Satellite data is simply not accurate enough. Satellites slow down, lose altitude, cloud obstruction, humidity interference and shift orbit too much to be as accurate as the 6300 temperature measurements around the globe that NASA uses. Satellite data is a secondary reference point but requires far to much adjustment to be super accurate. Sea surface and upper troposphere, yes but lower troposphere not very accurate. That's why Nova uses this data to punk you.

Here is a video that explains some of the drawbacks in relying on satellite data only. Some really interesting world authorities in the video. Dessler is the guy that 'knocked off' Lindzen, Choi and Spencer (UAH) on 'climate sensitivity'. Mears (RSS) is an absolute scientific 'rockstar' he 'knocked off' Spencer (UAH) and Christie (UAH) on analysing satellite data. Mears actually corrected Spencer and Christie's methodology.

Very funny at the end of the video when Carl Mears is asked if Ted Cruz has contacted him lol. Like that is ever going to happen.

I don't think you have spent much time looking at the data in the slightest. You simply posted misinformation from a Climate Denier blogsite that is clearly misleading. I would really like to see you just once apologise to TVF members for intentionally / unintentionally misleading them on the issue of GW/CC.

Your burning orange and yellow scare chart has 2015 at half a degree warmer than 1998. Do you stand by this?

[boomerangutang]

^^^

Exactly; some climate experts say global warming will cause more snow; other climate experts say it will cause less.

When we have more snow, they say it is "consistent with what we would expect from global warming." When we have less snow, they say the exact same thing.

That is global warming "science" in a nutshell.

Snow is more a matter of precipitation than temperature. Some of the coldest regions, like Antactica are as dry as deserts. Check out this 29 second video of a giant panda enjoying snow.

https://youtu.be/viu1UgZ7gwM

[Chicog]

I don't think you have spent much time looking at the data in the slightest. You simply posted misinformation from a Climate Denier blogsite that is clearly misleading. I would really like to see you just once apologise to TVF members for intentionally / unintentionally misleading them on the issue of GW/CC.

* Trying to.

[thaibeachlovers]

This is an important result, and everyone should sit up and take notice.

The renewed warming, and the extra CO2 that industry is giving us for free, is doing wonderful things for global agriculture, and helping us feed Earth's countless billions.

Let's hope and pray that predictions of a mini ice age to hit over the next decade are wrong, or we'll all (the poor in particular) be in trouble.

It's interesting there are so many deniers. It probably reflects the demographic of most of the posters here. They're mostly middle aged, white, well-off financially, and wouldn't be affected by warming trends much more than taking a few steps to the air-con control dial and moving it up a few digits. BTW, I have several houses in Thailand and none have air-con because the way I build (exposures, tree cover, thermal mass, etc.), it precludes artificially cooling the air - except for people who are fixated about having air-con whether it's needed or not, like most Thais above poverty level who live in cities.

Interesting that Bradford likes added CO2 and smog pumped into the air. It's estimated that there's an average of a bit over a ton of CO2 per person per annum released in the air. 6.5 billion tons of added CO2 is something to reckon with. Some posters have stated they can't fathom how any human activities can affect the planet or weather or sea levels. Well, there are some people who probably still believe tomatoes are poisonous (a belief from 17th century New England).

I doubt Bradford lives on an island near sea level, or lives in a city like New Delhi or Beijing where visibility is about 2 blocks. I can be as dispassionate as the next guy. If Bangkok was year 'round flooded with 1 to 2 meters of water, I could go with the flow (pardon a bad pun), because I'm at relatively high altitude, I have no worries of earthquakes, floods, fire, termites, bombings, smog alerts, gridlock, street protests or other things that most city dwellers have to be concerned about. Yet even tho I am personally safe, I still am concerned about others who are stuck in sea-level cities, or have to breathe dirty air, or can't get water for basic survival needs.

No "deniers" on this forum. One would have to be incredibly stupid to deny what is obviously happening as yes, the world is getting warmer, very slightly, and is also very cold in the winter.

What we deny is that what SOME scientists say is necessarily true and it has NOT been proven to our satisfaction that people are causing the change in a significant way.

If it is true, and the world's governments believe it can be reversed, why are they doing so very little to change things?

If Obama believes it is true, why does he travel on AF1 with a vast retinue all using cars. He should be setting an example to the world by cutting his carbon footprint, but he's not, so either he doesn't believe it is true, or he's telling us to do what he won't.

In fact, when Obama mothballs AF1, I'll believe he's serious.

[RickBradford]

I don't think you have spent much time looking at the data in the slightest.

With a due sense of foreboding, I will make just one more effort to explain what is going on here.

If you have an acquaintance who completed a high school education, ask them about this graph, and here is what they will say:

"This is a graph of absolute temperature anomalies, that is, how much hotter a particular year was than 1979, which was the baseline year. It is not a trend graph, as can be seen by looking at the original graph from RSS itself."

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

"As you will see, it says temperature anomaly, and even supplies the actual trend line so you can see what is happening."

"The satellite (RSS) data diverges somewhat from the ground station data (NASA/NOAA) for various technical reasons. In particular, the RSS data records rather less warming than the NASA data, to the extent that the RSS data still has 1998 as the hottest year in the satellite record."

"This is why people who like to downplay the extent of global warming (such as Jo Nova) like to quote the RSS data, while those who like to up-play the extent of global warming typically cite the ground station data of NOAA/NASA."

It has long been known that the global warming narrative relies on extreme ignorance to further its aims, but to see it in the raw is still quite eye-opening.

[boomerangutang]

This is an important result, and everyone should sit up and take notice.

The renewed warming, and the extra CO2 that industry is giving us for free, is doing wonderful things for global agriculture, and helping us feed Earth's countless billions.

Let's hope and pray that predictions of a mini ice age to hit over the next decade are wrong, or we'll all (the poor in particular) be in trouble.

It's interesting there are so many deniers. It probably reflects the demographic of most of the posters here. They're mostly middle aged, white, well-off financially, and wouldn't be affected by warming trends much more than taking a few steps to the air-con control dial and moving it up a few digits. BTW, I have several houses in Thailand and none have air-con because the way I build (exposures, tree cover, thermal mass, etc.), it precludes artificially cooling the air - except for people who are fixated about having air-con whether it's needed or not, like most Thais above poverty level who live in cities.

Interesting that Bradford likes added CO2 and smog pumped into the air. It's estimated that there's an average of a bit over a ton of CO2 per person per annum released in the air. 6.5 billion tons of added CO2 is something to reckon with. Some posters have stated they can't fathom how any human activities can affect the planet or weather or sea levels. Well, there are some people who probably still believe tomatoes are poisonous (a belief from 17th century New England).

I doubt Bradford lives on an island near sea level, or lives in a city like New Delhi or Beijing where visibility is about 2 blocks. I can be as dispassionate as the next guy. If Bangkok was year 'round flooded with 1 to 2 meters of water, I could go with the flow (pardon a bad pun), because I'm at relatively high altitude, I have no worries of earthquakes, floods, fire, termites, bombings, smog alerts, gridlock, street protests or other things that most city dwellers have to be concerned about. Yet even tho I am personally safe, I still am concerned about others who are stuck in sea-level cities, or have to breathe dirty air, or can't get water for basic survival needs.

No "deniers" on this forum. One would have to be incredibly stupid to deny what is obviously happening as yes, the world is getting warmer, very slightly, and is also very cold in the winter.

What we deny is that what SOME scientists say is necessarily true and it has NOT been proven to our satisfaction that people are causing the change in a significant way.

If it is true, and the world's governments believe it can be reversed, why are they doing so very little to change things?

If Obama believes it is true, why does he travel on AF1 with a vast retinue all using cars. He should be setting an example to the world by cutting his carbon footprint, but he's not, so either he doesn't believe it is true, or he's telling us to do what he won't.

In fact, when Obama mothballs AF1, I'll believe he's serious.

....or when the animal lover quits eating animals.

It's funny, the US was for years the bogeyman who the rest of the world (those concerned about climate change) pointed to as not doing its part. Now that Bush is gone, and Obama has been in the driver's seat for two terms, the US is taking the lead to try and make the world a moderately habitable place for our great-grandchildren. The US is now among the vanguard of countries doing tangible things to try and make things better. A lot's going on with solar, wind power, alternative fuels, less garbage and better ways to deal with garbage, recycling. Deniers don't want such things. Maybe they think it's hippie-minded pie-in-the-sky thinking.

"If it is true, and the world's governments believe it can be reversed, why are they doing so very little to change things?"

Before the Paris talks, deniers were probably hoping there wouldn't be agreements (why agree on fixing something, if you think there's nothing to fix?). Yet amazingly, there were agreements. It's difficult to get so many countries to agree on such sweeping issues.

It's a big topic. There is no silver bullet. I don't think anyone is talking about reversing the trend toward a more polluted world with higher seas, extending deserts, lack of potable water, etc. The best we can hope for is A. acknowledge there's a problem which will get worse by inaction, and B. Do what we can to try to lessen looming problems.

[thaibeachlovers]

It's interesting there are so many deniers. It probably reflects the demographic of most of the posters here. They're mostly middle aged, white, well-off financially, and wouldn't be affected by warming trends much more than taking a few steps to the air-con control dial and moving it up a few digits. BTW, I have several houses in Thailand and none have air-con because the way I build (exposures, tree cover, thermal mass, etc.), it precludes artificially cooling the air - except for people who are fixated about having air-con whether it's needed or not, like most Thais above poverty level who live in cities.

Interesting that Bradford likes added CO2 and smog pumped into the air. It's estimated that there's an average of a bit over a ton of CO2 per person per annum released in the air. 6.5 billion tons of added CO2 is something to reckon with. Some posters have stated they can't fathom how any human activities can affect the planet or weather or sea levels. Well, there are some people who probably still believe tomatoes are poisonous (a belief from 17th century New England).

I doubt Bradford lives on an island near sea level, or lives in a city like New Delhi or Beijing where visibility is about 2 blocks. I can be as dispassionate as the next guy. If Bangkok was year 'round flooded with 1 to 2 meters of water, I could go with the flow (pardon a bad pun), because I'm at relatively high altitude, I have no worries of earthquakes, floods, fire, termites, bombings, smog alerts, gridlock, street protests or other things that most city dwellers have to be concerned about. Yet even tho I am personally safe, I still am concerned about others who are stuck in sea-level cities, or have to breathe dirty air, or can't get water for basic survival needs.

No "deniers" on this forum. One would have to be incredibly stupid to deny what is obviously happening as yes, the world is getting warmer, very slightly, and is also very cold in the winter.

What we deny is that what SOME scientists say is necessarily true and it has NOT been proven to our satisfaction that people are causing the change in a significant way.

If it is true, and the world's governments believe it can be reversed, why are they doing so very little to change things?

If Obama believes it is true, why does he travel on AF1 with a vast retinue all using cars. He should be setting an example to the world by cutting his carbon footprint, but he's not, so either he doesn't believe it is true, or he's telling us to do what he won't.

In fact, when Obama mothballs AF1, I'll believe he's serious.

....or when the animal lover quits eating animals.

It's funny, the US was for years the bogeyman who the rest of the world (those concerned about climate change) pointed to as not doing its part. Now that Bush is gone, and Obama has been in the driver's seat for two terms, the US is taking the lead to try and make the world a moderately habitable place for our great-grandchildren. The US is now among the vanguard of countries doing tangible things to try and make things better. A lot's going on with solar, wind power, alternative fuels, less garbage and better ways to deal with garbage, recycling. Deniers don't want such things. Maybe they think it's hippie-minded pie-in-the-sky thinking.

"If it is true, and the world's governments believe it can be reversed, why are they doing so very little to change things?"

Before the Paris talks, deniers were probably hoping there wouldn't be agreements (why agree on fixing something, if you think there's nothing to fix?). Yet amazingly, there were agreements. It's difficult to get so many countries to agree on such sweeping issues.

It's a big topic. There is no silver bullet. I don't think anyone is talking about reversing the trend toward a more polluted world with higher seas, extending deserts, lack of potable water, etc. The best we can hope for is A. acknowledge there's a problem which will get worse by inaction, and B. Do what we can to try to lessen looming problems.

Far as I can see they agreed only that Climate Change is real and had a big party. Far as what they want to do about it, that seems a bit lacking.

Might have been more successful if they had agreed to hold future conferences by video, but obviously that is not on the agenda.

[Chicog]

It has long been known that the global warming narrative relies on extreme ignorance to further its aims, but to see it in the raw is still quite eye-opening.

And here, for the umpteenth time, is a graph of the actual temperature by year, so stop with the pointless obfuscation. The planet is getting warmer. Get over it.

The only issues are:

- Can mankind stop it?

- What do we need to do to prepare for it?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Chicog

[RickBradford]

Interesting that Bradford likes added CO2 and smog pumped into the air.

Where did I say I wanted more smog pumped into the air? Or did you just make that up, as usual?

However, the Paris "agreement" will have exactly that effect, as it has given a free pass to countries such as China and India to massively expand their coal-fired power generation for at least the next 15 years, with essentially no oversight of how clean those power plants are.

[RickBradford]

It has long been known that the global warming narrative relies on extreme ignorance to further its aims, but to see it in the raw is still quite eye-opening.

And here, for the umpteenth time, is a graph of the actual temperature by year, so stop with the pointless obfuscation. The planet is getting warmer. Get over it.

The only issues are:

- Can mankind stop it?

- What do we need to do to prepare for it?

And for the umpteenth time, there are different sources for temperature measurements, of which NASA GISS is only one. RSS/UAH is another, which diverges from this to some extent.

I can't help you any more with this. Do yourself a favour, go and find someone you trust, and ask them to explain it to you. Failing that, do some reading of your own from the source material.

[i claudius]

It's such a shame that during the last ice age,and when the Sahara desert was covered by forests and when Britain was under the sea they did not have scientists to explain about global warming then

Edited January 24, 2016 by i claudius

[Chicog]

It has long been known that the global warming narrative relies on extreme ignorance to further its aims, but to see it in the raw is still quite eye-opening.

And here, for the umpteenth time, is a graph of the actual temperature by year, so stop with the pointless obfuscation. The planet is getting warmer. Get over it.

The only issues are:

- Can mankind stop it?

- What do we need to do to prepare for it?

And for the umpteenth time, there are different sources for temperature measurements, of which NASA GISS is only one. RSS/UAH is another, which diverges from this to some extent.

Then why don't you post a graph of the actual temperature by year according to RSS/UAH?

And let's see the difference.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Chicog

[Chicog]

Added: From UAH's last report:

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade

From RSS:

• Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
• Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
• The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But....

• The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

It seems they both agree that it's getting warmer.

Do you agree?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Chicog

[RickBradford]

Then why don't you post a graph of the actual temperature by year according to RSS/UAH?

Why don't you read what other people post? If you did, you would see that I posted exactly that graph several hours ago (#74).

• Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

I know. That caption appears on the graph I refer to above.

[Chicog]

Then why don't you post a graph of the actual temperature by year according to RSS/UAH?

Why don't you read what other people post? If you did, you would see that I posted exactly that graph several hours ago (#74).

No you didn't, and if you look at the scale on the left that should explain it to you.

Again:

Why don't you post a graph of the actual temperature by year according to RSS/UAH

[OMGImInPattaya]

Bet those East Coasters wish they had some of that heat about now.

[RickBradford]

No you didn't, and if you look at the scale on the left that should explain it to you.

Oh, I see, you don't even understand the concept of a temperature anomaly. I truly am gobsmacked, now. That's about the first thing everybody in this field learns about.

Here you go.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Instead of drawing 59, 60, 61F on the left-hand scale, we say "let 59F be our reference point, we'll designate that as our zero." From that basis, we write 0,1,2 rather than 59, 60, 61.

It's not that complicated to master.

Edited January 24, 2016 by RickBradford

[Chicog]

No you didn't, and if you look at the scale on the left that should explain it to you.

Oh, I see, you don't understand the concept of a temperature anomaly. I truly am gobsmacked, now. That's about the first thing everybody in this field learns about.

Here you go.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Instead of drawing 59, 60, 61F on the left-hand scale, we say "let 59F be our reference point, we'll designate that as our zero." From that basis, we write 0,1,2 rather than 59, 60, 61.

It's not that complicated to master.

And it's not what I asked you to post.

What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

Or is English not your first language.

Again:

Why don't you post a graph of the actual temperature by year according to RSS/UAH

Which part of this is it with which you are struggling?

[RickBradford]

I'm sorry, but if you don't even understand how temperature anomalies work, there is no really point in continuing this.

Just do yourself a favour, and read this page.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Edited January 24, 2016 by RickBradford

[Chicog]

I'm sorry, but if you don't even understand how temperature anomalies work, there is no really point in continuing this.

You are going to such great lengths to avoid posting a simple temperature graph for comparison with the one I posted, that the conclusion is bleedin' obvious.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Chicog

[RickBradford]

I'm sorry, but if you don't even understand how temperature anomalies work, there is no really point in continuing this.

You are going to such great lengths to avoid posting a simple temperature graph for comparison with the one I posted, that the conclusion is bleedin' obvious.

A temperature anomaly graph is a simple temperature graph. That's why they are used.

Seriously, go away and do some reading. This is getting beyond silly.

Edited January 24, 2016 by RickBradford