2015 was hottest year on record, say some scientists

[arjunadawn]

Climate Change is a political ideology. Its hallmarks are fear, sensationalism, deceit, misdirection, and centralized economics. Climate Change is the greatest insult to reason since the creation of religion. Hrmmm.

Perhaps that's because religion and "Climate Change: The Ideology" both behave the same. Both have rituals, a priestly class, no tolerance, orthodoxy, followers, cultists, rejection of dissent, rejection of reason... yep, same thing.

[up2u2]

Climate Change is a political ideology. Its hallmarks are fear, sensationalism, deceit, misdirection, and centralized economics. Climate Change is the greatest insult to reason since the creation of religion. Hrmmm.

Perhaps that's because religion and "Climate Change: The Ideology" both behave the same. Both have rituals, a priestly class, no tolerance, orthodoxy, followers, cultists, rejection of dissent, rejection of reason... yep, same thing.

Global Warming / Climate Change is based on scientific research and evidence whereas religions are based on a belief with no evidence. There is no comparison between the two. Unable to fault the science or the evidence so opt for the argument of last resort. Why do you have a problem with discussing the science and evidence on GW/CC. I find this defence percolates from having little to no knowledge on the actual science and evidence of GW/CC.

[billphillips]

Global warming ....... CO2 ....... It must be true, most of the western world are paying tax on it now. Meanwhile most of the eastern world are producing it.

[goatfarmer]

I am not disputing the fact that 'they do'. I am disputing the credibility of the result. There is a difference between precision and accuracy. They may be able to make precise measurements, but it does not follow that the measurements, precise to 0.1 degrees celsius, are an accurate assessment of the average global temperature to 0.1 degrees celsius.

Why?

Because there are too many biases involved in the process and biases reduce accuracy:

differences in time of taking temperatures from one station to another and at the same weather station over time.

different procedures for taking sea temperatures: (canvas buckets, rubber buckets, stationary buoys, satellite images, infrared remote sensing, to name a few)

distribution of land temperature weather stations, biased to the northern hemisphere.

- all of these biases create compound uncertainties.

And because compound uncertainties are combined.

What weather station, sea temperature data have you looked at and found errors in managing adjustments to potential inaccuracies, biases and uncertainties?

None. I am not referring to errors. "Error" presupposes that there is a correct answer or benchmark to which biases can be adjusted. There is no benchmark.

[up2u2]

Because there are too many biases involved in the process and biases reduce accuracy:

differences in time of taking temperatures from one station to another and at the same weather station over time.

different procedures for taking sea temperatures: (canvas buckets, rubber buckets, stationary buoys, satellite images, infrared remote sensing, to name a few)

distribution of land temperature weather stations, biased to the northern hemisphere.

- all of these biases create compound uncertainties.

And because compound uncertainties are combined.

What weather station, sea temperature data have you looked at and found errors in managing adjustments to potential inaccuracies, biases and uncertainties?

None. I am not referring to errors. "Error" presupposes that there is a correct answer or benchmark to which biases can be adjusted. There is no benchmark.

Are you able to provide an example of the point you are trying to make?. What adjusted biases have no benchmark?

[canuckamuck]

This is his favourite game Goatfarmer. He will continue to ignore the questions you answer and keep asking new ones which he knows would take some time to answer, and eventually you will have to move on. He has a lot of time and no intention of even considering your points. He is a Skeptical Science bot.

[up2u2]

This is his favourite game Goatfarmer. He will continue to ignore the questions you answer and keep asking new ones which he knows would take some time to answer, and eventually you will have to move on. He has a lot of time and no intention of even considering your points. He is a Skeptical Science bot.

Oh I see, thanks canuck. I was starting to think I'd slipped a cog. Couldn't make the slightest sense of his statements. lol

[goatfarmer]

Because there are too many biases involved in the process and biases reduce accuracy:

differences in time of taking temperatures from one station to another and at the same weather station over time.

different procedures for taking sea temperatures: (canvas buckets, rubber buckets, stationary buoys, satellite images, infrared remote sensing, to name a few)

distribution of land temperature weather stations, biased to the northern hemisphere.

- all of these biases create compound uncertainties.

And because compound uncertainties are combined.

What weather station, sea temperature data have you looked at and found errors in managing adjustments to potential inaccuracies, biases and uncertainties?

None. I am not referring to errors. "Error" presupposes that there is a correct answer or benchmark to which biases can be adjusted. There is no benchmark.

Are you able to provide an example of the point you are trying to make?. What adjusted biases have no benchmark?

Sure. For example, if you are throwing darts at a dartboard, the bullseye is the benchmark of accuracy. You can see how far your darts are from the bullseye. You don't have to estimate where the dart is on the dartboard.

In the case of the global temperature there is no standard by which to be confident that the measurements accurately reflect global temperature. So, to answer your question, none of the adjustments for bias has a benchmark. All of the adjustments are, ultimately, estimates, or, in simple terms guesses. Given the number of biases involved and the fact that compound uncertainties combine, it would be a leap of faith to believe that 'adjusted average temperatures' correspond to reality within 0.1 degree celsius.

[goatfarmer]

This is his favourite game Goatfarmer. He will continue to ignore the questions you answer and keep asking new ones which he knows would take some time to answer, and eventually you will have to move on. He has a lot of time and no intention of even considering your points. He is a Skeptical Science bot.

Well, I have no problem with his bot-bias, provided he is polite.

[craigt3365]

Interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/us/2015-year-in-weather-temperature-precipitation.html#new-york_ny

[boomerangutang]

Here's Trump on Global Warming: He thinks it's all a hoax by a few wimpy scientists. He walks the 9 steps from his limousine to the heated entry lobby of his copper-encrusted building and declares, "It's cold as hell out here this morning. That proves there's no warming!"

[MRYANG]

Global warming yes. Caused by humans no. Humans do add to global warming. 3%. 97% would have happened even with no humans on the planet.

Edited February 20, 2016 by MRYANG

[chuckd]

Yet another reason Trump is capturing the support of many Americans.

[RickBradford]

Meanwhile, those attempting by any means to persuade the world that we are heading for a climate catastrophe have been busted for another piece of creepy, dishonest and manipulative emotional blackmail.

This time, they got a real gorilla in front of the camera,filmed its gestures and then added a completely bogus "translation" to its sign language to say things like “I am gorilla, I am flowers, animals, I am nature… Man Koko love… but man… man stupid… Koko cry, time hurry, fix Earth…”

The Gorilla Foundation's press release also presented this myth as fact. "Koko was clear about the main message: Man is harming the Earth and its many animal and plant species and needs to 'hurry' and fix the problem."

Many have argued that this shameless stunt was so infantile that only those dim-bulbs who already believe in climate catastrophe would take any notice. But some real scientists were angry.

“This group [Gorilla Foundation] has been really upping the ante for making incredible exaggerated claims for her comprehension,” said Barbara King, an anthropology professor at the College of William and Mary. “Koko is fabulous as she is. No one has to exaggerate. Scientists who do that -- it hurts our credibility. It really does.”

“A complex phenomenon like climate change is not understood by many humans, let alone an ape,” Sally Boysen, an Ohio State University psychology professor.

Ain't that the truth......

Once again, the alarmists demonstrate that they think everyone is as stupid as themselves, and in doing so, damage the cause of science well beyond the global warming arena.

http://www.snopes.com/what-does-koko-know-about-climate-change-nothing/

[canuckamuck]

Hah, gorillas are dumb. I asked my avocado tree what it thought and it moved its branches to clearly say that things are better now, but could it still use a little more CO2. It also said gorillas watch too much MSN.

[RickBradford]

Koko has better streed cred than your avocado tree.

Koko, in fact, was a star video attraction at the COP21 Climate Conference in Paris "invited to represent" the voice of nature to the 40,000 or so delegates. She is lauded as a "natural ambassador for endangered species."

With the world's good and great now receiving their climate change instructions from a gorilla, you could argue that the alarmists were right in describing the agreement as "historic".

This year's Green Blob annual ritual (COP22) will be held in Marrakesh, Morocco (assuming it's still there) in December.

Can your avocado tree handle a cool winter desert climate?

[up2u2]

Interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/us/2015-year-in-weather-temperature-precipitation.html#new-york_ny

Not really. It is 'GLOBAL Warming' not 'Your City Warming / Cooling / Weather'. Don't confuse weather with climate or data isolated to one city or small region and form a view on the entire World.

[chuckd]

Why? I quite frankly don't care what the weather is doing where you are located. Rain or shine makes not one bit of difference to me.

All I know for certain is the weather will change as it has done for millions of years and there is not one blessed thing you or I can do about it.

[impulse]

Global warming yes. Caused by humans no. Humans do add to global warming. 3%. 97% would have happened even with no humans on the planet.

Maybe true, but what if that 3% is the difference between plain old weather variations and a looming catastrophe that can't be reversed?

Edit: For example, 97% of the energy created by my truck's engine pushes me forward. But if just 3% were added by external forces pushing me sideways, I'd end up in the ditch every time.

Edited February 20, 2016 by impulse

[up2u2]

Why? I quite frankly don't care what the weather is doing where you are located. Rain or shine makes not one bit of difference to me.

All I know for certain is the weather will change as it has done for millions of years and there is not one blessed thing you or I can do about it.

Again confusing weather with GW / CC

[boomerangutang]

Yet another reason Trump is capturing the support of many Americans.

Well, at least the 6% who are as scientifically savvy as a beagle.

Why? I quite frankly don't care what the weather is doing where you are located. Rain or shine makes not one bit of difference to me.

All I know for certain is the weather will change as it has done for millions of years and there is not one blessed thing you or I can do about it.

oh please, don't hurt my feelings. Yes, the weather has changed and will continue changing for millions of years. You get an A+ in weather for a 2nd grader. We'll tell your parents how bright you are, at the next parent-teacher conference.

Not a thing you or I can do about it? Each person on the planet produces an average of a ton of CO2 annually. There are about 6.5 billion people which = roughly 6.5 billion tons. Most posters on Thai visa reside in air-conditioned apartments and get monthly support checks, and that's ok, but it's no excuse to be callous to the tens of millions of people ww who are going to be (and are now) adversely affected by smog and other toxic pollution produced by humans. If you think people don't affect their environment, try looking at satellite photos of cities. Chinese and Indian cities in particular. All are choked by yellowish-gray smog which stretch for miles to the surrounding regions. Global warming is a major factor compelling millions of north Africans and Middle Easterners to surge toward better places like Europe. If they shared a borders with the US and Canada, they'd be streaming in there also.

Personally, I don't care more about people than I do about other species and the sanctity of the planet overall. In other words, i care just as much for the survival of orange ruffy fish deep off the NZ's east coast, or walruses in Russia's Arctic region as I do for the endless numbers of destitute people all over Africa, Asia and elsewhere. It's just there's one species, more than any other, which is making an unholy mess of things.

[arjunadawn]

"...say some scientists." What are the rest saying? Another tale for Aesop.

The political ideology called "Climate Change" abuses the concept of "on record" to reflect the relatively short period of humans writing stuff down regarding [their] environmental observations. Of course there is the "on record" of dendrology, ice cores, geology, captured gas spectrometry, etc, etc- proxy records. These records are clearly not being used by the modern priest class of Climate Change. In fact, even the written record has to be abused with various measurements included, excluded, etc. Jeez, even the crunching of pure data from remote sensors is politicized by this self anointed group.

So what we may have, if we are generous, is a very hot year within a very narrow window of observation (human time observing galactic time)- the "on record" time-frame of the OP. How ridiculous that humans embrace this folly as science and not for what it is, ideology. Climate Change embraces for more ideology than science.

[boomerangutang]

The climate change issue is pertinent for now and the decades to come. It's less important that there have been tumultuous climate changes in the past 4 billion years, and there will be climate change until the Earth gets swallowed by an expanding sun. It's important now and in the near future because humans are entrenched in certain places which are and will be affected by a warming planet. About half of the largest cities ww are in places which will be adversely affected by rising seas. Bangkok included. Many cities and farming regions will be affected by droughts. Already, Beijing is becoming less habitable year by year because of sand blown down from the Gobi desert (for just one example). The eastern region of Africa is suffering the biggest droughts since such recordings started. The Middle east would be uninhabitable even without increased warming, so it's only going to get worse. If the US wasn't a rich country, most of New Orleans would have been abandoned after Katrina. .....and so on.

[chuckd]

Yet another reason Trump is capturing the support of many Americans.

Well, at least the 6% who are as scientifically savvy as a beagle.

Why? I quite frankly don't care what the weather is doing where you are located. Rain or shine makes not one bit of difference to me.

All I know for certain is the weather will change as it has done for millions of years and there is not one blessed thing you or I can do about it.

oh please, don't hurt my feelings. Yes, the weather has changed and will continue changing for millions of years. You get an A+ in weather for a 2nd grader. We'll tell your parents how bright you are, at the next parent-teacher conference.

Not a thing you or I can do about it? Each person on the planet produces an average of a ton of CO2 annually. There are about 6.5 billion people which = roughly 6.5 billion tons. Most posters on Thai visa reside in air-conditioned apartments and get monthly support checks, and that's ok, but it's no excuse to be callous to the tens of millions of people ww who are going to be (and are now) adversely affected by smog and other toxic pollution produced by humans. If you think people don't affect their environment, try looking at satellite photos of cities. Chinese and Indian cities in particular. All are choked by yellowish-gray smog which stretch for miles to the surrounding regions. Global warming is a major factor compelling millions of north Africans and Middle Easterners to surge toward better places like Europe. If they shared a borders with the US and Canada, they'd be streaming in there also.

Personally, I don't care more about people than I do about other species and the sanctity of the planet overall. In other words, i care just as much for the survival of orange ruffy fish deep off the NZ's east coast, or walruses in Russia's Arctic region as I do for the endless numbers of destitute people all over Africa, Asia and elsewhere. It's just there's one species, more than any other, which is making an unholy mess of things.

All that bloviating and you finally got me.

I now realize I don't have the proper empathy for the walruses in Russia's Arctic region.

It's sack cloth and ashes for me next week.

[arjunadawn]

The climate change issue is pertinent for now and the decades to come. It's less important that there have been tumultuous climate changes in the past 4 billion years, and there will be climate change until the Earth gets swallowed by an expanding sun. It's important now and in the near future because humans are entrenched in certain places which are and will be affected by a warming planet. About half of the largest cities ww are in places which will be adversely affected by rising seas. Bangkok included. Many cities and farming regions will be affected by droughts. Already, Beijing is becoming less habitable year by year because of sand blown down from the Gobi desert (for just one example). The eastern region of Africa is suffering the biggest droughts since such recordings started. The Middle east would be uninhabitable even without increased warming, so it's only going to get worse. If the US wasn't a rich country, most of New Orleans would have been abandoned after Katrina. .....and so on.

Now this is the kind of thinking I can get behind. Basically, no matter how it (climate change literally or as an ideology) is happening there are changes coming/happening in the environment and whether they have variously happened or not throughout history now, in our window of time now, the changes pose serious risks to populations and economies- coastal, desert, island, etc. I agree 100%.

Your post wisely avoids the committing to the politics of the "Climate Change" ideology, strips the charged economics from debate from it, and offers the basic immediate issue in a manner most people can get behind- "we need to at least began tackling these issues." (I paraphrase you to make a point). I agree with you. No matter the alleged politics, lets just start the process of public planning as if there was no political/economic investment; we can worry about that later or manage it later.

"Global Warming/Climate Change" ideologues make the very same points you raise above but do so within an ideological worldview that requires accepting [their] underlying ideology in order to recognize the problems and also repudiating political/economic models they offer has caused the problems requiring fixing.

This is hardly the simple approach you offer above. In your post politics and economics are not mentioned but are practically removed from the post because public policy and public safety requires we look past them to even consider what action to take now. Yet "Climate Change" idealists do not offer tabling cause and effect long enough to roll up their sleeves and get to work- 1. earthen works Bangkok, 2. relocate populations Maldives, 3. plant more trees, Brazil. 4. etc. Far better to insist on leveraging cause and effect to progressively leverage the politics and economics of Climate Change.

Climate Change purists cannot pause or suspend the key requirement of cause and effect because it is inherently an ideology and the changing climate due to man and his political/economic model is its raison d'etre. Climate Change sponsors have been working feverishly at the back end politics rather than the front end sinking islands or melting ice caps for a very long time. Climate Change idealists have long been leveraging corporations rather than leveraging dikes. Climate Change idealists behave this way because the politics are the "Change." The "Change" are the economics.

Climate Change ideology has brazenly perfected the use of the "us" and the "them" to manage the population. Instead of muslims, Visigoths, Vandals, or aliens, ideologues have elevated a new Emmanuel Goldstein-like threat that will never age, never expire, never reduce its terrifying glue, and always play its part in the drama enacted by the ideologues. Climate will always produce the fear desired. Sadly, I think humans deserve what they get for believing such rubbish.

[up2u2]

"...say some scientists." What are the rest saying? Another tale for Aesop.

The political ideology called "Climate Change" abuses the concept of "on record" to reflect the relatively short period of humans writing stuff down regarding [their] environmental observations. Of course there is the "on record" of dendrology, ice cores, geology, captured gas spectrometry, etc, etc- proxy records. These records are clearly not being used by the modern priest class of Climate Change. In fact, even the written record has to be abused with various measurements included, excluded, etc. Jeez, even the crunching of pure data from remote sensors is politicized by this self anointed group.

So what we may have, if we are generous, is a very hot year within a very narrow window of observation (human time observing galactic time)- the "on record" time-frame of the OP. How ridiculous that humans embrace this folly as science and not for what it is, ideology. Climate Change embraces for more ideology than science.

Now this is the kind of thinking I can get behind. Basically, no matter how it (climate change literally or as an ideology) is happening there are changes coming/happening in the environment and whether they have variously happened or not throughout history now, in our window of time now, the changes pose serious risks to populations and economies- coastal, desert, island, etc. I agree 100%.

Your post wisely avoids the committing to the politics of the "Climate Change" ideology, strips the charged economics from debate from it, and offers the basic immediate issue in a manner most people can get behind- "we need to at least began tackling these issues." (I paraphrase you to make a point). I agree with you. No matter the alleged politics, lets just start the process of public planning as if there was no political/economic investment; we can worry about that later or manage it later.

"Global Warming/Climate Change" ideologues make the very same points you raise above but do so within an ideological worldview that requires accepting [their] underlying ideology in order to recognize the problems and also repudiating political/economic models they offer has caused the problems requiring fixing.

This is hardly the simple approach you offer above. In your post politics and economics are not mentioned but are practically removed from the post because public policy and public safety requires we look past them to even consider what action to take now. Yet "Climate Change" idealists do not offer tabling cause and effect long enough to roll up their sleeves and get to work- 1. earthen works Bangkok, 2. relocate populations Maldives, 3. plant more trees, Brazil. 4. etc. Far better to insist on leveraging cause and effect to progressively leverage the politics and economics of Climate Change.

Climate Change purists cannot pause or suspend the key requirement of cause and effect because it is inherently an ideology and the changing climate due to man and his political/economic model is its raison d'etre. Climate Change sponsors have been working feverishly at the back end politics rather than the front end sinking islands or melting ice caps for a very long time. Climate Change idealists have long been leveraging corporations rather than leveraging dikes. Climate Change idealists behave this way because the politics are the "Change." The "Change" are the economics.

Climate Change ideology has brazenly perfected the use of the "us" and the "them" to manage the population. Instead of muslims, Visigoths, Vandals, or aliens, ideologues have elevated a new Emmanuel Goldstein-like threat that will never age, never expire, never reduce its terrifying glue, and always play its part in the drama enacted by the ideologues. Climate will always produce the fear desired. Sadly, I think humans deserve what they get for believing such rubbish.

I would be interested to read your published Peer Reviewed scientific Paper showing where the science on GW / CC is in error. Failing that these ramblings are just unqualified drivel. Simply labelling ALL scientific evidence and research on GW / CC accumulated over 100 years as 'political ideology' doesn't cut it in the real world. Certainly not in any established scientific field.

Politically motivated gibberish.

[craigt3365]

Interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/us/2015-year-in-weather-temperature-precipitation.html#new-york_ny

Not really. It is 'GLOBAL Warming' not 'Your City Warming / Cooling / Weather'. Don't confuse weather with climate or data isolated to one city or small region and form a view on the entire World.

Calm down. It's just an interesting article. And it does cover 3,000 cities from around the globe. 90% with increased temps this past year.

Interesting comment from an article related to the above:

“Is there any evidence for a pause in the long-term global warming rate?” said Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s climate-science unit, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in Manhattan. “The answer is no. That was true before last year, but it’s much more obvious now.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html

[up2u2]

Interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/us/2015-year-in-weather-temperature-precipitation.html#new-york_ny

Not really. It is 'GLOBAL Warming' not 'Your City Warming / Cooling / Weather'. Don't confuse weather with climate or data isolated to one city or small region and form a view on the entire World.

Calm down. It's just an interesting article. And it does cover 3,000 cities from around the globe. 90% with increased temps this past year.

Interesting comment from an article related to the above:

The 'Hottest Year on Record' refers to Global Temperatures. So in relation to the actual topic, isolated City temperatures around the Globe aren't really relevant. As you can see the mere mention of weather sends the Climate Deniers into a frenzy of confusion. If you don't keep the Climate Deniers focused they start talking to Avocado Trees.

[canuckamuck]

You should just admit you're a tree hater. And this why you are trying to limit their CO2

[sirineou]

You should just admit you're a tree hater. And this why you are trying to limit their CO2

Dont want to be a tree hater but at the same time I dont want to be tree fertilizer. At least not for an other 30 years.