Earth just had its 400th straight warmer-than-average month thanks to global warming

Wait...................So do nothing, that we can help control???????

Why would we add to it? Cant control mother nature but we can control what man does?

How lazy is that?

 

Wasting energy? Sorry, I don't understand the question. The only time I wouldn't consume (waste?) energy is if I was dead. Ar you suggesting I have to commit suicide to ease mother Nature?

 

This. The only thing I recall that was different in the 80's and especially the 90's, when I was a teen, was not getting burnt outside as much. I never used my A/C when I was driving and never had a sweaty back when I reached my destination. Of course, feeling a hotter 85° could just be because I'm not 18 anymore. Either way, I'm ready for mother nature's darkened sunspots to take effect and kill off some of those UV rays so 85 feels like 85 again.

 

This thread reminded me its time to change the filter for the a/c. Thanks.

 

Not even remotely close to an accurate statement.

 

The entirety of the 20th century is the baseline being used to determine the average temperature for each month. And we have seen 400 straight months where each month was higher than the average monthly temperature based on the data from the 20th century.

 

If you do, be sure to start in CA or NY and leave Louisiana alone

 

I appear to be implying that in the 80's, scientists told us that excessive use of hairspray in New York was causing a hole in the ozone. I remember hearing about it on the news when I was a kid. You should stop overanalyzing things when the implication is written out as simply as it can be. You'll just end up chasing your tail if you keep overanalyzing everything.

 

False. We already had a thread about this. First, Paul Homewood is the complete opposite of an expert. Second, he makes the dumbest arithmetic mistakes possible to arrive at his conclusion. Seriously, most of his complaint is accounted for by him simply f***ing up his own calculations. Third, NOAA does adjust data. This is absolutely necessary to account for station moves. For example, the lapse rate of the atmosphere is about 7C/km which is 0.2C per 100 ft. Just by simply raising or lowering the altitude of surface stations you can get a vastly different temperature reading due to the natural thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere. This must be considered otherwise you'll draw the wrong conclusion. Fourth, we have datasets that are actually better than conventional surface station datasets which do NOT adjust the data at all and they agree with the conventional datasets.

False. We already had a thread about this too. Bates was disciplined by Karl several years earlier for...wait for it...professional dishonesty. This was the likely motivation for Bates to falsely accuse Karl of manipulating data. Bates later fully retracted his accusation against Karl and apologized. He said and I quote, "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious" and "It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form". Those are his words and his alone. The US Congress got lied to. Bates got caught.

 

There is no ideal or normal temperature.

 

There isn't? Then why are we worried about an average that moves?

 

If we are not the cause of global warming then what is?

 

The issue isn't what the global mean temperature is. The issue is that the global mean temperature is increasing. This puts pressure on Earth's biosphere to adapt. The faster the change the harder it is to adapt.

 

Nah... Don't buy it. Especially given the glacial pace at which it is occurring.

 

The same thing it was 4 billion years ago before humans existed.

 

The pace is anywhere from 50-150x the natural rate.

 

Who determined the natural rate?

 

Sounds perfectly normal to me. Species appear, species disappear. I hate polar bears and the damn things are doing well.

 

And they weren't wrong. It was a great moment to see the world actively get up and try to fix the problem by banning them in favor of better alternatives.

Imagine if that happened today. The situation would be very different.

Or... are you arguing that that was all false?

 

The pace is 0.2C per decade which is 2.0C per century which is 20C per millennium. That is astonishingly fast. And that's for the global mean temperature. The polar mean temperature is increasing by 2.5x that rate. And that's also in a regime where the net effect of the natural processes are trying to force the temperature lower.

 

There is no "who" that determined the natural rate, it is just a reflection of the most recent data.

 

So why is the temperature going up and not down?

 

We are worried because minor adjustments to the global average that lead to really dramatic and dire differences for the planet. Especially once you factor in that the global average increasing necessarily means that certain sensitive areas are experiencing a warming at a faster pace, like the arctic regions of the planet.

 

According to Goddard, in fact, the trending is declining, irrespective of the inability to demonstrate a corresponding dip in CO2 concentrations. That appears to be pretty problematic for you assertion of a pace you clearly are unable to substantiate.

 

4 billion years ago!? Do you want to live in a climate that existed 4 billion years ago?