Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

But it is quantifiable, so no problems.

Senseless strawman.

Again, if the UHI-influenced stations are bad, why do they show the exact same trend? That conclusively proves they are just as good data sources as anything else.

Well, some people actually read it. That helps.

Don't ask me to keep doing your research. I don't have the time.

And the hockey stick has been proven correct by many different data sources, all completely independent from each other. Deniers like to pretend it's just one paper about tree rings, but that's one of their more brazen lies.

As all the peer reviewed science said I was wrong, I might say the same thing, just out of sour grapes.

 

Ridiculous - it is not quantifiable.

And no answers for the other questions. There is no justification for using known bad data which cannot be corrected. It's unbelievable that true scientists would tolerate such deception. And absolutely no follow up on the wind theory ??

The hockey stick is junk science - nature does not operate in such a manner. The IPCC and alarmists embraced the dishonesty of the hockey stick to get rid of the pesky Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods and subsequent cool periods which was needed to justify the false narrative that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the global warming since 1950 - all of it.

 

There is a reason the IPCC dropped the hockeystick and it isn't because it is to awesome.

 

The science disagrees with you. And all you have in response is "Because I say so!".

Then stop doing that. Duh. Nobody else is doing it. It's purely a denier thing.

Well yes, hockey stick type warming obviously isn't natural. That's another reason why we can clearly see the warming is human-caused.

That's conspiracy nonsense, contradicted by all the facts and data. Therefore, you have to declare all the facts and data are faked. It's what all cultists do any time their cult dogma is contradicted by reality.

 

Data generated by political "scientists" is never credible.

 

How do you correct data that shows a greater than 2 deg C urban warming ??

I'm a retired engineer. There is no justification for using known bad data which cannot be corrected.

The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods show warming without CO2 increase and the subsequent cooling periods including the dark ages and little ice age show cooling with without CO2 decrease. The current warming shows warming with no and increasing CO2.

The hockey stick and all it's derivatives are dishonest junk science. That's absolutely been proven. The IPCC ignored thousands of papers and immediately accepted the obviously by inspection constant temperature with an increase in the last ~ 70 years and then ignored the fact that the tree rings actually have showed cooling in those years. That is fact and not conspiracy.

 

Ridiculous and very fraudulent anti-science denier cult myths and misinformation with no basis in reality. As usual.

 

Oh? Then why did Mann's hockey stick graph substitute thermometer readings -- largely from urban heat islands -- for tree ring data in the last 70 years? Maybe because the tree rings showed no warming, while the thermometers did?

 

No answers - only insults and name calling. As usual.

 

Dogmatic flatulence. You could be the spokesman for the inquisition.

 

Seems to be what you're saying for sure. The empirical data, meaning the actual temp records are what is in discussion here. The "science" as you're characterizing it are the empirical temperature manipulations that the "science" folk have purposefully modified to "demonstrate" a political point. But sure, you should lead with the "because I told you so" approach. Very effective. Really. :LOL:

 

Perhaps the denier cultists were just distracted, but they seem to have missed the fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record....until it was surpassed by 2015, which was even hotter.....and then along came 2016, which was hotter than even 2015. The first seven months of 2016 were the hottest months of that name on record and August was tied with July as the hottest month ever recorded....September was only the second hottest month on record, coming in after September 2015. It is a measured and recorded fact that 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have happened since 2000.

Too bad the denier cultists have no rational response to the scientific facts and can only repeat their thoroughly debunked, moldy old denier cult myths.

In the real world....

2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record
Both NASA and NOAA declare that our planet is experiencing record-breaking warming for the third year in a row
Scientific American
By Andrea Thompson
January 18, 2017
(excerpts)
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

2016 is a “data point at the end of many data points that indicates” long-term warming, Deke Arndt, chief of the monitoring branch of the National Centers for Environmental Information, said.

According to NOAA data, the global average temperature for 2016 was 1.69°F (0.94°C) above the 20th century average, and in NASA’s records, 2016 was 1.8°F (0.99°C) above the 1951-1980 average.

Each agency has slightly different methods of processing the data and different baseline periods they use for comparison, as do other groups around the world that monitor global temperatures, leading to slightly different year-to-year numbers.

But despite these differences, all of these records “are capturing the same long-term signal. It’s a pretty unmistakable signal,” Arndt said. Or as he likes to put it: “They’re singing the same song, even if they’re hitting different notes along the way.”

Several spots around the globe had record heat for 2016, including Alaska and a swath of the eastern U.S. The contiguous U.S. had its second hottest year on record, according to NOAA, but with the remarkable warmth experienced by Alaska factored in, 2016 would be the hottest for the country as a whole.

The first eight months of the year were all record hot globally; in NOAA’s data, they were part of an unprecedented streak of 16 record hot months in a row.

Of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have occurred in the 21st century (the exception being the strong El Niño year of 1998 ).

While El Niño played a role in bumping up global temperatures during 2015 and 2016, the bulk of the warmth was due to the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases emitted by humans over the past century, particularly carbon dioxide.

In 2016, CO2 concentrations also permanently passed the 400 parts per million mark for the first time in human history; during preindustrial times, that concentration was 280 ppm.

As example of how greenhouse gases have affected global temperatures, 2016 was almost 0.5°F (0.9°C) warmer than 1998, both years that experienced comparably strong El Niños. Even 2014, before the most recent El Niño emerged, was warmer than 1998.

Nearly 120 nations, including the U.S., have ratified the 2015 Paris climate agreement and committed to keeping the worst impacts of warming from materializing by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement cites a goal of keeping global temperature rise “well below” 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels by the end of this century, with a limit of 1.5°C as a more aggressive goal.

To show how close the world already is to surpassing those limits, Climate Central has been reanalyzing the global temperature data by averaging the NASA and NOAA numbers and comparing them to a baseline closer to preindustrial times. That analysis shows that 2016 was 1.2°C (2.16°F) above the average from 1881-1910.

The running average of global temperatures throughout 2016 compared to recent years.

“We have clearly passed 1 degree above preindustrial temperatures,” and likely won’t go below it without a major volcanic eruption (which tends to cool global temperatures), Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said.

When we might actually reach 1.5°C isn’t clear, Schmidt said, and depends both on how quickly greenhouse gases are emitted -- which depends on how quickly countries act to limit their emissions -- and just how much additional carbon dioxide can be emitted before the 1.5°C goal is breached, which is still somewhat uncertain.

“We’re closer than we would like to be,” he said.

With El Niño gone, and a weak La Niña to start off 2017, this year isn’t likely to continue the streak and best 2016, climate scientists say. But even if 2017 is cooler than 2016, it will only be a very slight dip compared to the long-term warming trend -- in fact, the U.K. Met Office expects that 2017 will still rank among the hottest years on record.

“It’s still going to be a top 5 year in our analysis. I’m pretty confident about that,” Schmidt said.

 

Ooooh, big bold font
Must mean your right.
Read this. Don't know why I bother, I know you won't. Just finished reading the NASA facts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#3b6fb7c04c7c

 

Are you really posting a blog post from 4 years ago in order to refute multiple studies about the years 2014, 2015, and 2016?

Does your 2013 survey about whether certain types of scientists agree with the severity of global warming inoculate you from any research that gets published more recently?

 

Nope! Just makes it harder for the confused and bamboozled denier cultists to ignore.

It is hilarious that you imagine that a lawyer for a Koch brothers and EXXON sponsored front group set up to push fossil fuel industry denialist propaganda, writing an opinion piece for a rightwing business magazine is somehow a refutation of scientific evidence presented in Scientific American (and many prestigious and reputable science journals).

 

Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/


Oh and what exactly new has been found in the past 3 years? I believe at some point MSM stopped falsely calling it global warming

- - - Updated - - -

Huh. There were some statistics in there that I see you've ignored

 

The scientific ignorance of you poor bamboozled denier cult dupes is always startling....and rather hilarious.

In the real world....scientists are able to determine past temperatures through a wide variety of sources and techniques. Too bad you are so ignorant and yet so sure of your delusions.

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
NASA - Earth Observatory
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.



Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center.NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.


Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

 

Real world data shows a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1 deg C which equates to an ~ 1 deg C temperature global temperature rise for the 21st temperature. That's net beneficial and nothing to worry about.

 

I'm sorry you are so confused by science. An education would have helped.

 

Translation: You are unable to answer questions about science.

 

And as SciGuyNye likewise demonstrated the inability to answer simple questions about global warming is on display above. BTW I have a BS in Chemical Engineering and an MS in Mechanical Engineering - Thermal Systems. Nye is an embarrassment to the engineering community.

 

Then your belief is wrong unfortunately...unless you wanted to selectively limit your memory.

Listen, try something for me. I want you to find the most reputable source to support my point of view. That is, I want you to find the most reputable source for the claim that the Earth is warming and that humans are a significant factor behind that warming. If you are willing to do this, I will do the same for your side and try to find the most reputable source that I can which attempts to refute those conclusions.

 

There are very few people (both technically proficient and not) who do not believe that the earth is warming and that humans (in the last ~ 70 years) contribute to that warming. The quantification expressed in terms of the climate sensitivity to CO2 metric is where the disagreement lies.

 

When the planet was hot, it had gigantic beasts. As the planet warms, humans are getting taller. Coincidence? Clearly not. We should raise basketball rims to 11 feet.

 

I have seen credible evidence that co2 levels contribute to a rising temperature. What I dont understand is how its going to change earth into venus, or in other words, result in inhospitable conditions.
Heres my views summed up by someone with better vocabulary and a deep understanding stemming from his Time with NASA

http://cornwallalliance.org/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/

Listen I am all for cleaning up the environment and engaging in cleaner business practices. I worked for two years recycling tires, and shredded 2 million of them. I won't argue that humans dont pollute the planet and harm the ecosystem. I am a raving supporter for animal rights. But my father works for a natural gas company that captures ALL of their co2 emissions at well sites and that's not uncommon in to days world. What I see is a lot of concern over these issues not being addressed resulting in climate change being trumped up to astonishing levels of alarm in order to force the public opinion.

So really, I'm on your side.