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

I was speaking generally - ie you know (*)(*)(*)(*) all about anything!

 

World's hottest month and I missed it? They should let us know when these things are going on.


At least I'm not going to miss the next total solar eclipse. I only have to drive 50 miles to be in the 100% zone.




http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/path_through_the_US.htm

 

Awww, you still feeling upset? I'm still waiting for you to educate me about the rampant Wahhabism in Iran on the other thread. But as this thread is about global warming, perhaps you can add your wisdom here?

 

Both 97 - 98 and 15 - 16 were very strong El Nino years. And still no warming from satellite data.

http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for it - I never waste my time trying to educate those who can't be educated.

 

Outstanding. And guess what this conversation uses?

 

Fiction. Even the satellite data, which has a big known cooling bias, shows steady warming. The surface data? It shows the steady warming even more strongly. At this stage of the game, only the most fanatical cultists are still trying to deny the ongoing strong warming.

It's a sure sign of pseudoscience when a group throws away the best data and relies instead on worse data, solely because the worse data supports their political/religious cause. That's what deniers do by relying only on the satellite data, which everyone agrees is not as good as the surface data. Satellites measure mid-troposphere temps, not surface temps. They have a known big cooling bias, at least the dataset (UAH) that deniers rely on. And they're not actual measurements. They are model outputs. They are fudged and twiddled far more than the surface temperature data sets.

In contrast, the surface temps are direct measurements with advanced tech called "thermometers". That's why all the honest people use the surface data.

 

Ah, the "If you're not living in a cave, you don't really believe global warming exists" logical fallacy. Just one of the many logical fallacies that denialism depends on.

Tell you what. Why don't you list the things you believe, and we'll ask why you're not devoting 100% of your life to solving each of those problems, eh? Sauce for the goose and all that.

 

Not what was said. What was said is that for those who take advantage of modern convenience, it seems incredibly hypocritical of them if they don't otherwise demonstrate some level of conservation. No? Otherwise, their credibility is simply hyperventilation. We don't need to depend on this, we demonstrate this. It's kind of like when Al Gore goes to a convention with a battalion or so of hangerons, and their trip represents the entire years worth of CO2 from a small town. Kind of makes folks wonder why they can't simply Skype, or GoToMeeting and save the planet from their own emissions footprint.

Face it. It's the do as I say, not as I do crowd. It's hypocritical of the environnatsi nation to demand that everyone, except for them, to give up modern convenience on the off chance that their pet science project projections might at some point have a real impact. I know, you don't get this. It's an all or nothing type of conversation for you. But here's the wrinkle. Climate changes. We know this. Now, tell me why. I defy you to actually show a causality without creating a generalization. Because, you cannot. No one has, yet. Surely, climate does change though. It does so naturally. We know this because there isn't, still, a mile of ice covering Manhattan island, is there. That ice melted long ago, did it not? Why? Do tell. More importantly, what caused the mile of ice in the first place? Do you know that?

So, the fallacy that you rely on is that you believe, and it's your faith in a myth that you then demand folks take seriously, and you're willing to use government and tyranny to force folks to believe like you do.

 

Manmade climate change/ global warming is faith based nonsense. And predictably there is a lot of money in it.

 

That doesn't refute my point at all. You're still demanding standards of others that you don't hold to yourself. Hence, you are clearly hypocritical, and thus should be ignored, by your own standards.

Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first forfeits the thread for their own side. Gore is a politician, and he has nothing to do with the science. Those who can talk about the science, do. Those who can't, they rave about whatever politicians they've been ordered to demonize.

Just like you, hypocrite.

So, you think Islamic terror is a problem? Why aren't you holding a gun and fighting them now?

Are you pro-life? Then why aren't you out saving babies right this moment?

And so on. That issue isn't going away, why you demand 100% from everyone except yourself.

Sure we can. The stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, those are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. There are no natural explanations for that directly observed data, therefore the "it's all natural" theory has been proven to be wrong.

But they have. Your ignorance of the science only reflects badly on you.

Yes. Orbital factors. Which had the earth slowly cooling for the past 8000 years. Because of the natural cycles, the earth should still be slowly cooling now. Instead, it suddenly started warming, going completely against the natural cycle. That's another nail in the "natural cycles" coffin.

And you end with some political raving, like all deniers do. Without exception, every denier is a member of the right wing fringe political cult. Denialism isn't the actual cult. It's just one of the mandated beliefs of the right wing fringe cult. In contrast, real climate science is non-political. It crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because that's what real science does.

 

Umm...well, can't argue against stupid. That's for sure. I won't hold me breath that this get's any more lucid as I traverse deeper into your post.

One would think that there might be at least a little honor among thieves, apparently, not. I wouldn't want to have to defend Gore either, but he does act globally as a mouthpiece for your religion. It is sort of like saying, the pope doesn't represent Catholicism. If you'd like, you can explain then how detrimental his advocacy is to the AGW cause vis a vis, his well, enormous carbon footprint he maintains on your behalf....

So this is what the forum refers to as thread highjacking, right? For the record, no, I don't think it's a problem at all. Now, an opportunity.....

So, the simple answer, and the honest one would be, no. You cannot provide an answer without resorting to generalization. This isn't hard. It's just the unfortunate truth. So, when you say there are "smoking guns", what you really are saying is, you "think" and that those "might" have some impact, right? And even if we concede that they may in fact have an impact, how much of the warming we see today is caused exclusively by our inputs? The truth is that you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a clue.

So, what? Nature has no influence then at all? And when you said, "suddenly started warming" is that any different than the other cyclic timeframes that also presented this warming? Medieval warming period for example? And when you refer to "sudden" you mean the ~1.7F in rise of temps since the end of the last "little ice age" that ended in around 1865? So here's a question, if the little ice age subsides, is it supposed to remain cold? Is there no natural process that produces a warmer climate? So, Science tells us that on average, the average warm up after a significant cold cycle is ~2C a century. So, since we are about half of that, aren't we on track to demonstrate what you felt your snark would whitewash over?

Cool. So when real science trending suggests we are still on a downward trend, you'll what? Accept the science?

 

Surface temperatures are homogenized/manipulated which includes known bad data with good data. That process is not honest. Satellite measurements cover the entire globe and record the temperature in the troposphere where warming per the models is supposed to be occurring.

 

Get out in the real world much? Apparently you have failed to recognize that there is a great demand for energy efficient products. You claim others are hypocritical yet you do little more than demonstrate your ignorance, or is it malice, on the subject. For instance; you are completely ignoring the fact that in liberal crowds the use of bicycles, mass transportation, hybrid and electric vehicles. When I first tried my hand at computers the computer I used filled a large room and used thousands of kilowatts of electricity. Today I'm using a computer that uses about 80 watts. It probably averages around half that because of the battery..

Those individuals responsible for product development and other innovations are overwhelmingly liberal. Over the years, at least in my working lifetime, it has been creatives that are at the forefront of environmental protections. And they have been using their environmental protection ideas in the products they create. You may never hear about it in your right-wing silly circles but all over the country there are individuals, companies, and colleges have been developing alternate energy sources. In the name of efficiency, costs, and healthfulness these new technology will one day make the burning of fossil fuels obsolete.

Did you know that when rockets fly out to space that they use no fossil fuels?

 

Most scientist are non-believers. It has a lot to do with why they lean so liberal. (and the fact that liberalism grew out of the scientific world view) Faith is a conservative thing. Faith-based science, like creationism and intelligent design, is indeed nonsense.

 

The troposphere is that part of the atmosphere that is the closest to the ground. If one takes their little thermometer and travels vertically they will soon enough discover that it is much warmer near the surface and gets colder the further one moves away from the surface. This is because infrared photons are bouncing between the surface and things like CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and H[SUB]2[/SUB]0 the atmosphere. Because of this one finds more infrared photons near the surface than far up in the atmosphere.

If one looks at the mechanisms at play one would not expect to see the troposphere any hotter than it already is. The warming isn't that the earth is getting hotter but rather more of the heat gained during the day is being retained at night. With higher lowest temperatures the average is raised.

 

I'd recommend doing some homework on the IPCC computer models and what they predict with regard to the troposphere.

 

I do, actually. It warms my heart every time I see someone riding a bike to work, only to know that once they get there, they will shower in steamy hot water warmed by electricity generated by coal, or gas, or nuclear energy. At least they have liberty and some freedom of choice. Having lived in east asia, I've developed a specific distaste for mass transport because of the crush of it all, and frankly the inability to get somewhere without having to stand in line, wait, or otherwise have ot accommodate the swelling stinky masses that also use it. What I do find useful is the freedom that having the ability to rely on my own devices to get me around affords me. I don't drive hybrids, or electric, too negatively impactful on the environment. I do, however, try to get the best performance for efficiency I can get.

What I find is that creative product people are rarely, if ever, liberal. The folks I know who actually produce stuff are far from it. Making the generalization you have kind of neuters your credibility here.

I would also suggest that you're making a completely different argument about energy policy, and not climate policy. You do understand, that simply producing alternative battery or electric vehicles simply transfers who generates the impactful harm to the environment right? I mean, if I buy a Tesla, and I spend roughly $130K, the eco impact of that car over it's lifetime is likely 2-5 times an equivalent Porsche. And a Porsche doesn't end up in a superfund site when it's no longer wanted by the privileged smug who bought or leased it to demonstrate their worthiness to the cult of AGW. Just think about it for a moment. Efficiency isn't a radical thing, or a progressive thing, it's a conservation thing. Getting more, from less. That truly isn't a liberal thing. But it's nice to know that folks are willing to overlook realities in the attempt to satisfy their guilt generated by their belief in the cult. It's kind of like having a front row seat at the Spanish inquisition but from the safety of actually having a country of laws, and not one based on the erroneous tyranny of AGW faithful.

 

I would hazard that faith is neither liberal or conservative as has historically been demonstrated that both are possible to equal amounts of destruction. So, ask yourself this question. Why is noetics an acceptable scientific discipline these days? I'd say what is non sense is the slight of hand methodologies of most AGW study that has to rely on doctoring (yes, this means outright fabrication) data to produce the results of their very basic climate models.

 

Total gibberish. And noetics is not an acceptable scientific discipline.

This is the real explanation: All thermometers are liberal.

 

Ironic. Really. I might buy that all liberals are thermometers. Do you suppose that climate scientists like Michael Mann look deeply into the mirror and then declare, "this is the hottest I've ever been" I have seen this, Bill Maher does this repetitively. Or do you think they say something like, see, I'm hot, and I'll only get hotter in the future.....

 

No, that not what that means.

That's a conspiracy theory, unsupported by any evidence.

Yes, and they've found the warming too, even with their know cooling bias. The radiosondes (weather balloons) show the tropospheric hotspot even more distinctly.

 

Fantasy.

You'd never cut it in the reality-based community of the liberals, being how you just pull numbers out your behind and then expect everyone to believe them.

And neither does a Tesla, or any electric car. You're just making nonsense up. Cultists tend to do that when reality won't match their cult teachings.

As you're the only one overlooking reality here, that speech seems to only apply to you.

That's right. The brightest minds in the planet are all wrong. Your tiny fringe cult knows better than the entire planet, even though all of the data flatly contradicts you. After all, you know all the data has been faked. Your cult told you so.

I understand the attraction that your cult holds for you. You get to tell the world you're courageous and brilliant, all while you simply sit at home and parrot mindless cult platitudes. The attraction of that huge emotional payout for zero work must be irresistible to the intellectually lazy and narcissistic.

 

Scientologists also auto-declare that any data which contradicts the cult teachings has been faked.

Flat earthers say photos of the round earth are faked.

Antivaxxers scream that every medical study that debunks them is fake.

9/11 Truthers say the engineering reports on what made buildings fail are a conspiracy.

Your sort of classic cultist behavior isn't anything we haven't seen many times before.

 

The man made global warming movement is entirely faith based. Surely you know that by now.
Politically driven science requires far more blind faith than religion.