Re: 2014 to be the Third Hottest Year?

[Rockhopper]

Well that is in variance with what other sites show.




'
Here's a good comment:

Facts:
- There are 7 billion people on earth. That is almost 50 people per square kilometer of land.
- Humans have altered nearly the entire surface of the earth. Cut down forests, built roads, built cities, etc.
- We have a LOT of factories, cars, and we use a lot of energy.
- CO2 can absorb heat. This is already known for more than 100 years, and can easily be tested in labs.
- We know the amount of CO2 from fossil fuels, it has a different isotope.
- The CO2 concentration is much higher than before, and going up fast.
- The CO2 concentration keeps a nice trend with our world's energy consumption, and the energy consumption keeps a trend with the economy. So, economic growth means more CO2 in the air.
- There is some heating of the earth, and weather systems are changing. And that happens just when CO2, which is a gas that can absorb heat, is released in huge quantities in the atmosphere.

That's too much to be coincidence. And since humans already changed the entire earth, don't you think there is a big chance we can actually heat it up by a few degrees as well?

VM we know how much heat energy is coming in from the sun, it's measured by satellites every few minutes. We also know how much heat energy the planet is radiating out into space and that amount is reducing as time goes by, so where is all that heat going? The current consensus is that it is going into the deep ocean and heating that up. That has the potential to alter the sea currents that move the heat around the Earth. If or when they change then our climate is going to be a much worse place to be in.

Yes, there are local variations on a weekly, monthly or even yearly basis but the temp Trend is increasingly upward. It's the trend not the local variations that is the indicator.

There are two forms of the Carbon Cycle, short term and long term.
The short term is the uptake of Carbon by plants, they absorb Carbon and when they die and rot/burn that Carbon is released to be taken up by new plants. That cycle can be from months to several thousand years. That form is balanced out.

The other is the long term which is volcanoes. The Carbon released by an eruption is returned to the ground to be recycled again through another volcano. That cycle can be tens to hundreds of thousand years. That form is balanced out too. Both forms have been stable for millions of years.

The planet will balance itself out but can we afford to wait around for several million years for it to do so? Therein lays our problem.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Show me the links to those graphs. My graphs are raw data.

Anyhoo, .6C increase is a non-issue. 1st off, some areas are becoming cooler while other areas are becoming warmer.

Figure 1 shows that the warmest temperature occurred in 1998, while the third warmest year was 2001.

(Found your link that you were hiding.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2002/

So you say the third warmest year on record is 2014 while NASA say's it was 2001?  

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/despite-the-polar-vortex-2014-is-on-track-to-be-3rd-hottest-year-on-record/

r, that's a fringe site......

[Monk (in hiding)]

Global warming will be a non-issue due to LENR research........

Fossil fuels will become obsolete.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/30/e-cat-report-watch-thread/

[Monk (in hiding)]

What's the big deal?

[Mordae]

Other than passing off close to a centuries worth of projected temperatures in a 3 second cycle?  Nothing at all

Thing is, there has been a massive opportunity for those who wanted to disprove global warming to prove their point...

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/physicist-offers-30000-to-disprove-climate-change/

A physics professor and climate change expert is offering $30,000 of his own money to anyone who can provide irrefutable proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist.

With 97 percent of climate scientists in consensus that climate change is due to human activity, it seems strange that there is so much debate on the topic; yet there is still a vocal contingent that refuses to accept that the phenomenon is exacerbated or created by humans -- if they believe it exists at all.

One scientist hopes to put the discussion to bed once and for all. Much like the James Randi One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, Dr Christopher Keating is offering a cash reward to anyone who can provide him with proof that man-made climate change isn't real.

"I have heard global warming skeptics make all sorts of statements about how the science doesn't support claims of man-made climate change," he wrote on his blog. "I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the skeptics to prove their claims. And, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."...

You can find the actual site and submissions here: Dialogues On Global Warming

As it turns out, for all the information "dis-proving" man-made global warming that is out there, no-one managed to convincingly (or even came close, apparently, although there are some interesting angles debated) disprove it is happening.

The Challenge Is All Done!

I have been scrubbing through the comments sections and I believe I have addressed all of the submissions. If you feel I missed your submission, you are welcome to bring it to my attention and I will fix the problem.

All total, I think there were 85 submissions that I addressed. I will make it official and say that none came even close to proving man made global warming (AGW) is not real. Some were quite interesting, but that didn't make them valid. Some were bad, some were very bad and then there were those that were just plain awful.

There were many things that became apparent during the challenge that I would like to mention:

- It is surprising how many people think that being rude and offensive towards me somehow made their submissions valid. I don't care for bullies and they quickly learned they picked a fight with the wrong person.

- It is also surprising how many people jumped to the conclusions about me and the challenge they wanted to. I found this to be a pretty common trait - these people would patiently wait until they had 10% of the information before jumping to the wrong conclusion, and that conclusion never gave me the benefit of the doubt.

- It is surprising how badly people act when they can hide behind a computer. I wonder if they would want their children/spouse/mother/father/brother/sister/boss to know how they acted on this blog. I am willing to bet right here and now that not a single one of them will come back and apologize for their behavior.

- I have said that the only way to reject AGW is to reject science. I am truly disappointed in how many people proved me right. I even had several people say that if science disagreed with them then the science had to be thrown out. Amazing!

- It was no surprise at all to see how many people rejected my response, no matter how much evidence I provided to support it. I have always said that it is not possible to change someone's mind once they reject global warming. No amount of scientific evidence or logic will change their minds. Now, they have proved it.

- It was also no surprise to see how many people that reject global warming wanted to change the terms of my challenge or to weasel out of the challenge by making ridiculous claims, such as "You can't prove a negative," or, "You didn't define what global warming is." These, and others like them, are completely false statements. If they go around saying they can prove AGW isn't real, then they should have been able to do so here. If they aren't making that statement then this challenge wasn't directed at them. Either way, trying to redefine the challenge or by making silly statements like that is nothing more than an admission that they cannot produce any science to support their claims.

- In summary, this was an honest challenge and I would have paid if anyone could have produced an scientifically sound proof. It wasn't that no one was in the ball park, it was the fact that no one could even see the ball park from where they were standing.


Now, the claim that is being made is that I reneged on the challenge because there were some that should have won. OK, once again, there are people making a statement without any evidence and I am going to put the burden on them to prove it. I am challenging these people to point out which submission should have won and why. They are making the claim, now put up or shut up. And, please don't come back with something along the lines of, "You have to throw out any science that disagrees with me."

I'll wait, but I know it will be a long one.  

 

So yeah, while I'm honestly not trying to knock what you believe here VM, it's not really a debate any more.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Correct, nothing to debate.....

NO WARMING IN LOWER 48 states - explain?



“global warming” or  “climate change,”

“global warming” is significantly more engaging than “climate change.” That’s because global warming generated more alarming associations, causing survey respondents to think of disasters like melting ice, coastal flooding and extreme weather, while “climate change” generated more banal associations with generation weather patterns.

You say death tax, I say estate tax.

Mordae likes using alarming fear associations...

[Mordae]

 Not so much, if anything, I'd prefer that you were right, however the evidence says otherwise.  If there was credible evidence supporting your view (and it's probably worth noting that no-one, from the submissions I've read so far, had bothered to reference the sources you use), someone would be 30 grand richer.

Or to use another term "Money talks, Bullshit walks"

[Rockhopper]

The biggest problem is twofold;

Firstly the permafrost is melting with the potential of releasing huge amounts of Methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more of a heating problem than CO2 is.

Secondly the heat at the moment is gong into the deep oceans and heating them. With the subsequence of more violent storms and hurricanes. Also the thermal expansion of the oceans is already being felt in places like Bangladesh and Tuvalu.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

 Not so much, if anything, I'd prefer that you were right, however the evidence says otherwise.  If there was credible evidence supporting your view (and it's probably worth noting that no-one, from the submissions I've read so far, had bothered to reference the sources you use), someone would be 30 grand richer.

Or to use another term "Money talks, Bullshit walks"

My charts are from here -> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series

[Monk (in hiding)]

Sept 2014 (snow blue mountains)....

[Rogue]

Okay, so what is the point you're making here? Bourke is hot in summer, and the Blue Mountains get cold in winter?

[Monk (in hiding)]

Okay, so what is the point you're making here? Bourke is hot in summer, and the Blue Mountains get cold in winter?

Just normal weather. lsol

[Rogue]

You can't be comparing just a few odd days. Yes some days will be normal, some will be hotter and some will be colder, but the come and live amongst it, and you'll see the years are changing.

[Monk (in hiding)]

You can't be comparing just a few odd days. Yes some days will be normal, some will be hotter and some will be colder, but the come and live amongst it, and you'll see the years are changing.

On January 3, 1909, an extremely hot 51.7C (125F) was recorded at Bourke. It’s possibly the hottest ever temperature recorded in a Stevenson Screen in Australia, but the BOM has removed it as a clerical error. There are legitimate questions about the accuracy of records done so long ago — standards were different. But there are very legitimate questions about the BOMs treatment of this historic data. ‘The BOM has also removed the 40 years of weather recorded before 1910, which includes some very hot times. Now we find out the handwritten original notes from 62 years of the mid 20th Century were supposed to be dumped in 1996 as well. Luckily, these historic documents were saved from the dustbin and quietly kept in private hands instead.….



http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/hiding-something-bom-throws-out-bourkes-hot-historic-data-changes-long-cooling-trend-to-warming/

[Monk (in hiding)]

This below, are the 12 month averages over Australia by satellite. Graphed at Kens Kingdom by Ken Stewart, with no doctorate in climatology and no government funds.



For the third time this year we’ve been hit with claims of a “hottest ever” record that doesn’t tell us anything about the climate, but does reveal a lot about the sick state of government funded science, corrupted, decrepit, and so far from being scientific it might as well be run by Greenpeace.  If the government stopped funding climate science entirely, climate research might speed up.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/australias-record-hottest-12-month-period-junk-science-say-the-satellites/

[Rogue]

That looks to me like a generally upward trend from the early nineties, possibly even from the eighties.

[Monk (in hiding)]

That looks to me like a generally upward trend from the early nineties, possibly even from the eighties.

Could be, don't know anything about your local weather patterns.

Seemed like a cool summer here, news said it was a normal summer. Remembering the late 1980's it was wonderful here, hot, windy summers. Felt like I wuz in California. Winters where nice and mild too, late year we had one of the worst coldest winters on record.

[Rockhopper]

Maybe our Ken Stewart is another Melba Ketchum or Brien Foester? If he claims that the climate is not warming and can prove it, then why does he not claim the $30,000?

I also note that he is not a Climatologist either. What are his qualifications?

VM you can believe whatever you want, that's your choice and I have no problem with it. I go along with properly qualified experts who say that there is warming and I see no reason to disagree with that 97.75% of the true experts who say that it is warming.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

I've shown you the historical raw data from NOAA for the USA.

First, narcissists don’t really argue, do they?  No, they attack.  If you don’t understand that the only goal of a narcissist in an argument is to win, you will find yourself at a terrible disadvantage.  He doesn’t really care to understand your opinion or your ideas.  He just wants you to shut up in humiliation, especially if you dared to challenge his idea.

Most people simply give up arguing with their narcissist. It costs too much and it never ends well. I would suggest that this be considered a tactic of control, rather than a position of defeat. By refusing to argue, you disarm the narcissist. He or she will be frustrated to realize that you are not overcome by his thinking. Just be prepared to listen to a long one-sided argument.

Remember r, I agree with the term 'climate change'.

[Kaere]

I think perhaps everyone would get along much better if remarks remained restricted to the topic at hand and not aimed at each other.

[Sponsored content]