Deniers take another blow to the gut: ======================== Yet another scientific authority calls 2014 the hottest year on record By Chris Mooney February 2 at 7:37 AM There has been much hoopla over last month’s joint announcement, by NASA and NOAA, that 2014 was the hottest year on record. In particular, so-called climate “skeptics” have called into question the hottest year designation, noting that NASA was only 38 percent certain of its conclusion, and NOAA 48 percent sure. Granted, it’s not clear what else they would have the agencies do: NASA only gives a 23 percent chance that the next contender — 2010 — was the hottest, and NOAA only an 18 percent chance. So even if you don’t like calling 2014 the hottest, giving 2010 that distinction makes even less sense. In any case, now yet another authority — the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization — has weighed in, also calling 2014 the hottest year recorded. That means that nearly every top science agency that has examined this question — NASA, NOAA, the WMO, and the Japan Meteorological Agency — agrees with the conclusion. The chief dissenter is the Hadley Center in Britain, which last week demurred and did not clearly rate 2014 the hottest year on record, noting that “the uncertainty ranges mean it’s not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.” The World Meteorological Organization’s analysis, though, tallies together the climate records maintained by NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Center. The announcement is appropriately cautious, noting that “the difference in temperature between the warmest years is only a few hundredths of a degree – less than the margin of uncertainty.” Nonetheless, the WMO ranked 2014 as the hottest year, following NASA and NOAA. The overall conclusion at this point, which seems pretty inescapable, is this: 2014 wasn’t a blowout, and wasn’t vastly hotter than all other contenders — but most authorities, examining the data, do consider it to have likely been the hottest year on record. So far. Here’s a helpful figure from the Carbon Brief, comparing all the different temperature datasets — which, when glimpsed in this way, show overwhelming agreement: Carbon Brief The WMO makes several other pertinent observations in its new statement, including noting that fully 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred in the present century. “The overall warming trend is more important than the ranking of an individual year,” noted WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. That, at least, is a conclusion with which every scientist studying temperature records would agree. As have others, the WMO also noted the striking fact that 2014 set a new temperature record without the presence of an El Nino event — a globally twinned atmospheric and ocean phenomenon that tends to temporarily drive up temperatures. So what now? There will be ongoing grumbling, and “skeptics” will still try to argue that 2014 wasn’t really that special, and that there’s been little substantial warming between the year 1998 — still one of the hottest years ever recorded — and today. But most of us, looking at the admittedly noisy record above, will note the trend. And most of us will want our scientists to act and draw conclusions based upon reasonable levels of certainty, while of course admitting their uncertainty – which, in this case, it seems that they’ve done. ========================================
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/02/questioning-the-robustness-of-the-climate-modeling-paradigm/ http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/mistaking-cyclical-variations-for-the-trend.html http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...e-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/
Linking to breitbart on a science forum? You will never learn, not even from experience. btw: the climate skeptic link agrees quite well with the alarmist NOAA in its trend analysis, except that it throws in an arbitrary rebound factor of .4C that it attributes without evidence or argument to coming out of the Little Ice Age in some unspecified but happily linear way. That contradicts the denialist claim that the global warming has not been steadily matching the CO2 boost, of course. And it contradicts the Breitbart link, flatly. The Breitbart link denies that the warming is happening - no "rebound" from the Little Ice Age, no long term linear trend of any kind, no heat trapping by greenhouse gas at all. And the link critiquing the climate modeling simply assumes the models err on the one side but not on the other - meanwhile we know, for example, that the Arctic sea ice and Greenland glacial ice and some of the Antarctic sheet ice has been vanishing faster, not slower, than predicted by the models. From unexplained and uncorrected modeling error one cannot draw conclusions of safety.
That's one of my favorite things about climate change deniers. They will often flip-flop between three positions - "it's not warming!" "it's warming but we had nothing to do with it!" "we have something to do with it but it's a good thing!" Sometimes they will do two or three in the same post as Photzio did above. And they expect to be taken seriously . . . .
No one has a monopoly on truth. You assume I haven't read the links or am too ignorant to discern the fine points distinguishing the content of the three links. Wrong. But you both have evidenced the very simplicity you suggest characterizes me. Self satisfaction and arrogance place you at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to ferreting out truth. It is because I'm already aware of your hamstrung nature that I do not expect to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, such knowledge and understanding about you and others does not prevent/preclude me from offering continued opportunities to attain wisdom. Continue to lay on your backs fascinated by the objects circling above you.
Hmm. Random conflicting links denying climate change? Smug condescension towards anyone who disagrees with you? Angry personal attacks instead of content? Looks like Denial 101. If you could post some Al Gore putdowns, link to a few Heartland sites, some quotes from Fred Seitz and Fred Singer, and perhaps a smug, arrogant note about how it's snowing somewhere, you'd have it down cold. (Note - whatever you do, avoid anything from the journals Science or Nature, articles from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the EPA, the Japan Atmospheric and Meteorologic Association, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. They will probably just depress you.)
*Yawn* Now you're projecting... be careful, you'll dampen the celebratory spirit evoked by your (plural) stating of the obvious. Like I said, lay back and take in the wonder of those objects circling above you.
True. But falsehood has a monopoly on some people. My guess is that by now you are actually unable to make accurate statements about anthropogenic global warming, or the evidence supporting it, on purpose.
I'll see your political op-eds and raise you peer reviewed science: http://www.geologypage.com/2015/02/evidence-from-warm-past-confirms-recent.html TLDR: A study looking at past climate change has come to the conclusion that the IPCC's estimates of climate sensitivity are correct.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01...le-go-to-jail-for-such-manipulations-of-data/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html I'll see you on 'judgment day' after you're razed...assuming I bother to look for you.
AGW deniers should try to refute this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-global-warming-even-real.143423/page-17#post-3275029 Where I suggest that they will claim the photos presented there are just "well done photo shop" production.
Yep, and that is very good evidence that it is cold at Yale. Which means, uh, it is cold at Yale. Thanks for that fascinating update.
That's nothing! It was 87F here yesterday. Clearly climate change is even worse than we've predicted.
Wow! Anecdotal evidence. Did I ever mention, I gave myself a Hodgkin's lymphoma by ingesting about a drop of trichloroethane that was accidentally added to about 1/2 can of Mountain Dew (a carbonated beverage which cost 40 cents for 12 ounces)? Took about 6 months for the lump to get to the size of a half dollar on the side of my neck. Similar to experimental results obtained at Love Canal New York, so, not really so anecdotal, is it? I survived the ordeal, but not by consulting a religious leader, deity or invisible friend. At least, I wasn't gullible enough to try that. You folks can believe correlation does not imply causation all you want. My father died young from the health benefits of smoking camels. That particular kind of ignorance never dies. Nor would tobacco companies be able to profit from it if it did. Stupid is always a safe bet where the human race is concerned. That's where the claptrap peddled as science since the 1940's comes from. The taxonomy of ignorance is such that people will believe in global climate change they are responsible for when they are either roasted alive or frozen to death. And still there will be doubters, because that's the way even our science works, or doesn't work, as the case may be. Be that as it may, trichloroethane proliferation (as a solvent, cleaner) was reduced and so was the widening hole in the ozone layer. The unvarnished truth is that the best science begins with anecdotal evidence. The worst begins with selling placebos for profit, and getting laws crafted and passed so that you can continue doing so. Good luck with making anyone involved in profiting from it to do anything to reduce global warming. Pray harder. It's already too late.
