First Five Months of 2015 Hottest on Record

[Monk Of Reason]

100% of climate scientists agree that observed reality trumps predictions if there is a difference..,,,and the planet has warmed about 0.7 C over 140 years and over the last 15 years or so....the warming is somewhat in a hiatus...

Tell me. If 10 of the hottest years on record have happened in the last 17 years and the last 18 are supposed to have had no increase in temperature how is that so? At least 9 of those 18 years are record holding years? Half of the previous 18 years of "standstill" have been the hottest on record. Something doesn't match up here.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Tell me. If 10 of the hottest years on record have happened in the last 17 years and the last 18 are supposed to have had no increase in temperature how is that so? At least 9 of those 18 years are record holding years? Half of the previous 18 years of "standstill" have been the hottest on record. Something doesn't match up here.

If you are driving a car at 50 mph and then over the next 130 seconds you accelerate to 60 mph....and then stay at that speed for the next 15 seconds.....you can say that for the last 15 seconds, the car was traveling at the record highest speed of 60 mph...and that is correct...for the car 's speed is no longer increasing...it is steady at 60 mph... So the car hit record high sped for each of the last 15 seconds...yes? So the global temperature climbed 0.7 C over 130 years and then has stayed at that high for the last 15 years...so the temperature is no longer increasing...it is relatively steady at the high temperature it reached 15 years ago.. So you say the over the last 15 years...there has been 15 highest temperatures on record....but the thing is, the temperature is still paused ...yes?

So the models expected the temperature to increase dramatically as the CO2 levels reached record levels....but instead the temperature has been paused at the record highs of the past 15 years....got it? Oh, and by the way, climate science uses trends to determine the temperature planetary state...so the annual averages temperatures are used to determine that trend..

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you are driving a car at 50 mph and then over the next 130 seconds you accelerate to 60 mph....and then stay at that speed for the next 15 seconds.....you can say that for the last 15 seconds, the car was traveling at the record highest speed of 60 mph...and that is correct...for the car 's speed is no longer increasing...it is steady at 60 mph... So the car hit record high sped for each of the last 15 seconds...yes? So the global temperature climbed 0.7 C over 130 years and then has stayed at that high for the last 15 years...so the temperature is no longer increasing...it is relatively steady at the high temperature it reached 15 years ago.. So you say the over the last 15 years...there has been 15 highest temperatures on record....but the thing is, the temperature is still paused ...yes?

So the models expected the temperature to increase dramatically as the CO2 levels reached record levels....but instead the temperature has been paused at the record highs of the past 15 years....got it? Oh, and by the way, climate science uses trends to determine the temperature planetary state...so the annual averages temperatures are used to determine that trend..

Yes. But at this point you have agreed that the car has accelerated to 60 MPH and despite cooling of the sun we have maintained that high and even averaged higher the further we go along? For example the hottest year on record in 2014. And so far it look like 2015 will beat it. It might not if we have a cold winter but so far for the first six months of this year are hotter than the first six months of the hottest year on record.

Now if we look specifically at the years on the last 15 years of "halted global warming" we see two major factors that key into this "halt". The first is that we had an abnormal hot group of years in 2002 and 2003. We also had the abnormally hot year in 1998. This inflated, higher than average temperature, even based off of increasing global trends they were abnormally warm gave a slightly higher than average "starting point" for your 15 year average. Then we have a second group of years that had an abnormally cool year for two years because of ocean current anomalies. Now all of a sudden we are exactly back on track with a constant warming for three years in a row now. 2011 and 2012 were lower but now 2013 is the fifth highest year ever and 2014 is the number 1.

Three year and even worse, five year averages are terrible in looking at anything less than 20+ years of data. The ocean level rise has been steady and all signs say that we are still warming. An abnormal rise and dip between two different years have caused this "stall" of global warming.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes. But at this point you have agreed that the car has accelerated to 60 MPH and despite cooling of the sun we have maintained that high and even averaged higher the further we go along? For example the hottest year on record in 2014. And so far it look like 2015 will beat it. It might not if we have a cold winter but so far for the first six months of this year are hotter than the first six months of the hottest year on record.

Now if we look specifically at the years on the last 15 years of "halted global warming" we see two major factors that key into this "halt". The first is that we had an abnormal hot group of years in 2002 and 2003. We also had the abnormally hot year in 1998. This inflated, higher than average temperature, even based off of increasing global trends they were abnormally warm gave a slightly higher than average "starting point" for your 15 year average. Then we have a second group of years that had an abnormally cool year for two years because of ocean current anomalies. Now all of a sudden we are exactly back on track with a constant warming for three years in a row now. 2011 and 2012 were lower but now 2013 is the fifth highest year ever and 2014 is the number 1.

Three year and even worse, five year averages are terrible in looking at anything less than 20+ years of data. The ocean level rise has been steady and all signs say that we are still warming. An abnormal rise and dip between two different years have caused this "stall" of global warming.

Where did you get the idea the sun is cooling...the sun is not cooling, it is just that sun spot cycle activity is decreasing.. most solar experts claim there is no meaningful correlation between SA and global temperature though there are some scientists who claim there is...but correlation does not meant causation in any case.. And besides...if there is some associative cause between SA and earth temperature,,,because there is enertia in the earth climate system...it will be probably a full solar cycle (about 11 years) before it will be noticeable....say about 2025...

As for those hot years during the early part of 15 years of hiatus, they are of course the reason the trend line over the period is flat...but that's how it works...hiatus...you can make all the excuses in the world....but the UN IPCC accepts there is...that's the end of matter since no one can accuse the IPCC of being aligned with the skeptics... If you do...take it up with them...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Where did you get the idea the sun is cooling...the sun is not cooling, it is just that sun spot cycle activity is decreasing.. most solar experts claim there is no meaningful correlation between SA and global temperature though there are some scientists who claim there is...but correlation does not meant causation in any case.. And besides...if there is some associative cause between SA and earth temperature,,,because there is enertia in the earth climate system...it will be probably a full solar cycle (about 11 years) before it will be noticeable....say about 2025...

As for those hot years during the early part of 15 years of hiatus, they are of course the reason the trend line over the period is flat...but that's how it works...hiatus...you can make all the excuses in the world....but the UN IPCC accepts there is...that's the end of matter since no one can accuse the IPCC of being aligned with the skeptics... If you do...take it up with them...

Oh I have no issue with the hiatus. There really isn't a hiatus actually. There was a two year period of low temperatures and three years of very warm temperatures. The trend is still obviously in the upwards direction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh I have no issue with the hiatus. There really isn't a hiatus actually. There was a two year period of low temperatures and three years of very warm temperatures. The trend is still obviously in the upwards direction.

This is IPCC approved HadCrut 4 global land and sea temperrature data for the period 1998 to now...there is a slight warming trend of less than 0.1 C per decade....

Here is the same period showing IPCC approved RSS satellite global satellite upper trop. atmospheric temperature showing a cooling trend line of about the same amount...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is IPCC approved HadCrut 4 global land and sea temperrature data for the period 1998 to now...there is a slight warming trend of less than 0.1 C per decade....

Here is the same period showing IPCC approved RSS satellite global satellite upper trop. atmospheric temperature showing a cooling trend line of about the same amount...

I've already discussed these graphs and provided dozens of my own. If you still wish to wear the tin foil hat then go on. Can you at least describe how the scientists are full of **** though? What motive do they have and how are they faking the information?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've already discussed these graphs and provided dozens of my own. If you still wish to wear the tin foil hat then go on. Can you at least describe how the scientists are full of **** though? What motive do they have and how are they faking the information?

The only graphs that count in the science are those based on data used by the IPCC...and that is all I refer to... If you dispute these graphs...then it is you wearing the tin foil hat...

I don't understand your reference about describing scientists as being full of ****....who said that? The is much politics in the climate debate...for there is planned to be over a trillion dollars per year to be dispersed...so of course there are scientists who compromise the science in order to curry favour with rich and powerful pushing for agw climate action...Nothing unusual about that..

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The only graphs that count in the science are those based on data used by the IPCC...and that is all I refer to... If you dispute these graphs...then it is you wearing the tin foil hat...

Sure. And I've already dealt with those. In fact just two posts back I repeated yet again the point.

I don't understand your reference about describing scientists as being full of ****....who said that? The is much politics in the climate debate...for there is planned to be over a trillion dollars per year to be dispersed...so of course there are scientists who compromise the science in order to curry favour with rich and powerful pushing for agw climate action...Nothing unusual about that..

Sure. Sure. Yeah. Nothing unusual going on here...just a global conspiracy with irrefutable evidence being planted and a near 100% consensus worldwide for decades even those without a dime to be made and only those that are funded by anti-climate change groups say otherwise....and numerous pages of papers going to explain why the misuse of graphs is wrong for the point that anti-climate change groups have tried to push. Nope nothing going on here.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure. And I've already dealt with those. In fact just two posts back I repeated yet again the point.

Sure. Sure. Yeah. Nothing unusual going on here...just a global conspiracy with irrefutable evidence being planted and a near 100% consensus worldwide for decades even those without a dime to be made and only those that are funded by anti-climate change groups say otherwise....and numerous pages of papers going to explain why the misuse of graphs is wrong for the point that anti-climate change groups have tried to push. Nope nothing going on here.

As has been noted previously on this and other threads about climate change....the science has taken a second place to the politics.....you say 100% consensus....and then what is this...Global Warming Petition Project

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you at least describe how the scientists are full of **** though? What motive do they have and how are they faking the information?

Most of the time we aren't faking the information but succumb to natural biases and thus disregard evidence to the contrary. This isn't restricted to climate science; it's more like a general rule of thumb for all the science (hence The Linguistic Wars, Susskind vs. Hawking, embodied cognition, the multitude of interpretations of quantum mechanics, the continued existence of null hypothesis significance testing in the face of some ~80 years of research demonstrating it's fundamental problems and no empirical or theoretical evidence to defend it, etc.). The positions that the public hears aren't as representative as they would seem- a small connection of "big name" scientists tend to influence material designed for public conception. This is as true of the "deniers" or "skeptics" as it is those involved in the CRU emails.

Far more importantly, climate scientists (like scientists in general) speak one way when they address colleagues and another in addresses to the public. The research doesn't reflect the certainty of this too oft repeated 95% (or 98%) opinion among scientists that "global warming" or "climate change" (which, for simplicity, we will define as described in IPCC summaries) is correct. Certainly, most climate scientists think that the observed warming is due largely to human activities. But even those who think the IPCC summary version correct are generally far from thinking that their position is sufficiently supported by the research. Rather, they acknowledge widespread problems in the accuracy of models, capacity to deal with enormously complex and interacting systems, failures in predictions, numerous postulated climate drivers that could account for substantial amounts of warming attributed to humans, etc. However, they also know that the public tends to misunderstand the ways scientific research and progress work, and that, especially in politically or otherwise sensitive issues various persons or media are wont to take indications of doubt or alternative explanations and make them into something they are not. So not only do they essentially lie to the public, there are recorded seminars/conferences you can watch in which climate scientists discuss how to lie to the public (not that they use the word lie, or that they lie to cover anything up rather than because telling the truth would result in misunderstandings that are more distorted and inaccurate than the lies).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As has been noted previously on this and other threads about climate change....the science has taken a second place to the politics.....you say 100% consensus....and then what is this...Global Warming Petition Project

I said near 100%. To my knowledge it is a 100% consensus that we are warming and the 1% squabble about how much humans had impact in.

I could have printed it out. Signed it and then sent it in saying that I had a PhD in microbiology specializing in algae life. I wouldn't have to provide any sort of documentation other than the scribble of my name on an internet printout. We have no way of knowing if any scientists have even signed the petition. It could have been five people with way to much time on their hands without a single year of high school science education between them for all we know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most of the time we aren't faking the information but succumb to natural biases and thus disregard evidence to the contrary. This isn't restricted to climate science; it's more like a general rule of thumb for all the science (hence The Linguistic Wars, Susskind vs. Hawking, embodied cognition, the multitude of interpretations of quantum mechanics, the continued existence of null hypothesis significance testing in the face of some ~80 years of research demonstrating it's fundamental problems and no empirical or theoretical evidence to defend it, etc.). The positions that the public hears aren't as representative as they would seem- a small connection of "big name" scientists tend to influence material designed for public conception. This is as true of the "deniers" or "skeptics" as it is those involved in the CRU emails.

Far more importantly, climate scientists (like scientists in general) speak one way when they address colleagues and another in addresses to the public. The research doesn't reflect the certainty of this too oft repeated 95% (or 98%) opinion among scientists that "global warming" or "climate change" (which, for simplicity, we will define as described in IPCC summaries) is correct. Certainly, most climate scientists think that the observed warming is due largely to human activities. But even those who think the IPCC summary version correct are generally far from thinking that their position is sufficiently supported by the research. Rather, they acknowledge widespread problems in the accuracy of models, capacity to deal with enormously complex and interacting systems, failures in predictions, numerous postulated climate drivers that could account for substantial amounts of warming attributed to humans, etc. However, they also know that the public tends to misunderstand the ways scientific research and progress work, and that, especially in politically or otherwise sensitive issues various persons or media are wont to take indications of doubt or alternative explanations and make them into something they are not. So not only do they essentially lie to the public, there are recorded seminars/conferences you can watch in which climate scientists discuss how to lie to the public (not that they use the word lie, or that they lie to cover anything up rather than because telling the truth would result in misunderstandings that are more distorted and inaccurate than the lies).

This seems to be the candor problem around lay folk.
When I worked at Black & Decker Medical Products Division, management made the horrendous mistake of putting us engineers near the marketing & sales types. The latter got spooked because all we gearheads & sparkies ever talked about were daunting problems like the sperving valve mictulating the panendermic flimshaw membrane. They thought the products were doomed. No one ever trained us in the art of talking to normal people.

Btw, it turned out that the products were doomed.
(But for marketing & sales reasons....not engineering.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I said near 100%. To my knowledge it is a 100% consensus that we are warming and the 1% squabble about how much humans had impact in.

I could have printed it out. Signed it and then sent it in saying that I had a PhD in microbiology specializing in algae life. I wouldn't have to provide any sort of documentation other than the scribble of my name on an internet printout. We have no way of knowing if any scientists have even signed the petition. It could have been five people with way to much time on their hands without a single year of high school science education between them for all we know.

Yes it is bout 100% consensus the climate has warmed 0.7 C over the last 140 years...that's a given...and don't give me that alarmist rhetoric about the 97% consensus...that paper by John Cook et al has been trashed so many time as being nonsense...the 97% includes skeptical scientists who agreed to global warming...without the question specifying the anthropogenic factor...

So if you are dishonest, you could do that...but don't judge others as being like you... The fact is that about half or more of the people in the world couldn't give a rats about agw...or even gw....they don't buy it...

 

[Milton Platt]

First Five Months Of 2015 Were The Hottest Ever Recorded | IFLScience

Nuff said. Or is this not yet enough evidence of global climate change.

I do think global warming is occurring and that humans played a part. But I am very Leary of using these short spans of time to "demonstrate" that global warming is occurring. Opponents can also provide short-term data that says the opposite.