July, 2016 Hottest Month Ever Recorded

JackA · Aug 25, 2016

flogger said:
Nobody cares any more my friend. Public concern about this peaked 10 years ago and its been all downhill since then. They won't pay for something they no longer believe so I guess the rich will get to keep their money :wink:

Good to be friends.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High

flogger · Aug 25, 2016

JackA said:
Good to be friends.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High

I'm sorry but public concern about your pet topic not just in the US but worldwide has declined considerably in the last decade so none of your wealth redistribution hopes are ever going to to be realised via the AGW scam. It really is all over and only hardcore hold outs like you fail to appreciate that because that would mean admitting you were wrong

Public Interest in Climate Change over the Past 10 Years - Climate Change Weather Blog

You might want the public to still care enough to pay but the truth is they don't.

Climate change has had its day. Live with it

JackA · Aug 25, 2016

flogger said:
I'm sorry but public concern about your pet topic not just in the US but worldwide has declined considerably in the last decade so none of your wealth redistribution hopes are ever going to to be realised via the AGW scam. It really is all over and only hardcore hold outs like you fail to appreciate that because that would mean admitting you were wrong

View attachment 67206326

Public Interest in Climate Change over the Past 10 Years - Climate Change Weather Blog

You might want the public to still care enough to pay but the truth is they don't.

Climate change has had its day. Live with it

Evidently, you believe the more important criteria is what people think about the occurrence of climate change and its predicted effects, not whether and how they are occurring. It's a point of view. You wouldn't be the first to wear those blinders. But your 2014 study showing a falling off and then leveling of public concern is no answer to a study from last March showing a sudden increase in public concern.

flogger · Aug 25, 2016

JackA said:
Evidently, you believe the more important criteria is what people think about the occurrence of climate change and its predicted effects, not whether and how they are occurring. It's a point of view. You wouldn't be the first to wear those blinders. But your 2014 study showing a falling off and then leveling of public concern is no answer to a study from last March showing a sudden increase in public concern.

Its not going to happen because they are not going to pay so just accept that

JackA · Aug 25, 2016

flogger said:
Its not going to happen because they are not going to pay so just accept that

When all else fails, as it regularly does fail with you guys, pull up conspiracy theory. It's a warm blanket.

longview · Aug 25, 2016

JackA said:
Evidently, you believe the more important criteria is what people think about the occurrence of climate change and its predicted effects, not whether and how they are occurring. It's a point of view. You wouldn't be the first to wear those blinders. But your 2014 study showing a falling off and then leveling of public concern is no answer to a study from last March showing a sudden increase in public concern.

Just curious, what occurrence can you point to and say, this is evidence of AGW?
What event is so unique that it has not happened before?

JackA · Aug 25, 2016

longview said:
Just curious, what occurrence can you point to and say, this is evidence of AGW?
What event is so unique that it has not happened before?

Dying seagrass in The Everglades caused by rising sea levels, melting glaciers, the North Pole town of Kivalina that has seen half its land lost to the ocean, for examples. Not my evidence. I don't pretend to have answers, unlike many deniers who delight in their arguments. My sense of reality tells me to defer to science, so I do. Liberal politics have nothing to do with it.

longview · Aug 25, 2016

JackA said:
Dying seagrass in The Everglades caused by rising sea levels, melting glaciers, the North Pole town of Kivalina that has seen half its land lost to the ocean, for examples. Not my evidence. I don't pretend to have answers, unlike many deniers who delight in their arguments. My sense of reality tells me to defer to science, so I do. Liberal politics have nothing to do with it.

The rate of sea level rise has remained unchanged for almost 200 years.
So it would not count as a sign of AGW, an acceleration perhaps, but not just that the sea level is rising.
The oldest record began when Napoleon was in power, in Brest
Global Sea Level Trends - Mean Sea Level Trend

Mithrae · Aug 25, 2016

longview said:
About 15.3°C, firstly "about" implies some level of uncertainty,
secondly, without knowing the actual baseline, the other numbers are meaningless.
Also since they are saying the July number is the hottest month EVER, then the monthly
baselines become the only way to validate such a statement.

You really should read that FAQ sometime

Temperature changes at different times of year and across different years can be compared without having a precise 'absolute' global temperature. In fact since anything close to an observational absolute global temperature would require a measuring station every hectare or so (to account for variations in shade etc.) taking temperatures constantly throughout the day, its error margins would be much larger than simply comparing same time of day and time of year temperature changes at each station, region and globally.

Mithrae · Aug 25, 2016

JackA said:
Evidently, you believe the more important criteria is what people think about the occurrence of climate change and its predicted effects, not whether and how they are occurring. It's a point of view. You wouldn't be the first to wear those blinders. But your 2014 study showing a falling off and then leveling of public concern is no answer to a study from last March showing a sudden increase in public concern.

Two record-breaking years (and five record-breaking months) in a row might have had something to do with that. I always said that the 'pause' was the best rhetorical point the 'sceptics' had, overblown and deceptive though their use of it often was. Now we're up to ten record-breaking months and most likely a third year.

flogger · Aug 25, 2016

Mithrae said:
Two record-breaking years (and five record-breaking months) in a row might have had something to do with that. Now we're up to ten record-breaking months and most likely a third year. I always said that the 'pause' was the best rhetorical point the 'sceptics' had, overblown and deceptive though their use of it often was.

The record is barely 130 years old

So what ?

longview · Aug 25, 2016

Mithrae said:
You really should read that FAQ sometime Temperature changes at different times of year and across different years can be compared without having a precise 'absolute' global temperature. In fact since anything close to an observational absolute global temperature would require a measuring station every hectare or so (to account for variations in shade etc.) taking temperatures constantly throughout the day, its error margins would be much larger than simply comparing same time of day and time of year temperature changes at each station, region and globally.

You should really try to understand that an anomaly without a reference is meaningless.
In fact they must have a reference to attach a number to the anomaly.

longview · Aug 25, 2016

Mithrae said:
Two record-breaking years (and five record-breaking months) in a row might have had something to do with that. I always said that the 'pause' was the best rhetorical point the 'sceptics' had, overblown and deceptive though their use of it often was. Now we're up to ten record-breaking months and most likely a third year.

The record months in the GISS are all clearly outliers associated with the El Nino.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
2015 82 87 91 74 79 79 73 79 82 107 102 110 87 84 83 81 77 97 2015
2016 116 132 128 108 94 79 84 **** **** **** **** **** **** *** 120 110 **** **** 2016
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
Are or we expected to believe for example that the Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 warming of .45 was somehow related
to the change in the CO2 level between Feb 2015 and Feb 2016?

Mithrae · Aug 25, 2016

longview said:
You should really try to understand that an anomaly without a reference is meaningless.
In fact they must have a reference to attach a number to the anomaly.

...yes, the reference period for the temperature anomalies is the 1951 to 1980 average (for GISS). I didn't realize you needed an explanation this basic!

###

longview said:
The record months in the GISS are all clearly outliers associated with the El Nino.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
2015 82 87 91 74 79 79 73 79 82 107 102 110 87 84 83 81 77 97 2015
2016 116 132 128 108 94 79 84 **** **** **** **** **** **** *** 120 110 **** **** 2016
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
Are or we expected to believe for example that the Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 warming of .45 was somehow related
to the change in the CO2 level between Feb 2015 and Feb 2016?

No mention of the two consecutive record years? Particularly 2014, which had an average negative ENSO index value, yet probably beat the previous record years (2010, 2005, 1998) which were all associated with big El Nino events?

Flogger's posts were appealing to popular opinion, not an analysis of all causes affecting why particular months, years and periods reached their respective temperatures. The 'pause' rhetoric was simple and probably effective, even though in reality it didn't indicate any kind of halt to the build-up of energy in the climate system. The recent string of records are equally simple to communicate (and convey a rather more accurate impression of what's going on). It's not surprising that they might increase public awareness and/or concern over our climate impacts.

Lord of Planar · Aug 26, 2016

longview said:
About 15.3°C, firstly "about" implies some level of uncertainty,
secondly, without knowing the actual baseline, the other numbers are meaningless.
Also since they are saying the July number is the hottest month EVER, then the monthly
baselines become the only way to validate such a statement.

Such small numbers are completely meaningless when they are inside the error range as well.

Lord of Planar · Aug 26, 2016

JackA said:
Of the sad arguments that prop up Denier World the most pathetic it seems to me is the idea that the nerds we knew in high school, the kids who loved science more than anything, if they went into climate science, are all betraying their profession in order to conspire for "a wealth distribution agenda". Not only the American nerds but like nerds around the globe.

How many times must this be said.

It is not as conspiracy. How many people do you know that don't bend any of their beliefs for a paycheck?

Do you refuse to do what brings you a paycheck at work, because you disagree?

Lord of Planar · Aug 26, 2016

JackA said:
Good to be friends.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High

LOL...

Only have to be concerned a "fair amount?"

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Seriously? Did you even source the study, or like all true believers of the AGW dogma, just regurgitating what the prophets say?

The "perceived cause of global warming" is absolutely a joke as well. It is a very loaded question:

And from what you have heard or read, do you believe increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century are due more to – [ROTATED: the effects of pollution from human activities (or) natural changes in the environment that are not due to human activities]?

The power of the media pundits...

Gallop doesn't make these questions, they contract for others. Who ever they contracted for, carefully worded these questions.

Gallop poll: GALLUP POLL SOCIAL SERIES: ENVIRONMENT; Princeton Job #: 16-03-004

Lord of Planar · Aug 26, 2016

longview said:
Just curious, what occurrence can you point to and say, this is evidence of AGW?
What event is so unique that it has not happened before?

I would correct that to say "what occurrence can you point to and say, this is evidence of mostly AGW?"

Lord of Planar · Aug 26, 2016

Mithrae said:
You really should read that FAQ sometime Temperature changes at different times of year and across different years can be compared without having a precise 'absolute' global temperature. In fact since anything close to an observational absolute global temperature would require a measuring station every hectare or so (to account for variations in shade etc.) taking temperatures constantly throughout the day, its error margins would be much larger than simply comparing same time of day and time of year temperature changes at each station, region and globally.

And please inform us as to how that distinguished natural from AGW?

Lord of Planar · Aug 26, 2016

Mithrae said:
Two record-breaking years (and five record-breaking months) in a row might have had something to do with that. I always said that the 'pause' was the best rhetorical point the 'sceptics' had, overblown and deceptive though their use of it often was. Now we're up to ten record-breaking months and most likely a third year.

Are the solar changes not part of it, with it's several decades long equalization?

The reduction of climate stations?

The homogenization and correction of temperature records?

Too many unknowns still.

Lord of Planar · Aug 26, 2016

flogger said:
The record is barely 130 years old

So what ?

Another very relevant point. Proxies are very inaccurate compared to the tenths of degrees used today.

Mithrae · Aug 26, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
Are the solar changes not part of it, with it's several decades long equalization?

Part of the conditions contributing to global temperatures in 2014-16? Of course.

Part of the reason they've each in succession been record-breaking years? Not so much: Solar contribution to global warming probably peaked around 1990 (though with little change between 1958 and 2002), with the past few years of solar influence being relatively low compared to most of that period.

longview · Aug 26, 2016

Mithrae said:
...yes, the reference period for the temperature anomalies is the 1951 to 1980 average (for GISS). I didn't realize you needed an explanation this basic!

###

No mention of the two consecutive record years? Particularly 2014, which had an average negative ENSO index value, yet probably beat the previous record years (2010, 2005, 1998) which were all associated with big El Nino events?

Flogger's posts were appealing to popular opinion, not an analysis of all causes affecting why particular months, years and periods reached their respective temperatures. The 'pause' rhetoric was simple and probably effective, even though in reality it didn't indicate any kind of halt to the build-up of energy in the climate system. The recent string of records are equally simple to communicate (and convey a rather more accurate impression of what's going on). It's not surprising that they might increase public awareness and/or concern over our climate impacts.

Consider I have many runners in the same event, so must have many heats.
I report the times of the runners, as anomalies within each heat.
Without knowing the baseline in each heat, there is no way of knowing which runner, had the fastest time of all of them.
They can say July 2016 was the hottest month ever, but without a baseline, the number attached to the month is meaningless
in relationship to the other months.

JackA · Aug 26, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
How many times must this be said.

It is not as conspiracy. How many people do you know that don't bend any of their beliefs for a paycheck?

Do you refuse to do what brings you a paycheck at work, because you disagree?

Possibly you don't know what the word means. You're arguing conspiracy.

longview · Aug 26, 2016

JackA said:
Possibly you don't know what the word means. You're arguing conspiracy.

Sort of! It is the same conspiracy, that forces many of us to leave our homes, sometimes 5 days a week,
and go and earn an income.