2015 is hottest year on record by far

[Albion]

With apologies to Chicken Little, here's another report on the sky not falling just yet.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/study-predicts-decades-of-global-cooling-ahead/

 

[abysmul]

Hottest "on record", what percentage of the Earth's actual age do these "records" make up?

 

[The Cadet]

Hottest "on record", what percentage of the Earth's actual age do these "records" make up?

Already addressed upthread.

We have temperature readout records going back a hundred years or so. This is what is meant by "records". Beyond that, we have temperature proxies, and admittedly, there have been warmer periods (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, anyone?). However, the current warming is unprecedentedly rapid.

 

[AirPo]

According to “scientist” the earth is over a billion years old. How far back do the records go?

Billions of years.

 

[Glass*Soul]

According to “scientist” the earth is over a billion years old. How far back do the records go?

Modern temperature records are not the only records. One can draw conclusions regarding climate by examining things like historical accounts, tree rings, varves, ice cores and the fossil record. So, yeah, there are records of some sort or another going back as far as the earth goes back. Granted, the farther back you go, the less exact our conclusions will be, but that is OK, as we are understandably most interested in how climate has and will effect human populations. For instance, knowing that the earth was warm enough to form a worldwide magma ocean during the iron catastrophe is not of particular interest in our discussions of temperature changes in the modern earth's climate.

 

[RC1970]

Modern temperature records are not the only records. One can draw conclusions regarding climate by examining things like historical accounts, tree rings, varves, ice cores and the fossil record. So, yeah, there are records of some sort or another going back as far as the earth goes back. Granted, the farther back you go, the less exact our conclusions will be, but that is OK, as we are understandably most interested in how climate has and will effect human populations. For instance, knowing that the earth was warm enough to form a worldwide magma ocean during the iron catastrophe is not of particular interest in our discussions of temperature changes in the modern earth's climate.

One can draw conclusions from reading the constellations or flipping a coin.

 

[The Cadet]

One can draw conclusions from reading the constellations or flipping a coin.

Or one can draw conclusions about the location of the earth from the motion of the heavenly bodies. Do you know how we draw those conclusions from temperature records?

 

[Glass*Soul]

One can draw conclusions from reading the constellations or flipping a coin.

The examples I gave involve studying the evidence and drawing conclusions. This differs from relying on chance or superstition.

Do you regard these processes as being equivalent? Why so?

 

[RC1970]

Or one can draw conclusions about the location of the earth from the motion of the heavenly bodies. Do you know how we draw those conclusions from temperature records?

The examples I gave involve studying the evidence and drawing conclusions. This differs from relying on chance or superstition.

Do you regard these processes as being equivalent? Why so?

I don't doubt the data, I doubt the conclusions.

I have been told by "scientists" that man has evolved from the primordial slim, that homosexuality is normal, that human life does not begin at conception, that there is value in fiat currencies, and the law of causality does not apply at the subatomic level.

I believe that the apostle Paul was correct when he declared that men "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" and "claiming to be wise, they became fools" and that because of these things "God gave them up to a debased mind".

I also agree with Malcolm Muggeridge when he said "Modern man has educated himself into imbecility".

 

[Glass*Soul]

I don't doubt the data, I doubt the conclusions.

I have been told by "scientists" that man has evolved from the primordial slim, that homosexuality is normal, that human life does not begin at conception, that there is value in fiat currencies, and the law of causality does not apply at the subatomic level.

I believe that the apostle Paul was correct when he declared that men "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" and "claiming to be wise, they became fools" and that because of these things "God gave them up to a debased mind".

I also agree with Malcolm Muggeridge when he said "Modern man has educated himself into imbecility".

I'm not entirely sure how to reply except to talk a little about skepticism. Skeptics share three characteristics:

1. Skeptics do not believe easily.
2. When skeptics take a position, they do so provisionally.
3. Skeptics do not bow to orthodoxy.

When encountering uncertainty or disagreement, skeptics do not retreat into orthodoxy. They keep studying the matter at hand with as much equipoise as they can manage even if it leads into uncanny territory.

I noticed that you have put the word scientist in scare quotes. That might be appropriate in some cases. Maybe someone is not a scientist and doing little more than sharing their ignorance on a scientific question. Maybe someone is a scientist but not a very good one and has done shoddy research tainted by prejudice and reached a faulty conclusion. Maybe someone is a scientist but is speaking outside of their area of expertise. Maybe someone is a scientist but is offering opinions that actually lie outside of the purview of science. All of these occasions should spark your skepticism. However, none of them bar science itself, properly done, from finding valid answers to the sorts of questions it is able to address. The trick is in gaining an eye (or ear ) for sorting out the reliable from the non-reliable, not in rejecting all science as being no more useful than flipping a coin. And even then, one's acceptance is provisional. Even a good conclusion can be improved upon if more data becomes available. This is not a bug. It is a feature.

 

[The Cadet]

I don't doubt the data, I doubt the conclusions.

I have been told by "scientists" that man has evolved from the primordial slim, that homosexuality is normal, that human life does not begin at conception, that there is value in fiat currencies, and the law of causality does not apply at the subatomic level.

Okay, do you know how they reached those conclusions?

 

[loveofourlord]

The earths temperature the last 4.5 billion years doesn't matter, heck, doesn't even matter a few hundred years ago, least in the US/Canada, rest of the world yes. In the US most of the growing regions right now are in areas that will be hit hardest by global warming, thats not even calculating thigns like the droughts happening in California and western Canada and other issues.

The world has built it's infrastruction on the current climate world wide, cities are built on current coasts and such small changes in sea height, moving north of drier areas and such things could quickly go bad.

 

[The Cadet]

The earths temperature the last 4.5 billion years doesn't matter, heck, doesn't even matter a few hundred years ago, least in the US/Canada, rest of the world yes. In the US most of the growing regions right now are in areas that will be hit hardest by global warming, thats not even calculating thigns like the droughts happening in California and western Canada and other issues.

The world has built it's infrastruction on the current climate world wide, cities are built on current coasts and such small changes in sea height, moving north of drier areas and such things could quickly go bad.

Someone gets it. Thank you! Yeah, it's been hotter before. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was way hotter than now. But we built our society around a certain relatively stable temperature band, and when that band changes, we could run into some problems.

 

[kit]

Someone gets it. Thank you! Yeah, it's been hotter before. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was way hotter than now. But we built our society around a certain relatively stable temperature band, and when that band changes, we could run into some problems.

Dare I say look into climate AND weather more closely and you see that even cool spells are caused by the overall warming. Example: The warming of the oceans around Australia puts more humidity/cloud into the air. This means more rainy weather. Rainy weather is less warm than sunny weather so it is not registering as an increase in temperature.
Example: Warm waters in the Northern Baffin Bay create a semi-permanent low pressure feature in Winter. This directs pulses of cold air to Eastern North America. This led to the procession of snow storms over the last several Winters. Americans think because their weather is snowy that it is cold, not realizing it takes atmospheric heat to create snow.

 

[brewmama]

Dare I say look into climate AND weather more closely and you see that even cool spells are caused by the overall warming. Example: The warming of the oceans around Australia puts more humidity/cloud into the air. This means more rainy weather. Rainy weather is less warm than sunny weather so it is not registering as an increase in temperature.
Example: Warm waters in the Northern Baffin Bay create a semi-permanent low pressure feature in Winter. This directs pulses of cold air to Eastern North America. This led to the procession of snow storms over the last several Winters. Americans think because their weather is snowy that it is cold, not realizing it takes atmospheric heat to create snow.

If that's true, then what's the problem? Obviously there are more checks and controls on the climate than given credit.

 

[kit]

If that's true, then what's the problem? Obviously there are more checks and controls on the climate than given credit.

If you have lung cancer aren't liable to have a headache. The lack of pain in the head isn't a sign all is fine.
Part of the rain in Australia has been record strong typhoons/cyclones. That extra heat and carbon in the ocean is bleaching the Great Barrier Reef. If the coral of the reef is killed much of eastern Australia becomes more vulnerable still to ocean storms. When the rain isn't falling the extra atmospheric heat feeds record wildfires.

The consequences aren't checks and/or controls. These side effects don't alter the overall trend. Glaciers are still disintegrating. Oceans are still rising. Climate zones are still migrating.

 

[loveofourlord]

If that's true, then what's the problem? Obviously there are more checks and controls on the climate than given credit.

so if a drought hit all of southern US and alot of agriculture was gone for a few years it's okay, because Canada gets better weather?

were talking huge differences. while other parts of the world get too warm, the UK's going to be getting colder.

Or look at the vortex's and such thats been hitting the northern part of NA the last 4-5 years is that a good thing? It balances out some of the hot days, but it's not like that weather is created in a vacuum, all thats happening is colder temperatures are pulled south, it's the normal weather just further south and so on.

 

[brewmama]

If you have lung cancer aren't liable to have a headache. The lack of pain in the head isn't a sign all is fine.
Part of the rain in Australia has been record strong typhoons/cyclones. That extra heat and carbon in the ocean is bleaching the Great Barrier Reef.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/...to-be-at-the-lowest-levels-in-modern-history/

Nope. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/coral-bleaching-on-the-gbr-no-evidence-of-net-decline/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/

If the coral of the reef is killed much of eastern Australia becomes more vulnerable still to ocean storms. When the rain isn't falling the extra atmospheric heat feeds record wildfires.

The consequences aren't checks and/or controls. These side effects don't alter the overall trend. Glaciers are still disintegrating. Oceans are still rising. Climate zones are still migrating.

Not really. Sea level rise has not increased in acceleration, this is all hype and alarmist blather.

 

[brewmama]

so if a drought hit all of southern US and alot of agriculture was gone for a few years it's okay, because Canada gets better weather?

were talking huge differences. while other parts of the world get too warm, the UK's going to be getting colder.

Or look at the vortex's and such thats been hitting the northern part of NA the last 4-5 years is that a good thing? It balances out some of the hot days, but it's not like that weather is created in a vacuum, all thats happening is colder temperatures are pulled south, it's the normal weather just further south and so on.

What do you have against Canada getting better weather?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...-polar-vortex-wasnt-caused-by-global-warming/

http://www.weather.com/science/news/polar-vortex-derecho-bombogenesis-new-weather-terms-20140410#/2

 

[kit]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/...to-be-at-the-lowest-levels-in-modern-history/

Nope. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/coral-bleaching-on-the-gbr-no-evidence-of-net-decline/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/




Not really. Sea level rise has not increased in acceleration, this is all hype and alarmist blather.

That is just not true. Tell that to the City of Miami Beach that is having to install a whole new drainage system complete with pumps because the rising ocean has been flooding city streets.