2014 was definitely the hottest year on record
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Blunted 4 lyfe
Well-Known Member
Really? You get your news from a climate change denier, conservetard Who comes out of a right wing think tank? And that's reality? I'll stick to believing real SCIENTIST not a contributer to a right wing magazine Thank You very much.
BTW Where is that scientific data you were talking about? And who cares about 10,000 years ago I and everyone else here weren't around then so who gives a fuck about 10,000 years ago. If there is no scientific data to back up his claim then it's bs, he writes a story without backing it up and I'm suppose to believe that right? Think again!
B4L
Blunted 4 lyfe
Well-Known Member
Funny how when it snows the righties are quick to point out that climate change is some kind of hoax but deny other extreme weather phenomenon.
I could understand big oil execs denying climate because they want to protect their golden egg, but when ordinary folks do it against scientific data telling them it is happening thats it's illogical and stupid, may not happen overnight but it will happen.
This is common sense if you put a pot of water on a stove, on low flame, eventually that pot will overheat and burn. The industrial revolution is the low flame and the world is the pot of water.
B4L
I could understand big oil execs denying climate because they want to protect their golden egg, but when ordinary folks do it against scientific data telling them it is happening thats it's illogical and stupid, may not happen overnight but it will happen.
This is common sense if you put a pot of water on a stove, on low flame, eventually that pot will overheat and burn. The industrial revolution is the low flame and the world is the pot of water.
B4L
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I guess you missed the link to the data you're claiming wasn't provided, didn't think you'd actually read it. And it wasn't 10,000 years ago, it was FOR THE LAST 10,000 years. There's quite a bit of difference between the two.
All the data you asked for was provided as well as links to read it yourself.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/
it continues to cover your other pointsAnalysis of James Taylor’s “2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record”
14 Jan 2016
Ten scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘very low’.[1].
- 104Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)104
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
- More
This is an inaccurate and misleading report.
It only comments on the temperature in the troposphere (not at the surface of the Earth, where people live) and ignores most of the data available to discuss whether or not Earth’s climate is warming. It is based on a single, unpublished and contested record.
Note that another contributor to Forbes published an accurate article on the subject, however the inaccurate article has been read 15-20 times more (26k) than the accurate one (1.5k) as of Jan 22, 2016.
See all the scientists’ annotations in context
Guest comments:
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
The author is guilty of ignoring the surface temperature record, which is probably more accurate than the satellite temperature record. The author ignores the fact that record temperatures often occur in the year following an El Nino, because the global temperature response tends to lag the El Nino SST anomaly by 3-4 months. The author engages in excessive derogatory name calling, and appears to lump scientists in with “global warming activists”.
Zeke Hausfather, Research Scientist, University of California Berkeley
This article makes startlingly inaccurate claims about the earth’s surface and satellite temperature records, as well as attempts to ascertain the earth’s temperatures over the past two millennia through proxy measurements. The author would do well to talk to scientists involved in surface and satellite records and to consult the peer-reviewered scientific literature rather than blogs when writing in the future.
Reviewers’ overall feedback:
These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.
See who the scientists quoted are.
Alexis Berg (Alexis_b)
Very misleading and biased article. The author tries to confuse readers by using the satellite record of the lower atmosphere temperature to disprove the fact that 2015 was the warmest year, when everybody else is in fact referring to the mean temperature at the surface. They are slightly different things. Satellite measurements do not disprove surface measurements. A more interesting question would be to understand the difference between the two. A better-informed – and less biased – author would have addressed that and tried to explain it to their readers.
Julien Emile-Geay (elnino)
This is a highly misleading piece by an author with a history of cherry picking. Nothing in this piece is factually accurate. Furthermore, in relying on discredited reports by the Heartland Institute instead of the peer-reviewed literature, the author completely misinterprets the paleoclimate record, which only strengthens the point that 2015 is an exceptionally warm year, not just since 1979 but for the past 10,000 years.
David Easterling
The coverage is a bit disingenuous since it only uses one satellite data set, and emphasizes the troposphere rather than the boundary layer [surface] where people actually live. The surface and upper air are two very different areas and their temperatures differ for lots of scientifically valid reasons.
JamesRenwick (JamesRenwick)
This piece is a rehash of several points that have been refuted many times over. The “satellite temperature record” from Roy Spencer is trumpeted so much because it is the only record that shows slow warming.
Victor Venema (VictorVenema)
The Forbes post of James Taylor provides the deepest possible contrast to the accurate New York Times article on the 2015 temperature record.
Eric Guilyardi (eguilyardi)
A biased piece that confuses scientists and activists, full of inaccuracies and even plain errors. The author has obviously no expertise in climate science and did not seek to get some to write his piece. Quite poor journalism, if the term even applies.
Britta Voss (bmv)
The author uses inaccurate and misleading claims (based on evidence from scientifically discredited sources) and rhetorical devices to confuse the facts and bias readers against legitimate climate science.
Stephan Lewandowsky (lewan)
Nothing in this article is either scientific or novel. Those are stale talking points that are constantly recycled by political operatives in pursuit of an agenda.
Andreas Schmittner (andreass)
The article contains major scientific inaccuracies by claiming that most of the last 10,000 years and most of the past several thousand years were warmer than today (not true, see Marcott et al. 2013 orPAGES 2K). It omits the surface temperature data from the last 100 years, which show that it was a record warm year. It presents logical flaws by first showing the satellite data of lower tropospheric temperature estimates from 1979 to the present to say that 1998 was warmer than 2015 and then argues that the surface temperature record from the last 100 years was too short to make an argument. What I find most disturbing is that the author paints scientific facts as coming from “activists” and being “doctored”. Clearly an attempt to discredit science.
Notes:
[rating guidelines used for article evaluations.
[2015 was indeed the hottest year on record. This was rigorously determined by a large group of climate scientists. By calling these scientists “global warming activists,” the author misleadingly implies that the claim is made by a fringe group of non-expert partisans.
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
Being a HVAC man have you helped DWC people understand how to keep water from heating up?
Of all of our senses, common sense is the only one that is uncommon.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you predicted a 14 point romney win based on your belief in "skewed polls".
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you told me that forest fires cause global cooling and asked me to draw iran's route to the sea for you?
LOL
that is kinda funny.
Blunted 4 lyfe
Well-Known Member
The proper way to regulate temps would be to build a chill water coil, circulation pump, and a heat exchanger that can attach itself (piggyback, intergrate) to a wall a/c unit evaperating coil ( the cold coil, usually the part that freezes up). Temperature control will be acheived by connecting a line or low voltage stat to the circulation pump with an immersion sensor on bottom of bucket, tub.
But to answer your question I've never advised anyone on how to do this just figure out what cfm fan someone needed for their tent and how to create negative pressure in a grow room.
But I did HVAC on 100 tons of A/C and industrial (steam turbine, cogeneration, trigeneration (spelling) large scale heat pumps) I don't do small stuff. You can however buy a 1/8 ton refrigeration condensing unit and ( braze/weld/silver solder) a chill water coil.
B4L
Last edited:
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Well enough smoke in the air can block out the sun if several continents were burning,...that`s at least plausible, but Iran`s route to the sea ? It has Blue and Green water coastline.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Yay Arctic heatwave in the dead of winter/months long nighttime....
http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/...-thats-55-degrees-f-above-normal-for-january/
(Another wave of extreme, above average temperatures for the Arctic is on the way. Image source: Climate Reanlyzer.)
To put such extraordinary temperatures into context, this predicted record polar warmth is in the range of 55 degrees (F) above normal for January. And for such a typically frigid region, these temperatures are more usual for June, July, or August. Or, to make another comparison, for Gaithersburg, Maryland it would be like seeing readings above 94 degrees (F) for the same Winter day. A summer heatwave in the midst of what should be a season of cold. That’s what’s predicted for a region that will not see a single ray of sunlight until April.
Heat trapping gasses with the ability to re-radiate the sun’s energy in the dark of night or in the depths of Winter are now having a profound impact on our world. It’s something that should really be keeping us up at night. At the very least, it’s something that on Tuesday may push the North Pole up above freezing on a, black as night, January day.
http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/...-thats-55-degrees-f-above-normal-for-january/
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I've already seen this and immediately dismissed it. It fails the second they mention it doesn't include surface readings. Umm, that's exactly why it's more credible.
Then the first guest co-conspirator makes one of the most laughable statements ever written. "The author is guilty of ignoring the surface temperature record, which is probably more accurate than the satellite temperature record.
Uh, not even in the most far fetched, insanely liberal Eco-Loon's fantasy is that remotely true. If you believe that bullshit for a second, you are hopelessly lost.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"In late January 2016, a cold wave struck much of East Asia and parts of mainland Southeast Asia, bringing record cold temperatures and snowfall to many regions. These saw their coldest temperatures in decades, while sleet was reported in Okinawa for the first time on record. Snowfall and frigid weather stranded thousands of people across four countries. At least 85 people in Taiwan died from hypothermia and cardiac arrest following a sudden drop in temperature during the weekend of January 22–24. The cold claimed a further fourteen lives in Thailand, and snowstorms resulted in six deaths across Japan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2016_East_Asia_cold_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2016_East_Asia_cold_wave
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
oh yeah, I'd take the word of a retired used car salesman over weather experts at NASA any day. I bet you've even found a person to quote for this.
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
The problem is yous kids and your cell phones.
They send too much electric to the sun
then the sun gets angry.
They send too much electric to the sun
then the sun gets angry.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This from: http://climatecrocks.com/2016/02/04/satellite-scientist-upset-at-well-funded-video/#more-30049
Climate Denial Crock of the Week
with Peter Sinclair
Satellite Scientist Upset at “Well Funded Video”
February 4, 2016
A "well respected" scientist is angry over a video that refutes his assertion the earth is cooling or at least not warming:
And this is what got that experts' nickers in a twist
From the blog (link shown at the top of the post), I found this delicious passage:
In a series of egregious errors in the 1990s and 2000s, Dr. Christy and his partner Roy Spencer, actually managed to read their satellite data as showing the planet cooling, a 180 wrongway boneheaded analysis, let’s call it “Freedom Science” – that they defended stubbornly for more than a decade, until the overwhelming weight of evidence forced them to admit they were wrong.
For ordinary people, blowing it that bad could be a career killer – but if you are telling climate deniers and wealthy barons of the world’s most profitable industry what they want to hear, it makes you the toast of Washington.
Certainly, if not for a rich history of bungling, error, and accompanying arrogance, no one would ever have heard of Dr. Christy. But in these confusing times, for a science-challenged and ideologically blindered audience, Dr. Christy is science denial’s enthusiastic go-to guy, and a hero to intellectual titans like Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, and Lamar Smith.
In the second video, a now retired chief oceanographer for the navy explained that Christy and Stewart not only had to admit their data were wrong but had to do it four times! Its a good thing for them that they failed in a way that the moneyed people wanted. Also, the error is never discussed, but the wrong-headed result goes on like a vampire that can't be killed.
Deniers: "We need to look at the satellite data, I mean its' the best data we have"
Scientists: "Yes look at the satellite data but look at all the data." Look at increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, rainfall, surface humidity, cryosphere, ice, surface temperature. "It all shows an internally consistent story that the earth is warming."
Climate Denial Crock of the Week
with Peter Sinclair
Satellite Scientist Upset at “Well Funded Video”
February 4, 2016
A "well respected" scientist is angry over a video that refutes his assertion the earth is cooling or at least not warming:
And this is what got that experts' nickers in a twist
From the blog (link shown at the top of the post), I found this delicious passage:
In a series of egregious errors in the 1990s and 2000s, Dr. Christy and his partner Roy Spencer, actually managed to read their satellite data as showing the planet cooling, a 180 wrongway boneheaded analysis, let’s call it “Freedom Science” – that they defended stubbornly for more than a decade, until the overwhelming weight of evidence forced them to admit they were wrong.
For ordinary people, blowing it that bad could be a career killer – but if you are telling climate deniers and wealthy barons of the world’s most profitable industry what they want to hear, it makes you the toast of Washington.
Certainly, if not for a rich history of bungling, error, and accompanying arrogance, no one would ever have heard of Dr. Christy. But in these confusing times, for a science-challenged and ideologically blindered audience, Dr. Christy is science denial’s enthusiastic go-to guy, and a hero to intellectual titans like Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, and Lamar Smith.
In the second video, a now retired chief oceanographer for the navy explained that Christy and Stewart not only had to admit their data were wrong but had to do it four times! Its a good thing for them that they failed in a way that the moneyed people wanted. Also, the error is never discussed, but the wrong-headed result goes on like a vampire that can't be killed.
Deniers: "We need to look at the satellite data, I mean its' the best data we have"
Scientists: "Yes look at the satellite data but look at all the data." Look at increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, rainfall, surface humidity, cryosphere, ice, surface temperature. "It all shows an internally consistent story that the earth is warming."
Last edited:
heckler73
Well-Known Member
This is funny...CSIRO axes their climate division.
And guess who is crying the blues about the science not being settled now!
The irony...
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/cs...s-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/
And guess who is crying the blues about the science not being settled now!
The irony...
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/cs...s-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/
Similar threads
