Hottest Year Ever????

palerider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
4,624
So warmer wackos are wetting their pants over 2014 being the hottest year ever......even though the keepers of the data grudgingly admit that they are only about 38% sure that it was the hottest year ever.

Hottest year ever....what does that even mean?.... warmers like to point at graphs like this and claim that man is responsible for warming the planet.

globalmeantempdelta.png


In so far as it goes, I suppose it shows something. First, it shows that climate science is willing to tamper with data to promote the idea that man is causing the climate to warm. Second, it shows that by picking a particular period of time, you can convince people who lack context that man and is fossil fuel burning is warming the globe.

I mean, if my context were limited to that graph, and I weren't inclined, for reasons of either laziness, lack of intelligence, or politics to research further, that graph would be pretty damning inso far as pointing a finger at mankind for causing climate change.

I am inclined to look further. In human terms, 1880 may seem like a long time ago and enough time to get a handle on what the climate used to look like and what it looks like today and how man may be responsible for causing it to change. In earth terms, however, the period from the 1800's to today are not even a blip.

What does the graph above look like when compared to a slightly longer period of time. Say the time since the ice fields started melting back some 10,000 to 14,000 years ago? Have a look, and then tell me how scary the graph above is, and how much it supports the preposterous idea that a trace gas in the atmosphere is driving the global climate.

gisp-last-10000-new.png


Context is, and always be everything. The idea that because yesterday was cool and today it is warm and therefore today is as warm as it has ever been and tomorrow will be warmer and the next and the next and the next will be progressively warmer till we all die is just stupid. The fact is that the past year was not the warmest year ever...the fact is that it was among the 3% of coldest years since the glaciers started melting back.

Want more context?...grab yourself a graph that goes even further back in time...say back to the time before the present ice age began....about 20 million years or so ago and you will se a world that was so warm that no ice existed at either pole....a world in which atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000 ppm...a word that didn't experience run away global warming...a world that was flourishing with life...everywhere....a world where the oceans were not turning acidic even though CO2 levels were far higher than the present.....a world, in short, where it was just business as usual on a planet where the climate is constantly changing with or without our presence.
 
Last edited:
Werbung:
It means the nutters have yet more evidence to ignore, including all the records ever kept and the opinions of everyone who knows anything about the matter.
 
The Warmers remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Torse on the ground srms and legs strewen about still yapping for a fight.
 
The very idea that a radiative gas in the atmosphere would hamper the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is ridiculous on its face....and the whole hoax is built upon that flawed, and terribly stupid assumption....I say assumption because there has never been a single bit of hard evidence produced to support the claim.
 
2014 being the hottest year ever......even though the keepers of the data grudgingly admit that they are only about 38% sure that it was the hottest year ever.

Please cite a reference that any scientist has ever said that 2014 was “the hottest year ever.” Yes, I know it came from some conspiracy theory blog. The facts are that NASA said that 2014 is the hottest year since records began in 1880. Nobody ever said that 2014 was the “hottest year ever” in the planet's history.

If you look at the latest graph you will see that the measured average temperature for 2014 is hotter than that for the previous record in 2010.


Of course any measurement comes with a standard deviation of error, which in this case is about .1C. Because of that error margin NASA said there was a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year. NOAA scientists computed a 48% chance and an 18% chance 2010 was warmest. You are fantasizing that scientists “grudgingly admit” standard practices in error analysis. It seems that you are the one grudging over climate change.

...grab yourself a graph that goes....about 20 million years or so ago .....a world, in short, where it was just business as usual on a planet where the climate is constantly changing with or without our presence.

You should understand that the gross climatic changes millions of years ago are correlated with a variety of reasons - occasional huge meteors or massive volcanic activity that darkened the sky for years. These caused the climate to reach a tipping point. Random cataclysmic upheavals millions of years ago are not related to today's not so random increasing concentration of CO2.

You deniers remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who is on the ground, arms and legs strewn about still yapping for a fight. 97% of the audience is laughing at you guys.
 
The very idea that a radiative gas in the atmosphere would hamper the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is ridiculous on its face....and the whole hoax is built upon that flawed, and terribly stupid assumption....I say assumption because there has never been a single bit of hard evidence produced to support the claim.
We went through all this before in a prior thread and we discovered that you think the whole thing is a hoax because:

You don't understand thermodynamics or radiative equilibrium.
You said quantum mechanics "is a hoax" and "pseudoscience."
You said modern science has "abandon reality for fantasy".
You think Einstein, Pauli, Born, Heisenberg, Dirac, Feynman, Gell-Mann and many many others who have laid the foundation of modern physics are "laughable".

That's about as anti-science as anyone can get, so why should anyone take you seriously.
 
We went through all this before in a prior thread and we discovered that you think the whole thing is a hoax because:

Why yes we did and I am still waiting for a single observed, measured, repeatable example of energy or heat or moving from a cool object to a warmer one, which is the foundation for the entire hoax...and to date, you have not deliver nor will you ever because energy movement is a one way proposition from warm to cool.

CO2 can not cause the atmosphere to warm but if you think it does, lets see the proof. Surely there have been experiments performed that demonstrate conclusively that adding a whip of a trace gas in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm to temperatures never seen before. Lets see such an experiment. Surely if climate science is not perpetrating a politically motivated hoax on the world, the claims are based on actual empirical experimentation....not failed climate models.

Lets see the empirical evidence.

I predict no such evidence will be forthcoming...I also predict that you will erect a couple of straw men....perhaps hurl a couple of ad hominems in my direction...and fail miserably to provide the evidence requested of you.....just as you always do. Apparently your belief that you are the smartest guy in the room is based on about as much actual evidence as the AGW hoax.
 
Please cite a reference that any scientist has ever said that 2014 was “the hottest year ever.” Yes, I know it came from some conspiracy theory blog. The facts are that NASA said that 2014 is the hottest year since records began in 1880. Nobody ever said that 2014 was the “hottest year ever” in the planet's history.

It wasn't even the hottest year in recorded history.

If you look at the latest graph you will see that the measured average temperature for 2014 is hotter than that for the previous record in 2010.

Which tampered database is that graph from?

Of course any measurement comes with a standard deviation of error, which in this case is about .1C. Because of that error margin NASA said there was a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year. NOAA scientists computed a 48% chance and an 18% chance 2010 was warmest. You are fantasizing that scientists “grudgingly admit” standard practices in error analysis. It seems that you are the one grudging over climate change.

A standerd deviation error of a tenth of a degree? Are you kidding? Tell me lagboltz....what is the mean global temperature at present within 1 degree? My bet is that if you take some time to look, you will find that at present, climate science isn't even sure what the global mean is....primarily due to the amount of infilling in the global record. Have you ever looked at the data upon which they make their claims? Here...have a look.

hottest-year-record-2014.jpg


just out of curiosity....do you find it strange in the least that the less instrumental coverage an area has, the warmer it seems to be?...and in the same vein...do you find it odd that the one place on earth with the best coverage happens to actually be cooling? Do you ever wonder about such things...it is, after all a recurring theme in climate science. The record is undoubtedly been altered to the point that it can no longer be trusted.

You should understand that the gross climatic changes millions of years ago are correlated with a variety of reasons - occasional huge meteors or massive volcanic activity that darkened the sky for years. These caused the climate to reach a tipping point. Random cataclysmic upheavals millions of years ago are not related to today's not so random increasing concentration of CO2.[/qipte]

We aren't talking about millions of years...we are only talking about the time since the onset of the present interglacial..less than 15k years and 97% of that period of time has been warmer than the present. The claim that man is causing unprecedented warming is a lie...simple as that.

You deniers remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who is on the ground, arms and legs strewn about still yapping for a fight. 97% of the audience is laughing at you guys.

Sorry guy, but I am afraid that it is you and yours who are being laughed at.....climate change continues to fall further and further off the radar of public concern...so far in fact that at least one MAJOR polling organization didn't even ask about it this past year because the results have become so depressing....Peer reviewed papers coming from climate science have been being retracted at unprecedented rates lately...so much so that the rest of science is starting to take notice.

Climate change is real....manmade climate change is a political, pseudoscientific lie.
 
I am still waiting for a single observed, measured, repeatable example of energy or heat or moving from a cool object to a warmer one, which is the foundation for the entire hoax...and to date, you have not deliver nor will you ever because energy movement is a one way proposition from warm to cool.
I gave you the example in a prior thread. I will post it again:

Build a box out of thin metal. Insulate the box on the outside. Heat everything inside of the box to 500 degrees. Suck out the air from the box and reintroduce air at 0 degrees. Seal the box. As the metal of the box heats the inside air, the sides of box will bow out from the increased pressure. The box cannot expand unless the colder atoms actually hit the sides of the hotter box with kinetic energy.

If you include a pressure gauge and thermometers to measure the temperature of the box and air, that is an observed measured repeatable example of energy moving form a cooler object to a warmer object.

If you don't believe radiative gas cannot exhibit back-scatter, how do you reconcile the fact that the earth surface is radiating over two and a half times more radiant energy than it is absorbing from the sun?

It wasn't even the hottest year in recorded history.
If you think the graph from NASA and NOAA is wrong, then what do you think is the hottest year in recorded history?
Tell me lagboltz....what is the mean global temperature at present within 1 degree?
Nobody knows the global average temperature at this very moment. It is currently computed and published as a yearly average.
 
I gave you the example in a prior thread. I will post it again:

You gave no example and now you will proceed to not give an example again.

Build a box out of thin metal. Insulate the box on the outside. Heat everything inside of the box to 500 degrees. Suck out the air from the box and reintroduce air at 0 degrees. Seal the box. As the metal of the box heats the inside air, the sides of box will bow out from the increased pressure. The box cannot expand unless the colder atoms actually hit the sides of the hotter box with kinetic energy.

Sorry, but that is not an example of energy moving from a cold object to a warm object. You can't get around the second law of thermodynamics no matter how hard you try. Energy flow is a one way river.

If you think the graph from NASA and NOAA is wrong, then what do you think is the hottest year in recorded history?

That is just the point...has it really come down to what someone "thinks" was the warmest year? Of course it has. For example, in 1999, GISS reported this as the recorded record for the US. Clearly, the 1930's were warmer here in the US and being the most well covered land mass on earth....chances are that the rest of the globe was also warmer in the 30's...and in the 40's.

6a010536b58035970c0162fc38ff8b970d-pi


Then in 2011, GISS reported this as the recorded record for the US.

6a010536b58035970c0162fc3900c3970d-400wi


The global record is as rife with tampering and adjustment as the US record. At this point, arguing over which year was warmer is pointless and making claims based on hundredths of a degree is dishonest in the extreme.

And again, do you not find it curious that the places on earth that seem to be warming the fastest...the places upon which the claims of warmest year ever are made are invariably the places on earth with the poorest instrumental coverage...the places which require the greatest amount of fill in by your high priests?


Nobody knows the global average temperature at this very moment. It is currently computed and published as a yearly average.

No one has ever known the global average temperture...and yet, they can claim to know that the past year was the warmest by a couple of hundredths of a degree? And you accept that sort of malarky as science?...and then claim that it is me who doesn't grasp science? I am laughing out loud in your face. You are a dupe.
 
You gave no example and now you will proceed to not give an example again.



Sorry, but that is not an example of energy moving from a cold object to a warm object. You can't get around the second law of thermodynamics no matter how hard you try. Energy can not move spontaneously from a cold object to a warmer object without work having been done to make it happen. Are you claiming that in your experiment no work is being done? And you claim I don't have a grasp on science. Energy flow is a one way river and no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science is possible.



That is just the point...has it really come down to what someone "thinks" was the warmest year? Of course it has. For example, in 1999, GISS reported this as the recorded record for the US. Clearly, the 1930's were warmer here in the US and being the most well covered land mass on earth....chances are that the rest of the globe was also warmer in the 30's...and in the 40's.

6a010536b58035970c0162fc38ff8b970d-pi


Then in 2011, GISS reported this as the recorded record for the US.

6a010536b58035970c0162fc3900c3970d-400wi


The global record is as rife with tampering and adjustment as the US record. At this point, arguing over which year was warmer is pointless and making claims based on hundredths of a degree is dishonest in the extreme.

And again, do you not find it curious that the places on earth that seem to be warming the fastest...the places upon which the claims of warmest year ever are made are invariably the places on earth with the poorest instrumental coverage...the places which require the greatest amount of fill in by your high priests?




No one has ever known the global average temperture...and yet, they can claim to know that the past year was the warmest by a couple of hundredths of a degree? And you accept that sort of malarky as science?...and then claim that it is me who doesn't grasp science? I am laughing out loud in your face. You are a dupe.
 
Sorry, but that is not an example of energy moving from a cold object to a warm object.
Yes it is. Cold atoms in a hot box can strike the inside of the box. Do you deny that?
For example, in 1999, GISS reported this as the recorded record for the US. ..
Then in 2011, GISS reported this as the recorded record for the US...
That is a non-sequiter. We are talking about global average temperature, not US temperature.
And again, do you not find it curious that the places on earth that seem to be warming the fastest... poorest instrumental coverage...?
No.
I am laughing out loud in your face. You are a dupe.
You are getting too emotional to clearly think.
 
Yes it is. Cold atoms in a hot box can strike the inside of the box. Do you deny that?

First, is any work being done in your experiment? Second, do you think that physical contact equals spontaneous radiative energy transfer? I could put an ice cube in a hot skillet and would certainly have cool atoms in contact with a warmer surface, but the hot skillet would gain no energy from the contact....all of the transfer would be from the direction of warm to cool. You provide an example like that as an example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object and then claim that I don't understand thermodynamics.... Again...laughing in your face.

is a non-sequiter. We are talking about global average temperature, not US temperature.

As I said, the global record has been tampered with just as much as the US record...Need some examples?

Iceland perhaps?

vestmannaeyja.gif


reykjavikgiss2012-2013.gif


Here, have a look at the adjustments in Alice Springs, Au

alicespringsgiss2012-2014.gif


Notice how much they cool the past....can you give me a rational, scientifically valid reason for cooling temperature data taken even 10 years back....much less more than 100 years back?




No? Of course no. You warmer wackos aren't good at thinking for yourselves. If you are told that in areas where there is little or no instrumental coverage the temperatures are warmer, I guess you just eat what you are spoon fed...no questions asked. That is, after all, how faith works. Here is an example of such data fraud in Greenland. Taking an area with little if any coverage and making it one of the areas of the earth warming the most rapidly... The graph shows western Greenland being 2 degrees above normal when in reality, it is 2 degrees below normal.

gissgreenland.gif
screenhunter_6165-jan-18-08-48.gif



Not much coverage in Africa, but infilling provides as much warming as climate science cares to add.

ncdcafrica.gif


And I could go on and on and on with examples that range from mild tampering to outright fraud.


You are getting too emotional to clearly think.

Cllearly, that is not the case...what is obvious though is that your faith is getting in the way of your ability to think. You are a believer...nothing more.
 
Last edited:
First, is any work being done in your experiment? Second, do you think that physical contact equals spontaneous radiative energy transfer? I could put an ice cube in a hot skillet and would certainly have cool atoms in contact with a warmer surface, but the hot skillet would gain no energy from the contact....all of the transfer would be from the direction of warm to cool. You provide an example like that as an example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object and then claim that I don't understand thermodynamics.
That is not my example. You said that you want from me “a single observed, measured, repeatable example of energy or heat moving from a cool object to a warmer one”

I gave you the example. I will post it again:

Build a box out of thin metal. Insulate the box on the outside. Heat everything inside of the box to 500 degrees. Suck out the air from the box and reintroduce air at 0 degrees. Seal the box. As the metal of the box heats the inside air, the sides of box will bow out from the increased pressure. The box cannot expand unless the colder atoms actually hit the sides of the hotter box with kinetic energy.

If you include a pressure gauge and thermometers to measure the temperature of the box and air, that is an observed measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object. No external work is done while atoms of the cold gas strike the inside of the externally insulated hot box.

In short, cold atoms in a hot box can spontaneously strike the inside of the box. Do you deny that?
As I said, the global record has been tampered with just as much as the US record...Need some examples? Iceland perhaps? Here, have a look at the adjustments in Alice Springs, Au
Notice how much they cool the past....can you give me a rational, scientifically valid reason for cooling temperature data taken even 10 years back....much less more than 100 years back?
We are talking about global temperature. Not local temperature. You first have to convince me these graphs did not come from some climate conspiracy theory blog. Give me the original source that has the graphs and the text on why the science has transformed.
No? If you are told that in areas where there is little or no instrumental coverage the temperatures are warmer, ....Not much coverage in Africa, but infilling provides as much warming as climate science cares to add.
You asked if I found it curious. It is not curious because most of the historical temperature instruments are in developed countries such as the US and Europe.
 
Werbung:
That is not my example. You said that you want from me “a single observed, measured, repeatable example of energy or heat moving from a cool object to a warmer one”

Right....and the topic was the second law of thermodynamics....you gave an example and failed.

Build a box out of thin metal. Insulate the box on the outside. Heat everything inside of the box to 500 degrees. Suck out the air from the box and reintroduce air at 0 degrees. Seal the box. As the metal of the box heats the inside air, the sides of box will bow out from the increased pressure. The box cannot expand unless the colder atoms actually hit the sides of the hotter box with kinetic energy.

You think pressure is radiative energy transfer? You think no work is being done in your example? You think energy is spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one?

If you include a pressure gauge and thermometers to measure the temperature of the box and air, that is an observed measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object. No external work is done while atoms of the cold gas strike the inside of the externally insulated hot box.

So cold air being forced into the box is not work? The air being sucked out of the box was not work? The whole experiment is one of external work being done. Heat a box and stand back and wait for zero degree air to rush inside...you will be waiting till the box has cooled to zero if you don't do some sort of work to force the zero degree air inside....failure...sorry.

In short, cold atoms in a hot box can spontaneously strike the inside of the box. Do you deny that?

Touching does not equal radiative energy transfer which is the topic of discussion if you are talking about the fictitious greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And again, there is nothing spontaneous about your experiment...work is being done from the time you remove the air from the box.

Tell me lagboltz, since you are so concerned about the cold air touching the hot box....in addition to back radiation, do you also believe in back conduction and back convection?

We are talking about global temperature. Not local temperature. You first have to convince me these graphs did not come from some climate conspiracy theory blog. Give me the original source that has the graphs and the text on why the science has transformed.

Nothing can convince you....no matter how many examples of data manipulation, tampering, and outright fraud you are given...from anywhere on earth, your faith will remain strong and you will reject all evidence that is in conflict with that faith.

You want sources...here are sources although they are from climate conspiracy sites...GISS, NOAA, NCDC, etc a most certainly a climate conspiracy sites as they and others are perpetrating and propagating the greatest, most expensive hoax in human history.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040480000&dt=1&ds=14

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040480000&dt=1&ds=1

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps.php?imgs[]=map-land-sfc-mntp&imgs[]=map-blended-mntp&imgs[]=map-prcp&imgs[]=map-percentile-mntp&imgs[]=map-percentile-prcp&imgs[]=map-prcp-percent&year=2014&month=12#maps

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg


You asked if I found it curious. It is not curious because most of the historical temperature instruments are in developed countries such as the US and Europe.

And you simply accept that the places that are not well covered instrumentally are among the warmest places on earth...warm enough in fact to offset the cooling that is being measured in the best covered places on earth so that climate science can claim continued warming. I recognize faith when I see it and yours is strong.
 
Back
Top