Hottest Year Ever????

[Old_Trapper70]

If one looks at the oceans, one sees that from the mid point of the 20th century to the present the rate of sea level increase is lower than it was during the first half of the 20th century when CO2 was supposedly safe. And far more glacial ice was lost in the early 20th century than in the latter half of the 20th century. As to islands, read the literature...it seems that erosion is more to blame for land loss than increased sea level....

It isn't imagination, but is a bleak picture painted by cherry picking data and ignoring anything that runs contrary to the AGW narrative.

And the Islanders that have lived there for thousands of years know nothing. Why, they too are government agents:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-shrink-in-Sundarban/articleshow/27238842.cms

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/papua-new-guinea-the-islands-are-shrinking/

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...president-says-climate-change-shrinking-his-c

Precautionary principle?? Really? The sky might fall? First you would need to offer up some sort of hard evidence that CO2 is actually causing the climate to change....none exists to date....second you would have to prove that the temperature of the mid 20th century was the optimum temperature for all life on planet earth....next you would have to demonstrate that something could actually be done about the global climate and that the benefit of that theoretical control of the climate would outweigh the cost associated with it.

We know that cold is the true killer, and paleohistory tells us that the earth blooms during periods of warmth. Take for example the 2 degree tipping point that climate science has been warming us about for 3 decades now....are they completely unaware that that 2 degree tipping point was reached during the holocene optimum...and again during the minoan warm period...and again during the roman warm period and again in some parts of the world during the medieval warm period? All of those warm periods were periods of plenty and growth for mankind....what makes you believe that the climate should be static for us now?

Can you point to a single thing happening in the climate now that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variation....much less completely unprecedented in world history?

Did I mention CO2? I could care less about CO2 just as I could care less about your thermodynamics theory. Millions of tons of plastic in the oceans killing off fish, and the small creatures they feed off of. Killing off coral in the reefs. Pesticides/herbicides in the rivers which eventually get to the oceans, and the ground water. Fracking which will eventually contaminate the drinking water of millions

As to the warm periods you speak of, they also led to plagues, and the death of millions.

http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1632&context=td

The two great bubonic plague outbreaks of history, Justinian’s Plague and the Black Death were responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million individuals across Eurasia and Africa. Both occurrences of the plague coincided with climatic shifts that are well documented by both literary and physical evidence. This thesis explores the possibility that both Justinian’s Plague and the Black Death were precipitated by climatic shifts preceding their respective eras and that these changes also contributed to disappearance of each pandemic. A scientific analysis investigating the climatic changes including the anomalous weather of 535-536 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age are correlated with literary evidence recording the transmission and dormancy sequence of the plague. Although distinct differences exist between the origins of climate change in the periods preceding each plague, the effects of such changes clearly resulted in conditions ideal for the resulting pandemics.

 

[invest07]

OT70
You need to chack your facts before you post.
The Medieval Warm Period began about 950AD and lasted until about 1250AD. After the MWP average temps dropped.
Bubonic plague started in China circa 1333 AD and by 1349AD had encompassed all of Europe.
Bubonic Plague wiped out millions during a cooling period and not a warming period.
Any Black Death ahead of us will not be caused by viruses or GW but will likely be caused by wacko jihadists.
http://www.preceden.com/timelines/49344-the-black-death-timeline

 

[invest07]

And one more thing OT70
Kudos on your Socrates quote.
Political Correctness is the absolute antithesis of free speech.
I would encourage any and all to say "Hell No" to any and all aspects of PC.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

OT70
You need to chack your facts before you post.
The Medieval Warm Period began about 950AD and lasted until about 1250AD. After the MWP average temps dropped.
Bubonic plague started in China circa 1333 AD and by 1349AD had encompassed all of Europe.
Bubonic Plague wiped out millions during a cooling period and not a warming period.
Any Black Death ahead of us will not be caused by viruses or GW but will likely be caused by wacko jihadists.
http://www.preceden.com/timelines/49344-the-black-death-timeline

I would suggest you actually read the article before commenting. The author did not say the MWP began in 535-536. What he was speaking of was an event where the sun "did not shine" for 18 months. The belief is that this event led to a virus that laid dormant until the MWP, and even beyond.

The concept begins on page 5 of the article.

And Socrates was right.

 

[palerider]

Yes, of course.

So you believe that there is a tropospheric hot spot...and you believe that outgoing LW is decreasing at the top of the atmosphere?

 

[PLC1]

So you believe that there is a tropospheric hot spot...and you believe that outgoing LW is decreasing at the top of the atmosphere?

Sorry, I don't speak acronym, nor do I care to.

Like any scientific hypothesis, AGW is constantly being adjusted as new data are received.

The change from most paleontologists saying that dinosaurs were reptiles to saying that they were the forerunners of birds did not disprove the theory of evolution.

Now, as to this question:

what is the point of a thread questioning whether this is the hottest year ever?
Of course, the Earth goes through warm and cool cycles.

 

[palerider]

Sorry, I don't speak acronym, nor do I care to.

Sorry, I thought you had at least a rudimentary grasp of the science and at least had some grasp on what predictions the AGW (excuse me anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis made.

LW is short for long wave .....as in long wave radiation. The AGW hypothesis predicts that because CO2 (carbon dioxide) traps heat in the atmosphere, that outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere will decrease.

Like any scientific hypothesis, AGW is constantly being adjusted as new data are received.

Sorry, but it isn't. Do feel free to provide an adjusted version of the AGW hypothesis.....to the best of my knowledge, the failures are simply ignored and more funding is put into propping it up. There have been no adjustments to the hypothesis.

The change from most paleontologists saying that dinosaurs were reptiles to saying that they were the forerunners of birds did not disprove the theory of evolution.

That would qualify as an adjustment, and nothing like the sort of predictive failures that the AGW hypothesis has experienced....no adjustments are being made to the AGW hypothesis...it stands as it was first introduced and is still the basis for climate modeling even though the hypothesis has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure.....

So again, do you believe that there is a tropospheric hot spot as predicted by the AGW hypothesis and that the outgoing LONGWAVE RADIATION at the top of the atmosphere is decreasing as predicted by the AGW hypothesis? Either of these failures would justifiably represent a failure of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[PLC1]

Sorry, I thought you had at least a rudimentary grasp of the science and at least had some grasp on what predictions the AGW (excuse me anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis made.

LW is short for long wave .....as in long wave radiation. The AGW hypothesis predicts that because CO2 (carbon dioxide) traps heat in the atmosphere, that outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere will decrease.



Sorry, but it isn't. Do feel free to provide an adjusted version of the AGW hypothesis.....to the best of my knowledge, the failures are simply ignored and more funding is put into propping it up. There have been no adjustments to the hypothesis.



That would qualify as an adjustment, and nothing like the sort of predictive failures that the AGW hypothesis has experienced....no adjustments are being made to the AGW hypothesis...it stands as it was first introduced and is still the basis for climate modeling even though the hypothesis has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure.....

So again, do you believe that there is a tropospheric hot spot as predicted by the AGW hypothesis and that the outgoing LONGWAVE RADIATION at the top of the atmosphere is decreasing as predicted by the AGW hypothesis? Either of these failures would justifiably represent a failure of the AGW hypothesis.

Is this the tropospheric hot spot you're talking about?

A new study, just published in Environmental Research Letters by Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nashant, has answered a number of questions about the rate at which the Earth is warming. Once again, the mainstream science regarding warming of the atmosphere is shown to be correct. This new study also helps to answer a debate amongst a number of scientists about temperature variations throughout different parts of the atmosphere.

Here's another hit on "tropospheric hot spot"

Before climate sceptics got excited about the “hiatus” or slowdown in global surface warming during the past 15 years or so, they were fond of discussing the “missing tropospheric hotspot” – the alleged lack of anticipated temperature increase in the tropical upper troposphere (roughly 5-15 km altitude).

Both the “hiatus” and the “missing hot spot” have been interesting research problems, because models seemed like they might be missing something important.

There have been significant advances on both problems in the past year. And the new results do not offer much hope that scientists are fundamentally mistaken about global warming.

 

[palerider]

Is this the tropospheric hot spot you're talking about?

Why congratulations, you found a splashy political opinion piece by a newspaper. Obviously you either didn't read it, or read it and didn't understand it, or simply won't understand it because that would bring you faith into question.

Three things to consider before I go into why you have been duped yet again....first, the source of this "discovery" is UNSW...remember the ship of fools fiasco?...second they have been searching for this hot spot for a couple of decades with satellites which specifically measure the troposphere and haven't found it....third, a million radiosondes have been sent up to actually measure temperature through the troposphere and no hot spot has been found. And if they really found the hot spot, don't you think they would have posted the graph front and center to show off their discovery?...no graph...no real information of any kind...just a breathless newspaper piece spoon-feeding you with what they consider to be necessary information. And they threw out a pickup truck full of observational data which didn't show a hot spot and relied on "adjustments" to the data to find the signal they were looking for.

Does that really sound like science to you? What you have is a complete disregard for nearly 40 years of observational data and measurements in favor of a modeling exercise. The "finding" is little more than a rehash of work done by another "scientist" who claims to have found the hot spot, again, not in temperature readings but in wind patterns. I can't believe that anyone takes this sort of claptrap seriously. They should be forced from any organizations they belong to for scientific fraud.

So, do you have any actual measurement of a tropospheric hot spot, or will you disregard over 40 years of data saying that there is no hot spot and believe the results of a data adjustment and modeling exercise?

And do you still believe that the outgoing long wave radiation is decreasing at the top of the atmosphere as predicted by the AGW hypothesis?

 

[PLC1]

Why congratulations, you found a splashy political opinion piece by a newspaper. Obviously you either didn't read it, or read it and didn't understand it, or simply won't understand it because that would bring you faith into question.

I did find it, rather easily by quoting your phrase into the google window. I also read it, and quoted it. Sorry it doesn't fit with your view that the world's scientific organizations (all of them) are wrong and you're right.

Now, about that hiatus, you know, the allegation that global warming (anthropogenic or not) ended, how long ago is it supposed to have been? Ten years before the hottest decade on record or so?

 

[palerider]

I did find it, rather easily by quoting your phrase into the google window. I also read it, and quoted it. Sorry it doesn't fit with your view that the world's scientific organizations (all of them) are wrong and you're right.

It wouldn't be the first time the world's scientific organizations were wrong and I was right. My doctor has been telling me for a very long time that I needed to start a pharmaceutical regimen to deal with my colesterol numbers....being someone who doesn't simply accept what a scientist says because he is supposedly smarter than me, I have made a habit for about the same length of time of reading the literature concerning cholesterol...It has always been my contention that there is no statistical difference between the number of people who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol and those who die of heart disease who have normal cholesterol. As a result, I always refused the recommended drugs. Now the largest study ever comes out and guess what....cholesterol turns out to be no big deal....findings are that there is no statistical difference between the numbers who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol and the numbers who die of heart disease who have normal cholesterol...Turns out that cholesterol is not a significant factor in determining one's risk factor to heart disease. I was right while all of the scientific organizations were wrong.

Then there was a stomach ulcer that I experienced some 40 years ago. My doctor recommended all sorts of stress reduction techniques up to and including changing my job. I told him that I was the least stressed person he ever met and that my ulcer was due to something else...and most certainly was not stress related. I have been saying ever since that stomach ulcers are not due to stress but some other unknown factor. So after 35+ years, science finally catches up and guess what, gut bacteria are responsible for stomach ulcers....how many people, and scientific organizations prescribed and took drugs, lifestyle changes, etc etc etc based on their belief that stomach ulcers were stress related.

I don't know how old you are but if you are in your late 20's to middle 30's, I predict that you will see the book on quantum mechanics be seriously rewritten in your life time. A branch of science that is so conflicted as QM is now can not continue on as it is.

The big bang theory which I have written about on this very board here (#77) is coming under some very serious scrutiny at long last and will eventually be discarded, or rewritten to the point of unrecognizability....again, me right, consensus of scientific organizations wrong.

I could name a couple of other instances where I have been right in the face of scientific consensus stating the opposite but what's the point...and the times that the scientific consensus has been wrong in history are practically uncountable....practically every proven scientific theory or law today started out with a consensus saying something else.

Have I been right and the scientific community been wrong because I am smarter than they are? Of course not. The reasons I have been right while they have been wrong with regard to cholesterol and stomach ulcers has been primarily due to the application of common sense rather than group think. The consensus is wrong far more often than they are right due to group think. Acceptance of what others say because they are also scientists without regard to who is paying their salaries...repeating their work and findings in papers rather than doing the basic research....error cascades. These are just a few reasons why the consensus is so often wrong.

And they are wrong in the case of AGW. Observational and empirical data fly in the face of the hypothesis...it has experienced failure after failure but it is a politically useful hypothesis so it continues to have support and funding.

Now, about that hiatus, you know, the allegation that global warming (anthropogenic or not) ended, how long ago is it supposed to have been? Ten years before the hottest decade on record or so?

It has been nearly 2o years now...and any warmest decade since the 90's is the result of data manipulation. Tell me, can you offer up a rational, scientifically plausible explanation for lowering temperatures recorded more than 50 years ago other than to make the present appear warmer?

And about that outgoing long wave radiation...do you claim that it has decreased in accordance with both the greenhouse and AGW hypotheses?

 

[PLC1]

It wouldn't be the first time the world's scientific organizations were wrong and I was right. My doctor has been telling me for a very long time that I needed to start a pharmaceutical regimen to deal with my colesterol numbers....being someone who doesn't simply accept what a scientist says because he is supposedly smarter than me, I have made a habit for about the same length of time of reading the literature concerning cholesterol...It has always been my contention that there is no statistical difference between the number of people who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol and those who die of heart disease who have normal cholesterol. As a result, I always refused the recommended drugs. Now the largest study ever comes out and guess what....cholesterol turns out to be no big deal....findings are that there is no statistical difference between the numbers who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol and the numbers who die of heart disease who have normal cholesterol...Turns out that cholesterol is not a significant factor in determining one's risk factor to heart disease. I was right while all of the scientific organizations were wrong.

Then there was a stomach ulcer that I experienced some 40 years ago. My doctor recommended all sorts of stress reduction techniques up to and including changing my job. I told him that I was the least stressed person he ever met and that my ulcer was due to something else...and most certainly was not stress related. I have been saying ever since that stomach ulcers are not due to stress but some other unknown factor. So after 35+ years, science finally catches up and guess what, gut bacteria are responsible for stomach ulcers....how many people, and scientific organizations prescribed and took drugs, lifestyle changes, etc etc etc based on their belief that stomach ulcers were stress related.

I don't know how old you are but if you are in your late 20's to middle 30's, I predict that you will see the book on quantum mechanics be seriously rewritten in your life time. A branch of science that is so conflicted as QM is now can not continue on as it is.

The big bang theory which I have written about on this very board here (#77) is coming under some very serious scrutiny at long last and will eventually be discarded, or rewritten to the point of unrecognizability....again, me right, consensus of scientific organizations wrong.

I could name a couple of other instances where I have been right in the face of scientific consensus stating the opposite but what's the point...and the times that the scientific consensus has been wrong in history are practically uncountable....practically every proven scientific theory or law today started out with a consensus saying something else.

Have I been right and the scientific community been wrong because I am smarter than they are? Of course not. The reasons I have been right while they have been wrong with regard to cholesterol and stomach ulcers has been primarily due to the application of common sense rather than group think. The consensus is wrong far more often than they are right due to group think. Acceptance of what others say because they are also scientists without regard to who is paying their salaries...repeating their work and findings in papers rather than doing the basic research....error cascades. These are just a few reasons why the consensus is so often wrong.

And they are wrong in the case of AGW. Observational and empirical data fly in the face of the hypothesis...it has experienced failure after failure but it is a politically useful hypothesis so it continues to have support and funding.




It has been nearly 2o years now...and any warmest decade since the 90's is the result of data manipulation. Tell me, can you offer up a rational, scientifically plausible explanation for lowering temperatures recorded more than 50 years ago other than to make the present appear warmer?

And about that outgoing long wave radiation...do you claim that it has decreased in accordance with both the greenhouse and AGW hypotheses?

OMG! So, science is wrong about this one too?

How Does High Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease?
When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, it builds up in the walls of your arteries, causing a process called atherosclerosis, a form of heart disease. The arteries become narrowed and blood flow to the heart muscle is slowed down or blocked. The blood carries oxygen to the heart, and if enough blood and oxygen cannot reach your heart, you may suffer chest pain. If the blood supply to a portion of the heart is completely cut off by a blockage, the result is a heart attack.

There are two forms of cholesterol that most Americans are familiar with: Low-density lipoprotein (LDL or "bad" cholesterol) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL or "good" cholesterol.) These are the form in which cholesterol travels in the blood.

If you really have high cholesterol, I hope you re think this one.

 

[palerider]

OMG! So, science is wrong about this one too?

Of course they are...all one need do is look at the empirical evidence that rules out the AGW hypothesis, the number of failures the AGW hypothesis has had, and the lack of empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis....everything supporting the hypothesis is the result of computer modeling.

If you really have high cholesterol, I hope you re think this one.

No need....cholesterol is not responsible for heart disease....by carefully thinking about the topic for a very long time, and tracking the literature, there is no need to rethink based on fear mongering by researchers in the employ of pharmaceutical companies who are making a fortune on drugs to treat this non existent problem. The hard fact is that there is no statistical difference between the number of people who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol, and the number of people who die of heart disease who have "normal" cholesterol. That is the fact....all else is hype to support an industry which relies on fear to keep the money flowing.

Here is another paper published very recently examining the fact that cholesterol drugs are causing acute memory loss.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2301148

Then there is the supported finding that users of statins are more than 50% more likely to develop cataracts...this bears out among my acquaintances. And there is credible statistical evidence that people with higher cholesterol tend to live somewhat longer than those with low cholesterol...probably due to a more nutritionally balanced diet.

Let me guess, you believe and have been gobbling up cholesterol lowering drugs for some time without ever having bothered to actually look at the literature....you accepted your doctors advice because you believe he is smarter than you.

 

[PLC1]

Of course they are...all one need do is look at the empirical evidence that rules out the AGW hypothesis, the number of failures the AGW hypothesis has had, and the lack of empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis....everything supporting the hypothesis is the result of computer modeling.

You do understand that computer modeling is simply an efficient way of dealing with large amounts of data, don't you?

And, when the discussion starts with "This isn't really the hottest year ever", and then fades to, "of course global warming is happening, but it's not man made", it brings a lot of doubt as to those trying to challenge a scientific theory.

Further, the predictions are what they always have been: The climate of the Earth is getting warmer, human activities are contributing to said increase (not the only cause), and that local climates are likely to change in response to a warming planet.

No need....cholesterol is not responsible for heart disease....by carefully thinking about the topic for a very long time, and tracking the literature, there is no need to rethink based on fear mongering by researchers in the employ of pharmaceutical companies who are making a fortune on drugs to treat this non existent problem. The hard fact is that there is no statistical difference between the number of people who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol, and the number of people who die of heart disease who have "normal" cholesterol. That is the fact....all else is hype to support an industry which relies on fear to keep the money flowing.

Here is another paper published very recently examining the fact that cholesterol drugs are causing acute memory loss.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2301148

Then there is the supported finding that users of statins are more than 50% more likely to develop cataracts...this bears out among my acquaintances. And there is credible statistical evidence that people with higher cholesterol tend to live somewhat longer than those with low cholesterol...probably due to a more nutritionally balanced diet.

Let me guess, you believe and have been gobbling up cholesterol lowering drugs for some time without ever having bothered to actually look at the literature....you accepted your doctors advice because you believe he is smarter than you.

No, you have guessed wrong. My cholesterol level is under control via diet and exercise, which is the best way to control it if it can be done. Yes, statins, like any medication, has its contraindications. Just listen to any dumb pill ad on TV, and they'll tell you why you should avoid taking their product if at all possible.

Do people take meds on the advice of a doctor who is prescribing based on the bottom line as opposed to what's best for the patient? Without a doubt. That doesn't mean that medical research is wrong.

 

[Qovodul]

Of course they are...all one need do is look at the empirical evidence that rules out the AGW hypothesis, the number of failures the AGW hypothesis has had, and the lack of empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis....everything supporting the hypothesis is the result of computer modeling.



No need....cholesterol is not responsible for heart disease....by carefully thinking about the topic for a very long time, and tracking the literature, there is no need to rethink based on fear mongering by researchers in the employ of pharmaceutical companies who are making a fortune on drugs to treat this non existent problem. The hard fact is that there is no statistical difference between the number of people who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol, and the number of people who die of heart disease who have "normal" cholesterol. That is the fact....all else is hype to support an industry which relies on fear to keep the money flowing.

Here is another paper published very recently examining the fact that cholesterol drugs are causing acute memory loss.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2301148

Then there is the supported finding that users of statins are more than 50% more likely to develop cataracts...this bears out among my acquaintances. And there is credible statistical evidence that people with higher cholesterol tend to live somewhat longer than those with low cholesterol...probably due to a more nutritionally balanced diet.

Let me guess, you believe and have been gobbling up cholesterol lowering drugs for some time without ever having bothered to actually look at the literature....you accepted your doctors advice because you believe he is smarter than you.

Much of the "scientific" research in favor of statins is flawed and fraudulent. The most reliable evidence has long tied statin use with memory problems, muscle disorders, liver damage, cataracts, nerve damage, pancreatitis, erectile dysfunction, brain dysfunction, diabetes, and with an increased risk of cancer and higher mortality.

The physiological mechanisms of how statins do serious damage are also well understood, such as by their impairment of oxidative cell metabolism, the increase in inflammation and cell destruction, the lowering of cholesterol and steroid hormone production, the promotion of pancreatic injury, etc. - rather thoroughly explained in this scholarly article on how statins, and a cholesterol-lowering popular diet pill advertised by Dr. Oz, promote diabetes at http://www.supplements-and-health.com/garcinia-cambogia-side-effects.html

Statins have almost no real benefit in the very vast majority of users. They do more harm than good. It's a "scientific" scam.

Re your statement, "Let me guess, you believe and have been gobbling up cholesterol lowering drugs for some time without ever having bothered to actually look at the literature....you accepted your doctors advice because you believe he is smarter than you.":

The above report also documents that the majority of doctors don't "actually look at the literature" they simply do what they've been told they need to do....