2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record (Depending on Who You Ask)

a reply to: network dude

(in the end, it doesn't matter what any of us think. Until you can convince the 1% who $urvive from Oil profits that we need to use a less toxic fuel, nothing will change)

Whack away sport!

Guess we should've added the ole defeatist "there's nothing any of us can do about it anyway" meme to the list as well.


I have no intention of convincing the 1% because I know perfectly well what their prioritie$ are.

I post on ATS to convince the other 99% what the facts are, who’s REALLY lying to them, and how we can not only fix this problem, but empower ourselves as voters, consumers, workers (aka the absolute lifeblood of the economy) to take some of these tools of oligarchy away from that crooked establishment. It starts with us and not with them.

But I appreciate your cynicism and apathy. I love coming to ATS to read nothing but piles and piles of constant bitching about “the elites” and teh gubbermint keeping everybody down, while the people doing that moaning just use it as an excuse for their own cud-chewing uselessness, while simultaneously calling everyone else a sheep, and belittling those who actually bother trying to initiate the change they want to see in the world.

So please, whack away yourself. Don’t know what that kinda smarmy attitude is supposed to accomplish, but hey whatever massages your ego and helps you sleep at night I guess.

originally posted by: lavenlaar
in regards to climate emissions, i've always stated the increase in human population, results in more deforestation, which means more carbon in the atmosphere. More people, need more food equals more livestocks.

Yup, land use change and deforestation make up a very significant source of CO2 accumulation.

There is a running meme though, one of the zillions perpetuated by those uninformed sock puppets pretending to be "skeptics", that none of the so-called alarmists ever mention this little detail when talking about global warming.

A bit of googling completely dispels this myth - the IPCC has published dedicated reports on the issue:

IPCC Special Report - Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

And the UN has an entire program set up to combat it:

United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

Satellite data says it wasn't, according a report in climate depot, August as we all know was not that hot!

The weather is not normal that's for sure. Also, where did all the sea life go? The beginning of the extinction has begun.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Satellite data says it wasn't, according a report in climate depot, August as we all know was not that hot!

Let me ask you - do you know how satellite temperature data is recorded?

originally posted by: mc_squared
I post on ATS to convince the other 99% what the facts are, who’s REALLY lying to them, and how we can not only fix this problem, but empower ourselves as voters, consumers, workers (aka the absolute lifeblood of the economy) to take some of these tools of oligarchy away from that crooked establishment. It starts with us and not with them.

Really? I must have missed where you offered all the solutions in the OP. From my limited reading it just looked like a way for you to feel superior to all the "cud-chewing useless" folks.

So please, whack away yourself. Don’t know what that kinda smarmy attitude is supposed to accomplish, but hey whatever massages your ego and helps you sleep at night I guess.

Yes, it's my ego on display here. Gotta go chew some cud. enjoy the view from up there sport.

a reply to: mc_squared

ROFL

The sky is falling!

More doom porn based on BS.

We are currently in an interglacial period. Do you know what happens during an interglacial period? Warming...until we reach a peak and then global cooling kicks in. Glaciers recede during an interglacial period. This explains exactly why there are no frakking glaciers covering the great lakes.

Man is responsible for globale warming! BS...astronomic cycles are. Called the Malenkovich cycles. These cycles are totally kick butt, to use a scientific term. They rock! They trump co2 levels like hitting a ping pong ball with a freaking NL baseball bat. Co2 levels have been as high as 4800ppm when an ice age kicked in...pretty impressive no?

Are you aware that, typically, co2 levels are normally at a minimum when interglacial periods begin? Are you aware that co2 levels are almost to their max when global cooling kicks in? Are you aware that co2 level changes roughly follow temperature changes by 200-1400 years depending on what research you prefer? Hint: The ocean accumulate co2 when cooling and releases in when warming. This is a net process above and beyond the co2 consumed and produced by the oceanic co2 sink.

Are you aware that nature produces 770 million tons of co2 a year? Are you aware that man produces 40 million tons of co2 a year? Are you aware that natural sources account for 99.75% of the greenhouse effect? Of course not! That does not fit with the AGW agenda. Fact: 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. Surprised? Fer shure dude! Stop parroting crap. Man produces 5% of the yearly co2 production. Since, by definition co2 contributes at most 5% towards the overall greenhouse effect...well, one can calculate that rather easily: 5% of 5% equal 0.25% or...one quarter of one percent. Wonder why AGW promoters conveniently fail to mention the role of water vapor? Dang it...I bet it has something to do with making man's contribution looking smaller...Could that be it? A truly Inconvenient Truth.

Have you heard of Boyle's law? How about the related Ideal Gas law? PV=nRT In a nutshell, if you calculate for temperature at sea level using global average air pressure at sea level you can account for most of the temperature at sea level that many claim is due to the greenhouse effect. Apparently we do not sufficiently understand the greenhouse effect yet, and it likely contributes less than we think to global temps. Looking at history we can pretty much guarantee that co2 levels are irrelevant when it comes to glacial cycles.

Shall I go on?

I am no ignorant Senator "Duh! Global Warming bad!" or "Duh! Global warming doesn't exist". Frakking ignorant sots.

originally posted by: network dude
Really? I must have missed where you offered all the solutions in the OP.

I've posted solutions on ATS plenty of times, both as stand-alone threads:
Fighting Global Warming Without Carbon Taxes

And in replies, when other "skeptical" members were actually kind enough to ask, instead of just deny/belittle/attack, as is the usual protocol here.

a reply to: bbracken677

Are you just going to show up at every one of my threads now to spread more of this nonsense? Here's what your "interglacial warming" looks like in context:






How about you answer to all the denier memes I just called you out on in the last thread before you start spreading them here?

a reply to: mc_squared

As I replied in your other thread, I will be responding with research paper links as soon as I have the time.

Meanwhile, your "interglacial warming" graph is disingenuous...according to your graph, we apparently just left glacial growth a few years ago...one may twist data in the short term to represent any agenda you wish. The fact that you would post that indicates much.




Note that, mysteriously, co2 levels have been increasing since around 15-20,000 years ago. Also note, equally mysteriously, the clear cycles exhibited.

As I stated in the other thread (I didnt notice you authored both threads) no need for the personal attacks. That is the refuge of a weak mind. Just debate the science, leave the personal attacks to the 12 year olds.

Oh, and in the interest of accuracy, the year listed as 0 for the above chart is, obviously, not 2014. This is data from Antarctica ice cores, so the most recent decades are not included. That information is available, however, from other sources.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’. The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

a reply to: EnigmaAgent

Well first off - that's an article in the Daily Mail by David Rose, a sensationalist denier windbag. Here's a small sample of his notorious record for misrepresenting the facts:

Climate Misinformer: David Rose
David Rose's climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes

Second - it's not just NASA that's reporting 2014 as the warmest year. When I posted this thread last week it was JMA. Now it's JMA, NASA, NOAA and BEST - all of which use their own independent analysis.

Third - none of this information is at odds with what I posted in the OP. I already pointed out that satellite data also didn't have 2014 as the warmest year. But I used this fact to make it clear how trivial any "record" is anyway, because whether it is or isn't does nothing to take away from the long term warming trend which is clearly present in all the data. That's what matters.

I also predicted this whole scenario would lead to the childish "yes it is/no it's not" prattling this Daily Mail article takes on - so thanks for helping me prove my point.

David Rose's writing is, as always, sensationalist and ridiculous: he's trying to make it sound like NASA had to secretly admit their results have a margin of error. This is a given with any analysis like this, and it's not like the previous warmest years didn't have their own margin of error. It's entirely possible one overlaps the other, but again - that's why none of it matters compared to the long-term trend.

But I also love the double-standard deniers display when it comes to margin of error itself. When we're talking about record warming, any overlap with a previous record is apparently proof that there is no warming, even though the statistically significant running average is consistently climbing. But when it comes to climate models - if the projections overestimate warming, but still fall within their own error bars, that apparently doesn't matter - it's still proof the models have failed and climate change is a hoax blah blah.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mc_squared

ROFL

The sky is falling!

More doom porn based on BS.

We are currently in an interglacial period. Do you know what happens during an interglacial period? Warming...until we reach a peak and then global cooling kicks in. Glaciers recede during an interglacial period. This explains exactly why there are no frakking glaciers covering the great lakes.

Man is responsible for globale warming! BS...astronomic cycles are. Called the Malenkovich cycles. These cycles are totally kick butt, to use a scientific term. They rock! They trump co2 levels like hitting a ping pong ball with a freaking NL baseball bat. Co2 levels have been as high as 4800ppm when an ice age kicked in...pretty impressive no? ]

Q: When did the Milaknovitch forcing peak?
A: About 10,000 years ago
Q: Shouldn't we be cooling then back into an Ice Age?
A: Yes
Q: Is that happening?
A: No
Q: But does that mean Milankovitch cycles are wrong?
A: No, it means something else is happening in addition that didn't used to happen before: man burning fossil fuels.

It's preposterous how some people who are otherwise generally smart latch on to a little factoid they heard (Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles) which comes from scientific study and then make some snarky assertion about how that explains everything (incorrectly), and presumably the thousands of scientists who work on the problem seriously for decades never thought of that.

And yes, the strength of the forcing of the Milankovitch cycles can be computed precisely and compared to the strength of forcing from increased greenhouse gases. Quantitatively and seriously and people have done this decades ago. What you think they never thought of the interaction?

The Milankovitch forcing is more complicated than just global increased heating: the change in absolute forcing is actually very small but the distribution over latitude and season changes more and that interacts with the polar ice and ocean circulations in a complicated way to change climate.

And when the Earth had 4800 ppm (I assume this is Paleo-Eocene thermal maximum) the continents were in different places, and primates had not yet evolved, and the Sun's luminosity was less than it is now. And yes, the Earth got much hotter. And there were global mass extinctions. And the rate of CO2 accumulation then was much smaller than today's.

a reply to: mc_squared

Hey look, it was a peak at 8000 years ago, just a little bit after peak of Milankovitch forcing and then a slow decline down, as if it were astronomical forcing as predicted. But then there's that spike on the extreme right side. Like something new is happening.

a reply to: bbracken677

Did you plot the extra huge spike up to 400ppm which exceeds all other ones by a huge amount?

No scientist blames 220 ppm to 280 ppm on humans. They blame 280 to 400 going to 600ppm on humans, as the data say.

There seems to be a profound denier mindblock that seems to work on so many people: the imagination that changes in greenhouse chemistry and climate can ONLY come from either entirely natural or entirely man-made causes. Somehow this "argument" works on some people when talking about climate even though it's completely nonsensical. It's like arguing that because sharks ate fish 10,000 years ago, then those factory trawlers can't possibly have any important effect on the population of fish today.

a reply to: bbracken677

Generally I agree with you.
I think more people need to read this: Trends, rhythms and aberrations in global climate

However, there is also some pretty compelling evidence that we are exacerbating the natural background levels.

Much as you seem to be a rabid anti -anthropogenic warming disciple, I am a bit of a moderate, with a foot in both camps.

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: bbracken677
Much as you seem to be a rabid anti -anthropogenic warming disciple, I am a bit of a moderate, with a foot in both camps.

If that's the case, let me officially welcome you to the conversation. REAL skepticism is not only welcome but very much appreciated in these discussions.

Unfortunately what we always tend to get is the "rabid anti -anthropogenic warming disciples" vomiting empty rhetoric and gross misinformation all over these threads, so they get pretty ugly pretty fast.

I may be firmly in the warmist camp, but that's come from years of testing my understanding on the issue through actual skepticism, and I'm still always open to doing that. But usually I just end up playing whack-a-mole with the "it's not warming!/the whole solar system's warming!/CO2 is an insignificant trace gas!/CO2 is plant food essential to all life on Earth!" self-contradicting rabid types. I'd be curious to hear what are the main factors (on either side) that keep you on the fence?

a reply to: mbkennel

Hey mbk - always appreciate your input on these threads

From reading a lot of your posts, you seem to be really well versed in Milankovitch theory and I was hoping you could help me with something I've been trying to track down. Namely this:

And yes, the strength of the forcing of the Milankovitch cycles can be computed precisely and compared to the strength of forcing from increased greenhouse gases.

Do you know of any good papers or resources on how orbital forcing is computed specifically? Is it just a matter of knowing exactly how eccentricity changes the radius of the Earth's orbit and then plugging that new r value into the formula for Solar constant, or is there more to it?

I'm looking for something to reference, but I've only ever come across one token mention in a climate paper about insolation changing by 0.7 W/m^2 during the last 160kyr, and I'm not sure if that number was even calculated or based on some sort of physical evidence.

If you have anything you could point me to it would be much appreciated. Feel free to PM if you'd prefer. Cheers!

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: mc_squared

But then there's that spike on the extreme right side. Like something new is happening.

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for this: the warming is natural as we come out of the last ice age. The reason it starts to spike so much in the last 100 years is because more and more people own air conditioners to deal with that natural warming. More and more air conditioners produce more and more exhaust heat, which artificially raise thermometer records so Al Gore and the NASAs can tax our air!

a reply to: mc_squared

No I don't have a complete reference, but the issue is more complicated than the radius, that's for sure. It's a precession effect primarily.

To some level the difference between seasons is amplified or reduced. The common parameter computed is June insolation at 65N, which corresponds to some important areas in North Atlantic ocean circulation, which further amplify the effect.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Eccentricity is the only Milankovitch cycle that alters the annual-mean global solar insolation (i.e., the total energy the planet receives from the sun at the top of the atmosphere). For the mathematically inclined, the annually-averaged insolation changes in proportion to 1/(1-e2)0.5, so the solar insolation increases with higher eccentricity. This is a very small effect though, amounting to less than 0.2% change in solar insolation, equivalent to a radiative forcing of ~0.45 W/m2 (assuming present-day albedo). This is much less than the total anthropogenic forcing over the 20th century. However, eccentircity does modulate the precessional cycle, as we shall see.

So Milankovitch effect is more indirect than greenhouse forcing, even the anthropogenic sort. It changes patterns at N vs S latitudes---greenhouse forcing is a more direct thumb on the scale pushing towards hot.

Anyway, the message is that what are fairly small changes in forcing, on the order of anthropgenic climate forcing or less, can have major influences on climate.

Another good blog: tamino.wordpress.com...

Results of computations: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...