Hottest Spring On Record Globally 2014

[Vincent]

Polly's probably too young to remember his elder kindred spirits calling for the "New Ice Age" back in the 60s. It sounded just as stupid then as "global warming" sounds today, and for the same reason.

 

[madinsomniac]

Let me say this again... if I submitted data to the EPA using the same methods that were used "adjusting" that temperature data, Id be facing a ten thousand dollar fine and prison time.... I know Polo will never be convinced... but there is a ton of these weirdly bias adjusted data collections out there and they really are almost exclusively on one side... that and a ton of legit scientists have had legit studies completely shut down because it didn't agree with one side's agenda... Im sorry but this has nothing to do with big coal or oil... most are diversified... this wont really hurt them, They will shut down a fraction of the power plants, we will have rolling blackouts, and rates will be through the roof... they will just take it out on the customers like they did with SO2 and Nox regs and tried to do with HG till it got pitched out... heck many will profit off of their natural gas holdings... and we will still export all that high sulfer nasty coal overseas where they will burn it to their hearts content


IMO its a money grab, plain and simple... pass a law that no politician may hold office while having any holdings in the energy sector, and that no one can vote on any energy related bills if their relatives are major stockholders in this industry and much of this will dry up

 

[PoloMalo43]

Plants Reveal Rainfall Changes Over Last 24,000 Years

Across the edges of the Indian Ocean, the amount of rainfall differs greatly. If it rains particularly hard in the Sumatran rain forest, the already arid region of East Africa is onset with drought. Researchers from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), the California Institute of Technology, the Univerity of Southern California and the University of Bremen found that this cyclic, bipolar climate phenomenon has likely been around for 10,000 years. The pilot study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), sheds light on the climate system of a region whose rainfall patterns have a major impact on global climate. Therefore, this study is of special interest to climate researchers

In the long term, changes in sea level were of minor importance to rainfall patterns in north western Sumatra With the end of the last Ice Age came rising temperatures and melting polar ice sheets, which were accompanied by an increase in rainfall around Indonesia and many other regions of the world.. In contrast, the plant wax record from the study site in north western Sumatra reveals similarly high amounts of rainfall during both the Last Glacial Maximum and the Holocene. The amount of rainfall during the past 24,000 years seems to be linked to the level of exposure of the Sunda Shelf and in particular to the specific topography of the western edge of the region, rather than to changes in deglacial climate boundary conditions alone. “This is quite unexpected. Based on previous studies it was assumed that the entire region was much drier during the Last Glacial Maximum compared to present conditions,“ Niedermeyer concludes.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....l-rainfall-changes-over-last-24000-years.html

----------------------

” found that this cyclic, bipolar climate phenomenon has likely been around for 10,000 years.”

Pretty much destroys the CO2 ozone hole theory, gas guzzlin SUV’s, cow farts and all other high methane producing organisms.

If you say so.....oh no... This isn't the bombshell paper that will bring down the climate conspiracy?

Oh well on to e-mails and 'It's snowing at my house'

Pilot study focusing on a region vulnerable to climate change
Although the study highlights that long term changes in rainfall intensity are not always ’man-made,’ it does not necessarily mean that today's weather anomalies across the Indian Ocean rim countries and, in particular, their frequency, are not subject to human influence. The Indian Ocean region is home to a growing population, and possible adverse future climate conditions might spur political conflicts. The pilot study is a step towards detailed investigations that may be carried out in the future in this area. An enhanced understanding of the climatic phenomena, and their underlying mechanisms in this area, helps to increase the resolution of climate projections.

Keep trying.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Polly's probably too young to remember his elder kindred spirits calling for the "New Ice Age" back in the 60s. It sounded just as stupid then as "global warming" sounds today, and for the same reason.

No no one was stupid back then or now. Science builds on the shoulders of previous knowledge. Those whose ideas are wrong in 99.9% of cases acknowledge it and move on.

Unlike you guys who can't understand that repeating nonsense Sean Hannity feeds you does not make you informed, it makes you as stupid as Hannity.

Let's find out what percentage of scientists believed in the coming ice age back then.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

How many believe it today

I guess you're new to the steeler nation denier carpool, buckle up it's going to get rough.

 

[Spike]

BWAhahaha - still pounding your Mother Earth bible - pie charts from fundamentalist "true believers" don't mean squat

Those whose ideas are wrong in 99.9% of cases acknowledge it and move on.

and yet you still cling to outdated global warming hysteria models

The End is Coming aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii......your call to prayers - better get down on your knees and pray to your ManBearPig altar- he has all the answers

hahahahaha

 

[EdReed4Prez]

The sad part is no one will be held accountable for this nonsense. When the consensus switches to "whoops, no AGW" the response will be "but all this green energy we crammed down your throat to make our buddies hundreds of millions is a good thing". Who cares about the economy and the mountain of debt? We gots snazzy bird killin windmills.

 

[Supersteeler]

97% of Scientists that write papers on Climate Change receive tons of money from special interest groups who need to scare very gullible rich people in order to make billions of dollars for themselves. The fact that they also happen to fool a lot of lower and middle class dummies along with the rich dummies is a bonus.

 

[PoloMalo43]

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

Scientists at two of the world¡¯s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930¡äs, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

NASA¡¯s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling


Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato ¡ª August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases ¡ª in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.


February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department¡¯s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

But NASA and NOAA have a little problem. The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record.

Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1).


George Orwell explained how this worked.

"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

¨D George Orwell, 1984

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

Where did Tony Heller- A.K.A. Steven Goddard study climate science? Let me help you, nowhere.

He's just another Heartland hack paid to throw **** around and hope some of it will stick.

What kind of credibility does he have? Let's just say if Anthony Watts has to correct you, just how incompetent are you?

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/


New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility
September 14, 2011

“Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.

You can go round and round with this Heartland circle jerk(something steelernation should know a thing or two about) and find the usual suspects marching in lock step after the propaganda leaves the Heartland presses.

For example James Taylor:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/

Of course the real story is no story. Here is an explanation as to how ****** up your boy Steve...err..Tony is.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

Some segments of the Internet are abuzz with the claim by climate change skeptic Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) over at his Real Science blog that NASA/NOAA have been jiggering the numbers so that they can claim that warmest years in the continental United States occurred recently, not back in the 1930s. Folks, please watch out for confirmation bias.

Via email, I asked Anthony Watts, proprietor of WattsUpWithThat, what he thinks of Goddard's claims. He responded...

..while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case.

“Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication, but the fact is that NCDC isn’t paying attention to small details, and the entire process from B91’s to CONUS creates an inflated warming signal. We published a preliminary paper two years ago on this which you can read here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

About half the warming in the USA is due to adjustments. We' received a lot of criticism for that paper, and we’ve spent two years reworking it and dealing with those criticisms. Our results are unchanged and will be published soon.

In his email, Watts also cites the strong criticisms of Goddard's earlier claims over at the Blackboard blog:

Here is an extra sign in case you didn't get one the first time around, and your ride is here.

 

[PoloMalo43]

97% of Scientists that write papers on Climate Change receive tons of money from special interest groups who need to scare very gullible rich people in order to make billions of dollars for themselves. The fact that they also happen to fool a lot of lower and middle class dummies along with the rich dummies is a bonus.

So Anthony Watts is the only person in this with morals? Maybe Steven Goddard, Willie Soon......

Willie has cashed in on 1.5 million from Exxon and friends, of course he does his work for humanity.............oh and he's not a climate scientist, but he'll do. Willie is a thirsty guy, must be that warming that's not happening.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Climate science is like rap music - a self sustaining construct that provides access and credibility to no talent hacks.

 

[Badcat]

Palo, you are nothing but a gullible rah-tard. It's unreal that you tree hugging, pacifist, tie dye wearing, lava lamp losers believe the **** that comes out of academia. Most the **** that you brain washed lemmings believe to be science is all a ruse to garner more grant money for universities. People like Al Gore prey on the weak minded and get filthy stinking rich, and then point the venom of your ilk towards those carbon sucking corporate types that are killing your mother, dining on the carcasses of endangered species, and smoking fine cigars wrapped in thinly shaved limousine wood. And the best part is that you follow along lock stock and barrel all while believing yourself to be a free thinker, because they told you that you were a free thinker. Irony is the only element you don't understand.

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Palo, you are nothing but a gullible rah-tard. It's unreal that you tree hugging, pacifist, tie dye wearing, lava lamp losers believe the **** that comes out of academia. Most the **** that you brain washed lemmings believe to be science is all a ruse to garner more grant money for universities. People like Al Gore prey on the weak minded and get filthy stinking rich, and then point the venom of your ilk towards those carbon sucking corporate types that are killing your mother, dining on the carcasses of endangered species, and smoking fine cigars wrapped in thinly shaved limousine wood. And the best part is that you follow along lock stock and barrel all while believing yourself to be a free thinker, because they told you that you were a free thinker. Irony is the only element you don't understand.

The last line is what makes this post go from good to great

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

How much credibility does a scientist have if his predictions based on his research are wrong every single time? Then instead of questioning his own thesis after being wrong every single time, he embarks on a smear campaign against anybody who accurately points out that he has been wrong on every single prediction.

 

[Steeltime]

Pola is too stupid to read the article he referenced:

“Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication, but the fact is that NCDC isn’t paying attention to small details, and the entire process from B91’s to CONUS creates an inflated warming signal. We published a preliminary paper two years ago on this which you can read here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

About half the warming in the USA is due to adjustments. We' received a lot of criticism for that paper, and we’ve spent two years reworking it and dealing with those criticisms. Our results are unchanged and will be published soon.

Half the warming is due to adjustments. HALF.

Do you have any the slightest understanding of the importance of that fact? "Global warming" is not a threat to the environment, or crop growth, or human activity or health, unless two factors are proved: (1) the warming is due to man-made CO2 emissions and (2) the amount of temperature increase due to man-made CO2 emissions is significant enough to be of concern.

Substantial temperature increases - at least 4 degrees C over the next 100 years - is cause for concern. The early IPCC estimates projected temperature increases of at least 3 degrees C, and as much as 6.4 degrees C. That kind of temperature increase, if caused by AGW, is cause for concern.

A temperature increase of 1 degree C due to AGW is no reason for concern. You get that, don't you? An increase of 1 degree C from the Little Ice Age is simply not a goddamn problem.

So the question is now, and has always been, How much temperature increase will AGW cause? Is it 0.5 degrees C? Or is it 5 degrees C?

The answer to that question lies with the warming-crowd models. Those models are the subject of numerous articles as to why they are so consistently wrong. The ocean is swallowing the heating, La Nina is causing cooler temperatures, sun spot activity has declined, blah, blah.

Until the model can accurately predict climate, then the entire field is founded on faith, without evidence. Your AGW crowd is the 20th century equivalent of a religion. "Believe us," your priests say. "Have faith," your priests say. "We know better than you," they insist.

Pass. You are free to worship whatever phony god you want, Pola, but don't force that god on me.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Palo, you are nothing but a gullible rah-tard. It's unreal that you tree hugging, pacifist, tie dye wearing, lava lamp losers believe the **** that comes out of academia. Most the **** that you brain washed lemmings believe to be science is all a ruse to garner more grant money for universities. People like Al Gore prey on the weak minded and get filthy stinking rich, and then point the venom of your ilk towards those carbon sucking corporate types that are killing your mother, dining on the carcasses of endangered species, and smoking fine cigars wrapped in thinly shaved limousine wood. And the best part is that you follow along lock stock and barrel all while believing yourself to be a free thinker, because they told you that you were a free thinker. Irony is the only element you don't understand.

I don't think I've seen you post here before.

Got bored of ******* your sister huh? I mean if we're going to stereotype....

 

[PoloMalo43]

Pola is too stupid to read the article he referenced:

“Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication, but the fact is that NCDC isn’t paying attention to small details, and the entire process from B91’s to CONUS creates an inflated warming signal. We published a preliminary paper two years ago on this which you can read here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

About half the warming in the USA is due to adjustments. We' received a lot of criticism for that paper, and we’ve spent two years reworking it and dealing with those criticisms. Our results are unchanged and will be published soon.

Half the warming is due to adjustments. HALF.

Do you have any the slightest understanding of the importance of that fact? "Global warming" is not a threat to the environment, or crop growth, or human activity or health, unless two factors are proved: (1) the warming is due to man-made CO2 emissions and (2) the amount of temperature increase due to man-made CO2 emissions is significant enough to be of concern.

Substantial temperature increases - at least 4 degrees C over the next 100 years - is cause for concern. The early IPCC estimates projected temperature increases of at least 3 degrees C, and as much as 6.4 degrees C. That kind of temperature increase, if caused by AGW, is cause for concern.

A temperature increase of 1 degree C due to AGW is no reason for concern. You get that, don't you? An increase of 1 degree C from the Little Ice Age is simply not a goddamn problem.

So the question is now, and has always been, How much temperature increase will AGW cause? Is it 0.5 degrees C? Or is it 5 degrees C?

The answer to that question lies with the warming-crowd models. Those models are the subject of numerous articles as to why they are so consistently wrong. The ocean is swallowing the heating, La Nina is causing cooler temperatures, sun spot activity has declined, blah, blah.

Until the model can accurately predict climate, then the entire field is founded on faith, without evidence. Your AGW crowd is the 20th century equivalent of a religion. "Believe us," your priests say. "Have faith," your priests say. "We know better than you," they insist.

Pass. You are free to worship whatever phony god you want, Pola, but don't force that god on me.

Deepthroattime you had to have been sexually abused by a relative that's the only way to explain your desire to be constantly abused on here.

The point was WATTS WON"T EVEN FALL FOR THIS GUYS ****!

The claim that half the warming is from adjustments is from WATTS! Who is also not a climate scientist.

HE'S A WASHED UP WEATHERMAN! What planet do you hail from Deepthroattime, circularlogicenia?

 

[Spike]

I say, what fun it is watching fanatical Global Warming Cult members heads asplode

 

[Confluence]

Well then enlighten me. You don't need to go in to the graphs I know enough to understand your implying there is a cycle of longer frequency that we're just not aware off, you know the magical unicorn cycle.

I just want an answer to a simple question since this is the hypothesis you are promoting.

Where is the energy from the green house gases disappearing to? We know this is an energy imbalance problem we also know energy can't be destroyed, so where is it?

Much like the missing dark matter in cosmology, it is ok to understand that there exist problems to which we do not, yet, have the knowledge to answer correctly. That is what scientific discovery is about.

In the case of this energy, it is completely possible that models could properly account for it by adding an unknown variable that simply admits that part of the math/science is simply unkown at this time. This would make the math/predictions more closely agree with what is observed because the unknown variability is what is clearly eluding climate researchers at this time. At some point in the future, probably when math and computing power are at higher levels, humanity may have a solution for this unknown variable (or more likely, a set of variables, probably with some sort of step function that makes discerning them more fundamentally difficult).

So there you go....energy is always conserved; we simply don't know how in this spectrum of science. That lack of understanding is proved by all the incorrect models and demands that scientists NOT CONCLUDE anything because they don't understand the complexity of nature in this regard.

Like all scientific inquiry, we should allocate resources to this understanding via fundamental research up to the point where we understand the relationships so that we can model properly and correctly match observations to predictions --- that would demonstrate an understanding of the complex system. But at this point in our collective evolution, we do not yet have that understanding. To pretend anyone does is complete hogwash; therefore any policy flowing from poor/bad/incorrect science is bound to be inefficient and wrongly directed. This follows logically.

 

[Rod Farva]

The sad part is no one will be held accountable for this nonsense. When the consensus switches to "whoops, no AGW" the response will be "but all this green energy we crammed down your throat to make our buddies hundreds of millions is a good thing". Who cares about the economy and the mountain of debt? We gots snazzy bird killin windmills.

Won't need no stinkin economy....we can just eat birds we pick up under the windmills.

Much like the missing dark matter in cosmology, it is ok to understand that there exist problems to which we do not, yet, have the knowledge to answer correctly. That is what scientific discovery is about.

In the case of this energy, it is completely possible that models could properly account for it by adding an unknown variable that simply admits that part of the math/science is simply unkown at this time. This would make the math/predictions more closely agree with what is observed because the unknown variability is what is clearly eluding climate researchers at this time. At some point in the future, probably when math and computing power are at higher levels, humanity may have a solution for this unknown variable (or more likely, a set of variables, probably with some sort of step function that makes discerning them more fundamentally difficult).

So there you go....energy is always conserved; we simply don't know how in this spectrum of science. That lack of understanding is proved by all the incorrect models and demands that scientists NOT CONCLUDE anything because they don't understand the complexity of nature in this regard.

Like all scientific inquiry, we should allocate resources to this understanding via fundamental research up to the point where we understand the relationships so that we can model properly and correctly match observations to predictions --- that would demonstrate an understanding of the complex system. But at this point in our collective evolution, we do not yet have that understanding. To pretend anyone does is complete hogwash; therefore any policy flowing from poor/bad/incorrect science is bound to be inefficient and wrongly directed. This follows logically.

Is this about me? If not, I'm getting bored.

 

[JupiterBnG]

"The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events."

This, in a nutshell, has been my long-standing problem with the idea of global warming/climate change. It's the fact that a ridiculously tiny fragment of time is being examined and totally unwarranted and unsupportable extrapolations are being made from that data. We have no laboratory in which to conduct scientific testing. Sure, there are computerized global climate simulations, but those simulations are biased toward the beliefs of whoever is running the simulation, and in the end, simulations are not the same as physical experiments. When we can make a duplicate solar system and create an Earth without man-made greenhouse gases as a control subject, then I'll believe that we absolutely understand the global climate, and worry about the future.

The other problem I have, and I'm honestly a very environmentally conscious person - I recycle, I try to conserve energy and water, I try to support sustainable foods and other materials - is that, even if it's all true and we're in the first stages of an environmental catastrophe, no one has proposed any realistic and actionable solutions we can implement today. Not a single one. Carbon taxes and carbon caps aren't going to solve the problem. Electric cars won't solve the problem. Wind and solar energy won't solve the problem. Actually, very little short of the disappearance of 95%+ of the world's population is going to have any meaningful impact.

The whole problem reduces to political posturing between two extreme political groups, and not any real crisis that we can solve even if we all agreed it was a real problem. The solution is so far beyond our control that it's almost pointless to even discuss the problem.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

97% of Scientists that write papers on Climate Change receive tons of money from special interest groups who need to scare very gullible rich people in order to make billions of dollars for themselves. The fact that they also happen to fool a lot of lower and middle class dummies along with the rich dummies is a bonus.

It's not about climate change, it's about control and forcing a lower standard of living on people. The climate change bogeyman is just there to get the masses to think it's good for them.

BTW, it's one of the coolest springs on record where I live (and one of the coldest winters). We have elected not to participate in global warming.

 

[Spike]

Global Warming Cult 'true believers' are as close-minded as thy come.


Every generation thinks they are the pinnacle of creation and hold all the answers of the age and everything they believe in is "settled science".

Scientists in the 1700's thought they knew everything - now we laugh at their innocence and flawed hubris.

It'll be the same a couple hundred years from now - "Climate Science" will be laughed at for the political clique it really is

 

[PoloMalo43]

Climate science is like rap music - a self sustaining construct that provides access and credibility to no talent hacks.

That would be country music but we get the point.

 

[Spike]

I see nothing wrong with country music...

 

[Spike]

OMG! Great White sharks, a cold water species invading the Gulf of Mexico!

Global Warming Alert!


Gulf great white sharks, Katherine and Betsy, are heading for Texas

Scientists tracking a great white shark as she traverses the Gulf of Mexico got the latest signal back from her tag Sunday and she is heading for Texas.

A satellite picked up a "ping" from Katherine, a more than two thousand pound great white shark about 100 miles south west of the Florida coast. In another week she could be past the Mississippi river, a week after that she could be right here, off the coast of the Lone Star State, researchers said.

Katherine is one of two great whites that research teams, led by Ocearch, have been following as they trek across our waters. Another, Betsy, was tracked on June 5 about 120 miles west of Sanibel Island, Fl.

Both giants were tagged last August off Cape Cod. Scientists say their epic journey down the coast and into the Gulf is giving researchers unprecedented insight into white shark behavior.

"Every track is giving us new information and going contrary to all the assumptions that we were going on," said Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the center for shark research at Mote Marine Laboratory, "Having them in the Gulf is something we thought happened in the winter time."

http://www.chron.com/hunting-fishing/article/Two-great-white-sharks-tracked-in-the-Gulf-5555868.php

-------------------------

What next? Polar bears in Florida?