2014 the warmest year on Record

[missing transmission]

NASA | 2014 Warmest Year On Record
According to NASA "2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880," and in in a similar, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in a similar but independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.

Climate Anomalies and Events in 2014

Sources - NOAA, NASA.

[VtaGeezer]

NASA | 2014 Warmest Year On Record
According to NASA "2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880," and in in a similar, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in a similar but independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.

Climate Anomalies and Events in 2014

Sources - NOAA, NASA.

You don't believe a bunch libtards working for a Kenyan Muslim who ate dog meat, do you?  Remember, this is the same NASA that faked all those Moon landings and is in bed with the Russians on the space station.

[PB the Deplorable]

... According to NASA "2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880," and in in a similar, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in a similar but independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record...

Apparently this is being disputed, but regardless of the squabbling aren't they confusing temperature with climate? 

That's what we hear from them when anyone remarks how cold it is, or reports how much ice is forming somewhere

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

You don't have to trust NASA or NOAA.  A number of other nations have come to the same conclusion before these official American analyses were released.

[Gd5150]

It certainly was a nice year weather wise.

[PB the Deplorable]

You don't have to trust NASA or NOAA.  A number of other nations have come to the same conclusion before these official American analyses were released.

I wasn't questioning it, not being a scientist.

I was just wondering if they were confusing weather with climate, since we've heard so much about people doing that.  And if they weren't, how do we know when someone is confusing them and when they aren't?

[Kelt]

I think you'll find it snowed here this week.


Global warming indeed.

[RealCool Daddio]

Apparently this is being disputed, but regardless of the squabbling aren't they confusing temperature with climate? 

That's what we hear from them when anyone remarks how cold it is, or reports how much ice is forming somewhere

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/

Thanks for the link, it was good for a laugh - I'd rank the site right up there with the Onion!


This is just one of the many knee slappers in that opinion piece:


“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade,” Curry said.

[Gd5150]

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade,” Curry said.

Wow thats good to know. Thanks RCD!

[RealCool Daddio]

Wow thats good to know. Thanks RCD!

Glad to be of service.  I just finished reading another illuminating piece from the same site - did you know that dinosaurs and man co-existed?

[Yorkshire pud]

Glad to be of service.  I just finished reading another illuminating piece from the same site - did you know that dinosaurs and man co-existed?

But only up until 6000 years ago.

[RealCool Daddio]

But only up until 6000 years ago.

Conservatively.

[Yorkshire pud]

Apparently this is being disputed, but regardless of the squabbling aren't they confusing temperature with climate? 

That's what we hear from them when anyone remarks how cold it is, or reports how much ice is forming somewhere

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/

No they're not confusing climate with temperature. 8 of the last ten years have seen upward mean temperatures globally, but your source of 'dispute' is quite revealing. Although good for laughs; just don't go to them for anything that supports facts eh? For future referance; anything that quotes Christopher Monkton, ignore. There's a reason why he plys his living on the CT circuit in the USA, and it isn't credibility, integrity or intelligence.

[Bart Ell]

did you know that dinosaurs and man co-existed?

You musta missed The Flintstones to have not known about that.

[FightTheFuture]

Seemed like one of the coldest years to me. Before last year, I couldn`t remember the last time Myrtle Beach had an ice storm and heavy snow flurries.


In 2014, we had three!

[Gd5150]

Seemed like one of the coldest years to me. Before last year, I couldn`t remember the last time Myrtle Beach had an ice storm and heavy snow flurries.


In 2014, we had three!

Wow 3 ice storms? Sounds like you guys have a severe case of global climate disruption where the only cure is more government.

[NowhereInTime]

Wow 3 ice storms? Sounds like you guys have a severe case of global climate disruption where the only cure is more government.

No, better yet, let's all sit around and wait for the invisible hand of the "market" (you know, that democratic institution of equal representation) to jerk us all off.


Left to the Austrian/Chicago crowd, we'll have plenty of boats and life jackets available for sale when seas rise over the shores of our major cities.


That and I guarantee some Austro/Chicagoan empire will arise in the Rockies, where "New America" will form once the Gulf floods out the heartland. Only $10 million an acre.

[Zoo]

Science is full of shit.. I mean who really thinks that their is global warming? My make believe friend says every is fine!!1

[PB the Deplorable]

The forum has hashed and rehashed the topic, and to no one's surprise no opinions were changed.

I thought this was an interesting opinion piece.  It says he was a co-founder of GreenPeace:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

[Gd5150]

Interesting article.

"By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years"

Good old fashioned close minded liberal progressive science. Real science makes conclusions based on all evidence. Liberal science writes conclusions then cherry picks evidence to support the cause. Then destroys and hides the rest of the evidence on personal severs.

Global warming cooling change disruption has already achieved 97% concesus amongst scientists who believe in the cause.

[PB the Deplorable]

"... Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy..."

Not to mention all the 'smart' people who really aren't, but who like to go along with what these people tell them.  Especially if it's anti-business and pro-Big Government

[PB the Deplorable]

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization...

[missing transmission]

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviours. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before â€" that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct. Source

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In hindcast tests models have successfully reproduced temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean Source

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization...[/i]

...(S)since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe.  The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period.  Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.  This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013. Source

[PB the Deplorable]

The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving...

Wasn't there a report out awhile back showing that the earlier temperatures had been changed in order to show more dramatic increases in warming than otherwise would be the case?  In other words, the current data as compared to the past is manipulated?

So much regarding 'man-made global warming' has been debunked, claims regarding the effect on the planet have changed multiple times (it's cooling, it's warming, it's changing),plenty of 'mistakes' have been uncovered (always erring in the direction of alarmism), at one point a large cache of emails between researchers asking each other how to amplify certain findings that support the cause while downplaying others that don't were been found.  And yet there is always something else.

In this case how fast it's moving. 

I'm not disparaging anyone here's credentials (I have none in this field), or their honesty, but we've been lied to so much about all this over the years.  I just wonder why there is such a need to lie, alter data, etc.  It makes me think it's a bunch of baloney.

[136 or 142]

Man*Boy wrote:
1."I'm not disparaging anyone here's credentials (I have none in this field)"
You have no credentials in this field, I'm shocked!

2."It makes me think"
There you go lying again. Everyone knows you don't think.

[Gd5150]

The warmest year on record. Well since 1880. So it's not the warmest year on record then. Just another lie from the manmade global warming cooling change climate disruption ozone hole campaign.

If we had only had a carbon exchange in 1880 everything would be better.

[Up All Night]

For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” â€" the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.

It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.

Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.

* United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth

2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

* Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet

It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

* The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world

Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

* In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

[albrecht]

For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” â€" the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.

It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.

Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.

* United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth

2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

* Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet

It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

* The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world

Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

* In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

'
I think we need some super-rich people to fly their private jets to an exclusive resort and dine on fine, imported foods and wine and discuss this awful 'warming' and how to force others to change their carbon-footprint. Ideally, a new financial speculative bubble could be created by carbon trading and futures scheme by big banks and mercantile exchanges, perhaps? Or more taxes abd regulatory capture to benefit connected companies, maybe? Those would certainly solve the 'warming.'

[Gd5150]

The best was back in 1988 global climate cooling disruption warming hole ozone campaign supporter and non scientist but plays one on TV, although not at that time, said the oceans would rise 20 feet and would be dead in 10 years. Haha!!! Yes how an we forget dearly loved Ted Danson. There's no question his using the pulpit of Cheers clearly had an impact on saving the world. At least until 2000 when the bushchenney took over and redestroyed it again.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/11/13/danson_i_lied_oceans_didn_t_die2

[jimbo50]

Anyone ever stop to consider when our "rock" was in this part of the galaxy last?
From what I have read, it takes earth 250 million years to rotate to same place in the galaxy.

According to this link. here's what happened 250 million years ago:

http://io9.com/5558871/why-did-nearly-all-life-on-earth-die-250-million-years-ago


We are doomed. So fuck having to pay out the ass to avoid it. Just my opinion.