[Zipperfish]

Noaa: Global Analysis, February 2016

$1:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2016 was the highest for February in the 137-year period of record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F). This not only was the highest for February in the 1880–2016 record—surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.33°C / 0.59°F—but it surpassed the all-time monthly record set just two months ago in December 2015 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Overall, the six highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past six months. February 2016 also marks the 10th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

One answer to this debate would be to just follow the money.

That only applies to those who can't differentiate the political aspect of the issue from the science.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Noaa: Global Analysis, February 2016

$1:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2016 was the highest for February in the 137-year period of record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F). This not only was the highest for February in the 1880–2016 record—surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.33°C / 0.59°F—but it surpassed the all-time monthly record set just two months ago in December 2015 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Overall, the six highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past six months. February 2016 also marks the 10th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken.

I think I read somewhere that not only was February 2016 the hottest of the 137 Februaries recorded, it was also hotter than 134 of the recorded March averages.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The difference now is that we are changing the environment faster than any time that we can tell, and that trends show that even if we stop right now everything we are doing to contribute to that trend, that things will continue to escalate for decades to come. And much of life on Earth may not be able to change fast enough to survive it.

And the evidence for that is 'cause you say so' or do you have something real?

Seems to me you tried to show me something before, but it was nonsense.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

can't be that boring. (cough, cough).

What's new to me is this claim:

uwish uwish:

We are cooling not warming.

You could have a go at that.

No. Too easy. Fiddledog tried that line of argument at one time. The graph he tried to use as proof clearly said something different.

Bullshit.

[Canadian_Mind]

So, can we stop trying to stop the snowball effect? We're already going over the deep end. How do we prepare ourselves to survive the changes with our standards of living intact?

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

can't be that boring. (cough, cough).

What's new to me is this claim:

uwish uwish:

We are cooling not warming.

You could have a go at that.

No. Too easy. Fiddledog tried that line of argument at one time. The graph he tried to use as proof clearly said something different. Uwish is welcome to his opinion, but it's just that. That would go back to the paper defying the laws of physics where increasing CO2 in the atmosphere somehow isn't causing increased warming in accord with the laws of physics. Reality differs greatly from his opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ldNuKZgoA

maybe you can understand this..little simpler for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U maybe some NASA heavyweights might make you LOOK at the data yourself.

I am a physicist and your blatant lies are just that. Most of what you need is here:

http://www.weatheraction.com/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... _stick.pdf this is good, goes into the BS hockey stick graph and why it's a complete fraud.

and since you don't think the sun has much to do with climate, read some of this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... balwarming

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The difference now is that we are changing the environment faster than any time that we can tell, and that trends show that even if we stop right now everything we are doing to contribute to that trend, that things will continue to escalate for decades to come. And much of life on Earth may not be able to change fast enough to survive it.

And the evidence for that is 'cause you say so' or do you have something real?

Seems to me you tried to show me something before, but it was nonsense.

And that's why I don't bother with you any more. You've stated you made up your mind, and are not willing to change it. So I don't waste my time.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. Too easy. Fiddledog tried that line of argument at one time. The graph he tried to use as proof clearly said something different.

Bullshit.

Fact.

More than once.

I might be old, but my memory is pretty good still.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Noaa: Global Analysis, February 2016

$1:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2016 was the highest for February in the 137-year period of record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F). This not only was the highest for February in the 1880–2016 record—surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.33°C / 0.59°F—but it surpassed the all-time monthly record set just two months ago in December 2015 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Overall, the six highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past six months. February 2016 also marks the 10th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken.

I think I read somewhere that not only was February 2016 the hottest of the 137 Februaries recorded, it was also hotter than 134 of the recorded March averages.

Pretty much the height of El Nino, so I don't expect those kind of anomalies will continue past March or April. Wonder if we'll see La Nina this year?

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

One answer to this debate would be to just follow the money.

That only applies to those who can't differentiate the political aspect of the issue from the science.

Not really, 'the money' will bolster any science that enables the making of 'the money' and actively downplay the science that goes against.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

NSIDC: The Arctic sets yet another record low maximum extent

$1:

BOULDER, Colo, March 28, 2016—Arctic sea ice was at a record low maximum extent for the second straight year, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA.

That's True, but remember the days when nobody cared much about the winter ice? It was always about the Summer minimum.

Now it's 'OMG the ice is low in the winter, we must run and tell the king.'

But let's wonder why we're not concerned about the summer minimum anymore.

Remember when the summer Minimum set a record in 2012? OMG!

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk
[/video]

But then the next year there was a record rebound of ice in the summer minimum. Biggest ever. (ever being the 30 year satellite record, of course, but when it's warming that's never mentioned, so what the Hell)

And we stopped hearing about the Summer minimum. Now it's OMG the Winter...the winter...it's only about the winter. Never before. Faster, stronger, higher, lower, warmer colder, never before seen.

But let's look at the graph.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Notice how this year is following last year and notice the summer minimum was a little low, but no big deal last year.

And let's remember we're coming out of two consecutive El Nino years before we start running screaming down the streets from shadows of Manbearpig.

Come to think of it don't you follow ENSO? I heard it's starting to look like it may be flipping into La Nina. How credible do you find that?

Because if it happens not even the data rewriters at NOAA are going to be able to find any more of these "warmest months ever."

[Zipperfish]

uwish uwish:

maybe you can understand this..little simpler for you.

I am a physicist and your blatant lies are just that. Most of what you need is here:

If you are a physicist, perhaps you can explain to me why CO2 isn't warming the troposphere and cooling the stratosphere. Because some pretty basic radiative heat transfer equations indicate that tat is exactly what should happen if you increase CO2, ignoring feedbacks. And indeed the correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and surface temperature anomalies seems to have a much higher R^2 than TSI.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

can't be that boring. (cough, cough).

What's new to me is this claim:
You could have a go at that.

No. Too easy. Fiddledog tried that line of argument at one time. The graph he tried to use as proof clearly said something different. Uwish is welcome to his opinion, but it's just that. That would go back to the paper defying the laws of physics where increasing CO2 in the atmosphere somehow isn't causing increased warming in accord with the laws of physics. Reality differs greatly from his opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ldNuKZgoA

maybe you can understand this..little simpler for you.

I am a physicist and your blatant lies are just that. Most of what you need is here:

http://www.weatheraction.com/

Oooh! 'Blatant lies' now! I have several honours courses in physics. So what? Which 'lies' am I telling?

Tell me, how do the following measurements make you, or those foilers, think that the Earth is cooling?

1: Heat trapped by various gasses, measured in the 1850'.

2: Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, 800,000 years.



3: Global average temperature, 800,000 years (reconstructed).



4: Global Average temperature, 150 years (measured).



Now, you having a physics background, looking at #2 and #4 for the same time period - thats what statistics calls a 'strong' relationship. As CO2 has increased, so has temperature. In accordance with #1 - the laws of physics that you studied.

So, please enlighten me as to these 'lies' I am telling, and how this leads 'WeatherAction' to believe that the Earth is cooling.

I also have many, many more independent sources for this data, if you are curious.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

One answer to this debate would be to just follow the money.

That only applies to those who can't differentiate the political aspect of the issue from the science.

Not really, 'the money' will bolster any science that enables the making of 'the money' and actively downplay the science that goes against.

That's incorrect. If money affects Science, then it's not science. It's politics.

Science is about the data, no matter what message it sends.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/0 ... l-warming/

Trying to spin that message is when it changes from science to fiction.

[uwish]

I am not looking at anything graphic you have posted, I don't know the source, I will only take it from the source. Land based thermometer readings are faulty and erroneous, I don't and will not look at that data. If it isn't ice cores, or satellite data don't bother. We have to be talking about the scale of climate which isn't just 30 years! You won't get that from the modern records because there really aren't any!