2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[RKMBrown]

No, we're calling _you_ a liar, RK, because even you aren't dumb enough to miss the sarcasm. You're just lying.

Now, when you locate your courage and stop it with the weird evasions, you can start schooling us on the carbon cycle, as you bragged you could do. I'm not sure why you're so deadset on talking about the carbon cycle, but that's something you need to explain.

Lying about what? You pick... either you are lying about wanting to understand the carbon cycle, or you are being sarcastic because one would have to be an idiot to not already understand it. Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life. Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Face it, Gore's hockey stick gave you a raging hard on and now you are in denial.

 

[mamooth]

Excellent. You've started to touch on making a point! I knew you had it in you. Let's keep going.

Tell us more about the carbon cycle being overwhelmed, and why it's impossible. We directly measure CO2 concentrations increasing, and know from the isotope ratios that humans are causing it. Thus, it seems rather peculiar of you to claim something we directly observe isn't happening. Can you explain the discrepancy between your claims and real-world observation?

Also please tell us about greenhouse gases being "displaced in the atmosphere"? I've never heard of such a thing. Are you claiming that CO2 physically pushes methane out of the atmosphere? Just what are you claiming? And what's the physical mechanism behind it?

This is all new groundbreaking science on your part. If you can back it up, you've got a Nobel prize for sure.

 

[RKMBrown]

Excellent. You've started to touch on making a point! I knew you had it in you. Let's keep going.

Tell us more about the carbon cycle being overwhelmed, and why it's impossible. We directly measure CO2 concentrations increasing, and know from the isotope ratios that humans are causing it. Thus, it seems rather peculiar of you to claim something we directly observe isn't happening. Can you explain the discrepancy between your claims and real-world observation?

Also please tell us about greenhouse gases being "displaced in the atmosphere"? I've never heard of such a thing. Are you claiming that CO2 physically pushes methane out of the atmosphere? Just what are you claiming? And what's the physical mechanism behind it?

This is all new groundbreaking science on your part. If you can back it up, you've got a Nobel prize for sure.

On the first one, lets start with you telling the class what happens to the vast majority of plants in the presence of CO2. Then tell us what happens when there is more CO2 and what happens when there is restricted CO2.

On the second one, lets start with you telling the class how two molecules can occupy the same location at the same time.

 

[mamooth]

Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.

Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".

However, one wonders why you bring that topic up at all, since it's not relevant to the point that we directly measure a CO2 increase, thus proving the carbon cycle _is_ being "overwhelmed".

On the second, two molecules can't occupy the same space. Given that the atmosphere has vast amounts of empty space between molecules, I have to wonder why you bring up yet another irrelevant point.

 

[jc456]

Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.

Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".

However, one wonders why you bring that topic up at all, since it's not relevant to the point that we directly measure a CO2 increase, thus proving the carbon cycle _is_ being "overwhelmed".

On the second, two molecules can't occupy the same space. Given that the atmosphere has vast amounts of empty space between molecules, I have to wonder why you bring up yet another irrelevant point.

I can't believe you wrote this.

 

[westwall]

Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.

Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".

However, one wonders why you bring that topic up at all, since it's not relevant to the point that we directly measure a CO2 increase, thus proving the carbon cycle _is_ being "overwhelmed".

On the second, two molecules can't occupy the same space. Given that the atmosphere has vast amounts of empty space between molecules, I have to wonder why you bring up yet another irrelevant point.

I can't believe you wrote this.

Believe it. mammy's understanding of the physical world is laughable indeed. He's supposedly a "nucular watch officer" in the US Navy. Of course that appellation doesn't exist in the US Navy but mammy will never admit that.

 

[RollingThunder]

More self-delusional anti-science nonsense and myths from the denier cult crackpots.

High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious
Climate change could increase deficiencies in zinc and iron, new study suggests.
National Geographic News
PUBLISHED MAY 7, 2014

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
New Scientist

Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
Stanford University News Release

 

[jc456]

More self-delusional anti-science nonsense and myths from the denier cult crackpots.

High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious
Climate change could increase deficiencies in zinc and iron, new study suggests.
National Geographic News
PUBLISHED MAY 7, 2014
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
New Scientist
Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
Stanford University News Release

I will say they are consistent with their nonsense.

 

[RKMBrown]

Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.

Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".

However, one wonders why you bring that topic up at all, since it's not relevant to the point that we directly measure a CO2 increase, thus proving the carbon cycle _is_ being "overwhelmed".

On the second, two molecules can't occupy the same space. Given that the atmosphere has vast amounts of empty space between molecules, I have to wonder why you bring up yet another irrelevant point.

I can't believe you wrote this.

I can't decide which one is funnier, the one about CO2 retarding plant growth or the one about CO2 increasing the density of molecules in our atmosphere. ROFL

 

[westwall]

More self-delusional anti-science nonsense and myths from the denier cult crackpots.

High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious
Climate change could increase deficiencies in zinc and iron, new study suggests.
National Geographic News
PUBLISHED MAY 7, 2014

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
New Scientist

Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
Stanford University News Release

So, you have biased "scientists" pushing biased "studies", or you can watch the difference.








There are THOUSANDS of these videos showing the beneficial effects of CO2 on plant growth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, by Dr. Spencer, October comes in at 0.37. Looks like 2014 is going to go down as the warmest year on record.

UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2014 0.37 deg. C Roy Spencer PhD

 

[RollingThunder]

Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.

Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".

However, one wonders why you bring that topic up at all, since it's not relevant to the point that we directly measure a CO2 increase, thus proving the carbon cycle _is_ being "overwhelmed".

On the second, two molecules can't occupy the same space. Given that the atmosphere has vast amounts of empty space between molecules, I have to wonder why you bring up yet another irrelevant point.

I can't decide which one is funnier, the one about CO2 retarding plant growth or the one about CO2 increasing the density of molecules in our atmosphere.

What is funny, you poor retarded fool, is that no one ever said that "CO2 increases the density of molecules in our atmosphere". That's all your befuddled inability to comprehend what was said to you in response to your moronic meaningless 'questions' about "what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere" and "lets start with you telling the class how two molecules can occupy the same location at the same time". What you make obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you have zero knowledge or understanding of physics.

There is at this point a considerable amount of scientific research that shows that, although increased CO2 up to a certain level can temporarily increase plant growth in some plants (but not all) the longer term effect of significantly increased CO2 is either, in some cases, to inhibit plant growth, or, in other cases, to reduce the nutritional value of the food. As for as your knee-jerk denier cult rejection of this science in favor of your propaganda myths, that is just another indication that you are either a brainwashed rightwingnut retard or a paid troll pushing misinformation, pseudo-science and lies concocted by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[mamooth]

So, you have biased "scientists" pushing biased "studies", or you can watch the difference.

Poor Westwall is confusing the lab with the real world. It's a common denier logic failing. They don't really understand how life outside the ivory tower works.

In the lab experiments he cites, the plants have an abundance of everything they need. Thus, CO2 is a limiting factor.

In the real world, that's not how it works. Other things are usually the limiting factor. Hence, CO2 has a highly variable affect.

Even when CO2 does increase growth, not all the effects are good. For example, when vines grow much faster, they choke trees and kill them, so the total carbon sequestration might go down. When weeds grow faster, crop yields decline.

Myself, I noticed the poison ivy was crazy bad this year. I'll see if that pattern holds, or if it was just a favorable climate year for poison ivy.

 

[mamooth]

mammy's understanding of the physical world is laughable indeed. He's supposedly a "nucular watch officer" in the US Navy. Of course that appellation doesn't exist in the US Navy but mammy will never admit that.

Reported for quote doctoring. And it's not for the first time. I never said "nucular watch officer", and Westwall knows it. For some reason, he thinks he's a precious little snowflake that the normal board rules don't apply to.

Oh, I'll also need to let the military forum know that he's gone back to his vet-spitting ways. Westwall, you are invited to join in and defend your indefensible behavior.

 

[RKMBrown]

Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.

Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".

However, one wonders why you bring that topic up at all, since it's not relevant to the point that we directly measure a CO2 increase, thus proving the carbon cycle _is_ being "overwhelmed".

On the second, two molecules can't occupy the same space. Given that the atmosphere has vast amounts of empty space between molecules, I have to wonder why you bring up yet another irrelevant point.

I can't decide which one is funnier, the one about CO2 retarding plant growth or the one about CO2 increasing the density of molecules in our atmosphere.

What is funny, you poor retarded fool, is that no one ever said that "CO2 increases the density of molecules in our atmosphere". That's all your befuddled inability to comprehend what was said to you in response to your moronic meaningless 'questions' about "what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere" and "lets start with you telling the class how two molecules can occupy the same location at the same time". What you make obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you have zero knowledge or understanding of physics.

There is at this point a considerable amount of scientific research that shows that, although increased CO2 up to a certain level can temporarily increase plant growth in some plants (but not all) the longer term effect of significantly increased CO2 is either, in some cases, to inhibit plant growth, or, in other cases, to reduce the nutritional value of the food. As for as your knee-jerk denier cult rejection of this science in favor of your propaganda myths, that is just another indication that you are either a brainwashed rightwingnut retard or a paid troll pushing misinformation, pseudo-science and lies concocted by the fossil fuel industry.

ROFL you are so retarded.

 

[RKMBrown]

So, you have biased "scientists" pushing biased "studies", or you can watch the difference.

Poor Westwall is confusing the lab with the real world. It's a common denier logic failing. They don't really understand how life outside the ivory tower works.

In the lab experiments he cites, the plants have an abundance of everything they need. Thus, CO2 is a limiting factor.

In the real world, that's not how it works. Other things are usually the limiting factor. Hence, CO2 has a highly variable affect.

Even when CO2 does increase growth, not all the effects are good. For example, when vines grow much faster, they choke trees and kill them, so the total carbon sequestration might go down. When weeds grow faster, crop yields decline.

Myself, I noticed the poison ivy was crazy bad this year. I'll see if that pattern holds, or if it was just a favorable climate year for poison ivy.

ROFL yeah lets eliminate all CO2 and bring back an ICE age so poison ivy won't grow so damn fast. ROFL

 

[mamooth]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

 

[RollingThunder]

Looking at the word 'year' as meaning simply 'a 12 month period of time', and uncoupling it from the arbitrary Jan-Dec Western calender framework, it turns out that the Earth has already just experienced its hottest year on record in the period from last October to this past September, as NOAA announced last month. The previous record for the hottest twelve months on record, among all of the possible twelve month periods since 1880, was also just set the previous month. The previous record holder was the period from September 2013 to August 2014. Before that it was a tie between a 12 month period in 2010 and one in 1998.

The next NOAA State of the Climate Global Ananysis Report will be out in a week or so and it will be interesting to see if this string of record 12 month periods continues. It will also be interesting to see what happens if the nascent El Niño starts significantly affecting surface air temperatures by bringing back up to the surface some of the heat energy that the recent string of La Niña conditions took down into the ocean depths. In any case, at this point, it seems almost irrelevant whether the 2014 'calender year' becomes the hottest (calender) year on record (which it almost certainly will) or 'technically' only the second hottest (calender) year on record, which would be the only other possible outcome, at this point.

The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)

 

[Billy_Bob]

Looking at the word 'year' as meaning simply 'a 12 month period of time', and uncoupling it from the arbitrary Jan-Dec Western calender framework, it turns out that the Earth has already just experienced its hottest year on record in the period from last October to this past September, as NOAA announced last month. The previous record for the hottest twelve months on record, among all of the possible twelve month periods since 1880, was also just set the previous month. The previous record holder was the period from September 2013 to August 2014. Before that it was a tie between a 12 month period in 2010 and one in 1998.

The next NOAA State of the Climate Global Ananysis Report will be out in a week or so and it will be interesting to see if this string of record 12 month periods continues. It will also be interesting to see what happens if the nascent El Niño starts significantly affecting surface air temperatures by bringing back up to the surface some of the heat energy that the recent string of La Niña conditions took down into the ocean depths. In any case, at this point, it seems almost irrelevant whether the 2014 'calender year' becomes the hottest (calender) year on record (which it almost certainly will) or 'technically' only the second hottest (calender) year on record, which would be the only other possible outcome, at this point.

The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)

Two things ...

First; 1880 was NOT THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD.. So this benchmark, if it were real, means shit (You also forgot to mention that Dr Roy Spencer used homogenized NOAA data. IT is therefore suspect and he notes that in his remarks. Funny how you fail to point it out.) Spencer notes the data is suspect but you omit that point..

Spencer has done other data sets and they do not show what this one does. This means it is an outlier. Another point you fail to mention...

 

[RollingThunder]

Looking at the word 'year' as meaning simply 'a 12 month period of time', and uncoupling it from the arbitrary Jan-Dec Western calender framework, it turns out that the Earth has already just experienced its hottest year on record in the period from last October to this past September, as NOAA announced last month. The previous record for the hottest twelve months on record, among all of the possible twelve month periods since 1880, was also just set the previous month. The previous record holder was the period from September 2013 to August 2014. Before that it was a tie between a 12 month period in 2010 and one in 1998.

The next NOAA State of the Climate Global Ananysis Report will be out in a week or so and it will be interesting to see if this string of record 12 month periods continues. It will also be interesting to see what happens if the nascent El Niño starts significantly affecting surface air temperatures by bringing back up to the surface some of the heat energy that the recent string of La Niña conditions took down into the ocean depths. In any case, at this point, it seems almost irrelevant whether the 2014 'calender year' becomes the hottest (calender) year on record (which it almost certainly will) or 'technically' only the second hottest (calender) year on record, which would be the only other possible outcome, at this point.

The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)

Two things ...

First; 1880 was NOT THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD.. So this benchmark, if it were real, means shit (You also forgot to mention that Dr Roy Spencer used homogenized NOAA data. IT is therefore suspect and he notes that in his remarks. Funny how you fail to point it out.) Spencer notes the data is suspect but you omit that point..

Spencer has done other data sets and they do not show what this one does. This means it is an outlier. Another point you fail to mention...

My post and the quote from NOAA have absolutely no connection to Dr. Roy Spencer. You are a troll living in some insane denier cult delusional fantasy-land who can't even keep track of which lies you're telling now.

BTW moron, 1880 doesn't need to be "THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD" for the temperature trend over the last 134 years to be very significant, as the world scientific community has been warning us.

(source)

Moreover, scientific research has extended our understanding of the Earth's temperature record far beyond just the limited instrumental record, back to the beginning of the holocene and even farther.

Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

Figure 3 The last two thousand years from Figure 1, in comparison to the PAGES 2k reconstruction (green), which was recently described here in detail. Graph: Klaus Bitterman.
(source)