CDZ Climate Change effects already here, yet denial persists

[GaryDog]

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Oh really? You don't want to lift people out of poverty? How progressive of you


Rising CO2 levels are re-greening Africa's deserts, bringing abundance that lifts people out of poverty

There are going to be winners and losers with climate change, no doubt. But the degree to which the third-world will lose if we don't innovate green energy and export it overseas to assist in this economic growth is FAR greater than the degree to which they'll lose if denied a fossil-fuel economy.

4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke



The WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles
he WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles, which makes indoor cooking fires the biggest culprit for these deaths. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time




The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time



Since 2013 aid agencies such as the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank have restricted funding for building fossil-fuel plants in Asia and Africa; that has slowed progress in bringing electricity to the one billion people who live without itand the four million who die each year from the effects of cooking over wood fires.

At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2 degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.

Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly overestimated, in the models.

The last IPCC report also included a table debunking many worries about “tipping points” to abrupt climate change. For example, it says a sudden methane release from the ocean, or a slowdown of the Gulf Stream, are “very unlikely” and that a collapse of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets during this century is “exceptionally unlikely.”

If sensitivity is low and climate change continues at the same rate as it has over the past 50 years, then dangerous warming—usually defined as starting at 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels—is about a century away. So we do not need to rush into subsidizing inefficient and land-hungry technologies, such as wind and solar or risk depriving poor people access to the beneficial effects of cheap electricity via fossil fuels

Consider the source...

Since 2013 Ridley has been a Conservative hereditary peer in the House of Lords

 

[GaryDog]

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

We could install useful amounts of reliable nuclear power.......now.

Being done.

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces Actions to Ensure that Nuclear Energy Remains a Vibrant Component of the United States’ Clean Energy Strategy

Yeah, just like he built the Keystone Pipeline.

When did he say he'd do that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

We could install useful amounts of reliable nuclear power.......now.

Being done.

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces Actions to Ensure that Nuclear Energy Remains a Vibrant Component of the United States’ Clean Energy Strategy

Yeah, just like he built the Keystone Pipeline.

When did he say he'd do that?

What did he take, 7 years before he decided against it?
He yaps a lot without ever doing anything to increase our reliable energy supply.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I remember back in 1970's that the world was going to go into a Global Ice Age, but it didn't happen.
I remember that in 2000 Al Gore said the Earth was going to burn up do to man-made CO2(global warming) but it didn't happen.
I remember that in 2010 Al Gore said that the ice caps were going to melt do to man-made CO2(Climate Change) yet the polar ice caps are still there.
It is now 2016 and the gloom and doomers are predicting that in 2116(100 years from now) the Earth Might come to an end. Do you see a pattern here of how some people have used FEAR to take money from US and pad their pockets, with millions of dollars?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No worries, the entire human race will soon understand just how bad shite is going to get real soon. A sixth mass extinction is already underway.

Just like the OP you guys think you are "special" just like all the chicken littles of the past.

This time it's Rrrrrreeeaaaallll

 

[GaryDog]

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

We could install useful amounts of reliable nuclear power.......now.

Being done.

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces Actions to Ensure that Nuclear Energy Remains a Vibrant Component of the United States’ Clean Energy Strategy

Yeah, just like he built the Keystone Pipeline.

When did he say he'd do that?

What did he take, 7 years before he decided against it?
He yaps a lot without ever doing anything to increase our reliable energy supply.

I'm still waiting for the link to when Obama said he would build the pipeline, and then didn't.

 

[GaryDog]

I remember back in 1970's that the world was going to go into a Global Ice Age, but it didn't happen.
I remember that in 2000 Al Gore said the Earth was going to burn up do to man-made CO2(global warming) but it didn't happen.
I remember that in 2010 Al Gore said that the ice caps were going to melt do to man-made CO2(Climate Change) yet the polar ice caps are still there.
It is now 2016 and the gloom and doomers are predicting that in 2116(100 years from now) the Earth Might come to an end. Do you see a pattern here of how some people have used FEAR to take money from US and pad their pockets, with millions of dollars?

This is a myth. Media fascination with a minority of crackposts is not equivalent to scientific consensus.

Even the people claiming cooling admitted that human activity is perhaps altering that trend...

A 2003 Washington Post op-ed by James Schlesinger, Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled, quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."
The full quote from the report is as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrialcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"

Schlesinger's op-ed has been quoted widely including James Inhofe's Senate testimony. Skeptic citing of the scientific literature have taken conclusions out of context, overlooking qualifications and stated uncertainties.


What 1970s science said about global cooling

 

[GaryDog]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No worries, the entire human race will soon understand just how bad shite is going to get real soon. A sixth mass extinction is already underway.

Just like the OP you guys think you are "special" just like all the chicken littles of the past.

This time it's Rrrrrreeeaaaallll

I'm surprised you haven't quoted this idiot yet:

 

[westwall]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No global warming for over 18 years now. The Arctic ice levels are within the 20 year norms so yeah, there IS nothing to see here. Just more globalist propaganda designed to make the middle class poor, and enrich the wealthiest of the one percenters.

Wrong on all counts. Not much more to say. You seem woefully misinformed on this issue.

Really? Why look at that. At the lower end, but still within the 20 year mean. And the "pause" is a well documented fact in 8 different data sets. The "study" that was released back in 2015 with a "reanalysis" of the satellite data that supposedly showed no pause has been shown to be wrong.

No, it is you who are factually wrong.

 

[GaryDog]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No global warming for over 18 years now. The Arctic ice levels are within the 20 year norms so yeah, there IS nothing to see here. Just more globalist propaganda designed to make the middle class poor, and enrich the wealthiest of the one percenters.

Wrong on all counts. Not much more to say. You seem woefully misinformed on this issue.

Really? Why look at that. At the lower end, but still within the 20 year mean. And the "pause" is a well documented fact in 8 different data sets. The "study" that was released back in 2015 with a "reanalysis" of the satellite data that supposedly showed no pause has been shown to be wrong.

No, it is you who are factually wrong.

You don't know the difference between land ice and sea ice, and how it impacts the globe.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

 

[Wyatt earp]

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice

The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.

Sorry.....if you believe that you need help. You guys..........according to lefty leaders back in the 60s, we would be in the middle of food riots and Soylent Green because of overpopulation..........you guys predict doom and gloom, and of course the solution is always to give power to a small, powerful elite who will make it all better...........we just have to obey them.....or else.

Jesus Christ, let me guess, you'll next turn to the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling in the 1970s? That was not the consensus and never has been. Most scientists have rightly recognized what's actually happening for half a century.

They have been complaining about climate change since the late 1800s nothing new, except this time the AGW cult is sssseeeerrriiiooouuusss...

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


http://query.nytimes.com/

Now you're reduced to quoting 1871 articles.

At what point do you recognize the embarrassment that is your argument?

Another thing, uhm guy what is the title of your thread?

Climate Change effects already here, yet denial persists

 

[flacaltenn]

op cit the link in the OP.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

NONE -- not one of the simulated future projections of GW due to CO2 showed any comparable "pauses" or influence from climate variables OTHER than CO2. Means they are not reliable. Because after all -- if the Warmers CLAIM we will have 4 to 6 degC by 2100 -- THEN a statistical rate of warming NOW -- IS SIGNIFICANT. And that's what's the "dissent" and skepticism is all about ---- isn't it Gary Dog? Not about the temperature readings -- it's about the theoretical PROJECTIONS of whether this is a CRISIS -- or whether it's ho - hum.

Current rate of warming for the ENTIRE satellite era (1979 --- 2016) is around 0.126degC/Decade. That is 3 to 5 times LESS than the GW "models" predicted back in the 80s and 90s. Those numbers STARTED the panic. But they have failed. At the OBSERVED rate of warming --- 2100 would about 1.5degC warmer.

Go ahead --- tell us what the ESTIMATES are for 2050 and 2100 versus the measured reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

op cit the link in the OP.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

Then if all that is NOT statistically significant -- why are you breathless and crouched in fear over Moonbats diced facts. Like 15 of 16 hottest years -- or last THURSDAY was an 80 year record?

I mean --- it's not like we actually have an HOURLY record of temperatures measured to 0.1deg for the past Million years to compare to anyway..

 

[flacaltenn]

Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe

How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.

But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.

Lack of perfection in scientific models is not equivalent to bunk science regarding the whole. I'd think someone who pretends to be as smart as you would realize this.

It is MISREPRESENTATION of the science that YOU have feasted on. Done with a intent to deceive for the "movement". And YES -- paleo-proxies that CLAIM to devise a Global Avg Temperature based on just 70 or 100 sample proxies are not just imperfect --- they are very weak and of limited use to compare to OUR 100 yr event.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nearly 20 years of no significant warming, and still the warmers insist that there's a problem. Indeed, the longer temps stay flat, the more strident and nutty they become.

Now, Archbishop Michel Mann says that he doesn't need scientific facts, just go look out the window!

Dude, why do you keep repeating this canard?

Because it's true. The observed rate of warming for the past 70 years --- shows NO SIGNS of the theoretical ACCELERATIONS, runaway warming, or positive feedbacks which are CORE tenets of GW theory.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

op cit the link in the OP.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

Then if all that is NOT statistically significant -- why are you breathless and crouched in fear over Moonbats diced facts. Like 15 of 16 hottest years -- or last THURSDAY was an 80 year record?

I mean --- it's not like we actually have an HOURLY record of temperatures measured to 0.1deg for the past Million years to compare to anyway..

Today the temperature outside my house is 15 degrees cooler than it was last year. If CO2 which increases every year(from .03% in 1900 to .04% to now) why wouldn't my temperature be hotter than it was last year? Because some people will lose that gravy train, that Obama promised when he said "see Youtube". Many people made millions and billions of dollars of Tax dollars stolen from the rest of US.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No worries, the entire human race will soon understand just how bad shite is going to get real soon. A sixth mass extinction is already underway.

I would say that with 33,000 unborn children being executed and parted out each month, that is somewhat of a mass extinction.
I would say that since the ARAB SPRING(created by Shrillery Clinton) the middle east caliphate is increasing its reach into Europe and the US(all 50 states).
I would be more worried about walking in a Mall, or sitting in a Movie Theater, or flying on a Jet, as being more chance of dying, by beheading, than waiting 100 years from now(I will be long gone by then) to see if the oceans rise 1 inch. Shame some people here have their heads way up in Uranus.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Dude, why do you keep repeating this canard?

Take it up with Pope Phil Jones.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I remember back in 1970's that the world was going to go into a Global Ice Age, but it didn't happen.
I remember that in 2000 Al Gore said the Earth was going to burn up do to man-made CO2(global warming) but it didn't happen.
I remember that in 2010 Al Gore said that the ice caps were going to melt do to man-made CO2(Climate Change) yet the polar ice caps are still there.
It is now 2016 and the gloom and doomers are predicting that in 2116(100 years from now) the Earth Might come to an end. Do you see a pattern here of how some people have used FEAR to take money from US and pad their pockets, with millions of dollars?

This is a myth. Media fascination with a minority of crackposts is not equivalent to scientific consensus.

Even the people claiming cooling admitted that human activity is perhaps altering that trend...

A 2003 Washington Post op-ed by James Schlesinger, Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled, quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."
The full quote from the report is as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrialcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"

Schlesinger's op-ed has been quoted widely including James Inhofe's Senate testimony. Skeptic citing of the scientific literature have taken conclusions out of context, overlooking qualifications and stated uncertainties.


What 1970s science said about global cooling

Now you call them crackpots because it don't fit your narrative for social economic justice?

It gets under your skin so much that first it was global cooling, then global warming now it's climate change.

Your AGW cult is like the old snake skin oil guys of the old west, no matter what happens you blame it on man made climate change.

 

[flacaltenn]

op cit the link in the OP.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

Then if all that is NOT statistically significant -- why are you breathless and crouched in fear over Moonbats diced facts. Like 15 of 16 hottest years -- or last THURSDAY was an 80 year record?

I mean --- it's not like we actually have an HOURLY record of temperatures measured to 0.1deg for the past Million years to compare to anyway..

Today the temperature outside my house is 15 degrees cooler than it was last year. If CO2 which increases every year(from .03% in 1900 to .04% to now) why wouldn't my temperature be hotter than it was last year? Because some people will lose that gravy train, that Obama promised when he said "see Youtube". Many people made millions and billions of dollars of Tax dollars stolen from the rest of US.

A lot of the Public battle over GW stems from the fact that a fair amount of difficult science gets boiled down to one or two numbers. Like the (Global Mean Annual Surface Temp) GMAST It's absurd that public attention is focused on a SINGLE NUMBER to represent Climate Change.

It is just as likely that the harbingers of CC MIGHT be first seen "out your window". Because the Earth is not one big homogeneous Climate Zone. It's a complex system of heat transport and storage. And OFTEN "climate" changes regionally -- not GLOBALLY. So BOTH sides play both sides of the global/regional statistics.

THe GW circus has reduced the science of how the Climate works to a bunch of fairly impotent aggregated numbers.