NASA: Earth Tops Hottest 12 Months On Record Again, Thanks To Warm February

[Politico]

NASA: Earth Tops Hottest 12 Months On Record Again, Thanks To Warm February
by Joe Romm Posted on March 15, 2015 at 11:18 am

"NASA: Earth Tops Hottest 12 Months On Record Again, Thanks To Warm February"

There had never been as hot a 12-month period in NASA’s database as February 2014–January 2015. But that turned out to be a very short-lived record.

NASA reported this weekend that last month was the second-hottest February on record, which now makes March 2014–February 2015 the hottest 12 months on record. This is using a 12-month moving average, so we can “see the march of temperature change over time,” rather than just once every calendar year.

We are experiencing the continuation of the global warming trend that made 2014 the hottest calendar year on record. The very latest science says we should expect an acceleration in surface temperature warming to start quite soon. What is happening now is consistent with that.


Once again February has been cold for those of us living in the eastern and northeastern U.S. — and once again, the rest of the country and the globe is quite warm, with large parts of Asia and Alaska experiencing nearly off-the-charts heat. That’s clear in the NASA chart below for February temperatures, whose upper range extends to a whopping 8.4°C (15.1°F) above the 1951-1980 average!

2015 might beat 2014! Maybe our first .7c year??? We will see.

Yes the climate of the Earth changes and none of you Leftytooons can control it by limiting cow farts. Deal with it.

 

[Crick]

Why do you say that? The temperature change of the last 150 years is primarily due to increased GHGs and the near sole cause of that increase is human activity. We caused it, we can stop it.

 

[jc456]

Why do you say that? The temperature change of the last 150 years is primarily due to increased GHGs and the near sole cause of that increase is human activity. We caused it, we can stop it.

nope and you have no evidence. No proof in other words to back your statement. too bad for you!!!!

 

[DGS49]

No cogent person is saying that the SOLE reason for the warming (assuming there is a warming) is human activity. Human activity is a contributing factor which catalyzes a trend that is already occurring.

The physics is undeniable. Greenhouse gases tend to trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise be radiated out into space. Normally, the naturally occurring greenhouse gases (mainly water vapor) are pretty much in balance, which keeps the earth's temperatures from fluctuating wildly, as they do, for example on the moon. But increased CO2 TENDS to trap more heat than would otherwise be maintained, thus resulting in increasing temperatures.

Nobody disputes this.

The dispute is about how quickly the earth is heating up, what he hotter climate will do to life on earth, and whether ANYTHING WE DO can prevent it or significantly slow it down. And conversely, what we should be doing in response to the warming.

Smart people like me believe that there is not a God-damned thing we in the U.S. can do that will have any effect whatsoever on the climate of the future. This is true because, although we generate a disproportionate amount of the global CO2, countries like China and India are in the process of building scores of coal-fired power plants and buying cars & trucks, and otherwise creating NEW SOURCES OF CO2, such that the marginal reductions we can make in our own CO2 production by closing a few power plants become irrelevant. So it makes NO SENSE whatsoever to punish CO2 producers (electric utilities) and indirectly punishing their customers (US!) for the relatively tiny reduction in greenhouse gases that will be caused by this punishment.

So it makes common sense to maximize the efficiency of our machines and factories and cars and power plants that generate CO2, and to minimize air, water, and ground pollution, but to take painful and/or costly measures to reduce CO2 emissions (which are NOT pollution!) is stupid.

 

[jc456]

No cogent person is saying that the SOLE reason for the warming (assuming there is a warming) is human activity. Human activity is a contributing factor which catalyzes a trend that is already occurring.

The physics is undeniable. Greenhouse gases tend to trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise be radiated out into space. Normally, the naturally occurring greenhouse gases (mainly water vapor) are pretty much in balance, which keeps the earth's temperatures from fluctuating wildly, as they do, for example on the moon. But increased CO2 TENDS to trap more heat than would otherwise be maintained, thus resulting in increasing temperatures.

Nobody disputes this.

The dispute is about how quickly the earth is heating up, what he hotter climate will do to life on earth, and whether ANYTHING WE DO can prevent it or significantly slow it down. And conversely, what we should be doing in response to the warming.

Smart people like me believe that there is not a God-damned thing we in the U.S. can do that will have any effect whatsoever on the climate of the future. This is true because, although we generate a disproportionate amount of the global CO2, countries like China and India are in the process of building scores of coal-fired power plants and buying cars & trucks, and otherwise creating NEW SOURCES OF CO2, such that the marginal reductions we can make in our own CO2 production by closing a few power plants become irrelevant. So it makes NO SENSE whatsoever to punish CO2 producers (electric utilities) and indirectly punishing their customers (US!) for the relatively tiny reduction in greenhouse gases that will be caused by this punishment.

So it makes common sense to maximize the efficiency of our machines and factories and cars and power plants that generate CO2, and to minimize air, water, and ground pollution, but to take painful and/or costly measures to reduce CO2 emissions (which are NOT pollution!) is stupid.

Not to make too much of a point, but your first two paragraphs are false. There is no evidence available to support the claim. I have challenged every warmer on this forum the past 13 months and they have failed to confirm that basic premise. CO2 is logarithmic, the greater the PPM of CO2 the ability to absorb drops. it's pure physical characteristics of the gas. So sorry, but you're wrong in those statements. And then you'd also have to provide the evidence that cold air can make warm air warmer.

 

[Old Rocks]

JC, you have challenged nothing. All you have offered is useless flap-yap of an ignoramous.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Institute of Physics is the largest Scientific Society on earth. And this is their site, and explanation of what we are presently seeing.

 

[Stephanie]

OMG, we are all going to DIE. NASA is becoming another worthless Government agency that is sucking the money and life out of us

so what do you suggest we do. all move into caves sell all our possesions, kill off a couple billion people?

for crying out loud. this government is nothing anymore but, wailing fear mongering

 

[jc456]

JC, you have challenged nothing. All you have offered is useless flap-yap of an ignoramous.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Institute of Physics is the largest Scientific Society on earth. And this is their site, and explanation of what we are presently seeing.

yeah right? And on that link is Herr Koch's 1901 experiment that proves the logarithmic characteristics. it would be nice if' you'd actually learn science. Learn what the characteristics of CO2 are. Hmmm, I know, you can't be bothered.

Here for about the fifth time on this message board from your link:

Abstract that proves my point. I challenged you to present the experiment that refutes it. You failed. Understood?

"scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference"

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes it does. And also contains this paragraph;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Real stupid of you to demonstrate the obvious types of lies that you constantly tell.

 

[Old Rocks]

OMG, we are all going to DIE. NASA is becoming another worthless Government agency that is sucking the money and life out of us

so what do you suggest we do. all move into caves sell all our possesions, kill off a couple billion people?

for crying out loud. this government is nothing anymore but, wailing fear mongering

Hey Staph, any other ways in which you care to demonstrate the depths of your ignorance?

 

[jc456]

Why yes it does. And also contains this paragraph;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Real stupid of you to demonstrate the obvious types of lies that you constantly tell.

are you really that naive? I guess reading comprehension isn't part of your abilities. calculation is not an experiment. try again. Like I've said many time on this forum, just admit you can't refute it with an experiment. The next failure to produce it will be acknowledgment that you don't.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb fuck, the receding glaciers, disappearing Arctic Sea Ice, and the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are the critical experiment.

 

[Politico]

Why do you say that? The temperature change of the last 150 years is primarily due to increased GHGs and the near sole cause of that increase is human activity. We caused it, we can stop it.

No you can't and no you didn't. Nature happens. Deal with it,

 

[Crick]

What do you believe caused the warming of the last 150 years? And please don't answer "nature" or "cycles" or "nothing".

 

[skookerasbil]

Shit Matthew.............s0n...........I come back in here 24 hours later and still no graph.

ghey

Wheres the graph? That phoney graph on your first post is..........phoney.

We still want to see "hottest" operationally defined..........on graph...........compared to the next "hottest"!!! Oh.....and please find one that plots the vertical measures in degree's F...........



All the responses by the AGW climate crusaders on this thread are theory......also ghey.

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way.....and this is hysterical, and clearly proves my point about how the climate crusaders have the political IQ of a handball.............

Ummm..........since forever, focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks is a huge LOSE for the entire k00k camp.

Why nobody cares about climate change The Intersectionist


They're doing it wrong..........and cant change!!!

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks and jc456 are both wrong but each also make a point that is correct but only small piece of the puzzle.

absorption of surface IR is a boundary issue because it is basically absorbs all CO2 specific radiation in the first 10 meters and warms that portion of the atmosphere. after the first 10 meters the atmosphere has no surface 15micron IR but it is producing its own blackbody radiation that contains CO2 specific radiation, as well there is a modest fraction of CO2 specific re-emission of 15 micron IR from excited CO2 molecules. there is always IR energy to be slowed down by CO2 until the atmosphere is so thin that there are few molecular collisions to produce blackbody radiation. jc456 is more correct on this point.

surface temperature is an equilibrium between energy in and energy out. solar insolation is basically static and independent of atmospheric temperature. escape of surface radiation is not independent of atmospheric temperature. if the air above the surface has an increased temperature then less net radiation escapes, the opposite is true if the air temp decreases. if the height to extinction for 15 micron IR reduces to 9.5 meters from 10 meters then the same amount of energy will be absorbed into less volume, therefore the air just above the surface will increase, causing a change in the equilibrium to a warmer temp. even though the air is cooler than the surface it can still 'warm' the surface. Old Rocks is more correct on this point.

I believe that CO2 actually does warm the surface. but far less than what CO2 theory says it will. why? becausethe extra energy being directed back at the surface will not just be used to heat up the surface. it will go into evaporation and convection as well. right now 5/8ths of surface energy escapes through the water cycle and convection (according to Trenberth's cartoon). there is every reason to believe that this percentage goes up as surface temperature goes up.

climate models cannot do clouds or ocean circulation. these are the major players in climate. looking at the flea on the dog's back (CO2) is not going to give us a meaningful understanding of the system as a whole.

 

[skookerasbil]

Too....people don't think its necessary to go back to a stone age way of living over .5 degree's. Most people have common sense. Climate crusaders think its a great idea when the pols start talking about removing peoples fireplaces and making them buy ghey electric vehicles. But most people laugh at those idea's. Because they have comman sense and aren't about to throw themselves off a cliff for .5 degrees!!!

Its the whole thing about progressives just not having the ability to connect the dots............its a thinking thing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These Decline Hider predictions and prognostications sound a lot like bread production in the the USSR

DAH! DAH! Most bread ever!

 

[skookerasbil]

Dumb fuck, the receding glaciers, disappearing Arctic Sea Ice, and the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are the critical experiment.

So what are we supposed to do about that Ray???


Seriously?