2014 WAS ONE OF THE 3% COLDEST YEARS IN THE LAST 10,000

[longknife]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

 

[RKMBrown]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

1) I'm pretty sure the guys saying it's the warmest in centuries (hundreds of years) are cherry picking the centuries since the mini-ice age, and also cherry picked the time of year to make that statement to coincide with the part of the year when the average will usually be higher than at the end of the year.
2) I'm also pretty sure the guy saying it's one of the 3% coldest years in the last 10k did not say one of the last 3 coldest years. You would be making that up. The 3% coldest merely points out that we're just now starting to come back from the mini-ice age and it will get a lot warmer when we are out of the mini-ice age. By a lot warmer I mean a couple degrees. I suppose one could argue that it's all about the CO2, but that would be like saying it's all about the butterflies. Sure the butterflies have some effect on the temperature, but the amount of effect butterflies have is so minuscule that it's really just a silly exercise to try to prove rampant numbers of butterflies are going to destroy the planet.

 

[BlindBoo]

HotWhopper Tim Ball does a Denier Don on the top of a very cold ice sheet in Greenland

The little ice age lasted from around 1450 to 1850 according to the latest IPCC report. That's 400 years. So this year was at least as cold as the coldest 300 years of the little ice age? Really?

 

[skookerasbil]

This one is ball scratching funny as hell!!!!

My bald noggin is tingling s0ns!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

once you put today in proper perspective the calims of the half wit alarmists fall on deaf ears...

Old Fraud or the Hairball will be along shortly to tells us were all deniers...

 

[mamooth]

Old Fraud or the Hairball will be along shortly to tells us were all deniers...

Nah, I'm showing up to bend you over and make you squeal, like I always do.

Tim Ball, the paid professional liar originally making the kook claim, picked a one spot in Greenland to represent the whole world. That's his first bit of raging dishonesty. Anyone with any integrity would instantly reject something that dishonest ... so naturally, Billy loved it.

Then, he used a very obsolete temperature set on top of it, from a 1998 paper. That is, he ignored better data and went hunting for obsolete data. Billy, the master of data fudging, gives it his stamp of approval.

Now, a more recent and complete paper, showing the trend for that spot on the Greenland Ice Sheet ...

High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core - Kobashi - 2011 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So, clearly Tim Ball just made shit up, being that current temp there is clearly above the average for the past 4000 years. One could (and should) honestly say it's within natural variability. One can not honestly say it's "one of the 3% coldest years". That's a lie so crazy that only the most deranged cultists would repeat it, and so ... yep, here's Billy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old Fraud or the Hairball will be along shortly to tells us were all deniers...

Nah, I'm showing up to bend you over and make you squeal, like I always do.

Tim Ball, the paid professional liar originally making the kook claim, picked a one spot in Greenland to represent the whole world. That's his first bit of raging dishonesty. Anyone with any integrity would instantly reject something that dishonest ... so naturally, Billy loved it.

Then, he used a very obsolete temperature set on top of it, from a 1998 paper. That is, he ignored better data and went hunting for obsolete data. Billy, the master of data fudging, gives it his stamp of approval.

Now, a more recent and complete paper, showing the trend for that spot on the Greenland Ice Sheet ...

High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core - Kobashi - 2011 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So, clearly Tim Ball just made shit up, being that current temp there is clearly above the average for the past 4000 years. One could (and should) honestly say it's within natural variability. One can not honestly say it's "one of the 3% coldest years". That's a lie so crazy that only the most deranged cultists would repeat it, and so ... yep, here's Billy.

The trapped air is guess work at best and very broad ranged ( up to 1000 years) The paper has been shredded as unreliable. Course you knew that before you posted it..

 

[Mr. H.]

Right wingers and their constant assault on science and reason. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny.

Please lecture me on the science and reason of high volume high pressure hydraulic fracturing. And the Keystone XL pipeline.
And drilling in ANWR.

You're a fucking phony. Brotch.

Remove yourself from my presence.

 

[Mr. H.]

The more the climate changes, the more climate change remains the same.

That's the gist of this Liberal circle-jerk logic.

Liberals and environmentalists are of the most twisted sick minds of the modern day.

 

[hazlnut]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

You understand that it can be both the warmest and the coldest, in terms of records - we have different seasons based on our position to the sun. Winter is typically when we see cold records. Summer is typically when we see the heat records.

I'm not sure where you live, but most 5 years olds know the difference between summer and winter.

Did you finish elementary school?

 

[Ubiquitor]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

 

[Ubiquitor]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

 

[Crick]

Bingo all around

ps: is your avatar any particular protein?

 

[Kosh]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

 

[Ubiquitor]

Bingo all around

ps: is your avatar any particular protein?

Yes, it's Ubiquitin.

 

[Ubiquitor]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

 

[Kosh]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

 

[Ubiquitor]

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.

 

[Kosh]

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.

AGW is not science and anyone supporting it as science is a AGW religious hack.

Climate science has been hindered by the AGW religious nuts, thus no real science is being done and trying to equate AGW and Climate science shows what a true AGW religious cult member you are.

If you sided with science then you would know that AGW is bunk.