2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.

The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.

Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.

 

[SSDD]

Your denier cult myths and fantasies about temperature record "tampering" are as crackpot insane as the rest of your moronic myths. You silly wankers are just more conspiracy theory nutjobs and your particular conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists all around the world is an especially idiotic and insane one at that.

I suppose in your koolaid stupor, you missed the news that undeniable proof exists in abundance for data tampering on the part of those mentioned above.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.

The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.

Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.

Your graph show 5 sources...3 who have been caught repeatedly altering data and two who get their numbers from at least one of the sources that have been caught repeatedly altering data.

You grow very boring.....very boring indeed. skeptical science...temp records from people who have been caught multiple times tampering with the records...if that is where you get your information, it is no wonder that you are so terribly misinformed.

What isn't clear is why you are such a liar.

 

[SSDD]

There is no "optimum temperature for life", dumbass. There are however the temperature ranges, rainfall patterns and general climate conditions that the human race's agricultural systems are designed for and depend on. Higher temperatures and changing rainfall timing and patterns will adversely affect agricultural production all around the world and will very probably result in mass starvation at some point. Higher temperatures are also seriously shrinking the world's mountain glaciers, which normally play a vitally important role in the summer water supplies for drinking and agriculture for hundreds of million of people. As these glaciers disappear, water supplies will vanish and great suffering and starvation will result.

Humans aren't designed for any climate idiot. We have lived in deep ice ages and in climate optimums that were a great deal warmer than present. We flourished under the warmer temperatures.

Research has shown that a warmer world will enhance our agriculture...cold is what you should worry about if you must worry about the inevetable.

 

[ima]

Yeah, you missed the fact that you're a clueless retard who has no idea what people are talking about.

What sort of evidence do you have that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for life?

SSoooDDuuumb, your questions are always very stupid. I guess that's because you're so retarded.

There is no "optimum temperature for life", dumbass. There are however the temperature ranges, rainfall patterns and general climate conditions that the human race's agricultural systems are designed for and depend on. Higher temperatures and changing rainfall timing and patterns will adversely affect agricultural production all around the world and will very probably result in mass starvation at some point. Higher temperatures are also seriously shrinking the world's mountain glaciers, which normally play a vitally important role in the summer water supplies for drinking and agriculture for hundreds of million of people. As these glaciers disappear, water supplies will vanish and great suffering and starvation will result.

The world is overpopulated as it is. This will do a lot of good for the planet.

 

[Saigon]

Your graph show 5 sources...3 who have been caught repeatedly altering data and two who get their numbers from at least one of the sources that have been caught repeatedly altering data.

You grow very boring.....very boring indeed. skeptical science...temp records from people who have been caught multiple times tampering with the records...if that is where you get your information, it is no wonder that you are so terribly misinformed.

What isn't clear is why you are such a liar.

Ha! Wonderful stuff, SSDD - you rarely fail to make me laugh out loud.

So just to be clear here - there are FIVE major independent sources of climate data.

You ignore all five of them.

Is that correct?

 

[IanC]

SSDD -

Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.

The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.

Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.

there are data from temperature stations, and there are organizations that collect collate adjust and homogenize that data. just because the various organizations have their own methods of massaging the data to give 'a global temp' doesnt mean they are entirely independent sources of data.

what are some of the problems with producing 'global temp'? the world is unevenly measured with wildly different quality. eg the US has thousands of good records that are complete and go back over a hundred years. unfortunately these good records that show a very small temp increase (at least until strange things started to happen in 2000) are dwarfed by the shoddy, incomplete and short temp records in Africa. Africa is 4 times as large as the contUS and has 4 times the grid cells. the large uncertainty bars in Africa dont matter!

how about oceans? sparse measurements and questionable adjustments for measurement type made pre-ARGO data somewhat suspect, at least for uncertainty. yet they often report it in hundredths of a degree! ARGO measurements are much better and more comprehensive but even they are not worthy of claiming 0.01C accuracy.

it goes on and on.....given free choice of many stations in a grid, everytime a change in methodology happens the trend goes up! coincidence or cherry picking? the change in adjustments since the new millenium amounts to over 20% of the total increase! ( I am speaking of the US here because old data is hard to find for the rest of the world)

New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your denier cult myths and fantasies about temperature record "tampering" are as crackpot insane as the rest of your moronic myths. You silly wankers are just more conspiracy theory nutjobs and your particular conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists all around the world is an especially idiotic and insane one at that.

I suppose in your koolaid stupor, you missed the news that undeniable proof exists in abundance for data tampering on the part of those mentioned above.

I missed that because it doesn't exist except in the myths, lies, and fantasies that rattle around in your little denier cult bizarro-world echo chamber. Your "abundance of undeniable proof" is a fantasy that you can't produce or show us.

 

[RollingThunder]

SSDD -

Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.

The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.

Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.

Your graph show 5 sources...3 who have been caught repeatedly altering data and two who get their numbers from at least one of the sources that have been caught repeatedly altering data.

You grow very boring.....very boring indeed. skeptical science...temp records from people who have been caught multiple times tampering with the records...if that is where you get your information, it is no wonder that you are so terribly misinformed.

What isn't clear is why you are such a liar.

You're the liar here, SSoooDDuuumb, and a rotten one at that. You're a scientifically ignorant retard parroting the myths and lies the fossil fuel industry propagandists have spooned into your little pea-brain. Your denial of reality is just pathetic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looking at global temperature data over the past few years-- I'd assume that the decreasing ice is 90% of any rise in global temperature. Very little warming outside of the arctic.

I'm not going to disagree with this paper as it is happening.

 

[RollingThunder]

There is no "optimum temperature for life", dumbass. There are however the temperature ranges, rainfall patterns and general climate conditions that the human race's agricultural systems are designed for and depend on. Higher temperatures and changing rainfall timing and patterns will adversely affect agricultural production all around the world and will very probably result in mass starvation at some point. Higher temperatures are also seriously shrinking the world's mountain glaciers, which normally play a vitally important role in the summer water supplies for drinking and agriculture for hundreds of million of people. As these glaciers disappear, water supplies will vanish and great suffering and starvation will result.

Humans aren't designed for any climate idiot.

The earliest fossil evidence for anatomically modern Homo sapiens dates back only about 200,000 years. We have evolved to be suited to the climatic conditions that have prevailed over that time. The Earth has been in a Great Ice Age for the last 2.5 million years. The human race has never experienced the very different climate ranges that occurred before the Ice Age. Climate conditions not seen in millions of years that the excess CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere are going to recreate, BTW.

We have lived in deep ice ages and in climate optimums that were a great deal warmer than present. We flourished under the warmer temperatures.

The human race has never lived in a world where global average temperatures were 8 or 10 degrees hotter than present. The more important point that you're trying to ignore, is that when the human race lived during glacial periods, there weren't 7 billion of us to feed.

Research has shown that a warmer world will enhance our agriculture...cold is what you should worry about if you must worry about the inevetable(sic).

Another lie. A warmer world will not enhance our agriculture. Moreover we're not just talking about a warmer world, we looking at the climate changes brought about by that warming. Climate changes that will alter rainfall patterns, affect monsoons, create droughts and flooding, eliminate summer water supplies by making mountain glaciers vanish, produce more weather extremes, and adversely affect agriculture in many places. Warming and climate changes will probably affect food crops in other ways too, like increasing the spread of plant diseases and pests, and negatively affecting bees and other pollinators.

How will climate change affect food production?
The Guardian
By the Grantham Research Institute and Duncan Clark
19 September 2012 07
(excerpts)
Food is one of society's key sensitivities to climate. A year of not enough or too much rainfall, a hot spell or cold snap at the wrong time, or extremes, like flooding and storms, can have a significant effect on local crop yields and livestock production. While modern farming technologies and techniques have helped to reduce this vulnerability and boost production, the impact of recent droughts in the USA, China and Russia on global cereal production highlight a glaring potential future vulnerability. There is some evidence that climate change is already having a measurable affect on the quality and quantity of food produced globally. But this is small when compared with the significant increase in global food production that has been achieved over the past few decades. Isolating the influence of climatic change from all the other trends is difficult, but one recent Stanford University study found that increases in global production of maize and wheat since 1980 would have been about 5% higher were it not for climate change.

All else being equal, rising carbon dioxide concentrations – the main driver of climate change – could increase production of some crops, such as rice, soybean and wheat. However, the changing climate would affect the length and quality of the growing season and farmers could experience increasing damage to their crops, caused by a rising intensity of droughts, flooding or fires. The latest IPCC report predicted improving conditions for food production in the mid to high latitudes over the next few decades, including in the northern USA, Canada, northern Europe and Russia. Conversely, parts of the subtropics, such as the Mediterranean region and parts of Australia, and the low latitudes, could experience declining conditions. For example, across Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could decline by as much as 50% by 2020. Beyond this, if global temperatures rise by more than about 1–3°C, declining conditions could be experienced over a much larger area.

 

[RollingThunder]

What sort of evidence do you have that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for life?

SSoooDDuuumb, your questions are always very stupid. I guess that's because you're so retarded.

There is no "optimum temperature for life", dumbass. There are however the temperature ranges, rainfall patterns and general climate conditions that the human race's agricultural systems are designed for and depend on. Higher temperatures and changing rainfall timing and patterns will adversely affect agricultural production all around the world and will very probably result in mass starvation at some point. Higher temperatures are also seriously shrinking the world's mountain glaciers, which normally play a vitally important role in the summer water supplies for drinking and agriculture for hundreds of million of people. As these glaciers disappear, water supplies will vanish and great suffering and starvation will result.

The world is overpopulated as it is. This will do a lot of good for the planet.

That has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on this forum, and given how extremely retarded some of the denier cultists are, that is really saying something. Are you insane or just braindead? You actually think that "great suffering and starvation" and the death by starvation and water deprivation of a significant percentage of the human population "will do a lot of good for the planet"? Is the rest of your name "ima shithead"? If climate conditions get so bad as to kill off a big chunk of the human race, what do you think is going to happen to the rest of the Earth's biosphere, dumbass?

 

[RollingThunder]

SSDD -

Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.

The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.

Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.

there are data from temperature stations, and there are organizations that collect collate adjust and homogenize that data. just because the various organizations have their own methods of massaging the data to give 'a global temp' doesnt mean they are entirely independent sources of data.

what are some of the problems with producing 'global temp'? the world is unevenly measured with wildly different quality. eg the US has thousands of good records that are complete and go back over a hundred years. unfortunately these good records that show a very small temp increase (at least until strange things started to happen in 2000) are dwarfed by the shoddy, incomplete and short temp records in Africa. Africa is 4 times as large as the contUS and has 4 times the grid cells. the large uncertainty bars in Africa dont matter!

how about oceans? sparse measurements and questionable adjustments for measurement type made pre-ARGO data somewhat suspect, at least for uncertainty. yet they often report it in hundredths of a degree! ARGO measurements are much better and more comprehensive but even they are not worthy of claiming 0.01C accuracy.

it goes on and on.....given free choice of many stations in a grid, everytime a change in methodology happens the trend goes up! coincidence or cherry picking? the change in adjustments since the new millenium amounts to over 20% of the total increase! ( I am speaking of the US here because old data is hard to find for the rest of the world)

New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.

Denier cult nitpicking nonsense from someone who isn't educated enough to understand the science involved and who is definitely too scientifically ignorant to competently analyze the research techniques. If the actual professional scientists can't see the supposed errors and inaccuracies you claim to see, then, IMO, you're just spreading anti-science propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry sponsored denial groups.

 

[RollingThunder]

Looking at global temperature data over the past few years-- I'd assume that the decreasing ice is 90% of any rise in global temperature. Very little warming outside of the arctic.

I'm not going to disagree with this paper as it is happening.

"Very little warming outside the arctic"????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......

Heat Wave: 2012 Labeled Hottest Year on Record
by Tim Profeta of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University
National Geographic
January 10, 2013
(excerpts)
It’s official. Last year was the warmest year in history for the contiguous United States with at least 356 record high temperatures tied or broken, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Average temperatures in 2012 were above the 20th century average by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures also beat a previous record set in 1998 by a full degree, even though 2012 was not an El Niño year. “Well, 1998’s heat was attributed to a strong El Niño, said Meteorologist Matt Mosteiko. “For 2012, there wasn’t one main factor that led to warm temps.”


Australia Is So Hot They Had To Add a New Color to the Weather Map
Slate
By Will Oremus
Jan. 8, 2013
(excerpts)
The last four months of 2012 were the hottest on record in Australia. But January is shaping up to be even hotter. Between Jan. 3 and Jan. 6, an amazing 18 different weather stations recorded all-time temperature highs, according to a special climate statement from the country’s Bureau of Meteorology. Those included a mark of 118 degrees in Eucla, Western Australia, and an unheard-of 107 in Hobart, Tasmania, which bills itself as the gateway to Antarctica. But the bureau’s forecasters believe the worst is yet to come—which is why they’ve added a new color to their official weather maps, for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (129 Fahrenheit). In other words, they believe the country’s all-time high temperature of 123 degrees, set in 1960, is about to go down, and hard.

Earlier today, the Sydney Morning Herald grabbed a screenshot of an official weather prediction map that showed a splotch of shocking purple over South Australia, the brand-new indicator for temperatures in excess of 50 Celsius (122 Fahrenheit). It appears the bureau has since eased its predictions for Monday, as the purple has receded for the time being. But the new color lives on in the temperature index to the right of the maps, reflecting a new climate reality in which a 129-degree day would no longer be off the charts. Meanwhile, the country’s fire danger levels have been elevated to “catastrophic,” with over 100 blazes already burning in its most populous state, New South Wales.


Death rate doubles in Moscow as heatwave continues
BBC News
9 August 2010
(excerpts)
Moscow's health chief has confirmed the mortality rate has doubled as a heatwave and wildfire smog continue to grip the Russian capital. Meanwhile, a state of emergency has been declared around a nuclear reprocessing plant in the southern Urals because of nearby wildfires. And there was a new warning over shortfalls in Russia's grain harvest. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said this year's harvest, hit by fire and drought, would be worse than previously forecast.

As of Monday morning, 557 wildfires continued to burn in Russia, 25 of them peat fires, the emergencies ministry said. While 239 fires were extinguished on Sunday, 247 new ones were discovered. The head of the state weather service, Alexander Frolov, said on Monday that the heatwave of 2010 was the worst in 1,000 years of recorded Russian history. "It's an absolutely unique phenomenon - nothing like it can be seen in the archives," he was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying.

 

[skookerasbil]

SSDD -

Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.

The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.

Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.

Your graph show 5 sources...3 who have been caught repeatedly altering data and two who get their numbers from at least one of the sources that have been caught repeatedly altering data.

You grow very boring.....very boring indeed. skeptical science...temp records from people who have been caught multiple times tampering with the records...if that is where you get your information, it is no wonder that you are so terribly misinformed.

What isn't clear is why you are such a liar.

You're the liar here, SSoooDDuuumb, and a rotten one at that. You're a scientifically ignorant retard parroting the myths and lies the fossil fuel industry propagandists have spooned into your little pea-brain. Your denial of reality is just pathetic.

 

[skookerasbil]

Looking at global temperature data over the past few years-- I'd assume that the decreasing ice is 90% of any rise in global temperature. Very little warming outside of the arctic.

I'm not going to disagree with this paper as it is happening.

"Very little warming outside the arctic"????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......

Heat Wave: 2012 Labeled Hottest Year on Record
by Tim Profeta of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University
National Geographic
January 10, 2013
(excerpts)
It’s official. Last year was the warmest year in history for the contiguous United States with at least 356 record high temperatures tied or broken, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Average temperatures in 2012 were above the 20th century average by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures also beat a previous record set in 1998 by a full degree, even though 2012 was not an El Niño year. “Well, 1998’s heat was attributed to a strong El Niño, said Meteorologist Matt Mosteiko. “For 2012, there wasn’t one main factor that led to warm temps.”


Australia Is So Hot They Had To Add a New Color to the Weather Map
Slate
By Will Oremus
Jan. 8, 2013
(excerpts)
The last four months of 2012 were the hottest on record in Australia. But January is shaping up to be even hotter. Between Jan. 3 and Jan. 6, an amazing 18 different weather stations recorded all-time temperature highs, according to a special climate statement from the country’s Bureau of Meteorology. Those included a mark of 118 degrees in Eucla, Western Australia, and an unheard-of 107 in Hobart, Tasmania, which bills itself as the gateway to Antarctica. But the bureau’s forecasters believe the worst is yet to come—which is why they’ve added a new color to their official weather maps, for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (129 Fahrenheit). In other words, they believe the country’s all-time high temperature of 123 degrees, set in 1960, is about to go down, and hard.

Earlier today, the Sydney Morning Herald grabbed a screenshot of an official weather prediction map that showed a splotch of shocking purple over South Australia, the brand-new indicator for temperatures in excess of 50 Celsius (122 Fahrenheit). It appears the bureau has since eased its predictions for Monday, as the purple has receded for the time being. But the new color lives on in the temperature index to the right of the maps, reflecting a new climate reality in which a 129-degree day would no longer be off the charts. Meanwhile, the country’s fire danger levels have been elevated to “catastrophic,” with over 100 blazes already burning in its most populous state, New South Wales.


Death rate doubles in Moscow as heatwave continues
BBC News
9 August 2010
(excerpts)
Moscow's health chief has confirmed the mortality rate has doubled as a heatwave and wildfire smog continue to grip the Russian capital. Meanwhile, a state of emergency has been declared around a nuclear reprocessing plant in the southern Urals because of nearby wildfires. And there was a new warning over shortfalls in Russia's grain harvest. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said this year's harvest, hit by fire and drought, would be worse than previously forecast.

As of Monday morning, 557 wildfires continued to burn in Russia, 25 of them peat fires, the emergencies ministry said. While 239 fires were extinguished on Sunday, 247 new ones were discovered. The head of the state weather service, Alexander Frolov, said on Monday that the heatwave of 2010 was the worst in 1,000 years of recorded Russian history. "It's an absolutely unique phenomenon - nothing like it can be seen in the archives," he was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying.

Ohhh......lookey what I found??


Russian cold toll hits 123 amid bitter winter weather - What's On Tianjin

O o o o o p s

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's hot = global warming

It's cold = climate change

 

[Old Rocks]

wider and wilder, with an overall warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

wider and wilder, with an overall warming

Why is it that none of the charts you've ever posted shows that?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

I am not really sure how many sources of weather data you think we need.

Personally, I think 5 is adequate - even if 1 or 2 of them are not using entirely their own data. Given both you and SSDD can find reasons to reject all 5, I can't imagine adding a 6th or a 7th would make any difference.

We have also seen the data collected by individual countries has been rejected out of hand, so in all I think what we are seeing is Denier refusing to consider something in the region of 40 completely distinct and independent sets of data.

I call that silly, myself.