2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says (Nullfying 10,000 "it's cold this morning" posts here)

[ding]

Ban him, Will, ban him.

 

[ding]

abu afak please read the rules and follow them, pretty please.

 

[skookerasbil]

A dangerous ice storm is developing as cold and warm temperatures clash

 

[abu afak]

There is no compelling proof of that. There are 2 competing views both supported by info that would appear to support the claim but in one we have false heating and in the other we have natural heating golly which one is tainted?

The fact that the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists believe AGW is a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. (they've published).
We got your usual baseLess LinkLess claim again.

It's no wonder you got dishonorably discharged.
`

 

[ding]

The fact that the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists believe AGW is a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. (they've published).
We got your usual baseLess LinkLess claim again.

It's no wonder you got dishonorably discharged.
`

Scientists come to opposite conclusions depending upon which datasets they use.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fact that the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists believe AGW is a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. (they've published).
We got your usual baseLess LinkLess claim again.

It's no wonder you got dishonorably discharged.
`

You are a liar. If I was dishonorable discharged then you are a queer gender challenged little girl.

 

[abu afak]

You are a liar. If I was dishonorable discharged then you are a queer gender challenged little girl.

Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?
Your daily baseLess LinkLess claim.
Completely empty and one you never have a link for.
RW Numb nuts?
`

 

[ding]

Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?
Your daily baseLess LinkLess claim.
Completely empty and one you never have a link for.
RW Numb nuts?
`

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[abu afak]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

Asked and answered/Same as we do almost Daily because you are a TROLL.
Baiting REPEAT POST PRlCK.

And yours is Only Northern Hemisphere NOT Global.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
........

Ding Gets Donged #827.

EDIT;
I finished you off again BOY.
You well keep posting, but it's gameover last-wording little plick.

`

 

[ding]

Asked and answered/Sammed as we do almost Daily because you are a TROLL
Baiting REPEAT POST PRlCK.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
........

Ding Gets Donged

`

Not asked and answered, dummy. Asked and not answered. There's only one way you can dispute the allegation and that's to show the IPCC isn't using urban temperature measurements and isn't using low variability solar output datasets.

Which you can't disprove because that is exactly what they are using to get their match.

And you cannot disprove that if they excluded urban temperature measurements which are affected by the urban heat island effect and used the high variability solar output datasets they would conclude the cause for the recent warming trend was due to solar irradiance.

I can do this all day.

Your copy and pasting isn't addressing the question. Address the question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Very impressive.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?
Your daily baseLess LinkLess claim.
Completely empty and one you never have a link for.
RW Numb nuts?
`

Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?

Some people will say anything you want, if you pay them enough.

 

[skookerasbil]

I know no such thing. I do know that you have some very fundamental misunderstandings of this entire topic. People noticed that the world was getting warmer. They did research to find out why. Many different factors were found to have various effects, but the largest was the warming being caused by human GHG emissions. THAT is what matters.

But the energy policy makers haven't noticed In fact, they don't care....which makes your point 100% moot.

Ukraine will make climate science even more irrelevant as geopolitical realities dictate the direction of energy policies moving forward. Navigating in Oz isn't going to cut it!

World stability > Green agendas

That's the way it's gonna be.

Means the science won't be mattering more than ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some people will say anything you want, if you pay them enough.

View attachment 606639

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie for money.....would he?

 

[ding]

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie for money.....would he?

Did you mean to say Michael Mann would never lie for low productivity... would he?

Renewable jobs are low productivity.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your ignorance seems to be pissing him off.

Then YOU know where that requested link is?

 

[saveliberty]

Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.

In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.

In a separate assessment released at the same time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which relies on slightly different temperature records and methods, calculated that the globally averaged temperature last year was the second highest to date—just 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit shy of tying the record set in 2016. -
“These long-term trends are very, very clear,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “This is another piece of evidence that tells us the planet is warming decade by decade by decade.”

NASA and NOAA scientists labeled 2020 a year of extremes, driven by rising levels of Greenhouse Gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that trap heat in the atmosphere. - At times last year, the Arctic averaged 12 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, with some spots hitting temperatures of up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Record wildfires in the U.S. and Australia burned millions of acres and spewed smoke plumes high into the stratosphere. There were more named Atlantic storms than ever before. Heat building up...

2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says

Despite cooling ocean currents and a drop in greenhouse gas emissions due to the coronavirus pandemic, global temperatures last year were a dead heat with those recorded in 2016.

www.wsj.com

Drop in temps from 2016 to 2020. Sorry, that's not Global Warming, That is actually cooling.

 

[Crick]

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie for money.....would he?

He never has. Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you mean to say Michael Mann would never lie for low productivity... would he?

He'd never molest the data for fame and fortune.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He never has. Why?

He never lied?