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

[abu afak]

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

`

 

[jc456]

So again, No rebuttal from the Zero knowledge Elektra.
Just empty attack re the quite easily understood point (for everyone else) I made in my last.
`

Rebut what? One can’t rebut nonsense accept calling it nonsense

 

[jc456]

One can see in this haircut QUOTE, that includes the Graph Top on the upper right, NOW is the Highest Temp of our interglacial, even as Ding LIES THRU his rotted teeth about it.
Ding the liar is Finished.
100,000 posts of Lies about the 'intertglacial and current Temps.
`

`

 

[jc456]

Blatant Lie as one can see perfectly by quoting my post and graph, where one can see the Upper Right hand position spike/Hottest Temperatures of today only.



One can see in this haircut graph QUOTE, that includes the Graph Top on the upper right, NOW is the Highest Temps of our interglacial and the only part/spike that can be seen, even as Ding LIES THRU his rotted teeth about it.
Ding the liar is Finished.
100,000 posts/Lies about the 'normal interglacial' blown away.
`
`

Without data it’s just a picture

 

[abu afak]

Even this graph shows Much of the past 10,000 years were Warmer than today. Just look at where they drew the zero line.

Blatant Lie as one can see perfectly by quoting my post and graph, where one can see the Upper Right hand position spike/Hottest Temperatures of today only.

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

`

One can see in this haircut graph QUOTE, that includes the Graph Top on the upper right, NOW is the Highest Temps of our interglacial and the only part/spike that can be seen, even as Ding LIES THRU his rotted teeth about it.
Ding the liar is Finished.
100,000 posts/Lies about the 'normal interglacial' blown away.


EDIT: Ding now in a Failing Multi-post Panic below (5 and counting) to save/BURY his 100,000 post claim/main Lie.
`
`

 

[ding]

Blatant Lie as one can see perfectly by quoting my post and graph, where one can see the Upper Right hand position spike/Hottest Temperatures of today only.



One can see in this haircut graph QUOTE, that includes the Graph Top on the upper right, NOW is the Highest Temps of our interglacial and the only part/spike that can be seen, even as Ding LIES THRU his rotted teeth about it.
Ding the liar is Finished.
100,000 posts/Lies about the 'normal interglacial' blown away.
`
`

Marcot's work agrees with what Kobashi et al. (2011) found. That warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010). Therefore, it appears that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4,000 years.

Marcot's work agrees with what Schönwiese (1995) found that during the past 10,000 years temperatures over long periods were higher than they are today. The warmest phase occurred 4,000 to 8,000 years ago and is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum or the Atlantic Period..."

 

[ding]

Marcot's work shows a warming trend began 400 years ago which was 150 years before man could have caused it with CO2 emissions. So the current warming trend began naturally.

 

[ding]

Marcot's graph shows a natural warming trend began 400 years ago. Which was well before man could have influenced it with CO2 emissions.

 

[ding]

I think Apu and 5C_Rick should keep posting Marcot's work.

 

[ding]

Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

`

Great graph it shows a natural warming trend began 400 years ago and continues to this day. Which makes sense because the current interglacial is still 2C cooler than previous interglacials.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[abu afak]

[......]
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Climate Denial Published by Statistics Norway​

A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of cli
mate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

Sep 30, 2023 •
A preprint posted on the website of Statistics Norway gave climate deniers the platform to spread Lies about how climate research works and promote conspiracy theories in an interview with one of the country's largest newspapers, Dagbladet.

It is very surprising that the agency entrusted with the offical statistics, Statistics Norway, has published the manuscript “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” by Dagsvik and Moen, given the dubious content and character of that work. Statistics Norway says it is normal practice in social science to release preprints of scientific work, but their release gives this manuscript the impemature of peer-reviewed and officially approved information. However, the argument that the agency had no choice but to release work that one of their (retired) scientists was involved in, does not hold. The manuscript does not constitute a research paper but a piece of propaganda. The agency does not publish anybody else's opinion pieces.

It should be easy for Statistics Norway to recognize that it is not a scientific manuscript given the following characteristics:

* Since Isaac Newton’s famous dictum ‘I stand on the shoulder of giants’, it has been a standard scientific practice to review prior work in the same domain before presenting one’s own work. The manuscript does not contain such a review.
Given their question, the authors would otherwise have had to account for the chapter ‘The Human Influence on the Climate System’ of the latest IPCC report, which on 100 pages provides a very thorough treatment of the matter. That assessment is based on the full body of scientific work, and just the list of sources used fills 30 pages.

* Instead of reviewing prior analyses of temperature trends and their connection to greenhouse gas concentrations, Dagsvik and Moen promote several alternative, false theories, as well as assertions and remarks that are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

* The report repeats several points from the book 'the cold sun' by German ex-politician Fritz Vahrenholt, published in 2012, which promoted the theory that the solar cycle determines the climate of the Earth. The book was characterized by a biased presentation of the literature, where several sources were misquoted. Vahrenholt further concluded with certainty that the temperature up to 2020 and beyond would drop. Haven't Dagsvik and Moen realised that the opposite has happened?

Prognosis of global temperatures in "the cold sun" and actual development. Figure credit: Stefan Rahmstorf

* Dagsvik and co-author Moen further cite astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark's theory that cosmic rays through processes in the upper atmosphere affect the climate on Earth. The theory was tested in climate research's most expensive experiment, at CERN about 10 years ago. The experiment showed that the mechanism described by Svensmark was too weak to affect the temperature of the earth's surface. It is surprising that Statistics Norway cites old theories that have been tested and rejected.

Summary of the 2016 paper in Science on the results of the CLOUD experiment which tested Henrik Svensmark's theory of cloud formation and its impact on the global climate.

* Retired economist Dagsvik asserts that atmospheric physicists do not understand that the weather is chaotic. In fact, atmospheric physicists teach this in their introductory courses. They also understand fundamental fluid dynamics and have developed an approach to solve fluid-dynamic equations for an open system. It is inappropriate for a scientific manuscript to contain disparaging assertions about other, far-removed disciplines and fields of study.

Have temperatures increased?

Frequency of extreme temperatures: a Percent of the global land area with monthly temperatures above different sigma-thresholds in any calendar month (averaged over the year). Sigma is the standard deviation of the mean monthly temperature during the period 1951-1980. b Global annual mean series (1880−2020) of the ratio of observed local monthly temperature records on land compared to those expected in a stationary climate. The thick black line shows the trend with a 10-yr smoothing window, and the magenta line and shading show the median and 90% confidence interval for the statistical model driven by the long-term global warming trend over land and Gaussian noise. Source: Increasing heat and rainfall extremes now far outside the historical climate - npj Climate and Atmospheric Science

In the title, Dagsvik and Moen ask, 'How much does the temperature change due to greenhouse gas emissions?' Their statistical model, however, does not use any data on greenhouse gases. After they have asserted, in their review, that multiple factors affect temperatures including natural variations, their model does not take such natural influences into account. It is completely useless to investigate the question they have posed. According to the model, the maximum temperature that can be expected within the normal range on a random July day in Oslo is 51 degrees Celsius! Only when it gets even warmer will the model allow that temperatures are outside the normal range. An instrument that is so insensitive cannot be used to evaluate theories of climate change, because these do not suggest that temperatures should have increased by tens of degrees because of past greenhouse gas emissions.

It should be noted that Dagsvik and Moen could have used their model to investigate the question of whether observed temperatures are inconsistent with the theory that temperatures have increased. This would be closer to answering the question they pose in the title of their manuscript. However, they have not done that.

Like medicine, climate science relies on multiple lines of evidence

When assessing whether the climate is changing due to human influences, the IPCC conducts a much more sophisticated analysis that takes multiple indicators such as temperature records in many locations, elevations, and media, sea level rise, ice melting, and shifts of seasons into account.

Imagine you go to the doctor because you have fever and feel unwell. Given a body temperature of 38 degrees, Dr. Dagsvik would assert that this was in the normal range and send you back to work. A real doctor would instead look at your throat and nose, hear your lungs, maybe send a test of your saliva to the laboratory. She would make a diagnosis based on all these different observations.

I do not understand how Statistics Norway can defend releasing this piece of propaganda in a series of manuscripts that are meant to present early-phase scientific research. Given the unscientific character of the content, they put their own reputation on line.

P.S.: It is somewhat ironic that Dagsvik and Moen criticise the statistical analysis of temperature data through climate researchers and claim that they can do better. Fifteen years ago, physics professor at Berkeley, Richard Muller, did. His Berkeley Earth project received big money from climate skeptics in the U.S. coal industry to disprove the hypothesis that the Earth's temperature has increased. The team improved both the dataset and statistical method. The analysis showed that warming was even stronger than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had determined at the time. Berkeley Earth also publishes a guide for climate skeptics, showing the limits of climate science knowledge in a simple manner.

​

​

Climate denial published by Statistics Norway​

A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of climate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

blog.indecol.no

`

 

[ding]

Climate Denial Published by Statistics Norway​

A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of cli
mate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

Sep 30, 2023 •
A preprint posted on the website of Statistics Norway gave climate deniers the platform to spread Lies about how climate research works and promote conspiracy theories in an interview with one of the country's largest newspapers, Dagbladet.

It is very surprising that the agency entrusted with the offical statistics, Statistics Norway, has published the manuscript “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” by Dagsvik and Moen, given the dubious content and character of that work. Statistics Norway says it is normal practice in social science to release preprints of scientific work, but their release gives this manuscript the impemature of peer-reviewed and officially approved information. However, the argument that the agency had no choice but to release work that one of their (retired) scientists was involved in, does not hold. The manuscript does not constitute a research paper but a piece of propaganda. The agency does not publish anybody else's opinion pieces.

It should be easy for Statistics Norway to recognize that it is not a scientific manuscript given the following characteristics:

* Since Isaac Newton’s famous dictum ‘I stand on the shoulder of giants’, it has been a standard scientific practice to review prior work in the same domain before presenting one’s own work. The manuscript does not contain such a review.
Given their question, the authors would otherwise have had to account for the chapter ‘The Human Influence on the Climate System’ of the latest IPCC report, which on 100 pages provides a very thorough treatment of the matter. That assessment is based on the full body of scientific work, and just the list of sources used fills 30 pages.

* Instead of reviewing prior analyses of temperature trends and their connection to greenhouse gas concentrations, Dagsvik and Moen promote several alternative, false theories, as well as assertions and remarks that are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

* The report repeats several points from the book 'the cold sun' by German ex-politician Fritz Vahrenholt, published in 2012, which promoted the theory that the solar cycle determines the climate of the Earth. The book was characterized by a biased presentation of the literature, where several sources were misquoted. Vahrenholt further concluded with certainty that the temperature up to 2020 and beyond would drop. Haven't Dagsvik and Moen realised that the opposite has happened?

Prognosis of global temperatures in "the cold sun" and actual development. Figure credit: Stefan Rahmstorf

* Dagsvik and co-author Moen further cite astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark's theory that cosmic rays through processes in the upper atmosphere affect the climate on Earth. The theory was tested in climate research's most expensive experiment, at CERN about 10 years ago. The experiment showed that the mechanism described by Svensmark was too weak to affect the temperature of the earth's surface. It is surprising that Statistics Norway cites old theories that have been tested and rejected.

Summary of the 2016 paper in Science on the results of the CLOUD experiment which tested Henrik Svensmark's theory of cloud formation and its impact on the global climate.

* Retired economist Dagsvik asserts that atmospheric physicists do not understand that the weather is chaotic. In fact, atmospheric physicists teach this in their introductory courses. They also understand fundamental fluid dynamics and have developed an approach to solve fluid-dynamic equations for an open system. It is inappropriate for a scientific manuscript to contain disparaging assertions about other, far-removed disciplines and fields of study.

Have temperatures increased?

Frequency of extreme temperatures: a Percent of the global land area with monthly temperatures above different sigma-thresholds in any calendar month (averaged over the year). Sigma is the standard deviation of the mean monthly temperature during the period 1951-1980. b Global annual mean series (1880−2020) of the ratio of observed local monthly temperature records on land compared to those expected in a stationary climate. The thick black line shows the trend with a 10-yr smoothing window, and the magenta line and shading show the median and 90% confidence interval for the statistical model driven by the long-term global warming trend over land and Gaussian noise. Source: Increasing heat and rainfall extremes now far outside the historical climate - npj Climate and Atmospheric Science

In the title, Dagsvik and Moen ask, 'How much does the temperature change due to greenhouse gas emissions?' Their statistical model, however, does not use any data on greenhouse gases. After they have asserted, in their review, that multiple factors affect temperatures including natural variations, their model does not take such natural influences into account. It is completely useless to investigate the question they have posed. According to the model, the maximum temperature that can be expected within the normal range on a random July day in Oslo is 51 degrees Celsius! Only when it gets even warmer will the model allow that temperatures are outside the normal range. An instrument that is so insensitive cannot be used to evaluate theories of climate change, because these do not suggest that temperatures should have increased by tens of degrees because of past greenhouse gas emissions.

It should be noted that Dagsvik and Moen could have used their model to investigate the question of whether observed temperatures are inconsistent with the theory that temperatures have increased. This would be closer to answering the question they pose in the title of their manuscript. However, they have not done that.

Like medicine, climate science relies on multiple lines of evidence

When assessing whether the climate is changing due to human influences, the IPCC conducts a much more sophisticated analysis that takes multiple indicators such as temperature records in many locations, elevations, and media, sea level rise, ice melting, and shifts of seasons into account.

Imagine you go to the doctor because you have fever and feel unwell. Given a body temperature of 38 degrees, Dr. Dagsvik would assert that this was in the normal range and send you back to work. A real doctor would instead look at your throat and nose, hear your lungs, maybe send a test of your saliva to the laboratory. She would make a diagnosis based on all these different observations.

I do not understand how Statistics Norway can defend releasing this piece of propaganda in a series of manuscripts that are meant to present early-phase scientific research. Given the unscientific character of the content, they put their own reputation on line.

P.S.: It is somewhat ironic that Dagsvik and Moen criticise the statistical analysis of temperature data through climate researchers and claim that they can do better. Fifteen years ago, physics professor at Berkeley, Richard Muller, did. His Berkeley Earth project received big money from climate skeptics in the U.S. coal industry to disprove the hypothesis that the Earth's temperature has increased. The team improved both the dataset and statistical method. The analysis showed that warming was even stronger than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had determined at the time. Berkeley Earth also publishes a guide for climate skeptics, showing the limits of climate science knowledge in a simple manner.

​

​

Climate denial published by Statistics Norway​

A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of climate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

blog.indecol.no

`

You can't cancel the geologic record no matter how hard you try.

Have you figured out yet that the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 is 1degree C for every doubling of CO2?

I have provided 5 citations, you have provided none. Cancel that.

 

[abu afak]

You can't cancel the geologic record no matter how hard you try.

Have you figured out yet that the instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 is 1degree C for every doubling of CO2?

I have provided 5 citations, you have provided none. Cancel that.

Actually, it's YOUR Norway link that is infamous Outsider to the Overwhelming body of Climate Science. #2.

A Distraction due to Errors, Misunderstanding and Misguided Norwegian statistics​

11 NOV 2023

A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question.

But this discussion paper is problematic for sure. It was, authored by Dagsvik and Moen, and already in its introduction it claims that it is difficult to explain and predict weather and temperature (giving the false impression that it’s more or less impossible). This claim is both misleading and a distraction – weather forecasting has been one of the most important success stories in science.

Today, the warnings conveyed via YR.no are used all over the world, based on calculations that quantify the effects of physical mechanisms and the way different parts of the atmosphere are connected to each other. In other words, we manage well to forecast the weather and temperature in a good way.

Misunderstood models​

A common misconception is that weather forecasts and climate calculations are based on statistical models, such as the kind used by statisticians or in economic forecasts.
Presumably Dagsvik and Moen are used to this kind of model, but they seem to be inexperienced with the models used for weather and climate, which on the other hand are based on the laws of physics.
The physics-based models describe how energy flows through the atmosphere and ocean, as well as how the forces from different air masses push against each other.

The physical interpretation of the global mean temperature​

Dagsvik and Moen seem to be sceptical about the merit of estimating the global mean temperature, and their doubt is based on a misunderstood notion that it should have no basis in physics. The irony is that they are no physicists, but many climate researchers, like myself, have a background in physics.
The truth, on the contrary to their claim, is that the simplest physical models for both the greenhouse effect and the earth’s energy balance are precisely based on the earth’s average temperature. See for instance Benestad (2016). In other words, the claim shows a lack of knowledge and is a well-known old argument that I commented on Realclimate.org in 2007.

A common Strawman argument​

We don’t expect to discern a clear effect of greenhouse gases on local measurements, and mixing up local and global climate is a basis for a common strawman argument. Dagsvik and Moen make this classic mistake when they confuse local temperature measurements with Earth’s global mean temperature.
It is well known within the meteorological and climatological communities that local temperatures are strongly characterised by spontaneous and chaotic fluctuations, and it is also no problem to find examples where temperature correlates with (almost) anything. This is a well-known flaw called “cherry picking“.

The temperatures can nevertheless show ‘artificial’ variations because the thermometers are not evenly distributed over the earth’s surface. We have examined the effect of the geographical distribution of measurements in a study that was cited by New Scientist in 2019, and we found that the uneven distribution of thermometer measurements can give a misleading impression that the perceived warming rate has been slower than the actual global warming.

A Small and Limited selection is a Poor representation of the Global state​

Dagsvik and Moen write that they only relied on land temperature. In plain language, this means that the data they used represented less than 30% of the Earth’s surface.

It is well known that 30% of Earth’s surface does not provide a good description of global warming, and it is not unexpected that a more limited sample will have a greater impression of random and natural variations, which apparently indicates that random variations play a greater role.

While temperatures provide a measure of the Earth’s climate, it is even better to use the global sea level, which provides a far more reliable measure.
The global sea level acts like the mercury in a thermometer because warmer water expands. Furthermore, the volume of the oceans increases from the melting of land ice.
The rise in global sea level is to a far lesser extent influenced by random variations and reflects a global warming that is not characterised by any natural cycles.

[.../....]
[.../....]

RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics

RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...

www.realclimate.org

`

Yes another OUTLIAR by "normal interglacial" ding.. dong.

`

 

[ding]

Actually, it's YOUR Norway link that is infamous Outsider to the Overwhelming body of Climate Science. #2.

A Distraction due to Errors, Misunderstanding and Misguided Norwegian statistics​

11 NOV 2023

A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question.

But this discussion paper is problematic for sure. It was, authored by Dagsvik and Moen, and already in its introduction it claims that it is difficult to explain and predict weather and temperature (giving the false impression that it’s more or less impossible). This claim is both misleading and a distraction – weather forecasting has been one of the most important success stories in science.

Today, the warnings conveyed via YR.no are used all over the world, based on calculations that quantify the effects of physical mechanisms and the way different parts of the atmosphere are connected to each other. In other words, we manage well to forecast the weather and temperature in a good way.

Misunderstood models​

A common misconception is that weather forecasts and climate calculations are based on statistical models, such as the kind used by statisticians or in economic forecasts.
Presumably Dagsvik and Moen are used to this kind of model, but they seem to be inexperienced with the models used for weather and climate, which on the other hand are based on the laws of physics.
The physics-based models describe how energy flows through the atmosphere and ocean, as well as how the forces from different air masses push against each other.

The physical interpretation of the global mean temperature​

Dagsvik and Moen seem to be sceptical about the merit of estimating the global mean temperature, and their doubt is based on a misunderstood notion that it should have no basis in physics. The irony is that they are no physicists, but many climate researchers, like myself, have a background in physics.
The truth, on the contrary to their claim, is that the simplest physical models for both the greenhouse effect and the earth’s energy balance are precisely based on the earth’s average temperature. See for instance Benestad (2016). In other words, the claim shows a lack of knowledge and is a well-known old argument that I commented on Realclimate.org in 2007.

A common Strawman argument​

We don’t expect to discern a clear effect of greenhouse gases on local measurements, and mixing up local and global climate is a basis for a common strawman argument. Dagsvik and Moen make this classic mistake when they confuse local temperature measurements with Earth’s global mean temperature.
It is well known within the meteorological and climatological communities that local temperatures are strongly characterised by spontaneous and chaotic fluctuations, and it is also no problem to find examples where temperature correlates with (almost) anything. This is a well-known flaw called “cherry picking“.

The temperatures can nevertheless show ‘artificial’ variations because the thermometers are not evenly distributed over the earth’s surface. We have examined the effect of the geographical distribution of measurements in a study that was cited by New Scientist in 2019, and we found that the uneven distribution of thermometer measurements can give a misleading impression that the perceived warming rate has been slower than the actual global warming.

A Small and Limited selection is a Poor representation of the Global state​

Dagsvik and Moen write that they only relied on land temperature. In plain language, this means that the data they used represented less than 30% of the Earth’s surface.

It is well known that 30% of Earth’s surface does not provide a good description of global warming, and it is not unexpected that a more limited sample will have a greater impression of random and natural variations, which apparently indicates that random variations play a greater role.

While temperatures provide a measure of the Earth’s climate, it is even better to use the global sea level, which provides a far more reliable measure.
The global sea level acts like the mercury in a thermometer because warmer water expands. Furthermore, the volume of the oceans increases from the melting of land ice.
The rise in global sea level is to a far lesser extent influenced by random variations and reflects a global warming that is not characterised by any natural cycles.

[.../....]
[.../....]

RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics

RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...

www.realclimate.org

`

Yes another OUTLIAR by "normal interglacial" ding.. dong.

`

Wrong. It’s the geologic record which you have yet to refute.

 

[Robert W]

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

You are discussing weather only. It has nothing to do with climate.

 

[abu afak]

You are discussing weather only. It has nothing to do with climate.

False, Curry Face.
It's talking about the Year capping the Warmest DECADE. Citing ie, NASA.

If only the idiot deniers stopped talking about ONE COLD DAY/WEEK/MONTH in Denver.. that would be great.
Why don't you find the 1 million posts doing that here... and EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The longest thread Ever here was 9 years of 100% WEATHER as proof: "The Skeptics are Winning" (SkookerasBil 2013-2022), even as those were the 9 warmest years since modern record. (Tho 2023 will beat them in all likelihood, and in fact beat everything for the last 100,000+ years)
We have idiots here who talk Nothing but weather as "evidence" it's not warming.
`

 

[abu afak]

You are discussing weather only. It has nothing to do with climate

• Saturday at 7:41 PM
• #501 (and read previous and future parts of the exchange. He is THAT Stupid and a frequent poster here now. Just another denier in the 80% here.)

If it is warmer, why is this year, 20 degrees cooler where i am at? Your racist math doesnt add up.

That's not a logical question if your IQ is over 90.
It could be 20 degrees warmer OR cooler "where you are" (on any given DAY) at any of millions of spots on the globe.
That's why they use Tens of thousands of locales to get an average temperature daily, Monthly, yearly or for 10 or 20 years.

You are BREATHTAKINGLY STUPID.
Post in a non-Sci section please.

`

 

[ding]

False, Curry Face.
It's talking about the Year capping the Warmest DECADE. Citing ie, NASA.

If only the idiot deniers stopped talking about ONE COLD DAY/WEEK/MONTH in Denver.. that would be great.
Why don't you find the 1 million posts doing that here... and EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The longest thread Ever here was 9 years of 100% WEATHER as proof: "The Skeptics are Winning" (SkookerasBil 2013-2022), even as those were the 9 warmest years since modern record. (Tho 2023 will beat them in all likelihood, and in fact beat everything for the last 100,000+ years)
We have idiots here who talk Nothing but weather as "evidence" it's not warming.
`

You are a moron.

 

[jc456]

You are a moron.

What a compliment

 

[abu afak]

You are a moron.

`