February may have been the warmest month on record,

[longknife]

but we don’t know for sure — despite reports to the contrary.

I love headlines like this. All that scientific expertise and the experts can't be certain of their “facts.” Here's an excerpt:

But this record stretches back only to 1979. And satellites monitor temperatures up in the troposphere, not on the surface where we live.

Okay, we can now expect all sorts of charts and graphs like the one in the article and it appears that NONE of them will tell the whole story.

Read the full article @ Reports that February was warmest month are premature

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, the tobacco meme. Spread doubt until you can no longer deny the facts, then pretend you never did it. Not going to work, it is becoming painfully obvious that the liars hired by the energy corporations are running out of wiggle room.

 

[mamooth]

Preliminary versions of the surface records for February 2016 are out, and they also show an all-time record warm month.

 

[Billy_Bob]

but we don’t know for sure — despite reports to the contrary.

I love headlines like this. All that scientific expertise and the experts can't be certain of their “facts.” Here's an excerpt:

But this record stretches back only to 1979. And satellites monitor temperatures up in the troposphere, not on the surface where we live.

Okay, we can now expect all sorts of charts and graphs like the one in the article and it appears that NONE of them will tell the whole story.

Read the full article @ Reports that February was warmest month are premature

I love that NOAA qualifier... "may have been" In Scientific terms it means the confidence level is below 35%.. Yet some are so certain even though the error bars are greater than the suspected rise.. As I see that our resident morons have weighed in above..

I wonder if they realize, with the El Niño influence removed, we have been in a cooling trend now for almost 20 years.

 

[mamooth]

I wonder if they realize, with the El Niño influence removed, we have been in a cooling trend now for almost 20 years.

As that cuckoobananas claim is so obviously contradicted by reality, nobody except the most thoroughly brainwashed religious cultists would ever "realize" it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Extremely likely blown the warmest month on record the fuck out of the water!

ECMWF ERA reanalysis was up 0.14 in Febuary to 0.86. Feb 2016 was 0.49 higher than the previous Feb max in 2010 and 2015; and 0.32 higher than Jan 2007 which was the max month before this nino.

http://climate.coper...s/february-2016

 

[jc456]

I wonder if they realize, with the El Niño influence removed, we have been in a cooling trend now for almost 20 years.

As that cuckoobananas claim is so obviously contradicted by reality, nobody except the most thoroughly brainwashed religious cultists would ever "realize" it.

whose reality?

 

[jc456]

Extremely likely blown the warmest month on record the fuck out of the water!

ECMWF ERA reanalysis was up 0.14 in Febuary to 0.86. Feb 2016 was 0.49 higher than the previous Feb max in 2010 and 2015; and 0.32 higher than Jan 2007 which was the max month before this nino.

http://climate.coper...s/february-2016

remarkable is the only word that comes to my mind at this post. Knowing what we all have explained in many other threads like this one, and you still post this nonsense. Thanks for the laugh today.

 

[9aces]

This is why I refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG.

That's Wild Ass Guesses for the clueless.

 

[Crick]

What is why?

 

[jc456]

What is why?

or where and how!

 

[Crick]

This is why I refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG.

That's Wild Ass Guesses for the clueless.

What is: why you "refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG"?

 

[jc456]

This is why I refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG.

That's Wild Ass Guesses for the clueless.

What is: why you "refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG"?

I know, because it is?

 

[9aces]

This is why I refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG.

That's Wild Ass Guesses for the clueless.

What is: why you "refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG"?

"We think"
"It might"
"It's possible"

They won't tell you "it's going to do XXXX" Because they can't, so they guess.

 

[chikenwing]

Good after record cold Feb.last year it's been a relief, saved tons on heating bill this year.

 

[jc456]

Good after record cold Feb.last year it's been a relief, saved tons on heating bill this year.

although in my area, we had more days around average temps, and many more of them. We are just now getting spring type weather. I love it.

 

[MaryL]

More proof there isn't any global warming... It's getting warmer and drier in the last 20 years. Overall. But that isn't proof? What more proof do you need? I know I know some of you shoveled 3 feet of snow last week or were below zero once or twice. Really? Because it's not like that for the majority of us.

 

[RollingThunder]

This is why I refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG. That's Wild Ass Guesses for the clueless.

Oh....you poor clueless denier cult retard....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

 

[longknife]

Amazing how some posters think that a bigger bold font somehow proves the validity of their post.

 

[RollingThunder]

Amazing how some posters think that a bigger bold font somehow proves the validity of their post.

Amazing how some dimwits will completely ignore the scientific content (that debunks their denier cult myths) and instead will obsess over 'fonts', or some other irrelevant trivia. LOLOLOL. Another demented denier cult 'tactic of ignorance'.