Noaa Says We're Now At The 3rd Warmest Year For 2014(stall Keeps Going!)

[ScienceRocks]

The first eight months of 2014 (January–August) were the third warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, with an average temperature that was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 57.3°F (14.0°C). If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest year on record.

The average global sea surface temperature tied with 2010 as the second highest for January–August in the 135-year period of record, behind 1998, while the average land surface temperature was the fifth highest.

Global Analysis - August 2014 State of the Climate National Climatic Data Center NCDC

The one advantage that is going for this year over 2010 or 1998 is the reality that the last part those year were moving into nina's. We're not going to cool down the last portion of this year like those years did. I believe that this year has a real chance breaking the record.... Nino 3.4 is warming up fast again and is above .5c once again. If this holds a .68 or .67c year is possible.

Now a single year with a good set up isn't a stall breaker. This is just reality. Also, if we didn't stall a year like this would probably be a good .1 to .12c warmer.

 

[Old Rocks]

In a neutral ENSO. Breaking the record for heat? This is not good.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I love it when warmies fuck up and include in their phony warmy datum decades when the same Marxist reprobates were screaming chicken little portents of "GLOBAL COOLING!!!"

 

[saveliberty]

How much did the CO2 rise? What percentage of that was manmade?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The first eight months of 2014 (January–August) were the third warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, with an average temperature that was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 57.3°F (14.0°C). If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest year on record.

The average global sea surface temperature tied with 2010 as the second highest for January–August in the 135-year period of record, behind 1998, while the average land surface temperature was the fifth highest.

Global Analysis - August 2014 State of the Climate National Climatic Data Center NCDC

The one advantage that is going for this year over 2010 or 1998 is the reality that the last part those year were moving into nina's. We're not going to cool down the last portion of this year like those years did. I believe that this year has a real chance breaking the record.... Nino 3.4 is warming up fast again and is above .5c once again. If this holds a .68 or .67c year is possible.

Now a single year with a good set up isn't a stall breaker. This is just reality. Also, if we didn't stall a year like this would probably be a good .1 to .12c warmer.

And they used the newly adjusted GISS/NOAA data for this lie....

 

[Old Rocks]

I love it when warmies fuck up and include in their phony warmy datum decades when the same Marxist reprobates were screaming chicken little portents of "GLOBAL COOLING!!!"

Really? Links?

That you have to include such twaddle as 'Marxist' in your post, it is obviously a garbage post. The scientists at the time that you post about by large percentage, were already speaking of global warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Whom to trust...

Data sets which are constantly manipulated... Showing a 0.68 deg C rise

OR

The USCRN which shows all of the NH regions cooling by -0.6 deg C.

That is a 1.28 deg C deviation. do I trust a system which is constantly monitored and sited so that corrections are never necessary or the manipulated data from GISS/NOAA?

It sure as hell wont be GISS/NOAA!! that much data manipulation is beyond gross negligence to willful fraud!

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I love it when warmies fuck up and include in their phony warmy datum decades when the same Marxist reprobates were screaming chicken little portents of "GLOBAL COOLING!!!"

Really? Links?

That you have to include such twaddle as 'Marxist' in your post, it is obviously a garbage post. The scientists at
the time that you post about by large percentage, were already speaking of global warming.

Yes, the academic establishment in the West was bleating about "global cooling" in the 70's and 80's no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

And then you imply that the majority of Western academics aren't Marxists??? They've really got you by the short hairs, don't they?

 

[Old Rocks]

Whom to trust...

Data sets which are constantly manipulated... Showing a 0.68 deg C rise

OR

The USCRN which shows all of the NH regions cooling by -0.6 deg C.

That is a 1.28 deg C deviation. do I trust a system which is constantly monitored and sited so that corrections are never necessary or the manipulated data from GISS/NOAA?

It sure as hell wont be GISS/NOAA!! that much data manipulation is beyond gross negligence to willful fraud!

Links, you silly asshole. Why on earth do you think that anyone should take anything posted on the net by persons unkown at face value.

 

[Old Rocks]

I love it when warmies fuck up and include in their phony warmy datum decades when the same Marxist reprobates were screaming chicken little portents of "GLOBAL COOLING!!!"

Really? Links?

That you have to include such twaddle as 'Marxist' in your post, it is obviously a garbage post. The scientists at
the time that you post about by large percentage, were already speaking of global warming.

Yes, the academic establishment in the West was bleating about "global cooling" in the 70's and 80's no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

And then you imply that the majority of Western academics aren't Marxists??? They've really got you by the short hairs, don't they?

First, you repeat that lie. Second, it ain't the 'academic establishment', it is the scientific establishment. Every single Scientific Society in the world, every single Academy of Science, and every major University, had policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

So, what you are stating is that the whole of the scientific establishment, worldwide, are Marxists. Do you even begin to realize how insane that statement is?

 

[Old Rocks]

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your turn.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Hansen's 1981 paper;

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

You knowingly repeat lies, that makes you a liar.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As you have been the recipient a few times already, I felt being redundant was useless.. But as the temp rise is in the OP lets look at the real temp fall which has been recorded by the USCRN.. And yes all the data is now publicly available.

Source

The raw data can be found here

 

[Billy_Bob]

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your turn.

All good except that most of the rise has been USHCN data manipulation.

While I would like nothing better than to be able to use raw surface temperature data in its unadulterated “pure” form to derive a national temperature and to chart the climate history of the United States, (and the world) the fact is that because the national USHCN/co-op network and GHCN is in such bad shape and has become largely heterogeneous that is no longer possible with the raw data set as a whole.

Source

 

[Old Rocks]

US average temperature? Lower 48? Less than 2% of the earth's surface? Do you really think that everyone is as stupid as you are?

Plus, that is from Watts site, the site of a known liar. Hardly credible in a scientfic discussion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr. Hansen's 1981 paper;

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

You knowingly repeat lies, that makes you a liar.

Ah Yes the discredited Hansen Et. Al.
No sea level rise..
No increase in storm activity or storm energy. (its actually decreased)
Temperature is falling while CO2 rises unabated showing the theorized link false.

You need a new paper as this one has be shredded by Mother Nature

 

[Billy_Bob]

US average temperature? Lower 48? Less than 2% of the earth's surface? Do you really think that everyone is as stupid as you are?

Plus, that is from Watts site, the site of a known liar. Hardly credible in a scientfic discussion.

Your using the Historical climate network. which also covers the lower 48... To funny. its ok for you to use but not ok for me....

 

[Old Rocks]

And, Billy Bob, you just got your silly ass well kicked on your lies concerning the 'global cooling' controversy of the 1970's. So you change the subject.

Real scientists have settled the warming issue already. And the discussion today among real scientists is how soon and how bad.

 

[Billy_Bob]

US average temperature? Lower 48? Less than 2% of the earth's surface? Do you really think that everyone is as stupid as you are?

Plus, that is from Watts site, the site of a known liar. Hardly credible in a scientfic discussion.

Your not even talking science your quoting pseudo science.. tell me if your found screwing up over 2% of your data in the Continental US and adjusting it up by 1.2 Deg c HOW CREDIBLE IS THE REST OF YOUR CRAP?

 

[Billy_Bob]

<SNIP>

Plus, that is from Watts site, the site of a known liar. Hardly credible in a scientfic discussion.

PROVE YOUR ALLEGATION! WITH FACTS..