Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That 0.04 degrees C is the largest increase between any year and the next warmest....Nobody has ever said that warming is going to happen overnight. Do a bit of math...If warming continues at that rate the increase would be 1.4 degrees by 2050 plus the 0.8 degrees it has already risen for a total of 2.2 degrees....If we do nothing and the rate of rise continues the temperature by 2100 it will have increased by 4.2 degrees since 1965.
You have your math wrong on the 1.4 degrees estimate. Let me help you here. The four one-hundredths of a degree (0.04) degrees, if that is even accurate, which it probably isn't, only represents a 2.5 thousandths of a degree per year increase, since the 0.04 increase is an increase over the previous high in the last 20 years, measured in 1998. If you extrapolate that out over the next 100 years, that would be one quarter of a degree over the next 100 years.
2014 - 1998 = 16 years since last high measured over the 20 year cycle.
0.04 / 16 = 0.0025 degrees per year avg increase over the 16 years (2.5 thousandths of a degree)
0.0025 X 100 = 0.25 degrees total projected increase over the next century (one quarter of a degree)
Also, NASA has subsequently come out and said there was actually only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year, and that only by 0.04 degrees. That is four one-hundredths of a degree. LOL.
And there were other more accurate measurements (which showed that this was not the hottest year on record), from satellites, that they apparently decided to overlook in the process of cherry-picking this pathetically small increase, of which there was actually a 62% chance that it really did not happen anyway.
But all that aside for a moment. Even if we just "believe" that this was the hottest year on record by four one-hundredths of a degree, what that really shows us is that temperatures have effectively been flat since 1998, which was the previous warmest year on record, as a four one-hundredth's degree increase is obviously not a material enough increase to justify announcing that the 18+ year "pause" has ended. Instead, it is a clear confirmation that the "pause" continues.
And it is another year where the warmists prediction models get further away from what the actual results show, as their projections show the world getting hotter and hotter every year.
LOL. Can you believe these people? {Answer: No, you can't}
You have your math wrong on the 1.4 degrees estimate. Let me help you here. The four one-hundredths of a degree (0.04) degrees, if that is even accurate, which it probably isn't, only represents a 2.5 thousandths of a degree per year increase, since the 0.04 increase is an increase over the previous high in the last 20 years, measured in 1998. If you extrapolate that out over the next 100 years, that would be one quarter of a degree over the next 100 years.
2014 - 1998 = 16 years since last high measured over the 20 year cycle.
0.04 / 16 = 0.0025 degrees per year avg increase over the 16 years (2.5 thousandths of a degree)
0.0025 X 100 = 0.25 degrees total projected increase over the next century (one quarter of a degree)
Also, NASA has subsequently come out and said there was actually only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year, and that only by 0.04 degrees. That is four one-hundredths of a degree. LOL.
And there were other more accurate measurements (which showed that this was not the hottest year on record), from satellites, that they apparently decided to overlook in the process of cherry-picking this pathetically small increase, of which there was actually a 62% chance that it really did not happen anyway.
But all that aside for a moment. Even if we just "believe" that this was the hottest year on record by four one-hundredths of a degree, what that really shows us is that temperatures have effectively been flat since 1998, which was the previous warmest year on record, as a four one-hundredth's degree increase is obviously not a material enough increase to justify announcing that the 18+ year "pause" has ended. Instead, it is a clear confirmation that the "pause" continues.
And it is another year where the warmists prediction models get further away from what the actual results show, as their projections show the world getting hotter and hotter every year.
LOL. Can you believe these people? {Answer: No, you can't}
you guys are the ones that keep changing the name on the package, not me. and it was first global warming, then it was climate change, and now it is climate disruption. these are the words you AGW alarmists have used, and in that order. you can deny it all you want, but it is the truth.
Repeating a denier myth over and over doesn't make it true.
Got any other recycled myths you need debunked yet again? Or some new ones?
If the 97% claim is supported by a statistically sound poll or survey that purports to arrive at the conclusion that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis, then prove it.
You cannot do it, because it does not exist.
And yet AGW alarmists and organizations like NASA continue to promote this blatant falsehood. In fact, here is the link to this fabricated propaganda being promoted by NASA even as we speak:
Also, NASA has subsequently come out and said there was actually only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year, and that only by 0.04 degrees. That is four one-hundredths of a degree. LOL.
LOL. Can you believe these people? {Answer: No, you can't}
No NASA did NOT say that there was "only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year". You clearly don't understand the probability table from the NASA/NOAA press conference or what was actually said.
Once again you've gullibly swallowed lies from a tabloid opinion piece and are just repeating them without checking the facts. This time it was David Rose and the Daily Mail UK.
Here, I've posted this analogy before:
I was trying to think of an analogy to show how fake 'skeptics' and conspiracy theorists are either weirdly confused, brain dead, or deliberately obfuscating about what NASA/NOAA said at the press conference when they said 2014 was the hottest year on record, because they keep getting the simple probabilities table used in the slideshow at the press conference wrong. (Some are even lying and claiming the probabilities weren't even mentioned at the press conference and that Gavin Schmidt spoke of the 38% figure 'later' or 'subsequently'- which is weird because you can clearly see the table in the slideshow and hear Gavin discussing it in the audio recording of the press conference.)
Anyone who claims that is obviously just parroting what hack journalist David Rose from the Daily Mail tabloid wrote and didn't actually listen to the conference themselves, just like David obviously didn't listen to it either.
Let's say we were testing drugs for treating cancer.
The results of the tests were analyzed and the top 4 drugs for effectiveness were codenamed Snap, Crackle, Pop, Fizz.
There were a lot of other drugs that didn’t score anywhere close enough to make the top four. They were lumped all together and called “Others”.
Snap is the most effective at 38%.
Fizz is the least effective of the top four drugs at only 4%.
None of the “Others” (18%) came close enough to even 4% to make it into the top four.
Now if someone said things like:
"Snap is likely NOT to be the most effective drug because the researchers say there's only a 38% chance it's the most effective. "
"There's no difference between Snap and Fizz."
"There is only a 38% chance that Snap is the most effective drug, so ANY of the other drugs could be more effective"
“Snap couldn’t be the most effective drug because if you add up the results of ALL the other drugs together they come to 62%"
What would most rational people think of their 'logic'? What rational person would choose any other drug that Snap if they had cancer?
Now replace Snap with 2014, Crackle with 2010, Pop with 2005 and Fizz with 1998.
And with NOAA's data 2014 was 48% and next closest was 2010 at 18%and 1998 at 5%.
So 2014 was about 1.6 to 2.7 times more likely than 2010 to be the hottest year. And 2.2 to 3.7 times more likely than 2005, and 9.5 to 9.6 times more likely that 1998, after taking into account the uncertainties.
But hey, those who keep mindlessly parroting "it's hasn't warmed since 1998!" would be the stupid ones who would take Fizz (at 4% effectiveness) if they had cancer rather than Snap at 38% or 48% effectiveness.
That David Rose Daily Mail UK tabloid press piece is the 'source' of what all the climate science deniers seem to be parroting. But it's full of misrepresentation and lies as usual.
See my last post for the link to the NASA/ NOAA press conference audio and the slideshow.
Also Dr Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS director) wrote a piece about a few days later on Real Climate here about what he said at the press conference:
There is another interesting article by physicist and oceanographer Professor Stefan Rahmstorf on the Real Climate website here about trends and the so-called 'pause'.
You have your math wrong on the 1.4 degrees estimate. Let me help you here. The four one-hundredths of a degree (0.04) degrees, if that is even accurate, which it probably isn't, only represents a 2.5 thousandths of a degree per year increase, since the 0.04 increase is an increase over the previous high in the last 20 years, measured in 1998. If you extrapolate that out over the next 100 years, that would be one quarter of a degree over the next 100 years.
2014 - 1998 = 16 years since last high measured over the 20 year cycle.
0.04 / 16 = 0.0025 degrees per year avg increase over the 16 years (2.5 thousandths of a degree)
0.0025 X 100 = 0.25 degrees total projected increase over the next century (one quarter of a degree)
Also, NASA has subsequently come out and said there was actually only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year, and that only by 0.04 degrees. That is four one-hundredths of a degree. LOL.
And there were other more accurate measurements (which showed that this was not the hottest year on record), from satellites, that they apparently decided to overlook in the process of cherry-picking this pathetically small increase, of which there was actually a 62% chance that it really did not happen anyway.
But all that aside for a moment. Even if we just "believe" that this was the hottest year on record by four one-hundredths of a degree, what that really shows us is that temperatures have effectively been flat since 1998, which was the previous warmest year on record, as a four one-hundredth's degree increase is obviously not a material enough increase to justify announcing that the 18+ year "pause" has ended. Instead, it is a clear confirmation that the "pause" continues.
And it is another year where the warmists prediction models get further away from what the actual results show, as their projections show the world getting hotter and hotter every year.
LOL. Can you believe these people? {Answer: No, you can't}
There is nothing wrong with my math.....I assume that you do have a calculator on your computer, right? 0.04 X 35 (the number of years till 2050) = 1.4....But of course you want to cherry pick the year 1998, the year of a strong El Nino....Well let's try this then.... The average global temperature increase between 1970 and 2014 is 0.015 degrees per year...If this rate remains steady 2050 will bring us to 1.325 degrees of warming, and if it remains steady till 2100 the total warming will be 2.075 degrees....Since most of the heat for the last 15 or 20 years has been absorbed by the oceans (about 90%) I expect that much of that heat will be released before then, and the rate temperature rise will increase.
And there were other more accurate measurements...from satellites.
You're wrong about that too. Carl Mears himself (from RSS) wrote that he considers surface temperature datasets "to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)".
Do you even know how the RSS satellite 'measures' troposphere temperature?
"RSS upper air temperature products are based on measurements made by microwave sounders. Microwave sounders are capable of retrieving vertical temperature profiles of the atmosphere by measuring the thermal emission from oxygen molecules at different frequencies. These measurements are a crucial element in the development of an accurate system for long-term monitoring of atmospheric temperature, particularly in regions with large numbers of radiosonde measurements. RSS air temperature products are assembled from measurements made by the MSU and AMSU instruments in polar orbiting satellites. We are working toward the use of measurements from the most recent microwave sounder, ATMS."
RSS is usually the odd set out when you compare Hadcrut, Gistemp, UAH and RSS data sets. It also doesn't cover as large an area as the other 3 data sets. That's why the deniers love to cherry pick RSS.
Once again you just blindly swallow anything you read in the tabloid press or on climate science denier blogs without checking the facts. Is that your idea of being a 'skeptic'?
There is another interesting article by physicist and oceanographer Professor Stefan Rahmstorf on the Real Climate website here about trends and the so-called 'pause'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
