NOAA: Better Than 97 Percent Chance 2015 Will Be Hottest Year on Record

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: amazing

Your wishes may come truth, the weather channel was predicting colder temperatures this winter in the southeast with record snow in the north east like last year.

While the north west and south west will be warmer this winter, but with more humidity and rain, all thanks to el nino as is expected to become stronger in the coming months.

I saw that, it still looked like Vegas was going to be average or above average.

a reply to: glend

Take a look at the history of the Berkeley Earth project.

It's one thing to point out a potential flaw in the data calibration. However it's irresponsible to assert that this flaw makes all the data invalid, or can't be used, when the truth is that the people who do this very well have both known about the problem and worked on the corrections for decades.

And the underlying trend is still there.

dded... I believe the logic is this. Governments have been cooking economic data for decades (unemployment, inflation figures etc). Since the introduction of carbon tax they now look at temperature readings as economic data rather than scientific data because it results in increased taxation. Although a lot of scientist have complained, many fear reprisals from employment opportunities etc whereas others just jump board the gravy train.

This is nothing but conspiratorial nonsense.

Really? Where is the evidence? How would all the governments "cook" every one of the data sets by all sorts of institutions over the whole planet?

And what politicians actually WANT to raise taxes? There are all sorts of legitimate reasons to raise taxes (even though they are unpleasant), why would they supposedly invent a fake one?

a reply to: mbkennel

I use to be naive like you and fight for the global warming camp in the 80's and 90's thinking everyone that couldn't see it was stupid. Then I realized it was I that was being stupid. So I can only look your comment and smile.

Who mentioned conspiracy? World operates on greed, no conspiracies needed.

a reply to: glend

The naive thing is to think the people who are currently racking in the greenbacks wouldn't do everything in their power to keep the status quo.
They got us slapping our arms to get the next fix of fossil fuel, they don't want us to rehab from that.

Like you say, world operates on greed.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes but big oil will eventually loose out to technology. We could witness fussion power within the next 10 years which has the potential to dramatically change everything. No more wars in the middle east plundering oil and gas reserves, no more fracking for gas. A lot less pollution. And far greater economic reserves to expand our frontier to that of other planets.

a reply to: glend

So bank on the idea of Fussion and in the mean time let oil just keep doing what it is doing?

Ever heard of putting all your eggs in one basket?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If they were SERIOUS why aren't they harping on CHINA polluting it's BUTT off.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

....
Plenty of people complain about China, news flash though Cav, they are a sovereign nation that we can do little about.
We are trying though.
www.whitehouse.gov...

a reply to: Sremmos80

So bank on the idea of Fussion and in the mean time let oil just keep doing what it is doing?

Ever heard of putting all your eggs in one basket?

We already have all out eggs in one basket and its starting to collapse not because there are alternative energy sources but because they all are much more expensive than cheap oil of the past. Yes we could survive of solar but in doing so we could no longer afford cities that require 450 Kwh just for one tonne of concrete. Chris Marten has some excellent video's explaining the problems faced by todays society. He has correctly predicted that when oil price rises, economies will collapse which will bring down the cost of oil. When the economies start accelerating again, oil rises, and the process repeats itself.

a reply to: Sremmos80

THEN I don't think you would have much to say about our military pivot to the eastern pacific and why.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

How does that makes sense?
What does our military have to do with China and climate change...

a reply to: glend
Yes we have all our eggs in oil and the people making the money want to keep it that way.

We can more of a hybrid solution before we go full 'green' energy.
I

a reply to: Sremmos80

Nothing we discuss on this thread, a digression.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: mbkennel

I use to be naive like you and fight for the global warming camp in the 80's and 90's thinking everyone that couldn't see it was stupid. Then I realized it was I that was being stupid. So I can only look your comment and smile.

Who mentioned conspiracy? World operates on greed, no conspiracies needed.

Exactly. World operates on greed: that's why people invent denialist nonsense---because fixing the actual real problem costs somebody now.

originally posted by: Metallicus
We have maybe 200 years of global temperature records for a 4 billion year old planet. It would be illogical to think our "records" are of any value whatsoever.

And what exactly is the illogic in this line of thought... you collect data, you analyse data.. Are you saying that unless you have ALL the data, even if it is impossible to collect, they don't bother doing any sort of science?

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: lostbook
Scientists can use alternate methods to measure temps which go back way farther than 200 yrs. Can't name them from the top of my head right now, but I think one of the methods for measuring Global temps has to do with tree rings.

So maybe 400 years of 4 billion. That's 400 of 4,000,000,000

(Not predictive or statistically relevant)

On what basis is it not predictive? How is it not statistically relevant? So would the data from over 2.5 billion years ago before the great oxidation event when the atmosphere was less that .01% oxygen be an important part of a current statistical model?

In fact, we do have data from even that long ago, it is just data we have to get from examination of the geological record. We do know a lot about how climate has changed, in fact how the whole earth has changed, perhaps not in detail, but enough to help us put some context to these models you dismiss out of hand. I think you need to take a course or at least read a book on paleo-climatology and actually look at data sets and the analysis. That might help you get a better idea of the science involved here.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Gothmog

Well you can just take a listen to out last gop debate to find out why.
Scientifically speaking it is widely accepted.

So , with that statement , the GOP exists all over the world? Last count , I thought the GOP was a US invention and had exclusive rights to the term. You did know that there are a lot of scientists around the world, and I do mean real science not some johnny come lately climatology , that deny that global warming exists other than a natural cycle , didnt you ?

Not true. There is 97% consensus world-wide in the scientific community that climate change is real and that humans are a contributing factor. A meta study of 12,000 peer reviews scientific papers on the subject confirms this split. Additionally, we increasingly find those in the 3% who deny climate change are funded by big oil and other business interests.

originally posted by: seagull
Global warming happens when an Ice Age wasn't all that long ago, relatively speaking. ...not to mention a mini-ice age of sorts within historical time periods.

We'll adapt, as there's not a hell of a lot we can do about it...

Actually we may not. The problem is that climate can reach a tipping point. As you push a system far enough out of equilibrium, and warming is doing to the climate -- remember all the extra heat is energy being pumped into the system -- there can be a rapid sudden shift to a new equilibrium. One of the most dramatic shifts ever took place about 2.5 billion years ago when the earth went from .01% Oxygen to 10% and then later another jump to 20%. It was very fast geologically speaking but we still don't know why it happened. We don't know what is going to happen but there is a lot we can do. But we won't.

In that case you statement might turn out to be true "We'll adapt" or it might be "A few adapted and survived."

a reply to: metamagic

There is 97% consensus world-wide in the scientific community that climate change is real and that humans are a contributing factor.

Post links to back up that claim of 97% . Or did you not read the full post and mean 97% of climatologists (re: palm-readers , crystal ball gazers , money hungry bandits)
See , I believe in true science , not guesstimators....

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: metamagic

There is 97% consensus world-wide in the scientific community that climate change is real and that humans are a contributing factor.

Post links to back up that claim of 97% . Or did you not read the full post and mean 97% of climatologists (re: palm-readers , crystal ball gazers , money hungry bandits)
See , I believe in true science , not guesstimators....

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Now you please do the same and back up your claim that climatologists are palm-readers and crystal ball gazers. Also please identify what "true science" since I am a professional scientist and it would be of interest, and also what a believer in true science is since my practice of science does not involve faith -- I do not have to believe in a hypothesis to state it, or test it.

a reply to: Gothmog

What is the true science?

Second time I see this presented, can you say who the 'true' scientist are and why the ones that you don't agree with are not?