2016 hottest year on record, 16 of 17 hottest years this century

213 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
To me the whole idea of the "

To me the whole idea of the " temperature of the earth" makes no sense.

My bias is in favor of warming and against cooling, so I may as well admit it.

I'm also more skeptical of rent seeking weather men lusting after the tv camera attention and professors lining up for government grants and publication opportunities than capitalists and conservatives trying to be productive.

Green-ee
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2007 - 6:08am
(No subject)

you're scaring me
You are scaring me.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Mark: I realize now you're

@Mark: I realize now you're probably referring to Ted Cruz's famous cherrypicking of data. Here is the updated data set:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

If you look at Cruz's hand picked span of 17 years, the temperature indeed does not go up, it goes down. But if you look at the entire record, it's clearly going up.

He has an in-depth discussion of the calibration here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-d...

As I mentioned, I am highly suspicious of satellite datasets that span multiple satellites over multiple decades, given the difficulty of instrument degradation, orbit degradation, and inconsistency between different satellites. Of course worse things have been used in the name of public policy (talking about you, vaccines)!

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
No not aware of Cruz's

No not aware of Cruz's whatever

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mark: the temperature of the

@mark: the temperature of the earth is just the average over the whole surface. Obviously it could warm more in some parts than others.

I too am personally in favor of warming on a local level (I was originally joking but I do actually own a pool). I honestly think lobster is overrated, and if they cease to exist off the Maine coast, well that sucks for the hard working lobstermen but I really couldn't give two shits. Also I don't give a shit if all the moose leave Maine for Canada either, I don't like camping or hiking so I probably won't see one in any event.

However, there are Mainers that care about moose and lobsters and all that Maine-type stuff, that want to keep things the way they have always been.

Re: "rent seeking weather men" - I'm curious to know how you think they are rent-seekers? Most weathermen do not have any kind of meteorology degree (there are some that do, but they're in the minority) - most are communication majors that couldn't get a job as a reporter or TV anchor. Not sure how you get from failed TV anchor to rent seeker.

And with respect to professors, yes, they work to get grants, but that's how our science system works. There are definitely shitty papers and bad scientists, but that's true with all science.

I would suggest that the medical sciences are far worse in that regard, since there is a ton of money to be made with expensive drugs and tests - many that have limited proven efficacy. (For more on actual rent seeking, see, Shkreli, Martin.)

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
anonymous: You got the

anonymous: You got the physics right but draw the wrong conclusions. If the earth did not rotate and cause the mixture of atmospheric gases they would be layered from heaviest to lightest, hydrogen being the furthest out from the earth. Our atmosphere absorbs radiant energy from the sun that heats our atmosphere first and then the earth's crust. The earth is giving off its heat in the same fashion as the sun and that heat is transferred first from the center of the earth out and through the crust and then the atmosphere and then into space. Since space has a temperature of about minus 66 degrees Fahrenheit and the laws of thermodynamics stipulate that in order to reach equilibrium, heat energy passes from hot to cold. In order for this to be true the earth as a whole must give off more heat energy than its surrounding space. The presence of the sun and its heat energy that reaches earth only slows down the amount of heat transfer from earth. Even scientists acknowledge the fact the sun,, like any fire will ultimately die when it cools down due to the amount of heat it is losing. Granted it is calculated to take billions of years, but while it is dying, we are dying faster because we are a smaller body and have less heat energy to lose.

The burning of fossil fuels puts additional non-combustible gases into the atmosphere. At the same time it removes oxygen from the gas mixture to support combustion. The carbon dioxide is used by vegetation that in turn replenish the oxygen. Some of the other non-combustible gases mix with the water vapor in the air and are returned to earth in their hydrogenated form with rain. Does acid rain ring a bell. It is a recycling that basically purifies the air naturally. Before man made fire, nature took care of this with spontaneous combustion and lighting, primarily of dead forest wood and dry grasses.

These massive energy transfers are evident in the differences in temperature from night to day when the sun's radiant energy is lost for 12 hours per day at the equator and varying times as you move further north where it is lost for six months at a time. If you are doing heat transfer calculations I would ask you the amount of heat energy that is required to heat even a small portion of the atmosphere not exposed to the sun's radiant energy.

Like most Progressives, some of us stop thinking when we arrive at an answer that suits us. It is this form of thinking that is being forced on our youth in the public school system that promotes the Progressive conclusion process. Hitler was right when he wanted to establish the master race who would be obedient clones and started with their education.

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
I don't mean tv weather

I don't mean tv weather personalities. Sorry to confuse. I mean people seeks by grants and funding from government

I reject the idea that scientists cannot be self serving con men thinking more about their boat payments and kids needing braces or their own professorial vanity than the purity of scientific inquiry.

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
Call me silly too. I've been

Call me silly too. I've been waiting for that to happen. Until it does this warming stuff is just for the "scientists" looking for a grant.

johnw
Online
Last seen: 11 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
anonymous c I would be

anonymous c I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the impact that the 1800 + - active volcanoes have on global warming.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Dear anonymous_coward, we

Dear anonymous_coward, we skeptics don't dispute that the climate is changing.
We do however resist imposing "solutions" (by force) that will needlessly wreck economies and hurt the poor.
Like this one:
UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change

For years the environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, a climate change believer if you must label people in that way, has made a logical and fact-based case that resources the climate change industry wants to employ to stop the warming would be better employed delivering technical solutions to the specific problems or impacts associated with climate change. This is true especially if helping the poor matters to you.

For his efforts Lomborg has been vilified by the money-grubbing climate change industry, and anyone who cites his work as reasonable and compassionate will be bullied into silence.
Because, science, you know.
Barf.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
What is the "correct"

What is the "correct" temperature that the Earth should be?

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Their is no such thing as a

Their is no such thing as a correct temperature. The average temperature of the human body is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. If that is what you mean by "correct" it is the average temperature that the human body attains when it is idling or not exerting any excess energy. It is when the body's functions that give off heat when operating, such as breathing, digesting, etc., are operating normally, When you are sick, the body gives off more heat because the body is working harder to try and repair itself. When you are dead, your temperature will drop to the surrounding atmosphere.

Temperature is a variable and is never one specific thing otherwise it would be a constant. Granted it appears to remain at one figure, but only because it is effected by other variables. Your thermostat is a good example. It attempts to keep the house at the temperature you set by first turning on heat and then the A/C. It will continue to do that until the surrounding temperature is the same as the outdoors and then basically shut down. The outside temperature varies so your thermostat will call for heat or cool when it varies from that you set.

I apologize for the long reply but unlike the Progressive, I like to think things through until I arrive at the truth and do not stop when I reach a point the answer suits me.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@pmconusa:

@pmconusa:

"anonymous: You got the physics right but draw the wrong conclusions. If the earth did not rotate and cause the mixture of atmospheric gases they would be layered from heaviest to lightest, hydrogen being the furthest out from the earth."

First of all, hydrogen and helium have a room temperature velocity that is higher than the escape velocity of the Earth, so unrestrained they can never be part of the atmosphere - given enough time they'll fly out into space, never to return. This is why some scientists were freaking out about a helium shortage - once helium leaves it's just gone and the only way to generate more is to mine it or create it using alpha radiation.

"Our atmosphere absorbs radiant energy from the sun that heats our atmosphere first and then the earth's crust. The earth is giving off its heat in the same fashion as the sun and that heat is transferred first from the center of the earth out and through the crust and then the atmosphere and then into space. Since space has a temperature of about minus 66 degrees Fahrenheit and the laws of thermodynamics stipulate that in order to reach equilibrium, heat energy passes from hot to cold. In order for this to be true the earth as a whole must give off more heat energy than its surrounding space."

While this is true, the energy balance out is not driven by conductivity, it's driven by black body radiation. All objects radiate energy out based on their temperature. The filament in a light bulb is very hot, so the light coming out is in the visible spectrum, but the surface of the earth is cooler, so it radiates at the infrared spectrum.

"The presence of the sun and its heat energy that reaches earth only slows down the amount of heat transfer from earth. Even scientists acknowledge the fact the sun,, like any fire will ultimately die when it cools down due to the amount of heat it is losing. Granted it is calculated to take billions of years, but while it is dying, we are dying faster because we are a smaller body and have less heat energy to lose."

This sentence makes no sense. Before the sun dies out, it will expand to a red giant, consuming Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, before it collapses on itself.

"The burning of fossil fuels puts additional non-combustible gases into the atmosphere. At the same time it removes oxygen from the gas mixture to support combustion. The carbon dioxide is used by vegetation that in turn replenish the oxygen. Some of the other non-combustible gases mix with the water vapor in the air and are returned to earth in their hydrogenated form with rain."

This is all true but the amount of CO2 we are generating by burning fossil fuels is not being returned back to the Earth as quickly as we are creating it. We know this because of the Mauna Loa observations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

No one, not even the most conservative climate scientists - hell not even Rush Limbaugh dispute that the CO2 levels are going up and it's because of burning fossil fuels.

"Does acid rain ring a bell. It is a recycling that basically purifies the air naturally."
Yes, it was caused by sulfur pollution, *not* CO2 emissions.

"Before man made fire, nature took care of this with spontaneous combustion and lighting, primarily of dead forest wood and dry grasses.

These massive energy transfers are evident in the differences in temperature from night to day when the sun's radiant energy is lost for 12 hours per day at the equator and varying times as you move further north where it is lost for six months at a time. If you are doing heat transfer calculations I would ask you the amount of heat energy that is required to heat even a small portion of the atmosphere not exposed to the sun's radiant energy."

Once the sun is not shining on land the balance of energy is between radiant energy out and what's known in atmospheric sciences as "advection", which is just a fancy word for, "wind is blowing heat into your area". So, warm air comes in, cold air leaves, leaving heat, which is radiated out to space. Geothermal energy is negligible.

"Like most Progressives, some of us stop thinking when we arrive at an answer that suits us. It is this form of thinking that is being forced on our youth in the public school system that promotes the Progressive conclusion process. Hitler was right when he wanted to establish the master race who would be obedient clones and started with their education."

... and here's the obligatory Hitler/Nazi reference. I don't mean to be harsh but your analysis suggests that you don't quite understand all the science. Are you open to learning more? If so, I can walk you through it. As it stands, you're missing several pieces (most notably, the Earth emitting infrared radiation to space.)

Since you're *not* a progressive you are implying that you *don't* stop when you arrive at the answer that suits you, so I assume you want to keep learning?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Mark: Have you ever met any

@Mark: Have you ever met any climate scientists? I cannot say that they're *all* boy scouts (in any field you will get bad apples, that is assured), but the vast majority are literally boy scout types.

Let me put it this way, if you ever have the chance to play a game of poker with climate scientists, GO, because you will clean up on them, they are like the nerds on that show The Big Bang Theory, they have no understanding of game theory.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@johnw: A volcano by itself

@johnw: A volcano by itself has a net cooling effect, because of the sulfur it spews into the upper atmosphere. The sulfur reflects sunlight, but has no effect on infrared radiation.

However, the number of volcanos now is pretty much the same as it was 1000, 2000, 10000, or 10,000,000 years ago, so there's no real trend effect.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mainemom: First of all,

@mainemom: First of all, thank you for eloquently spelling out your concern without referencing Hitler or Nazis.

Second, I totally agree with you. The Democrats have been completely tone deaf to the needs of the middle class and poor, and that was laid bare this election. The "tax food" link you posted is one of the stupidest policy ideas I've ever seen, well, pretty much ever.

I haven't heard of Bjorn Lomborg, but reading some wikipedia entries I am intrigued, and I will check out his books (however, I will point out that he has no degrees in any kind of science, unless you count political science). Do you have a recommendation for a place to start, or can I just read any of his books?

The key thing to note with him is that:
1) he acknowledges that global warming and climate change are real
2) but he suggests that on the grand scheme of things, they aren't as important as other issues

What I want is for everyone to acknowledge that 1) is true, so we can get onto discussing 2). If half the U.S. (including our President Elect) don't even believe 1) is true, then how can we appropriately prioritize it in the context of all the other poverty and environmental issues?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@VS: the correct temperature

@VS: the correct temperature is what it is now. If you are conservative, you want to conserve our land and sea the way they are now, and not let polluters like China change our way of life!

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
anonymous_coward, I linked a

anonymous_coward, I linked a Lomberg website to his name in my post. Just click his name to go there.

I find it interesting that someone of your background has never heard of Lomberg.
He is well-known in climate change circles, especially in Europe but also here.

I wonder if you heard of Roger Pielke Jr.? (click name for link)
He is another "believer" who has been condemned and ostracized by the climate change bullies for publishing papers that contradict the orthodoxy on some of the observed effects of climate change.

If you have heard of neither of these men, their work, and their treatment by the guardians of the climate change industry, then you are ill-prepared to understand why some of us are predisposed to scorn the peddlers of we're-all-gonna-die orthodoxy.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mainemom: well I stopped

@mainemom: well I stopped keeping up with climate stuff when I left the field in 2000 (and turned my focus towards computers and financial markets which were more fun and more lucrative - there's no money in climate sciences, I can confirm that). From what I can tell Lomberg didn't start publishing until 2001.

I left because I decided that the issue was not a matter of science - the science was pretty much cut and dried - it was a matter of public policy & politics, and I had little interest in that kind of thing (at the time, I am more interested in it now).

Just looking at Roger Pielke, he also completely agrees with the IPCC assessment that global warming is real but disagrees with the solution in the context of public policy.

I am in total agreement with having a rational discussion about whether it makes sense economically to apply carbon taxes vs. helping poor people grow economically. What I cannot stand is Rush Limbaugh saying that "it's all a hoax and it's not real!" And people believing it!!!

Mainemom - I think while you've got a solid lock on the issue and I totally agree with your sentiments, there are a lot of people on AMG who literally think climate change is not real. Please understand that my umbrage is directed towards them, and not you! We need more mainemoms!

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
But there's the rub, I guess.

But there's the rub, I guess.
It matters not whether someone is skeptical that the planet is warming at all, or someone is just opposed to impoverishing our country, the Western world, and sentencing the third world to languish permanently in poverty. Either way we can't support the wizards-of-smart in their ill-conceived effort to stop climate change, especially given precious little evidence that anything we do will stave off much actual warming.
It's more humane and more practical to let innovators innovate the technical solutions to the most harmful impacts of climate change.

Mike G
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 43 min ago
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
A Coward

A Coward

Do you think your original link of this thread conveys a rational discussion of Climate Change?

Seems like the height of hyperbole to me, I better not throw another log on the fire or the world will burst into flames.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
anonymous: The earths

anonymous: The earths atmosphere, according any source you consult consists of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide and various other gases. One of those other gases is ozone an allotrope of oxygen that is concentrated at the poles due to the effects of the earth's magnetic field and its inability to be mixed freely with other atmospheric gasses because of the mixing differences, occurring due the shape of the earth and the irregularity of its surface.

One of the other gases is hydrogen. It seemingly goes undetected in the mixture because its amount is beyond the capability of instruments to measure and the other is that there is no free hydrogen and what there is combined with oxygen in the form of water vapor. As for helium, it is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with anything. If what is being mined from well such as exist I think in Oklahoma and Texas it would most likely find its way into the mix of other gases that if not blended by the earth's rotation, magnetic field would layer and consist of a band of helium perhaps only fractions of an inch thick but still containing thousands of tons thousands of feet from the surface.

Contrary to popular opinion gravity is not a pull of things to the center of the earth by some unknown force but the pressure of the energy field that occupies the bulk of the area above our atmosphere. Einstein's equation E=m times c squared where E is energy, m mass and c the speed of light is missing its temperature component because in order to be true at any point in time the t component must cancel out because it is equal on both sides. This of course is not true because the energy field is cooler than the mass it surrounds and we know that is changing because of the motion of the planets and that some are colder than others because they are no longer transferring heat energy.

Unfortunately this hypothesis supports the big bang theory that has yet to achieve universal acceptance. It however, is the only thing that suffices to explain certain phenomenon already repeated in the laboratory and in nuclear explosions.\\

You are of course entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"@VS: the correct temperature

"@VS: the correct temperature is what it is now. If you are conservative, you want to conserve our land and sea the way they are now, and not let polluters like China change our way of life!"

But if, as you say, "man caused climate change" is real and has been happening for decades, then the present temperature of the Earth is not the "correct" one, and we need to restore it to the "correct" one. So, the question remains--what is the "correct" temperature?

One of my real problems with the whole "man caused climate change" thing is precisely this question, and the apparent inability of those who propose radically dismantling the economies of the Western world to achieve their goal of "stopping warming" to define what they actually want.
I liken it to when politicians say "We're going to make the Rich Pay Their Fair Share"--you ask them, "OK, tell us what their 'Fair Share' is, and the only answer you get is 'More!'"

The Warmists tell us we're in a crisis--but never actually define what the crisis is, and what "success" is. In the meantime, they have their world-spanning conferences that they fly to and drive in their limousines and work in their air conditioned offices, planning on how the little people will need their "lavish" lifestyles curtailed to end the Crisis...

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
Form those who are interested

Form those who are interested, Drudge had a link to a blog that discusses these issues from a skeptic's point of view:

http://realclimatescience.com/

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
a_coward implores:

a_coward implores:

What I want is for everyone to acknowledge that 1) is true, so we can get onto discussing 2). If half the U.S. (including our President Elect) don't even believe 1) is true, then how can we appropriately prioritize it in the context of all the other poverty and environmental issues?
__________________________________________________________________________

In the name of settled sea rise science, I think PE Trump should confront global warming where it lives and call for a 10 year moratorium on any new economic activity within 8 miles of our ocean coastlines. Further, as business licenses expire, none shall be renewed under the moratorium. Unbuilt and incomplete developments should be halted and no real estate re-sales will be allowed.

That should get a broader, more inclusive discussion going and give us a better understanding of how people really feel about global warming.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Points for Taxfoe.

Points for Taxfoe.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Viking Star: In order to

Viking Star: In order to keep this argument stirring you first have to understand thermodynamics and the laws that govern it. The earth is slowly getting cooler due to the pure fact the earth is warmer than the outer atmosphere so the transfer is from the hotter body to the cooler atmosphere. This exchange of heat energy is slowed by the insulating factors of both the earth's crust and the gases in the atmosphere but is moderated by the release of heat through earthquakes and volcanoes as the earth shrinks due to its cooling. This creates cycles of indeterminate duration during which the lower atmosphere and the earth's surface experience varying degrees of apparent heating and cooling, just as it does from day to night due to the radiant heat from the sun. This has been going on for millennia, long before the appearance of man on the planet. The amount of energy being lost in this process is enormous and to think man could slow or accelerate it is akin to saying we could effect the earth's rotation if every one faced west and simultaneously farted.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
taxfoe still has his points,

taxfoe still has his points,

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mainemom

@mainemom
"It matters not whether someone is skeptical that the planet is warming at all, or someone is just opposed to impoverishing our country, the Western world, and sentencing the third world to languish permanently in poverty. "

Well you can't have the conversation to decide what is important if you can't agree something exists. Liberals could very easily be convinced that their tax dollars go further to help the poor by investing in developing nations, but that discussion is buried underneath heaps of climate denial.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 24 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@taxfoe: this is funny, of

@taxfoe: this is funny, of course, but the unfunny part is when our taxes are raised to build expensive dykes around those cities.

Pages

Log in to post comments