Climate continues to change.

[phrodeau]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

It's a planetary emergency— all statistically insignificant 0.2° C over 35 years.

0.2° C over that period of time is white noise.



​

What is it above the 20th century average, rather than the 1980 average? Let's see... oh, it's only white noise tripled. No worries.

Will there be any unbleached coral this year?

 

[warrior queen]

One third of Australia is under catastrophic fire and heat conditions today.
Places that rarely get to 40 deg C are going to have temps around 44-45 and the winds will be up around 80+ km/hr. It started yesterday and will contnue through tomorrow.
Total fire bans in place for parts of West Oz, most of South Oz, all of Victoria and half of Tasmania.

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says

Vast amounts of oil in the Middle East, coal in the US, Australia and China and many other fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change, according to the first analysis to identify which existing reserves cannot be burned.

The new work reveals the profound geopolitical and economic implications of tackling global warming for both countries and major companies that are reliant on fossil fuel wealth. It shows trillions of dollars of known and extractable coal, oil and gas, including most Canadian tar sands, all Arctic oil and gas and much potential shale gas, cannot be exploited if the global temperature rise is to be kept under the 2C safety limit agreed by the world’s nations.

The new analysis calls into question the gigantic sums of private and government investment being ploughed into exploration for new fossil fuel reserves, according to UCL’s Professor Paul Ekins, who conducted the research with McGlade. “In 2013, fossil fuel companies spent some $670bn (£443bn) on exploring for new oil and gas resources. One might ask why they are doing this when there is more in the ground than we can afford to burn,” he said.

“The investors in those companies might feel that money is better spent either developing low-carbon energy sources or being returned to investors as dividends,” said Ekins.

“One lesson of this work is unmistakably obvious: when you’re in a hole, stop digging,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org which is campaigning to get investors to dump their fossil fuel stocks. “These numbers show that unconventional and ‘extreme’ fossil fuel – Canada’s tar sands, for instance – simply have to stay in the ground.”

If your pension or IRA is invested in fossil fuels, it's best to get it out. That money will probably go to waste.

In the link, there's a video with neat graphics, for those who are reading-comprehension-challenged.

 

[phrodeau]

NOAA and NASA are about to release their findings for 2014, possibly in an unusual joint press conference. Odds are that they will be announcing that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Here you can see why:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/global/2014/nov/ytd-scenarios-thru-nov-2014.png

 

[thør]

"Officials with the Alaska Earthquake Information Center say there were 40,686 earthquakes in Alaska and the bordering parts of Canada in 2014.

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports this easily was a new high for quake activity, beating the previous mark of nearly 32,000 earthquakes in 2003. It also significantly higher than the 28,000 quakes recorded in 2013."


Must be a climatic warming thing.

I'm sure the lawyers could make a correlation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Is 2015 already the warmest year on record?

Or do we again have to wait until September for that announcement?

 

[thør]

Is 2015 already the warmest year on record?

Or do we again have to wait until September for that announcement?

Might as well just hand out the Nobel Prize!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Might as well just hand out the Nobel Prize!

Why thank you!



That post was brilliant Literature.

 

[phrodeau]

It's official.

2014 was the warmest year on record.
December 2014 was the warmest December on record.
2014 was the 38th year in a row with above-20th-century-average temperatures.
December 2014 was the 358th month in a row with above-20th-century-average temperatures.

 

[Busybody]

Ooops. NASA now “38% sure” 2014 was warmest year on record





We were recently informed by the blaring of progressive trumpets and flapping of angelic wings that evil energy users had set a new record, with 2014 being the warmest year in recorded history. The end is clearly near, so you should all begin getting your affairs in order unless President Obama can rail through his new methane regulations. It is, as Mother Jones described it, a moment of truth. Well folks, what can I say? We had a good run.

But wait! The phrase “moment of truth” ends with a rather important word. How “true” is this claim? The folks at NASA who declared the doomsday scenario have rather sheepishly admitted that under further scrutiny, they’re at least 38% sure it might have been true.


The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true…

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

What’s worse, as you read through the experts’ detailed explanation, is that even if they are correct and it was the warmest year on record, it beat the old mark by .01 degree centigrade. That’s one one hundredth of a degree. (With a margin of error a full order of magnitude larger.) Taking that margin into account, they go on to admit that the other two years in contention – 2005 and 2010 – are all so close that they don’t know which of the three is actually the warmest.

This ties into the other side of the story which never seems to make its way onto the pages of Mother Jones or in the CNN chyrons. If you are having trouble figuring out which of the years in the past fifteen or twenty is hotter or cooler, it’s because the planet has stubbornly refused to continue warming since the mid 90s, to the great dismay of the green warriors. And we’ve known this for a couple of years now.


Remember that really scary “hockey stick” graph IPCC used to show that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations would send global temperatures soaring? And recall all the ballyhoo about CO2 levels reaching a 400 ppm record high? Yet last February even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years. And that was after the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017.

It must be because we’ve already done such a bang up job of curbing emissions around the globe and need to do more of the same, right?


“The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”

There should be a blaring siren and massive retraction in the New York Times any… day… now.

 

[trysail]

If ever there was any doubt that NOAA has been politicized and has an agenda, the latest "science (propaganda) by press release" should remove any lingering doubt.





While loudly proclaiming 2014 to be "the warmest year" because it was 0.04°C (that's right, folks, ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR DEGREES) warmer than the dubious previous warmest year, NOAA completely forgot to mention that the margin of error is +/- 0.09°C—

in other words, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW if 2014 was the warmest year or not (but that didn't stop them from making the claim).​

It is a sorry state of affairs when a U.S. government science-based agency makes scientifically INACCURATE statements— but that's what's happened to NOAA.






​

 

[JohnnySavage]

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg

 

[domroger]

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg

Fucking brilliant .

 

[trysail]

In fact, NOAA doesn't actually know whether 2014 was the warmest year or not.

That makes their press release a constructive falsehood.



​

 

[curious2c]

Cycle of nature

Wonder what our ancestors will say around ten or twenty thousand years from now? Really.

Historically the earth has warmed and cooled significantly, long before 'man' came along and 'changed things'.

Bottom line...is there global warming? Most likely.

Is it 'man caused'? Not likely.

That does not preclude that man should be good stewards of the earth while and when they can, but to do so in the extreme is ridiculous.

Man's changes will only be a statistical anomaly in the scheme of things. When 'science' is measuring weather and earth temperatures down to the 0.0 level, there will always be deviations unaccountable in both directions. Nature works on grand scales, not so much minute scales. The minutes comes from the grander things always.

I think we are seeing a climate change due to a natural cycle of the earth in the range of ten to one hundred thousand years scope...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[phrodeau]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/16/n...est-on-record-by-four-hundredths-of-a-degree/

Climate scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer with the University of Alabama, Huntsville said, ”2014 was third-warmest, but barely.” Christy and Spencer administer the UAH satellite dataset — one of two major datasets used to measure global temperatures.

Christy said, “2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 degree Celsius difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”

And I didn't have to type to make it look like I had a link when I didn't.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

NEWSFLASH!!!


Based on preliminary results, 2015 predicted to be the hottest on record by about 20 degrees F...



The margin of error is +/- 30 degrees.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Dolphins seen flying out of the water into space to get away from the hidden heat.

 

[trysail]

Amazing.

Did NOAA's press release mention ANY uncertainty?

Did it mention any possibility of error?



https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/page-5-of-noaa-nasa-briefing.png


​

 

[JohnnySavage]

It seems to a simpleton like me, that arguing whether or not 2014 was the hottest, second hottest or 20th hottest on record kinda makes the point. We aren't wondering if it was the coldest after all.

 

[phrodeau]

It isn't often that trysail's opinion diverges from Roy Spencer's.

 

[thør]

NEWSFLASH!!!


Based on preliminary results, 2015 predicted to be the hottest on record by about 20 degrees F...



The margin of error is +/- 30 degrees.

Another Nobel?

Fuck.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Another Nobel?

Fuck.

Two. The other for Peace...

 

[trysail]

2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures
January 18th, 2015
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist

I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response.

Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on Dec. 4.

In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)

I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.

I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.

We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.

What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.

What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.

Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?

And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?:

It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.

Feelings now trump facts.

At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.

In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.

And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.


​

​

 

[JohnnySavage]

Minor point here: Dr. Spencer is paid by the government. Has he been fired? If not, his entire premise that the 97% are beholding to the government is false.