2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by googlefudge
You know, I've re-read my post.... can't find any mention of satellites, or satellite readings...

Surface temperature measurements tend to be made with thermometers actually on the surface
of the earth as opposed to satellites 100's of miles high from which it's actually pretty hard to
take surface temperature readings. And we've had thermometers ...[text shortened]... hould go back to school
and learn how to read, and then how to comprehend what you have read".

"You know, I've re-read my post.... can't find any mention of satellites, or satellite readings..."

Of course not. There were no satellites back then. You are trying to be critical of data from that period when the data is limited. The surface record is not always accurate, but with no weather satellites are you going to dismiss it based on modern technology that is better but did not exist?
"And we've had thermometers on the earth's surface for quite
some time now."

The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites. Prior to weather satellites we have no choice. We work with what we have.

Rather than write long messages that tell me nothing specific why don't you keep it concise and stick to the significant parts? What readings do you question and why? Is there data from 1900-1940 that you want to specifically point to? If so, do it. Life is too short for you to make non-points that tell us nothing significant.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You know, I've re-read my post.... can't find any mention of satellites, or satellite readings..."

Of course not. There were no satellites back then. You are trying to be critical of data from that period when the data is limited. The surface record is not always accurate, but with no weather satellites are you going to dismiss it based on modern tec ...[text shortened]... to? If so, do it. Life is too short for you to make non-points that tell us nothing significant.

... You are trying to be critical of data from that period when the data is limited...

I am?? Where am I being "critical of data" ???

Sorry, but you reading comprehension fail on my post.

At no point in my OP was I "...trying to be critical of data from that period..." .

That you think so demonstrates that you either didn't bother to carefully read my post,
or that you simply failed to comprehend it.

Thus rendering all your points utterly irrelevant and moot.

Try again.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Why are you omitting the Antarctic ice? Is ice only at the top of the world? Educate yourself and get back to me.

Antarctic ice is also melting, the Antarctic is loosing massive amounts of ice mass,
and consequently is a significant contributor to measured sea level rise.

Antarctic SEA ICE [which is floating and thus has very little impact on sea levels]
has been increasing in extent in recent years. This may or may not be a long term
trend, it's too soon to tell.

However Antarctic LAND ICE is undergoing rapid melting and that DOES raise sea levels.

I would say educate yourself about this... But you are obviously incapable or incompetent
at doing so.

Originally posted by Metal Brain

Why no mention of the antarctic ice?

because that research was on Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic isn't in the Arctic.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Why are you omitting the Antarctic ice? Is ice only at the top of the world? Educate yourself and get back to me.

Do you have a problem addressing a specific issue? I said, look at photo's of glaciers from the beginning of century 20 and then look at the photo's of glaciers from the beginning of century 21.

That is a specific indicator of global warming. AND the Antarctic is also melting down, lakes forming UNDER the ice and draining to the sea which will do its bit to raise ocean levels.

Here is some evidence of what happens when you lose glaciers:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-iceland-glaciers-climate.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you have a problem addressing a specific issue? I said, look at photo's of glaciers from the beginning of century 20 and then look at the photo's of glaciers from the beginning of century 21.

That is a specific indicator of global warming. AND the Antarctic is also melting down, lakes forming UNDER the ice and draining to the sea which will do its bit ...[text shortened]... at happens when you lose glaciers:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-iceland-glaciers-climate.html

The earth is warming. I have never denied that. Tell me something I don't know.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The earth is warming. I have never denied that. Tell me something I don't know.

The thing is, you are one of the great conspiracy dudes who think mankind is much to insignificant to EVER have ANY effect on the climate.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing is, you are one of the great conspiracy dudes who think mankind is much to insignificant to EVER have ANY effect on the climate.

No, you are wrong about that too. I simply think we can live with the warming. I'm not an irrational GW alarmist that has a chicken little mindset. All these claims that doom will result is laughable. You are right about one thing though. I think all of this GW fear peddling is for passing a tax, a tax that will do nothing to curb global warming. It is the proposed solution I have a problem with, because it is not a solution at all. Taxing carbon will do nothing but transfer wealth.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No, you are wrong about that too. I simply think we can live with the warming. I'm not an irrational GW alarmist that has a chicken little mindset. All these claims that doom will result is laughable. You are right about one thing though. I think all of this GW fear peddling is for passing a tax, a tax that will do nothing to curb global warming. It is t ...[text shortened]... em with, because it is not a solution at all. Taxing carbon will do nothing but transfer wealth.

I simply think we can live with the warming.

So you now change the subject completely from whether we cause that warming to whether we can live with that warming and do so with an emotional outburst of the usual obscenely and shamelessly moronic hateful right-wing propaganda crap we hear from time to time and this is all after vainly and endlessly repeatedly questioning the evidence for a warming trend.
You very apparently and obviously don't know how to debate with any intelligence whatsoever.

Originally posted by humy

I simply think we can live with the warming.

So you now change the subject completely from whether we cause that warming to whether we can live with that warming and this is after vainly and endlessly repeatedly questioning the evidence for a warming trend. Obviously then, you have a problem addressing a specific issue.

There you go assuming again. Do I have to repeat myself again? The issue is whether or not one year being hot means anything. I have consistently shown you there are too many factors to take one year to mean anything substantial. I have also poked holes in other unsubstantiated claims like you have posted here. For example, last year had bumper crops of most foods grown around the world. There is no REAL evidence that natural disasters are increasing. Detecting and reporting them better does not equate to more of them. Natural causes are significant even if some on here (sonhouse for example) was in denial of it. Solar changes detected by satellite are also a recent technology that do not have an accurate record before the first one. It may pain you to acknowledge it, but more time is needed to have a decent history of data taken since the space age.

I have never suggested man is not a factor in global warming. I didn't change the subject at all. I have NEVER question evidence of a warming trend. I challenge you to show I have anywhere on this forum or the debate forum. You have just been assuming and you know what the first 3 letters in assume are, right? That is what you have made of yourself. 😏

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have NEVER question evidence of a warming trend.

page 2 of this thread you said: "Ice cores don't give accurate temperatures."

How convenient for you that, according to you who has no expertise on the subject whatsoever, they don't give "accurate" temperatures when they just happen to show a warming trend!
You fool nobody here: You only questioning evidence (ice core evidence ) for a warming trend because it shows a warming trend.

No measurement is infinitely accurate but that doesn't mean you can rubbish or ridicule any measurement as being simply "not accurate" just because it shows something you don't want.
The ice core data would be accurate enough to be able to show a warming trend.

Originally posted by humy
page 2 of this thread you said: "Ice cores don't give accurate temperatures."

How convenient for you that, according to you who has no expertise on the subject whatsoever, they don't give "accurate" temperatures when they just happen to show a warming trend!
You fool nobody here: You only questioning evidence (ice core evidence ) for a warming trend becaus ...[text shortened]... 't want.
The ice core data would be accurate enough to be able to show a warming trend.

Ice core accuracy is not as good as actual temp readings. That is all I implied, nothing more. You need to do better than that.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Ice core accuracy is not as good as actual temp readings. That is all I implied, nothing more. You need to do better than that.

And so not having a time machine able to go back each year for a million years means you will always be right, is that a good assumption?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it does not cost a lot of money, and it can be done with current science.

What it will do is change the major players in the energy industry and that is why there is resistance to change. There is also a strong perception that it will cost money. Whether this is driven by the energy industry propaganda, or just a common mistake, I do not know. Where did you get the information that it would cost a lot of money?

Changing our energy infrastructure [among other things] to be
environmentally sustainable and zero carbon will be expensive.

It's just that NOT doing it will be VASTLY more expensive.


Greening our energy infrastructure will certainly pay dividends.

But it comes with a big upfront cost to build the new infrastructure
and tear down the old.

All the new solar panels/plants, wind turbines, dams, reactors, ect
that we need to build cost money to build... They'll make it back in
spades and the economy/civilisation as a whole will benefit hugely.

But you can't get around the upfront cost.

It would have been much cheaper if we started a few of decades ago and
simply banned CO2 emitting NEW power generation from being built and
required all the new power generation to be zero carbon because you would
simply be replacing new fossil fuel power generation expenditure with
green power expenditure.

However now we need to stop faster, which means we need to decommission
lots of power generation already built [and being built] before it reaches the
end of it's life cycle and rapidly build green generation to replace it AND cope
with the worldwide increase in demand at the same time.


And of course the longer we wait the faster we have to do it and thus the
more it will cost.


What drives me mad is that the science was well settled and convincing that
we should have acted before I was born. So I have a beef with every government
that has been in power over my entire life and spectacularly failing to deal with
this problem.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Ice core accuracy is not as good as actual temp readings. That is all I implied, nothing more. You need to do better than that.

So you would admit ice core measurements can reliably show a man made warming trend?
-Now we are getting somewhere.
That means your earlier baseless vague assertion that ice core data is "inaccurate" (exactly how 'inaccurate' is "inaccurate"? ... ) was both so vague as to be meaningless and totally irrelevant to the issue.