2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
We had a few hot summers, so and they called it Global Warming. Then we had a few cold summers, so they called it Climate Change, incorporating both observations.

Who is 'they'?

I am curious as to why you wish to deny global warming. Are you afraid it will cost you something to admit it, or do you feel guilty about what you have already done to cause it? Or do you feel its such a hopeless situation that you would rather pretend it isn't true?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who is 'they'?

I am curious as to why you wish to deny global warming. Are you afraid it will cost you something to admit it, or do you feel guilty about what you have already done to cause it? Or do you feel its such a hopeless situation that you would rather pretend it isn't true?

there obviously is some kind of deep seated emotional reason.

Originally posted by humy
there obviously is some kind of deep seated emotional reason.

Some people I have talked to in the past, thought that it would result in carbon taxes and a heavy cost to the economy. (I don't know if that was their only reason for the denial).

Originally posted by humy
there obviously is some kind of deep seated emotional reason.

It is interesting that you attack me because I don't agree with your beliefs. You believe in whatever you want - fairies, God, the Devil, Climate Change, but please don't attack me because I do not recognise their existence.

There is sufficient scientific evidence available to dispel the Global Warming/Climate Change theories.

'They' are the proponents of Global Warming and or Climate Change.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
There is sufficient scientific evidence available to dispel the Global Warming/Climate Change theories.

Then where is it?

'They' are the proponents of Global Warming and or Climate Change.
Well I am a proponent of Global Warming and or Climate Change, and I did not do what you claimed 'they' did.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
It is interesting that you attack me because I don't agree with your beliefs. You believe in whatever you want - fairies, God, the Devil, Climate Change, but please don't attack me because I do not recognise their existence.

There is sufficient scientific evidence available to dispel the Global Warming/Climate Change theories.

'They' are the proponents of Global Warming and or Climate Change.

you attack me because I don't agree with your beliefs.

No, I attack your beliefs because they are illogical and based on emotion. It is not right for a belief to be based on emotion.

You believe in whatever you want

Nope. I believe not what I want but I believe whatever the evidence points.

- fairies, God, the Devil, Climate Change,

I don't want there to be no fairies. I still disbelieve there are fairies because of the absence of evidence for them + Occam's razor.

I don't want there to be no God. I still disbelieve there is a God because of the absence of evidence for it + Occam's razor.

I DO want to be no man made global warming. Thus I don't want there to be good evidence of such a thing. But there clearly is good evidence for such a thing thus I believe there is man made global warming.
Why on earth do you think I WANT there to be man made global warming?
Given I have no plans to apply for a job as an undertaker nor any other job that may be favored by such a disaster, Exactly HOW would I personally benefit?
It is a bad thing for all of us including myself so please explain why I want more hurricanes, greater poverty, personal moral guilt for contributing to it and the need to change how we generate energy even if it cost all of us more ...........

In all 3 cases I believe the exact opposite what I want i.e. I believe what I do NOT want to be true.
The only exception to the 4 you listed above is the Devil hypothesis where, just by pure coincidence, where logic points just happens to be what I want it to point to i.e. there being no Devil. The world is plenty gruel enough without a devil.

Originally posted by humy

You are also making the case for why scientists have limited data to work with and therefore can't really conclude anything with certainty.

NO, I am not.

I repeat what I just said to Duncan Clarke:

"...
Who said that the only way we can know the temperature before 135 years ago is with actual temperature measurements taken that far ...[text shortened]... hypothetically there was, it sure is over now thus I guess it would have been irrelevant anyway.

You want to have it both ways. You can't dismiss data and then use it to promote the opposite way. Pointing to other data is just a digression to avoid the data that is flawed.

Ice cores don't give accurate temperatures. Not all data is equal.

2014 is only one year. If I cherry picked a year that was colder you would scoff at me. Why should I pay attention to one year in the last 10?

How much have temps increased in the past 10 years? Not much. Even if it had it would not prove global warming is a bad thing. People can adapt to it. It is no big deal.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years..

Which means that it was hotter 135 years ago - long before so called Global Warming.

Threads this dumb belong in "Spirituality".

Originally posted by Metal Brain
People can adapt to it. It is no big deal.

Actually, it is a very very expensive deal if we don't do anything about it. For many poorer people, it will mean move or starve - which will likely result in wars.
For rich nations it means much of the most expensive property will be under water (think Florida).

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You want to have it both ways. You can't dismiss data and then use it to promote the opposite way. Pointing to other data is just a digression to avoid the data that is flawed.

Ice cores don't give accurate temperatures. Not all data is equal.

2014 is only one year. If I cherry picked a year that was colder you would scoff at me. Why should I pay a ...[text shortened]... had it would not prove global warming is a bad thing. People can adapt to it. It is no big deal.

You can't dismiss data and then use it to promote the opposite way.

Where did I do that? Please show exactly where....

The temperature measurements made by people long ago after 135 years ago are an accurate enough indicator of global temperatures.
I dismissed temperature measurements made by people long ago before 135 years ago at being reliable but pointed to other sources of data that does reliably indicate temperature BEFORE 135 years ago.

Pointing to other data is just a digression to avoid the data that is flawed.

No, there is nothing flawed about the way they are using data here and using a combination of different sources of data to avoid gaps is perfectly sound and scientific and we scientists do this often. Using one source of data that is reliable for before 135 years ago and another that is reliable for after 135 years ago but not before thus the first data source covers where the second data source doesn’t is valid and is just fine and you just dismiss both because what it shows is that you are wrong.

Ice cores don't give accurate temperatures.

And, you not being an expert on this of course and haven't done a science degree on it unlike the people that have and know vastly more about it than you and I do, you know this how? Every measurement has what is called an error of measurement no matter how accurate it actually is thus to simply say it “don't give accurate temperatures” is meaningless -“accurate” by exactly how much? Within 1C? 0.1? 0.001C? Would you call within 0.001C “inaccurate” just because you don't like what it proves? The scientists that know vastly more about it than you do would have actually mathematically calculated this error of measurement and found that it still gives a very high probability that last year was the hottest year for the last few thousand years and certainly the hottest for the last 135 years. You haven't taken this mathematical calculation into account because you don't even understand the mathematics of error of measurement.
Please show your mathematical calculation complete with the right equations for error of measurement of the data to show exactly where the scientists that have done the maths of the ice core data analysis have made their maths error ....

2014 is only one year.

DIRR, It was not only “one year” but LAST year. With all else being equal, this being the warmest year indicates a warming trend.

If I cherry picked a year that was colder

can you "cherry pick" last year as being the colder year? Go on, try and do that.

Why should I pay attention to one year in the last 10?

why “10”? The last 10 years are part of the last 135 years.
Why should you pay attention to the temperature the last year of the last 135 years? -because that was the warmest year.

How much have temps increased in the past 10 years? Not much.

again, why the arbitrary choice of 10? the last 10 years have been the warmest amongst the last few decades -why ignore that just because you don't like what it implies? What about the temperature increase in the last 135 years? Why dismiss that just because you don't like what it proves?

And as for the "Not much" you say above; the global temperature doesn't have to increase by 'much" (just ~0.5C ) for this to cause a significant increase in frequency in extreme whether events (drought, floods, hurricanes, etc ) that cause deaths and costly damage.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Threads this dumb belong in "Spirituality".

I have to agree. It has been turned dumb by some of the responses.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Global warming will make all the cold in the world will migrate to Scotland and it'll be icicles for ever more!

Its already icicles forever and cold enough to freeze the balls from a brass monkey, man I welcome global warming, the warmer the better, let it get roastie toastie! yeah for global warming! yeah for climate change!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, it is a very very expensive deal if we don't do anything about it. For many poorer people, it will mean move or starve - which will likely result in wars.
For rich nations it means much of the most expensive property will be under water (think Florida).

Not in my lifetime or my children's lifetime and probably not in my grandchildren's lifetime. You worry is in vain.

Originally posted by humy
I have to agree. It has been turned dumb by some of the responses.

Sigh. . . . the greatest folly of the materialist is to think that the human experience can be explained solely by rational means. You may have limited your search for truth to unintelligent agencies but that does not make others who have a different perspective stupid. Perhaps if you broaden your mind by reading a more diverse spectrum of literature you just may be able to overcome such prejudice for condescension is neither warranted nor becoming a man of science.

Originally posted by humy

You can't dismiss data and then use it to promote the opposite way.

Where did I do that? Please show exactly where....

The temperature measurements made by people long ago after 135 years ago are an accurate enough indicator of global temperatures.
I dismissed temperature measurements made by people long ago before 135 years ag ...[text shortened]... extreme whether events (drought, floods, hurricanes, etc ) that cause deaths and costly damage.

"significant increase in frequency in extreme whether events (drought, floods, hurricanes, etc ) that cause deaths and costly damage."

What extreme weather events? Show me a trend, not a wild theory without merit. I already showed you that 2014 had record food harvests. If there is a real problem show me what it is.