2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by humy
Nope;

Just like that extinct fur seal, Homo erectus didn't have to deal with the relatively rapid global warming caused by man.

+ plus man can only be described as being far more adaptive than fur seals because we are both far more intelligent than fur seals and with that intelligence giving us a great ability to use technological and cultural adaptation ...[text shortened]... ze and intelligence between modern fur seals and that extinct one.

You fail again. Try again.

You have failed. There is no rapid climate change. Heat islands are tainting the data. It is simply inaccurate.

You have also failed in assuming intelligence always makes a species more adaptable. There are far more ways for species to adapt than just intelligence. One extinct seal means nothing and you know it. Sonhouse didn't even mention seals, he said Sea Lion and since they are related I posted that link to show how long Sea Lions have been around. If you look on the link you will see it is mentioned. You just took one part of the article and went with it. My assertions were and are still accurate. Not only did Sea Lions survive the Pliocene, they thrived. Polar Bears evolved in the Pliocene so they will do fine too. Your alarmist nonsense about species going extinct is complete bunk. Try again.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have failed. There is no rapid climate change. Heat islands are tainting the data. It is simply inaccurate.

You have also failed in assuming intelligence always makes a species more adaptable. There are far more ways for species to adapt than just intelligence. One extinct seal means nothing and you know it. Sonhouse didn't even mention seals, he ...[text shortened]... ill do fine too. Your alarmist nonsense about species going extinct is complete bunk. Try again.

Why don't you tell that to the people in the western states. They are in the middle of the longest drought in US history at least, perhaps the harbinger of the drought of the centuries 1200 to 1300 in the west. That was a 100 year drought. So far it has been 15 years in California. The one in 1300 drove the Anasazi's off their land back then. Lake Mead is at its lowest level since it was filled in the 1930's,

You go, big deal, it will all wash out in the next rains. Sure, tell that to the Anasazi.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There is no rapid climate change. Heat islands are tainting the data.

Exactly WHICH "heat island" is "tainting" this data?:-

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts

The temperature of the oceans has been measured globally to have rapid increases in temperature in recent years and to a greater temperature than since records began.
Sorry! You cannot dismiss there being rapid global warming because of "heat islands"! Try again.

+ plus you haven't said anything here to show that at least your last 2 inferences was correct after I gave you several very good reasons why they are wrong. You are just too arrogant to admit when you are wrong.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you tell that to the people in the western states. They are in the middle of the longest drought in US history at least, perhaps the harbinger of the drought of the centuries 1200 to 1300 in the west. That was a 100 year drought. So far it has been 15 years in California. The one in 1300 drove the Anasazi's off their land back then. Lake Mead is a ...[text shortened]... s,

You go, big deal, it will all wash out in the next rains. Sure, tell that to the Anasazi.

"Why don't you tell that to the people in the western states. They are in the middle of the longest drought in US history at least"

What is your source of information?

Originally posted by humy
Exactly WHICH "heat island" is "tainting" this data?:-

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts

The temperature of the oceans has been measured globally to have rapid increases in temperature in recent years and to a greater temperature than since re ...[text shortened]... ral very good reasons why they are wrong. You are just too arrogant to admit when you are wrong.

John Abraham is a propagandist. This isn't the first time I have read his misleading junk. The ocean warming he is pointing out is not unprecedented at all. Notice that he uses a chart that omits ocean temp data before 1960.

Show me the NOAA ocean temp record prior to 1945 and we will have something to talk about.

" plus you haven't said anything here to show that at least your last 2 inferences was correct after I gave you several very good reasons why they are wrong."

No, you certainly did not give me any reason to indicate I am wrong. Polar Bears have been around for 4-5 million years. Check for yourself.

I posted the link below for you before and you ignored it. Scroll down to Pliocene and read the last sentence in that section. I already proved you wrong. You are very arrogant (and deceptive) to suggest you proved me wrong when you did nothing of the sort. You are in denial of the facts. FAIL!

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Cenozoic_Paleobiology.htm

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you tell that to the people in the western states. They are in the middle of the longest drought in US history at least, perhaps the harbinger of the drought of the centuries 1200 to 1300 in the west. That was a 100 year drought. So far it has been 15 years in California. The one in 1300 drove the Anasazi's off their land back then. Lake Mead is a ...[text shortened]... s,

You go, big deal, it will all wash out in the next rains. Sure, tell that to the Anasazi.

California's recent drought is minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320. Your claim that the recent drought is the longest drought in US history is simply false.

Edit: Here is a link of the worst droughts in world history. Notice how long ago most of them happened. You can't blame them on anthropogenic climate change. When you can show me one that is comparable today let me know, but until then you are just spouting rhetoric.

http://www.ranker.com/list/the-worst-droughts-and-famines-in-history/drake-bird

Originally posted by Metal Brain
John Abraham is a propagandist.

Irrelevant. Data is data.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Edit: Here is a link of the worst droughts in world history.

At least bother to read your own link before posting.

Originally posted by humy
Irrelevant. Data is data.

Data is data if it is all there. The data showing warmer ocean temps prior to 1945 is omitted. It is called propaganda by omission.

Ocean temps are not indicating rapid global warming. FAIL!

Originally posted by twhitehead
At least bother to read your own link before posting.

Can you prove recent droughts are worse than those listed on the link? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The data showing warmer ocean temps prior to 1945 is omitted.

So the data proves recent rapid global warming, just as expected; so what?
Recent rapid global warming is still rapid global warming regardless of what happened before that arbitrarily specified year in the past.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Can you prove recent droughts are worse than those listed on the link? .

The man made global warming climate models do not predict that the most recent droughts would necessarily be worse than those listed on the link nor any other in particular.
The two things here you cannot seem to fail to comprehend (or pretend to? ) is that;

1, the climate models are probabilistic

and

2, these climate models don't predict any particular weather event nor any particular set of specific weather events.
This is because weather is not climate.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Can you prove recent droughts are worse than those listed on the link? I didn't think so.

The link was a list of famines not droughts. Go and read it before you comment again.

Originally posted by humy
...you cannot seem to ...

.

misprint; that should have been just "...you seem to..."

Originally posted by twhitehead
The link was a list of famines not droughts.....

yes.

Metal Brain

Your link only explicitly claims one of those famines was caused by drought ( see: "Chinese Drought 1941" ) and, in fact, explicitly claims one of those famines was caused by TOO MUCH rain (see: "Great European Famine .... The tragedy, that killed an estimated 7.5 million people, was caused by strange weather and unrelenting rains..." )

Thus, partly because of this and partly because it doesn't give any useful info for any rational comparisons of the severity of any drought (including the "Chinese Drought 1941" one ), contrary to what you clearly imply, it is perfectly obvious your link cannot possibly be used to compare the severity of past droughts with the severity of more recent droughts.

twhitehead is right; you haven't read the link and you should have read it. If you had done, you would have noticed all this and you wouldn't have moronically and ineffectively tried, like you have just done, to use the link as evidence that droughts are not getting more severe.

Have you got any idea how stupid that makes you look? -perhaps you don't care; given up trying not to.