2015 Already Setting Heat Records

Maybe it all sublimated? (Have you seen a single non US site that spouts this climatology B.S. ?)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -- J Goebbels

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/sea-level-satellite-2.gif

 

Oh because I think climate-istas are agenda driven loons, that's on me?

And because I think they're full of horse pucky, I am now the cause of climate change?

This crap produces some really goofy mother (*)(*)(*)(*)ers, because now I see global warming has turned into a religious cult

 

now that a big volcano is blowing up, extremists have another excuse for the lack of warming over the next few years.

 

The source is very obvious; it's printed right on the graphic. It plainly says that the dark and light red projections are drawn from IPCC computer models, and the actually record temp (black line) is taken from the Met Office.

Are you unable to read anything on your 4" screen?

 

Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor of climate science at the University of Reading, said the past 15 years had seen a slightly slower rate of warming.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html[

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

But he added: ‘You have to take a longer view, because 15 years is too short a period. We expect natural fluctuations, volcanic eruptions and changes in solar output to sometimes slow and sometimes increase warming rates"

 

Why? A little Econ 101.

Let's say you make widgets and I buy them. You're not the only widget maker and I'm not the only buyer, so there is a market price established by normal supply-and-demand. We both benefit from the transaction, so transactions continue and our mutual benefits continue.

But suppose that in making the widgets, your factory releases mercury into the river. There is a town downstream that gets it drinking water from the river, and the people in that town begin to show neurological symptoms and many of them are hospitalized. Working days are lost. Hospital bills mount up. Some of the sick are indigent and must have their medical bills paid for by the state. Even the ones on insurance have a knock-on detriment of raising insurance rates in the state.

And all of those costs, which are caused by the buying and selling of widgets, are exported to third parties, not involved in the widget deals. And that is totally, completely unfair. You, the widget maker, have exported a substantial fraction of the cost of widget making, and you are forcing the general public to pony up, even though they don't give a hoot about widgets. That's called an external cost. And it is a huge and blatant distortion of how a free market is supposed to work.

In such situations, government not only has the right to step in, government has a sacred duty to step in, to correct the imbalances of the market. There are two ways to do so. The first is by direct regulation (Thou Shalt Not Emit Mercury.) The second is by instituting a remedial tax, called a Pigovian tax, to recover the societal costs of the mercury pollution. Revenues from that tax are then used to pay those medical bills and remediate those lost wages; meanwhile, the cost of the tax is factored into the cost of the widget, restoring the market to correct configuration. Obviously, you the factory owner can avoid the Pigovian tax entirely by not emitting mercury.

Why should you be taxed for climate change? Because if you emit carbon, you're causing it. Unmitigated climate change will cost the world between 5% and 10% of GDP by 2100. There's no reason the general public should have to bear that cost. A pigovian tax is the optimum market-based solution.

A pigovian tax is not wealth re-distribution. It is paying the true cost of things.

CO2 is too embedded in too many things to ban outright. A fossil carbon tax can be phased in to minimize economic impact.

 

Citation, please, to peer-reviewed data to support that (obviously nutty) claim?

 

Have you looked?

Switzerland
Russia
China
India
South Africa
Argentina
Canada

and I could go on ...

 

Nope, you're still wrong, and so is your highly impeachable source for this graphic (the almost-always-wrong Daily Mail). What they've done is simply selected a subset of CMIP5 model runs, determined 95% and 75% bounds for those selected runs, and assumed that that procedure represents the entire uncertainty. It does not. They might have the inter-model uncertainty about right from that, but they have implicitly assumed that the intramodel uncertainty is zero, which is certainly is not. Thus they have vastly under-reported the true uncertainty.

The graph is bogus. Next time, post something peer-reviewed if you want to be taken seriously.

 

The upcoming papal speech is probably what has the deniers so unhinged now. They're at a loss as to how they're supposed to work the Pope into their Vast Secret Global Socialist Conspiracy theory.

 

B-b-but it snowed.

 

all respect
but i have looked at this a lot when people even deny that sea level is rising AT ALL
that is a nutty position
but the fact is that people have been tracking sea level long long before climate change was an issue
and sea levels have in fact been rising over that long extended period
and at this tine the data makes it hard to claim there is demonstrably an increased rate of this rise in sea levels. and i say this as a person who is concerned about the climate change issue

likewise the info on temp increase
temps have in fact been increasing since before co2 would have had an impact
and recently temp increases have moderated despite ongoing increases in co2
so the close tie between co2 and temp or sea level rise is pretty tenuous

again i say all the above as a person who thinks gw is real and a concern
but facts is facts
they cannot be ignored just to fit the desired result

 

There is a huge difference between "when people began tracking sea level" and "when climate change became an issue." The fact is that global temperatures, and sea levels, were both rising long before climate change became an issue. What's nutty isn't that sea levels are rising. What's nutty is to believe that sea levels could rise without global warming. Water molecules do not just pop into existence out of nowhere.

Not really true. See the graph below.

Most of the warming goes into ocean heat content, not into the atmosphere. What ends up in the atmosphere is a tiny fraction, the tail of the dog. And there's a lot of variability in that tail. But if you allow for that and take a climatological timespan, rather than a meteorological timespan, temps and CO2 track very nicely. As the graph above shows.

So then, how do you propose that sea level rises without global warming? Bearing in mind that there is still such a thing as conservation of mass.

 

Oh that will be easy. Jesus was a commie.

 

PD
it is not my responsibility to explain sea level rise
or how it is or is not related to climate

the fact is that sea levels have risen for at least 200 years..,
actually global temps have risen also for at least 200 years... since the so called little ice age
and while your graph of co2 and temp looks compelling
the fact is that it is unlikely that there is more than a coincidental relationship in these variables before 1950 simply because the absolute change in co2 was so small this would be confirmed by any model of the impact of co2

actually the fact that you and others hold on to and promote these logically weak or even false arguments simply gives climate change skeptics good cause to entirely dismiss the issue by pointing out the obvious weaknesses

sorry

 

No, it's not your responsibility. Nor is it your responsibility to be logical, informed, scientific, or verifiable. You can be as loony as you please. But if you abrogate those responsibilities, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Including me.

So when we look at essentially these same data, plotted in another way, like this:



... your view is that this remarkable linearity is all just an incredible coincidence? After 257 years?

You should be.

 

Yesterday afternoon, the temp on my patio (Tucson AZ) was 94. Last year it was 96. We are entering a global cooling phase.

 

global warming is such a joke we only have like a million years before mankind co2 emissions are noticeable. 1 volcano puts out more c o 2 and greenhouse gases that mankind has in its existence

 

Could someone please provide the facts of how they directly observed and measured Co2 impact back in 1757 and who did it??

 

Peer-reviewed sources are given on the graph. Temperatures are taken from Anderson et al. 2013, which determined annual global temperatures back into the 18th century from 173 non-tree-ring proxies. More modern temperatures (since 1895) are taken from NASA-GISS. Global CO2 is taken from Keeling (the Mauna Loa data) from 1958, and from ice core records before then, after smoothing and interpolating. After that, it's just a matter of plotting temp vs. ln(CO2).

I would be happy to provide links to any of those data if you can't find them on your own.

 

You might want to check your math. All of the volcanoes in the world put out about 200 million tons of CO2 per year. Humans produce about 30 billion tons of CO2 per year. Last time I checked, a billion was bigger than a million.

 

You are right. Jokes on me....ha ha ha... I should have known that the left must have a link with an interpretation to provide their thoughts for them.
Silly me to think they could read a simple diagram.

 

easy enough to find, thank you

 

Keeling measured and plotted CO2 from 1958. What is your source for CO2 levels back to 1757, which is what the graph said it depicted?