October 2015 was the warmest month in recorded history

[OverVolt]

You may not have noticed, but the OP came with an image that included climate trends going back more than a century. It's part of a larger trend, oh ye of little thinking.

You may not have noticed but the Japan Meteorological Agency studies Meteorology not climate.

All of these "Record coldest day/month since XYZ" data sets are meteorological in nature and go back at most 200 years.

 

[cbrunny]

You may not have noticed but the Japan Meteorological Agency studies Meteorology not climate.

All of these "Record coldest day/month since XYZ" data sets are meteorological in nature and go back at most 200 years.

You are arguing semantics, and you're wrong. Two reasons to ignore you.

 

[OverVolt]

You are arguing semantics, and you're wrong. Two reasons to ignore you.

Record breaking day/months have nothing to do with climate change. You can believe what ever you want to believe. Its the same mechanism that has people believing dinosaurs roamed earth 5,000 years ago. Jumping to conclusions.

 

[fskimospy]

You may not have noticed but the Japan Meteorological Agency studies Meteorology not climate.

All of these "Record coldest day/month since XYZ" data sets are meteorological in nature and go back at most 200 years.

You may not have noticed, but JMA studies climate change as well:

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/cc.html

JMA contributes to the development of mitigation and adaptation measures related to climate change in various sectors through the provision of scientific information and expertise on climate change. For this purpose, JMA monitors and analyzes climatic conditions in Japan and around the world as well as greenhouse gas concentrations and global average surface temperatures.

lol. Speaking of room temperature IQs...

 

[OverVolt]

You may not have noticed, but JMA studies climate change as well:

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/cc.html



lol. Speaking of room temperature IQs...

And February is currently below trend. Who cares.

Why break the data set up by month, what purpose does that serve? There is no basis for that except appealing to emotion because we had a hot October.

Because of the ongoing very large El Nino, which is expected to extend well into 2016, 2016 is expected to carry on where 2015 leaves off, which will tilt that red line upward a bit.

Ah yes, excellent, from this point forward we will only measure climate change in October, because...

 

[Blackjack200]

By February, do you mean... November?

 

[shira]

Record breaking day/months have nothing to do with climate change. You can believe what ever you want to believe. Its the same mechanism that has people believing dinosaurs roamed earth 5,000 years ago. Jumping to conclusions.

The upward-sloping red line shown in the OP has everything to do with climate change. And when one strings together a succession of October average temperatures over a period of 125 years and places them on a chart, you get a red line that looks exactly like the one in the OP, because that's exactly what the chart in the OP is graphing.

When January 2016 sets a record and February 2016 sets a record and March 2016 sets a record . . . and 2016 as a whole sets a record, you'll keep croaking that "it's just one month" or "it's just one year." Like a frog sitting in a pot of water slowly coming to a boil.

 

[OverVolt]

The upward-sloping red line shown in the OP has everything to do with climate change. And when one strings together a succession of October average temperatures over a period of 125 years and places them on a chart, you get a red line that looks exactly like the one in the OP, because that's exactly what the chart in the OP is graphing.

When January 2016 sets a record and February 2016 sets a record and March 2016 sets a record . . . and 2016 as a whole sets a record, you'll keep croaking that "it's just one month" or "it's just one year." Like a frog sitting in a pot of water slowly coming to a boil.

And if you look at the below trend data from the 60's-70's its easy to see how they feared global cooling if you didn't know the future.

You guys should probably stick to CO2 levels where there is actually scientific evidence.

 

[cbrunny]

Climate change deniers are just like religious extremists and fanatic terrorists.

All appeals to common sense, good judgement, and scientific fact go right out the window, and they believe whatever their ideology tells them to.

 

[OverVolt]

Climate change deniers are just like religious extremists and fanatic terrorists.

All appeals to common sense, good judgement, and scientific fact go right out the window, and they believe whatever their ideology tells them to.

There is no scientific fact in the OP wrt to climate change. He is asking you guys to connect the dots all on your own. Those that do... well... you aren't thinking.

 

[cbrunny]

There is no scientific fact in the OP wrt to climate change. He is asking you guys to connect the dots all on your own. Those that do... well... you aren't thinking.

Think you got it wrong, bud. If you can't tell that up means higher, I feel bad for you son. I pity your ignorance.

 

[fskimospy]

And if you look at the below trend data from the 60's-70's its easy to see how they feared global cooling if you didn't know the future.

You guys should probably stick to CO2 levels where there is actually scientific evidence.

'They' (meaning scientists) didn't fear global cooling in the 1960's and 1970's; a majority of scientists predicted future warming at that time as well.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

lol.

 

[OverVolt]

Think you got it wrong, bud. If you can't tell that up means higher, I feel bad for you son. I pity your ignorance.

So did lower mean cooling in the 70's if you focus on the last 20-30 years in that time? Its never that simple. If I were alive in the 70's I'd be arguing against global cooling.

This data set isn't all that significant. Neither is the latest October.

The trend in the 70's only became obvious as an anomaly decades later. 2015's data is no different. The data is only good in hindsight. 30 years from now we'll understand where October 2015 fits into things. Oh wowzor.

 

[cbrunny]

So did lower mean cooling in the 70's if you focus on the last 20-30 years in that time? Its never that simple. If I were alive in the 70's I'd be arguing against global cooling.

This data set isn't all that significant. Neither is the latest October.

The trend in the 70's only became obvious as an anomaly decades later. 2015's data is no different. The data is only good in hindsight. 30 years from now we'll understand where October 2015 fits into things. Oh wowzor.

You really don't get it? This is actually not an act? Man I was trying to be a bit tongue-in-cheek a few posts above about climate change deniers being like terrorists but I guess I'm not wrong.

 

[OverVolt]

'They' (meaning scientists) didn't fear global cooling in the 1960's and 1970's; a majority of scientists predicted future warming at that time as well.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1



lol.

Right well I don't buy into the 1970's global cooling myth either, but it was a part of popular science magazines and such. Which should tell you what a shit show it is when science goes political. Its only so obvious with decades of hindsight.

 

[OverVolt]

You really don't get it? This is actually not an act? Man I was trying to be a bit tongue-in-cheek a few posts above about climate change deniers being like terrorists but I guess I'm not wrong.

You guys really suffer from jumping to conclusions, like so bad. How much coffee are you guys drinking?

I'm not a climate change denier. You just have no scientific basis to connect the dots like the OP wants you to do. In the big picture October 2015 is fairly insignificant.

 

[Greenman]

And February is currently below trend. Who cares.

Why break the data set up by month, what purpose does that serve? There is no basis for that except appealing to emotion because we had a hot October.



Ah yes, excellent, from this point forward we will only measure climate change in October, because...

So it's about a degree over 125 years, assuming they could measure temperature as accurately in 1890 as they can today. How does that compare to the 200 years prior to 1890?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Not sure if sarcasm.

But why do people care about global warming?

What do people want to see done about it? And explain how that outcome is net positive?

But why do people care about global warming? Most people with a brain, and a life do not.
What do people want to see done about it? *THEY* want your money, and control over your life.
And explain how that outcome is net positive? Have you seen Al Gores' house, and bank account?
War on poverty, you lose
War on drugs, you lose
War on terror, you lose
War on global warming, you lose

 

[Paratus]

That's the entire point. Why should we follow one metric or the other?
Everyone opposing you believes the Satellite data is the equal or better method for measuring global temp.

Then to correlate with the pause we have NCEP data, of which weather models use to produce their forecasts. And the entire point is the Satellite and others show a game-change as soon as the Pacific had its phase change redirecting its heat away from the coasts. And granted, ever since 2011 the "Blob" has been spoiling things, but once this El Ninio and La Nina finish the overall trend will become quite clear... on the datasets we trust.

We discard Surface Station, a spotty record that is ever-adjusted to cool the past and warm the present with infilled data based on bad or missing records. A record contaminated by up to 9F UHI.

I mean, our heat generation alone alters records by up to 9F and you think the Station record is perfectly accurate by hundreds (0.01) of a degree. Across the entire globe, for the past 150 years. Nope. That's just not possible with our methods, or lack thereof.

The other datasets are viewed as modern, global, and are showing a different result. If they continue to match the theory and show little to no warming, then its an issue the IPCC and other scientific organizations must address. If Satellite really isn't a global temp - then they need a great big explanation why we should be ignoring it over the Surface Station data.

Paratus has recently made such an argument, but he reaches a limited audience and is just one person. It would be more convincing if there was a scientific consensus on the argument of datasets.

This is a continuing misunderstanding on your part of both the data and my argument.

First by definition, a measurement of the global lower troposphere does not include the global mid troposohere, lower stratosphere, upper stratosphere, global ground temperatures, and global ocean temperatures. It's therefore not the global temperature at best it's a proxy.

Second unless you have a model that shows why it should be the proxy for global temperatures you can't even use it as that.

Third to actually understand what the globe is doing you have to include ALL the temperatures I listed above. Because the satellite record DOES NOT CONFLICT with the ground record. All the data has to be integrated by a model or you are just cherry picking.

Starting the graph at the end of the Little Ice Age isn't biased at all.

Do we want to go back to when sea ice encased all the ports of northern Europe every winter, glaciers swallowed villages, and we had frequent crop failures from the cold?

If not, exactly what year had the ideal global average temperature that we're shooting for?

How about roughly the mid-late twentieth century.

And before that it was cold dust.
I was thinking more along the lines of history since life was firmly entrenched. I understand why the alarmists use such a tiny sample of data, it's all they really have that can be considered accurate, even though it's been manipulated, and it makes the graphs look great. But the body of available data goes back many millions of years beyond that, though it isn't as accurate. Including that data would make the current weather changes appear insignificant, that doesn't fit the accepted outcome, so it's not used.
Right now it appears as though we may have a problem, it could be a serious life threatening global issue, or it could be chicken little syndrome.
Personally, I don't really care if it's a real problem or not because solving it will solve a whole bunch of other issues that need to be addressed. As long as the solution doesn't involve making Al Gore rich.

I can understand why the deniers want to use the entire history of the earth to justify why it's not a problem right now. The Earth will be just fine, just as it was in the past when it was even warmer.

Of course this misses the actual point in that our civilization wasn't around when it was warmer and it will cost us to make sure it stays around as we warm now. But I can understand why you avoid that point.

 

[Paratus]

So did lower mean cooling in the 70's if you focus on the last 20-30 years in that time? Its never that simple. If I were alive in the 70's I'd be arguing against global cooling.

This data set isn't all that significant. Neither is the latest October.

The trend in the 70's only became obvious as an anomaly decades later. 2015's data is no different. The data is only good in hindsight. 30 years from now we'll understand where October 2015 fits into things. Oh wowzor.

Right well I don't buy into the 1970's global cooling myth either, but it was a part of popular science magazines and such. Which should tell you what a shit show it is when science goes political. Its only so obvious with decades of hindsight.

You guys really suffer from jumping to conclusions, like so bad. How much coffee are you guys drinking?

I'm not a climate change denier. You just have no scientific basis to connect the dots like the OP wants you to do. In the big picture October 2015 is fairly insignificant.

Wow you really buckshot all over this thread.

 

[DrPizza]

You guys really suffer from jumping to conclusions, like so bad. How much coffee are you guys drinking?

I'm not a climate change denier. You just have no scientific basis to connect the dots like the OP wants you to do. In the big picture October 2015 is fairly insignificant.

Wouldn't a measurement from space that measures the rate of insolation (with an o, not a u - not the pink stuff in walls and attics) and the rate of radiation be able to determine if the Earth is warming? If the Earth is receiving more energy than it radiates, then by conservation of energy, it's warming. The October data is merely evidence this simple understanding of basic physics is correct. In other words, that's the basis to connect the dots.

 

[OverVolt]

Wouldn't a measurement from space that measures the rate of insolation (with an o, not a u - not the pink stuff in walls and attics) and the rate of radiation be able to determine if the Earth is warming? If the Earth is receiving more energy than it radiates, then by conservation of energy, it's warming. The October data is merely evidence this simple understanding of basic physics is correct. In other words, that's the basis to connect the dots.

Yes, no, no.



Look how messy the individual data points are in the climate data for any time period. Its irrelevant. It could crater next year just like it did in the mid 60's. This would seem likely considering all the El nino stuff.

 

[Paratus]

Wouldn't a measurement from space that measures the rate of insolation (with an o, not a u - not the pink stuff in walls and attics) and the rate of radiation be able to determine if the Earth is warming? If the Earth is receiving more energy than it radiates, then by conservation of energy, it's warming. The October data is merely evidence this simple understanding of basic physics is correct. In other words, that's the basis to connect the dots.

Yup. That's what NASA and others proved over a decade ago.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html

Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy Is Out of Balance04.28.05

Scientists have concluded more energy is being absorbed from the sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth's energy "out of balance" and warming the globe.

Scientists from NASA, Columbia University, New York, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. used satellites, data from buoys and computer models to study the Earth's oceans. They confirmed the energy imbalance by using precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.

....

It's really strange how many people think conservation of energy isn't a real thing.

 

[dank69]

Yes, no, no.



Look how messy the individual data points are in the climate data for any time period. Its irrelevant. It could crater next year just like it did in the mid 60's. This would seem likely considering all the El nino stuff.

So rather than admit you are wrong you are going to claim the earth doesn't obey the laws of physics.

 

[Jaskalas]

Third to actually understand what the globe is doing you have to include ALL the temperatures I listed above. Because the satellite record DOES NOT CONFLICT with the ground record. All the data has to be integrated by a model or you are just cherry picking.

And you continue to misunderstand. Your last post on that subject was already highly convincing. However, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who opposes you on a scientific basis is doing so with the "knowledge" that Satellite data is a modern (better) replacement of Surface Station data. Without the holes and indefinite upward adjustments.

Read it again.
If your argument was to be widely held and distributed, that Satellite data IS NOT A REPLACEMENT - then that would single handedly end everything. Game over, go home. Eat some carbon credits.

Until then, we continue to watch Satellite data follow the expected trend from an ocean cycle theory. The pause exists solely on that reason. And so too does our opposition.

Moreover, Satellite and NCEP must continue to follow the expected patterns. If they don't then the theory is proven wrong. And in a few years many of us would resign our opposition. That's aside from the fact that you have a means of ending it altogether.