[stratos]

Same to you DrCaleb.

[Zipperfish]

This is interesting because this wasn't really an El Nino year. El Nino is actually not an event as much as it is a continuum adn there were indications of a weak El Nino (based on sea state temps in the Pacific) but it wasn't very significant.

So what is significant about 2014 being so warm is the fact that it was an ENSO neutral year (whereas previous record breakers in 1998 and 2010 were moderate to strong El Nino years). It may be partially due to what appears to be a positive PDO year though. If we are moving to a positive PDO phase we should expect warmer temps for teh next few years.

The difference between the Satellite readings and the surface measurement record is interesting though. Although to be clear all data sets show a distinct warming trend, adn the argument over which year is the warmest isn't that signifcant with respect to AGW. The significant aspect is the warming trend.

Warming continues, although not at the rate forecast by the IPCC (though still, for the most part, within a couple of standard deviations).

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Don't play his game! He tries to deride the messenger, thinking it disproves the message.

No I don't. I respond to an argument in kind. If somebody doesn't want his heroes flaws pointed out he doesn't want to go all ad hod on my references. Because let's be honest, your guys don't hold up so well to scrutiny themselves.

Watch I'll show you. Here's something from an Astrophysicist. Dis him as not being a "climate scientist", and I'll point out that James Hansen, the predecessor of the hero of the CBC article was an astrophysicist. He invented the temperature manipulation techniques GISS uses.

$1:

Dr David Whitehouse, the GWPF's Science Editor, comments on the latest set of 2014 global temperature data and misleading claims:

The addition of 2014 global temperature data confirms that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued for one more year making it now about 17 years in duration.

More at link

[Regina]

Shit I thought all Astrophysicist cards had been played. You win...deal again.

[N_Fiddledog]

No problem.

$1:

According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record “beating” 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.

In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless.

Interestingly the December 2013-November 2014 NasaGiss figure was not the highest meaning that the “record” for 2014 merely depended on if December 2014 was warmer than December 2013. The warm year that was 2014 has been attributed to exceptionally conditions in the north-east Pacific, that is not directly due to “global warming.”

The BEST reanalysis consortium have also reported their findings which are similar and their interpretation is in stark contrast to Nasa’s: “The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.”

The only conclusion to be drawn from the addition of 2014 data is that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued for one more year making it now about 17 years in duration. This is the opposite of what is claimed in the Nasa press release.

It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions.

http://www.thegwpf.com/2014-global-temp ... ther-year/

.02 of a degree. That's just 2 one hundredth's of a degree some of you want to dance in the streets over.

Even if you believe it, I mean, sheesh....

[Regina]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

More at link[/quote]
If Target had a sales chart like that, they'd still be in Canada.

[Zipperfish]

The denial blogosphere is in full spin mode today!

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The denial blogosphere is in full spin mode today!

Tell me again how it's us who relies on ad hominem.

But what the Hell, if you want to start it, of course, I'll play.

So you guys are out today chanting to the faithful about your 2/100s of a degree are you? Do you get black robes?

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Well dog, it is just a blog, I wonder how a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal would do if subtitled
"Our stringy Universe from a conservative viewpoint"

It is just a blog I guess. And have a nice day.

It is just a blog and only one of the four references mentioned - the other three being scientists.

Again though...if we're going to lasso ad hominems out of groups let's discuss Gavin Schmidt some more.

Don't like blogs, eh? Did you know Schmidt runs one? Some of us wonder where he gets the time to work on GISS temps. He always seems to be on his blog.

He does run one though, and at one time he got into trouble at NASA, because he was linking to it from the official NASA site as a scientific reference. He's not allowed to do that (not that he or his predecessor, James Hansen, ever cared much about NASA rules).

So I quoted a blogger, but so did your vaunted CBC.

BTW let's not get overly impressed with NASA GISS. Ever seen this...



It's the restaurant where Jerry Seinfeld and his buddies hang out. In real life NASA/GISS is on the floor above it. It's no big whoop.

I make a statement indicating I find a blog, subtitled "our stringy universe from a conservative viewpoint" to be an odd place for information on anything other than one guy's opinion and you go all fiddledog on me? Oh wait!

Get over yourself!

Oh, is the food any good there? That would determine, To a certain extent, if the guys upstairs eat there. Otherwise it's irrelevent!

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I make a statement indicating I find a blog, subtitled "our stringy universe from a conservative viewpoint" to be an odd place for information on anything other than one guy's opinion and you go all fiddledog on me?

Stop your whining. Don't start it and I won't have to finish it. It's as simple as that.

[bootlegga]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Are we going to have another 10 page circle-jerk where non of you change your opinion and argue about the same shit you have over the last 5 years non-stop?

Yes, and in the spirit of childishness in which it began, "They started it".

Says the guy who has been postng news article on 'weather' and insinuating that a cold winter means climate change is a hoax...

[bootlegga]

Regina Regina:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Regina Regina:

I didn't trot anybody out at all, you did.......then admitted that you have no clue what makes him an expert. Why not just say: Them, there guys over there said......

No, I gave you two scientists. Bart just gave you a third. I also gave you a guy who writes on the subject whose credentials I don't know.

Very well, if credentials matter, CBC's hero who's pushing this "warmest year" thing (cause with all his data massaging he's able to get it a few hundredths of a degree warmer than last year) is little more than a computer guy. Most likely he couldn't get a job with Nintendo, so he landed in the climate biz.

And Dessler is wrong. The climate pause still stands, even with the computer boob's hundredth's of a degree rise.

Forgive me if I've given the impression that I give a rats ass what any of them say or what makes them an expert, because I don't. To me if I wanted to research the "Climate" I would look at what is written by "Climate Scientists" since Climate science is the study of average conditions over some time period, whereas meteorology is the study of actual events. Therefore the extended freezing of my ass last winter means nothing to the larger picture and was a local or regional weather event.
Again if I cared enough I would start with a list of real Climate Scientists and read what they have scientifically published and decide from there. You on the other hand quantified your understanding of the science then produced a witness that endorses your agenda or preconceived verdict of the matter. I just thought that was really funny considering the seriousness of the topic.

Wiki has a list of "Climate Scientist" (that I have not looked at) although I'm not sure YouTube lists them like that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The denial blogosphere is in full spin mode today!

Tell me again how it's us who relies on ad hominem.

But what the Hell, if you want to start it, of course, I'll play.

So you guys are out today chanting to the faithful about your 2/100s of a degree are you? Do you get black robes?

I don't think that's an ad hominem, myself. Just an observation checking on the various websites.

[Regina]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So you guys are out today chanting to the faithful about your 2/100s of a degree are you? Do you get black robes?

Hey don't lump me in with that. I'm just making fun of the fact you're posting scientific information that you have absolutely no comprehension of, and admit it.

[BartSimpson]

The debate is over and the science doesn't matter. This is because I have a chart that absolutely PROVES global warming is for real! And as the old saying goes; We have charts and graphs so f**k you!

0:

File comment: chart

AGW.PNG [ 12.34 KiB | Viewed 214 times ]

See how the lines go up on the right? That proves it so everyone shut up now!