NOAA: Globe sets 5th hottest-month record of 2014

NOAA: Globe sets fifth hottest-month record of 2014
Credit: NOAA

Despite a bitter U.S. cold snap, the globe is rushing hell-bent toward its warmest year on record with last month setting the fifth monthly heat record of the year.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday that last month was the hottest October on record worldwide. The 58.43 degrees Fahrenheit (14.74 Celsius) beat out October 2003.

"It is becoming pretty clear that 2014 will end up as the warmest year on record," said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina. "The remaining question is: How much?"

With only two months left in the year, 2014 has now surged ahead as the globe's warmest year so far, beating 2010 and 1998. So far this year, the world is averaging 58.62 degrees (14.78 degrees Celsius). If the last two months of the year are only average for the 21st century, it will still be the warmest year ever, Arndt said.

He said this year's heat is what scientists expect from man-made global warming. Scientists say the burning of coal, oil and gas traps heats, changing the climate.

This heat is being driven by incredible warmth in the world's oceans, Arndt said. The six warmest months on record for the world ocean temperatures have been the last six months. Because oceans are big and slow to change that makes it more likely the world will set a yearly temperature record, he said.

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann said in an email he hopes the new data will put to rest "the silly ongoing claims that global warming has 'stopped' or that there is a 'hiatus' in global warming."

NOAA: Globe sets 5th hottest-month record of 2014
In this June 7, 2014 file photo, an Indian commuter splashes water from a pipe onto his face to get respite from the heat at the railway station in Allahabad, India. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014, that last month was the hottest October on record worldwide, setting the fifth monthly heat record of year. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh, File)

The world is approaching the warmest year "in spite of the U.S. being pretty cold," Arndt said. That's because the United States is only 2 percent of the world's area and the part that's unusually cold is about 1.5 percent of the entire globe, he said.

It has been so hot in California that there is no way the year will end up not breaking the record for heat in the state, said NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch.

This year October, September, August, June and May—five of the last six months—set global monthly heat records. April 2014 was the second hottest on record. January, March and July were fourth. February was the 21st warmest.

NASA, Japan's weather agency and the University of Alabama Huntsville satellite measuring system—which climate skeptics usually use—also called it the hottest October on record.

The globe has broken 37 monthly high temperature records since January 1997, including five this year, according to NOAA. The last cold monthly temperature record broken was in December 1916.

Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said the issue isn't so much about record highs, but trends over multiple decades. Seeing the 38th consecutive October that is warmer than the 20th century average "is climate change, and we are seeing it in spades." It is also the 356th month in a row the world's temperature has been warmer than the 20th century average.


Explore further

World breaks monthly heat record two times in a row (Update)

More information: NOAA: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/10

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: NOAA: Globe sets 5th hottest-month record of 2014 (2014, November 20) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-11-noaa-globe-hottest-month.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 20, 2014
"Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said the issue isn't so much about record highs, but trends over multiple decades. Seeing the 38th consecutive October that is warmer than the 20th century average "is climate change, and we are seeing it in spades." It is also the 356th month in a row the world's temperature has been warmer than the 20th century average."

Why do people still try to deny it is happening? Why do they not get out of the way of those who want to save the Earth for our kids and grandkids?

Nov 20, 2014
"38th consecutive October" is not a very accurate measure how fast warming is happening. If you insist on that kind of metrics, please lookup when each individual continent broke temperature record.

I doubt anybody with goal "to save the Earth for our kids" achieved anything worth mentioning. And I'm certain you know plenty of selfish pricks whose inventions changed the world.

Nov 20, 2014
"I doubt anybody with goal "to save the Earth for our kids" achieved anything worth mentioning."

You have revealed more about yourself than my achievements.


Nov 20, 2014
It is supposed to be getting warmer every year. That is what happens when you are coming out of an ice age!

Nov 20, 2014
Apparently Tegiri doesn't have any kids.

Nov 20, 2014
It is a fact, Global Warming is man-made.
http://www.telegr...ata.html

Nov 20, 2014
"Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said the issue isn't so much about record highs, but trends over multiple decades. Seeing the 38th consecutive October that is warmer than the 20th century average "is climate change, and we are seeing it in spades." It is also the 356th month in a row the world's temperature has been warmer than the 20th century average."

Why do people still try to deny it is happening? Why do they not get out of the way of those who want to save the Earth for our kids and grandkids?

What is happening??? Nothing that is unusual so get over reality!

Nov 20, 2014
"What is happening??"
------------------------------------

Is that supposed to be a joke? If you were informed, it would have to be.

Nov 20, 2014
It is also the 356th month in a row the world's temperature has been warmer than the 20th century average.
Interesting to note that the 356 months just "happens" to coincide quite closely with all the satellite data available. So, without satellite data, what data is the "20th century average" based on?

Nov 20, 2014
And still it keeps getting hotter, while the deniers keep denying.

So much for the "global warming hiatus" or whatever. Looks like it was another fairy tale.

Yes, deniers, energy really is conserved, and doesn't just disappear into nothing. Who knew.

Idiots.

Nov 20, 2014
Look it up, Dusty, then you can tell all of us, instead of implying something.

Nov 21, 2014
NOAA: Globe sets 5th hottest-month record of 2014
What a bunch of B.S.. Again, the NOAA proclaims such and such is the hottest ever, in complete disagreement with every other major temperature data set. Why is this? Are all the others wrong, or would the more likely scenario be the NOAA data set is faulty?

http://woodfortre.../mean:12


Nov 21, 2014
"Again, the NOAA proclaims such and such is the hottest ever, in complete disagreement with every other major temperature data set. Why is this? Are all the others wrong, or would the more likely scenario be the NOAA data set is faulty?"

The short answer is that the NOAA data set is what they currently use. Is the NOAA data set faulty? Likely. Due to coverage problems, the NOAA data set runs cooler than many other data sets. But that's not the answer you wanted, was it?

You linked to the satellite RSS data set. However, as satellites don't measure the surface temperature, why wouldn't you choose direct measurements? The models that satellites use to convert light measurements into temperature have been shown over and over to run cooler than reality. A recent study found errors in how satellites handle clouds (which makes the satellites read cooler temperatures that reality). Models can be useful, but if I have a choice, I'll go with direct measurement.


Nov 21, 2014
Tell the tuba to look up the ten hottest years in history and report back to us.

And who would name his avatar after his digestive system?

Nov 21, 2014
It is supposed to be getting warmer every year. That is what happens when you are coming out of an ice age!

Mr jwb
Epic fail... the above is actually what happens when you don't know what you're talking about.
The Earth was cooling since the end of the HCO .... until mankind started burning carbon.
For yourself and other climate warming deniers with ZERO knowledge of same, look up the Milankovitch cycles and for your delectation looky here....

http://tamino.fil...full.jpg

FFS give me strength

Nov 21, 2014
I think I'll just bookmark that item, runrig. Thanks!

Nov 21, 2014
I think I'll just bookmark that item, runrig. Thanks!


My pleasure .....

That graph shows it's obviously a "natural" climate cycle eh?

Nov 21, 2014
"Have any of you folks considered how much money it will take to save the Earth? We can't afford to do it."

This seems to be the real opposition to it.

Nov 22, 2014
The short answer is that the NOAA data set is what they currently use. Is the NOAA data set faulty? Likely. Due to coverage problems, the NOAA data set runs cooler than many other data sets.
It's nice to see even an AGWite can see problems with these ridiculous claims from the NOAA.

You linked to the satellite RSS data set. However, as satellites don't measure the surface temperature, why wouldn't you choose direct measurements? The models that satellites use to convert light measurements into temperature have been shown over and over to run cooler than reality. A recent study found errors in how satellites handle clouds (which makes the satellites read cooler temperatures that reality).
The temperatures it shows vs. real temperatures is irrelevant, as long as it is consistent. It is the changes over time that matter.


Nov 22, 2014
Models can be useful, but if I have a choice, I'll go with direct measurement.
Sure, direct measurements would be useful, if you could find a data set which isn't artificially manipulated.

But given that they are manipulated, they still generally show an extended pause:

http://woodfortre.../mean:12

"A number of corrections have been made to the station data that are used to produce CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3."

http://hadobs.met...adcrut3/


Nov 22, 2014
Still no evidence of it being caused by CO2 though...

Nov 22, 2014
""Models can be useful, but if I have a choice, I'll go with direct measurement."
Sure, direct measurements would be useful, if you could find a data set which isn't artificially manipulated."

Given that all raw data must be manipulated in some way, this isn't a reason, by itself, to claim there are any problems with the data. Even the fake skeptics admit to that, as Anthony Watts found out recently. The changes that need to be made are well known and no one has found any significant problems with them.

"But given that they are manipulated, they still generally show an extended pause:"

Keep in mind that the "pause" is only seen in surface temperatures. The evidence is clear that the earth, as a whole, continues to warm and that the "pause" is caused by internal variability of the climate. That internal variability will average out in the long term and the "pause" will end - as it has every other time there's been a "pause".

Nov 22, 2014
"Still no evidence of it being caused by CO2 though..."

Except for all the overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by CO2. ;) (http://www.skepti...nced.htm )


Nov 22, 2014
Still no evidence of it being caused by CO2 though...
@joedipsh*t
you keep saying that but you still haven't produced any credible evidence that refutes the links i showed you proving you are wrong

http://www.scienc...abstract

i guess that means you are illiterate
and stupid


Nov 22, 2014
All of you:
What has happened to this forum? What is the reason for such personal attacks?

I came on this thread because I have direct experience and education in the fields. When I try to explain, you folk turn my statements to personal attacks. I exposed myself to you and you folk could not respond without offense.

This has become a Clown Caucus of lurkers, ready with their "ones", as if it meant anything, but without the character to debate the facts or ideas or opinions. Gutless snipers.
If you want to debate the issues, let's go.

Stop the adolescent character assassination,if you want to be taken seriously.


Nov 22, 2014
All of you:
What has happened to this forum? What is the reason for such personal attacks?

I came on this thread because I have direct experience and education in the fields. When I try to explain, you folk turn my statements to personal attacks. I exposed myself to you and you folk could not respond without offense.

This has become a Clown Caucus of lurkers, ready with their "ones", as if it meant anything, but without the character to debate the facts or ideas or opinions. Gutless snipers.
If you want to debate the issues, let's go.

Stop the adolescent character assassination,if you want to be taken seriously.


gkam:
I can't see any personal attacks on you.
Oh ............
Must be because I am ignoring certain, err, "posters".
Bliss.
And no, not ignorance, as it requires a dialogue, on this a science site, of well, science.
You don't get it and they certainly "don't get it" (and they don't want to) - from the "posters" I talk of.


Nov 22, 2014
runrig. It took me a while to catch on. Thanks for all YOUR posts.

Nov 22, 2014
runrig. It took me a while to catch on. Thanks for all YOUR posts.

Don't worry .... I stuck at it until well beyond it was obvious that I was banging my head against the proverbial. Just because ignorance should not be allowed to be even voiced never mind win.
The mere act of seeing it writ large on here was enough for me to have to respond.

And now? well I can choose to ignore those "posters", by not even seeing their lies/regurgitated myths and ideologically driven ignorance and concentrate on the ones who show a flicker of recognition, or who a least bugger off and leave their spittle on some other website.
Oh, and I like the fact that this post will piss them off and if they respond I wont see. haha

Nov 22, 2014
What has happened to this forum?
Noob, youve only been here since Sept 6 2014. Unless youre just the latest iteration of some perennial crank that is.
I came on this thread because I have direct experience and education in the fields
Well claiming to have and actually having are not the same, are they?
If you want to debate the issues, let's go
Many have debated with you. You lied. You ignored facts and refused to admit you were wrong.

How are decent discussions possible with people who lie about who they are and what theyve done, as evidence that they know what theyre talking about?

Nobody here argues from authority. The fact that you try to do this, relentlessly, by lying about your backround, and further by posting easily-discredited facts in the context of your fake backround, means that you are incapable of decent discussion.

The fact that you post every 5 minutes or so, continuously, all day, every day, means that you are deranged.

Nov 22, 2014
Do these folk think we cannot measure temperature? In the early 1970's, I got my first new product for which to develop build and make work a test system to electronically measure several hundred parameters at least twice in manufacture. It was the only LM555 in existence, and a prototype program.

We had new cables made from tester to handler/prober because if the differences between cables and wires within the cables in the speed of the signal in the wires. It was not due to the differences in length, but in impedance at a broad range frequencies: The wires were all shielded and took time to charge the capacitance between wire and shield. The program was tightened up to remove excess microseconds.

BTW, how does one send a signal down a wire (at any frequency) and be absolutely sure it is the same when it gets there? We had to do it, using operational amplifiers and kelvin circuits.

Nov 22, 2014
@uba

Sure, direct measurements would be useful, if you could find a data set which isn't artificially manipulated.


That's your whole argument isn't it; you're right because everybody else is lying.

Nov 22, 2014
@uba

Sure, direct measurements would be useful, if you could find a data set which isn't artificially manipulated.


That's your whole argument isn't it; you're right because everybody else is lying.


Whole and only argument. Ubamoran likes to put up graphs he has purposefully manipulated and then present this cherry-picked data as having some meaning. Funny thing is, he doesn't even understand what he is actually showing.

Uba no longer tries to link to cites either. That is because he has been shown over and over again that he does not comprehend what is being said in the cites he uses.

Oh, and uba "purposefully manipulated" means you are lying. I know you need big words explained to you.

Nov 22, 2014
Do these folk think we cannot measure temperature? In the early 1970's, I got my first new product for which to develop build and make work a test system to electronically measure several hundred parameters at least twice in manufacture. It was the only LM555 in existence, and a prototype program
Was this before or after you test flew the SR71? And test drove your own nuclear power plant?

Nov 22, 2014
Unable to read the posts of otto, I can only assume he is responding to my query of how to maintain signal strength and fidelity at distance, through the impedances of the circuit?

Nov 22, 2014
Unable to read the posts of otto, I can only assume he is responding to my query of how to maintain signal strength and fidelity at distance, through the impedances of the circuit?
You even lie about not reading my posts. Who do you think youre fooling?
https://www.youtu..._3zBUKM8

Nov 22, 2014
NOAA: Globe sets 5th hottest-month record of 2014
What a bunch of B.S.. Again, the NOAA proclaims such and such is the hottest ever, in complete disagreement with every other major temperature data set. Why is this? Are all the others wrong, or would the more likely scenario be the NOAA data set is faulty?

http://woodfortre.../mean:12


ubyMORON:

Please, show us these other other datasets that do --month to month-- contradict NOAA's. We note that all of the other sets are manipulated in the same ways, for the same reasons, as NOAA's, including your volunteer-site Woodfortrees page's graphics, which includes the now famous caveat:

"Beware sharp tools[...]However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends...."

Which you famously ignore.

Nov 22, 2014
Hey Otto, I see you are gleefully attacking gkam (who may or may not deserve it, I haven't been following) yet there is a charlatan posting on another thread you've posted to who would prima facie seem to be the exact person you claim to be set against - yet you say nothing to him. He is clearly a creationist pseudoscienctist promoting love potions while loudly decrying actual science, and denigrating anyone who dares to question his god-inspired omnipotence. Yet here you are, attacking gkam. What gives?

Nov 22, 2014
Oh, and I like the fact that this post will piss them off and if they respond I wont see. haha
Har har classic, I'm with you on this one!!!

Nov 22, 2014
Oh, and I like the fact that this post will piss them off and if they respond I wont see. haha

It's no wonder you can't see the deceit of your AGW Cult. This is exactly where they want you Chicken Littles, blind, so that when they hit you that final blow to the head, you'll believe that was the sky falling.

Nov 22, 2014
Magg, I used my 70 years of life and technical experience as background and credibility, and the character assassins turned into personal attacks. Having floated around in different industries and endeavors gave me sufficient knowledge and experience in certain fields. The folk here want to think I am an imposter, perhaps because they would lie, I do not know.

But, I really did work on experimental aircraft at the Air Force Flight Test Center, did help put together, test, deploy, and operate the Electronic Battlefield. I really was an Industrial Electrician and Beam Tech on 500 kV to 3 MeV electron beams and continuous wave infrared industrial lasers. I was an Electronics Test Engineer for National, ran a plastics company in Illinois, became Plant Engineer of a large iron foundry, did research for governmental agencies, and was Senior Engineer for PG&E in Technical Services. I guess the other folks here stayed in the same rut all their lives.

Nov 22, 2014
I want them to ask me questions regarding crediblity that do not require my identity. I do not trust them with my name: Were there really rocket-powered airplanes that were not "X:" planes? What happened the first time man went hypersonic? How did the Electronic Battlefield Work? What kinds of equipment did you have? Specifics only insiders would know.

That kind of stuff. And it is to get them off my back, and teach them that other opinions may be based on things other than political prejudice.

Nov 22, 2014
gkam I wouldn't take the attention from Otto too personally. He goes off on rants occasionally, seems to think that because he can type words into a search engine that he has the inside track on knowledge.

On the whole though, he makes some good points. He just seems to enjoy creating, and then jumping into, an arena with people. With Otto it seems to be more about the chest pounding than the substance when that happens.

See Otto, I defended you!! :p

Nov 23, 2014
@SteveS
That's your whole argument isn't it; you're right because everybody else is lying.
So personal attacks are still all you have? Where is the science?


Nov 23, 2014
All of you:
What has happened to this forum? What is the reason for such personal attacks?

I came on this thread because I have direct experience and education in the fields. When I try to explain, you folk turn my statements to personal attacks. I exposed myself to you and you folk could not respond without offense.

This has become a Clown Caucus of lurkers, ready with their "ones", as if it meant anything, but without the character to debate the facts or ideas or opinions. Gutless snipers.
If you want to debate the issues, let's go.

Stop the adolescent character assassination,if you want to be taken seriously.
What are you talking about? You're an instigator. Personal attacks are practically your forte'


Nov 23, 2014
@uba

@SteveS
That's your whole argument isn't it; you're right because everybody else is lying.
So personal attacks are still all you have? Where is the science?


I tried to discuss the science with you here

Jul 07, 2013
http://phys.org/n...end.html

but you just resorted to childish name calling.

SteveS = liar.


How could I compete with such erudite reasoning?

Nov 23, 2014
Given that all raw data must be manipulated in some way, this isn't a reason, by itself, to claim there are any problems with the data.
B.S. Why "must" the raw data be manipulated? It isn't science when we use our own biases to adjust empirical data to be what we think it should be.
Even the fake skeptics admit to that, as Anthony Watts found out recently.
Not that I subscribe to Watts, but do you have a reference?

The changes that need to be made are well known and no one has found any significant problems with them.
B.S. As you admitted to yourself, the NOAA appears to have a problem.

Keep in mind that the "pause" is only seen in surface temperatures.
By definition, this is all that matters.

The evidence is clear that the earth, as a whole, continues to warm and that the "pause" is caused by internal variability of the climate.
What evidence?

Nov 23, 2014
@uba

@SteveS
That's your whole argument isn't it; you're right because everybody else is lying.
So personal attacks are still all you have? Where is the science?


I tried to discuss the science with you here

Jul 07, 2013
http://phys.org/n...end.html

but you just resorted to childish name calling.

SteveS = liar.


How could I compete with such erudite reasoning?
How could you be so dishonest? I clearly caught you trying to hide the current trend, and you simply lied about it.

So lying AND personal attacks are all you have left? Where is the science?


Nov 23, 2014
@uba
How could you be so dishonest? I clearly caught you trying to hide the current trend, and you simply lied about it.

Go back and read the thread, I simply expanded your woodfortrees graph to show the long term trend. You didn't like what it showed so you called me a liar.

So lying AND personal attacks are all you have left? Where is the science?


What personal attacks? I always address your reasoning, not you.

In just the last two posts you have accused me of being malicious and dishonest, are personal attacks all you have left?


Nov 23, 2014
@Maggnus
Uba likes to put up graphs he has purposefully manipulated and then present this cherry-picked data as having some meaning.
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the data I present.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

But of course you will continue to deny and denounce the empirical data.
Too bad for you...

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

Nov 23, 2014
@SteveS
Go back and read the thread, I simply expanded your woodfortrees graph to show the long term trend. You didn't like what it showed so you called me a liar.
This is another lie. My very first post there states:

"Technically, this article is correct in stating the 2001-2010 decade is warmer than previous decades, but the headline is poorly written and misleading."

And I subsequently wrote:

"I've readily admitted there's been warming in the past. When are you going to step up and admit there's been no additional warming for at least a dozen years?"

What personal attacks? I always address your reasoning, not you.
And there again, is a personal attack.

In just the last two posts you have accused me of being malicious and dishonest,
Because you are.

are personal attacks all you have left?
Hardly. But is seems they are all YOU can muster.


Nov 23, 2014
@uba
This is another lie. My very first post there states:….


I had no issue with your first post I was referring to this link you posted on July 5th, 2013
http://www.woodfo....4/trend
In response to which I posted this expanded version to highlight "the fallacy of incomplete evidence"
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.4
Me:
What personal attacks? I always address your reasoning, not you.

You:
And there again, is a personal attack.

Me:
In just the last two posts you have accused me of being malicious and dishonest

You:
Because you are.

I call your reasoning wrong; you call me a spiteful liar.

Nov 23, 2014
I want them to ask me questions regarding crediblity that do not require my identity
Your credibility is already nil because you continue to claim to be an engineer despite admitting that you have no degree and no licence.

You claim to be things like 'utility engineer', as if people wouldn't actually look it up and discover it is a union designation for maintenance man. You claim to be an 'airman' which we find includes maintenance men and mechanics.

You also claim to be many other things like test pilot and consultant to govts and CEOs which, given the actual extent of the knowledge you've demonstrated, is most likely bullshit as well.

You're a fraud, pure and simple. And people here need to be reminded of this.

Maggnus stops by every few weeks and assumes he knows what's going on. He also uses pretentious words which is also annoying.

Nov 23, 2014
70 years of life and technical experience... Having floated around in different industries and endeavors gave me sufficient knowledge and experience in certain fields. The folk here want to think I am an imposter, perhaps because they would lie, I do not know.

But, I really did work on experimental aircraft at the Air Force Flight Test Center... Electronic Battlefield. I really was an Industrial Electrician and
blah blah wakkawakka
I was an Electronics Test Engineer for National, ran a plastics company in Illinois, became Plant Engineer of a large iron foundry, did research for governmental agencies, and was Senior Engineer for PG&E
HORSESHIT.
other folks here stayed in the same rut all their lives
AGAIN, even if any of this were true it STILL doesn't mean you know what you're talking about does it? People much more (and less) qualified have proven you WRONG on multiple occasions.

Nobody gives a SHIT about your qualifications. Understand?

Nov 23, 2014
Others have noticed the spiteful and rude name-calling and personal attacks rife on this board.

Who started this nasty nonsense, and why don't they go away?

I just opened and read two of the comments by Otto, who is still screaming filth. Who is this vandal? Why do any of us put up with his rudeness and arrogance?


Nov 23, 2014
other folks here stayed in the same rut all their lives
Really, from the extensive list you've provided, if anything it appears that you've had trouble keeping a job. This, in conjunction with your manic 5 minute postings/60 posts a day, seems to indicate compulsive neurosis and bipolar disorder.

Why are you so eager to display that in a public forum? Do you think THAT increases your credibility or not? Did you think the people here wouldn't notice?

These debilities don't necessarily mean a person is not competent. But you seem to blurt out outrageous facts and qualifications which are easy to disprove. So it appears that these debilities have got the better of you.

Nov 23, 2014
The thread is about Global Warming, and the proof. If we allow the character assassins to take over this forum, it is lost.

Do they have genuine objections to the methods or accuracy of the measurements? We are the only nation with Deniers.

Nov 23, 2014
Can folk really deny the geological records and fossil findings and other interconnecting and reinforcing evidence?

Instead of arguing that it cannot be done, why don't those opposed to saving the Earth just give us a chance and help us? We let them invade Iraq with no proof at all, so why do they need proof to save the Earth?

Nov 23, 2014
@SteveS
I had no issue with your first post I was referring to this link you posted on July 5th, 2013
http://www.woodfo....4/trend
In response to which I posted this expanded version to highlight "the fallacy of incomplete evidence"
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.4
Right. There I am talking about the last dozen years, and then there you are with a deliberate attempt to conceal the last dozen years in overwhelming and irrelevant data.

This lie of concealment is more commonly known as a coverup.

Me: "What personal attacks? I always address your reasoning, not you."

You: "And there again, is a personal attack."
There is no distinction between "me" and "my reasoning."

Me: "In just the last two posts you have accused me of being malicious and dishonest"

You: "Because you are."

I call your reasoning wrong; you call me a spiteful liar.
Again, because you clearly are.

And again, where is the science?


Nov 23, 2014
We are the only nation with Deniers.
This is just laughable.

http://en.wikiped..._warming


Nov 23, 2014
Instead of arguing that it cannot be done, why don't those opposed to saving the Earth just give us a chance and help us? We let them invade Iraq with no proof at all, so why do they need proof to save the Earth?
You have no idea just how harmful this manner of thinking is, do you?

Try being a student of history.


Nov 23, 2014
Tubie, I am educated in this field. I worked with energy and the environment my entire life.

This is real, and it is important, way too important to let our biases get in the way of progress.

Nov 23, 2014
Tubie, I am educated in this field. I worked with energy and the environment my entire life.
Irrelevant

This is real, and it is important, way too important to let our biases get in the way of progress.
So why then, are you letting your biases get in the way?


Nov 23, 2014
My opinions come from the Master of Science I earned in 1982. Since then I have watched as conditions got worse even faster than we originally feared.

Serving in Technical Services for PG&E in the 1980s let me see the alternatives available to all of us now to the fouling of our nest. We were running out of power, and were restricted by clean air laws. So we diversified.

Our PG&E system was fed by wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, pumped storage, landfill gas, gas peaking boilers, supercritical gas boilers, solar thermal, photovoltaic, fuel cells of all kinds, some sources I forgot, and even the emergency generators in the facilities of our customers dispatched directly by us.

We can show you how to do it, too.

Nov 23, 2014
Where is the science?
@ubastupid
to answer a little in reference to your post to Steve S: here is some that you still haven't been able to refute
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://iopscience.../article
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
where is your equivalent evidence proving it wrong?
I clearly caught you trying to hide the current trend
and it is not a trend... we've been down that road already
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick?
you asked this to maggnus but i will reply to it:
i liked the link
you should have read it
when you select only the info that makes your position look relevant (like your woodfortrees graph) then it is cherry picking

https://en.wikipe...llacy%29

Nov 23, 2014
I am talking about the last dozen years
@ubastupid
and again, this is cherry picking
if you want to discuss the last dozen years without referencing the trends, science and evidence, then it is selective position bargaining (also known as the Cherry picking fallacy - https://en.wikipe...llacy%29 ) because you are "suppressing and ignoring" all the relevant science and information with regard to the climate
Steve was not "concealing" anything, he was trying to establish a true baseline with relevant data whereas you were trying to obfuscate, deny evidence and set up for a straw man argument

in business, this can be a relevant tool because you want to promote the positive and get more $$
this is not business
this is the climate and science

Where is your equivalent evidence refuting the science studies that i posted?

THAT would be a relevant argument, not your arguing about your cherry-picked graph

Nov 23, 2014
My opinions come from the Master of Science I earned in 1982.
Irrelevant

Since then I have watched as conditions got worse even faster than we originally feared.
How so?

Serving in Technical Services for PG&E in the 1980s...
Irrelevant


Nov 23, 2014
@Cap'n Stumble:

Are you posting arbitrary links again, thinking this is somehow meaningful?

Posting links without context is meaningless. Can you briefly interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?


Nov 23, 2014
Uba, what were the ten hottest years in history?

Nov 23, 2014
Are you posting arbitrary links again, thinking this is somehow meaningful?
@ubastupid
the links are NOT arbitrary, and have been linked to you many times

The links are EVIDENCE and refer to scientific findings about CO2, its being the control knob of the temp/warming (observed), the fact that warming can cause local cold weather as well as more extreme events (observed), the overwhelming number of papers that refute your position and the general consensus (observed), and the fact that there is an organized well funded movement trying to deny science (observed)

so the links are not out of context, nor meaningless

the main reason i keep pushing them is because i've linked them for a long time as a refute to your personal attacks on science and always to a relevant topic, and you have continually refused to address those at all, choosing instead to argue a single cherry-picked graph that doesn't include the relevant background info

refute with equivalent studies

Nov 23, 2014
Can you briefly interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?
@ubastupid
and this is a cop out as well as a lie
You've been proven wrong so many times in the past regarding CO2, AGW and always with relevant information that you are now attempting to play word games and be stupid about a single graph as well as other irrelevant issues

Your post above is a distraction as well as obfuscation of science
and i would bet that you are being paid to do this, because i've seen that you can be intelligent as well as relevant, and that you can provide meaningful discourse with science... but you choose to ignore the relevant data on this subject

why?

like i said... the links are relevant and explain (especially the CO2 study) a great deal about AGW, temps, cold weather in a warming climate and the overwhelming amount of evidence against you

feel free to offer the same level of evidence as a refute
otherwise you are TROLLING

Nov 23, 2014
What are you talking about? You're an instigator. Personal attacks are practically your forte'

Bah hahhahaa "No I'm not you are!!" Typical, classic ubamoron!!!

Nov 23, 2014
uba is playing a game.

Perhaps he can take a break and answer my query: "What were the ten hottest years in history?"

Nov 23, 2014
Uba, what were the ten hottest years in history?
I don't know. Are you suggesting you do?

http://en.wikiped..._Maximum

Note where it states mammalian species did particularly well during this epoch.


Nov 23, 2014
The thread is about Global Warming, and the proof. If we allow the character assassins to take over this forum, it is lost
Yours is more like character suicide. If we let bullshit artists take over this forum unchallenged then (oh me!) ALL is LOST!!!

Sure thing noob.
My opinions come from the Master of Science I earned in 1982
ANOTHER appeal to authority. Do you see anybody else here bragging about their fucking DEGREES?? You know how pathetic that is?

Most people here have far more education and experience than you. And THEY were able to keep a job longer than 6 months.
Master of Science
Lets see, was that in administration, economics, or nursing? Oh - pharmacy I bet. And you must have gotten this after washing out at PG&E. In your 40s.

Nov 23, 2014
Double post due to idiot web authentication every 1/2 hour or so.

Nov 23, 2014
And uba please dont 5/5 me it makes me feel so... dirty.

Nov 23, 2014
@Cap'n Stumbles
the links are NOT arbitrary,
Are you having trouble interpreting your own references? If not, describe what it is you think each one adds to the argument.

The links are EVIDENCE and refer to scientific findings about CO2, its being the control knob of the temp/warming (observed), the fact that warming can cause local cold weather as well as more extreme events (observed), the overwhelming number of papers that refute your position and the general consensus (observed), and the fact that there is an organized well funded movement trying to deny science (observed)
Which ones say any of this, in what context?

the main reason i keep pushing them is because i've linked them for a long time
Again, posting links without context is meaningless. Can you briefly interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?



Nov 23, 2014
You've been proven wrong so many times in the past regarding CO2, AGW
Really? So then, just how much warming have we had these past 18 years under increasing pressure from ever rising CO2? Let's look:

http://woodfortre....8/trend

Golly! That looks an awful lot like NO WARMING!

i would bet that you are being paid to do this
What's the wager?

i've seen that you can be intelligent as well as relevant, and that you can provide meaningful discourse with science
Thank you. That is kind of you to state.

why?
I like to post in controversial subjects where others have difficulty distinguishing truth from fallacy.


Nov 23, 2014
uba shows a graph for one region. I suggest he look at the reference I posted, with global information.

Nov 23, 2014
And uba please dont 5/5 me it makes me feel so... dirty.
LOL! Sorry about that. But you know I still hold you in the lowest esteem, right?

LOL

Nov 23, 2014
uba shows a graph for one region. I suggest he look at the reference I posted, with global information.
You claim to be all scientifically edumucated and you can't even interpret a simple graph? Really?

Sorry Otto, my esteem for your character impression of gkam has now risen one whole tick. I might even 5/5 you again.

LOL


Nov 23, 2014
Why be so offensive? Where did they find you malcontents?

You join joe, ira, and otto in ignore. Now you can say anything you want about me, to the delight of your tiny little heart.

Meanwhile, the evidence is clear. We need to increase our market penetration of alternative and renewable technologies. Every MWh we generate with renewable fuels is one not polluting our air and water.

Nov 23, 2014
Why be so offensive? Where did they find you malcontents?
Why aren't you getting the message? Stop bragging about your credentials and start proving yourself with relevant and intelligent posts.

You join joe, ira, and otto in ignore.
That don't hurt me.

Now you can say anything you want about me, to the delight of your tiny little heart.
Like I tell my children, people don't have nearly the time to think about you that you think they do. Consider how much time you spend dwelling on people besides yourself.

Meanwhile, the evidence is clear. We need to increase our market penetration of alternative and renewable technologies. Every MWh we generate with renewable fuels is one not polluting our air and water.
There's no doubt this is generally an admirable goal, but rushing into unproven technologies at exorbitant costs is foolhardy.


Nov 23, 2014
Why be so offensive? Where did they find you malcontents?

You join joe, ira, and otto in ignore. Now you can say anything you want about me, to the delight of your tiny little heart.......

Very sensible gkam.
Best l not feed this particular Troll....
If you do therein lies madness.
By far the worst on here.
I've been there and got the T-shirt.

Nov 23, 2014
"I've been there and got the T-shirt."

And I've been hoping for magic underwear.

Meanwhile, we have to stop fouling our nest.

Nov 23, 2014
I think most people do not know about the technical and serious conditions and events at Fukushima. The government does not allow negative reports of Fukushma, but we can get some information from TEPCO.

Here's some:
http://mainichi.j...00c.html

Meanwhile their two touted water cleaning systems have been abandoned, and with them, no way to take the radioactive actinides. Go look up and see how many tanks are full of this nasty stuff.

The are still trying to cool the "Corium", the molten remains of the core and the reactor vessel, and everything else it touched. It could be decades before they can even see it.

Nov 23, 2014
My opinions come from the Master of Science I earned in 1982. Since then I have watched as conditions got worse even faster than we originally feared.

Serving in Technical Services for PG&E in the 1980s let me see the alternatives available to all of us now to the fouling of our nest. We were running out of power, and were restricted by clean air laws. So we diversified.

Our PG&E system was fed by wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, pumped storage, landfill gas, gas peaking boilers, supercritical gas boilers, solar thermal, photovoltaic, fuel cells of all kinds, some sources I forgot, and even the emergency generators in the facilities of our customers dispatched directly by us.

We can show you how to do it, too.


LOL! You're so full of shit. What is your Alma Matter then? If you were truly one of us, then you wouldn't have to hide your credentials.

I am laughing that you put me on ignore instead of providing proof of your claims.

Nov 23, 2014
I do not see tuba, but saw the quotation above in green's post. We have proven the suitability of alternative energy already, and continue to do so more every day. I think he/she is referring to new nuclear stuff. We should not develop more.

Nov 23, 2014
Ubavonatuba - " but rushing into unproven technologies at exorbitant costs is foolhardy."

Agreed - which unproved technologies at exorbitant cost are you referring to?
Fusion, in particular, has proven to be a boondoggle. High investment with no foreseeable return.

And even some current technologies aren't exactly inexpensive and reliable, like offshore wind, solar-thermal, bio-fuels, etc.

http://en.wikiped...y_source

And renewables aren't exactly the panacea people think they are.

http://www.manhat...r_10.htm

And there are costs to resources and the environment many don't even consider:

http://ourfinitew...lutions/


Nov 23, 2014
If any of you folk can devise a way to safely get the actinides and high-level waste out of the immense tanks of water at Fukushima, I will concede a point.

Nov 23, 2014
Did everybody notice the high stacks at nuclear plants? The ones at Fukushima are 600 feet high. Why would they need such high stacks for no emissions?

Nov 23, 2014
Did everybody notice the high stacks at nuclear plants? The ones at Fukushima are 600 feet high. Why would they need such high stacks for no emissions?


Those are cooling towers, not exhaust stacks.

Nov 24, 2014
No, they are not. Cooling towers are hyperbolic. Those three GE Mark I BWRs were cooled by seawater, which is why they were on the sea.

Nov 24, 2014
What do you know abut activation products? Cobalt 60 was produced at Fukushima Dai-ini, a few kilometers away. What are the implications of that?

Nov 24, 2014
So.... WHEN did they start keeping records?

Nov 24, 2014
No, they are not. Cooling towers are hyperbolic. Those three GE Mark I BWRs were cooled by seawater, which is why they were on the sea.


Actually, that is correct. The stacks are for venting air from within the buildings and the exhaust from the condenser. As you know from your experience with steam turbines, all large condensers have purging vacuum pumps and the condensers at the nuclear plants are no exception. Both the air from the buildings and the condenser exhaust are slightly radioactive. That is why they have to be vented through tall stacks.

Nov 24, 2014
No, they are not. Cooling towers are hyperbolic. Those three GE Mark I BWRs were cooled by seawater, which is why they were on the sea.

Hyperbolic means exaggerated, enlarged upon. 600 ft is pretty large - thus making for a pretty reasonable cooling tower...
Ahh... Thermo answered at the same time I did. With a reasonable explanation, Venting.
But - why so high?

Nov 24, 2014
"But - why so high?"
---------------------------------

The theory is the radioactive by products have very short half-lives, and are supposedly "safe" by the time they reach the top of the stack. I have a friend who was hired to actually test downwind of those stacks, and reported high releases.

For the cooling towers, hyperbolic refers to the shape - the sides are hyperbolas.

Nov 24, 2014
"But - why so high?"
---------------------------------

The theory is the radioactive by products have very short half-lives, and are supposedly "safe" by the time they reach the top of the stack. I have a friend who was hired to actually test downwind of those stacks, and reported high releases.

Wow... safe radioactivity in minutes...
Or is it just that knowledge of decay that says the exhaust dispersal from that height takes x amount of time, which allows for x amount of further decay...

Nov 24, 2014
The deaeration of the cooling systems releases radioactive gases with relatively short half-lives, allegedly. After ten half lives, the material is considered to be "safe" for high-level materials. I don't know about those gases.

The idea is it takes so long to get to the top, they are relatively "safe" That's the story. I think it is to get it away from them - the real reason for all stacks.

Nov 24, 2014
"Or is it just that knowledge of decay that says the exhaust dispersal from that height takes x amount of time, which allows for x amount of further decay..."

Yes, the half-life.

Nov 24, 2014
As you know from your experience with steam turbines, all large condensers have purging vacuum pumps and the condensers at the nuclear plants are no exception
He has shown no professional understanding of steam turbines or nuclear power plants to indicate he has any experience beyond validating systems. Qualifications for validation are mainly the ability to fill out forms.

Are you really so gullible?

Arent you suspicious of someone who claims to be an engineer when, by his own admission, has no degree and no licence? Arent you wary of a person who consistently argues from authority instead of using facts? Anybody else here do this?

Nov 24, 2014
Okay, otto, I opened your comment and now will ruin yur fun.

I am the son of the small-town electrician. My dad refused to sign my scholarships to Cal, and I eventually enlisted in the Air Force. After basic and school, I was sent to Edwards AFB as a Comm tech. It was a nerd's wet dream, (and I was three-year president of the Science Club in school, . and played Horn in the band, too, to add a few more corners to the square or cube).

It was the real glory days of Eddies, and my year there was bigger than life, like living in a B movie. We supported all transient aircraft, Test Pilot School (T-33, T-38, T-37, F-104, and the NF-04,s with rocket engines. Most of the Special Projects, (XV-5, XC-142, P.1170, F0-111 prototypes, U-2), and all kinds of transport and and auxiliary aircraft. I dodged Blackbirds who used my road as a taxiway, got up really early for help send an X-15 off, picked up pieces of the XB-70 on the 15,000 foot runway, angot to piss off Chuck Yeager.

Nov 24, 2014
Got orders in the middle of the night to get off base within 36 hours with all tools tell nobody I was leaving, and to get lost for 30 days, then report to a group that the Commander's staff said did not exist.

Two of us went to help organize and test and deploy and operate the Electronic Battlefield, Igloo White, where I worked until I dropped getting over there, then got to work in the most amazing shop for our stuff anywhere. We also worked with Mitre, Los Alamos Labs, Sandia Labs, Lockheed, Radiation, inc, Martin Marietta, and others. I am an original BatCat.

I came home in a delirium, after standing up an a chair one day and asking why we were killing all those people in their own country. But It was probably when I screamed "We're all Nazis", that they really took offense.

Nov 24, 2014
Wow, I messed NF-104 and the prototype F-111. Sorry. The NF was cool and the kind Yeager wrecked in the movie The Right Stuff. When I got there, we had two left. They had extended nose and wingtips with attitude thrusters in them, and an original X-15 rocket engine in the tail above the jet engine. We used them to train the Apollo Astronauts to use reaction motors (thrusters) up above where the normal control surfaces would even work.

When I was there, it was the "Air Force Aerospace Pilot School".

Nov 24, 2014
For my detractors, continued. Was an Industrial Electrician for Raychem, and worked on and with their specialty production equipment, industrial lasers, electron beams from 0.5 to 3.0 MeV, motor drives, controls, plus helped make our production equipment, since nobody else did it.

Had two classes in school for my BS one which got me into almost every hydro site within a few hundred miles, and the other into thermal facilities, such as standing in the firebox of Unit 7 at Moss landing while it was down,then accurately diagramming and specifying the enthaply at every state of the cross-compound steam turbine-generators, with the reheats.

Nov 24, 2014
Y'know what?

That's it. No more justification. If the soreheads who spent their lives at home want to doubt anybody, it is a sign of their ignorance.

These kids probably have no idea of what I speak. But they will be good for a comment.

Nov 25, 2014
Again, posting links without context is meaningless. Can you briefly interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?
@ubastupidTROLL
and again, that post is a quick assignment of context in relation to their linking order, respective of linked order, so we can see now that:
not only are you NOT reading any science but
now you want to play games about what the science is

only a troll would be so stupid and suggest a summation of each link when the link is there for the reason of providing evidence
I like to post in controversial subjects where others have difficulty distinguishing truth from fallacy.
then WHY do you IGNORE the science?
and why do you continually ignore the evidence in front of you?

that means you are, by definition of your own words, intentionally obfuscating the science, as i have posted the studies and you ignore them

you are simply BAITING/TROLLING

Nov 25, 2014
Y'know what?

That's it. No more justification. If the soreheads who spent their lives at home want to doubt anybody, it is a sign of their ignorance.

These kids probably have no idea of what I speak. But they will be good for a comment.

@gkam
you do realize that no one will pay attention to most of what you wrote, right?
unless you can link some specific piece of information that gives personal details, like license for being an engineer, or college degree, etc
they will still hound you, regardless, and it will undermine your argument that you are not providing links/references, regardless of what you type or how legitimate the science or reasons are

like i said... contact me at Sapo's joint ( http://saposjoint.net ) or at http://www.sciforums.com

i am : Truck Captain Stumpy
and i don't spread personal details around
(you can ask Thermo, Antialias, Sapo, Da Schneib, Trippy and many more about that)

Nov 25, 2014
Stumpy, I went to one of the references you gave me. At the bottom it referenced location, and you had "nowhere". It was an active link, and took me to a place in California. I assumed that is where you were.

I'll try again. I am not going to show these vandals my name, which in on my cards, my CV, my references. But I will to you.

I am just a guy who tried to get through life, and had lots of jobs, and was especially lucky to be good at what i did. No bragging here, I earned no Nobel Prizes. I just want you folk to know what it is and was like in these times and technologies. I do not understand the hate and attacks.

But I will not stop correcting those on the sidelines, whose main cause is politics.

Nov 25, 2014
Climate is > 360 months so we have been told.
All that matters is the mean of >360 months.

Nov 25, 2014
accurately diagramming and specifying the enthaply at every state of the cross-compound steam turbine-generators, with the reheats
So what? Since you have no training as an engineer you had no idea of how it worked or how it was designed. You're in a room full of real engineers and scientists who can tell how full of shit you are. Claiming that you know more than they do is another aspect of your self-delusion.

And who cares about your fucking personal history? Do you see anybody else talking about their fucking childhood here? Besides returners that is, with whom you share many regrettable traits.

It's clear you are a compulsive old man who comes here just to talk about himself. Ever meet anybody like this? They're the most annoying, boring, self-centered egomaniacs you'll ever meet.

NOBODY CARES - you got that? Anybody here say 'gee that's amazing - tell us more' -? No.

It could be that you're just another elaborate fake by a perennial troll which is possible.

Nov 25, 2014
no bragging here
-See? See how deluded you are? Bragging is ALL you do. It's pathetic. And if you were good at what you did, why did you lose so many jobs? More inflated opinions of yourself? I know - like returners, your troubles were always someone else's failure to appreciate your exceptional talents.

Nov 25, 2014
Unable to read the comments above, I have to assume they are technical critiques of my statements, free of personal attacks, which would only betray to all the character of the poster.

Nov 26, 2014
@Cap'nStupidTROLL
that post is a quick assignment of context in relation to their linking order, respective of linked order
Fine.

scientific findings about CO2, its being the control knob of the temp/warming
This shows you read the title. But the article is easily falsified in that it claims:

"This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does."

They actually deny there is a CARBON CYCLE!

the fact that warming can cause local cold weather as well as more extreme events
From the article:
"may cause more persistent weather patterns in mid-latitudes"

So it may, or it may not. There is no proof of anything here. This article is pure conjecture.

the overwhelming number of papers that refute your position
Irrelevant. "Consensus" is not science.

cont...


Nov 26, 2014
@Cap'nStupidTROLL cont...

and the fact that there is an organized well funded movement trying to deny science
Again, irrelevant. The entirety of organizations pushing "climate change" far outweigh the entirety of the anti climate change contingent.

So, you failed to make a valid point with any of your links.


Nov 26, 2014
@unidumb

"This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does."

That statement is true.

"They actually deny there is a CARBON CYCLE!"

In no way are they denying the carbon cycle.

Do you see your error?

Nov 26, 2014
@unidumb

"This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does."

That statement is true.

"They actually deny there is a CARBON CYCLE!"

In no way are they denying the carbon cycle.

Do you see your error?
They are implying that CO2 remains relatively permanently in the atmosphere, and only compounds when more is added. It does not. Do you see your error?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more