2016 'very likely' the warmest year

climate scientist wrote: The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016

climate scientist wrote: Here is a really great article (which I think I posted before, a long time ago), written by scientists, which debunks the myth that the temperature record is unreliable.

climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.

See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877

Ceist wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.

See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


Fig. 1. Global surface temperature relative to 1880-1920 based on GISTEMP analysis (mostly NOAA data sources, as described by Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004. We suggest in an upcoming paper that the temperature in 1940-45 is exaggerated because of data inhomogeneity in WW II. Linear-fit to temperature since 1970 yields present temperature of 1.06°C, which is perhaps our best estimate of warming since the preindustrial period.

IBdaMann wrote:it doesn't debunk anything.

litesong wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:it doesn't debunk anything.

The only thing IBM debunks is falling out of the upper bunk.

Ceist wrote:
NASA GISTEMP with October data and 2016 prediction:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUplBdUQAAffMz.jpg:large

Tim the plumber wrote:

Well, if it carries on like that we will be on course for the low end of the IPCC's predictions to come true.

Shame it looks like not geting warmer still.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Well, if it carries on like that we will be on course for the low end of the IPCC's predictions to come true.

Shame it looks like not geting warmer still.

You know the difference between now and the last age? it was only a few degrees and the world was profoundly different, the area where the Sahara is now was fertile and where I sit now was under a glacier, the change from that state to the current interglacial was far slower then now, have you thought about the possible implications? but you say it's nothing to worry about at all, Maniac.

Ceist wrote:
NASA GISTEMP with October data and 2016 prediction:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUplBdUQAAffMz.jpg:large

KKING wrote:
The odd year, possibly contaminated with jiggery pokery adjustments to the present and historical records - who knows? Still we don't need to disprove the warmest year, isn't it the other way, don't those making the claim have to? I hear recently that the satellite data are saying otherwise.

Looks flat to me, bit spikey 2000 to 2016? Around 2000 people became aware of the 'tweaking' of the data, a travesty some say.

http://www.thegwpf.com/satellite-data-reinstates-temperature-pause/

KKING wrote:

Ceist wrote:
NASA GISTEMP with October data and 2016 prediction:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUplBdUQAAffMz.jpg:large

The problem as we all know is that the method of recording is fundamentally different. The satellite record shows no discernable trends over the last 15-20 years apart from it being rather spikey (that's inbuilt variation in the system in technical terms). The land record and others are worthless, tree rings and ice cores even more poxy.

We are not seeing anything very remarkable. Prediction after prediction is wrong, the models are therefore wrong and the fundamental theories behind the models wrong also. Those claiming to understand have to admit they know as little as the rest of us. The data rule, priors have proved worthless.

KKING wrote: The odd year, possibly contaminated with jiggery pokery adjustments to the present and historical records - who knows?

KKING wrote: Still we don't need to disprove the warmest year, isn't it the other way, don't those making the claim have to?

Ceist wrote:Meanwhile, rational people will stick with science and facts.

KKING wrote:
Well I see the usual attacks. I'm a pure scientist who knows about the weight of evidence, I don't have to rely on websites of whatever flavour to tell me what is real. I review scientific articles in my own field and I am always objective. I stop at unsupported evidence and that is where we are. Prove it guys, it's incumbent upon you, and shouting loudly proves very little. I think Buddha (one of the Buddha type dudes anyway) said if we don't accept your vitriol then you own it.

Ceist wrote:The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.

IBdaMann wrote:

Ceist wrote:The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.

Let's review your post for content:

Strike the first sentence. It is nothing but standard bulveristic denial and unsupported dismissal.

Strike the second sentence. It is just an aesthetic blend of argument ad lapidem, ad hominem and non sequitur.

Strike the third sentence. It's a non sequitur concerning site administration, in particular, a complaint that the administer allows nonbelievers in the WACKY Global Warming religion to post on this site.

Strike the fourth sentence. Great. You're welcoming him to the site.

Strike the fifth sentence. It's just a petty "lashing out" at nonbelievers of the WACKY Global Warming religion that, to his chagrin, are actually allowed to post on this site (see the third sentence).


Oops. That leaves nothing. Your post has no content. But wait, how does this post differ from any of your other posts? It doesn't, does it?

.

[b]KKING wrote:....thegwpf.com/

Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877

Ceist wrote:

KKING wrote:
Well I see the usual attacks. I'm a pure scientist who knows about the weight of evidence, I don't have to rely on websites of whatever flavour to tell me what is real. I review scientific articles in my own field and I am always objective. I stop at unsupported evidence and that is where we are. Prove it guys, it's incumbent upon you, and shouting loudly proves very little. I think Buddha (one of the Buddha type dudes anyway) said if we don't accept your vitriol then you own it.

The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.

KKING wrote:

Ceist wrote:

KKING wrote:
Well I see the usual attacks. I'm a pure scientist who knows about the weight of evidence, I don't have to rely on websites of whatever flavour to tell me what is real. I review scientific articles in my own field and I am always objective. I stop at unsupported evidence and that is where we are. Prove it guys, it's incumbent upon you, and shouting loudly proves very little. I think Buddha (one of the Buddha type dudes anyway) said if we don't accept your vitriol then you own it.

The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.

There's little more I can say to you, I think you have clearly laid out your approach to debate, attack everything that is inconvenient. I hear you, 'debunked', 'conspiracy', ...

Thunderbomb1982 wrote:

Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

Thunderbomb1982 wrote:

Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

[/i]

Ceist wrote:

Thunderbomb1982 wrote:

Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

...deleted NOAA video link...
Measuring climate change without thermometers[/url]

climate scientist wrote:

So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

Hi Thunderbomb1982. It is a misconception that one needs to measure temperature everywhere all over the planet all at the same time in order to be able to determine whether the climate is warming over the long term or not.

I would recommend that you watch this short video, made by climate scientists:
...deleted propaganda video...

Into the Night wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

Hi Thunderbomb1982. It is a misconception that one needs to measure temperature everywhere all over the planet all at the same time in order to be able to determine whether the climate is warming over the long term or not.

I would recommend that you watch this short video, made by climate scientists:
...deleted propaganda video...

Yes they do. It is currently not possible to measure global temperature with the instrumentation we have. Nowhere near enough. That includes past readings, too.

Ceist wrote:
This is the reason that so few visitors stay around on this forum:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

Ceist wrote:
This is the reason that so few visitors stay around on this forum:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

Climate-Debate.com > Users > Most active losers


.

.


.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

Hi Thunderbomb1982. It is a misconception that one needs to measure temperature everywhere all over the planet all at the same time in order to be able to determine whether the climate is warming over the long term or not.

I would recommend that you watch this short video, made by climate scientists:
...deleted propaganda video...

Yes they do. It is currently not possible to measure global temperature with the instrumentation we have. Nowhere near enough. That includes past readings, too.

As I and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, you don't need to know that actual global average temperature (however you choose to define it) in order to determine the change in temperature. Same as you don't need to know the actual time in order to be able to time a boiled egg.

If, say, 3000 thermometers scattered around the Earth all indicate that the temperature has risen by a degree or so, then you can be pretty sure that the average global temperature has also risen by about that much. The more thermometers you have, the smaller your margin of error.

Surface Detail wrote:
As I and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, you don't need to know that actual global average temperature (however you choose to define it) in order to determine the change in temperature. Same as you don't need to know the actual time in order to be able to time a boiled egg.

If, say, 3000 thermometers scattered around the Earth all indicate that the temperature has risen by a degree or so, then you can be pretty sure that the average global temperature has also risen by about that much. The more thermometers you have, the smaller your margin of error.

climate scientist wrote:
I have two thermometers in my house. One is upstairs, the other down stairs. They do not read the same temperature, because the upstairs is normally colder than the downstairs (owing to heat loss through the roof and windows). I have also never calibrated them to each other. When the heating comes on in the morning, the house warms up. I know this because both the thermometers show an increase in temperature. Even though they increase at different rates (the downstairs warms faster than the upstairs), I know that the house is heating up. I do not need to measure the temperature in every square meter of my house to tell me this.

If only about half of the global temperature records showed warming, and the other half did not, then we would not be able to say that we observed any global warming. But because the overwhelming majority of the records do show warming, then this gives very high confidence in the fact that the atmosphere is warming. Especially coupled with all the other independent evidence, such as shifts in the range of several species (such as mosquitos, owing to changes in temperature), melting sea ice and glaciers, changes in the phrenology of plants, warming in the oceans, etc.

Second part: Do we have a probabilistic assessment of whether the data are expected otherwise under a null assumption? Not a finger in the air one. Just because one thing changes with another does not make it causal, they may be both related to an underlying cause (time maybe).