Record temperatures, AGW accelerating

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.

John C. Fyfe. John C. Fyfe. Senior Research Scientist - Global climate variability and climate change. Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (Victoria, BC).

Nathan Gillett holds a PhD in atmospheric physics from the University of Oxford. ... on the detection and attribution of climate change, before being appointed as ...

Francis W. Zwiers is Chief of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Atmospheric. Environment Service, Victoria, Canada, and an Adjunct.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The paper is 4 years old. But then the temperature record since than is still too close to zero change that it's only true to say it's been very stable since 1998.

Surface Detail wrote:I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to claim that NASA can't do science, is part of a worldwide Marxist conspiracy or hates America. Take it away, boys!

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to claim that NASA can't do science, is part of a worldwide Marxist conspiracy or hates America. Take it away, boys!

You pretty much have it. NASA can't measure the earth's average global temperature. Only the most gullible will buy their assertion.

...which brings us to the scientifically illiterate and economics-challenged Marxists who are enamored with Global Warming because they perceive it to be a potent weapon in their war against capitalism and a useful tool towards achieving their goal of redistributing the world's wealth.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The paper is 4 years old. But then the temperature record since than is still too close to zero change that it's only true to say it's been very stable since 1998.

Why the lies, Tim?

2015 is hottest year on record

"The global average surface temperature in 2015 broke all previous records by a strikingly wide margin, at 0.76±0.1° Celsius above the 1961-1990 average. For the first time on record, temperatures in 2015 were about 1°C above the pre-industrial era, according to a consolidated analysis from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

WMO combines three internationally-renowned observational datasets with those from sophisticated reanalysis systems. As such it provides the most authoritative international reference source

Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have all been this century, with 2015 being significantly warmer than the record-level temperatures seen in 2014. Underlining the long-term trend, 2011-15 is the warmest five-year period on record."

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The paper is 4 years old. But then the temperature record since than is still too close to zero change that it's only true to say it's been very stable since 1998.

Why the lies, Tim?

2015 is hottest year on record

"The global average surface temperature in 2015 broke all previous records by a strikingly wide margin, at 0.76±0.1° Celsius above the 1961-1990 average. For the first time on record, temperatures in 2015 were about 1°C above the pre-industrial era, according to a consolidated analysis from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

WMO combines three internationally-renowned observational datasets with those from sophisticated reanalysis systems. As such it provides the most authoritative international reference source

Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have all been this century, with 2015 being significantly warmer than the record-level temperatures seen in 2014. Underlining the long-term trend, 2011-15 is the warmest five-year period on record."

You are lying.

Find a single claim I have made there that is false or appologies and retract the stupid claim.

I will explain it to you;

It is hotter than in 1960.

It is not significantly hotter now than in 1998. (If at all).

The paper says the same.

F.witt.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to claim that NASA can't do science, is part of a worldwide Marxist conspiracy or hates America. Take it away, boys!

You pretty much have it. NASA can't measure the earth's average global temperature. Only the most gullible will buy their assertion.

...which brings us to the scientifically illiterate and economics-challenged Marxists who are enamored with Global Warming because they perceive it to be a potent weapon in their war against capitalism and a useful tool towards achieving their goal of redistributing the world's wealth.

Who to believe, eh?

NASA, the widely respected organisation employing some of the most brilliant minds in the world, which has proved its scientific and engineering prowess by putting a man on the moon and sending spacecraft to the distant reaches of the solar system.

Or IBdaMann, the anonymous, ideologically-driven internet crackpot with a, shall be say, highly eccentric "understanding" of the scientific process, who has difficulty grasping even the simplest concepts (e.g. emissivity) of radiative physics.

It's a tough one.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to claim that NASA can't do science, is part of a worldwide Marxist conspiracy or hates America. Take it away, boys!

You pretty much have it. NASA can't measure the earth's average global temperature. Only the most gullible will buy their assertion.

...which brings us to the scientifically illiterate and economics-challenged Marxists who are enamored with Global Warming because they perceive it to be a potent weapon in their war against capitalism and a useful tool towards achieving their goal of redistributing the world's wealth.

Who to believe, eh?

NASA, the widely respected organisation employing some of the most brilliant minds in the world, which has proved its scientific and engineering prowess by putting a man on the moon and sending spacecraft to the distant reaches of the solar system.

Or IBdaMann, the anonymous, ideologically-driven internet crackpot with a, shall be say, highly eccentric "understanding" of the scientific process, who has difficulty grasping even the simplest concepts (e.g. emissivity) of radiative physics.

It's a tough one.

NASA can't put a man on the moon today. They can't even get into orbit.

There is also a VAST difference between the guys that drove the spaceship to the guys that built it (not part of NASA, private corporations).

Personally, I have my doubts about any organization that claims carbon dioxide comes from ozone, as NASA has claimed, or that simply repeats the garbage data from another department without even checking the sources of the numbers or how they are calculated.

I don't care WHO they are. Neither does science.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to claim that NASA can't do science, is part of a worldwide Marxist conspiracy or hates America. Take it away, boys!

You pretty much have it. NASA can't measure the earth's average global temperature. Only the most gullible will buy their assertion.

...which brings us to the scientifically illiterate and economics-challenged Marxists who are enamored with Global Warming because they perceive it to be a potent weapon in their war against capitalism and a useful tool towards achieving their goal of redistributing the world's wealth.

Who to believe, eh?

NASA, the widely respected organisation employing some of the most brilliant minds in the world, which has proved its scientific and engineering prowess by putting a man on the moon and sending spacecraft to the distant reaches of the solar system.

Or IBdaMann, the anonymous, ideologically-driven internet crackpot with a, shall be say, highly eccentric "understanding" of the scientific process, who has difficulty grasping even the simplest concepts (e.g. emissivity) of radiative physics.

It's a tough one.

NASA can't put a man on the moon today. They can't even get into orbit.

There is also a VAST difference between the guys that drove the spaceship to the guys that built it (not part of NASA, private corporations).

Personally, I have my doubts about any organization that claims carbon dioxide comes from ozone, as NASA has claimed, or that simply repeats the garbage data from another department without even checking the sources of the numbers or how they are calculated.

I don't care WHO they are. Neither does science.

NASA can't even get into orbit? Didn't a couple of people just do a space walk outside the space station?

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to claim that NASA can't do science, is part of a worldwide Marxist conspiracy or hates America. Take it away, boys!

You pretty much have it. NASA can't measure the earth's average global temperature. Only the most gullible will buy their assertion.

...which brings us to the scientifically illiterate and economics-challenged Marxists who are enamored with Global Warming because they perceive it to be a potent weapon in their war against capitalism and a useful tool towards achieving their goal of redistributing the world's wealth.

Who to believe, eh?

NASA, the widely respected organisation employing some of the most brilliant minds in the world, which has proved its scientific and engineering prowess by putting a man on the moon and sending spacecraft to the distant reaches of the solar system.

Or IBdaMann, the anonymous, ideologically-driven internet crackpot with a, shall be say, highly eccentric "understanding" of the scientific process, who has difficulty grasping even the simplest concepts (e.g. emissivity) of radiative physics.

It's a tough one.

NASA can't put a man on the moon today. They can't even get into orbit.

There is also a VAST difference between the guys that drove the spaceship to the guys that built it (not part of NASA, private corporations).

Personally, I have my doubts about any organization that claims carbon dioxide comes from ozone, as NASA has claimed, or that simply repeats the garbage data from another department without even checking the sources of the numbers or how they are calculated.

I don't care WHO they are. Neither does science.

NASA can't even get into orbit? Didn't a couple of people just do a space walk outside the space station?

NASA didn't get them there. The Russian Space Agency did. That's who brings them home after their little walk, too.

Surface Detail wrote:
When has NASA claimed that carbon dioxide comes from ozone?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
When has NASA claimed that carbon dioxide comes from ozone?

It was on their website a few years ago when they trying to build a case to stop the ozone hole.

Incidentally, much of what they put up on their site at the time concerning ozone itself was just plain wrong.

Those articles of course conveniently ignored how ozone is created and destroyed each day.

We DO have some very bright people in NASA. We also have some real losers.

Surface Detail wrote:It was on their website a few years ago. Yeah, right, course it was. Idiot.

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:I'm sure the usual suspects will be along to claim that NASA can't do science, is part of a worldwide Marxist conspiracy or hates America. Take it away, boys!

You pretty much have it. NASA can't measure the earth's average global temperature. Only the most gullible will buy their assertion.

...which brings us to the scientifically illiterate and economics-challenged Marxists who are enamored with Global Warming because they perceive it to be a potent weapon in their war against capitalism and a useful tool towards achieving their goal of redistributing the world's wealth.

Who to believe, eh?

NASA, the widely respected organisation employing some of the most brilliant minds in the world, which has proved its scientific and engineering prowess by putting a man on the moon and sending spacecraft to the distant reaches of the solar system.

Or IBdaMann, the anonymous, ideologically-driven internet crackpot with a, shall be say, highly eccentric "understanding" of the scientific process, who has difficulty grasping even the simplest concepts (e.g. emissivity) of radiative physics.

It's a tough one.

NASA can't put a man on the moon today. They can't even get into orbit.

There is also a VAST difference between the guys that drove the spaceship to the guys that built it (not part of NASA, private corporations).

Personally, I have my doubts about any organization that claims carbon dioxide comes from ozone, as NASA has claimed, or that simply repeats the garbage data from another department without even checking the sources of the numbers or how they are calculated.

I don't care WHO they are. Neither does science.

NASA can't even get into orbit? Didn't a couple of people just do a space walk outside the space station?

NASA didn't get them there. The Russian Space Agency did. That's who brings them home after their little walk, too.