The last time Earth was this hot hippos lived in Britain (that’s 130,000 years ago)

Re: @Douglas Lowe It's true!

>AGW will become true. By magic, apparently.

It's called "science" - you know, that thing that keeps the lights on and the heating working, and makes it possible to do cool things like take photos of Pluto.

You should try learning something about it - especially the part where being noisy and opinionated doesn't excuse you from being dead wrong.

Re: @Douglas Lowe, It's true! [the IT angle]

No mention that satellite temperature measurements do not show the warming shown in (repeatedly adjusted) NOAA, NASA-GISS and UK Met figures

But, but, but, but, that can't possibly be true. All the Atmosphere-Ocean Coupled Climate models agree that the temperature of the troposphere is increasing more rapidly than the surface temperature. And we all know that computers can't tell lies... So it must be those blasted NASA satellites telling lies. [/sarc]

Re: @PCar This article was first published at The Conversation.

@Voyna i Mor

The big problem is there has been no appreciable temperature rise for more than 18 years and the warmists can't stand that so they 'adjust' the records to fit their doctrine and get very upset when the satellite temperature records are mentioned.

The science is NOT settled but the green blob tries to insist that it is. The problem they have is trying to record hundredths of a degree with instruments that might be accurate to half a degree if you are lucky and a couple of degrees if you are not.

Re: @PCar This article was first published at The Conversation.

I fail to see how an article explaining some of the current results of climate research is "alarmist bullshit".

Until this "alarmist bullshit" appears in university level textbooks such as TR Oke's Boundary Layer Climates some of us will continue to call it "alarmist bullshit".

Climate is the local average of not just temperature, but also precipitation, evaporation rate, windiness, cloudiness and storminess. The type of vegetation is also used to determine the classification of a climatic zone. Until ~30 years ago, the concept that a global temperature average was a climate did not exist. The obsession with a variable that cannot be measured is the giveaway that it's "alarmist bullshit".

Any physicist worth their salt will tell you that increasing temperature results in an increase in the evaporation rate of water. There are chefs and cooks who will tell you the same thing. Housewives even. You can conduct experiments yourself demonstrating that this is so. Despite this, the evaporation pans situated at rural weather stations have shown a decline in evaporation rates since the 1960s when they came into widespread use. It is called the Pan Evaporation Paradox.

Despite this, the promoters of "alarmist bullshit" insist that the "alarming" rise in average temperature means increasing drought. This would only be true if the evaporation rates had increased, hence the use of the term "paradox". It is a paradox only if you believe that temperature change equates to energy change. It does if you are dealing with a single substance such as a pan of water. The atmosphere is not a single, uniform substance. It can contain anywhere between 0% water and whatever the saturation point is for a particular temperature. Air can be moving or stationary. Ocean currents that move swiftly contain more energy than slower moving currents, or stationary ocean.

The variable that is of real interest in global changes is energy, or more accurately changes in energy content of the planet. This variable, energy change, is called enthalpy. Despite many millions of dollars of funding, there has been no attempt at measuring Earth's enthalpy. Instead, it is calculated by measuring changes in average temperature. The nice thing about averages is there are so many of them: the arithmetic mean, RMS, median etc. In the case of climastrology, the arithmetic mean of the median of recording stations is used. Execept when the station reports its own arithmetic mean using hourly temperatures. And for good measure [joke alert] in the US, the highest quality meteorological network on the planet, only 17% of weather stations comply with the World Meteorological Stations standards for temperature measurement.

As well as the challenge to point to a tertiary level text wherein all of this is properly explained, I have another. Go to the International Standards Organisation and find the definition of Global Average Temperature. A committee was set up some decades ago, but I suspect that you will find there is no such definition. It's Rafferty's Rules as we say in Australia and the Global Average Temperature is whatever you want it to be.

@ Voyna i Mor Re: @PCar This article was first published at The Conversation.

"it just mentions how thing were different at times in the past when the overall climate was warmer for different reasons, and how we may have delayed the next glaciation."

The article very clearly says, in the very first sentence, that this year is the warmest on record. In fact, just to refresh your memory, here it is again, copy-pasted from the article and so verbatim: "It’s official: 2015 was the warmest year on record." Did you skip that part?

Obviously you don't understand how this works.

Someone wrote a paper. Evidence was gathered and inferences were drawn, upon which conclusions were made. The writers of the paper certainly agree with their own conclusions and think that they are well-founded and correct.

That doesn't mean that they are. That's a point that you - and others here - don't seem to grasp.

A related point which you also miss is that criticism of scientific arguments and its evidence, and the conclusions based on them, are at least as importance as the arguments, evidence, and conclusions themselves.

And I didn't see any criticism in the article. On the other hand, if Lewis Page wrote the article, there would have been.

Many demerits to The New Register for this.

Re: I fail to see

Yes you do. You should probably start with the fact that Hottest Year Since ... claim was thoroughly debunked about an hour after the first PR release from the Warmists was issued.

@Just Enough Re: @Turtle

Extreme skepticism about the impending and imminent end of the world and life as we know it is always in order.

Arctic ice "melt"

You mean the man who headlined the 4th lowest arctic summer ice minimum as '31st highest on record'?

Ah yes, the warmists' poster child. I do love the way you bring up a cooling event as if it was a warming event. There's this very interesting organisation called NASA whose pronouncements I will paraphrase. Over the period of record, the Arctic ice cap has disintegrated 8 times; that is, around once every four years over 30 years. The breakups were caused by windstorms that blew the ice out of the Arctic Ocean. Note that this is not melting due to a change in temperature.

Ice is an excellent insulator so heat in the Arctic Ocean waters normally is confined to melting just a little of the undersurface of the ice. When the ice is removed, the water is free to radiate heat skyward. Most of this radiation is lost to space. Some of it is absorbed by CO2 molecules and somewhat less than 50% of this is reradiated back to the ocean. Nevertheless, the breakup of Arctic ice allows Earth to lose more heat than it does when the ice remains intact.

Re: It's true!

> To the haters of the article: are you lot really as bonkers as you portray yourselves or just scientifically completely ignorant and illiterate?

You did put "or" where you should have put "and". And the answer is "yes".

Re: It's true!

If you have some solid, peer-researched and accepted evidence to the contrary, I am sure we should all like to read your account, along with your theories of creationism no doubt.

From La Marguerite:

When I launched the TalkClimateChange forums last year, I was initially worried as to where I would find people who didn’t believe in global warming. I had planned to create a furious debate, but in my experience global warming was such a universally accepted issue that I expected to have to dredge the slums of the internet in order to find a couple of deniers who could keep the argument thriving.

The first few days were slow going, but following a brief write-up of my site by Junk Science I was swamped by climate skeptics who did a good job of frightening off the few brave Greens who slogged out the debate with. Whilst there was a lot of rubbish written, the truth was that they didn’t so much frighten the Greens away – they comprehensively demolished them with a more in depth understanding of the science, cleverly thought out arguments, and some very smart answers. If you want to learn about the physics of convection currents, gas chromatography, or any number of climate science topics then read some of the early debates on TalkClimateChange. I didn’t believe a word of it, but I had to admit that these guys were good.

In the following months the situation hardly changed. As the forum continued to grow, as the blog began to catch traffic, and as I continued to try and recruit green members I continued to be disappointed with the debate. In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (Reds, as we call them) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed.

[Emphasis mine]

Source:

https://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/green-advocates-failing-in-climate-debate/

Re: It's true!

To the haters of the article: are you lot really as bonkers as you portray yourselves or just scientifically completely ignorant and illiterate?

Actually, I don't "hate" the article at all; I merely find it "sciencey" rather than scientific.

Scientific question for you, or rather a mathematical one and an awful lot of the science I pay attention to is mathematical. The statistical analyses performed by climastrologists apply only to what is called normally distributed data (aka a Gaussian distribution); a normal distribution consists of random data. Daily temperatures are not a normal distribution, they are autocorrelated; definitely not random. That is, a warm day is more likely to be followed by another warm day rather than a cold one; a cold day is more likely to be followed by another cold day rather than a warm one. Laymen refer to this phenomenon as seasons: summer, autumn, winter and spring, empirically confirming that daily temperatures are far from random.

What is the mathematical, or scientific justification for treating autocorrelated data as if it were random?

Re: It's true!

If only being berated by a pretentious imbecile could change people's minds, we could save the Earth from it's imminent destruction