2015 looking like another world record year for the global warming trend.

[Jichard]

It is yet another instance (out of many) supporting my personal observations regarding the "Climate Change" criminal fiasco (once called "Global Warming" but changed in name to make the LIE more believable). Concisely, the whole thing is an economic-politically-motivated con job that has NOTHING to do with the facts.

It's been called "climate change" for decades. For example:

From 1970: Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change

From 1980: On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere

You would know this if you stopped resorting to conspiracy theories about science, and instead went over the basics fo the subject you're discussing. It's like so many of you conservatives make up conspiracist nonsense to explain why scientists do simple things (oooohhh, lying scientists switched to the term "climate change" to cover up the fact that there was no global warming, ooooh!!!!), instead of doing basic investigation into why scientists make the claims they do.

[TheLurch]

The latest month's data is up at NASA, and it's the second month in a row that's over 1ºC above their baseline.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

The head of NASA's GISS has also tweeted that, unless December's temperatures are freakishly low, the year as a whole will be quite a bit warmer than any other on record (look for the green bit in the upper right).
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/s...12503199899648


Of course, this is a strong El Niño year, so it was expected to be warm. The El Niño is just about as strong as the one in 1988, the year that you often hear mentioned as the reference for "no warming since..." Prediction: 10 years from now we'll be hearing "no warming since 2015!"

[Jichard]

Source: http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/experiments-iceless-ocean

Fifty-five million years ago, the Earth was ice-less. Winters were balmy. Palm trees flourished all the way to the poles. As evidenced by fossils, crocodiles and broad-leaved, water-loving plants existed north of the Arctic Circle. This warmer world had warmer oceans, featuring deep ocean temperatures of 12 °C higher than now.

© Copyright Original Source

And we are still here...

The world didn't burn to a cinder and life still existed just fine.

Standard denialist PRATT. That's like saying:

Viruses existed 55 million of years ago, yet we are still here and other organisms (like crocodiles) existed. Therefore, viruses cannot have a negative effect on humans.

This is a silly claim to make for at least five reasons. First, no sensible person is claiming that it's impossible for human species to exist in the presence of viruses. Instead, the point is that viruses will have detrimental effects on humans. Of course, that is compatible with humans surviving the existence of viruses. So the phrase "we are still here" is based on a strawman that presupposes that attacks a position virtually no one is advocating. Second, even if other organisms survived the existence of viruses, that doesn't change the fact that viruses can have a negative effect on us. For example, some viruses attack humans without attacking crocodiles and plants, due to differences between human biology and the biology of crocodiles and plants. Thus, it makes no sense to claim that humans won't be detrimentally affected by these viruses, since crocodiles and plants did well with these viruses. Third, viruses have detrimentally affected various non-human organism. Yet the above statement conveniently avoid mentioning that. So the above statement is based on cherrypicking. Fourth, there's already abundant scientific evidence on the negative effects of viruses on humans. Pointing out what happened millions of years ago, does nothing to rebut this evidence. Fifth, it doesn't make much sense to point out that "we are still here" when discussing events from 55 million years ago. After all, human beings weren't around 50 million years ago, so of course we would not be harmed 55 million year ago by viruses that existed at that time, nor would we hve gone extinct from it. So really, the viruses were around 55 millions ago, yet humans are still here now point is a red herring leading nowhere.

Your post make parallel mistakes, much as I noted in my previous response. First, no sensible person is claiming that it's impossible for human species to exist in the presence of AGW. Instead, the point is that AGW will have detrimental effects on humans. Of course, that is compatible with humans surviving the existence of AGW. So the phrase "we are still here" is based on a strawman that presupposes that attacks a position virtually no one is advocating. Second, even if other organisms survived the existence of global warming, that doesn't change the fact that global warming can have a negative effect on us. For example, humans have coastal cities that are susceptible to sea level rise, while various other organisms don't have this issue. Therefore, AGW-driven sea level rise would have negative effect on humans, even if it did not have a negative effect on these other organisms, due to differences between the way humans live and the way various other organisms live. Thus, it makes no sense to claim that humans won't be detrimentally affected by these viruses, since crocodiles and plants did well with global warming. Third, AGW has detrimentally affected, and will detrimentally effect. For example, there have been documented instances of reduction in biodiversity resulting from AGW. Yet you conveniently avoided mentioning that. So your statement is based on cherrypicking, as is typical of denialists. Fourth, there's already abundant scientific evidence on the negative effects of AGWs on humans. Pointing out what happened millions of years ago, does nothing to rebut this evidence. Fifth, it doesn't make much sense to point out that "we are still here" when discussing events from 55 million years ago. After all, human beings weren't around 50 million years ago, so of course we would not be harmed 55 million year ago by global warming that occurred at that time, nor would we hve gone extinct from it. So really, the global warming occurred around 55 million years ago, yet humans are still here now point is a red herring leading nowhere.


Bill the Cat, a smart high school student should be able to recognize the errors in what you said. If this is how you respond to scientific evidence on AGW, then no wonder your position is a denialist one. After all, your position mirrors the sorts of claims many AIDS denialists make against the claims that HIV causes AIDS, and thus HIV has a negative effect on humans.

[Jichard]

Yup - a few more years of this and temperatures will reach the same levels as prevailed during the 1st Century AD - about 1 degree C below those of the 5th Century AD, and roughly 2 below those of the 6th century BC. Right now, they're a shade below the 3000 year average.

Source?? The Onion?

Hardly: clim4-8.gif

This is only one of many reports that have come out in the past few years.

If you're not going to read peer-reviewed scientific papers on this, then I'd at least recommend reading this source: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...e-hockey-stick
That page includes a number of some relevant graphs that counter your point, by showing (for example) that the recent temperatures would be higher than that seen in the 5th century AD.