2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[elektra]

You defended your OP, how, by giving us a link to an article that explains there is no data to support the assertion you claim. Post the temperatures.

More precisely, links to hyperbole and links to failed models, neither of which are empirical evidence of any sort.

You crackpots are too stupid to understand the evidence that the world's scientists have used to reach their conclusions. The evidence and data are all available if you look. Your denier cult propaganda meme is to claim that there is no supporting evidence and demand to see it, but this is just another variation on your insane conspiracy theories about the entire world scientific community being involved in a huge hoax.

It is not that there is no evidence, it is a case of you deniers refusing to believe the evidence because the reality of the AGW situation the world is in challenges the ideological/political/economic fantasies about unregulated free-market capitalism that you've been brainwashed into fervently and insanely believing.

Evidence

CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:
*Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.
*Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.
*Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.
*Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.
*Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.

CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:
*R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 109:6, April 2008, 906-921.
*Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.
*Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I.[sup] 16[/sup] O[sup] 12[/sup] C[sup] 16[/sup] O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.
*Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.
*Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.

Earth's upward emission of IR:
*Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).
*Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).
*Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).
*Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.
*Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.
*Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.

Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:
*Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).
*Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
*Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.


Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:
*Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).
*Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).
*Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.
*Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).
*Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.
* Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.
* Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.
* Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.

Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?

 

[RollingThunder]

Crick, Your wall o-shit is just that.. shit!

I understand the theroy of CO2 and how it functions in our atmosphere. I have even done the experiments. What you fail to accept is the closed cylinder of a lab and our OPEN system of the earth are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

All of the papers you have listed used MODELING to state their outcomes. The models predictive performance is ZERO... They have all failed to produce observable output which even remotely reflect actual observations.

I can go into a long dissertation why each of these papers has significant problems. Their basis starts from a preconceived or desired outcome along with copious amounts of grant funding.

Tell me Crick, when you apply a 30% water vapor content between that gas cylinder in the lab and its green screen what happens to the received energy?

And another deranged anti-science denier cult dingbat spews his fraudulent cultic myths and propaganda that have no connection to the real world. The deniers are getting so desperate as their myths crumble in the face of reality - 2014 is going to be the next new 'hottest year on record' - and that's just killing them.

 

[Vigilante]

Crick, Your wall o-shit is just that.. shit!

I understand the theroy of CO2 and how it functions in our atmosphere. I have even done the experiments. What you fail to accept is the closed cylinder of a lab and our OPEN system of the earth are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

All of the papers you have listed used MODELING to state their outcomes. The models predictive performance is ZERO... They have all failed to produce observable output which even remotely reflect actual observations.

I can go into a long dissertation why each of these papers has significant problems. Their basis starts from a preconceived or desired outcome along with copious amounts of grant funding.

Tell me Crick, when you apply a 30% water vapor content between that gas cylinder in the lab and its green screen what happens to the received energy?

And another deranged anti-science denier cult dingbat spews his fraudulent cultic myths and propaganda that have no connection to the real world. The deniers are getting so desperate as their myths crumble in the face of reality - 2014 is going to be the next new 'hottest year on record' - and that's just killing them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And another deranged anti-science denier cult dingbat spews his fraudulent cultic myths and propaganda that have no connection to the real world. The deniers are getting so desperate as their myths crumble in the face of reality - 2014 is going to be the next new 'hottest year on record' - and that's just killing them.

Got to admit it, You got being a moron down pat!

The only way it will be the 'hottest year ev-a' is if your friends at NOAA/GISS fuck with the data and lie some more... How does it feel to be living a lie? I'll bet your proud of that...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Science is settled?

Finally An Explanation Of The global Warming Scam US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

There's one of the forum nutjobs, totally enamored with his own insanity in starting another thread of deranged denier cult drivel that has no connection to the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC. More irrelevant idiocy.

"... no connection to the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC."
That would be zero.

Only if you're referring to your own intelligence quotient. The sane people are discussing the science supporting AGW/CC, and you bamboozled denier cult nutjobs are obsessed with politics and psycho-babble that have nothing to do with the reality of a rapidly warming planet. You've lost the science part of the debate so you are reduced to this kind of meaningless twaddle.

Pay careful attention to a Global Warming Scientist at East Anglia as he spills the beans:
What happened to the truth?

1. 1. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
   2. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… ....scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science Society The Guardian.

Again???
"...Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”

3. So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


4. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf



5. Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.


Now do you understand what a fool you've been played for????

 

[elektra]

Crick, Your wall o-shit is just that.. shit!

I understand the theroy of CO2 and how it functions in our atmosphere. I have even done the experiments. What you fail to accept is the closed cylinder of a lab and our OPEN system of the earth are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

All of the papers you have listed used MODELING to state their outcomes. The models predictive performance is ZERO... They have all failed to produce observable output which even remotely reflect actual observations.

I can go into a long dissertation why each of these papers has significant problems. Their basis starts from a preconceived or desired outcome along with copious amounts of grant funding.

Tell me Crick, when you apply a 30% water vapor content between that gas cylinder in the lab and its green screen what happens to the received energy?

And another deranged anti-science denier cult dingbat spews his fraudulent cultic myths and propaganda that have no connection to the real world. The deniers are getting so desperate as their myths crumble in the face of reality - 2014 is going to be the next new 'hottest year on record' - and that's just killing them.

Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?

 

[RollingThunder]

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!

 

[Vigilante]

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!

Winning converts and influencing people, is NOT in this fucking idiots bag of tricks!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!

"Really stupid pre-schoolers" like this:
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)


He pretty well destroyed you, huh?

 

[elektra]

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!

Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?

 

[RollingThunder]

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!

"Really stupid pre-schoolers" like this:
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
He pretty well destroyed you, huh?

LOLOLOL.....you poor moron....Dr. Hulme is doing fine....you are the "really stupid pre-schooler" for believing that crackpot rightwingnut spin your puppetmasters put on his article.

Which is actually a thoughtful article about the difficulties in communicating the scientific consensus on AGW to the public. Everybody should read it. The original that is, not the cherry-picked quotes the denier propagandists use.

The appliance of science

 

[elektra]

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!

"Really stupid pre-schoolers" like this:
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
He pretty well destroyed you, huh?

LOLOLOL.....you poor moron....Dr. Hulme is doing fine....you are the "really stupid pre-schooler" for believing that crackpot rightwingnut spin your puppetmasters put on his article.

Which is actually a thoughtful article about the difficulties in communicating the scientific consensus on AGW to the public. Everybody should read it. The original that is, not the cherry-picked quotes the denier propagandists use.

The appliance of science

Post the actual temperatures,

Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!

"Really stupid pre-schoolers" like this:
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
He pretty well destroyed you, huh?

LOLOLOL.....you poor moron....Dr. Hulme is doing fine....you are the "really stupid pre-schooler" for believing that crackpot rightwingnut spin your puppetmasters put on his article.

Which is actually a thoughtful article about the difficulties in communicating the scientific consensus on AGW to the public. Everybody should read it. The original that is, not the cherry-picked quotes the denier propagandists use.

The appliance of science

He said global science isn't science.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Post the actual temperatures,

Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?

Here... let me help an old man set in his ways..

Hey Crick this post is for you!

Now that is the temperature plot since 1850. Do you see where we are today? The divergence to cooling is massive...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wood for Trees Interactive Graphs

 

[RollingThunder]

Denier cultists and their cherry-picked graphs and deranged pseudo-science are hilariously pathetic.

In the real world things look different...

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Denier cultists and their cherry-picked graphs and deranged pseudo-science are hilariously pathetic.

In the real world things look different...

Every one of Criks graphs end in 2008... because then they dont show cooling..

IF we go out long enough we can show that it is a cyclical phase. Thus all the talk of the last 10 or so years would be normal and at the top of sine wave curve which would then turn downward into cooling.... Wait! that is why Crick refuses to show the last 5 years...