Hottest Summer on Record

[hazlnut]

Hate to break this to you idiot. Okay I lied I love it when you are caught being stupid. That said THIS is the first line in the OP "This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years." ANYBODY has the right to ask that be backed up.

So idiot, what was the temp in 42 AD? And a LINK for that as well please. Thank you idiot.

DunceFury strikes again.


"ON RECORD"


Here's a plan of action for you:

1) Go out on the boulevard and turn enough tricks to earn enough money to buy yourself a dictionary.

2) Take money you earned from blowing men to a book store.

3) Purchase dictionary.

4) Look up the phrase "on record."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol, this is hilarious.

 

[the_human_being]

This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years.
2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record - CNN.com


Coincidence? I think not.

Global warming is real, fools.

Well, they're predicting one of the coldest winter is coming so "CHECKMATE"

That IS global warming, genius.


All weather is a function of heat. Ice storms, blizzards are made bigger and badder by heat.


You've shown yourself to be an idiot.

No, you've proven yourself to be taken in by false science and political propaganda.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years.
2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record - CNN.com


Coincidence? I think not.

Global warming is real, fools.

What was the temp on July 1, 2015 B.C.? ROFLMAO

Ask someone with more patience than me to explain to you how science determines these things. Be especially sure to ask them to explain what "on record" means.

SO what was the temp July 1, 2015 B.C.? C'mon dope, put up or shut up

Dope? Where? Is it meth?

They don't know the precise global temperature back then but there are proxies like ice cores.

So give us the exact temperature ignorant fool

Of the year...

303?
109?
356?
834?
1198?
1235?
1339?

 

[chikenwing]

This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years.
2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record - CNN.com


Coincidence? I think not.

Global warming is real, fools.

After a record cold winter,so??its kinda like the palm tree fossils found above the arctic circle,hot then cold then hot then cold then hot then cold,yes the climate is a dynamic thing.

 

[Mustang]

This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years.
2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record - CNN.com


Coincidence? I think not.

Global warming is real, fools.

The sooner the human race is gone, the better off the planet will be.

You do know the planet was MADE for the human race and to be used for the human race?
Little commie

That's egocentric nonsense.

 

[Rustic]

This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years.
2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record - CNN.com


Coincidence? I think not.

Global warming is real, fools.

The sooner the human race is gone, the better off the planet will be.

You do know the planet was MADE for the human race and to be used for the human race?
Little commie

That's egocentric nonsense.

Go hug a tree...

 

[Freewill]

This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years.
2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record - CNN.com


Coincidence? I think not.

Global warming is real, fools.

The sooner the human race is gone, the better off the planet will be.

Isn't better a relative term and is a measured by humans? The planet doesn't care, it is nothing.

Are you suggesting that you are going to be the start of making the planet, what you say, better?

 

[Freewill]

The OP is a scam. We're in a 2 decade long pause. The only way they created the imaginary "warming" is by adding the imaginary "warming" in the oceans.

It's a total fabrication

I keep hearing these accusations that all the climate scientists who publish or speak in support of global warming are liars. I think to myself, if they are lying what is their motive? I've never come up with or heard a convincing motive for such a vast conspiracy of lies. I've heard a few motives for a conspiracy to assassinate JFK that if tied in with other indisputable evidence could be credible. Same with various 9/11 theories. Like any building or structure a good conspiracy theory has to have a solid foundation. A convincing motive is a necessary part of that foundation and I just don't see one here. Of course I don't know enough of the science to be sure by the science alone that global warming is a reality. I have to look at the whole context, the backstories, the methodology, the reputation of the scientists who advance the theory, etc. etc. Right now I'm about 80% there in accepting that global warming is an existential fact caused by human behavior in the last 150 yrs. or so and not just a periodic, cyclic or random change in climate pattern.
Taking that into account and knowing that change in climate and environment has been responsible for many mass extinctions since life originated on this planet I come to the conclusion that we should get off our ass and, if it's not too late as some of the more pessimistic say, do as much as we can as fast as we can to stop the descent into environmental catastrophe. And hey, if they are wrong, if I am wrong, we end up with a cleaner more beautiful world as a consolation prize.

GW has nothing to do with making the planet cleaner, although a nobel cause GW has only to do with temperature. Here is from NOAA:

What ever you want to believe NOAA is telling you that since 2006 only one year has been warmer in the USA

 

[Old Rocks]

NOAA
Two other agencies came to the same conclusion this week. Mashable reported that data fromNASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency showed summer 2015 was the was the warmest on record.

Of course, these are just scientists, not obese junkies on the AM radio. What the hell do they know?

 

[Old Rocks]

The OP is a scam. We're in a 2 decade long pause. The only way they created the imaginary "warming" is by adding the imaginary "warming" in the oceans.

It's a total fabrication

I keep hearing these accusations that all the climate scientists who publish or speak in support of global warming are liars. I think to myself, if they are lying what is their motive? I've never come up with or heard a convincing motive for such a vast conspiracy of lies. I've heard a few motives for a conspiracy to assassinate JFK that if tied in with other indisputable evidence could be credible. Same with various 9/11 theories. Like any building or structure a good conspiracy theory has to have a solid foundation. A convincing motive is a necessary part of that foundation and I just don't see one here. Of course I don't know enough of the science to be sure by the science alone that global warming is a reality. I have to look at the whole context, the backstories, the methodology, the reputation of the scientists who advance the theory, etc. etc. Right now I'm about 80% there in accepting that global warming is an existential fact caused by human behavior in the last 150 yrs. or so and not just a periodic, cyclic or random change in climate pattern.
Taking that into account and knowing that change in climate and environment has been responsible for many mass extinctions since life originated on this planet I come to the conclusion that we should get off our ass and, if it's not too late as some of the more pessimistic say, do as much as we can as fast as we can to stop the descent into environmental catastrophe. And hey, if they are wrong, if I am wrong, we end up with a cleaner more beautiful world as a consolation prize.

GW has nothing to do with making the planet cleaner, although a nobel cause GW has only to do with temperature. Here is from NOAA:

View attachment 53563

What ever you want to believe NOAA is telling you that since 2006 only one year has been warmer in the USA

Would you believe that the lower 48 make up less than 2% of the Earths surface? Not only that, since Alaska is officially part of the US, when you include that state, the US has been steadily warming.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oregon had a very hot summer....

no questions about it.


The world overall has warmed and that is reality.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is the hottest summer in at least 4,000 years.
2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record - CNN.com


Coincidence? I think not.

Global warming is real, fools.

What was the temp on July 1, 2015 B.C.? ROFLMAO

Ask someone with more patience than me to explain to you how science determines these things. Be especially sure to ask them to explain what "on record" means.

SO what was the temp July 1, 2015 B.C.? C'mon dope, put up or shut up

Dope? Where? Is it meth?

They don't know the precise global temperature back then but there are proxies like ice cores.

So give us the exact temperature ignorant fool

Of the year...

303?
109?
356?
834?
1198?
1235?
1339?

The proxies we do have say that were all cooler then now. Of course, I am a ignorant fool for believing in real degreed scientist. Tell me again the difference between loserterianism and the taliban?

 

[Freewill]

The OP is a scam. We're in a 2 decade long pause. The only way they created the imaginary "warming" is by adding the imaginary "warming" in the oceans.

It's a total fabrication

I keep hearing these accusations that all the climate scientists who publish or speak in support of global warming are liars. I think to myself, if they are lying what is their motive? I've never come up with or heard a convincing motive for such a vast conspiracy of lies. I've heard a few motives for a conspiracy to assassinate JFK that if tied in with other indisputable evidence could be credible. Same with various 9/11 theories. Like any building or structure a good conspiracy theory has to have a solid foundation. A convincing motive is a necessary part of that foundation and I just don't see one here. Of course I don't know enough of the science to be sure by the science alone that global warming is a reality. I have to look at the whole context, the backstories, the methodology, the reputation of the scientists who advance the theory, etc. etc. Right now I'm about 80% there in accepting that global warming is an existential fact caused by human behavior in the last 150 yrs. or so and not just a periodic, cyclic or random change in climate pattern.
Taking that into account and knowing that change in climate and environment has been responsible for many mass extinctions since life originated on this planet I come to the conclusion that we should get off our ass and, if it's not too late as some of the more pessimistic say, do as much as we can as fast as we can to stop the descent into environmental catastrophe. And hey, if they are wrong, if I am wrong, we end up with a cleaner more beautiful world as a consolation prize.

GW has nothing to do with making the planet cleaner, although a nobel cause GW has only to do with temperature. Here is from NOAA:

View attachment 53563

What ever you want to believe NOAA is telling you that since 2006 only one year has been warmer in the USA

Would you believe that the lower 48 make up less than 2% of the Earths surface? Not only that, since Alaska is officially part of the US, when you include that state, the US has been steadily warming.

Unlike yourself I have shown you the evidence of what I say. Now all you need do is do the same. Until then you are only voicing opinion.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an interesting article concerning CO2 and Global Warming. All referenced.

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? - A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper

 

[Old Rocks]

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

Does CO2 Lag or Lead?
This is where it really gets interesting, because the answer is yes - CO2 lags and leads. In the Southern Hemisphere, Shakun et al. found that the temperature rise happened first, whereas in the Northern Hemisphere, the CO2 increase was first (Figures 3 and 4).


Since your link was a denialist interpretation of the Shakun paper, here is another interpretation.

 

[Old Rocks]

And here is the abstract of that paper, and where you can get it;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

• Jeremy D. Shakun,
• Peter U. Clark,
• Feng He,
• Shaun A. Marcott,
• Alan C. Mix,
• Zhengyu Liu,
• Bette Otto-Bliesner,
• Andreas Schmittner
• & Edouard Bard

• Affiliations
• Contributions
• Corresponding author

Nature

484,

49–54

(05 April 2012)

doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received

16 September 2011
Accepted

01 February 2012
Published online

04 April 2012
Citation

• Reprints

• Rights & permissions

• Article metrics

Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

 

[Freewill]

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

Does CO2 Lag or Lead?
This is where it really gets interesting, because the answer is yes - CO2 lags and leads. In the Southern Hemisphere, Shakun et al. found that the temperature rise happened first, whereas in the Northern Hemisphere, the CO2 increase was first (Figures 3 and 4).


Since your link was a denialist interpretation of the Shakun paper, here is another interpretation.

So you have successfully provided a chart that proves nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://climate.engin.umich.edu/figu...uments/Shakun_CO2_Ice_Age_End_Nature_2012.pdf

Our global temperature stack and transient modelling point to CO2 as a key mechanism of global warming during the last deglaciation. Furthermore, our results support an interhemispheric seesawing of heat related to AMOC variability and suggest that these internal heat redistributions explain the lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 while global temperature was in phase with or slightly lagged CO2. Lastly, the global proxy database suggests that parts of the northern mid to high latitudes were the first to warm after the LGM, which could have initiated the reduction in the AMOC that may have ultimately caused the increase in CO2 concentration.

At the site above, you can get the whole article. So you can judge for yourself what it says and doesn't say. Now Freewill, why did you not provide to whole article? Afraid of what it really says?

 

[Searcher44]

The OP is a scam. We're in a 2 decade long pause. The only way they created the imaginary "warming" is by adding the imaginary "warming" in the oceans.

It's a total fabrication

I keep hearing these accusations that all the climate scientists who publish or speak in support of global warming are liars. I think to myself, if they are lying what is their motive? I've never come up with or heard a convincing motive for such a vast conspiracy of lies. I've heard a few motives for a conspiracy to assassinate JFK that if tied in with other indisputable evidence could be credible. Same with various 9/11 theories. Like any building or structure a good conspiracy theory has to have a solid foundation. A convincing motive is a necessary part of that foundation and I just don't see one here. Of course I don't know enough of the science to be sure by the science alone that global warming is a reality. I have to look at the whole context, the backstories, the methodology, the reputation of the scientists who advance the theory, etc. etc. Right now I'm about 80% there in accepting that global warming is an existential fact caused by human behavior in the last 150 yrs. or so and not just a periodic, cyclic or random change in climate pattern.
Taking that into account and knowing that change in climate and environment has been responsible for many mass extinctions since life originated on this planet I come to the conclusion that we should get off our ass and, if it's not too late as some of the more pessimistic say, do as much as we can as fast as we can to stop the descent into environmental catastrophe. And hey, if they are wrong, if I am wrong, we end up with a cleaner more beautiful world as a consolation prize.

"GW has nothing to do with making the planet cleaner, although a nobel cause GW has only to do with temperature.

If you really believe this, "GW has nothing to do with making the planet cleaner, although a nobel cause GW has only to do with temperature." one of us has absolutely no idea how the factors that "they" say contribute to global warming affect our environment and the global ecosystem. For instance you do realize that coal burning is claimed to be a big contributor to GW?

Beijing is being choked with air pollution, you really think this has nothing to do with GW or making the world a more ugly place? Take GW out of the equation, by tackling the causes of air pollution you're still making the world a "cleaner more beautiful place". Do you know any of the story of LA's battle against smog? It's a decades long drama that doesn't tell a very flattering story about industry. The county formed the first air pollution board in 1947.

But "it wasn’t until 1975 that the U.S. required new cars to have catalytic converters, “the key piece of technology that allowed everything to change,” according to Mary Nichols, chairman of California’s Air Resources Board. In between, there were frustrating years of scientific research, industry denial, politics, protest and an unwavering attachment to the automobile".

"Automakers were slow to respond, wary of any change that would add cost to their vehicles. “It’s like the stages of grief,” said Nichols. “At first you deny it. Then you fight against it. And finally you grudgingly accept it, embrace it and move on.” That process took almost two decades."

Just the story of how the petroleum industry fought admitting that lead in gasoline was deadly makes for reading like a great thriller of a novel, with spying, phony research, lying and character assassination involved. Rule #1 - Don't believe anything Industry tells you about Global Warming, you think GW scientists are liars? Industry has proven over and over again they will keep lying until they can't get away with it anymore - think Tobacco Industry also.

How smog is killing thousands daily in China | Asia | DW.COM | 17.08.2015
How smog is killing thousands daily in China
A new US study found that air pollution kills about 4,000 Chinese people a day. But what are the main contributors and is Beijing doing enough to tackle the issue? DW spoke to the authors of the study.
Richard Muller and Robert Rohde: The dominant air pollution for health impact is PM2.5. That stands for "Particulate Matter" 2.5 microns and smaller. Previously people thought that this came from many sources, including automobiles, agricultural dust, dust from their extensive loess deposits, and from coal.

This is small scale coal burning in China, but you know what they say "Every little bit hurts" Coal burning ==>Global warming==>environmental destruction==>
uglier world. Again take out GW and you can't deny the rest.

(Cont'd)
"Our analysis indicates that it comes primarily from coal, used for electric power, for industrial energy, and for heating. The key to seeing this is that the sources of the PM2.5 closely match the sources of sulfur. Beijing is a major source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), from automobiles, but not a major source of sulfur or PM2.5."

How about the beauty and eco-importance of coral reefs. Isn't their destruction related to pollution, GW or not?

Coral bleaching results when the coral polyps expel their zooxanthellae symbionts from their tissues revealing their underlying, white skeleton. Without zooxanthellae, the coral polyps lose nutrition and have less energy available for growth or reproduction.

• Coral bleaching is linked to higher than normal temperatures, pollution, and exposure to air.
• Within a region, massive coral bleaching events can occur with as little of a temperature increase as 1 to 2°C above normal for a few weeks.
• Since 1979, these mass bleaching events seem correlated with severe El Niño Southern Oscillation events.
• Full recovery of coral reefs from these events often takes decades.

Does anyone disagree that the Amazon Basin is one of the most beautiful environments on earth? And that deforestation not only destroys that beauty but potentially mortally affects the earth's ability to deal with CO2 and replenish our oxygen?

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/

"Journey into the heart of Amazonia, with its vast rivers and forests where thousands of plant and animal species live in a delicate balance-a balance that's increasingly threatened by logging, mining, agriculture, roadbuilding, oil and gas drilling."

That was a long-winded reply but do you still think that pollution has nothing to do with GW and vice versa? And that the things they say cause global warming can also destroy parts of the world we humans consider beautiful?