hot enough for ya?

[Turdacious]

More random data points for Chicken Little:

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/04/ ... sept-1996/

[Turdacious]

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... g-cooling/

[dead man walking]

and record antarctic ice!

yet:

Nevertheless, the discharge of heat from the tropical ocean is already beginning to have an effect on global surface temperatures with April 2014 being the 2nd warmest in 135 years of measurement (tied with 1998), and May 2014 the warmest ever in 135 years. These records might not last very long, if past El Niño trends are a reliable indicator, as the tail end of strong El Niños in the following year often sees the April & May records tumble.

2014 is currently on track to be one of the warmest years ever recorded, perhaps even the warmest. This will depend on how, or if, El Niño develops throughout the rest of the year. Recent observations suggest, however, that 2010's reign as the warmest year on record is seriously under threat.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mercury ... orded.html

[Turdacious]

and record antarctic ice!

yet:

Nevertheless, the discharge of heat from the tropical ocean is already beginning to have an effect on global surface temperatures with April 2014 being the 2nd warmest in 135 years of measurement (tied with 1998), and May 2014 the warmest ever in 135 years. These records might not last very long, if past El Niño trends are a reliable indicator, as the tail end of strong El Niños in the following year often sees the April & May records tumble.

2014 is currently on track to be one of the warmest years ever recorded, perhaps even the warmest. This will depend on how, or if, El Niño develops throughout the rest of the year. Recent observations suggest, however, that 2010's reign as the warmest year on record is seriously under threat.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mercury ... orded.html

You're relying on random data points?

[dead man walking]

i bet myself that would be your reply.

[dead man walking]

turd, putting my random data points in context:

T

he combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was the record highest for the month, at 59.93°F (15.54°C) or 1.33°F (0.74°C) above the 20th century average. The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.13°F (0.07°C).

May marked the 39th consecutive May and 351st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average temperature for May occurred in 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month occurred in February 1985.

The global land temperature was the fourth highest for May on record, at 2.03°F (1.13°C) above the 20th century average. The margin of error is ±0.23°F (0.13°C). The Southern Hemisphere land temperature was record warm for May.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

perhaps more to the point, increases in temperatures are an issue only insofar as they result in changes that pose a risk and to which we must adapt. one can post temperature data, but how about rising sea levels, which are well documented; acidification of the ocean, documented; glacial melting, again documented; earlier springs, which are increasingly documented, and some northward migration of diseases, again being documented? these are all manifestations of climate change. so the temperature record is one piece of a larger puzzle.

in addition, some would argue drought, as occurred in syria and which played a role in the civil war, are a consequence of climate change. forest fires and storms like sandy are more severe, some say. there is not conclusive evidence for these lines of argument, but if you were responsible for managing the risk posed by drought, conflagrations and storms, would you ignore these possible trends?

so when you can demonstrate that sea level hasn't risen and the greenland glaciers are adding ice, not losing it, i will be inclined to rethink what almost all climate scientists are saying.

[Turdacious]

in addition, some would argue drought, as occurred in syria and which played a role in the civil war, are a consequence of climate change. forest fires and storms like sandy are more severe, some say. there is not conclusive evidence for these lines of argument, but if you were responsible for managing the risk posed by drought, conflagrations and storms, would you ignore these possible trends?

Sandy's devastation was a result of hitting the NY/NJ area at high tide-- more timing than anything else. Also a result of our country subsiding building in areas long known to be high flood risk.

perhaps more to the point, increases in temperatures are an issue only insofar as they result in changes that pose a risk and to which we must adapt. one can post temperature data, but how about rising sea levels, which are well documented; acidification of the ocean, documented; glacial melting, again documented; earlier springs, which are increasingly documented, and some northward migration of diseases, again being documented? these are all manifestations of climate change. so the temperature record is one piece of a larger puzzle.

so when you can demonstrate that sea level hasn't risen and the greenland glaciers are adding ice, not losing it, i will be inclined to rethink what almost all climate scientists are saying.

If the arguments are so strong, why do the goal posts constantly have to be moved? Why do climate scientists have to massage (i.e. falsify) their data to make their point? Climate scientists don't understand the surface temperature of the ocean well enough to create a reliable measurement, use it to have predictive value, or integrate it effectively into their models. The only link that can be conclusively shown is that between research funding dollars and interest in climate change by researchers.

[nafod]

The wisdom of Solomon is needed to sort this one out.

Or a masturbation sesh in a public restroom. Either method works.

[dead man walking]

perhaps rather than wisdom, we need patience. the truth will reveal itself. meantime, many corporations, communities, and the military are figuring out how to address the risks that would be posed by climate change.

i don't know where sex acts in public restrooms fit in, but i wouldn't want to discourage consenting adults from harmless self-gratification.

[Gene]

perhaps rather than wisdom, we need patience. the truth will reveal itself. meantime, many corporations, communities, and the military are figuring out how to address the risks that would be posed by climate change.

Edit -

the truth will reveal itself. meantime, many corporations, communities, and the military are figuring out how to get Corporate subsidies, Grubbing for easy Advertising or following Civilian Authority which wants the Military to use Green Technology foisted on them by Campaign donor$$

[Turdacious]

Moar irrelevant data points:

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -high.html

[dead man walking]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/rose-co ... unday.html

[Turdacious]

Regarding energy use:

How is electricity use affected by environmental beliefs?
There is some link between households’ stated behaviour towards switching off unused appliances and electricity use, but there is seldom a statistically significant relationship (p-value 0.05 or less) between stated and actual behaviour. This means that policy-makers cannot rely on stated behaviours alone in assessing how often householders turn off unused TVs and desktop computers, or how much hot water they use for showers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 150514.pdf
Sounds like you should spend more time preaching to the converted dmw.

[dead man walking]

can it be true that people say they behave more responsibly than they actually do?

shocking!

[Shafpocalypse Now]

It was pretty hot here today, yeah.

[Holland Oates]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qkUYE7NNys[/youtube]

[dead man walking]

The average temperature of Earth’s surface last month exceeded all Junes before it, since record keeping began in 1880, according to new data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That may sound familiar, because it’s the same language used to describe the month of May, which was the hottest month of May ever recorded.

[buckethead]

I want to see the comparison data of the satellites in 1880 and now

[dead man walking]

arctic methane venting in siberia.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/envir ... 7006746397

[Turdacious]

Drill baby drill!

[milosz]

ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].

[dead man walking]

act now: climate policy=insurance

An analysis of research on the cost of delay for hitting a specified climate target (typically, a given concentration of greenhouse gases) suggests that net mitigation costs increase, on average, by approximately 40 percent for each decade of delay

new report:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... change.pdf

[Turdacious]

Chop down trees to save the planet!

[dead man walking]

i saw that. the idea that dark cover in the north is less desirable than reflective snow is one i have heard before.

i am surrounded by woodland, and I have a difficult time believing the volatile organic compounds here are worse than they are in an urban area with fewer trees but more cars.

if you are thinking of posting the news that the antarctic ice sheet is likely to reach record levels, no need. i just said it.

que sera, sera.

[Turdacious]

i saw that. the idea that dark cover in the north is less desirable than reflective snow is one i have heard before.

i am surrounded by woodland, and I have a difficult time believing the volatile organic compounds here are worse than they are in an urban area with fewer trees but more cars.

Ignore the science then...