2015 Warmest Year on Record

[cyptomcat]

NASA Slides: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa_nasa_global_analysis_2015.pdf

NASA release: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

"Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates."

link for graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

There is also a researcher that updates on how the IPCC AR5 temperature predictions fare with the real temperatures. His most recent graph:

link: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Interesting information. Thank you.

 

[AE 87]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/...eratures-in-joint-media-teleconference-today/

 

[AE 87]

NASA Slides: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa_nasa_global_analysis_2015.pdf

NASA release: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

"Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates."

link for graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

There is also a researcher that updates on how the IPCC AR5 temperature predictions fare with the real temperatures. His most recent graph:

link: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

I have to say that .2 deg C of warming over just the last 2 years sure makes a big difference.

 

[cyptomcat]

I have to say that .2 deg C of warming over just the last 2 years sure makes a big difference.

It's thought to be caused mostly by the El Nino, so I don't think it's completely the global warming signal.

Unfortunately for this discussion, we will literally have to wait couple decades to really see what's going on. First of all for more data to be available, but also as important for improvement on our analysis and understanding of how it all works.

 

[AE 87]

It's thought to be caused mostly by the El Nino, so I don't think it's completely the global warming signal.

Unfortunately for this discussion, we will literally have to wait couple decades to really see what's going on. First of all for more data to be available, but also as important for improvement on our analysis and understanding of how it all works.

Yeah, I wish that I could be confident of that. If I understand correctly, the crowd pushing the warming story are questioning the satellite data while the crowd saying the human contribution isn't as significant as reported and not yet a cause for concern are questioning the data used in your graph.

When the scientists can't even agree on the data, then it seems that reaching an agreed interpretation isn't going to happen.

 

[BuzzStone]

I do believe we will get somewhat of a consensus on global warning in the next few years. Science always wins and this should be at the forefront of all research right now. I will be interested to read further studies on this over the next few months.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

I do believe we will get somewhat of a consensus on global warning in the next few years. Science always wins and this should be at the forefront of all research right now. I will be interested to read further studies on this over the next few months.

Consensus =/= correctness

 

[AE 87]

I do believe we will get somewhat of a consensus on global warning in the next few years. Science always wins and this should be at the forefront of all research right now. I will be interested to read further studies on this over the next few months.

Whom do you think science is playing?

If trends continue, we'll learn in the next few months that the past was cooler.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I do believe we will get somewhat of a consensus on global warning in the next few years. Science always wins and this should be at the forefront of all research right now. I will be interested to read further studies on this over the next few months.

We already have a consensus. It's about 97% of the scientific community that agrees.

That's more than the percentage of dentists who recommend crest.

 

[BuzzStone]

We already have a consensus. It's about 97% of the scientific community that agrees.

That's more than the percentage of dentists who recommend crest.

I know that a majority of the scientific community agrees. The problem is getting society as a whole to come to a consensus. It is very similar to evolution. We have undeniable evidence of evolution but a large percentage of society that refutes it. In order to tackle the worlds major problems we need to work together on a common goal.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

We already have a consensus. It's about 97% of the scientific community that agrees.

That's more than the percentage of dentists who recommend crest.

The 97% claim has been debunked.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

[AE 87]

I know that a majority of the scientific community agrees. The problem is getting society as a whole to come to a consensus. It is very similar to evolution. We have undeniable evidence of evolution but a large percentage of society that refutes it. In order to tackle the worlds major problems we need to work together on a common goal.

What do you mean by "evolution" ? The scientific theory of the neo-Darwinian synthesis has been falsified by data. Faith that a new theory will arise and succeed is still faith and not science.

The problem is that this faith is propogated by our public schools, and many are too unwilling to question this faith by looking at data. They cite consensus stats like fundies cite the bible.

 

[BuzzStone]

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules

Simple google answer.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules

Simple google answer.

Molecules don't evolve. That is a ridiculous premise.

 

[BuzzStone]

Molecules don't evolve. That is a ridiculous premise.

God is a flying spaghetti monster is a ridiculous premise, which there is no evidence for.

Molecular evolution is not a ridiculous premise. There have been countless studies and years worth of ongoing research on the matter. If you feel you have data to back up a statement like that i would love to read it.

 

[AE 87]

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules

Simple google answer.

I appreciate that you think a simple Google answer is responsive. However, those informed on the topic knoq that the word is used in a variety of ways which is why I asked how you were using it. You shouldn't need Google to explain your usage.

However, your response discloses the equivocation which often arise in this discussion. People use "evolution" to refer to both adaptation and speciation. However, since the discovery of DNA, we've learned how radically different those processes must be.

What I don't understand is why people who simply accept things like macro evolution and dangerous AGW by faith have such difficulty admitting it.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

God is a flying spaghetti monster is a ridiculous premise, which there is no evidence for.

Molecular evolution is not a ridiculous premise. There have been countless studies and years worth of ongoing research on the matter. If you feel you have data to back up a statement like that i would love to read it.

If the molecular structure changes, that isn't evolution. It is a chemical reaction.

Additionally, I said nothing regarding God. But since you brought it up, how it is any less a ridiculous premise than "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. Then the explosion came to life because science."?

 

[BuzzStone]

People use "evolution" to refer to both adaptation and speciation. However, since the discovery of DNA, we've learned how radically different those processes must be.

What I don't understand is why people who simply accept things like macro evolution and dangerous AGW by faith have such difficulty admitting it.

And what would you claim is the difference between evolution adaptation and speciation?

If anyone claims to deny evolution you can only do so from a religious viewpoint, in that case there is no discussion needed.

Also I don't have faith so I can't help you with your last point.

 

[AE 87]

And what would you claim is the difference between evolution adaptation and speciation?

If anyone claims to deny evolution you can only do so from a religious viewpoint, in that case there is no discussion needed.

Also I don't have faith so I can't help you with your last point.

If you don't know the difference between changes within a species as it adapts to its environment and the changes which result in a new species, then you may be out of your depth in a conversation about the science.

Consequently, you've accepted the "answers" of some who claim the label science by faith whether you admit it or not.

Let me say it again. There is no consensus scientific theory of macro evolution which the facts have not falsified. Therefore, any belief in macro evolution is faith.