The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Will 2014 be the hottest year ever? > Comments

Will 2014 be the hottest year ever? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 16/12/2014

Why would the WMO not wait until January 1st, when it could say whatever it wanted to say with at least 365 days of data?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
oh Don if only you would turn your skills to curing cancer you'd have it licked in a week
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 8:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber - you haven't made any point refuting Don, just a sneer. The fact that 2014 might be the warmest year, right or not, is almost besides the point. The models say it should be much warmer than it is, as Don points out..so what conclusion should we draw?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 9:21:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Will 2014 be the hottest year ever?"

Of course not! Who would believe such rot?

It was much hotter for 75% of the past 500 million years - there was no ice at either pole for all that time!

And life thrived.

Therefore, clearly warmer is better for life.

Therefore not catastrophe, just the pro's and cons of change - and that goes on all the time naturally anyway.

The climate changes abruptly. Always has, always will.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 9:55:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly curmudgeon, we should not be listening on what the data is telling us, we should be concentrating on arguing about the inadequacy of our models. That's where the real game is isn't it?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:14:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is just the point Bugsy, we should be listening to the real data, not some model, designed to give the UN what it wants.

Only actual measurements, nor homogenised, or bastardised with monotonous regularity, as the WMO & other UN fellow travellers are.

Try the satellite record, records that are the least adulterated of any that the gravy train crew can get their hands on.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:25:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where?
The people up there in Alaska watching their permanently frozen permafrost melting and their ever present summer sea ice disappearing; might very well conclude that it was?

Perhaps we could use the old people index and measure the raw numbers dying in ever longer heatwaves; to conclude, hey it's been hotter for some, but particularly those who can't afford air conditioners!

Or the occasional swimmer, commenting that in recent years the oceans have become much warmer than normal, particularly along Tasmania's east coast, where giant kelp seems to be disappearing, given consistently warmer ocean temperatures!

Our planet follows an elliptical orbit around the sun, which waxes and wanes; so there are bound to be endless natural temperature variations!
Meaning, using single year/decade variations to monitor trend line changes, is just the most unscientific way of trying to reach a logical conclusion.

And a problem further compounded by patently disingenuous mendacious cherry picking the raw data, like for example, just measuring very recent changes in ambient air temperatures, and not measuring comparable changes in (the lungs of the planet) ocean temperatures and acidification as well!

Or the increase in energy use due to the extended/increased use of air conditioners, by those who can still afford such luxuries!

When reason and logic are replaced by dogma and ideology, the science can and does become fundamentally flawed, if not downright dishonest Don!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:26:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All one has to do to get 365 days of data is to pick a date in 2014 and take the data for that date along with the data for the previous 364 days. There is no reason that the data has to go from Jan 1 to Dec 31.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:50:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if it is the hottest year its gw, if its the coldest year its climate change, if its average its stalled climate change, if they don't know they will make it up, if its cooling the heat is hidden in the sea bla bla bla bla
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:58:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Don was half as good as he thinks he is (not a uncommon thing in retirement) then he should put his efforts into cancer research. people are dying every day.

Curmudgeon my opinion on this is not worth the time to type it...just like yours and Don's for that matter. So I'm not going to get into the copy and paste wars.I'll Leave it to Climate scientist not arm chair expert's to work out what is going on and what we should do about it. 99.9 % of what Don and the the far left/ right think thanks put out is complete cr*p.

Don is well over his head, lord knows what is motivating him and citing right wing think tank staff writers as experts is just plan funny. Don would get laughed out of the room of any gather of people in the field, but his scratching are lapped up here...maybe that what is his motivation?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 11:27:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For years NASA has tracked changes in the massive Greenland Ice Sheet. This week scientists using NASA data released the most detailed picture ever of how the ice sheet moves toward the sea and new insights into the hidden plumbing of melt water flowing under the snowy surface.
The results of these studies are expected to improve predictions of the future of the entire Greenland ice sheet and its contribution to sea level rise as researchers revamp their computer models of how the ice sheet reacts to a warming climate.
“With the help of NASA satellite and airborne remote sensing instruments, the Greenland Ice Sheet is finally yielding its secrets,” said Tom Wagner, program scientist for NASA’s cryosphere program in Washington. “These studies represent new leaps in our knowledge of how the ice sheet is losing ice. It turns out the ice sheet is a lot more complex than we ever thought.”
This animation (from March 2014) portrays the changes occurring in the surface elevation of the Greenland Ice Sheet since 2003 in three drainage areas: the southeast, the northeast and the Jakobshavn regions. In each region, the time advances to show the accumulated change in elevation, 2003-2012.
University at Buffalo geophysicist Beata Csatho led an international team that produced the first comprehensive study of how the ice sheet is losing mass based on NASA satellite and airborne data at nearly 100,000 locations across Greenland. The study found that the ice sheet shed about 243 gigatons of ice per year from 2003-09, which agrees with other studies using different techniques. The study was published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 12:53:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber,

I seem to have missed something. Who is/are the right-wing think-tank writer(s) I am citing in this essay?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 3:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

That's almost the stupidest thing I've heard in a long while. Any day of the year, maxima and minima are all over the place. You have to have all 365 days, otherwise you are indeed just cherry-picking, and anyone can do that.

Tonight on SBS, an expert will seriously tell us that sea-level rise in Bangla Desh is due to climate change, AGW. He will probably not mention the tilting of the tectonic plate across the Ganges Delta, with the eastern edge in Bangla Desh subsiding and the western edge rising. We learnt that thirty or more years ago in geomorphology. I'm sure they teach it in Geology 100.

Will he also mention the Nile Delta ? Which has been suffering from a loss of silt due to the construction of the Aswan Dam which traps silt from the Upper Niles, therefore intrusion from the Mediterranean along the Alexandrian coastline ? If he mentions either as 'evidence' of AGW, then he's a charlatan, and AGW is a crock.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 3:51:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why has no one blamed Putin for the dodgy science or the warming weather or the cooling weather?
Ah hell, let's blame him for the lot!
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 4:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think so, Hal :) Although his economy depends so much on oil and coal, as you have probably pointed out many times in your endless search for AGW culprits ? Russia as a major contributor to AGW ? I don't think so.

Yes, he's a total b@stard, but not in the AGW sense. An invader, a bully, a philanderer, a funder of terrorism, a KGB torturer, a braggart, yes, but not responsible for much AGW. Don't be so hard on him !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 4:56:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

Apparently you didn't understnd what I wrote. I want 365 consecutive days, but they don't have to start at Jan. 1 and end at Dec. 31.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 6:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Why bother ? Why not, for convenience and standardisation, compare years which go from 1 Jan to 31 Dec and be done with it ?

I was out but did that bloke on SBS go on about the Bangla tectonic plate, or the loss of silt in the Nile Delta, to explain what seems to be sea-level rise in Bangla Desh and Egypt ? Did he explain how Pacific atolls are constantly sinking - that's how atolls grow ? Did he point out that sea-levels in the Gulf of Mexico are rising because of the depletion of oil, gas and solid materials from the coastal areas by the oil industry ?

Would that it were a simple world ! Would that every man spoke truly. Ah, that such wickedness should be !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:34:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

The article complained that 2014 was referred to when the year was not over. There was no data for the end of 2014. Therefore a better approximation could be obtained by including the last few days of 2013.

Jan 1 to Dec 31 is fine if there is data for the whole year. For 2014 we don't have data for the entire year.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:54:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Then we wait a few weeks :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 17 December 2014 6:16:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

To be strictly comparable, wouldn't all previous annual records also have to be adjusted to run from, say, December 1 in Year 1, to November 30 in year 2, and for all back-years ?

Perhaps it's just easier to wait :) What's the hurry ?

Hal,

By the way, with the rouble tumbling in value, it makes Russian coal cheaper to buyers, pulling the international prices for coal down, and undercutting Australia's coal exports and returns and federal revenues, but helping Putin by increasing Russian coal exports, especially thermal coal, the 'dirty' one. So you might be onto something.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 December 2014 7:27:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy