If the whole world remained at a constant temperature but a small area was above average then that would raise the global average and therefore show Global Warming.
On the other hand, if the whole world remained at a constant temperature but a small area was below average then that would be a local issue and would not disprove Global Warming.
Global Warming will result in places being too hot to live, people will need to move to avoid the intense heat. That is the scare.
The reality: Arctic nights are a degree warmer that they were before. This creates an increase in the average temperature and so indicates Global Warming.
The multi-billion dollar Global Warming propaganda machine will spin any event to further enhance the Global Warming meme.
Same with hottest years. When there is a pause we hear lots about significance, error bands, longer time periods etc. For a hotter year someone just needs to increase a number by a hundredth of a degree and the case is proved beyond doubt.
We even have people here who struggle with logic. We are told that if Global Warming were happening then we would see these effects. They then assert that we do see those effects so Global Warming must be happening.
So by the same logic, if we gave five-year-olds automatic rifles then there would be lots of dead bodies. We can find dead bodies therefore five-year-olds must have automatic rifles.
It is interesting to compare the temperatures from NASA GISS with those from the satellites.
I see the sceptics are already panicking and desperately concocting excuses to refute what may turn out to be the warmest year on record. Yet when the exact same data sources show a period with little or no warming then this is accepted without question. Can you explain that in terms of rational thinking?
To support your excuse you cite two months worth of the annual data across 2% of the global surface whilst ignoring everything else. Could you also explain the rational behind your thinking with this one?
Taking the world as a whole, and looking at all of 2014 (to date), there have been 19 instances of cold weather records whilst at the same time there have been 220 instances of hot weather records. When you take a rational look at the bigger picture it’s no difficult to see why this year may turn out to be the warmest on record.
http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm
Unlike previous record-breaking years such as 1998, 2005 and 2010; there has been no preceding positive phase in ENSO (El Nino) to bolster temperatures. Indeed. ENSO has been slightly negative this year and that should induce cooling. If 2014 does set a new record then it will have done so against the odds and against a backdrop of multiple natural cooling influences.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO GRAPHIC CONCEPTION
Your graph looked suspicious so I checked it out. It appears to come from the blog of climate change sceptic Paul Homewood [1]. As I suspected – it’s wrong. For a start, it’s not even a global temperature record; it’s based on the RSS satellite MSU record for latitudes 70°S to 82.5°N and therefore completely omits the fastest warming part of the planet [2]. Furthermore, the graph isn’t even an accurate representation of the data it claims to be derived from.
Here is an accurate graph that really is based on the global satellite temperature record [3]:
I trust the satellite data most of all and it doesn't have 2014 as the hottest. That said, I am a bit skeptical of them as well because the US government has been demonstrated to lie over and over and over again. You would have to be kind of stupid to trust them too much.
Honestly Peg, I wouldn't have noticed that. It seemed like a pretty typical year to me. Some were warmer and some cooler. Last week, I called my sister in Rapid City and it was below zero and I had gotten up at 5 am to run and it was 60. I have grown use to the nice weather here in So Cal. Northern Cal is likely to get smacked with a record breaking storm. I forget, are they in a drought too. Rain is expected here tomorrow night and Friday and again next week. For a drought, it seems pretty wet to me but then again I am spoiled by So Cal weather.
It's hard to argue with heat that is hidden in the oceans or located where there are no instruments but instead the temperature record has to be merely a "best guess." I do not know how the hidden heat is measured. It's been awfully cold right here in Snezzyville, and we would sure like some global warming. My globals are about plum froze off.
I'm not going to speculate on any cooking of the books that you seem to be hinting at...
If we think in terms of upper level patterns, this may help in understand what is driving these weather events you are referencing. In the most general sense, it is thought with average warming, that upper level waves become more amplified. This may or may not be the case as the cause of the current state of how the waves are interacting. In any case, when these waves become more amplified, it brings about a sort of stagnation in air masses that drive weather systems (whether that brings more prolonged cooling or warming to any given region). In contrast, shortwaves in the atmosphere move things along more quickly. This is defined by the equations that express how waves propogate through the atmosphere. Of course the atmosphere is much more complex than what I've said so far, but I'm trying to drive home a simple idea.
I'm not saying the ideas expressed agree or disagree with the idea of global warming. That's the whole point. I'm also saying that your understanding neither agrees with nor refutes the idea of global warming. You're simply pointing out that a cold airmass has found its way to a certain region; you don't understand how these airmasses find their ways to certain regions.
If you're interested in learning more about seasonal variations in climate it would be helpful to look up Rossby waves, climate indices, and the teleconnection patterns that can be found between them.
Do I think the average warming we're experiencing now that is influenced by anthropogenic modes is causing stagnation in upper level patterns? Most likely, at least to some degree, but you're free to disagree.
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said that it was the 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'.
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...
From "Hide the Decline", to "Mike's Nature Trick", objectivity in climate science is dead. Just like the flawed "Hocky Stick" where even random values would give the same curve, the filtering used is the fix needed to guarantee that each year is even hotter than the previous. One has to question why there is more ice at both poles and Greenland, more snow in Europe, asia, and north America even though the planet is hotter then when the "no snow" prediction was made in 2000.
I don't think anyone's going to believe that lie, not even the die hard alarmists on here actually believe this I'll wager.
They honestly must think we're all retards if they think we'll believe this year has been the warmest on record. When clearly it has been nothing special at all.
Actually this whole notion of warmest year (after figure manipulation) crap is ridiculous, for a planet of this one's age to say that after a hundred years/30 years of satellite measurement we know it all is the equivalent of saying we know jack shite.
It's actually called "temperature anomaly manipulation" since it is well documented that the Earth's actual temperature can not be measured. Anomalies are used by climate scientists to "try" and establish trends in temperature and it seems that it takes at least 30 years to establish a trend. The term "record temperature anomaly" is a vague attempt at a description of Earth's "actual" temperature. They already know this, but it is a good way to sensationalize their efforts.
Most of the warming has been over oceans or obscure land masses (with limited measurements) now I am not saying that is manipulations but it is convenient for them.
2014 is a warm year, mainly ocean sst's are up but that is to be expected, with the semi El Nino we are experiencing, but I doubt it will be the warmest year and even if it is it would only be by fractions of a degree,
According to UAH and RSS it is likely to be about the 4th warmest.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/
Second coldest start to Spring and skiing in New England in the Summertime. I had to turn on my furnace in the Summertime.
Colorado had early skiing. And we could go on.
Kano "Most of the warming has been over oceans or obscure land masses..."
Is that perhaps because "oceans or obscure land masses" make up most of the world?
California (not too obscure) has been experiencing its warmest year on record. Anyone that lives here has noticed that. I'm sure even Jim Z would grudgingly admit it.
EDIT: Ottawa Mike doesn't seem to understand my point, so I'll explain it better. 71% of the Earth's surface is ocean. The land area within the polar regions is perhaps another 5% of the Earth's surface. Vast deserts cover large areas outside the polar regions. So the somewhat vague phrase "oceans or obscure land masses" covers the great majority of the world's surface, so it is not surprising that if you look at areas that have warmed, that would be most of them--in fact it couldn't be any other way, since these areas cover 80% or more of the planet, and if 80% of the planet hadn't warmed, it would be difficult for the planet as a whole to warm.
Also, warming from greenhouse gases should be greatest in the polar regions, and it is.
I think it's more than a little peculiar that deniers think that satellite derived temperatures are somehow more immune to "manipulation" than ground-based temperatures, when they don't use thermometers and based on radiance combined with atmospheric models. They also had to be corrected many times just to get something that seems reasonable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satell...
You hate facts don't you?
there is no manipulation.
No.
