IPCC - Exposed!

[Smallc]

I live like Mahatma Gandhi or Kanye West, is not going have great impact on the human trajectory on Planet Earth!

That is extremely flawed thinking. You are, as you're stating, only one person. There are many of us though. If what you say is true, and we all think like you (why should I sacrifice, it won't make a difference?) then we're doomed.

[WIP]

That is extremely flawed thinking. You are, as you're stating, only one person. There are many of us though. If what you say is true, and we all think like you (why should I sacrifice, it won't make a difference?) then we're doomed.

The powerful players among us who run governments and corporations want to present a fantasy of individual equality here. So, in the Al Gorean universe, everyone agrees to inflate their tires, put up a windmill or a solar panel and buy and hybrid or electric car and voila! Problem solved! But, not in the real world, where a handful of players control the fates of billions of people who only have sham representative democracies at best, which have less and less control over economic decision-making. And those in power want more wealth and more power, and don't care what the consequences are! If they did, they would have already started an environment version of a Marshall Plan to save Planet Earth! There is no way out of looming ecological collapse without somehow changing the systems we live under today. First, we have to recognize that winner-take-all capitalism has only benefited a scant few who own all the wealth (latest numbers inform us that the 85 richest billionaires have equal wealth with the poorest half of the world population). A lot of people need to clear the fog in their heads and start questioning the economic system running this world, and change it fast, before everything is consumed and nothing is left but a gigantic waste dump!

Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction, Broad Study Says

We're Destroying the Planet in Ways That Are Even Worse Than Global Warming

4 ways humans are endangering life on Earth

Edited January 19, 2015 by WIP

[Mighty AC]

Most importantly: even if accurate the numbers only describe the marginal costs of adding capacity to the existing grid without changing the nature of the grid. The costs for renewables is much much higher if the total installed capacity exceeds 10-15% of the grid because there either have to 1) fossil fuel backups with sit idle (i.e. capital must be spent on assets which are not used efficiently) or 2) storage capacity which is very expensive/reduces efficiency.

Lastly, those levelized costs arbitrarily add a 'cost of carbon' which makes coal/gas look more expensive than it actually is.

Okay, I went to the link, but did not see the numbers you are referring to evaluate the validity of the numbers you are referring to. I see 11 tables on that wikipedia link, but none of them have the values you are referring to. Most of them have values that are not as in favour of renewables as the ones you give, so please provide your source.

C'mon Euler Tim can read I'm sure you can find the levelized costs I was showing.

Levelized costs do include a cost for carbon, but they do not address the health and other pollution costs of fossil fuels. Ignoring the cost to the public of carbon or other pollutants does not make them go away. Read the conclusions of the Full Cost Accounting For The Life Cycle of Coal report. The report estimates that the public is on the hook for an additional 17.8 cents/kwh, on average, over and above the cost of electricity. It's not just new power that is expensive...existing fossil fuel power is already unaffordable, we're just ignoring most of the costs.

[-1=e^ipi]

The powerful players among us who run governments and corporations want to present a fantasy of individual equality here. But, not in the real world, where a handful of players control the fates of billions of people who only have sham representative democracies at best, which have less and less control over economic decision-making. And those in power want more wealth and more power, and don't care what the consequences are! If they did, they would have already started an environment version of a Marshall Plan to save Planet Earth! There is no way out of looming ecological collapse without somehow changing the systems we live under today.

So there are at least 7 unsubstantiated claims crammed into the above quotation. Where is your justifcation for these baseless assertions? You did put two links at the end of your post however. Is that supposed to be your 'proof'?

The new york times article is a perfect example of how the media spins articles on science and tries to use an appeal to authority to justify their baseless political ideology. I love how it tries to use the opinion of some random university student that has nothing to do with the study as an authority figure on the impacts. I also love this claim:

"Coral reefs, for example, have declined by 40 percent worldwide, partly as a result of climate-change-driven warming."

Wow, 40%?! Over what time frame? Oh, that information is omitted... How convenient. And also, partly a result of climate change? That could mean the anthropogentic contribution is as low as 0.00000000001%. Somehow, I suspect that this 40% number is over a time frame on the order of tens of thousands of years and that this information is being purposely omitted to distort the perception of reality of the reader.

With respect to the claims of mass extinctions. Do humans have a significant impact on the environment? Yes. Are we currently in the 6th mass extinction event? Probably. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, that would require proof. Does the mass extinction somehow justify the 'overthrow of the capitalist system' or whatever WIP is trying to advocate? Not necessarily, again that needs proof.

Lastly, with respect to policy recommendations that scientists make in their conlusions in scientific papers. You have to realize that scientists are flawed humans with their own biases and that the standard for what people put in the conclusions in their scientific papers with respect to policy recommendations is very low or non-existent. Often researchers can suggest policy recommendations or concluding remarks in their papers that were not justified or discussed anywhere else in the paper and have nothing to do with the otherwise good scientific results of the paper. I've even seen some papers where authors make conclusions that completely oppose what the data and analsysis says because they wanted to out of religious reasons or wanted to approach things dogmatically and obtain a certain result regardless of data.

With respect to the 'We're Destroying the Planet' article. It's just baseless alarmism, like you are making. Giving links to other people making the same baseless alarmist claims does not justify your baseless alarmist claims. Even if you had 7 trillion people making the same baseless alarmist claims, that doesn't justify those claims; that is an ad populum fallacy. I'll just go over a few of the absurd claims in the article because I don't have time to go over all of them and the burden of proof should be on the people making the claims (preference should be given to the null hypothesis).

"in the previous 10,000 years, a period in which the world has had a relatively stable climate and human civilization has advanced significantly."

So let's see... Medeival warm period did not happen, little ice age did not happen, roman climate optimum did not happen, holocene climate optimum did not happen. Got it! Moving on to the next one...

"All of these changes are shifting Earth into a "new state" that is becoming less hospitable to human life"

Again, where is the justification for this absurd claim? Humans are a tropical species, I've gone over this many times. We prefer a temperature of 22-25 Celcius, which is far higher than the global temperature of 15 Celcius. We are covered in sweat glands and evolved primarily in East Equatorial Africa.

"If the Earth is going to move to a warmer state, 5 to 6 [degrees Celsius] warmer, with no ice caps, it will do so and that won't be good for large mammals like us. People say the world is robust and that's true, there will be life on Earth, but the Earth won't be robust for us."

Again, conveniently the time frame is omitted as well as the cause of this warming. In two billion years the solar irradiance will increase so much that the Earth will no longer have liquid water, humans or no humans (actually, the only way the Earth would be able to sustain liquid water in two billion years is if you had intervention by intelligent beings). Though I suppose that this 5-6 degree warming is referring to the expected climate change due to CO₂ emissions. In a worst case scenario, CO₂ concentrations will roughly double by 2100 to 800 ppm, meaning that the long run effect of that change is roughly 3 Celcius, which is the best accepted estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Of course by 2100 you won't get the full effect and you are more likely to get a temperature change more comparable to the transient climate response, so about 2 degrees or less. 5-6 degree climate sensitivities are outside even the IPCC's typical range and are either obtained by having people consistently round things up for alarmism reasons, or by people trying to falsely extrapolate the temperature-CO₂ relationship during the ice ages of the Pleistocene.

With respect to humans going extinct, again as I explained over and over again, humans are a TROPICAL species. A small amount of warming makes the planet more hospitable to human life. This whole 'we humans have sinned so mother nature will punish us' nonsense has no scientific basis; the principle of charma does not exist. Furthermore, even if you somehow increased global temperatures to 100 Celcius, as inhospitable as the planet would become, humans would be one of the species that could exist in that climate due to our brains and technology. Have you not heard of a refridgerator?

"Some people say we can adapt due to technology, but that's a belief system, it's not based on fact."

Lol. But the 'the Earth is falling and mother nature will punish us for our climate sins unless we repent for our greedy ways' isn't?

First, we have to recognize that winner-take-all capitalism has only benefited a scant few who own all the wealth (latest numbers inform us that the 85 richest billionaires have equal wealth with the poorest half of the world population).

Please prove:

A. That we have a 'winner-take-all' capitalist system.

B. Benefiting a scant few is an inherent property of this 'winner-take-all' capitalist system.

C. That wealth inequality is necessarily bad.

Also, explain why it makes more sense to look at wealth inequality as opposed to consumption inequality, or even better: expected lifetime consumption inequality.

A lot of people need to clear the fog in their heads and start questioning the economic system running this world, and change it fast, before everything is consumed and nothing is left but a gigantic waste dump!

I question everything. Including your nonsense claims of 'nothing [will be] left but a gigantic waste dump'.

[-1=e^ipi]

C'mon Euler Tim can read I'm sure you can find the levelized costs I was showing.

I can't find them. I tried, I can not. Could you please assist me in finding them or give me more information about the origin of the data?

Levelized costs do include a cost for carbon, but they do not address the health and other pollution costs of fossil fuels.

Wait... I thought that total levelized costs did not include the supposed cost of CO₂ emissions where as total system levelized costs did. I'm confused now...

Also, could you please call it 'CO₂ emissions', not Carbon.

Levelized costs do include a cost for carbon, but they do not address the health and other pollution costs of fossil fuels. Ignoring the cost to the public of carbon or other pollutants does not make them go away.

Look, Mighty AC, assuming that the numbers you are referring to (which I cannot find) are correct and are taking into account the cost of CO₂ emissions to prove your original claims, do you not see a problem with that?

You claimed that "Renewables create more local jobs, wealth and security than fossil fuels.". You were trying to justify that there should be government intervention to create a shift towards society getting the majority of its energy from renewable sources and my understanding is that you were going so far as to say that this is justifed even without even looking at external costs as renewables created more jobs and wealth. But if you are using a value of cost that takes CO₂ emissions into account then that doesn't justify your earlier claims.

[WIP]

So there are at least 7 unsubstantiated claims crammed into the above quotation. Where is your justifcation for these baseless assertions? You did put two links at the end of your post however. Is that supposed to be your 'proof'?

You don't seem shy about loading up your posts with unsubstantiated claims. And I don't have time to wade through yet another one of your book-length posts loaded with your stock theories! You apparently have a lot more time to spend in front of a computer than I do. And, as I've noted a few times here before, when I joined MLW several years ago, I was still on the comfortable right of Canadian opinion, but becoming disillusioned and unsatisfied with right wing solutions to economic, social and environment issues.

My opinions are still in flux, and I haven't reached definitive conclusions on a lot of issues yet. And, I have no advanced education in the hard sciences and social sciences and philosophy, but I am getting better at detecting when some college boy is trying to load me down with a bunch of stupid, pointless objections...especially when their own theorizing flies in the face of majority opinion of the scientific community....such as regarding the efficacy of geoengineering schemes. The Russel George debacle a few years ago, is a prime example of how f***ing around with a complex system can make things worse afterwards!

The new york times article is a perfect example of how the media spins articles on science and tries to use an appeal to authority to justify their baseless political ideology. I love how it tries to use the opinion of some random university student that has nothing to do with the study as an authority figure on the impacts. I also love this claim:

"Coral reefs, for example, have declined by 40 percent worldwide, partly as a result of climate-change-driven warming."

Wow, 40%?! Over what time frame? Oh, that information is omitted... How convenient. And also, partly a result of climate change? That could mean the anthropogentic contribution is as low as 0.00000000001%. Somehow, I suspect that this 40% number is over a time frame on the order of tens of thousands of years and that this information is being purposely omitted to distort the perception of reality of the reader.

They are just quoting a published scientific study, which if anything, provides unjustified positive messages at its close, such as: 'despite the loss of biodiversity in the world's oceans, there hasn't, as of yet, been the same rates of species extinctions as had occurred on land.'

The first thing that jumps out at me with this statement, is that, unlike the Earth's continents, which have been bifurcated and subdivided by the products of human civilization: cities, roads, fences and other artificial barriers to migration, the world's oceans allow for the movement from one habitat to another. It has been noted in the past regarding the PETM, that despite the fast (by pre-human terms) runup in temperatures, the period was relatively minor as an extinction event compared to other past extinctions. And the fact that there were no humans building crap to block migration routes is considered a major factor for many species survival, because...not only did alligators move north, so did many migratory land animals, as the tropics became extremely hot....possibly hot enough to incinerate all plant and animal life within 30 degrees of the equator for significant period of time...but that is still subject of debate among paleontologists. Regardless, it was so hot that it was a bad time to be living in the tropics, so there was definitely a drastic decline in the tropic zone on land during the hottest period.

The rapid declines in marine life of all sorts, can be cross-referenced with the logs and journals of whaling boats and large fishing expeditions of the past two centuries. They kept accurate notes of their catches, and the comparisons with their results from today's fishing expeditions are considered as evidence by some oceanographers that the dieoff of marine life has been ongoing for at least two centuries.

So, when the scientists quoted in that NY Times piece say that the oceans could face mass extinction, but there's still time to turn things around....that's the point where I see spin being applied! Because there is lots of converging evidence from many different directions that we have set things up for our own extinction, but no respectable scientist who studies the collapse of marine life, rising GHG levels and increasing evidence from methane increase in the Arctic that the "clathrate gun" has already been fired, along with the mounting problems that there will be a global collapse in agricultural production because of topsoil loss, declining water availability etc.....all of this is coming together and will land on us some time in the coming years or decades. So, I don't even see where these ocean scientists have a logical reason to be hopeful at this point in time...except that this is what they feel they are supposed to tell the public!

Again, where is the justification for this absurd claim? Humans are a tropical species, I've gone over this many times. We prefer a temperature of 22-25 Celcius, which is far higher than the global temperature of 15 Celcius. We are covered in sweat glands and evolved primarily in East Equatorial Africa.

It doesn't matter what WE prefer! We depend on an undetermined amount of animal, plant species, and microbes to keep the planet suitable for our continued existence. If you are gambling that we can destroy most of the biota of this planet and still invent crap that will guarantee our survival, you're a fool...but unfortunately you are in good company! Because the people of all sorts of political and economic ideologies who share this unjustified elevated sense of hubris, dominate the culture of this world. And the voices who question humanistic presumptions about the civilization we have ended up with today, are on the margins and are out of sight of the vast majority of media consumers today.

Please prove:

A. That we have a 'winner-take-all' capitalist system.

B. Benefiting a scant few is an inherent property of this 'winner-take-all' capitalist system.

C. That wealth inequality is necessarily bad.

Read: The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett for the best analysis of how wide ranging the harmful effects of inequality are. The most startling findings for most people are that: once economic productivity is high enough to meet most people's basic needs, increases in wealth do not contribute to happiness or limit unhealthy social indicators like depression, anti-social behaviour etc. The relative equality of the society determines how healthy it is physically and mentally. But the only reason their findings are shocking to a lot of people is they don't have any awareness of the kinds of social groupings that humans adapted to for most of human history (immediate return hunter-gathering) and that beginning with fixed agriculture less than 10,000 years ago, we are still struggling with hierarchies, and male-dominated societies. The improvements in technology - especially food production in recent times, haven't done much to make societies healthier today. But, they can start by being more equal, since as the most interesting factoid from the book for me was the high ranking of a relatively poor nation - Costa Rica, compares with much wealthier, but much more unequal United States of America....which at the time the data was gathered, was ranking near the bottom of the developed nations. This came after America's experiment in neoliberalism has turned it from one of the most equal/ to one of the most unequal nations in terms of wealth.

Edited January 21, 2015 by WIP

[TimG]

They are just quoting a published scientific study, which if anything, provides unjustified positive messages at its close, such as: 'despite the loss of biodiversity in the world's oceans, there hasn't, as of yet, been the same rates of species extinctions as had occurred on land.'

You are way to credulous. You need to remember that academics are rewarded when they get funding and many academics have found that claiming a "crisis" is the best way to secure funding. Nature had an article on the exaggerations in the literature:

http://www.nature.com/news/ocean-calamities-oversold-say-researchers-1.16714?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

The state of the world's seas is often painted as verging on catastrophe. But although some challenges are very real, others have been vastly overstated, researchers claim in a review paper.

...

But the authors of the BioScience paper say that there are significant uncertainties in this. Many experiments are based on “worst-case scenarios”

Edited January 21, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The hottest year globally since records have been kept, we've made it into the history books. Not to worry, I'm sure the naysayers will dig up something from Fox news etc., from some remaining "scientist", somewhere, who will dispute the facts and put us all at ease. Why the hell should we believe NASA and NOAA, and the UK government, and the Japaneses government....anyway?

[-1=e^ipi]

You don't seem shy about loading up your posts with unsubstantiated claims.

If you feel I have unsubstantiated claims, point them out and I'll try to justify them.

My opinions are still in flux, and I haven't reached definitive conclusions on a lot of issues yet.

You appear to have made some pretty definite conclusions in this thread along the lines of 'the world is going to end and humans are going to go extinct if we don't change our ways and reject the capitalist system'.

And, as I've noted a few times here before, when I joined MLW several years ago, I was still on the comfortable right of Canadian opinion, but becoming disillusioned and unsatisfied with right wing solutions to economic, social and environment issues.

This matters how?

but I am getting better at detecting when some college boy is trying to load me down with a bunch of stupid, pointless objections...

Yes, cause requesting that people substantiate their claims with reason and evidence is so stupid and pointless! What is important is to believe in whatever makes us feel good and doesn't require us to think critically! *sarcasm*

especially when their own theorizing flies in the face of majority opinion of the scientific community such as regarding the efficacy of geoengineering schemes

What claims have I made regarding the geoengineering schemes? That I think they should be considered as an option? That flies in the face of the scientific community?

They are just quoting a published scientific study, which if anything, provides unjustified positive messages at its close

Read what I wrote again. I wasn't objecting to the 40% figure. I was objecting at the way it was presented in the article and how the timeframe was omitted such that it could easily mislead most readers.

possibly hot enough to incinerate all plant and animal life within 30 degrees of the equator for significant period of time...but that is still subject of debate among paleontologists. Regardless, it was so hot that it was a bad time to be living in the tropics, so there was definitely a drastic decline in the tropic zone on land during the hottest period.

And possibly, there is a giant flying spaghetti monster that created everything!

I'm going to assume that by possibly you also mean probably (well actually, you said definately in the next sentence, so your claim is even stronger), in which case I want to you seriously back up this claim because it is quite strong.

You realized that under these 'hot house' conditions that have persisted for most for the Phanerozoic Eon and include the early Cenozoic, that there have been very uniform temperature gradients with far less temperature difference between temperature and poles than what we have today under 'ice house' conditions, right? You also realize that during the last glacial maximum (26,000 years ago) tropical rainforests were a lot smaller and the amazon was split in two, right?

But the tropics were hot enough to incinerate most life during PETM cause you say so! *sarcasm*

The rapid declines in marine life of all sorts, can be cross-referenced with the logs and journals of whaling boats and large fishing expeditions of the past two centuries. They kept accurate notes of their catches, and the comparisons with their results from today's fishing expeditions are considered as evidence by some oceanographers that the dieoff of marine life has been ongoing for at least two centuries.

Yes, that's called overfishing. Have you not heard of it?

So, when the scientists quoted in that NY Times piece say that the oceans could face mass extinction, but there's still time to turn things around....that's the point where I see spin being applied!

Are you trying to imply that humanity should do X cause some scientists say we should do X? That is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Because there is lots of converging evidence from many different directions that we have set things up for our own extinction

A bunch of other deluded people in society agreeing with you does not count as evidence.

there will be a global collapse in agricultural production because of topsoil loss

Here is a question: Why did it take until the end of the last ice age for agriculture to become viable and for civilization to take off?

And topsoil loss? How is increasing CO₂ going to cause the global topsoil loss?

Also, have you not heard of the CO₂ fertilization effect? Do you not think that it will be easier to grow things in the two largest countries in the world, Russia and Canada, if the Earth warms slightly?

But no, there will be global collapse in agricultural production because you say so! It must be right because it gives you the doomsday scenario and 'humans are sinful' conclusion you want! That's not dogmatic at all! *sarcasm*

declining water availability etc....

That is a regional issue and the Earth will be overall more wet due to warming, unlike the super dry conditions during the last glacial maximum.

So, I don't even see where these ocean scientists have a logical reason to be hopeful at this point in time...except that this is what they feel they are supposed to tell the public!

Yes because not observing a mass extinction during PETM and noticing that terrestrial life did not really suffer (it was primarily deep sea life that suffered) is not a reason based on evidence at all... Far more likely that they are in denial or are being controlled by some hidden entity or something. *sarcasm*

It doesn't matter what WE prefer!

In the context of your claim that humans are going extinct, the environmental conditions that humans prefer are very relevant. Much like how the fact that polar bears prefer arctic sea ice is very relevant to the question on the survival of that species in response to anthropogenic global warming.

We depend on an undetermined amount of animal, plant species, and microbes to keep the planet suitable for our continued existence.

No we don't (see my comment on algae soup).

If you are gambling that we can destroy most of the biota of this planet and still invent crap that will guarantee our survival, you're a fool.

I'm not suggesting that because from what I can tell that isn't going to happen. I'm just objecting to multiple of your absurd claims and you are trying to mix up my claims, perhaps in an attempt to strawman my position.

Read: The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett for the best analysis of how wide ranging the harmful effects of inequality are.

I am aware that inequality has harmful effects. What has this got to do with your claims that the humans are going to go extinct due to anthropogenic climate change?

we are still struggling with male-dominated societies

Yes, that's why we live in a 'Patriarchy' with its 'Rape Culture' and men are 'Privaleged' with their suicide rate that is 5 times the female suicide rate, a homeless rate that is 9 times higher than the female homeless rate, a life expectancy that is ~5 years lower, a court system that favours female custody during divorse, females serving 60% the jail time as males for similiar crimes, a male-only draft in some countries such as the USA, breast and cervical cancer getting far more funding than prostate cancer, 60-65% of university students being female, a large in discrepancy school performace, particularly reading, between boys and girls, young women in North American urban areas out-earning young men, etc. *sarcasm*

The improvements in technology - especially food production in recent times, haven't done much to make societies healthier today.

Yes because the gradual increase in various health indicators over time such as life expectancy or infant mortality doesn't exist... *sarcasm*

and that beginning with fixed agriculture less than 10,000 years ago

Conveniently at the end of the ice age...

Edited January 21, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

The hottest year globally since records have been kept, we've made it into the history books. Not to worry, I'm sure the naysayers will dig up something from Fox news etc., from some remaining "scientist", somewhere, who will dispute the facts and put us all at ease. Why the hell should we believe NASA and NOAA, and the UK government, and the Japaneses government....anyway?

Actually, 2014 was the 3rd hottest year since records began.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/2014-annus-horribilus-climate-alarmists

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually, 2014 was the 3rd hottest year since records began.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/2014-annus-horribilus-climate-alarmists

Thank you for proving my point

[-1=e^ipi]

Thank you for proving my point

That I don't just blindly believe the propaganda that I'm told?

Sorry that I find satellite IR data more reliable.

Edit: The data set you are referring to can be manipulated (see blog post) as is not statistically different from two other years in the data set.

Edited January 22, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

That I don't just blindly believe the propaganda that I'm told?

Sorry that I find satellite IR data more reliable.

Yeah I thin that is what NASA and NOAA etc use too.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yeah I thin that is what NASA and NOAA etc use too.

Okay, at least read the blog post I sent a link to because you are just embarrassing yourself now...

[On Guard for Thee]

Okay, at least read the blog post I sent a link to because you are just embarrassing yourself now...

Oh I have read it. But come on, don't embarrass yourself further.

[-1=e^ipi]

Oh I have read it. But come on, don't embarrass yourself further.

In that case do you notice any issues with thinking that the NOAA results of 'hottest year' used satellite IR data?

Edited January 26, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

In that cause do you notice any issues with thinking that the NOAA results of 'hottest year' used satellite IR data?

I see so it's just NOAA's IR data you have a problem with?

Qu'ell surprise.

[-1=e^ipi]

I see so it's just NOAA's IR data you have a problem with?

Qu'ell surprise.

No, the 'warmest year on record' claim is based on land based measurements and also the result is not statistically different from two other years.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, the 'warmest year on record' claim is based on land based measurements and also the result is not statistically different from two other years.

It's based on surface temp's, both land and sea. And last year ranked highest, without the El Nino effect.

[Shady]

It's based on surface temp's, both land and sea. And last year ranked highest, without the El Nino effect.

Zomg! Is that why it was so cold everywhere?

[On Guard for Thee]

Zomg! Is that why it was so cold everywhere?

Well if it's cold where you are you should consider coming to Earth. Mighty warm here and getting warmer all the time.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's based on surface temp's, both land and sea. And last year ranked highest, without the El Nino effect.

No, it is statistically tied for highest with 2 other years. Therefore, the HadCRUT and GIS data is not in contradiction with the NOAA data, despite the fact that the HadCRUT and GIS data show that 2014 was the 3rd hottest year on record.

[bush_cheney2004]

Zomg! Is that why it was so cold everywhere?

I guess it's a lot warmer for people who always swear by NOAA, NASA, and Al Gore.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, it is statistically tied for highest with 2 other years. Therefore, the HadCRUT and GIS data is not in contradiction with the NOAA data, despite the fact that the HadCRUT and GIS data show that 2014 was the 3rd hottest year on record.

Here's what it's based on according to NOAA.

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

[On Guard for Thee]

I guess it's a lot warmer for people who always swear by NOAA, NASA, and Al Gore.

You may go by the politicians, I tend to listen more to the scientist's. But hey, warm is warm, right?