July was the hottest month ever on Earth

[mavrothal]

that trend shows increased average warming of 1/3 of a degree Fahrenheit over the last 124 years (1/5 of a degree celsius

Miniscule. Could easily be explained due to possible human error (eg: possible errors recording/collecting and analyzing the data) and the cycle of 124 years is hopelessly too short to make any meaningful deductions from anyway.

So basically you dismiss all scientific studies based on some simplistic analysis that relies on data clearly marked as not appropriate for climate studies, and when even this analysis shows an increase, you just dismiss it as unimportant.
You might want to point to some other study that shows no-global warming and has undergone any kind of independent review.

BTW the increase (with the Nov 17 data) is almost 1 degree if you remove the March 10 files from the November 17 folder that are there for different purpose.

[nic007]

In all scientific studies the possible error factor should be considered and "factored" into the equation.. My main concern though is with the short terms of 124 years, this cycle is too short to make meaningful conclusions (especially when we are talking fractions of temperature degrees). I'm sorry, too little evidence to convince me. Maybe after another 400 years....

[mavrothal]

In all scientific studies the possible error factor should be considered and "factored" into the equation.

Which one you have in mind that does not???

[8Geee]

Ya know I posted previously that a certain 420ppm CO2 would make the weather go haywire as I was informed in 1977. What I did not know then was the Ozone Hole that opened up letting in UV radiation at the N & S polar region. I think, IMHO one of the missing data links is UV radiation. Since 1990 we have curtailed the use of flouro-carbons/chloro-carbons that are the culprit of the Ozone Hole. Radiational warming of the atmosphere is also part of this picture, as it hides the CO2 effect, and vice-versa.

JMH 2ppm
8Geee

[nic007]

Another thing - According to the data of this one region, the temperature has risen 0,2 (degrees Celsius) in the past 124 years. In comparison to which reference point, I assume the temperature 124 years ago (starting point when "reliable data" was collected)? It's likely that all weather phenomena have cycles which could span decades, hundreds of years or even thousands of years. We did have an ice age once upon a time afterall. So we don't know the cycle of this presumed "global warming" thingy. Where were we in the cycle 124 years ago and where are we now? Were the year(s) of reference 100 odd years ago a particularly cold or paticularly warm period (in comparison to what, we have no reliable prior data)? Too many unanswered questions, too little data, too short a period to make meaningful deductions.

[musher0]

Hi nic007.

I remember seeing a documentary on TV some years back where scientists had come up
with such a general cycle studying indirect historical data ( e.g. medieval records of
droughts and extreme winters everywhere ), carrots of ice taken at various depths in the
Greenland glaciers and tree rings in the wood of very old buildings in Europe.

Sorry for providing such fuzzy info, I didn't take any notes at the time.

Some institute somewhere must have this data in graph form.

IHTH

[jafadmin]

[Flash]

What, no link to the source?

[backi]

It is pretty relative what is a good or a bad Weather/Climate/Environment .

What "Hell" is for some is "Heaven " for others .

Biologists have seen "naked" snails around hydrothermal vents that could not form their calcium carbonate shells because the water was too acidic.

And some even don`t care for Power-Point-Presentations or Co2 .

Explore how the 1977 discovery of hydrothermal vent ecosystems in the deep ocean shocked scientists and redefined our understanding of the requirements for life.

Black Smokers ----Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vents
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/medi ... mal-vents/

Life at hydrothermal vents:
Heavy Metal on Acid rocks .
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/survival ... vents.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/abyss/life/extremes.html

There is more than meets the Eye .

[Wiz57]

backi said "Heavy Metal on Acid rocks ."...

Shucks, you had my hopes up for Megadeth, Metallica, Motorhead,
Slayer or other, and you link to something scientific??

[mavrothal]

Just another attempt to confuse climate change with local weather.I thought I'll give up but I can hardly resist such BS....

There is NO correlation between a local momentary highest/lowest/rainiest etc day and averages, yearly or even monthly
Much more so, with the trends through the years.

None of the dates shown in the graph relate to max average month or year and most do not even relate to other locations within the state.
For example, indeed the hottest day ever recorded in Alaska was in Fort Yukon 1915 but in Anchorage was in 1969, while the hottest year for also for Anchorage was 2004 and the hottest month for Alaska this July.
So stop using weather data as argument for climate change and the 1915 Fort Yukon one day miracle against the ice-free north pole.

[backi]

@Wiz57

Shucks, you had my hopes up for Megadeth, Metallica, Motorhead,
Slayer or other, and you link to something scientific??

Sorry for the Inconvenience......

[nic007]

Just another attempt to confuse climate change with local weather.I thought I'll give up but I can hardly resist such BS....

There is NO correlation between a local momentary highest/lowest/rainiest etc day and averages, yearly or even monthly
Much more so, with the trends through the years.

None of the dates shown in the graph relate to max average month or year and most do not even relate to other locations within the state.
For example, indeed the hottest day ever recorded in Alaska was in Fort Yukon 1915 but in Anchorage was in 1969, while the hottest year for also for Anchorage was 2004 and the hottest month for Alaska this July.
So stop using weather data as argument for climate change and the 1915 Fort Yukon one day miracle against the ice-free north pole.

Because of the wildfires during that month after a dry period?

[mavrothal]

Because of the wildfires during that month after a dry period?

Not even close. The largest fires in Alaska were in the last decade

[nic007]

Because of the wildfires during that month after a dry period?

Not even close. The largest fires in Alaska were in the last decade

Yeah in 2004 when it was also particularly hot for a longer period because of the record wildfires, eh?

[mavrothal]

Because of the wildfires during that month after a dry period?

Not even close. The largest fires in Alaska were in the last decade

Yeah in 2004 when it was also particularly hot for a longer period because of the record wildfires, eh?

Sure they are also responsible for constant upwards average temperature, Antarctic ice-sheet breaks, salmonela outbreaks, all the wars in the Middle East the last 50 years, the...
Of course the fact that there is no correlation between annual area burned and average annual temperature we can ignore. We can even ignore the fact that I was pointing to Anchorage max temperature not Alaska's, which pending this year's results was in 2016. The question is why ignore them?...
And why someone throughs cockamamie hypothesis off one's $#%& without even bothering to look and think? Whom or what those arguments serve?

[nubc]

Nano-particulates used in climate geoengineering act as accelerants when they settle on vegetation and trees.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 07890.html

[nic007]

Not even close. The largest fires in Alaska were in the last decade

Yeah in 2004 when it was also particularly hot for a longer period because of the record wildfires, eh?

Sure they are also responsible for constant upwards average temperature, Antarctic ice-sheet breaks, salmonela outbreaks, all the wars in the Middle East the last 50 years, the...
Of course the fact that there is no correlation between annual area burned and average annual temperature we can ignore. We can even ignore the fact that I was pointing to Anchorage max temperature not Alaska's, which pending this year's results was in 2016. The question is why ignore them?...
And why someone throughs cockamamie hypothesis off one's $#%& without even bothering to look and think? Whom or what those arguments serve?

Mate, you are clutching at straws. Cheers.

[mavrothal]

Mate, you are clutching at straws. Cheers.

One sure does when everything around is burned. Stay safe (as long as you can). Cheers

[musher0]

Hi nic007.

I remember seeing a documentary on TV some years back where scientists had come up
with such a general cycle studying indirect historical data ( e.g. medieval records of
droughts and extreme winters everywhere ), carrots of ice taken at various depths in the
Greenland glaciers and tree rings in the wood of very old buildings in Europe.

Sorry for providing such fuzzy info, I didn't take any notes at the time.

Some institute somewhere must have this data in graph form.

IHTH

Below are a couple of sites describing how world climate has changed over the millenia:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/clim ... efore.html
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
https://muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.c ... emperature

This from a query on duckduckgo.com with the search phrase
< changes in world climate since the beginning of time > (without the chevrons)
if you care to search for yourself. Because there are many other sites dealing with
this subject.

Some include CO2 data, some don't. But overall, you can get a sense of the climate
variations our Blue Planet went through during the Ages. I underline "climate" because
obviously there were no weather stations during the Cambrian and Jurassic Ages, etc.,
to record the daily temperatures.

I personally found the "methods" pages on the scotese (aka "PaleoMar) site quite
instructive -- direct and succinct: how the climate of these different eras were
deducted. On other sites, there are other descriptions of the methodology worth a read,
just longer.

I also found this excerpt from the "MuchAdoAboutClimate" WordPress site telling:

(...)Ice Age (35 million years ago)

The thermal maximum continued to around 35 million years ago when the Earth cooled
into the Ice Age. The theory behind this change in temperature is that a type of fern
named Azolla became extinct. The Azolla then sank to the bottom of the ocean, taking
with it much of the carbon absorbed as carbon dioxide, therefore removing it from the
atmosphere. With the carbon dioxide not present to act as a greenhouse gas, global
temperatures decreased again. Unlike the last period of cooling, this time the Earth had
fully formed continents, including mountain ranges, and land mass at the South Pole
(Antarctica). This new land coverage helped amplify the cooling via circulation.
(...)

I'm not expecting anyone to go against their set notions by doing this, I'm
just hoping to broaden the scope of ideas.

Some of those sites summarize a lifetime of research by serious scientists, not
amateurs like you and me. They do not convey opinions or conspiration theories;
they are deducted from facts and data.

IHTH (really)