"State of the Climate 2017" Topic

It's august, and that means another annual State of the Climate report.

An international, peer-reviewed publication released each summer, the State of the Climate is the authoritative annual summary of the global climate published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The report, compiled by NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate at the National Centers for Environmental Information is based on contributions from scientists from around the world. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice, and in space.
State of the Climate in 2016

This is the twenty-seventh issuance of the annual assessment now known as State of the Climate. Surface temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, two of the more publicly recognized indicators of global-scale climate change, set new highs during 2016, as did several surface and near-surface indicators and essential climate variables. Notably, the increase in CO2 concentration was the largest in the nearly six-decade observational record.

link

Things are still looking dire.

Oh my not this again….

Old guys who play with toy soldiers need to band together and do standout this!
We're Mother Earth's last hope!

Lol.

Dan

This is the twenty-seventh issuance of the annual assessment…

2+2=5 is wrong
no matter how many time you say it

assets.amuniversal.com/97ed9410fd89013486fb005056a9545d

dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

Argue away with the science. Mock the science. There are enough climate scientists in agreement that the climate is changing in alarming ways. So pointing to dissenting models either way is just making noise. All heat and no light.

The arguments are spawned by only one thing: hatred for gov't intrusion. This is biggest in the US, but we are far from the only suspicious ones. Gov't taking charge of the situation is not a solution, it is a problem even more immediate for us than a changing climate.

Each time new "accords" are signed at this climate conference or that one, the signatories are their Gov't representatives, or appointed authorities. Private enterprise is not represented: it is denigrated and demonized as the causers of the climate change.

Nothing will get done until private money pays for the solutions. When the interested parties are spending their own money on research, development and invention, the human race will "go green" in a big way. Renewable energy will take down the ugly wind turbines and solar panels. Because there is innovation ahead that will discover energy in ways we common people have hardly imagined. But it won't happen by Gov'ts throwing somebody else's money at the crisis. Only when private entities are going to make a huge profit by developing new energy in preference to fossil fuels, will we see the changes that climatologists advocate for…………

Well they have made claims that 2016 was the hottest year "ever".

I would say that it wasn't and they need to check out these years.

86 million BC
268 million BC
352 million BC

Private money is paying for the "solutions"…it comes from our taxes, governments do not create wealth only spend ir.

Well they have made claims that 2016 was the hottest year "ever".

Oh look, someone is data mining. And no one said "ever" but you, in a pathetic attempt to trivialize the statement.

Not that you care, but what was accurately reported was that the global composite temperature (derived from 6,300 land and water based stations) was the hottest in 2016 since such data began being collected in 1880.

link

I would say that it wasn't and they need to check out these years.

86 million BC
268 million BC
352 million BC

But how does that jive with your assertion that man made global warming is a plot of the Chinese? And that a global conspiracy that involves all of the governments, the science advisors of those governments, the military of these governments, every single scientific professional association in the world, every university of the world, all the graduates from these institutions, etc, etc, is pushing this on the defenceless American public.

And of course, all that stands up to this cabal of deceit is some ex-cigarette lobbyists, some oil companies and a few plucky billionaires.

Do I have that right?

Each time new "accords" are signed at this climate conference or that one, the signatories are their Gov't representatives, or appointed authorities. Private enterprise is not represented: it is denigrated and demonized as the causers of the climate change.

This state exists since companies aren't sovereign entities but rather derive their corporate existence from national laws, and as such don't have the standing to sign-on to international treaties in their own name. Unless you're advocating for re-creating entities akin to the British East India Company or Erik Prince's current pipedream, I don't get what your're arguing against here…

Renewable energy will take down the ugly wind turbines and solar panels. Because there is innovation ahead that will discover energy in ways we common people have hardly imagined. But it won't happen by Gov'ts throwing somebody else's money at the crisis.

The vast majority of blue sky basic research is government-sponsored. Furthermore, gov. R&D as well as subsidies to create a market (from which economies of scale is pushing manufacturing costs ever downward) has pushed solar and wind to the point where industrial wind and/or solar is approaching/beating cost competitiveness with coal plants (Depending on the geography).

Oh look, someone is data mining. And no one said "ever"

Actually they did.

link

link

They stated it for "Shock Value" since they know that most individuals cannot think for themselves and have no clue that this planet has been around for more than 4.5 Billion years.

So I really doubt that 2016 even ranks anywhere in the top 10,000 years and I think that it doesn't even hit in the top 1,000,000,000 years either.

But how does that jive with your assertion that man made global warming is a plot of the Chinese?

Now I am confused, since I do not believe in Global Warming so it cannot be a plot by the Chinese.

I'd re-read that again…

2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.
link

Global temperatures have continued to rise, making 2016 the hottest year on the historical record and the third consecutive record-breaking year, scientists say. link

I don't get what your're arguing against here…

Fascinating myopia.

It should be obvious from history that Gov't subsidies result in overspending, corruption and bankruptcy. Gov't involvement in research is a very poor approach. Only private enterprise, risking your own capital, results in advancement and success, for the obvious reason of self-interest. Gov't is not in the "business" of self-interest, but politics. It spends what it does not make. It collects what it does not produce and throws it around like there is no tomorrow. If a political cash cow is on offer then politicians will support it. If politics drives support away, there will be no Gov't funds forthcoming. It's as simple as that. And Gov't funds are never enough: they must be continually increased while the "program" is being pushed and funded.

There should not even be climate conferences held by nations, binding their people to higher taxes, new taxes, all so that elites can line their pockets while claiming to be doing something about the asserted problem/crisis.

Any solution to helping "heal" the atmosphere must come from people who live here and want the climate to promote the good life. Gov't involvement is inimical to that, because Gov't is about control. Private enterprise is self-regulating because of property being risked. Competition between companies and interested investors will be the shortest, surest road to new technology that will relegate fossil fuels to the same fate as the dinosaurs that "created" them.

This is approaching Blue Fez territory, but I can vote for or against my MP in parliament as a right of citizenship, but unless I buy voting stock in Exxon, I have no say on how they run.

It should be obvious from history that Gov't subsidies result in overspending, corruption and bankruptcy. Gov't involvement in research is a very poor approach. Only private enterprise, risking your own capital, results in advancement and success, for the obvious reason of self-interest

Outside of Bell Labs (Which is closed/spun-off since it provided insufficient ROI to it's parent company), can you name another private basic research lab? If you look at the "knowledge" industries that are the heart of the current US economy, all of it depends on government sponsored basic research. Internet – DARPA, Biotech and Pharma – basic research is done in University labs, and the profits are privatized when the drug is ready for late stage testing… (Speaking of Pharma, Pharma companies spend about 20x more on marketing than research).

Most people think that science advances one Eureka moment to the next, but that ignores the mundane reality of incremental progress and small refinements that eventually lead to sizable changes – just look at how the PV cells have become more efficient and cheaper over the past 15 years. No big breaks, just constant improvement.

It should be obvious from history that Gov't subsidies result in overspending, corruption and bankruptcy. Gov't involvement in research is a very poor approach. Only private enterprise, risking your own capital, results in advancement and success, for the obvious reason of self-interest

The only thing private enterprise does is suck off the public research for its own profit. It does ZERO basic research.

Private money is paying for the "solutions"…it comes from our taxes, governments do not create wealth only spend ir.

Tell me how evil public spending is the next time you take a drive down the freeway….

I don't care about global warming or climate change. If you want me to go green then show me the immediate, real advantages to me personally in the short term. I don't want government subsidies so green energy is cheaper. I don't want to invest 20 years of electric bills to have "free" solar power. If it will stand on it's own, then I will buy it, if not, I will not.

I don't want more taxes, regulations, laws, or infringements on my rights because some scientists say it was hot or something bad might happen in 50 years.

My whole life, 62 years the left has told me America is bad, Western Civilization is bad, capitalism is bad, and we have to unilaterally disarm, give up our guns, pay more taxes, give money to foreign nations, and curb freedom of speech. Either because of the coming ice age, very popular in the 1960's and early 1970's, pollution, nuclear winter, population explosions, or now global warming. Forget it.

Show me all the graphs, and charts, have all your meetings, trot out your scientists, I don't care, you may be selling it, but I'm not buying it.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Mithmee, I see that Martin ninja'd me. Please do us the courtesy of actually reading what we write and then reading what the sources say before you link to them.

They stated it for "Shock Value" since they know that most individuals cannot think for themselves ………

Isn't irony wonderful?

Now I am confused, since I do not believe in Global Warming so it cannot be a plot by the Chinese.

It's supposed to be a Chinese hoax. A bunch of the AGW deniers glommed on to this stupid idea when it was first made up by the current POTUS. As a global warming conspiracist, I guess you are still behind the curve.

link

I don't care about global warming or climate change. If you want me to go green then show me the immediate, real advantages to me personally in the short term.

Seriously? So only the problems that I can fix today are real problems? Got it.

Hey GWA, where is your "fascinating myopia" comment now?

Every 15 or 20 years the left trots out a new bogey man and we are supposed to all cower in fear and run to bit government and internationalism to save us. Give up our rights and trust the experts to solve it. The proof is always just close enough to be scary but just far enough in future to be un-proveable in the near term. It's always 30 or 50 years away.

The Earth has been a lot hotter in the past, without actions by humans. The Earth and the climate change, I don't believe we can do anything about it.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Sigh.

What do the leftists have to say about germ theory or evolution?

Seriously Mike, if you think "the world was hotter in the past" is a coherent argument against global warming, then you have a bit more homework to do.

The argument is centered on what governments do and will likely do, with increased power and taxation. Take from the producers (that's us) and spread the wealth around after making sure some of it goes where they want it: to enrich themselves. Carbon credits, anyone?

No Gov't program can compete with private enterprise. The trick is to engage private enterprise's self-interest. Claiming that research can only be done in universities receiving Gov't subsidies is very bad circular logic. When research is conducted by Gov't funded entities there is massive waste and inefficiency. When someone in private enterprise wants something done he pays for it himself, bends his own intellect upon the problem and produces a solution. Just because research under Gov't grants is ongoing doesn't mean that that is how research must be done.

Making facile analogies to freeways to "prove" that Gov't spending is beneficial is silly because it is contracted out to private companies, not built by Gov't workers.

Well….it didn't take long….as usual…for the namecalling, disparaging comments and pejoratives to pile up thicker than cord wood. Very convincing.

And there's the crux of it. ANY discussion of Climate Change rarely stays on the science. It always devolves into petty and absurd political rants. And the same can be said of a variety of other science issues (evolution, vaccines, etc). I suppose that's a pretty damning comment on the state of discourse these days.

Bowman,

2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot

They stated it for "Shock Value" since they know that most individuals cannot think for themselves

When the layman reads the above all they see is.

2016 was the hottest year & it was the 3rd year in a row.

So 2015 & 2014 are the 2nd & 3rd year as being the hottest.

The individuals stating this know that they are only going back to only 1880.

They also know that the planet has been just as hot or hotter prior to 1880.

But they do not want that know since that would mean that what they are trying to do is nothing but a total fraud and con.

But they do not want that know since that would mean that what they are trying to do is nothing but a total fraud and con.

It's not the height that's important, but the speed of the sudden stop at the end… same with climate.

P.S. If scientists are pulling this con, they are doing a horrible job by publishing daily on the subject in paleoclimate journals…

When the layman reads the above all they see is.

I think a smart layman can tell the difference between "hottest year in 137 years" and "hottest year ever". That was what you were going for in your first post above. And then you didn't even bother to see if the links supported your claim. By the way, Scientific American magazine, which I subscribe to, is for laymen. It's not a scientific journal.

They also know that the planet has been just as hot or hotter prior to 1880

Again, if the fact that the world was hotter than it is today, sounds like a good argument against AGW, then you are just not up on your science. Read Martin's answer above and the do some reading for yourself.

But they do not want that know since that would mean that what they are trying to do is nothing but a total fraud and con.

They do know, however you seem to miss the distinction……..again.

sounds like a good argument against AGW,

You think!!!

Only 137 years of recorded temp's and they can determine that the Earth is hotter now than ever before.

When they can get 100,000 or even better yet 1,000,000 years of real data.

Than they can start making claims.

But they will never get that data so they make stuff up and sell their con.

Just like a lot individuals who are selling glasses for next Monday.

sounds like a good argument against AGW,

You think!!!

Only 137 years of recorded temp's and they can determine that the Earth is hotter now than ever before.

When they can get 100,000 or even better yet 1,000,000 years of real data.

Than they can start making claims.

But they will never get that data so they make stuff up and sell their con.

Just like a lot individuals who are selling glasses for next Monday.

Only 137 years of recorded temp's and they can determine that the Earth is hotter now than ever before.

You are having reading comprehension problems. Read the sentence that you partially quoted again.

Not that it helps but using just one technique, ice core samples, they can tell the temperature as far back as 800,000 years. Perhaps do some reading on the science first.

But they will never get that data so they make stuff up and sell their con.

Just like a lot individuals who are selling glasses for next Monday.

Are you just being contrarian for the lulz of it?
DON'T LOOK AT THE ECLIPSE WITHOUT ISO 12312-2 COMPLIANT GLASSES. Looking at the partial solar eclipse without it can burn the retina.

eclipse2017.nasa.gov/safety

Martin,

We are talking about individuals who are not as bright and we have other individuals who will do anything to make a buck.

link

But there is a good chance that the upcoming eclipse just might be block by clouds.

ice core samples, they can tell the temperature as far back as 800,000 years

Actual real temperatures? No they don't.

Martin,

We are talking about individuals who are not as bright and we have other individuals who will do anything to make a buck.

link

And what does that have to do with the price of maple syrup in Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!? (yes, that is a real place… I've been there)

Saying that chinese counterfeits are counterfeit is no basis for "proving" that the whole edifice of climate science is fake.

ice core samples, they can tell the temperature as far back as 800,000 years
Actual real temperatures? No they don't.

While they can't tell you the exact minute by minute temperature, they can give you upper and lower bounds for the yearly temperature. In many cases, it's like shock patches on crash test dummies, in that they can tell you if you've exceeded a particular temperature or not. Stack multiple different proxies next to each other and the resolution improves.

Actual real temperatures? No they don't.

If you're asking do they have an 800,000 year old thermometer then no, it doesn't exist. But they still know what the temperature was pretty well. It's called Science. Look in to it.

Just like they know how old the Earth is (4.543 billion years) without having a clock.

Just like they know the circumference of the Earth (40,075 km) without having a large enough tape measure.

Your entire argument is one large "appeal to credulity" logical fallacy.

But they still know what the temperature was pretty well. It's called Science

No what they can determine if there was more volcanic events due to present of ash in the ice.

They might also be able to make assumptions about snow fall.

But that is all they are doing – making assumptions.

Dr. Richard Telford has a recent blog post about reconstructing air temperatures from historic water temperatures.

As for ice cores, you have co2 captured in gas bubbles as well as Oxygen16/Oxygen18 ratios which are very useful for reconstructing both and temperature and precipitation.

No what they can determine if there was more volcanic events due to present of ash in the ice.

There is a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.They can tell the temperature by determining the level of trapped CO2 in the ice air bubbles.

There is a direct correlation between the ratios of O16 and O18 isotopes. They can tell the temperature by determining the level of trapped CO2 and O2 in the ice and in the trapped bubbles and then measuring the isotopic ratios.

Same thing with the ratios between C12 and C13. You can correlate the temperature by determining these ratios in trapped air bubbles and the ice itself.

Also you can find convergence when checking these isotopes ratios found within fossilized benthic and planktic calcite shells. This corresponds very well to the ice cores.

While we are looking at fossilized sea creatures one can look at the Magnesium/Calcium ratios. These also have a well understood correlation to temperatures. Then there are the Strontium/Calcium ratios which also have a strong correlation to temperature. Guess what? They all match pretty well.

Combine all this and you get a good idea what the temperature was a long time ago.

They might also be able to make assumptions about snow fall.

But that is all they are doing – making assumptions.

But it is a very strong assumption. Just like we assume Early Imperial Romans lived in and about Italy two thousand years ago. We don't have any ancient Romans to talk to, and no one alive has ever seen one. But we know of their existence by proxy of their writings, sculptures, architecture and many other artifacts that effectively prove their existence.

The same way we know of the prehistoric temperatures on Earth, by proxy of artifacts the climate leaves in nature. So what is your evidence that paleoclimatology doesn't work, doesn't exist, and that all it's practitioners are wrong and you are correct?

I suppose for some people, only a time machine and a thermometer will ever be enough. That and Dilbert cartoons.

reconstructing air temperatures from historic water temperatures

Reconstructing does not mean "Real"

So what is your evidence that paleoclimatology doesn't work, doesn't exist, and that all it's practitioners are wrong and you are correct?

Where is yours on that is does work? Plus all I want are the "Real" temps.

So yes it looks like you are going to need that Time Machine.

Where is yours on that is does work?

There is a mountain of research showing it works. Here is one example:

PDF link

Your serve.

Plus all I want are the "Real" temps.

So Romans aren't "real" either?

So yes it looks like you are going to need that Time Machine.

Don't forget the thermometer. Gotta keep it "real"

Picture of hand mounted analogue altimeter

‌

Mithmee, as you've stated many times, you're familiar with the aerospace industry. Are these gauges "Fake" measures of altitude – even if they are derived from differences in air pressure and calibrated according to local conditions?

Why can't it be the same for lake sediments providing an indication of the prevalent air temperature?

I found this one again: always fun for a review:

link

The first two sentences are total nonsense, so I stopped reading at that point. Which is par for the course at American Thinker.

an indication

What part of "REAL" do you not understand?

I do not want a proxy, an indication or anything else other the "REAL" weather data.

GWA, that is good information and shows that our planet's weather is always changing.

So back in 1902 that must have been due to Global Warming that was caused by all of the Co2 gasses that man put into the air.

What part of "REAL" do you not understand?

As expected. No answer to Martin's question. Evasion noted.

Your insistence of actual exact temperatures shows you know absolutely nothing about the topic. If scientists can determine that the temperature was on average 20 degrees higher than today 50 million years ago, then why insist on knowing if it was 112.5 degrees or 115 degrees? The scientists don't. So the question is , "What part of REAL do you not understand"?

Don't even start with your conspiracy BS. There is a Utter Drivel thread, where your tin foil hat nonsense would be better employed.

Nice to know the "American Stinker" is living (or rather, down) to its well earned "reputation"…

Mithmee,

While you are pondering the altimeter:

This is a pulse oximeter, something I use at work. The biggest danger to any patient receiving any form of sedation is the suppression of the breathing center in the CNS. The best way to monitor the efficiency of the patient's ability to breath is to measure O2 levels in the pulsatile blood stream.

I know that in order to keep it "REAL" you may expect us to have a mechanism to count every molecule of O2 and CO2 in the bloodstream. Sorry that is fantasy, like your insistence on knowing the exact temperature millions of years ago.

Instead, you get a little sensor clipped to your finger. On one end is an LED light source which fires red and infrared light through your tissue and this light then gets picked up on a photodiode sensor at the other edge of your finger. The photodiode measures absorption of the light, which differs from oxygenated hemoglobin and unoxygenated hemoglobin, in the arterial vessels of the finger. Based on the degree of light absorption we get an indication (yes, I used that word) of how much pulsatile O2 saturation the patient has. This is the basic mechanism used by devices found in every clinic, every medical office, every dental office and every hospital where patients are sedated. It gives an "indication" albeit a very accurate one. So accurate that you can feel safe being put under. In fact any dangers of sedation have nothing to do with the efficacy of pulse oximeters.

This is another example of proxy science. Something is known by measuring something else that has a very well understood correlation with the thing you want to know about. Kind of like an altimeter! Or determining temperatures by measuring CO2 levels in ice core bubbles.

It's Science, deal with it.

It doesn't matter whether you accept that it is happening or not (it is). It doesn't matter if you believe it is caused by man or not (it is). It is happening and it will get worse.

Mother Nature does not listen to the news or read polls. She didn't get the memo about this being a Chinese plot. Syria and Nicaragua are with us and that's good enough for me! I have no kids so burn baby burn!