The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

The future is uncertain and the end is always near.

Could be worse, we could be going into an ice age.

Science is a liberal conspiracy.

Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!

How much global warming does it take to screw in a incandescent light bulb?

none because they were both made up things XDD

pay raise... can't get one ..

Lsherm: We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."
...
Have you ever seen Jesus wearing a warm coat while riding a dinosaur? Case closed. amirite?

ijit: Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!

We need somebody who can stand up to the experts!

It should be freezing here in Nevada. It's not.

GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.

A new tax can fix this!

MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.

No, you moron, the skeptical position is the one that accepts the damn evidence. The position you are describing is a subset of Deniers.

MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.

It doesn't matter. Either way, changing our behavior will make it better.

If man-made global warming is a hoax, we clean up the planet.

If man-made global warming is real, we clean up the planet.

We win either way.

Unless you are a friend of Dick Cheney. Then your net worth might drop from 900 million to 887 million. And that would be bad.

Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

/i can't wait until this world burns...

MrEricSir: Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.

a) The only thing that significantly affects temperature is the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in particular.

b) Greenhouse gases have been going steadily up since the industrial revolution

Study it out, folks, just study it out.

November in Colorado should be balls cold.

Sixties and seventies.

What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.

Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: [blogs.mbs.edu image 648x346]

Link

my guess is you won't watch the whole thing. and if you do watch it all, you'll just dismiss it.

Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

It is scientifically verifiable that climate change is actually occurring, and that our actions as a species are influencing it. This article from Science magazine explains it: http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_globalwarming_Karl200 4.pdf . The only questions are the exact mechanisms and the extent of the impact.

viscountalpha: Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

/i can't wait until this world burns...

You can't do anything without having an effect on your environment... period. I don't care if you're even camping with the utmost care in the world, you'll still impact the environment in some way. Don't be one of those idiots that tries to say that we have no impact on our atmosphere despite there being 7 billion + of us on the planet, each having some impact on our environment (including our atmosphere). We are not the solitary cause, we are contributing to the process in a way that is increasing our global temperature.

And actually, you can wait. Because that isn't likely to happen for a very long time. You won't live long enough to see "the world burn". Your life must be pretty damn miserable if that's how you really feel. I hope it gets better for you. I'm a pretty happy person for the most part, so I tend to want to be a good steward for this planet. I'm not seeing an option for a new home if we fark this one up too bad.

GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect. For another, the failure to account or in some cases to overcompensate for the unequal distribution of temperature measurement devices around the tropics and equator (due to the substandard living conditions in those areas) before the last 30 years. If you look at climate change on a map over the last 30 years, you will see that most of the rise has been due to the expansion of monitoring worldwide. The averages locally have risen much slower than averages "globally" because the "globe" is expanding.

Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.

Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

331 months, panic!

Kriggerel: I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Ummm... No. That isn't accurate. Neither is the rest of your attempt at deflection.

The term denier is used because there is ample evidence and when they look at it, they claim it is wrong... not because they have contrary evidence, but because they don't like what the evidence says. A skeptic is someone who has looked at evidence and has valid reasons why they feel the evidence is invalid. Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?

I doubt you do... if you did, you probably would have mentioned that rather than trying to deflect from the topic.

GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

Null hypothesis? You're awesome. Do you know how rarely I hear that when reading statistical analysis? !

NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.

Compared to a land surface subject to the same heating, an ocean surface should

A. have a larger seasonal temperature range
B. have a higher summer temperature
C. have a lower winter temperature
D. have a seasonal temperature cycle lagging behind the land's seasonal temperature cycle

Try your luck :)

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Actually, it's not doctored by a blogger, it's the work of a thoroughly discredited aggregation done by someone without much statistical experience.

"Loehle is an ecologist who used just 18 proxy datasets in his reconstruction. The statistical analysis in the study was grossly flawed, the paper was panned, and it failed to pass the peer-review process (ultimately it was published in the social science journal Energy&Environment, where all flawed "skeptical" papers end up)." -some guy

But all hope for understanding is not lost! Good science exists! Here are a bunch of peer-reviewed studies:

Link

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

david_gaithersburg: A new tax can fix this!

Hotter it gets, higher your tax, win-win!

Citations, citations, and then more citations. Link For the reality deniers.

Jesda: Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.

And libertarian-bent conservatives still don't understand how to deal with externalities.

Hint: It rhymes with "beg two Haitians."

david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.