19 of the 20 hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the last 21 years.
8 of the hottest 8 years ever recorded were the last 8 years.

Black is not white. Up is not down. Hot is not cold….no matter how many times you say it, Bob. Being too dumb to even understand the science or its implications have you just denying it….like if you don’t understand it must not be true. 🤦‍♂️
It is well known that the right’s MO is to just lie about what their opponent claims, then debunk their own lie, ignoring the actual claims. It’s the best you can do, and the right’s constituents are so intellectually absent, incurious, and not just willing but wanting to be spoon fed propaganda that you buy it without ever investigating a thing. I know this to be true, because everyone who actually looks at the data (and doesn’t just misrepresent it completely) comes to the same conclusion (unless they’re selling something).

2030 did not come from Greta. It came from multiple climate reports, except for those who said we had less time.
It’s a purposeful intent to mislead the public to say the reports say ultimate disaster happens in 2030, they don’t, and the right knows they don’t say that and knows that’s not what climate activists say either…it says at current rates (when the report was written) by 2030 1.5C rise would be locked in, unavoidable. CO2 can last 300-1000 years actively in the atmosphere. Stopping adding CO2 and methane when we are at the line of 1.5C rise is planning for disaster with no backup and no margin for error when the stakes are literally survival of the species and civilization. In fact, rates have increased since the data was collected, so 2030 is too late….2000 may have been too late to stop runaway climate change, but we can still minimize or slow the impacts.

1.5C is when we lose control and feedback loops (likely) take over our ability to have any control. It’s too bad so many idiots are too dumb to comprehend that yet still have the resources to effect the outcome. “Mea culpa” isn’t going to restore the planet when they finally admit the undeniable, neither is their heads on pikes nor their children being used as food, but that’s where we’re going. Too bad we aren’t there yet, it would save a hell of a lot of problems if we just eradicated the irresponsible money worshiping morons in favor of people who put a livable planet above record quarterly profits.

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

Hottest year on record except, of course, for all those places covered in snow. I wonder if the heat stopped hiding in the ocean: "It's virtually certain that California will have its warmest year on record, even if California has record cold in December." It's the warmest year even if it's simultaneously the coldest December (or winter) on record. That's what I call "useful" data. Maybe the heat only hides during certain months, and then comes out and then hides out again, like for the Holidays or something.

I gotta sympathize with the global warming folks who latch onto any data point they can use to promulgate the freakout... anything that justifies their existence (until they inevitably run out of improbable causes).

@radx

Our heat wave isn't as bad as yours....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130109&_r=0

Not Even Close: 2012 Was Hottest Ever in U.S.
By JUSTIN GILLIS

Last year's 55.3 degree average topped the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.

Graphic Graphic: Record-Setting Heat Across the U.S. in 2012

• NYTimes.com Home Page »
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
"The heat was remarkable. It was prolonged. That we beat the record by one degree is quite a big deal."
JAKE CROUCH, a scientist with the National Climatic Data Center, which reported that 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.

Was going to upvote, but had a sneaking suspicion that the whole SUV=WMD thing would crop it. Wouldn't downvote even if I could, but won't get my upvote either.

FYI, the hottest year on record is 1998, so one could say we are in the middle of a nine-year cooling trend. Ciao.

About the video, it's hard to make someone understand something they are paid not to understand.

And It takes a special person I believe to say that global warming is not real especially given some pretty 'hard' facts, such as the fact that the last hottest years on record were in the previous last 14 years, the last one being 2005. 2005 was a year that records were broken in the US, Europe and India for highest temperatures and rainfall. The ice glaciers around the world have retreated, up in the northen territories you can see trees for miles around drunkenly swayed because the roots are in permafrost that is thawing. Go to Alaska, you can see the effects of Global Warming on the oil pipeline, because since the land is thawing and threatening the structural intergrity of the pipe. Back when I was in africa, rising temperatures over the years created problems with mosiquitos, as they moved into higher locales were most of the cpaitals were built such as Lusaka and Harare. But enough facts, people don't like facts, this is not a story based on facts this is purely economics, and the american people are being taken for a ride.

Kyoto has been ratified by all countries expect 2, the US and Australia. Both countries contend mainly that imposing enviromental policies on their economies would be detremental. The motor industry of course does not want this to happen, imposing enviromental policies in the US would mean that low MPG cars would be encouraged because they are more enviromentally friendly, currently Ford and GM are really not in that business, it's dominated by the bigger companies like Toyota and Honda. The US when compared to the world has the worst cars based on MPG, so much so that american cars doen't pass enviromental laws set in China of all places.

Some states and cities seeing inaction from the goverment are taking action in their own hands. California nearly did this until GM/Ford basically killed it and the restrictions that were supposed to bring California to the MPG standards of China were diluted. At the same time GM's amazing Electrical car got silently killed.

Now to many people, the question would arise about why would the motor industry go out of their way to suppress this. Because enviromental legislation means goverment control and oversight of an industry that's been allowed to get away with alot in the past. Safety issues that were always put on the driver, the legislation the american people had to go through just to get safety standards up in first place. Remember the Ford Pinto? You know that car that if you get rear ended in, chances are you're BBQ toast. Ford knew about this problem, worked out that it's cheaper to face the lawsuits then recall an entire production run.

So you really believe they are not capable of counter-spin to protect their industry? In actuality of course if Ford and GM would adopt mordern policies and improve the enviromental standards of their cars they would only benefit seeing as that would instantly open up new areas for export. GM could give you an amazing electrical car, that is good for living within the city tommorrow, but they wouldn't do that, why give you something today that works? When we can promise you hydrogen fuel cells that are close to a decade away. Allowing us of course to collude and rape the american people and hopefully the rest of the world for all the inefficient SUV gas guzzlers that they want.

This is all risky business, it is possible that Detriot is going to finally dissappear off the map. Ford and GM would lose out and we will all be driving Honda's and Toyota's in the future. You know why because the american car industry has been pathetic since the 1970s, when the oil crisis hit the american people were left with gas guzzlers from Ford/GM and new fuel efficient cars from Japan. Cars from Japan were so much more efficient and cost benefical, car manufacturs lobbied congress to impose trade restrictions on Japan. What happened was a voluntary quota system, where a fixed of Japanese cars were allowed in the US market, thus their low price shot up (high demand- low supply) and Japanese cars attained a high end market and the Lexus and such emerged.

The Japanese did it because it let them make a killing, there was large demand in the US, the quota artifically drove up the price for the Americans, thus Japanese auto companies were for it. Ford and GM were allowed to keep their tiny dominion for a little more, and also made a killing. Who lost? The american people who again got sub-par cars when compared to the rest of the world, paid much more for cars both domestic and foreign, and also pays the goverments imposition of the voluntary export quota.

So, no. I don't think Global Warming is BS. I like the weather like it is now, I don't want to see it change.