The planet is no longer warming

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

 

[deannalw]

Uh oh.

Time for another global cooling scare!

 

[SSDD]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

The "globe" hasn't been warming for quite some time. The only place "global" warming shows up is in the heavily manipulated, homogenized, and infilled "global" record. If you look at individual regions across the globe, you don't see the warming that shows up in the global record...The global record has been, is, and always will be a worthless bit of political stage craft designed explicitly to support a false narrative. Here, have a look at the temperature histories of various regions scattered across the globe..


http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/343/2017/tc-11-343-2017.pdf

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-26/cp-2017-26.pdf

Two centuries temperature variations over subtropical southeast China inferred from Pinus taiwanensis Hayata tree-ring width

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

High sensitivity of North Iceland (Tröllaskagi) debris-free glaciers to climatic change from the ‘Little Ice Age’ to the present (PDF Download Available)

http://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf

http://cms.unige.ch/sciences/terre/news/articles/Guillet_etal_NGEO_2017.pdf

http://www.clim-past.net/13/1/2017/cp-13-1-2017.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Siderastrea_siderea_from_the_Florida_Straits

Ice core and climate reanalysis analogs to predict Antarctic and Southern Hemisphere climate changes - ScienceDirect

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3478-8

Reconstructing North Atlantic marine climate variability using an absolutely-dated sclerochronological network - ScienceDirect

A paleo-perspective on ocean heat content: Lessons from the Holocene and Common Era - ScienceDirect

Quantifying climatic variability in monsoonal northern China over the last 2200 years and its role in driving Chinese dynastic changes - ScienceDirect

CONTINUED......

 

[SSDD]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

The "globe" hasn't been warming for quite some time. The only place "global" warming shows up is in the heavily manipulated, homogenized, and infilled "global" record. If you look at individual regions across the globe, you don't see the warming that shows up in the global record...The global record has been, is, and always will be a worthless bit of political stage craft designed explicitly to support a false narrative. Here, have a look at the temperature histories of various regions scattered across the globe..


http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/343/2017/tc-11-343-2017.pdf

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-26/cp-2017-26.pdf

Two centuries temperature variations over subtropical southeast China inferred from Pinus taiwanensis Hayata tree-ring width

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

High sensitivity of North Iceland (Tröllaskagi) debris-free glaciers to climatic change from the ‘Little Ice Age’ to the present (PDF Download Available)

http://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf

http://cms.unige.ch/sciences/terre/news/articles/Guillet_etal_NGEO_2017.pdf

http://www.clim-past.net/13/1/2017/cp-13-1-2017.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Siderastrea_siderea_from_the_Florida_Straits

Ice core and climate reanalysis analogs to predict Antarctic and Southern Hemisphere climate changes - ScienceDirect

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3478-8

Reconstructing North Atlantic marine climate variability using an absolutely-dated sclerochronological network - ScienceDirect

A paleo-perspective on ocean heat content: Lessons from the Holocene and Common Era - ScienceDirect

Quantifying climatic variability in monsoonal northern China over the last 2200 years and its role in driving Chinese dynastic changes - ScienceDirect

CONTINUED......

 

[SSDD]

CONTINUATION....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Changes in temperature and water depth of a small mountain lake during the past 3000 years in Central Kamchatka reflected by a chironomid record

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n3/full/ngeo2891.html

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Temperature variations since 1750 CE inferred from an alpine lake in the southeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau

https://www.researchgate.net/public...enland_from_the_first_regional_diatom_dataset

Quantitative reconstruction of temperature at a Jōmon site in the Incipient Jōmon Period in northern Japan and its implications for the production of early pottery and stone arrowheads

Climate variability in the past ∼19,000 yr in NE Tibetan Plateau inferred from biomarker and stable isotope records of Lake Donggi Cona

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nce_from_the_mid-_to_outer_Great_Barrier_Reef

Holocene hydrological and sea surface temperature changes in the northern coast of the South China Sea

Oscillations in the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene inferred from a stable isotope record from pyrogenic carbon from Lake Chenghai, southwest China

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mental_change_for_southern_Pacific_Costa_Rica

Solar and tropical ocean forcing of late-Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia

Just for fun, here are a few more...



Late Glacial to Holocene paleoenvironmental change on the northwestern Pacific seaboard, Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) - ScienceDirect


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals


Lateglacial to Late Holocene palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of El Mirador cave (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) using the small-mammal assemblages - ScienceDirect


https://www.researchgate.net/public...olocene_and_its_sensitivity_to_climate_change

 

[Billy_Bob]

What I find interesting is the heat climb stopped in 1997 and has plateaued and is now in the negative slope while the temperature climb has briefly continued, as all buffered systems do. It is just about time for ocean heat reserves to deplete and rapid cooling to set in as the rate of positive climb is now negative.

The next ten years is going to crush the AGW narrative dead,

 

[mamooth]

What I find interesting is the heat climb stopped in 1997 and has plateaued

Fascinating, how you can't read your own graph.

and is now in the negative slope while the temperature climb has briefly continued, as all buffered systems do. It is just about time for ocean heat reserves to deplete and rapid cooling to set in as the rate of positive climb is now negative.

We measure ocean heat in detail, and it's still steadily increasing, so your idiot conspiracy theory thus craters.

The next ten years is going to crush the AGW narrative dead,

You said that 10 years ago, so good luck with that.

You are useful for one thing. Given your perfect failure record, people can look at what you predict and safely assume the exact opposite will happen. From your prediction here, we can be certain the strong warming will continue.

 

[Desperado]

So if global warming means the sea will rise does global cooling mean the sea level will drop?

 

[mamooth]

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly.

No, as the response is logarithmic. It takes increasing CO2 to crate a steady warming rate.

You're showing us a failure to understand a logarithmic process, and a failure to understand what "noise" is.

We'll still be at this in 10 years. The world will have kept on warming strongly, so you'll have to get even crazier than this piece to explain it, and we'll keep getting a good laugh out of it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly.

No, as the response is logarithmic. It takes increasing CO2 to crate a steady warming rate.

You're showing us a failure to understand a logarithmic process, and a failure to understand what "noise" is.

We'll still be at this in 10 years. The world will have kept on warming strongly, so you'll have to get even crazier than this piece to explain it, and we'll keep getting a good laugh out of it.

Bwhaaaaaaa.. The facts do not support your fantasy... We are laughing at you...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So if global warming means the sea will rise does global cooling mean the sea level will drop?

As the global temp falls ice at the poles will increase and glaciers will expand as they are down south today..

 

[Desperado]

So if global warming means the sea will rise does global cooling mean the sea level will drop?

As the global temp falls ice at the poles will increase and glaciers will expand as they are down south today..

So that is a yes..... cool bigger beaches

 

[mamooth]

As the global temp falls ice at the poles will increase and glaciers will expand as they are down south today..

I'm guessing this like those past years when you made up stories of Rocky Mountain glaciers advancing fast. You made crazy claims about 20 feet of new snow on the ground in June, and so I pointed out the Snotel sensor in that spot said "0 feet". Good times, those were. So specifically, what's your new fraudulent claim here?

 

[Sunsettommy]

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly.

No, as the response is logarithmic. It takes increasing CO2 to crate a steady warming rate.

You're showing us a failure to understand a logarithmic process, and a failure to understand what "noise" is.

We'll still be at this in 10 years. The world will have kept on warming strongly, so you'll have to get even crazier than this piece to explain it, and we'll keep getting a good laugh out of it.

Over and over you show what a profound science illiterate you are, since you show that you have no idea what the post actually talks about. Honestly you don't have a freaking clue!

Here is a clue that so far eluded you, despite that it is right in front of your nose!

"If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations."

I wrote this at the end of my first post:

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

You have convinced me that you don't understand the post at all, you bring up a dead on arrival Logarithm argument when it was about something else entirely.

 

[ReinyDays]

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly.

No, as the response is logarithmic. It takes increasing CO2 to crate a steady warming rate ...

You're both correct ... all mamooth did was attach the mathematical name to the function you described in the OP ... we have to greatly accelerate our carbon dioxide production to cause temperatures to accelerate upwards ... this is why the IPCC predicts that after the 2ºC rise in the next 100 years, it will be hundreds of years before temperatures rise another degree ... long enough that fossil fuels will be running out ...

Thus the fallacy of "climate crisis" ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly.

No, as the response is logarithmic. It takes increasing CO2 to crate a steady warming rate ...

You're both correct ... all mamooth did was attach the mathematical name to the function you described in the OP ... we have to greatly accelerate our carbon dioxide production to cause temperatures to accelerate upwards ... this is why the IPCC predicts that after the 2ºC rise in the next 100 years, it will be hundreds of years before temperatures rise another degree ... long enough that fossil fuels will be running out ...

Thus the fallacy of "climate crisis" ...

Oh dear, even you got befuddled........

No, Logarithmic function argument isn't even in the article or in the threads comment there, try reading it next time, here is the very next paragraph after my post quote of the article:

"But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate."

bolding mine

Not a lick about CO2 warm forcing at all, just about the rate of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, still on the slow increase.

Rate of temperature change on the DECLINE since 1994, while the rate of CO2 yearly emission still on the increase, which is in the total contradiction to the IPCC projection.

My advise to you, stop following perpetually wrong Mamooth arguments....

 

[ReinyDays]

Oh dear, even you got befuddled........

No, Logarithmic function argument isn't even in the article or in the threads comment there, try reading it next time, here is the very next paragraph after my post quote of the article:

"Logarithm" is the correct and succinct term here ... I'm sorry you don't like using it but it is a Law of Nature ... I already hate myself for agreeing with mamooth, but he's right this time ... (what are the odds of THAT happening) ... I understand you're writing for children, but there's a few adults about here and you'll just have to excuse us trying to clarify something you failed to include ...

Your data is completely underwhelming ... you have to cherry pick a specific portion of the data to make your case ... if we use all the data, then your claim collapses ... the problem is you're using far too short a time interval, the data you're using is completely corrupted by the on-going dynamics ... let SSDD post all the pretty pictures for the children, he's very good at it ...

I going to suggest that you're making the same mistake Alarmists make ... using temperature as a proxy for energy ... that's wrong, so your argument fails ...

 

[mamooth]

No, Logarithmic function argument isn't even in the article or in the threads comment there,

And that's the problem. The logarithmic response of climate to CO2 concentration means that the current rate of temperature rise should be rather steady, due to the exponential-type rate of CO2 rise. By not taking that into account, everything afterwards was wrong.

The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing.

As AGW theory predicts.

Do you even know what a logarithm is? Do you understand that climate sensitivity being stated as "degrees per doubling of CO2" indicates a logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 concentration?

Rate of temperature change on the DECLINE since 1994,

False, as that's based on dishonest cherrypicking, but that's a secondary error compared to your primary blunder.

while the rate of CO2 yearly emission still on the increase, which is in the total contradiction to the IPCC projection.

Here are the IPCC projections from AR4. For all scenarios, they show a linear increase for the near future.

The lesson you should learn? The cranks on WUWT always lie. Yet after each humiliation, you always run back to the them. It's as if you crave the humiliation.

 

[fncceo]

Can I add a chart?

 

[ReinyDays]

Can I add a chart?

No ... NO ... NO ... NO ... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo.................................

The Big Rip? ...