Another hot month in a La Nina

[Old Rocks]

August exceeds the temperature of most of the months in the satellite data dating to 1979;

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2021:+0.17 deg. C.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2021 was +0.17 deg. C, down slightly from the July, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C. The linear warming trend since…

iowaclimate.org

 

[harmonica]

so what?? you have an air conditioner, don't you?

 

[TNHarley]

It hasnt been too bad around here. In fact, It could have been warmer.
Goddamn electric vehicles!

 

[ding]

August exceeds the temperature of most of the months in the satellite data dating to 1979;

View attachment 534141

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2021:+0.17 deg. C.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2021 was +0.17 deg. C, down slightly from the July, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C. The linear warming trend since…

iowaclimate.org

Congratulations. You have just proven temperatures rise during interglacial cycles. If previous interglacial cycles are any measure we can expect another 2C as our current temperature is still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles.

 

[ding]

It hasnt been too bad around here. In fact, It could have been warmer.
Goddamn electric vehicles!

I can't wait for the predictable surprises of widespread use of battery operated cars.

 

[elektra]

and now, it is about to become Autumn, here in New England we have nightly lows at 37 degrees. Pretty cold it is. But I guess without Global Warming it would of been 36 degrees, ha, ha, ha!

 

[Crick]

Hahahahahaaa.....

And, without global warming, Ida would have been a moderate shower and some gusty winds.

 

[ding]

Hahahahahaaa.....

And, without global warming, Ida would have been a moderate shower and some gusty winds.

It's moronic to think that a less than 1C change in the average temperature over a thousand years has anything at all to do with the intensity or frequency of hurricanes. It's fearmongering.

 

[Crick]

It's moronic to think that a less than 1C change in the average temperature over a thousand years has anything at all to do with the intensity or frequency of hurricanes. It's fearmongering.

When you have to resort to blatant lying, you need to realize you've reached a level of desperation requiring some serious self examination. Temperatures have risen ~1.4C in the last 150 years.

 

[ding]

When you have to resort to blatant lying, you need to realize you've reached a level of desperation requiring some serious self examination. Temperatures have risen ~1.4C in the last 150 years.

Measured from a point exiting a cold spell....

...and skewed by urbanization.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

August exceeds the temperature of most of the months in the satellite data dating to 1979;

View attachment 534141

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2021:+0.17 deg. C.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2021 was +0.17 deg. C, down slightly from the July, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C. The linear warming trend since…

iowaclimate.org

.2 degrees = massive crop failures, floods, fires, locusts, rivers turn to blood

 

[Crick]

Measured from a point exiting a cold spell....

...and skewed by urbanization.

Feel free to characterize it however you wish, but you cannot deny that THAT is what has actually happened and to instead contend that everyone is getting worked up over less than a degree change in a thousand years shows you as a blatant liar.

 

[ding]

Feel free to characterize it however you wish, but you cannot deny that THAT is what has actually happened and to instead contend that everyone is getting worked up over less than a degree change in a thousand years shows you as a blatant liar.

I characterize it as natural forces.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

 

[Crick]

When more than 97% of published climate scientists accept the IPCC's conclusions, it is disingenuous (read "FALSE") to suggest that there is any significant - or even trivial - debate among scientists as to the primary cause of the warming seen in the last 150 years.

 

[ding]

When more than 97% of published climate scientists accept the IPCC's conclusions, it is disingenuous (read "FALSE") to suggest that there is any significant - or even trivial - debate among scientists as to the primary cause of the warming seen in the last 150 years.

This is far from settled. We are just started to get past the bias that is preventing honest dialogue and debate. So your 97% argument serves no other purpose than to attempt to impede investigation.

"...Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress...."

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[Crick]

The purpose it serves is to get people motivated to do something before its too late. I guarantee you the world is going to go to shit and I won't be the only one around blaming people like you.

 

[ding]

The purpose it serves is to get people motivated to do something before its too late. I guarantee you the world is going to go to shit and I won't be the only one around blaming people like you.

Like I said... This is far from settled. We are just started to get past the bias that is preventing honest dialogue and debate.

 

[Crick]

Yes, it is completely settled. The honest debate and dialogue has been going on for the last several decades. Your side lost. Completely.

The dishonesty, besides the ignorant lies about the science, is the meme being pushed by the fossil fuel industry is that a debate still rages among scientists. There's no more debate among scientists about the human responsibility for global warming than there is about a thousand other topics you'd never think twice about disputing.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is completely settled. The honest debate and dialogue has been going on for the last several decades. Your side lost. Completely.

The dishonesty, besides the ignorant lies about the science, is the meme being pushed by the fossil fuel industry is that a debate still rages among scientists. There's no more debate among scientists about the human responsibility for global warming than there is about a thousand other topics you'd never think twice about disputing.

Afraid not. There has never been an honest investigation.

Until now...

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Connolly

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.raa-journal.org

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is completely settled. The honest debate and dialogue has been going on for the last several decades. Your side lost. Completely.

The dishonesty, besides the ignorant lies about the science, is the meme being pushed by the fossil fuel industry is that a debate still rages among scientists. There's no more debate among scientists about the human responsibility for global warming than there is about a thousand other topics you'd never think twice about disputing.

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES): “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.” The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Connolly

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.raa-journal.org