Fears of hottest year on record as global temperatures spike

[ReinyDays]

The co2 is the driver of the temperature and then the oceans rise and fall with the temperature.

What lab experiment can we perform to demonstrate this claim? ... keep in mind, kinetic energy (= temperature) is proportional to mass, and your CO2 mass is negligible ...

Your charts don't describe any physics ...

 

[22lcidw]

It's not just the heat, in fact, more importantly, it is the drought we have to worry about. This is as dry a start to summer as I can remember in Illinois. We have had one barely measurable rain in past 6-8 weeks where I live.

Many things on weather. One thing.... The earth wobbles on its axis. Approximately 23 degrees North and South every 6 months. So that is perfect. It is not. A degree here and there affects weather. The elitist architects of fear are convincing us to spend tens of trillions and hundreds of trillions of dollars on green energy that will enrich them first and impoverish the peasants.

 

[odanny]

Many things on weather. One thing.... The earth wobbles on its axis. Approximately 23 degrees North and South every 6 months. So that is perfect. It is not. A degree here and there affects weather. The elitist architects of fear are convincing us to spend tens of trillions and hundreds of trillions of dollars on green energy that will enrich them first and impoverish the peasants.

Uh huh, sure, that's it.

 

[ReinyDays]

Many things on weather. One thing.... The earth wobbles on its axis. Approximately 23 degrees North and South every 6 months. So that is perfect. It is not. A degree here and there affects weather. The elitist architects of fear are convincing us to spend tens of trillions and hundreds of trillions of dollars on green energy that will enrich them first and impoverish the peasants.

What? ... Earth's axis stays at 23º tilted from the ecliptic ... it doesn't "wobble" ... a degree-of-arc change isn't measured here on Earth's surface ... we've not distributed accurate enough thermometers to read this ... did you do the math? ... 1,360 W/m^2 (cos 45º) - 1,360 W/m^2 (cos 44º) = 17 W/m^2 ... will that cook a hot dog? ...

Of course we're enriched first ... we have the money ... you impoverished have to do what we say, or no American Puffupery on TV for you ... do you honestly think coal seam owners are going to build wind farms on the damn seam ... we're rich because we're smart ... and don't do stupid things with our money ... like paying $100,000 to broke-down whores when we're married to a super-model ...

I'm your best friend if you want to save money on energy ... and who doesn't want to save money on energy? ... at least take the snowplow and sander off your F-150 during the summer months ... close your windows when the A/C is on ... train your cats to sleep on top of you on cold nights ...

I'm sorry ... The West has hydro ... it's cheap ... cheaper than fossil fuels ... [shrugs shoulders] ... green energy saves us money ... do your own math and let that guide your energy future choices ... hint: Texas and Oklahoma are one-two in wind power generation ... what does Big Oil know that you don't? ...

 

[EMH]

The co2 is the driver of the temperature

Not according to the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps....

There is precisely ZERO evidence that Co2 causes warming = the unfudged data

 

[Crick]

The co2 is the driver of the temperature and then the oceans rise and fall with the temperature.

Good morning Ms Stormlover. My gratitude for your efforts here.

CO2 very strongly correlates with temperature via two mechanisms: greenhouse warming and the inverse relationship between gas solubility in liquids and temperature. As we all know - but some claim to reject - CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the warming it produces is, of course, proportional to its level in the atmosphere. Additionally, gases dissolve in liquids (like the CO2 in your Coke) but unlike, say, sugar in tea, under constant partial pressure, more gas dissolves as a liquid's temperature goes down. Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases global temperatures while decreasing atmospheric CO2 decreases global temperatures. Increasing temperatures decrease CO2 solubility in our oceans while decreasing temperatures increase CO2 solubility in our oceans.

Both effects produce the correlation seen in your plots. Throughout Earth's history, it has been the Malankovitch Cycle processes that have driven global warming and cooling but several published studies have shown a positive greenhouse feedback effect from CO2 outgassed from the world's oceans, amplifying and extending Malankovitch heating.

Several processes stop this feedback situation from running away entirely: The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which describes the relationship between temperature and thermal radiation notes that the relationship includes the 4th power of absolute temperature, so the effect tapers as temperatures rise. Additionally, the solubility of a gas in a liquid is also proportional to its partial pressure (its fraction of total pressure) so as atmospheric levels increase, absorption in the oceans increase. There is also some increased uptake from photosynthetic flora, including phytoplankton and, finally, at a geological pace, weathering increases with temperature and acidification and will slowly sequester CO2 in the oceans and marine sediments.

The greenhouse heating effect is demonstrated by numerous high-school level laboratory experiments. Deniers may argue that the effect it too weak, but they are ignoring the point that the 1.1C heating we've experienced has developed over 150 years. The amount of heating that would be produced in a 55 minute science class by real world gas concentrations would be necessarily small.

 

[ReinyDays]

Not according to the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps....

... and what are those measure pray tell ...

 

[EMH]

... and what are those measure pray tell ...

satellites and balloons

 

[ReinyDays]

satellites and balloons

I'm looking at the satellite data in real time ... which band gives temperature? ... and what balloon data are you using? ... do you understand the poor temperature coverage balloons give? ... you know ... Meteorology 201 ... however, each one should be a close match to the temperature profile NOAA gives ... just need to know where you're getting your data ... and please show your math ...

My claim is we don't have enough data to make these broad and wide-ranging claims ... that you're making the same mistake as the Hystericals ... that one factor in a multi-variable system is the everything of all ... that's not how nature works ... sorry ...

 

[EMH]

do you understand the poor temperature coverage balloons give?

They fly where people live. At least they are constant and not affected by Urban Heat Sink Effect like Surface Ground is.

And they correlated with the satellite data. TWC had a huge piece on that which was removed from their website 15 years ago. The satellites and balloons measure the same thing and tracked with high correlation, both showing 1998, Bill Clinton's warmest year ever claim, as a year with a cooler than normal atmosphere.

Lame attempt to discredit balloons, which have been flying for a century.

My claim is we don't have enough data

And another $700 billion of US taxdollars to you and yours will give us that "data..."

LOL!!


Fuck that. You got nothing. You are all a bunch of fudgebaking liars.

 

[ReinyDays]

Lame attempt to discredit balloons, which have been flying for a century.

What am I trying to discredit? ... do you have that data? ... please post it and tell us how you calculated the average ... I've used radiosonde data before, and I'm absolutely positive you're not correcting for the pseudo-adiabatic process ... the curved lines on your chart ...

Yes ... we have correlation research at NASA's GISS ... great work going on there ... but these are just small corrections to the gradients NOAA uses ... within instrumentation error ... and in every way, these satellite correlations are tuned to the surface and balloon measurements ... the hope is that some day we can do all our temperature measurements from satellites ... but that won't recover data from before the Age of Satellites ...

Hard to discuss with you ... not until you show us your data and describe the math your using ... NASA's satellite data is a perfect match to NOAA's ... you claim both are wrong ...

 

[EMH]

NASA's satellite data is a perfect match to NOAA's ... you claim both are wrong ...

Your side fudged both with laughable "corrections" you won't defend.

How does "orbit wobble" justify fudging satellites higher? It doesn't.

The "shade issue" on the balloons was constant the whole time, how does that justify fudging a flat line into a slope up?

It doesn't.


The truth is that both satellites and balloons showed no warming for almost 30 years before your side decided to fudge both with laughable BS...

 

[Flash]

Fears of hottest year on record as global temperatures spike​

I think i'll be close or maybe 2nd to 2016, but we will see. If we can start seeing some seriously hot months from this month forward we'll have a chance.

We have no idea what the "hottest year on record" is because we have no way of measuring world wide temperatures. Besides we have found agencies like NOAA, NASA and the UN Climate Commission lying and fabricating data.

Satellite data is unreliable because of the trouble with calibration. They can only calibrate the sensors to about +/- 4 F but yet claim to detect .5 F variations.

At best we have sketchy data prior to about the 1950s. We sure as hell don't know what the worldwide temperature was in the 1800s or back. Temperature data was very sparse in the Southern Hemisphere and in large parts of Asia. Most data was taken in the big cities of Europe and the US. Not very representative.

Things like ice cores and tree rings are very local and the science of using them as world wide indicators is not very scientifically defensible. Besides we have caught the people analyzing the data fabricating and cherry picking. They admitted to doing it. Like the infamous Al Gore "hockey stick" graph that was cherry picked to show erroneous results.

 

[Blaster]

Fears of hottest year on record as global temperatures spike​

I think i'll be close or maybe 2nd to 2016, but we will see. If we can start seeing some seriously hot months from this month forward we'll have a chance.

Our weather has been cooler than normal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They fly where people live. At least they are constant and not affected by Urban Heat Sink Effect like Surface Ground is.

Heat Island......moron

 

[EMH]

CO2 very strongly correlates with temperature via two mechanisms

Not exactly, not even close.

Satellites and balloons showed no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2 until your side fudged both with laughable and indefensible "corrections"


The ice cores show Co2 increases lagging, not leading, (miniscule) planetary warming in the past.


In short, there is no evidence that increasing or decreasing atmospheric Co2 does anything....

 

[Cellblock2429]

Fears of hottest year on record as global temperatures spike​

I think i'll be close or maybe 2nd to 2016, but we will see. If we can start seeing some seriously hot months from this month forward we'll have a chance.

/----/

 

[Crick]

Our weather has been cooler than normal.

The planet's weather has been cooler than normal?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I've lived in Las Vegas for ten years. This is the mildest weather we've ever had since I've been here. More rain than any previous year and we haven't even had a 100 degree day yet.

 

[mamooth]

We have no idea what the "hottest year on record" is because we have no way of measuring world wide temperatures.

Of course we do. We have these amazing things called "thermometers". And there's this field calls "statistics" that allows one to calculate an average from multiple measurements.

Besides we have found agencies like NOAA, NASA and the UN Climate Commission lying and fabricating data.

There's that the news from the weird alternate reality, the place that so many on the right now reside in.

Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money flows to the denier side, so all of the the fraud and corruption and garbage science comes from the denier side. Any climate scientists could get rich if they stooped to lying for the deniers. They don't. They refuse such bribes. They sacrifice money to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.

When you've been reduced to "ALL THE DATA IS FAKED!", as the deniers have, that's basically an admission that all the facts contradict you.