The Past Seven Years Have Been The Hottest In Recorded History, New Data Shows

[Sunsettommy]

I agree. He is entitled to his own opinions. But as the late Sen. Moynihan once noted, he isn’t entitled to his own facts. Hell. He could even be correct. But if one has to wade through piles of his abundant ego to finally reach is “conclusions,” most people will never see his conclusion. He is a piss poor excuse for a teacher. His own trolling undercuts much of what he has to say.

In that vein, let me ask. If Earth’s current climate is “different” now than it was during the past ice ages and retreats, how exactly is it different and what exactly are those differences? I’ve read that before human industrialization, there were periods of time where the CO2 in our atmosphere was higher than anything we see today. So, at those times, it can’t have been due to humankind.

I have posted a number of times showing there is NO climate emergency ongoing such as THIS LINK where it was met with fear and anger by warmist/alarmists to the point that NONE of them bothered to address the content of the article which was very revealing on the state of their mind about it.

My first main detailed reply was POST 22 worth reading.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Which is effectively meaningless.

The key to AGW is global average temperature (more accurately a temperature anomaly which is the temperature relative to a baseline temperature). One single point on the globe is NOT going to show you the overall trend. It isn't nearly that simple.

The global temperature is also NOT going to increase uniformly everywhere. Not even close.

So your local climate is not something you are going to be able to tell if it has increased by 1degC over 50 years. That isn't how any of this works.

LOLOLOLOL

Average global temperature is overrated since it is a single number that covers little of the planets surface yet considered good enough to create the much abused anomaly illusion.

You miss the point since the climate in the region hasn't changed in at least 58 years and actually much longer as I used to keep track of weather averages back to the 1930's

It is the same then and the same now.

Heck why don't YOU show us real climate change anywhere on the planet?

Small "global" temperature increase doesn't change climates something that PHD in your back pocket should have taught you long ago.

Here is something that will upset you:

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

LINK

===

I bet you will ignore the logarithmic effect of CO2 too.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Nope. (You COULD cite your source but I doubt you will)




Wrong again. You should look at the actual literature on the topic. There's a reason they call it an Atmosphere-ocean coupled model.

Ocean heat content is integral in this entire discussion.

It appears you are unaware of the cycling of warm periods to cold periods in the interglacial period it is very obvious if you had bothered to look:

Here is a simple chart showing it:

LINK

Warming periods every 900-1100 years with cooling periods in between.

The planet has been cooling since the Minoan Warm period ended nearly 3,300 years ago.

=====

What is the dominant source of incoming light energy into the ocean waters?

You depend on models while I depend on what is real and observed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ocean heat transfer is not instantaneous. It is a major buffer for additional heat and it takes time to redistribute it.

What is the dominant source of that energy?

 

[abu afak]

I agree. He is entitled to his own opinions. But as the late Sen. Moynihan once noted, he isn’t entitled to his own facts. Hell. He could even be correct. But if one has to wade through piles of his abundant ego to finally reach is “conclusions,” most people will never see his conclusion. He is a piss poor excuse for a teacher. His own trolling undercuts much of what he has to say.

In that vein, let me ask. If Earth’s current climate is “different” now than it was during the past ice ages and retreats, how exactly is it different and what exactly are those differences? I’ve read that before human industrialization, there were periods of time where the CO2 in our atmosphere was higher than anything we see today. So, at those times, it can’t have been due to humankind.

And I answered in #183 and #184.
One post in my own words, and one from excellent sources. (Yale, Columbia, NASA, etc)
That's NOT just "My own facts" or "religion."
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

You remain a complete TROLL in this thread/section/board and need to be at least thread banned.
There is No other board that I've ever posted on that would allow all your No topical Content/emptily hostile posts.
Not one.

`

 

[abu afak]

I have always agreed with global warming ... the NOAA data is plain ... we are experiencing rising temperatures ... it is climate change I disagree with ... unless you can point to a place and say how climate has changed ...

Getting warmer IS Climate Change!
All that physics and not 7th grade English?
And warming (air and water) obviously fuel other climate changes.
There's a thread of mine just below about the Farm zone moving north into Canada.

"A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones"​

That IS 'Climate change.'

Ask Tommy if he believes it's warming.
He would never answer, and indeed posts oft in SkookerasBill's "the Skeptics are winning" NINE-YEAR-BLOG with Daily WEATHER.
That is a 100% Local, Short Term, WEATHER thread to "prove" that not only there's no AGW but no GW.
And in other threads as well.

All those bizarro denier-blog charts he puts up (thousands) and he doesn't know it's warming.
In fact, he needs them (their ambiguation, a tool of yours too) to "prove" it's not.

`

 

[BackAgain]

This worth repeating over and over: what you know about earth's climate in the past is due to the same research that tells us that current warming is NOT simply a natural process but requires the input of human activities.

Yes, in the past the atmospheric CO2 has been higher and lower and the temperatures have been higher and lower...but those were due to NATURAL FORCINGS, natural factors.

The field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY exists to explain how the earth's climate has changed and what drives it. Right now we can't point to natural forcings as the cause of this precisely because we've studied how those factors lined up to cause warming in the past.

Right now you can't make sense of the data if you simply rely on the natural forcings. You HAVE to include human activities (greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes, etc.)

We even have a really handy way to track how much excess CO2 WE'VE been responsible for: 13-C/12-C isotope ratios. Plants tend to fix "lighter" 12-C isotopes so when you burn them or you burn vegetal based fuels (like coal) you would expect to see the CO2 in the atmosphere steadily increasing in 12-C isotope. Which is exactly what is happening and it started in the mid-19th century...almost exactly at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (Prior to that the ratio had been relatively stable for thousands upon thousands of years)

Science really DOES work. We KNOW we are largely responsible for the extra CO2 we are seeing in the atmosphere and it is leading (along with other things we do) to increased warming.

I appreciate your trying. But you aren’t explaining. You’re just making claims. The claims might be spot on or off base. What I’m seeking isn’t found in your assertion. It may be that we are “finding” that the levels appear to have some correspondence with the human use of technology. That could be a good clue. But it doesn’t necessarily establish that the two observations are related other than (roughly) in time.

 

[BackAgain]

And I answered in #183 and #184.
One post in my own words, and one from excellent sources. (Yale, Columbia, NASA, etc)
That's NOT just "My own facts" or "religion."
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

You remain a complete TROLL in this thread/section/board and need to be at least thread banned.
There is No other board that I've ever posted on that would allow all your No topical Content/emptily hostile posts.
Not one.

`

Stop your whining, bitching, moaning and groaning. Try to pretend that you’re an adult.
You’re an insufferable bore. Here you have an opportunity to turn off your little prissy bitch attitude and simply get to the matter at hand. Speak in a civilized fashion and avoid overly jargon ridden “answers.” Don’t post disputed theory as established and indisputable fact. You betray your actual ignorance when you do that.

Now, go dab your eyes. Get a little control over yourself and come back when you can act like a big boy, babu.

 

[BackAgain]

And another post I've made scores of times in my own words.

"""Here's the Short version in my own words posted many times in the last few days/years.​

​

Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because of the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at an [increasingly] staggering rate.​

CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.​

NOT the case now.​

They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.​

​

Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.​

Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.​

Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.​

​

That's about the best, but Not Only, of many reasons we now this is AGW.""​

​

If you read it and can understand it, I saved you FIVE YEARS here.
but you aren't even conversant, just hostile.
But at least it was ON topic.
I AM here to post ON TOPIC in ALL sections. (barbs are allowed WITH topical content only. My M-O))
NOT YOU. You just bash my posts.
`
`

Once again, there’s no question there, babu. Once again it’s your claim and some self serving commentary about you and some more whining about me. I have no actual interest in how highly you think of yourself, babu.

Try to limit your posts to including only properly qualified statements of fact and scientific theory. Try to limit your posts from stating your opinions as though they constitutes “facts.”

For instance, I’d like to know why the science says (not what you say) about how it measured radiation in vs radiation out even 50 years ago. How accurate does it claim to be? On what basis?

I’ve seen other members here who have challenged you. Some of them appear to be well equipped to discuss scientific evidence. You get all outraged and angry immediately. Your thin skin doesn’t make you look good. But more importantly, they have asked how a small increase in a relatively trace atmospheric gas like CO2 can have that radiation out blocking effect? Again, I’m not a scientist, and I don’t claim to be, but it does seem counter intuitive.

Also, if measurable increases in atmospheric CO2 content have historically seemed to lag behind temperature, then how does that tell us that the same thing isn’t occurring naturally over the past 100 or so years? Is it possible for you to provide a clear explanation that isn’t weighted down in jargon and your pomposity?

 

[ReinyDays]

Ocean heat transfer is not instantaneous. It is a major buffer for additional heat and it takes time to redistribute it.

I never said Instantaneous ... so, how much time ... days, weeks ... millennia? ... watts our wattage? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Which is effectively meaningless.

The key to AGW is global average temperature (more accurately a temperature anomaly which is the temperature relative to a baseline temperature). One single point on the globe is NOT going to show you the overall trend. It isn't nearly that simple.

The global temperature is also NOT going to increase uniformly everywhere. Not even close.

So your local climate is not something you are going to be able to tell if it has increased by 1degC over 50 years. That isn't how any of this works.

That isn't how any of this works.

Yes it is ... when this is true for all the points on the surface of this sphere ... I've asked you before for any place where temperature has gone down these past 40 years ... I got crickets ... you've brought this up again so I'm asking ... where is average global temperature not increasing uniformly over the past 40 years ... I've only checked a few station and they all conform to the curve ... well enough ... others here have checked a few other stations and all show this temperature increase over this time period ... well enough ... say within a half degree ...

Except the polar regions ... they've been warming twice as fast ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That isn't how any of this works.

Yes it is ... when this is true for all the points on the surface of this sphere

That is not what AGW is about. The earth's climate is a complex interaction. The average overall temperature can increase while certain areas remain the same or even slightly cool.

Let us take a class of male students in 3rd grade. The average HEIGHT of the kids is about 4'. That does NOT MEAN that every member of the class is exactly 4' tall. Far from it. It means that the DISTRIBUTION of heights has an average that is 4'

Same with global climate change. The AVERAGE global temperature is NOT THE SAME VALUE AS EVERY POINT ON THE GLOBE.

... I've asked you before for any place where temperature has gone down these past 40 years

"As the maps show, global warming does not mean temperatures rise everywhere at every time by same rate. Temperatures might rise 5 degrees in one region and drop 2 degrees in another. For instance, exceptionally cold winters in one place might be balanced by extremely warm winters in another part of the world. Generally, warming is greater over land than over the oceans because water is slower to absorb and release heat (thermal inertia). Warming may also differ substantially within specific land masses and ocean basins." (SOURCE)

... I got crickets ... you've brought this up again so I'm asking ... where is average global temperature not increasing uniformly over the past 40 years

vide supra

... I've only checked a few station and they all conform to the curve ... well enough

That isn't even how global warming is determine. The temperature station data is compared to a baseline data set (this results in a "temperature anomaly") and it is GRID AVERAGED with other station points around it to cover a much larger region.

 

[BackAgain]

That is not what AGW is about. The earth's climate is a complex interaction. The average overall temperature can increase while certain areas remain the same or even slightly cool.

Let us take a class of male students in 3rd grade. The average HEIGHT of the kids is about 4'. That does NOT MEAN that every member of the class is exactly 4' tall. Far from it. It means that the DISTRIBUTION of heights has an average that is 4'

Same with global climate change. The AVERAGE global temperature is NOT THE SAME VALUE AS EVERY POINT ON THE GLOBE.

"As the maps show, global warming does not mean temperatures rise everywhere at every time by same rate. Temperatures might rise 5 degrees in one region and drop 2 degrees in another. For instance, exceptionally cold winters in one place might be balanced by extremely warm winters in another part of the world. Generally, warming is greater over land than over the oceans because water is slower to absorb and release heat (thermal inertia). Warming may also differ substantially within specific land masses and ocean basins." (SOURCE)



vide supra



That isn't even how global warming is determine. The temperature station data is compared to a baseline data set (this results in a "temperature anomaly") and it is GRID AVERAGED with other station points around it to cover a much larger region.

A bit more informative. But I’ll have to do some of that shit we used to call “homework.”

 

[daveman]

And I answered in #183 and #184.
One post in my own words, and one from excellent sources. (Yale, Columbia, NASA, etc)
That's NOT just "My own facts" or "religion."
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

You remain a complete TROLL in this thread/section/board and need to be at least thread banned.
There is No other board that I've ever posted on that would allow all your No topical Content/emptily hostile posts.
Not one.

`

Silencing dissent is not science, it's fascism.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Silencing dissent is not science, it's fascism.

Correct.

But, by the same token, we don't have to give equal credence to those who believe the earth is flat or anti-vaxxers or creationists, etc.

 

[abu afak]

Silencing dissent is not science, it's fascism.

Whose "silencing dissent"?
WTF wack job?
I am/was BEGGING FOR factual coherent dissent throughout, rather than BackAgain's purely OFF TOPIC insults.
So now he's been Forced to Bluff his way thru the thread adding Token/comical topical objection/challenges.
No facts, No links. Nothing.
He's a Joke/Fraud.
A MAGAt who posted an (also NO evidence/meat) 'Stolen Election' thread in the Conspiracy section.... Or rather had it moved to that loony section
He's not a serious anything.
`

 

[daveman]

Correct.

But, by the same token, we don't have to give equal credence to those who believe the earth is flat or anti-vaxxers or creationists, etc.

Nobody gives a shit who you give credence to, boy.

 

[daveman]

Whose "silencing dissent"?
WTF wack job?
I am/was BEGGING FOR factual coherent dissent throughout, rather than BackAgain's purely OFF TOPIC insults.
So now he's been Forced to Bluff his way thru the thread adding Token/comical topical objection/challenges.
No facts, No links. Nothing.
He's a Joke/Fraud.
A MAGAt who posted an (also NO evidence/meat) 'Stolen Election' thread in the Conspiracy section.... Or rather had it moved to that loony section
He's not a serious anything.
`

Let's count up everything you can do about it:

1. Throw a little bitch fit. (Not actually effective.)
2. Ignore him. (Never gonna happen. You're way too heavily emotionally invested in this.)
3. Put on your big girl panties and realize people are not obligated to agree with you. (Again -- never gonna happen. You're way too heavily emotionally invested in this.)

That about cover it?

 

[abu afak]

Let's count up everything you can do about it:

1. Throw a little bitch fit. (Not actually effective.)
2. Ignore him. (Never gonna happen. You're way too heavily emotionally invested in this.)
3. Put on your big girl panties and realize people are not obligated to agree with you. (Again -- never gonna happen. You're way too heavily emotionally invested in this.)

That about cover it?

So you have changed your tune/accusation 100% after I refuted your IDIOTIC claim that I was trying to "Silence Dissent."
You ******* Dope.
I was in fact BEGGING For real dissent/meaty replies throughout.
I post substance.
Unlike you and taking-it-from-the-BackAgain who are just RW trolls who make up 70% of USMB.
Point us to your Topical posts here?
Thread starts?
You empty POS.
`

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Nobody gives a shit who you give credence to, boy.

You are a credit to whatever it is you are.