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

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do I need lab experiment?
Do you have one for the creation of the Solar System?
IAC, that's what scientists have been doing and how GHGs were discovered.
And they have done lab experiments to see how much each GHG blocks radiation from going back out into space.
That's how we know ie, that Methane is 80x more powerful than CO2 as a GHG.

Do you deny the DEFINITION of Greenhouse Gas and how they were found?

`

So, you're equating CO2 with the creation of the Universe.

Amazing

 

[daveman]

If you're posting here, you'll have a hard time claiming you're computer's broke. So, look it up yourself.

I have no obligation to do your homework for you.

But this will do for the Holocene, during which all human infrastructure came to exist

View attachment 628012

So, not even half a degree. Ooooh. We're all doomed.

 

[Lastamender]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/

The new global temperature data sets, which come from three of the world’s top climate research institutions, are packed with alarming signs of a world in crisis. More than two dozen countries that are home to about 1.8 billion people experienced their warmest years ever last year. July was the hottest month humanity has recorded. The heat dome that seared the Pacific Northwest this past summer was “the most anomalous extreme heat event ever observed on Earth,” in the words of one scientist — a disaster so severe that it would have been virtually impossible in a world without climate change.

[snip]

The year 2021 was the seventh in a row in which global temperatures were more than 1 degree Celsius above the preindustrial average. It’s unlikely anyone alive will see the world’s temperature drop below that 1-degree benchmark again.

“There is no going back,” said Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a lead researcher on the agency’s annual temperature analysis. The roughly 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide emitted by humans — more than half of it in the 34 years since Hansen’s testimony — will not leave the atmosphere for at least several more centuries.



Maybe it's time to invest in some real estate in Iceland or Greenland...

Give it a rest. And now you pay attention to benchmarks?

 

[elektra]

Wow, you are way more stupid than I had ever imagined. Or perhaps just more dishonest.

no, you are a complete fucking moron and have proved it over and over with your posts that you can not support when fact is presented against your posts.

So fine, take a cheap shot here, but everyone that reads this far into this thread, everyone will know that crick has failed to support any of crick's opinions. When challenged, crick, your pretty much ignore or insult the facts presented, just as you did here.

Crick claims the solution to global warming is to build more stuff than ever built before, but at the same time crick states all the building in the past caused global warming, yet the solution is to build more than was built in the past, and this manufacturing will not cause global warming, even though this building is creating more CO2 than in our entire history.

Build more that gives less
Destroy thousands of square miles of land
Use billions of tons of natural resources
Create billions of tons of toxic waste
Spend over a $100 trillion dollars
Pollute the atmosphere with billions of tons of CO2

And the rich get richer, wall st gets richer, trading billions of tons of raw materials, selling oil and gas and electricity to heavy industry, to build and build and build for the new 100 years.

That is the solution, to the fake climate crisis, to make the rich, richer, to make Wall St. and the politicians rich, that is the solution to global warming.

Well thank god the democrats tell us the 1% does not pay their fare share

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billy Boy, did you forget that time continues to flow on by and with every little bit of it, there are NEW DATA.

Lots of new data from the 1930s and 1940s?

 

[elektra]

If you're posting here, you'll have a hard time claiming you're computer's broke. So, look it up yourself.

But this will do for the Holocene, during which all human infrastructure came to exist

View attachment 628012

that change is tiny, less than a degree, magnified a 100x's to look scary. it means nothing

you must be a special kind of stupid

 

[ReinyDays]

I've explained numerous times INCLUDING in my post above.
YOU are the Liar/deceiver/Denier.
There are many cycles within the larger Trend, OF COURSE. 11 Year solar cycles, el Ninos, etc.
Not to mention no large natural trend goes straight up.
If I point out the stock market on average rise 7-8% a year, you can no doubt point to bad decades or even 20 year periods when this is contradicted.
Does not change the FACT.
Go it now @sshole?
You do but your politics are SICK and brainwashed.

Here's a link for you, YOU dum pos.

If carbon dioxide hits a new high every year, why isn’t every year hotter than the last?​

NOVEMBER 23, 2021​

NOAA/Climate.gov​

​

Just like your car doesn’t reach top speed the instant you step on the gas, Earth’s temperature doesn’t react instantly to each year’s new record-high carbon dioxide levels. ​

Thanks to the high heat capacity of water and the huge volume of the global oceans, Earth’s surface temperature resists rapid changes. Said another way, some of the excess heat that greenhouse gases force the Earth’s surface to absorb in any given year is hidden for a time by the ocean. This delayed reaction means rising greenhouse gas levels don’t immediately have their full impact on surface temperature. Still, when we step back and look at the big picture, it’s clear the two are tightly connected.​

​

As the graph above shows, both global temperature (colored bars) and atmospheric carbon dioxide (gray line) increased more slowly during the first half of the observational record in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose by around 20 parts per million over the 7 decades from 1880–1950, while the temperature increased by an average of 0.04° C per decade.​

​

​

Yearly temperature compared to the twentieth-century average (red and blue bars) from 1880–2019, based on data from NOAA NCEI, plus atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (gray line): 1880-1958 from IAC, 1959-2019 from NOAA ESRL. Original graph by Dr. Howard Diamond (NOAA ARL), and adapted by NOAA Climate.gov.​

​

Over the next 7 decades, however, carbon dioxide climbed nearly 100 ppm—5 times as fast! To put those changes in some historical context, the amount of rise in carbon dioxide levels since the late 1950s would naturally, in the context of past ice ages, have taken somewhere in the range of 5,000 to 20,000 years; we’ve managed to do it in about 60. At the same time, the rate of warming averaged 0.14° C per decade. The rapid rate of temperature rise over such a short period time points to only one thing, and that is the addition of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the environment.​

​

Within any given decade, however, the temperature bounces around between warm and cool years. The warmest years are usually El Niño years, when the eastern and central tropical Pacific is warmer than average. The coldest years are generally La Niña years. On a longer time scale, warm decades are often associated with strongly positive phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and cool decades with strongly negative phases.​

[..........]​

[..........]​

[..........]""​

global_temps_ENSO_yrs_1240.gif | NOAA Climate.gov

If carbon dioxide hits a new high every year, why isnât every year hotter than the last?

Thanks to the global oceans, Earth's surface temperature doesn't react instantly to the full impact of a climate disturbance. That delayed reaction has pros and cons.

www.climate.gov

You are Persistently Dishonest, or Partisan (or Stupld) and get this explained regularly but try to abuse it for political purpose.
`

EDIT:
Note the Picture Troll/Evolution denier CrusaderFrank's 3 Trolling/canned picture posts above.
He is NON-CONVERSANT on this topic/cannot carry a simple conversation.

`

Lame ... if the period 1940-1980 is too short ... then so is 1980-2020 ... dumbass ...

 

[Concerned American]

you'll have a hard time claiming you're computer's broke. So, look it up yourself.

When you learn the difference between your and you're. Did you flunk third grade--and YOU'RE trying to tell us about climate change. SMFH.

 

[abu afak]

Lame ... if the period 1940-1980 is too short ... then so is 1980-2020 ... dumbass ...

IOW, you lost.
Me and NOAA are wrong... and you are right.
You're Finished now/AGAIN except for Another last-wording ego saver.
Bye.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do I need lab experiment?
Do you have one for the creation of the Solar System?
IAC, that's what scientists have been doing and how GHGs were discovered.
And they have done lab experiments to see how much each GHG blocks radiation from going back out into space.
That's how we know ie, that Methane is 80x more powerful than CO2 as a GHG.

Do you deny the DEFINITION of Greenhouse Gas and how they were found?

`

Why do you suppose you never EVER can provide a rational, positive, non-imaginary number, is it because there is no observable increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[westwall]

#1 NOAA, 10 Warmest years

Anyone think this is "Cooling?"

#2 From NOAA LINK: More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon

`


And of course all the previous years generally rising and also in the 21st Century with the exception of 1998.

And, of course, completely removing the 1930's from the record books because they were inconveniently much warmer.

 

[abu afak]

And, of course, completely removing the 1930's from the record books because they were inconveniently much warmer.

AGAIN from my post on the last page.

""I've explained numerous times INCLUDING in my post above.
..There are many cycles within the larger Trend, OF COURSE. - 11 Year solar cycles, el Ninos, etc.
Not to mention no large natural trend goes straight up.
If I point out the stock market on average rise 7-8% a year, you can no doubt point to bad decades or even 20 year periods when this is contradicted.
Does not change the FACT.
Go it now """

Go back to bed. You're sleep-posting again.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And, of course, completely removing the 1930's from the record books because they were inconveniently much warmer.

 

[ReinyDays]

I've explained numerous times INCLUDING in my post above.
..There are many cycles within the larger Trend, OF COURSE. - 11 Year solar cycles, el Ninos, etc.

So then you agree that the premise in the OP is false ... these past seven years is irrelevant to the temperature trends ...

Cycles within cycles ... we get that ... how do we know there's not 200-year cycles ... 1,000 year cycles ... 125,000 year cycles? ... [giggle] ...

The climate truths you ferret out with your 5-year averages must also be true for our 1,000-year averages ... the physics is the same ...

 

[ReinyDays]

IOW, you lost.
Me and NOAA are wrong... and you are right.
You're Finished now/AGAIN except for Another last-wording ego saver.
Bye.
`

NOAA doesn't agree with you ... your understanding of the material is lacking ... the data I'm using comes from NOAA ... I've seen you use the exact same data many many times ... you're just too stupid to see temperatures peaking around 1940 and then falling to around 1980 ...

That's global cooling ... during WWII and the rebuilding after ... and indeed CO2 were rising at the beginning of the Keeling data ... 1958 ...

You say that's immaterial ... NOAA doesn't ... I think you're the one who is wrong ... the difference is that NOAA is aware of what we don't know, as a species ... whereas you take an inference and declare it hard fact ...

Your understanding of basic physics is lacking ... or you'd know what Navier/Stokes does for us ...

 

[westwall]

AGAIN from my post on the last page.

""I've explained numerous times INCLUDING in my post above.
..There are many cycles within the larger Trend, OF COURSE. - 11 Year solar cycles, el Ninos, etc.
Not to mention no large natural trend goes straight up.
If I point out the stock market on average rise 7-8% a year, you can no doubt point to bad decades or even 20 year periods when this is contradicted.
Does not change the FACT.
Go it now """

Go back to bed. You're sleep-posting again.
`

So your point is you lie to support your dogma. Got it.


DURRRRR

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

NOAA doesn't agree with you ... your understanding of the material is lacking ... the data I'm using comes from NOAA ... I've seen you use the exact same data many many times ... you're just too stupid to see temperatures peaking around 1940 and then falling to around 1980 ...

That's global cooling ... during WWII and the rebuilding after ... and indeed CO2 were rising at the beginning of the Keeling data ... 1958 ...

You say that's immaterial ... NOAA doesn't ... I think you're the one who is wrong ... the difference is that NOAA is aware of what we don't know, as a species ... whereas you take an inference and declare it hard fact ...

Your understanding of basic physics is lacking ... or you'd know what Navier/Stokes does for us ...

Can I ask a quick question: why don't you ever use periods? I'm genuinely curious. Your posts seem to never use periods. You always use ellipses.

Not really related to the topic, but fascinating nonetheless.

You talk big about Navier/Stokes and hydrodynamics but you write like a teenager texting. How did you learn hydrodynamics if you couldn't even handle 3rd grade writing skills?

 

[ding]

I ... suspect ... because ... it ... triggers ... you ....

 

[ReinyDays]

Can I ask a quick question: why don't you ever use periods? I'm genuinely curious. Your posts seem to never use periods. You always use ellipses.

Not really related to the topic, but fascinating nonetheless.

You talk big about Navier/Stokes and hydrodynamics but you write like a teenager texting. How did you learn hydrodynamics if you couldn't even handle 3rd grade writing skills?

Roger Zelazny ...
Herb Caen ...
So there's precedent for this style ...

Honestly, it was the loss of the custom of putting two spaces after a period ... looks better and the text is easier to read ... but parsers always delete the extra "white space" and render just one of the spaces ... thus an ellipsis to make the break visually clear, or should I say "a space, an ellipsis, then another space" ... and this passes through these parsers without modification ... from there the uses for ellipses can grow ... periods, commas, colons ... and of course hiding parts of a quote you don't want the reader to know about ... [giggle] ... extremely useful ...

I admit ... later it came to me: "Ellipses for gender equality, no one should be judged by their periods" ... but I digress ...

=====

Most people insult my spelting ... which is truly horrific ... without even noting my piss-poor punctuation ... which tells me of their own piss-poor Englishing skills ... you asked politely instead ... very weird ...

Both my mother and the California Department of Public Instruction did their level best to teach me good Englishing ... alas, it is I who rejected such ... favoring instead more mathematical and scientific pursuits ... then 40 years as a carpenter ... English class is one of the main reasons I dropped out of high school ...

Calculus, differential equations, linear algebra ... these were my "language" studies ... the language of physics ... how we communicate ideas and principles ... F = ma, "enough said" ...

=====

Abu's math is wrong ... thus his physics is wrong ... my insults to the Englishing language not-with-standing ...

 

[ding]

Roger Zelazny ...
Herb Caen ...
So there's precedent for this style ...

Honestly, it was the loss of the custom of putting two spaces after a period ... looks better and the text is easier to read ... but parsers always delete the extra "white space" and render just one of the spaces ... thus an ellipsis to make the break visually clear, or should I say "a space, an ellipsis, then another space" ... and this passes through these parsers without modification ... from there the uses for ellipses can grow ... periods, commas, colons ... and of course hiding parts of a quote you don't want the reader to know about ... [giggle] ... extremely useful ...

I admit ... later it came to me: "Ellipses for gender equality, no one should be judged by their periods" ... but I digress ...

=====

Most people insult my spelting ... which is truly horrific ... without even noting my piss-poor punctuation ... which tells me of their own piss-poor Englishing skills ... you asked politely instead ... very weird ...

Both my mother and the California Department of Public Instruction did their level best to teach me good Englishing ... alas, it is I who rejected such ... favoring instead more mathematical and scientific pursuits ... then 40 years as a carpenter ... English class is one of the main reasons I dropped out of high school ...

Calculus, differential equations, linear algebra ... these were my "language" studies ... the language of physics ... how we communicate ideas and principles ... F = ma, "enough said" ...

=====

Abu's math is wrong ... thus his physics is wrong ... my insults to the Englishing language not-with-standing ...

I think you write good.