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

[abu afak]

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 ...

I've already debunked the point. (your only one)
(my post #57 in This thread shut you up for all but a one sentence quip)
We did have a temp spike, then dip, (a sub-cycle of some sort) but it started going back up HALFWAY through your Ignorant "40 year" claim.
You LOSE Every time we have this same debate you illiterate/illogical Fraud.

And NOAA agrees with me 100%.
Only a true 12 IQ Idiot would foist NOAA doesn't agree with AGW!
No one else here even tries that IDIOCY.
They say (have to try) that NOAA is wrong or the numbers they are using are wrong. (or not 'Raw')
ONLY You attempt the blatant LIE that NOAA and their chart doesn't agree with me.

The chart in question is a NOAA chart and used AS JUSTIFICATION For AGW.

What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause?

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause.

www.climate.gov

Climate.govSCIENCE & INFORMATION FOR A CLIMATE-SMART NATION

What Evidence exists that Earth is Warming and that Humans are the Main Cause?​

​

BY DAVID HERRING AND REBECCA LINDSEY​

OCTOBER 29, 2020 UPDATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2021​

​

We know the world is warming because people have been recording daily high and low temperatures at thousands of weather stations worldwide, over land and ocean, for many decades and, in some locations, for more than a century. When different teams of climate scientists in different agencies (e.g., NOAA and NASA) and in other countries (e.g., the U.K.’s Hadley Centre) average these data together, they all find essentially the same result: Earth’s average surface temperature has risen by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) since 1880.​

​

​

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.​

​

In addition to our surface station data, we have many different lines of evidence that Earth is warming (learn more). Birds are migrating earlier, and their migration patterns are changing. Lobsters and other marine species are moving north. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting and snow cover is declining in the Northern Hemisphere (Learn more here and here). Greenland’s ice sheet—which holds about 8 percent of Earth’s fresh water—is melting at an accelerating rate (learn more). Mean global sea level is rising (learn more). Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly in both thickness and extent (learn more).​

[............]​

[............]​

[............]​

-----​

!n fact/!ronically only I have used Science/Physics in My explanation, including yesterday, in my brief summary of the Debate/AGW when asked by a different opponent/TROLL.
ie

Me:​

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

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

NOT the case now.[/B]​

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.""​

Your "physics" OTOH, (which are not even really needed providing one understands what a GHG is) are not very useful here, except in the degree I have used them above.
You just Name Drop irrelevant Physics 101 terms!
But you are still down 40 IQ points to this math, statistics, Symbolic/Visual logic specialist. (and Mensa and Intertel/the-group-above-Mensa) member
You are a Political CLOWN. No more.
You Can't debate ME!!!! (not to mention the Climate science overwhelming Consensus on the issue)

In fact rookie, I waited to respond to grab the page top. Being tactically much more clever as well.

noblesse oblige

`

 

[ReinyDays]

I've already debunked the point. (your only one)
(my post #57 in This thread shut you up for all but a one sentence quip)
We did have a temp spike, then dip, (a sub-cycle of some sort) but it started going back up HALFWAY through your Ignorant "40 year" claim.
You LOSE Every time we have this same debate you illiterate/illogical Fraud.

And NOAA agrees with me 100%.
Only a true 12 IQ Idiot would foist NOAA doesn't agree with AGW!
No one else here even tries that IDIOCY.
They say (have to try) that NOAA is wrong or the numbers they are using are wrong. (or not 'Raw')
ONLY You attempt the blatant LIE that NOAA and their chart doesn't agree with me.

The chart in question is a NOAA chart and used AS JUSTIFICATION For AGW.

What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause?

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause.

www.climate.gov

Climate.govSCIENCE & INFORMATION FOR A CLIMATE-SMART NATION

What Evidence exists that Earth is Warming and that Humans are the Main Cause?​

​

BY DAVID HERRING AND REBECCA LINDSEY​

OCTOBER 29, 2020 UPDATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2021​

​

We know the world is warming because people have been recording daily high and low temperatures at thousands of weather stations worldwide, over land and ocean, for many decades and, in some locations, for more than a century. When different teams of climate scientists in different agencies (e.g., NOAA and NASA) and in other countries (e.g., the U.K.’s Hadley Centre) average these data together, they all find essentially the same result: Earth’s average surface temperature has risen by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) since 1880.​

​

​

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.​

​

In addition to our surface station data, we have many different lines of evidence that Earth is warming (learn more). Birds are migrating earlier, and their migration patterns are changing. Lobsters and other marine species are moving north. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting and snow cover is declining in the Northern Hemisphere (Learn more here and here). Greenland’s ice sheet—which holds about 8 percent of Earth’s fresh water—is melting at an accelerating rate (learn more). Mean global sea level is rising (learn more). Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly in both thickness and extent (learn more).​

[............]​

[............]​

[............]​

-----​

!n fact/!ronically only I have used Science/Physics in My explanation, including yesterday, in my brief summary of the Debate/AGW when asked by a different opponent/TROLL.
ie

Me:​

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

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

NOT the case now.[/B]​

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.""​

Your "physics" OTOH, (which are not even really needed providing one understands what a GHG is) are not very useful here, except in the degree I have used them above.
You just Name Drop irrelevant Physics 101 terms!
But you are still down 40 IQ points to this math, statistics, Symbolic/Visual logic specialist. (and Mensa and Intertel/the-group-above-Mensa) member
You are a Political CLOWN. No more.
You Can't debate ME!!!! (not to mention the Climate science overwhelming Consensus on the issue)

In fact rookie, I waited to respond to grab the page top. Being tactically much more clever as well.

noblesse oblige

`

Did you really go back and hunt down all my comment on the subject and click "disagree" ... that's sad ...

Your math is wrong ... or post it ... you know, a link ...

 

[westwall]

Did you really go back and hunt down all my comment on the subject and click "disagree" ... that's sad ...

Your math is wrong ... or post it ... you know, a link ...

Yeah, abu is a child. A petulant child, but a child nonetheless.

 

[Batcat]

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...

When I first moved to Tampa, Florida in 1969 the official temperature was measured at the airport which was a fairly small facility. The official temperature had been measured at that site since 1940.

In 1971 a MUCH larger airport was built with acres and acres of concrete and asphalt. Further expansions to the airport have occurred over the years. The official temperature is still measured at that location.

So if you just look at temperature data without considering how the environment has changed you may reach the wrong conclusions.

 

[daveman]

But you are still down 40 IQ points to this math, statistics, Symbolic/Visual logic specialist. (and Mensa and Intertel/the-group-above-Mensa) member
You are a Political CLOWN. No more.
You Can't debate ME!!!! (not to mention the Climate science overwhelming Consensus on the issue)

In fact rookie, I waited to respond to grab the page top. Being tactically much more clever as well.

noblesse oblige

If you're as smart as you claim, you wouldn't get so hyper-emotional when people disagree with you, kid.

 

[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 ...

You DO realize that the era from 1940-1970's was called the "Mid-Century Cooling",right? It is now thought to have been due to sulfate aerosols from massive industrialization during WWII. And when we finally started to get the air cleaned up in the 70's the warming from GHG's came right back as if it had never been gone.

I highly recommend you read:

Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4).
(HERE)

 

[ding]

You DO realize that the era from 1940-1970's was called the "Mid-Century Cooling",right? It is now thought to have been due to sulfate aerosols from massive industrialization during WWII. And when we finally started to get the air cleaned up in the 70's the warming from GHG's came right back as if it had never been gone.

I highly recommend you read:

Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4).
(HERE)

Anthropogenic sulfur emissions never dropped below 1940's levels.

So much for that theory.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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...

Yawn.......

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

And your solution to Chinese pollution is to punish Americans.

"Communist pollution is actually good for the planet, Only Capitalism pollution causes climate change"
International Association of Marxists and Communists

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Anthropogenic sulfur emissions never dropped below 1940's levels.

I'm curious why you simply ignored the actual scientific citation.

So much for that theory.

Too bad you are wrong.

 

[ding]

I'm curious why you simply ignored the actual scientific citation.



Too bad you are wrong.

ummm.... because the actual data refutes it. If increases in sulfate emissions were responsible for the mid-century cooling then it wouldn't have warmed up because we are still twice what sulfate emissions were prior to the mid-century cooling.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

ummm.... because the actual data refutes it. If increases in sulfate emissions were responsible for the mid-century cooling then it wouldn't have warmed up because we are still twice what sulfate emissions were prior to the mid-century cooling.

View attachment 628614
View attachment 628616

Ummm, I don't mean to be overly annoying about this, but you are pretty much making the point for sulfate aerosols as the "cooling" mechanism for the "Mid Century Cooling".

Look at the x-axis on the top graph. Note how the sulfate emissions go up until about the middle 1970's and then start to drop. That's kind of the point.

The funny thing is: you somehow ended up using the EXACT SAME GRAPHS that folks like "skepticalscience.org" use to make the case FOR SULFATES AS THE DRIVER FOR THE MID-CENTURY COOLING.

I'm not sure if you are being ironic here or what the game is, but you are making the point for sulfate aerosols.

Also: do you doubt that sulfate aerosols can be a negative forcing? (Hopefully not).

Either way go ahead and read the Wilde et al. (2007) paper and determine which part of the science you disagree with.

 

[Crick]

Yawn.......

Not one of whom are climate scientists. Why don't you address the predictions of the IPCC and see what sort of success rate you find?

 

[ding]

Ummm, I don't mean to be overly annoying about this, but you are pretty much making the point for sulfate aerosols as the "cooling" mechanism for the "Mid Century Cooling".

Look at the x-axis on the top graph. Note how the sulfate emissions go up until about the middle 1970's and then start to drop. That's kind of the point.

The funny thing is: you somehow ended up using the EXACT SAME GRAPHS that folks like "skepticalscience.org" use to make the case FOR SULFATES AS THE DRIVER FOR THE MID-CENTURY COOLING.

I'm not sure if you are being ironic here or what the game is, but you are making the point for sulfate aerosols.

Also: do you doubt that sulfate aerosols can be a negative forcing? (Hopefully not).

Either way go ahead and read the Wilde et al. (2007) paper and determine which part of the science you disagree with.

If your point was that aerosol cooling couldn't be responsible for the mid-century cooling because sulfates are still at twice the level of pre-mid-century cooling levels, then yes. I have made your point.

I often reach opposite conclusions of idiots who mis-analyze data and use fucked up logic.

 

[ReinyDays]

You DO realize that the era from 1940-1970's was called the "Mid-Century Cooling",right? It is now thought to have been due to sulfate aerosols from massive industrialization during WWII. And when we finally started to get the air cleaned up in the 70's the warming from GHG's came right back as if it had never been gone.

I highly recommend you read:

Wild, M., Ohmura, A., & Makowski, K. (2007). Impact of global dimming and brightening on global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4).
(HERE)

Your citation isn't backing up your claims ... who thinks this is sulfate released during WWII? ... Wild et. al. (2007) doesn't make any quantitative claims as to the cause of the solar dimming ... if we use air traffic as a proxy, then we should be seeing further temperature drops with increasing air travel ... and we have one demonstration of this fact, Sept 12-14, 2001, over just the USA we saw a 1-2ºC temperature rise ... USA air space was closed to all civilian air traffic during that time period ... the theory is no jet soot in the lower stratosphere ... more research is needed ...

This paper is just one step in this theory ... and I think you're reading to much into the weasel words they're using ... to wit (in the discussion): "Surface temperature may only effectively respond to changes in surface solar radiation, if these changes are caused by processes which alter the total amount of solar energy absorbed in the climate system" ... well, might not too ... not that I think it's a bad assumption ... but it is an assumption that may or may not be true ...

I want to see the actual measurements of air pollution through this time period ... I do not believe world-wide air pollution is under any kind of control ... it's as bad today if not worse than it was 40 years ago ... here's I'm using Kath's Law ... "pollution is the only thing money produces" ...

Oh ... I think that Figure 1 in your citation is completely fraudulent ... outrageous statistical lies ... cut that left hand line between 1940 and 1975 and it sloops steeply down ... how could you not noticed? ... oh wait, the paper doesn't go back further than 1960 ... too many counter-examples from the time periods before ...

=====

We were discussing how quickly temperatures respond to increases in carbon dioxide ... you've been claiming this takes a while without stating how this could be ... and you've provided a citation that relies on the opposite ... as the atmosphere is cleaning up, temperatures rise immediately ... no delay drawing energy out of the oceans, so no delay putting the energy back in ... any other ideas that don't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics? ...

 

[ding]

We were discussing how quickly temperatures respond to increases in carbon dioxide ... you've been claiming this takes a while without stating how this could be ... and you've provided a citation that relies on the opposite ... as the atmosphere is cleaning up, temperatures rise immediately ... no delay drawing energy out of the oceans, so no delay putting the energy back in ... any other ideas that don't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics? ...

The whole climate sensitivity charade is a joke. To argue the GHG effect is anything but an immediate effect is a joke.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Your citation isn't backing up your claims

Wrong:

"Latest anthropogenic emission inventories suggest that both scattering sulfur and absorbing black carbon aerosol showed large changes in line with surface solar radiation, with decreasing tendencies since the 1980s after decades of increase, due to effective air pollution measures"

Oh ... I think that Figure 1 in your citation is completely fraudulent

Don't care what you think.

... outrageous statistical lies ... cut that left hand line between 1940 and 1975 and it sloops steeply down ... how could you not noticed?

Between 1940 and 1975 IS THE MID-CENTURY COOLING. OF COURSE IT SLOPES DOWN. Look at the y-axis.

That's kind of the point of the paper.

We were discussing how quickly temperatures respond to increases in carbon dioxide ... you've been claiming this takes a while without stating how this could be

I've actually explained it a couple times. You just don't like what science says.

... and you've provided a citation that relies on the opposite ... as the atmosphere is cleaning up, temperatures rise immediately ... no delay drawing energy out of the oceans, so no delay putting the energy back in ... any other ideas that don't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics? ...

What violates the laws of thermo?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The whole climate sensitivity charade is a joke. To argue the GHG effect is anything but an immediate effect is a joke.

You are free to publish your findings anywhere you like. Of course you will have to explain how the world's experts are all wrong and only you, some rando anonymous guy on a discussion forum know truth that every other ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED EXPERT is wrong.

Good luck! I look forward to hearing about your Nobel Prize.

 

[ding]

You are free to publish your findings anywhere you like. Of course you will have to explain how the world's experts are all wrong and only you, some rando anonymous guy on a discussion forum know truth that every other ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED EXPERT is wrong.

Good luck! I look forward to hearing about your Nobel Prize.

They are being paid to be wrong.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

They are being paid to be wrong.

Ah hahahahahaha! LOL.

That's the same argument CREATIONISTS make.

Good job! You've now raised your debate to the level of a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST!

LOL