2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

I've given you 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts. I've given you the smoking gun link with direct evidence cited. You blew it all off.

My guess is that there is no evidence that would ever be convincing to you because you form your worldview from ideology instead of evidence. Am I right?

 

yet there is always lacking in real evidence for the most important part.. the doomsday predictions.

Everyone knows the earth would be heating up regardless if humans where here or not. We are coming out of a little iceage, so the planet would be heating regardless.
Everyone also knows that burning fossil fuels puts C02 into the atmosphere. And everyone knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas..

The real question is what will happen?
Because Co2 is a very ineffective greenhouse gas will nothing really happen?
Or will there be some moderate warming and again nothing really will happen?
Or will there be some warming but life actually improves on the planet for most species?
Or will there be massive warming and doomsday and mass extinction events?
Thats the most important part and there is just wild ass extreme theories for the end of days.. There has been end of world theories that have been predicted because of climate change dating back almost 100 years. Every singe one has been 100% false. EVERY ONE! Its failed prediction after failed prediction. The fact that every weather event gets blamed on climate change, its hot? CC, its cold? CC, drought? CC, flooding?CC I guess they figured that you cant blame everything on global warming so change it to climate change (also protects themselves from years of stagnant global temp). At this point with such a terrible track record for the prediction business I really question anyone who is NOT a skeptic at this point.

 

Puzzling why it's still getting warmer because we recycle, do less car journeys, pay green tax and use less energy.

 

Can you point to one the doomsday predictions you speak of in the IPCC AR5 report?

That's not correct. Scientists do not believe the Earth would be as warm had humans not been influencing the climate.

That is a great question. To answer it we need to know how much the planet will warm. And to answer that we need to know what is causing the planet to warm.

CO2's "ineffectivness" is approximated by the simple radiative forcing equation 5.35 * ln(Cn/Co) where Cn is the new concentration and Co is the old concentration. This yields the radiative forcing in W/m^2. We can then use the evidence from paleoclimate and direct observations to quantify the sensitivity in units of C per W/m^2. I'm okay with calling CO2 an "ineffective" greenhouse gas as long as you define "ineffective" by putting an actual number to it.

There are different scenarios that scientists consider. They are called representative climate pathways (RCP). They are are essentially what-if scenarios. Some RCP have little warming and some have a lot.

Some life will thrive. Some will not. The consensus is that it will have a net harmful effect to humans.

To answer this we need to know what you consider "massive" warming and what constitutes a "doomsday" event to you?

I'm not aware of any end-of-world predictions by the scientific consensus or any of the IPCC publications.

I do agree that it is annoying that the media hypes every weather event as being directly caused by climate change. That simply isn't true.

Most global warming predictions have proven to be correct especially the big picture ones. They certainly aren't perfect, but they are close enough that scientists now have confidence that their theories are on the right track.

 

Yeah, but you're still breathing.

 

if the result causes death, and they know this, it is advocating murder

 

Climate change will result in death. This brings up an interesting topic of discussion. When presented with two possible courses of action say A and B with A leading to more deaths than B what is the more ethical choice?

 

Since colder weather results in greater deaths beware the end of this inter-glacial.

 

the ethical choice is to let mother nature take its course, the other choice is murder...

but i like where you're going there, euthenasia for the better good... then we can just execute all criminals, the lame & unproductive...

 

Why is murder an option? No sane person wants to murder people as a solution to global warming. Where are you guys getting this?

I don't want to euthanize anyone. I want the opposite of that. I want to increase Earth's carrying capacity for humans.

Just understand that this talk of murder and euthanasia is entirely coming from you. Don't try to pin this irrational talk on me.

 

Chicago winter 2018



New York winter 2018



Boston winter 2018



Central New York 2018

It's freezing because it warming.

 

Ah, so all these measures were just smoke screen and infact, the real answer is for the human race to stop breathing. I knew we were being lied too.

 

Do not accept @yguy 's deliberate attempt to misrepresent the emissions problem.

Humans are producing too much CO2 because we created machines that produce CO2 at hundreds or thousands of times the rate at which we naturally produce CO2 by breathing.

There is a natural CO2 cycle. You see every fall when trees drop their leaves and produce massive blooms of CO2 and every spring when they soak up massive amounts. But the year to year CO2 concentration continues to increase solely because of the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Please be smarter than trump on this issue.

One of the byproducts of global warming is that percipitation (and that includes snow) will become more concentrated on the average. That means you will see more extended periods of dry weather followed by larger dumps of rain and snow.

 

And how long do you believe we have to adjust for the "real" threat of global cooling?

 

So NASA, NOAA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, the Berkeley Earth research group, and the Met Office Hadley Centre measure the earth's temperature, spanning their research across every continent and every ocean throughout through ground, water, and satellite measurements, and every one of them are in unison in saying that the 5 hottest years on record have occurred over the past 5 most recent years.. however, all of that is refuted, because it was cold in the norther states during the winter.

I bet the NASA scientists are really scratching their heads on this one, how can it be cold in northern states during the winter, and still have the 5 hottest years globally occur over the 5 most recent years?

Also, if the earth's temperature really is warming, then how is it during our summer Australia is going through winter weather. Explain that one NASA!


Australia in July



NASA is such an idiot

 

True. But barring a cataclysm there is little evidence to suggest that this is concern for the foreseeable future.

 

Probably not our lifetime but no one really knows as they are still trying to figure out the actual trigger since Melankovitch cycles do not explain the time it switches. I have seen writings that say we just missed a possible period and the next may be in 400 years based on what some think lead into the switch.

 

Milankovitch cycles definitely don't explain everything. But they certain put pressure on the climate system to shift. Perhaps something as trivial as series of large VEI 6 or 7 volcanic eruptions provide the push get the climate system over the hump and descend into a glacial period. Likewise, maybe a quiescent period of volcanism is required to kick start the climb out of a glacial period. Or maybe it's something else. Either way Milankovitch cycles likely play an essential role.

One common misconception about Milankovitch cycles is that they are not perfectly regular cycles. This has led many to erroneously conclude that they can't possibly be a factor in glacial cycles because the glacial cycles don't land perfectly on a specific interval. For example, apsidal precession and axial precession combine to form a variable composite cycle that has a period between 20,000 and 30,000 years. This particular cycle is important because it affects the distribution of radiation reaching the NH vs SH. And that's important because the distribution of land vs ocean isn't the same in the different hemispheres. Anyway, this is why glacial cycles are approximately 100,000 years, but not precisely that everytime. And, of course, the transitions might also require the more random shorter cycle forcing of volcanic, biological, etc. activity to tip the system over the edge. Also, glacial periods end abruptly because CO2 goes into the atmosphere easily. But the glacial descents are more gradual because CO2 doesn't want to come out of the atmosphere as easily. But timing of the CO2 emissions and absorptions is likely to be variable itself because no glacial cycle is exactly the same as the previous. And, of course, there are many other agents in play as well. It's very unlikely that we'll ever be able to fully explain the exact timing and magnitude of each cycle. But that doesn't mean we don't have confidence that Milankovitch play a significant role.

 

Milankovitch cycles are the primary driver which is fairly well known but things like the Younger Dryas event is a mystery where we came out of the glacial cycle this holocene but plunged back for a short period. I find the studies fascinating.

One thing that is common in all inter-glacials is that after the optimum it is a slow reduction in temperatures until switching to glaciation. The reason I don't trust the graphs about the current CO2 record compared to the past and trying to claim it is different than is the past are proxies that have well defined issues and may not show blips in the record. I am not claiming that man does not contribute.

 

Call me when the giant cold blooded reptiles are prowling around the whole globe. This 'warming' is insignificant in comparison to past global climates...

 

True. The warming today is definitely insignificant when using a 100 million year or longer viewpoint. But, if you focus on the last 10,000 years (holocene) during the current interglacial period in which agrarian civilizations began to prosper the warming is quite extreme. In fact, it's probably already warmer today globally than at anytime during the holocene and the age of agrarian civilization. And if it's not then it's pretty close and likely to get there before 2100. What we do know is that the warming rate itself is the highest it's been during the holocene.

 

Actually this supposed warming isn't extreme nor is it problematic. In fact a warmer planet would mean longer growing seasons, more arable land within a few decades, which means greater sustainability for humanity and its increasing population. If there really was 'global warming' it would be a good thing, except there isn't, there is only a wealth distribution scheme being paraded around as 'science'...

 

Meanwhile, back in Maui

 

Meanwhile, vman12 still has no understanding of the difference between climate and weather.