Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Gather the entourage, fuel up the jets, and start on yet another world tour.... All the while, guzzling as much energy as the next small town. Bunch of hypocrites...

 

Except that every one of those things is verifiable with evidence.

"We" refers to humans, but I am sure you know what I meant there. You just wanted to be a dick.

Temp.s are rising faster than ever before: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming
"Temperature reconstructions by Nasa, using work from its sister agency the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that the global temperature typically rose by between 4-7C over a period of 5,000 years as the world moved out of ice ages. The temperature rise clocked up over the past century is around 10 times faster than this previous rate of warming. The increasing pace of warming means that the world will heat up at a rate “at least” 20 times faster than the historical average over the coming 100 years, according to Nasa."

Obviously we can't "ban" CO2 or H2O, but was can work towards goals that will limit the production of CO2. I am sure you know the difference.

CO2 levels are unprecedented in human history: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/



http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

"For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.

“This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,”"

There have already been numerous charts showing the global temp. increase in the last 100 or so years. I'd post another one if I thought you would actually pay attention.

The evidence for CO2's impact on global warming is overwhelming. You can make like an ostrich and bury your head in the sand, but the reality is that humans are cooking the planet. We have the ability to slow this process and maybe even someday reverse it. The problem is you are so incredibly partisan that you can't look past your political beliefs.

 

Sometimes correlation does not imply causation, sometimes it does. For example: Ice cream doesn't cause shark attacks. Obesity does cause heart disease.

 

This becomes the root of the problem, I think. So, instead of actually referring to real study, you relied entirely on reports from news media that tried to characterize studies that frankly, they don't actually cite.

The reality is this. If you start from 1865, you start from what is nominally the end of the last mini cold spell. Do you really expect that temperatures should always be about the same as this? If so, why?

Second, CO2 has a finite limited impact. I know, you don't know this, but the physics is pretty straight forward here. So, instead of telling us that folks ignore physics, you'd rather tell us you believe instead. I don't find that particularly useful in our conversation. But hey, you tried. Again, no participation trophies for you, but you participated. And isn't that sweet...

So, here you are, using the internet, spending time burning energy to do it. I assume that even you aren't riding a self generating power grid, but even if you were, the rest of the internet isn't, including the hosting site that produces this forum. Given what you think you believe, why are you here? Shouldn't you be hiding in a hovel picking nuts and berries from the forest floor??

 

I am curious, did you lose your sense of humour or is it that you've never had any?

 

Ad hominems do nothing to prove your argument or disprove mine. You are attacking the source not the data. I can find you some research studies if you want.

Here you go:
https://www.nature.com/articles/35041539
https://www.nature.com/articles/344529a0
Unfortunately they are probably behind a paywall for you. Maybe you work for a university or something? LOL

You claim CO2 has a finite limited impact, sure that sounds reasonable, I'll accept that, even though you didn't provide any evidence. What is that limit? How far above catastrophic warming is it?

Don't try to change the subject. We aren't discussing what we should do about global warming. If you want to discuss that fine, but that's not what we are talking about. You are reverting to these classic talking points made by Republicans. Making my earlier point clear, global warming isn't a scientific debate, it's a partisan one. We can debate the amount of warming, the effect of CO2, what we should do about it, etc. Debating the validity of the effect of man made CO2 on global warming is essentially a waste of time. The problem is that the Republican party has trained it's members to deny science as some sort of elitist money grabbing conspiracy. Stop being partisan for 5 minutes and actually do some basic research. You want scientific studies? Here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=global+warming&btnG=&oq=glob Read away.

 

Maybe I have lost my sense of humor. I am pretty sure I had it before. Was you statement meant to be funny?

 

Well not exactly. This is what your link actually says:

" A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers."

And of course this has absolutly nothing to do with the reality of AGW.

 

This is about being rational, not being afraid. Using fear to make a point only outs you as having no argument at all.

Our changing climate does bring ramifications, regardless of the cause of the change or whether it ever happened in some ancient time.

 

Fake news. I actually tracked this claim back Bob Reiss who interviewed Jim Hansen for a book. Bob Reiss was then interviewed Suzy Hansen (no relation to Jim Hansen) of Salon. What Hansen (the scientist) actually said differed dramatically from what Salon reported. What Hansen said was that 40 years after CO2 doubled to 560 ppm he expects some parts of Manhattan to be under water. Somehow this got translated into Hansen thinking the West Coast Highway will be under water by 2008 when in reality Hansen's timeframe was beyond 2100.

 

CO2 actually does have a finite limit. If you wish, you can find the citation in my previous postings here. Have fun. There is sufficient evidence of this, it isn't unknowable information at this point. Clearly, though, the issue you have to convince the rest of us of is that you can demonstrate the additive influence of the ~4% of CO2 that man does produce in the greater atmosphere. Folks have tried several approaches here from claiming that even in a non linear expansion of naturally occurring CO2 that additional ~4% of total CO2 output has different isotopal characters, and only the isotope associate with burning carbon reflects the additive in sequestered CO2 we see. Turns out, nope, not actually accurate. But hey, an attempt...

Second, We know that cycles take time to exhibit themselves, and that from the limited observational evidence that warming was likely through the mid to late 19th century given the grand maximum that coincided with that timeline. So, nature stopped the LIA (little ice age) that started suddenly from around 1605. And ended gradually, after 1865 or so.

So, then what? What caused the change? Just man? We have several posters here who completely ignore the next hundred years or so and religiously only discuss 1960 forward. Makes for much more interesting trending slopes for sure. We ask repeatedly for actual evidence that demonstrates how such a minimal contribution is so directly associable to the entirety of all additional warming that has been documented so far. So, since 1865, we see just over 1.5C of total warming. The question, why is that even significant? The answer is, well, it's not, it's just that trending data suggests... blah blah blah. And that is precisely where the conversation ends and the orthodoxy begins. And that's where we are. Past several years, we've see what is precipitous average global temperature decreases. Did you know? Somethin like all of .5-.6C depending on who calculates the data set, (and the methodology for those data sets is also highly questionable) and yet, that sudden decrease isn't news. Why? It's weather, right?

So, it begs several questions. First, if CO2 is omnipresent, why can cooling happen at all? Shouldn't X amount of CO2 saturation always produce Y amount of heat, then why, since CO2 has also increased, could we actually see real cooling happen at all? This is a question the AGW orthodoxy has no answer for. And continues to not have an example for. So, the conclusion must then be that clearly, there are additional triggers and levers that control what our global average then is. It's simply logic.

Second, what is the right temperature? Is it an average of 58F, or 60F or 70F or higher? I mean, if it were up to me, 70 is good by me. No temp fluctuations at all. Problem would be, if nothing ever changes, it kills weather, right? Hard things to consider given the trade offs. More, is there, or has there been a time when the global average was ever that high. And the answer is, well, yes. It hasn't happened for a long time, but clearly, in the historic record, these things have happened. So, given that Man wasn't around then, does our dubious certainty then also still apply?

We hear "uncontrollable climate warming" come up often, and yet that all generally doesn't seem to be indicated by any of the current study evidence. So why do you continue to lap at it?

 

According to GISS from Feb. 2016 to Feb. 2018 the change was +1.34C to +0.84C. This is a difference of -0.50C.

And from Feb. 2014 to Feb. 2016 the change was +0.54C to +1.34C. This is a difference of +0.80C.

So the net change from 2014 to 2018 which includes both a warming and a cooling phase is actually +0.30C.

It's also important to note that the ocean (which absorbs 90% of heat) just kept marching higher during this period. In fact, 2018 will set yet another record for oceanic heat content gain.

 

Both "climate change" and "global warming" were coined by Murray Mitchell. The first occurrence of "climate change" occurred in the 1950's. The first occurrence of "global warming" occurred in the 1960's. So "climate change" predates "global warming". They also mean different things.

Global Warming - The long term secular increase in the global mean temperature and oceanic heat content as viewed over long periods of time.

Climate Change - The changes that are expected to occur as a direct result of global warming.

 

The Earth has NOT cooled over the last two years. In fact, when summing up all of the excess heat that has been trapped in the geosphere the Earth is actually breaking records on a nearly perpetual monthly basis now. 2018 is no different. This will be yet another record high year in terms of total heat uptake.

 

This is NASA's GISTEMP data.

 

(410 - 280) / 410 = 31.7%. That is not an "extremely small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere".

 

Man's contribution to the total CO2 emission flux is about 4%. However, this 4% is enough to disrupt the balance between emissions and absorptions. The end result of the this increased flux which is not fully matched by an increase in absorptions resulted in 130 ppm of additional CO2 being lofted into the atmosphere. That's 31% of the total. I have no idea where you got the 10% figure.

 

So the temps went down. Dramatically. You even say this, and then turn right around and equivocate by saying, well, the artificial data set was way worse going up. Ok, but the temps went down. They continue to go down. They continue to moderate so why not be happy about it. It isn't like you have future evidence of future warming, do you?

 

I would poing out that if you only referred to whole degrees, this is essentially a flat line. Right? Since we don't measure in tenths of a degree, why be dishonest by presenting the data to reflect those fractional changes?

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

That is a 5,000 page summary of the science. It is the culmination of 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts. And it's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the huge mountain of evidence that has been gathered over the last 120 years.

Also, the smoking gun signal for AGW is the warming of the troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneous with the cooling of the stratosphere. There is literally no other physical process other than the greenhouse gas effect magnified by human emissions that can explain this observation.

 

Before 1900 nearly 0%.

After 1950 nearly 100%.

Between 1900 and 1950 the dial was getting turned up from nearly 0% to nearly 100%.

We have temperature data going back billions of years. It's not speculation and assumption. It's based on good old fashioned hard work and forensic science. That doesn't mean our temperature data is as accurate from 1 million years as it is today. But, it's a total mischaracterization to mislead people into thinking it's just a random guess.

I'd be willing to bet most of them have. Also, this statement wreaks of condescension. Do you really think you figured out something thousands of experts failed to realize?

It does count. Again, do you really think scientists totally forgot about something so obvious?

Damn...now that is a really good question isn't it. How was it that the Earth was warmer and so hospitable to life when the Sun was much dimmer? If there were only another mechanism by which this could happen. Do you have any ideas?

By the way, this is referred to as the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

 

Artificial dataset?

They continue to go down?

Yes, the rise in temperature prior to the drop was larger going up. That's why the net effect of both the up phase and the down phase still resulted in warming overall. I'm sorry if this is inconvenient.

 

Wait...what? You want me to round the data to the nearest whole number? And you want me to do this so that the chart turns into a flat line?

NASA GISTEMP measurements the temperature anomalies down to hundredths of a degree (0.01). Berkeley Earth does this down to thousandths of degree (0.001).

It would be completely unethical and dishonest to truncate the decimal places of the data just so that you can present a flat line to someone. Seriously...think about what you're encouraging people to do. You are literally advocating unethical and blatantly fraudulent behavior.

 

Can you plead with China please? Plead with India too.

 

If this was happening in 1950, since I was then a teen, why did we never hear of this?

Give me a break. Per the Democrats / shrieking pals, this carbon dioxide problem was well known about in the 1800s.