Jump to content

Temperature records smashed for the 7th month in a row


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do yourself a favor to remove the bias from all articles. The total GHG's for non-commercial transportation is around 800 million tons of CO2. I know that sounds like a lot, until you realize GHG's in the US are almost 10 times that. The US emissions are about 7 Billion metric tons per year. They want to change average mpg from 20 to 25. That won't dent our CO2 emissions. But it will keep the attention on the public and away from the corporations. 

For the record, total personal emissions including homes and vehicles are around 1.4B tons for the entire country. It seems odd we focus so much on "fixing" that 20% while rarely even mentioning what is driving the other 80%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pzummo said:

Do yourself a favor to remove the bias from all articles. The total GHG's for non-commercial transportation is around 800 million tons of CO2. I know that sounds like a lot, until you realize GHG's in the US are almost 10 times that. The US emissions are about 7 Billion metric tons per year. They want to change average mpg from 20 to 25. That won't dent our CO2 emissions. But it will keep the attention on the public and away from the corporations. 

For the record, total personal emissions including homes and vehicles are around 1.4B tons for the entire country. It seems odd we focus so much on "fixing" that 20% while rarely even mentioning what is driving the other 80%.

Kind of like healthcare isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mfaulk57158 said:

I forgot to add my link....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and purple

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back  in the 70s and 80s there were some scientists who predicted man was warming the earth, but there were also scientists who predicted we were going to have another ice age.

Many of those same scientists will tell you today they were wrong. Even climate scientist Judith Curry from our very own GA Tech was one of the scientists promoting the man man global warming theory as recently as 10'years ago but is now calling out many climate scientists for falsifying climate models and has become a skeptic as to whether or not CO2 is causing any statistically significant warming.

We have current information here in the year 2016 that shatters many of those predictions from the 1970s and 1980's and  proves many of them were just plain silly. Many scientists who honestly believed in AGW a decade ago are now questioning the science behind it, especially since there has been virtually no warming over the last 20 years that once again shatters climate model predictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are people going to sit here and argue that man made pollution is not bad? If so you guys are just freaking nuts and not worth the time.

This has nothing to do with Global warming, we can remove that from the equation and STILL have just cause to reduce man made pollution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-chinas-pollution-problems/

News' Seth Doane reported from Beijing, "Many of us (who live in China) have apps on our phones that tell us the current pollution levels. The (Environmental Protection Agency) established a scale that runs from zero to 500, with 500 the worst. Today's pollution reading is above 500 -- beyond index. That means the average pollution levels are around 20 times higher than what the World Health Organization considers 'safe.'"

 

While clothing was optional at Beijing's annual "Naked Run," masks were worn. And when China's President Xi Jinping made a surprise visit to a Beijing neighborhood earlier this week, much of the chatter online was that he did not wear a mask.

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/01/17/china-can-fix-its-severe-pollution-problem

 

China’s economic transformation over the last three decades can be measured not just in yuan, but also in the amount of potentially deadly air pollution the Chinese people inhale every day. In virtually every major urban area across China, concentrations of air pollutants exceed standards recommended by the World Health Organization. And while the Chinese government recognizes this and has responded, more could be done and at a cost that is hardly too dear. Our research shows that an investment of $215 billion annually could substantially reduce pollution, lessen its drag on productivity, spare the lungs of countless people and save lives.

 

 

Edited by MAD597
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MAD597 said:

So are people going to sit here and argue that man made pollution is not bad? If so you guys are just freaking nuts and not worth the time.

This has nothing to do with Global warming, we can remove that from the equation and STILL have just cause to reduce man made pollution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-chinas-pollution-problems/

News' Seth Doane reported from Beijing, "Many of us (who live in China) have apps on our phones that tell us the current pollution levels. The (Environmental Protection Agency) established a scale that runs from zero to 500, with 500 the worst. Today's pollution reading is above 500 -- beyond index. That means the average pollution levels are around 20 times higher than what the World Health Organization considers 'safe.'"

 

While clothing was optional at Beijing's annual "Naked Run," masks were worn. And when China's President Xi Jinping made a surprise visit to a Beijing neighborhood earlier this week, much of the chatter online was that he did not wear a mask.

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/01/17/china-can-fix-its-severe-pollution-problem

 

China’s economic transformation over the last three decades can be measured not just in yuan, but also in the amount of potentially deadly air pollution the Chinese people inhale every day. In virtually every major urban area across China, concentrations of air pollutants exceed standards recommended by the World Health Organization. And while the Chinese government recognizes this and has responded, more could be done and at a cost that is hardly too dear. Our research shows that an investment of $215 billion annually could substantially reduce pollution, lessen its drag on productivity, spare the lungs of countless people and save lives.

 

 

Why do you keep talking about pollution? Of course no one advocates pollution. You either do not understand the discussion or are intentially trying to distort it. 

Are you trying to tell me the very essential life sustaining CO2 for all the earths plant life, including all our trees and crops, all the flowers, vegetables, fruits and berries you eat is pollution?

Are you aware raised CO2 level as have dramatically improved the earths plant vegetation and satellite images show about a 30% increases in vegatiation from the CO2 they need to breath to live?

Are you trying to tell me you exhale pollution out of your mouth? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is regardless of your beliefs about man made global warming we should drastically reduce man made pollution.

If you guys want to split hairs and have pissy fits over what you deem valid evidence have at it but the bottom line is reducing man made pollution is healthier for us even if you do not think it causes global warming.

You are also freakin nuts with you think pollution that adds more C02 to the air is a good thing. Seriously you loon tune nut jobs are not worth even talking about this stuff with since you simple do not get it.

The hair splitting is a moot point since reducing man made pollution would help us in the short term just by having better air to breath and long term. The only reason to be on the side that doesn't want to reduce pollution is if you are a corporate shill fighting the fight for Oil companies and other companies wanting to skirt EPA laws.

 

Edited by MAD597
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pzummo said:

Do yourself a favor to remove the bias from all articles. The total GHG's for non-commercial transportation is around 800 million tons of CO2. I know that sounds like a lot, until you realize GHG's in the US are almost 10 times that. The US emissions are about 7 Billion metric tons per year. They want to change average mpg from 20 to 25. That won't dent our CO2 emissions. But it will keep the attention on the public and away from the corporations. 

For the record, total personal emissions including homes and vehicles are around 1.4B tons for the entire country. It seems odd we focus so much on "fixing" that 20% while rarely even mentioning what is driving the other 80%.

Let's get the numbers right. You are correct that total US GHG emissions was about 6.9 billion metric ton in 2014. Out of that 26% was transportation which is 1.8 BT. 63% of transportation CO2 emissions is light duty vehicles, which is mostly personal, and that counts for 1.13 BT. 6% of emissions are for residential use which is an additional 0.41 BT. 30% of GHG emissions is electricity production, out of which 28% is for residential use, which is 0.58 BT. This adds up to 2.1 BT for purely residential use. You can argue that a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency is not gonna make a big change, but the reality is you have to cut down on all these sources at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gazoo said:

Back  in the 70s and 80s there were some scientists who predicted man was warming the earth, but there were also scientists who predicted we were going to have another ice age.

Many of those same scientists will tell you today they were wrong. Even climate scientist Judith Curry from our very own GA Tech was one of the scientists promoting the man man global warming theory as recently as 10'years ago but is now calling out many climate scientists for falsifying climate models and has become a skeptic as to whether or not CO2 is causing any statistically significant warming.

We have current information here in the year 2016 that shatters many of those predictions from the 1970s and 1980's and  proves many of them were just plain silly. Many scientists who honestly believed in AGW a decade ago are now questioning the science behind it, especially since there has been virtually no warming over the last 20 years that once again shatters climate model predictions.

I agree with you that some of the claims by environmental alarmists are as ridiculous as what we hear from climate change deniers, and in that sense they do more harm than help. There is no shame in being skeptical. Judith Curry, whom I know and respect, is a good example. But your characterization of her is untrue. She has never denied climate change, or the role that GHGs play in that. She has sought to bring increased attention to the uncertainties involved, has spoken about the impact of these uncertainties on policy, and has also talked against the "tribal" nature of climate science (which is unfortunately true). But she has never questioned anthropogenic climate change or the need for action.

Again, no proof for your statement that there hasn't been a change in temperatures over the last 20 years, when 15 out of 16 warmest years on record happened in that period!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gazoo said:

Why do you keep talking about pollution? Of course no one advocates pollution. You either do not understand the discussion or are intentially trying to distort it. 

Are you trying to tell me the very essential life sustaining CO2 for all the earths plant life, including all our trees and crops, all the flowers, vegetables, fruits and berries you eat is pollution?

Are you aware raised CO2 level as have dramatically improved the earths plant vegetation and satellite images show about a 30% increases in vegatiation from the CO2 they need to breath to live?

Are you trying to tell me you exhale pollution out of your mouth? 

And why do you keep talking about increased vegetation?! You do realize that it does' mean increased agricultural productivity, right? Agricultural productivity is often limited by nutrients and water, so most of the increase in biomass due to higher CO2 emissions would happen in areas that are not agriculturally relevant (not limited by water/nutrients) like tropical forests. 

And for that extra carbon that ends up in the biosphere, almost double that has ended up in the atmosphere. Somehow you have difficulty with the concept that too much of something may be harmful!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

I agree with you that some of the claims by environmental alarmists are as ridiculous as what we hear from climate change deniers, and in that sense they do more harm than help. There is no shame in being skeptical. Judith Curry, whom I know and respect, is a good example. But your characterization of her is untrue. She has never denied climate change, or the role that GHGs play in that. She has sought to bring increased attention to the uncertainties involved, has spoken about the impact of these uncertainties on policy, and has also talked against the "tribal" nature of climate science (which is unfortunately true). But she has never questioned anthropogenic climate change or the need for action.

Again, no proof for your statement that there hasn't been a change in temperatures over the last 20 years, when 15 out of 16 warmest years on record happened in that period!!

Why do you keep distorting my argument from CO2 to "climate change" and " GHG playing a role"?

Everyone knows and  believes the climate changes, stop throwing that straw man nonsense out there. The term GHG refers to several things, I'm talking specifically about CO2.

i said Curry is skeptical (as in not 100% certain)  as to whether or not CO2 is causing any *statistically significant* warming. That is an entirely different statement than saying she is skeptical ( or not 100% certain) about "climate change" or "GHG playing a role"

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

I agree with you that some of the claims by environmental alarmists are as ridiculous as what we hear from climate change deniers, and in that sense they do more harm than help. There is no shame in being skeptical. Judith Curry, whom I know and respect, is a good example. But your characterization of her is untrue. She has never denied climate change, or the role that GHGs play in that. She has sought to bring increased attention to the uncertainties involved, has spoken about the impact of these uncertainties on policy, and has also talked against the "tribal" nature of climate science (which is unfortunately true). But she has never questioned anthropogenic climate change or the need for action.

Again, no proof for your statement that there hasn't been a change in temperatures over the last 20 years, when 15 out of 16 warmest years on record happened in that period!!

When you take raw (actual) temperature readings the earth has not warmed in 20 years. When you take the actual temperatures and manupilate them you can create any outcome you'd like. NASA, a government agency, manipulated the raw data to show an infantesimle, tiny trend of warming. Imagine that, this adjustment took away the argument that the earth has been cooling over the last 20 years, something we know our government does not want to be a talking point. 

The earth has warmed less than a degree in the last 150 years. It's amazing we've all lived through that. Perhaps it's because the earth has has many periods where is was much hotter than it is today and civilization as we know it somehow managed to live through it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAD597 said:

My point is regardless of your beliefs about man made global warming we should drastically reduce man made pollution.

If you guys want to split hairs and have pissy fits over what you deem valid evidence have at it but the bottom line is reducing man made pollution is healthier for us even if you do not think it causes global warming.

You are also freakin nuts with you think pollution that adds more C02 to the air is a good thing. Seriously you loon tune nut jobs are not worth even talking about this stuff with since you simple do not get it.

The hair splitting is a moot point since reducing man made pollution would help us in the short term just by having better air to breath and long term. The only reason to be on the side that doesn't want to reduce pollution is if you are a corporate shill fighting the fight for Oil companies and other companies wanting to skirt EPA laws.

 

This is why it is impossible to have debates with the warmists. They get frustrated when you start dealing with facts and distort the argument followed by name calling.

you refuse to address my point about all the earths plant life needing CO2 to live, refuse to admit the earths plant life has dramatically improved due to more CO2 for it to breath, you won't answer my question as to if you really believe plants breath pollution to live, and you insist on talking about pollution instead of CO2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gazoo said:

This is why it is impossible to have debates with the warmists. They get frustrated when you start dealing with facts and distort the argument followed by name calling.

you refuse to address my point about all the earths plant life needing CO2 to live, refuse to admit the earths plant life has dramatically improved due to more CO2 for it to breath, you won't answer my question as to if you really believe plants breath pollution to live, and you insist on talking about pollution instead of CO2.

You are really trying to argue that man made pollution is good for the planet aren't you? Maybe you can move to Mars to see how good it is for a planet. Plunk done with you, no point in conversing with nutjobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAD597 said:

My point is regardless of your beliefs about man made global warming we should drastically reduce man made pollution.

If you guys want to split hairs and have pissy fits over what you deem valid evidence have at it but the bottom line is reducing man made pollution is healthier for us even if you do not think it causes global warming.

You are also freakin nuts with you think pollution that adds more C02 to the air is a good thing. Seriously you loon tune nut jobs are not worth even talking about this stuff with since you simple do not get it.

The hair splitting is a moot point since reducing man made pollution would help us in the short term just by having better air to breath and long term. The only reason to be on the side that doesn't want to reduce pollution is if you are a corporate shill fighting the fight for Oil companies and other companies wanting to skirt EPA laws.

 

The entire debate has been about C02. It's not a pollutant to begin with. If you have an issue with air pollution have our politicians hold india and china responsible, cause America and the civilized country's already have. Lets also turn our attention on species survival and water pollution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, gazoo said:

This is why it is impossible to have debates with the warmists. They get frustrated when you start dealing with facts and distort the argument followed by name calling.

you refuse to address my point about all the earths plant life needing CO2 to live, refuse to admit the earths plant life has dramatically improved due to more CO2 for it to breath, you won't answer my question as to if you really believe plants breath pollution to live, and you insist on talking about pollution instead of CO2.

They get mad because their pet project, their new religion is the environment although they know nothing about it. The socialism playbook is to make the environment the cause for which massive change must take place, as to control the people. These warmist aren't interested in the facts, but I am. These mind numbed robots think oil, gas coal are enemy #1 and have not the slightest clue to what would provide us all if we were to toss it overboard. These same hippy leftist don't give 2 chits about the 3rd world people starving and their plights. It's population control as well as wealth transfer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gazoo said:

This is why it is impossible to have debates with the warmists. They get frustrated when you start dealing with facts and distort the argument followed by name calling.

you refuse to address my point about all the earths plant life needing CO2 to live, refuse to admit the earths plant life has dramatically improved due to more CO2 for it to breath, you won't answer my question as to if you really believe plants breath pollution to live, and you insist on talking about pollution instead of CO2.

Or the left for that matter.  They play the same game with the economy, the border, foreign policy, etc.  When the facts are staring them in the face and the argument is over for all intent and purposes out comes the vitriol of race baiting, name calling, and so on.  That playbook has been old and tired for a while now.  Trump is changing that whether people support him or not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gazoo said:

Why do you keep talking about pollution? Of course no one advocates pollution. You either do not understand the discussion or are intentially trying to distort it. 

Are you trying to tell me the very essential life sustaining CO2 for all the earths plant life, including all our trees and crops, all the flowers, vegetables, fruits and berries you eat is pollution?

Are you aware raised CO2 level as have dramatically improved the earths plant vegetation and satellite images show about a 30% increases in vegatiation from the CO2 they need to breath to live?

Are you trying to tell me you exhale pollution out of your mouth? 

Raised Co2 levels severely impact the environment.  Co2 combines with water to make carbonic acid which quickly disassociates into hydrogen and bicarbonate. Co2 is good but must be buffered to maintain normal levels. Too much leads to an acidic environment that is detrimental to life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

Let's get the numbers right. You are correct that total US GHG emissions was about 6.9 billion metric ton in 2014. Out of that 26% was transportation which is 1.8 BT. 63% of transportation CO2 emissions is light duty vehicles, which is mostly personal, and that counts for 1.13 BT. 6% of emissions are for residential use which is an additional 0.41 BT. 30% of GHG emissions is electricity production, out of which 28% is for residential use, which is 0.58 BT. This adds up to 2.1 BT for purely residential use. You can argue that a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency is not gonna make a big change, but the reality is you have to cut down on all these sources at the same time.

The only reference I've seen that claims light duty as 63% of emissions shows it as any vehicle under 8500lbs. The number of vehicles for personal vs commercial is actually irrelevant. It's the number of miles driven for those applications. People in sales can drive 30k+ miles per year for their job. Pickup trucks and vans are included as light duty when under 8500lbs.

In other words, you made assumptions that are false. Your assumption was so much of the light duty is personal that you attributed ALL light duty emissions to the public. My original estimate of 800 million tons was much more accurate, as it was a published figure that considered transportation in the commercial sector in order to calculate average consumption per household, which I multiplied by the number of households in the country. Commercial driving is tracked for tax deductions, so it was very easy and far more accurate for them to calculate commercial vs personal consumption.

You made several invalid assumptions attributing more to the public than reality, which is a pretty common tactic in politics. You assumed 0% of residential electricity use is commercial. False. You assumed 0% of light duty use is commercial. Extremely wrong. You assumed 0% of residential electricity use is commercial. False. That is why your number is inflated, even though your inflated number is still the minority of overall emissions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joremarid said:

Raised Co2 levels severely impact the environment.  Co2 combines with water to make carbonic acid which quickly disassociates into hydrogen and bicarbonate. Co2 is good but must be buffered to maintain normal levels. Too much leads to an acidic environment that is detrimental to life.

All platitudes, theory and partial information with no perspective. Mother Nature is a phenomenal ecosystem that corrects and adjusts to all kinds of radical change, and the increased CO2 levels  are almost insignifant compared to history.

Please show me the proof that the raised CO2 level itself has harmed life a we know it. I can show you proof that is has benefitted plant life but I know of no proof that it is causing any statistically significant harmful impact on mankind.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MAD597 said:

My point is regardless of your beliefs about man made global warming we should drastically reduce man made pollution.

If you guys want to split hairs and have pissy fits over what you deem valid evidence have at it but the bottom line is reducing man made pollution is healthier for us even if you do not think it causes global warming.

You are also freakin nuts with you think pollution that adds more C02 to the air is a good thing. Seriously you loon tune nut jobs are not worth even talking about this stuff with since you simple do not get it.

The hair splitting is a moot point since reducing man made pollution would help us in the short term just by having better air to breath and long term. The only reason to be on the side that doesn't want to reduce pollution is if you are a corporate shill fighting the fight for Oil companies and other companies wanting to skirt EPA laws.

 

Pollution = Bad.  We agree.

I don't agree with letting the government put carbon taxes on the public, put additional restrictions on the public, and putting the burden on the public to fix this problem.  I don't agree with any of that, because we did not create this problem.  The Dems always look at the public with their hands out wanting them to fund the next big problem we didn't create with false promises that they can fix it.  Was it the public's fault people couldn't afford healthcare?  No.  But the government sure as **** took from the public in order to fix it, from anyone that pays taxes and can afford to pay the full price of coverage.  Let's squeeze every drop we can out of the public making it even harder for them to move up the social ladder, while we help corporations make bigger profits.

The government needs to do their f'ing job.  They have data centers using a ton of electricity to keep track of our communications.  They have data centers using a ton of electricity to manage our healthcare.  They have landfills of waste polluting the entire planet (land, sea, and air).  People need to wake up.  The problem is not the 20% from the public.  The problem is the 80% of this system of waste, and a bloated government is the most wasteful of all.  

Honestly, I can't understand why anybody would support the Dems at all at this point.  Raising taxes on the middle class and upper middle class makes it more difficult to get to a point of financial security.  If I work my *** off to provide for my family, pay my taxes, and live a life making good choices, who are they to say I can't have a car that goes 0-60 in 3 seconds for some weekend fun?  Who are they to expect me to pay them money for that privilege like they provided it to me, while they are just making it harder for me to indulge in a luxury I want to indulge in?  Because my 100 miles per week or 5000 miles per year is going to make a dent in the 5B+ tons of pollution all of their buddies are dumping into the environment.  And why are you so willing to give up personal choice in addition to your hard earned money to a government that has a history of not spending it very well, and rarely in the general public's best interest?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joremarid said:

Um  platitudes?  Theory? Partial information? What are you talking about? All that info is verifiable. 

Your response is full of all kinds of baseless assumptions. For instance, you said CO2 is good but must be buffered to maintain normal levels.

Normal levels of CO2? Really? Who is defining what a normal level of CO2 is for you? Have you taken a look at historical CO2 levels? It normally fluctuates. Do scientists plug volcanoes to help maintain this CO2 normal you speak of?

Heres the deal, some of us on this thread think for ourselves, we do not let the media and government  tell us what we should think. There are others who are told what to think that they go out and defend it as best they can, but they get frustrated when their arguments start falling apart with simple common sense flaws in their arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

 

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from May 1997 to December 2015 – more than half the 444-month satellite record.

There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

Related: It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming

Flashback 1974: ’60 theories have been advanced to explain the global cooling’

 

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJanuary 12, 2016 9:55 PM with 24 comments

No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Paris agreement is more dangerous than it appears. Though the secession clause that this column has argued for was inserted into the second draft and remained in the final text, the zombies who have replaced the diplomatic negotiators of almost 200 nations did not – as they should have done in a rational world – insert a sunset clause that would bring the entire costly and pointless process to an end once the observed rate of warming fell far enough below the IPCC’s original predictions in 1990.

It is those first predictions that matter, for they formed the official basis for the climate scam – the biggest transfer of wealth in human history from the poor to the rich, from the little guy to the big guy, from the governed to those who profit by governing them.

Let us hope that the next President of the United States insists on a sunset clause. I propose that if 20 years without global warming occur, the IPCC, the UNFCCC and all their works should be swept into the dustbin of history, and the prosecutors should be brought in. We are already at 18 years 8 months, and counting. The el Niño has shortened the Pause, and will continue to do so for the next few months, but the discrepancy between prediction and reality remains very wide.

clip_image002

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since May 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climatereport that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzen’s former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roe’s model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 8 months since May 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.

clip_image004

Figure 1a: Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring. Based on Roe (2009).

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is now beginning to reflect its magnitude. If past events of this kind are a guide, there will be several months’ further warming before the downturn in the spike begins.

However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of this year onward.

The hiatus period of 18 years 8 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate. The rate on the RSS dataset since it began in 1979 is equivalent to 1.2 degrees/century.

And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause has continued on average to lengthen.

The UAH satellite dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).

clip_image006

Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from May 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century (even if it had occurred) would not be cause for concern.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.

The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. If the Pause lengthens just a little more, the rate of warming in the quarter-century since the IPCC’sFirst Assessment Report in 1990 will fall below 1 C°/century equivalent.

clip_image008

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 311 months January 1990 to November 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at just 1 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

clip_image010

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to September 2015, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

The Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. In a rational scientific discourse, those who had advocated extreme measures to prevent global warming would now be withdrawing and calmly rethinking their hypotheses. However, this is not a rational scientific discourse.

Key facts about global temperature

These facts should be shown to anyone who persists in believing that, in the words of Mr Obama’s Twitteratus, “global warming is real, manmade and dangerous”.

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from May 1997 to December 2015 – more than half the 444-month satellite record.

Ø There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

Ø The entire UAH dataset for the 444 months (37 full years) from December 1978 to November 2015 shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.14 Cº per century.

clip_image012

Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century.

Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

Ø The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to little more than 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted close to thrice as much.

Ø To meet the IPCC’s original central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.

Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Ø The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century, or 1 C° in 430 years.

Ø Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

The fact of a long Pause is an indication of the widening discrepancy between prediction and reality in the temperature record.

The satellite datasets are arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that they show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that the satellite datasets are better able than the rest to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on reference measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe as 13.82 billion years.

The RSS graph (Fig. 1) is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line.

The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression, since summer temperatures in one hemisphere are compensated by winter in the other. Therefore, an AR(n) model would generate results little different from a least-squares trend.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, discusses it at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures.

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:

clip_image014

Figure T1. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is almost entirely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself. The headline graph in these monthly reports begins in 1997 because that is as far back as one can go in the data and still obtain a zero trend.

clip_image016

Fig. T1a. Graphs for RSS and GISS temperatures starting both in 1997 and in 2001. For each dataset the trend-lines are near-identical, showing conclusively that the argument that the Pause was caused by the 1998 el Nino is false (Werner Brozek and Professor Brown worked out this neat demonstration).

Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. The UK Met Office, however, uses the satellite data to calibrate its own terrestrial record.

The length of the Pause, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

Sources of the IPCC projections in Figs. 2 and 3

IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. For the rate of global warming since 1990 – the most important of the “broad-scale features of climate change” that the models were supposed to predict – is now below half what the IPCC had then predicted.

In 1990, the IPCC said this:

“Based on current models we predict:

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 Cº above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors” (p. xii).

Later, the IPCC said:

“The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 Cº by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate” (p. xxiv).

The orange region in Fig. 2 represents the IPCC’s medium-term Scenario-A estimate of near-term warming, i.e. 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K by 2025.

The IPCC’s predicted global warming over the 25 years from 1990 to the present differs little from a straight line (Fig. T2).

clip_image018

Figure T2. Historical warming from 1850-1990, and predicted warming from 1990-2100 on the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A (IPCC, 1990, p. xxii).

Because this difference between a straight line and the slight uptick in the warming rate the IPCC predicted over the period 1990-2025 is so small, one can look at it another way. To reach the 1 K central estimate of warming since 1990 by 2025, there would have to be twice as much warming in the next ten years as there was in the last 25 years. That is not likely.

But is the Pause perhaps caused by the fact that CO2 emissions have not been rising anything like as fast as the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A prediction in 1990? No: CO2 emissions have risen rather above the Scenario-A prediction (Fig. T3).

clip_image020

Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré et al. (2014), plotted against the chart of “man-made carbon dioxide emissions”, in billions of tonnes of carbon per year, from IPCC (1990).

Plainly, therefore, CO2 emissions since 1990 have proven to be closer to Scenario A than to any other case, because for all the talk about CO2 emissions reduction the fact is that the rate of expansion of fossil-fuel burning in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., far outstrips the paltry reductions we have achieved in the West to date.

True, methane concentration has not risen as predicted in 1990 (Fig. T4), for methane emissions, though largely uncontrolled, are simply not rising as the models had predicted. Here, too, all of the predictions were extravagantly baseless.

The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed CO2 emissions outturn.

 



Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/#ixzz498ikTS5v

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gazoo said:

Your response is full of all kinds of baseless assumptions. For instance, you said CO2 is good but must be buffered to maintain normal levels.

Normal levels of CO2? Really? Who is defining what a normal level of CO2 is for you? Have you taken a look at historical CO2 levels? It normally fluctuates. Do scientists plug volcanoes to help maintain this CO2 normal you speak of?

Heres the deal, some of us on this thread think for ourselves, we do not let the media and government  tell us what we should think. There are others who are told what to think that they go out and defend it as best they can, but they get frustrated when their arguments start falling apart with simple common sense flaws in their arguments.

I gave you the basic equation as to which co2 affects acid base balance. Protein denaturation and thus life breaks down outside of a normal range of acid base ballance. Le chateliers principle explains what happens to a chemical equation when a component is altered. This isn't platitudes. This isn't theory. This is scientific fact. If you can disprove the effect of acid base ballance on protein denaturation and disprove le chateliers principle show it and go collect your Nobel prize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...