Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[seer]

2014 is roughly equal to 96, and significantly above 1990. Look at the report. It is also significantly above levels required to make changes, and Trump is reversing the initiatives that would drive them lower.

Nonsense Carp, it is almost equal to 94, just as I said. And what did drive them lower was largely due to the fracking revolution (not his worship, Obama). The more we use natural gas and nuclear, the lower the emissions. Len agrees and supports both, what is your problem.

I am not "you guys." I am one person and I have not, to my knowledge, engaged in fear mongering. If you're going to have a discussion with me, then deal with MY statements rather than projecting statements of others onto me. I accept the scientific evidence, and the models that predict a continued increase in sea level rise. I also have a bias towards not poluting our planet. None of that is "fear mongering." Sea levels are demonstrably rising, and the incidence of coastal flooding rising with them. I would prefer we clean up our corner of the world and take a leadership position in a promising new industry. I believe it is economic folly to delay. We will simply cede the leadership to other countries, which are heavily investing in this sector, both on the development and use sides.

See that is exactly what I mean. Haven't sea levels been rising since the little ice age? Is anything we are seeing beyond a "normal range?" And again, neither you or any body else knows that a generally warmer earth won't be more beneficial than a generally cooler earth. You guys always focus on the possible negatives, not the possible positives.

https://listosaur.com/science-a-tech...lobal-warming/

I mean you guys are all doom and gloom!

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, it is almost equal to 94, just as I said. And what did drive them lower was largely due to the fracking revolution (not his worship, Obama). The more we use natural gas and nuclear, the lower the emissions. Len agrees and supports both, what is your problem.

Not sure what to tell you, Seer. That data is pretty self-evident. If you're not seeing it, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Dig into the numbers. Also, I said nothing about the cause, but Trump is working assiduously to increase coal mining, increase coastal drilling, and reduce restrictions on emissions. Fortunately, states, localities, and businesses are working to try to fill in the gap by indipendently sticking to thew Paris Accords. We currently have roughly 40% voluntary buy-in to the accords. It's not as much as if it were government-led, but it's a start, until we have more ecologically-minded leadership.

See that is exactly what I mean. Haven't sea levels been rising since the little ice age? Is anything we are seeing beyond a "normal range?" And again, neither you or any body else knows that a generally warmer earth won't be more beneficial than a generally cooler earth. You guys always focus on the possible negatives, not the possible positives.

https://listosaur.com/science-a-tech...lobal-warming/

I mean you guys are all doom and gloom!

As I said, I am not "you guys." Yes, sea levels have been rising since the end of the little ice age. What is different is the accelerating rate of CO2 build-up, temperature change, and sea-level rise, and (as I said) the accelerating incidence of coastal flooding. The current models suggest enough rise to cause many major cities to begin working on mitigation plans. Fortunately, some are taking it seriously enough to act (Miami, NYC, Boston, etc.). After a discussion with Leon, I'm backing off on the link between warming and weather intensity until I can dig into it a bit more. I respect his methodical diligence, so I respect his opinion on this one.

Meanwhile, CO2 is merely part of the ecology. As with all things, too much of a natural thing becomes a polutant. The same would be true if we were emitting too much oxygen. I am not a proponent of polution, and do not adhere to the "it doesn't matter" school. I believe we have a responsibility to our environment. I also believe that developed countries have a responsibility to clean up their mess, do everything possible to minimize how much more they make, and to help developing countries oin the path to development without going down the path of excessive CO2 emissions.

When we bought our house, we discovered that the previous owners had turned the river's edge into a dumping ground. It was buried under the brush. It was just how "old timers" did it before we become concerned with what we were doing to our environment. We elected not to go after them legally, but we also elected to clean it up. We did not do it because the region would be catastrophically impacted, or because it was "our fault," or because we "felt guilty." We did it because it was the right thing to do. So it is, IMO, with our global environment.

We're clearly not really getting anywhere, and I think I've made my position fairly clear at this point. I'll leave the last response to you, unless you ask me a question you want answered.

[Starlight]

The point is there have been naturally warm periods, as a matter of fact if we go back far enough the whole world was one tropical. There is no average temperature, no average climate for the earth.

In the graph you provided the temperature fluctuations over thousands of years have been within 1 degree.

With climate change people are talking about a 2 degree change within a ~50 year period, or even a 4 degree change in ~100 year period. That is vastly outside anything humans have experienced or endured in the past 10,000 years.

[seer]

Not sure what to tell you, Seer. That data is pretty self-evident. If you're not seeing it, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Dig into the numbers. Also, I said nothing about the cause, but Trump is working assiduously to increase coal mining, increase coastal drilling, and reduce restrictions on emissions. Fortunately, states, localities, and businesses are working to try to fill in the gap by indipendently sticking to thew Paris Accords. We currently have roughly 40% voluntary buy-in to the accords. It's not as much as if it were government-led, but it's a start, until we have more ecologically-minded leadership.

Voluntary, what a wonderful word...

As I said, I am not "you guys." Yes, sea levels have been rising since the end of the little ice age. What is different is the accelerating rate of CO2 build-up, temperature change, and sea-level rise, and (as I said) the accelerating incidence of coastal flooding. The current models suggest enough rise to cause many major cities to begin working on mitigation plans. Fortunately, some are taking it seriously enough to act (Miami, NYC, Boston, etc.). After a discussion with Leon, I'm backing off on the link between warming and weather intensity until I can dig into it a bit more. I respect his methodical diligence, so I respect his opinion on this one.

Meanwhile, CO2 is merely part of the ecology. As with all things, too much of a natural thing becomes a polutant. The same would be true if we were emitting too much oxygen. I am not a proponent of polution, and do not adhere to the "it doesn't matter" school. I believe we have a responsibility to our environment. I also believe that developed countries have a responsibility to clean up their mess, do everything possible to minimize how much more they make, and to help developing countries oin the path to development without going down the path of excessive CO2 emissions.

When we bought our house, we discovered that the previous owners had turned the river's edge into a dumping ground. It was buried under the brush. It was just how "old timers" did it before we become concerned with what we were doing to our environment. We elected not to go after them legally, but we also elected to clean it up. We did not do it because the region would be catastrophically impacted, or because it was "our fault," or because we "felt guilty." We did it because it was the right thing to do. So it is, IMO, with our global environment.

We're clearly not really getting anywhere, and I think I've made my position fairly clear at this point. I'll leave the last response to you, unless you ask me a question you want answered.

OK Debbie Downer, we will leave it there...

[seer]

In the graph you provided the temperature fluctuations over thousands of years have been within 1 degree.

What chart?

With climate change people are talking about a 2 degree change within a ~50 year period, or even a 4 degree change in ~100 year period. That is vastly outside anything humans have experienced or endured in the past 10,000 years.

Nonsense. In the past hundred years or so we have possibly seen a one degree c rise - in the teeth of the industrial revolution. Why would we see 4 degrees in a hundred? No country is standing still on this, here in New England we are seeing more and more wind mills, solar doesn't do so well here. And if we add more natural gas and nuclear we will be all right.

[seer]

Benefits of a warmer planet:

https://listosaur.com/science-a-tech...lobal-warming/

[carpedm9587]

Benefits of a warmer planet:

Wow...

[seer]

Wow...

I agree, pretty neat - right!

[carpedm9587]

I agree, pretty neat - right!

Sure...if you say so... (backing away slowly)....



Seriously - after all of the comments about unsubstantiated "fear mongering," I am somewhat flabbergasted that you would reprint such a rosy-eyed, seriously flawed, essentially unsupported set of claims of benefits.

But hey... what the heck. What will be will be.

[seer]

Sure...if you say so... (backing away slowly)....



Seriously - after all of the comments about unsubstantiated "fear mongering," I am somewhat flabbergasted that you would reprint such a rosy-eyed, seriously flawed, essentially unsupported set of claims of benefits.

But hey... what the heck. What will be will be.

Hey Carp, the doom and doom predicted by your side is no less unsubstantiated. I mean really - why are you always so negative!

[stfoskey15]

This website seems good for data if anyone wants to do stuff with it. I haven't looked into it too much tho.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

[tabibito]

If you look at the graph, Tabibito, you will see pretty clearly that, although there are cycles in the average temperature, the over-all trend is upwards.

That's what I said.

1998 was an unusually warm year, which is why it is selected as the "starting point" for the so-called "hiatus."

That is acknowledged. If I choose the medieval warming period at its height, current temperatures will be only slightly lower, but the average will show a fairly solid reduction. If I choose the lowest point of the mini ice-age of the 1700s, global averages will have risen much more sharply than would be shown by any subsequent start point. It would seem that a good place to begin examination of trends would be around the time when international air travel began to be the done thing. (only because that marks the time of a great number of human activities affecting the broader environments.)

If you let your eye skip over it and look at the flow of the years before and after it, you can cleaerly see an upward trend in the data.

Agreed.

It would be more visible if I could run multi-month graphs, but to do that I need the raw data and I have not been able to find it.

I take the claims as valid anyway.

The law of large numbers will tend to smooth our variation in samples as the sample size gets larger, and the overall trend becomes more evident. If there is no warming, the line should tend to towards flatness as the measurement interval increases. If we are cooling, it should trend towards dropping. If we are warming it should trend towards rising. Even a lay-person's look at the graph, however, should be enough to see the overall trend.

Also agreed: that is why graphs are so useful. The problem here is that the actuality didn't meet the prediction: the whole "the arctic will probably be ice-free by 2013" and "certainly within the decade" story* in 2007 just didn't pan out. As I said earlier, the actuality flattened by comparison with the projections. (perhaps I should have said "the experienced rise was not as sharp as the projections had indicated it would be.)

Yes, geological events can alter the cycle. Indeed, since we have a regular spate of volcanoes going off worldwide, they have some effect on climate. As far as I can tell, unless there is a hugely significant eruption, the effect is a fraction of the overall carbon cycle.

That too is true. The problem was the "reasonably significant" eruptions within a fairly short time span. One volcano in a decade strong enough to suspend air travel won't do much. Four in the same year would have a measurable and immediate impact. Six in a decade would be mildly cumulative and fall somewhere between the two extremes.

latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.


In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

[Roy]

Except as the link from American Thinker shows, the only thing available to the public is the most recent "raw" data which is actually revised data ('When you go to the NASA website, you can download temperature anomalies "1880-present." But those data change every month. NASA adjusts it. You cannot find any older versions. NASA makes available only its most recent version. And NASA does not explain how it adjusts the data. You must simply trust it.'), and the "whistle blower" reported by The Washington Times says that the data is deliberately manipulated by NOAA to support the global warming hypothesis. Furthermore, NOAA refused to show its work even when demanded by Congress!

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/noaa...rticle/2575113

Things are so messed up to the point that I'm not really sure any of it is trustworthy.

Yet you claimed that "the last 17-years ... has exhibited a slight cooling trend" anyway - and won't retract it.

[Sparko]

The problem is that global warming is it not falsifiable to AGW proponents. They take ANY evidence as evidence FOR it. If the average temperatures go up, that proves AGW! If the average temperatures stay the same, that's a pause, which we can expect because climate change doesn't happen overnight. If the temperature goes down, why that proves AGW because we can expect various fluctuations due to AGW. If we have too many hurricanes that proves AGW is heating up the oceans. If we have too many blizzards, that proves AGW because wild fluctuations can be expected and weather isn't climate.

more evidence of the AGW crowd using "weather" as proof of AGW but when antiAGW mention cold weather, it is "weather, not climate"

freaking double-standard.

--
https://www.climaterealityproject.or...climate-change

[seer]

more evidence of the AGW crowd using "weather" as proof of AGW but when antiAGW mention cold weather, it is "weather, not climate"

freaking double-standard.

--
https://www.climaterealityproject.or...climate-changeexplains my colleague, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University.
---


Weather is climate when the AGW crowd want it to be.

Yet the the AGW crowd here will never admit the double standard. Tails they win, heads we lose...