Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Arnold Martin]

no warming yet the warmest November

http://www.livescience.com/42020-november-2013-hottest-on-record.html

You forgot this (from the article) ..... The central and eastern portions of North America, the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, northern Australia and southwestern Greenland were cooler than average.

You chose only this (from the article) .... Russia had its warmest November since 1880 .... so what has one warm month got to do with anything ..... when we point out a colder than average month you always say it has nothing to do with climate change .... so which is it ???

And do you have an explanation for why Russia was warmer in 1880 ?? ... much of the world was still using horse drawn equipment back then

The information you present is very biased and selective providing it indicates warming only .

It almost appears as though you "want" warming.

I am always relieved when the planet does not become as hot as the failed models predicted..... to me it is good news .... I hope in the next ten years we see a bit of cooling ... do you ?

 

[DC]

You forgot this (from the article) ..... The central and eastern portions of North America, the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, northern Australia and southwestern Greenland were cooler than average.

You chose only this (from the article) .... Russia had its warmest November since 1880 .... so what has one warm month got to do with anything ..... when we point out a colder than average month you always say it has nothing to do with climate change .... so which is it ???

And do you have an explanation for why Russia was warmer in 1880 ?? ... much of the world was still using horse drawn equipment back then

The information you present is very biased and selective providing it indicates warming only .

It almost appears as though you "want" warming.

I am always relieved when the planet does not become as hot as the failed models predicted..... to me it is good news .... I hope in the next ten years we see a bit of cooling ... do you ?

globally its the warmest, and its yet another data point in the long trend of a warming planet.

and Russia was warmer in 1880? really? what is your source?

and no its not biased. its global data and not only data from one region.

btw, will you address my posts to you about your daughter getting the IPCC projections for the great lakes wrong ?
how did that happen? she sold her house because she misunderstood the IPCC reports? pls explain how that happened.

btw as I showed you already, the models have not failed at all.

how could you miss those from the article?

November 2013 was the hottest November on Earth since at least 1880.

This November was the hottest on record, with only a few spots on Earth cooler than average.

 

[Iamme]

Well, there is another issue as well, AGW, is actually fairly painless for us to deal with, if we attack the problem seriously within the next couple of decades. If, however, we ignore it much beyond this, we run the serious risk of triggering natural feedback responses that would dramatically exacerbate the problem and leave us with little or no options as far as controlling or limiting the problem. Once the natural feedbacks engage (which tend to lag the initial temperature changes) the climate change moves well beyond AGW.

Yes. Ive read about the time lag business before. Yes. Scary thought. No joke.
And also, i`d imagine because of the time lag factor, that that is one of the things that makes teasing out correct data, so difficult, when trying to show direct correlation between causal and result.
And why i suppise those saying the sun did it, can get their foot in the door.
Its almost like the religious argument(i just posted in another thread moments ago). You have split camps there as well. Same thing where one group says there is all this scientific evidence...yet the other camp doesnt either buy into that or believe other factors are at work, either independently or jointly, with the scientific evidence.

 

[Megalodon]

You forgot this (from the article) ..... The central and eastern portions of North America, the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, northern Australia and southwestern Greenland were cooler than average.

You chose only this (from the article) .... Russia had its warmest November since 1880 .... so what has one warm month got to do with anything ..... when we point out a colder than average month you always say it has nothing to do with climate change .... so which is it ???

It's almost like you don't want to understand...

From the link: "This past November was the hottest on record, with land and ocean temperatures a toasty 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.78 degrees Celsius) above the average 20th century global temperature of 55.2 degrees Fahrenheit (12.9 degrees Celsius), according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). When only land temperatures are taken into account, this November was the second hottest on record."

So the world, on average, was warmer in this November than in any November since records began.

And do you have an explanation for why Russia was warmer in 1880 ?? ... much of the world was still using horse drawn equipment back then

It wasn't. The phrase "since 1880" is used because that's when the record began.

The information you present is very biased and selective providing it indicates warming only .

Since you quoted the article as saying that North America was colder than average, I don't think that is a fair criticism.

It almost appears as though you "want" warming.

Like "deserve", want's got nothing to do with it...

I am always relieved when the planet does not become as hot as the failed models predicted..... to me it is good news .... I hope in the next ten years we see a bit of cooling ... do you ?

So you are relieved because you are ignorant of reality? To each it's own, I suppose... but I prefer to know what's happening, and if possible what's coming.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You forgot this (from the article) ..... The central and eastern portions of North America, the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, northern Australia and southwestern Greenland were cooler than average.

You chose only this (from the article) .... Russia had its warmest November since 1880 .... so what has one warm month got to do with anything ..... when we point out a colder than average month you always say it has nothing to do with climate change .... so which is it ???

And do you have an explanation for why Russia was warmer in 1880 ?? ... much of the world was still using horse drawn equipment back then

The information you present is very biased and selective providing it indicates warming only .

It almost appears as though you "want" warming.

I am always relieved when the planet does not become as hot as the failed models predicted..... to me it is good news .... I hope in the next ten years we see a bit of cooling ... do you ?

You are still obfuscating Arnold. In nearly every post you fail to differentiate between climate and weather, heat and temperature. You throw out silly arguments every high school freshman science student knows are ridiculous. Can you remember back to the most basic experiment in science class where you applied a measured amount of heat to ice and found it takes a lot of heat to melt it, even though the temperature increased less than one degree? Any change of state for water.... ice <-->water<-->vapor involves far more heat energy than is reflected by the temperature change. That's why we cool off by sweating. It is a VERY basic scientific principle.

Why does it matter? Because life here on earth just happens to exist in that narrow range where water can be found in all 3 states on the surface, and adding heat to the global system may not change the temperature much so far (about 1 degree C +/-), but the heat none the less is relatively larger and the effects on life is equally large.

The second thing is weather is not climate. So what if Russia or any other region has weather? Climate has an effect on weather, but that doesn't make weather the same as climate or a weather event by itself meaningful in determining climate change.

The third thing is you continually obfuscate AGW with natural climatic cycles. Yes there are natural cycles in climate. There is also an % of that change caused by humans. It is a logic fallacy to think that just because humans are affecting the climate that the natural cycles would somehow magically disappear. They are still there, but now we have an additional factor caused by humans to consider.

 

[Iamme]

Some other facts to ponder:

World sea ice extent is not reducing since records began in 1979.

The oceans are the most alkaline for the past 100 million years.

Translation please?

 

[DC]

fun fact. while the Antarctic is warming, it is still cold enough to form snow and ice. but as temperatures increased, the air can hold more moisture and can lead to more snowfall, this increased snowfall puts new pressure on the ice cap, this leads to an increased ice flow, wich leads to more ice discharge into the sea and thus increasing the sea ice extent.....

so while deniers think increased sea ice extend contradicts AGW, no it actually confirms what was expected and shows that our understanding of the climate systems in the poles are pretty good.

 

[Iamme]

See post #2212.
I spose 1880 inference means hotter than now...not hotter than 1865 or 1879...i take it.
And does more CO2 come out of a horse`s rear end, or a car`s rearend? (Sorry, i couldnt help myself.)
Eta: Er, maybe its just the front end?...or both?

 

[DC]

See post #2212.
I spose 1880 inference means hotter than now...not hotter than 1865 or 1879...i take it.
And does more CO2 come out of a horse`s rear end, or a car`s rearend? (Sorry, i couldnt help myself.)

per horsepower or in total?

 

[Belz...]

The phrase "since 1880" is used because that's when the record began.

It's almost insulting to debate this topic with people who understand so little about it, isn't it ?

 

[Belz...]

See post #2212.

Referencing a post from the future, are we ?

The very next one, in fact. Let's see what it'll be !

 

[tusenfem]

and what will never end?

I guess he means claiming that record heats again and again and again year after year, does not mean there is climate change.

Howerver, the deniers have one polar vortex, and will immediately claim that global warming is over.

Like this part in the daily show clearly shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1G0ZWcEPLc

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Arnold Martin View Post
You forgot this (from the article) ..... The central and eastern portions of North America, the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, northern Australia and southwestern Greenland were cooler than average.

You do I hope understand the difference between cooler than average and warmest since records began???

You chose only this (from the article) .... Russia had its warmest November since 1880 .... so what has one warm month got to do with anything ..... when we point out a colder than average month you always say it has nothing to do with climate change .... so which is it ??

One warm month?? not a lot....warmest month....sets a marker down, get a bunch of those strung together as we've seen around the world in the last decade and even last year in Australia then it's a clear indicator of a trend....which is AGW.

There is a huge difference between variation around a mean a new bell curve point right at the far end.

 

[macdoc]

I am always relieved when the planet does not become as hot as the failed models predicted.

what failed models are those? - the prediction from 1981 met the model pretty well except it erred on the low side which the new climate sensitivity research will help with tho it's generally bad news for keeping the temperature rise in check
You've been shown this several times and still choose to ignore it

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

snip

Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols). - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-temperature-projection/#sthash.7ZPkiPOe.dpuf

.... to me it is good news .... I hope in the next ten years we see a bit of cooling ... do you ?

Every climate scientist on the planet and most sensible people would love to see a hiatus in the upward curve towards a warmer atmosphere....it's actually very good news that the ocean has been picking up more heat tho that is just buys us a bit more time to decarbonize and maybe mutes some of the extreme weather tho that seems to be a fixture of the Anthopocene at this point.

But a warmer ocean has it's own set of consequences and may lead to destabilization of the western Antarctic icesheet.....not good news at all.

Researchers consider the WAIS especially sensitive to climate change because the base of the ice sheet rests below sea level, making it vulnerable to direct contact with warm ocean water. Its melting currently contributes 0.3 millimeters to sea level rise each year. This is second only to Greenland, whose contribution to sea level rise has been estimated as high as 0.7 mm per year.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ening-to-destabilize-this-unstable-ice-sheet/

 

[DC]

I guess he means claiming that record heats again and again and again year after year, does not mean there is climate change.

Howerver, the deniers have one polar vortex, and will immediately claim that global warming is over.

Like this part in the daily show clearly shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1G0ZWcEPLc

Indeed It's like i pointed out with Temperature dataset. They will whine about adjustments of HadCRUT or GISS, but if they think a dataset supports their position, they don't care about adjustments and take a dataset that has most adjustments considering how new the Sat. temp sets are. Or the same with Climate Models, they whine about climate models being used in studies. but when they think a study supports their position, they don't care models being used. like in the Esper paper a few years ago. i find this very amusing to watch.

 

[macdoc]

Malleable time along with the other denier nonsense 15 years is now 17???
Both are wrong of course but they don't let facts get in the way of their mantra.

WHat I find odd is now that the fossil fuel companies have acknowledged AGW how climate change deniers square that up. One of them is wrong .

 

[Megalodon]

It's almost insulting to debate this topic with people who understand so little about it, isn't it ?

Tiring is more like it...

 

[macdoc]

anyone for depressing??? oh yeah you got that covered in your sig

 

[Trakar]

See post #2212.
I spose 1880 inference means hotter than now...not hotter than 1865 or 1879...i take it.
And does more CO2 come out of a horse`s rear end, or a car`s rearend? (Sorry, i couldnt help myself.)
Eta: Er, maybe its just the front end?...or both?

The carbon in the CO2 coming out of the front end of a horse comes from the food it eats combining with the oxygen it breaths in, it is carbon neutral with respect to carbon already in the environment. Carbon in the CO2 coming out the tailpipe of a car comes from oil that was sequestered away from the environment, adding to the total carbon in the environment. Now if you can point out horses that dig their way down into the ground to suck up that delicious, thick carbon juice, you may have an analogy that works in comparison.

 

[lomiller]

I dont think you are aware of ENSO, if so you would be aware of how the PDO controls ENSO and how the global temperature responds. Tell us how the PDO affects ENSO if you are so brilliant.

NAO, AO, ENSO, all affect WEATHER and local climate....not global temperatures.

This statement shows your ignorance.

PDO doesn’t “control” ENSO, PDO is a naturally occurring pattern in ENSO. This pattern correlates to periods of a decade or so of temperatures elevated or reduced by as much as 0.1 – 0.2 deg C before returning to trend. This can mask underlying trends of 0.15 – 0.20 deg per Dec for a decade or more which forced you to look at periods of at least 2-3 decades in order to make accurate conclusions as to whether the earth is warming.

The existence of the PDO means that you need to look farther back than 1998 to know if the earth is warming or not. Far from supporting your assertion, the existence of the PDO actually proves you assertion can’t be supported by the data. Next time before complaining that people don’t understand something, learn about it yourself before you make incorrect conclusions.