• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

foophil

Graduate Poster
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
1,273
Location
Gainesville, FL
This thread is continued from here.
Posted By: kmortis


So the posters on this thread who are well versed in the arguments countering Haig and Wattsupwiththat are not going to convince Haig because he's got to the point where the future looks bright without mitigating climate change, but they will get through to those who are going "hmmmm" and that, in itself, is worth the bandwidth.


A few years ago I stumbled across this forum (technically JREF's back then) in my search for knowledge and to satisfy my curiosity. I was one of those 'fence sitters' where I wasn't sure what to believe.

Since then, I have moved closer to town to shorten my commute, built a house that is powered by solar during the day and feeds in my excess power to the city. I have my garage set up to power electric vehicles. My plan is to now purchase the new Tesla's (assuming they can deliver on their promise of a mid $30K sedan in 2 years). Right now we have a hybrid we use. I'm in walking and biking distance for most of my needs. I now recycle that I'm in the city. I'm conscious about making decisions like flying. There is probably more I can't think of at the moment.

I can partially thank this thread (and the others) for this. In addition, I've been very vocal with my friends and family now that I'm much more knowledgeable and can attest to the general talking points for AGW. I'm sure I've influenced a few others in my life.

It may not be clear if one focuses just on the repeated deniers here, but threads like this one do impact the quiet lurkers and probably do a lot of good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is for discussing the science of Clinate Change. If you wish to discuss the political ramifications of it, please start a thread in the appropriate section and do so.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Thank you.


••••

Incredible things going on in the Arctic just now...the fires are going to be nuts....20 C and more above average !!!! :boggled:


Arctic Heatwave Forecast to Crush Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover This Week
The Russian side of the Arctic is heating up.

arctic-heatwave-june-6.png


A high amplitude ridge in the Jet Stream is forecast to develop atop the Yamal region of Russia, expand northward over the Kara and Laptev seas, inject a plume of anomalously warm air over the polar region, and then proceed on along the Arctic Ocean shores of Siberia. Beneath this ridge, temperatures over the Arctic Ocean will spike to +1 to +4 C above average while temperatures over land will hit extreme +20 C and higher anomalies.

more
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.c...ush-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover-this-week/

At least it's cooled a bit to average where we are headed on the motorcycles...was really in a quandary about riding gear....
 
Last edited:
This thread is for discussing the science of Clinate Change. If you wish to discuss the political ramifications of it, please start a thread in the appropriate section and do so.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis


Understood.

A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration. Outstanding insight. Yet so simple. :)


An Inherently Stable System
In the tropical daytime system, once a certain temperature threshold is reached the cumulus clouds start to form. But often, the reduction in incoming sunlight is not enough to stop the daily warming. If the surface continues to warm, at some higher temperature threshold thunderstorms form. And if the surface warms even more and a third temperature threshold is surpassed, yet another phenomena will emerge—the thunderstorms will line up shoulder to shoulder in long serried rows, with canyons of clear descending air between them.

Thunderstorms are natural refrigeration cycle air-conditioning machines. They use the same familiar evaporation/condensation cycle used in your air conditioner. But they do something your air conditioner can’t do. They only form exactly when and where you need them. When there is a hot spot in the afternoon on a tropical ocean, a thunderstorm soon forms right above it and starts cooling the surface back down. Not only that, but the thunderstorm cools the surface down below the starting temperature. This can not only slow but actually reverse a warming trend.

And if there are two hot spots you get two thunderstorms, and so on … do you see why I argue against the entire concept of “climate sensitivity”? When you add additional forcing to such a system, you don’t just get additional hot spots.

You also get additional thunderstorms working their marvels of refrigerational physics, so there is little surface temperature change.
 
A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration. Outstanding insight. Yet so simple. :)
And by a simpleton for simpletons. Storms move heat around in the troposphere, they don't cool the planet. Nor are they a new phaenomenon, and they haven't prevented inter-glacials in the past or present.
 
denialist grammar tyranny

The Atheist said:
The funny part is that you are achieving absolutely nothing. You haven't budged a single denier (I saw someone using the non-word "denialist" which did make me chuckle) from his or her position. You're essentially being played by trolls and think you're scoring points.
I'm not sure what kind of point you thought you were scoring by referring to "denialist" as a "non-word".

Your denial of that word's existence is contradicted by empirical evidence including dictionary entries and its frequent use in both serious and academic literature. "Denialism" was the one-word title of a scholarly article published in 2004 by the South Atlantic Quarterly, a journal founded in 1901 by Duke University Press. That same year, the journal Transformation published an article whose title was AIDS Discourses and the South African State: Government denialism and post-apartheid AIDS policy-making; here's an excerpt:

Mandisa Mbali said:
Early into Mbeki's presidency, in 2000, it became obvious that he and some key ministers had adopted denialist views....


In 2007, the Director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit at the University Cape Town came out with a book whose subtitle was AIDS Denialism and the Struggle for Antiretrovirals in South Africa. In 2009, a book published by Springer-Verlag began with a chapter titled "HIV/AIDS Denialism is Alive and Well".

Denialism, a book written by Michael Specter, was published that same year. According to its subtitle, that book tries to explain "how irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives." From a review of that book at the CDC web site:

Tara C Smith said:
Persons picking up this book may be surprised by the lack of discussion about some prominent topics of science denialism, including evolution and global warming. Likewise, Specter does not discuss HIV/AIDS denial, a topic he has covered previously....
The reviewer, a professor of epidemiology, had previously used the word "denialist" in her own research papers. She obviously regards denialism as a real thing and "denialist" as a legitimate adjective.

There are countless other books and articles that use the word. Your ignorance of that word is not a point to be scored in your favor.
 
Last edited:
There was no Hiatus.

There was no “Hiatus”
Most of the climate scientists I read and communicate with have been making this case since the idea of a “hiatus” was first discussed 5 years ago. It has taken this long, however, to gather enough published support for them to compellingly make the case that has been discussed and debated among the climate science community for at least the last half decade.
http://www.reportingclimatescience....revision-eradicates-global-warming-pause.html
The authors of the paper state that their results "do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature" in the twenty-first century.
Climate change sceptics have slammed the analysis, reported in a paper published in the journal Science Express, as an attempt to eliminate the so called pause in global warming that has been apparent in surface and satellite datasets for the last 15 years or so.
The authors, led by NOAA climate scientist Thomas Karl, state that they present "an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century".
Warming trend
The authors of the Science Express paper say their analysis demonstrates that there has been warming this century: "for 1998–2014, our new global trend is 0.106± 0.058°C dec−1, and for 2000–2014 it is 0.116± 0.067°C dec−1." They add: "This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century".
Read rest at link above.

Full text of paper: "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full
 
Last edited:
A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration.
Sorry, Haig, but articles on WUWT are rarely worthy of consideration given that WUWT allows ignorant people such as Monckton (who actually lies about climate science!) to write for them. You know this:
11th May 2015 Haig: 2. A lie by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.
11th May 2015 Haig: 3. The stupidity (from Monckton) of thinking that climate projections are straight lines.

This is an article by the ignorant Willis Eschenbach
Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science- although see Willis Eschenbach comment [at the bottom].
with a hint of Big Oil bias :eye-poppi !

The article itself is just Eschenbach musing and forgetting essential facts
* the climate record shows that it is not "inherently stable"! There have been things called Ice Ages. Geologic temperature record.
* climate is trends over decades, not days (that is weather!)
* a fantasy about an imaginary "albedo control" and thunderstorms.
Climate scientists know about albedo and its effects on climate: The albedo effect and global warming
The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years, satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend.
 
Last edited:
Understood.

A new article on the science of Climate Change that's worthy of consideration. Outstanding insight. Yet so simple. :)


An Inherently Stable System

I think a more appropriate word would be 'simplistic'. He has over simplified the climate and waved away one of the direct threats that scientists have been earning about. Those storms will be more frequent and devastating, exactly as predicted. The areas that were predicted to warm the most were the areas away from the tropics, which is exactly what is happening.
 
In which NOAA further reinforces the mythical nature of the "pause"

ETA: Trakar beat me to it!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10691661&postcount=8

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."



ABSTRACT

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The Atheist
The funny part is that you are achieving absolutely nothing. You haven't budged a single denier (

Wrong ...when I was going to leave this forum due to modding issues ( generally now corrected ) a couple of people asked me to stay as my posts had moved them from skeptical of AGW to convinced.
The evidence is very clear...has been for a long time.

At this point only the wilfully blind can deny AGW. This was a while back...

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

So you are wrong on that point. There are many lurkers here and on other forums. We don't expect to "convert" a hard core climate change denier at this point in time. If they are that wilfully blind....well you can't sure stupid.

You can tho constantly counter the well funded disinformation campaign from the likes of WUWT, Jo Nova etc ad nauseum so the casual reader understands there are not two scientific views on AGW,

There is only the scientific evidence which is overwhelming in confirming AGW and a political/obfuscation stance funded by the fossil fuel interests.
 
Last edited:
Tamino has been saying this for a while over on Open Mind. There hasn't been any statistical evidence to support even a slowdown, never mind a 'pause' or 'hiatus'.
That has been pointed out here as well. Even the graph Haig keeps posting with that flat horizontal line doesn't show a hiatus or a slowdown, it was cleverly manipulated data showing a reduction in the acceleration of warming. Instead of an accelerating warming rate, for a time the warming increased at a more linear steady rate. It's all increasing though, even taking temporary blips like that into account.
 

indeed, the enhanced uptake of moisture due to CO2 induced warming is partially offsetting some of the early effects of increased temperatures and the drift of wind patterns tied to the widening equatorial zone as the pole-ward compression of the Hadley cell circulations continues. Good news of a potential respite even if temporary and much reduced from historic norms.

What do climate scientists think about this study? following excerpts from:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...earch-on-climate-change-and-african-rainfall/

Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre -

The authors show new evidence for why rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa has recovered partially from the devastating drought of the 1970s and 80s and the resultant famine with increasing greenhouse gases behind much of the recovery.

However, this does not mean that continuing greenhouse gas emissions are good for Africa or elsewhere. Further emissions are projected to lead to substantial reductions in rainfall in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean region, but substantial increases in the frequency of downpours and floods worldwide.

Dr Matthew Watson, Reader in Natural Hazards at the University of Bristol,

It is an interesting paper that makes an important contribution to the thinking on climate change. However, it will be read by some as an opportunity to cast doubt on the negative impacts of climate change. This would be a mistake. Whilst there will be positives to climate change, almost all research suggests most will be short lived if we continue on our current path. The authors themselves are exceptionally careful when describing these results in context and cite the fact that what they have really shown is that these accidental improvements were not well understood and that we are already having profound influence on the climate system, particularly in the Sahel.

Prof. Doug Parker, Professor of Meteorology at the University of Leeds -

“This study re-emphasizes the sensitivity of the Sahelian climate to global change. But I would treat the results with great caution because we know that our global models have fundamental biases in their representation of rainfall and atmospheric circulation in this region – as in all the monsoon regions. In fact, the authors themselves note the caution which must be applied to interpreting these results."

"Yes, the rainfall has recovered somewhat from the droughts of the 70s and 80s; but there is also evidence of much more severe storms, causing big flooding events and crop damage. It’s a complicated story."

Prof. Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds -

This is an interesting study with a global-scale model, confirming that climate change will bring – and may already have caused – complex regional changes in rainfall. However, I would view their conclusions about the Sahel with extreme caution. Work done at Leeds has shown that better models which explicitly represent convection have very different patterns of rainfall change. In particular, such global models fail to capture the afternoon convective storms that are so important for rainfall in the region.

Additional reading from earlier paper looking at particulate contributions to Sahel issue: "Sensitivity of Twentieth-Century Sahel Rainfall to Sulfate Aerosol and CO2 Forcing"
full paper viewable at - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00019.1
 

Generally in a science DISCUSSION forum it's appropriate to comment on a paper and it's significance. Most dropped in like this means the poster doesn't understand it at all and its implications.

In your own words...what are the implications..hint some aerosols are anthro also and can be a primary driver....but of course you knew that. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Generally in a science DISCUSSION forum it's appropriate to comment on a paper and it's significance.

I can't add anything to the points in the article, but I'll note briefly that it's about increased rainfall in a previously arid area.

It gives the measured data on rainfall across northern Africa above the equator, showing that the warming climate has brought more rain to that reason, possibly on a permanent basis.

The reason for the significance is the size of the area - a huge belt of a million square km or so.
 
I can't add anything to the points in the article, but I'll note briefly that it's about increased rainfall in a previously arid area.

It gives the measured data on rainfall across northern Africa above the equator, showing that the warming climate has brought more rain to that reason, possibly on a permanent basis.

The reason for the significance is the size of the area - a huge belt of a million square km or so.


Do you know how big India is? :confused:
 
Perhaps you then understand that the tropics are expanding poleward.

What happens when the desert band moves poleward....

Water Shortages Turning Spain into the New Africa | Center ...
csis.org ›
May 30, 2015 ... Today the New York Times reported that parts of southeast Spain and other areas in Southern Europe are drying to the point ... The United Nations estimates that desertification resulting from climate change has the potential to .

http://csis.org/blog/water-shortages-turning-spain-new-africa

This is a nasty combination of land use/abuse and shifting climate bands.


Water stress and scarcity, however, is certainly not an issue unique to Spain. The United Nations estimates that desertification resulting from climate change has the potential to eventually force 135 million people off their land, primarily in developing countries. The NYT article states, “The battles of yesterday were fought over land... Those of the present center on oil.

But those of the future — a future made hotter and drier by climate change in much of the world — seem likely to focus on water.”

Shifting climate bands have enormouse implications, some positive others negative...most are negative.

It will be a long while before we reach a new radiative equlibrium and the world will be changed.

Better visit Venice....
 
There was no “Hiatus”
Most of the climate scientists I read and communicate with have been making this case since the idea of a “hiatus” was first discussed 5 years ago. It has taken this long, however, to gather enough published support for them to compellingly make the case that has been discussed and debated among the climate science community for at least the last half decade.
http://www.reportingclimatescience....revision-eradicates-global-warming-pause.html


Full text of paper: "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full


Not so fast Trakar :)

Climate alarmists are in a cat fight about the Pause / Hiatus :D

The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not
Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?
 
I can't add anything to the points in the article, but I'll note briefly that it's about increased rainfall in a previously arid area.

It gives the measured data on rainfall across northern Africa above the equator, showing that the warming climate has brought more rain to that reason, possibly on a permanent basis.

The reason for the significance is the size of the area - a huge belt of a million square km or so.

That is a peculiar reading of the study, seemingly at odds with what the abstract states as well as the review by working climate scientists as I presented initially in response to your link to the abstract.
Abstract - Sahelian summer rainfall, controlled by the West African monsoon, exhibited large-amplitude multidecadal variability during the twentieth century. Particularly important was the severe drought of the 1970s and 1980s, which had widespread impacts Research into the causes of this drought has identified anthropogenic aerosol forcing and changes in sea surface temperatures as the most important drivers. Since the 1980s, there has been some recovery of Sahel rainfall amounts, although not to the pre-drought levels of the 1940s and 1950s. Here we report on experiments with the atmospheric component of a state-of-the-art global climate model to identify the causes of this recovery. Our results suggest that the direct influence of higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was the main cause, with an additional role for changes in anthropogenic aerosol precursor emissions. We find that recent changes in SSTs, although substantial, did not have a significant impact on the recovery. The simulated response to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas and aerosol forcing is consistent with a multivariate fingerprint of the observed recovery, raising confidence in our findings. Although robust predictions are not yet possible, our results suggest that the recent recovery in Sahel rainfall amounts is most likely to be sustained or amplified in the near term.

Your statements also seem at odds with the lead researcher's statements regarding the study's findings:

"Scientists often study how greenhouse gas levels in the future will influence the climate. These findings show how even the greenhouse gases already emitted by humans, while only a fraction of those projected for the future, have nevertheless affected rainfall on a continental scale.

"This shows how climate change can hit specific countries and regions in a much more complicated way than the simple idea of ‘global warming' might suggest. In particular, we are beginning to discover how climate change is influencing rainfall patterns. What we are learning shows that human activity is already having a major impact."

Professor Sutton added: "These positive short-term impacts were accidental. No-one was trying to bring them about. Nevertheless, such major changes show that by continuing to emit greenhouse gases, we are seriously upsetting a natural system that we don't even fully understand, and this system is our home.

"Our new study shows that our activities are not just causing problems for future generations. They are causing major changes now.

"Continuing on the current path of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more serious and widespread impacts. I trust the governments meeting later this year in Paris will appreciate the gravity of this message."
excerpted from - http://www.reportingclimatescience....ch-co2-causing-recovery-of-sahelian-rain.html
 
In accordance with recent discussions...

Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes
E. M. Fischer & R. Knutti

Nature Climate Change 5, 560–564 (2015) doi:10.1038/nclimate2617 Received 27 November 2014 Accepted 18 March 2015 Published online 27 April 2015

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2617.html

Climate change includes not only changes in mean climate but also in weather extremes. For a few prominent heatwaves and heavy precipitation events a human contribution to their occurrence has been demonstrated1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here we apply a similar framework but estimate what fraction of all globally occurring heavy precipitation and hot extremes is attributable to warming. We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming. The approach introduced here is robust owing to its global perspective, less sensitive to model biases than alternative methods and informative for mitigation policy, and thereby complementary to single-event attribution. Combined with information on vulnerability and exposure, it serves as a scientific basis for assessment of global risk from extreme weather, the discussion of mitigation targets, and liability considerations.

Supplemntary Information - http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/fischeer/docs/fischer_knutti_2015_SI.pdf

Readable link for full primary study - http://www.readcube.com/articles/10...vLib0tAiZHdcW_IxxQuecv-iSaZQ1v-fhwmlbpXA6rY4=
 
Not so fast Trakar :)

Climate alarmists are in a cat fight about the Pause / Hiatus :D

Citing OT articles from hyperpartisan political blogs neither support nor confirm your off-topic assertions and pseudoscientific beliefs.
 
Citing OT articles from hyperpartisan political blogs neither support nor confirm your off-topic assertions and pseudoscientific beliefs.


Actually it's ON topic Trackar

"The problem is nobody can find a graph showing a positive correlation between increasing CO2 from the beginning of reliable measurements at Mauna Lua in 1958 and ANY temperature anomalies data set from that date up to now. None exists. So such cannot be shown for claiming that CO2 is responsible to temperature anomalies increase.
The best you can find is from 1959 to 1978 (or so) CO2 was increasing while temperature anomalies were decreasing.
Then from 1978 or so until 1998 or so, both CO2 and temperature anomalies were increasing, good correlation for this phase.
After this, the third phase (the pause, hiatus you name it) shows CO2 continuing to increase to this day while temperature anomalies, again pick your data set, are barely doing anything."
 
Actually it's ON topic Trackar

"The problem is nobody can find a graph showing a positive correlation between increasing CO2 from the beginning of reliable measurements at Mauna Lua in 1958 and ANY temperature anomalies data set from that date up to now. None exists.

You know you could have been sceptical enough to fact check this claim for yourself

picture.php
 
In order for there to be a straightforward correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, CO2 levels would need to be the only thing that affects global temperature. We know this isn't the case. It's the cause of the underlying warming trend of the last 150-odd years, but there are many other factors which will either amplify or obscure that trend over periods of a decade or two.

The cause of the underlying warming trend between January and July in the Northern Hemisphere is the earth's axial tilt, but there are other factors which either amplify or obscure that trend over periods of a week or two. By Haig's logic we should doubt that the winter to summer warming is due to the earth's axial tilt if March 15th happened to be no warmer than March 1st, because the correlation wasn't perfect for those two weeks.
 
Actually it's ON topic Trackar

"The problem is nobody can find a graph showing a positive correlation between increasing CO2 from the beginning of reliable measurements at Mauna Lua in 1958 and ANY temperature anomalies data set from that date up to now. None exists. So such cannot be shown for claiming that CO2 is responsible to temperature anomalies increase.
The best you can find is from 1959 to 1978 (or so) CO2 was increasing while temperature anomalies were decreasing.
Then from 1978 or so until 1998 or so, both CO2 and temperature anomalies were increasing, good correlation for this phase.
After this, the third phase (the pause, hiatus you name it) shows CO2 continuing to increase to this day while temperature anomalies, again pick your data set, are barely doing anything."

Provide links to legitimate journal published research that compellingly supports your assertions.
 

www.masterresource.org seriously?

Please properly cite and reference the journal published study by John Christy supporting that graph.

CO2 is not the only climate forcing agency, it has grown to be an important and currently dominant long-term forcing agency, but it isn't even the only GHG.

Oh and as to a published journal correlation between Temp and CO2, this one by the BEST research group seems to demonstrate a very tight correlation:

picture.php


http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
 
Last edited:
www.masterresource.org seriously?

Please properly cite and reference the journal published study by John Christy supporting that graph.

CO2 is not the only climate forcing agency, it has grown to be an important and currently dominant long-term forcing agency, but it isn't even the only GHG.


What about bit_pattern's source for his graph ?

Double standards ! :eek:

Text of Professor Christy's Testimony
With the evidence in these examples above, it is obviously difficult to establish the claims about worsening conditions due to human-caused climate change, or more generally that any change could be directly linked to increasing CO2. This point also relates to the issue of climate model capability noted earlier. It is clear that climate models fall short on some very basic issues of climate variability, being unable to reproduce “what” has happened regarding global temperature, and therefore not knowing “why” any of it happened. It is therefore premature to claim that one knows the causes for changes in various exotic measures of weather, such as rainfall intensity over short periods, which are not even explicitly generated in climate model output.
 
Last edited:
Got a source for that graph or did you make it up yourself ? ;)

If I thought for a second that a credible source would lead you to retract you claim and apologise for posting blatant lies the, believe me, I would go to the effort digging it up - as that will never happen, and because Trakar has already provided such a source and you have predictably dismissed it, I'm not going to waste my time.


Can you please explain which part of that graph you believe represents CO2 levels?
 
If I thought for a second that a credible source would lead you to retract you claim and apologise for posting blatant lies the, believe me, I would go to the effort digging it up - as that will never happen, and because Trakar has already provided such a source and you have predictably dismissed it, I'm not going to waste my time.


Then why should I waste my time ? But I will :p

First : Trakar edited his post with the graph "source" AFTER my last post ! So how could I have "already rejected it" ? as you say ?

Will you apologise for your mistake ?

Second : Actually I will reject it now that I see it. ;)

This source clearly isn't the sourse for YOUR graph. It just doesn't appear anywhere there and the graphs on Trakar's source are for land-surface temperature ( and we know what a fudge THAT data is! ) NOT Global temperature as your own graph states.


Can you please explain which part of that graph you believe represents CO2 levels?


The red line of course ! I would have thought that was obvious to ALL warmists who believe temperature follows Co2 :D

I thought it a bit ironic that Trakar (who doesn't believe in the Pause / Hiatus ) posts a link to a source that has (imho) some not too unfair and un-balanced views on the Pause / Hiatus :)

Global Warming Pause?
“The global warming crowd has a problem. For all of its warnings, and despite a steady escalation of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, the planet’s average surface temperature has remained pretty much the same for the last 15 years.”

“In this memo I give my personal perspective on the widely discussed slowing of global warming over the past decade.

“Global surface temperatures have warmed more slowly over the past decade than previously expected. The media has seized this warming pause in recent weeks, and the UK’s Met Office released a three-part series of white papers looking at the causes and implications. While there is still no definitive cause identified,


Nice one Trakar ;)
 
The red line of course ! I would have thought that was obvious to ALL warmists who believe temperature follows Co2 :D

You mean the line with the arrow pointing at it with the big red label clearly describing it as representing - and I quote - an "Average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 Climate Models"? That red line?

The mind boggles, it really does... :boggled:
 
Last edited:
You mean the line with the arrow pointing at it with the big red label clearly describing it as representing - and I quote - an "Average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 Climate Models"? That red line?

The mind boggles, it really does... :boggled:


You did see the smiley ! right ? :p
 
So we can assume whenever you use a smiley you are talking crap? That kind of works because you do use a lot of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom