0.7C is in the noise of natural variability, so it clearly is unprecedented and must be caused by man. There is no other possible explanation.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
Recent Comments
- Conrad Ziefle on The World’s Worst Scientists
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Francis Barnett on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Steve Cooksey on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- spren on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Jack the Insider on Doubling Energy Costs
- Conrad Ziefle on Doubling Energy Costs
- Disillusioned on Doubling Energy Costs
- Francis Barnett on Doubling Energy Costs
I hate to state the obvious……….but
If you just looked at that graph, CO2 causes cooling
Every time CO2 has gone up, temperatures have fallen
LOL. Now that’s the first time I’ve heard that plot interpreted in that manner! LMAO
Hey Agg!
Well it’s true…..
…look at what is happening right now
CO2 keep increasing, and the cooling effect from CO2 has stopped temperatures from going up as high as they historically have………….
Instead of going up to a peak over the 2 degree C line, CO2 went up and temperatures flat lined and then started down…………..
(I’m off my meds………..)
@Latitude. Can’t find the exact posts — I think this was in a lengthy comment — but E.M. Smith suggests exactly this. CO2 cools overall, rather than warms: chiefio.wordpress.com.
We need to be more empathetic with the femmed men and the women approaching both approaching middle age and who suffer menopausal hot flashes. They tend to be hyper-emotional and unable to cope with a .7C degree rise in temperature. The realization for their intolerance to additional heat was first made evident to me when my wife went through menopause and when I tried to raise the air conditioning in my house from 76F to 77F and my wife screamed, “Are you trying to kill me?” ;*)
that graph is bogus, nothing on this world happened before 1950.
Born only a few years after that, I second the motion.
How scientific. Measuring swings in temperature in one region of the world and comparing that to a statistical average. Brilliant.
That means that when temperatures increased to an average of 3 to 4C higher in the past than before, we’re supposed to ignore it because the SWINGS in temperature would have been greater than the difference in AVERAGE.
Yes, how astoundingly logical to treat swings as if they nullify the significance of an average. After all, swings are always greater than the average.
Now for an instructive example:
Junior: “Look Pa! It’s an AVERAGE of 5C higher this year than it was 100 years ago in 2011!
Pa: “Yes sonny but you forget that the SWINGS in temperature are 25C.”
swings are always greater than the average.
Is English perhaps not your first language? I know it’s not Latin, so I won’t bother trying that one. Ist Ihre Muttersprache Deutsch? Su lengua materna no es el Inglés, ¿si? ¿no?
“Is English perhaps not your first language? I know it’s not Latin, so I won’t bother trying that one. Ist Ihre Muttersprache Deutsch? Su lengua materna no es el Inglés, ¿si? ¿no?”
Si caramba! Soy Cubano.
Y cual es el codigo para “¿”? Y tambien la “enye”?
oh Jez, that ‘splains it………..
What are you talking about?
You have posted some crap in the past IWB but you have really excelled yourself this time.
Have you been taking lessons from Tony?
Steve never stated that Antarctica ice core data covers the world.
Just look at that graph.
There would seem to be some obvious ( if not obviously explainable )
Cyclic Patterns no ?
The current one looks only a bit different and was so before shoes were invented.
What cycle is that 110,000 year type deal ?
IS it accounted for in current theories, models, and predictions ?
I think Steve’s point is that .7 degrees of warming is not very significant when over the long term, there have been 12 degree changes of temperature due to natural causes. He is not comparing summer to winter. Even a science dummy like me can (hopefully) grasp that much.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Unless the Antarctic does a last minute spurt this is highly likely to be the first year on the graph where we have not got above zero!
The sea ice is not currently giving any aid to AGW skeptics.
ZZZZzzzz…
There are more points to cover but I’ll repeat the two I made in my last post.
1. You do not compare swings in temperatures with averages. The swings will always be greater than the average no matter what the rise in the average is. Example:
Junior: “Look Pa! Our temperatures in 2100 are 4C higher than in 2011.”
Pa: “Yes son, but the swings in temperature are 24C which is 6 times greater than the 4C increase in average since then.”
2. You do not compare figures from one region on Earth to other figures which apply to the entire Earth.
3. The temperature chart Steve posted definitely shows a close correlation between Carbon Dioxide on a scale of thousands of years but it cannot be expected to show a smooth, hyper-exact correlation on a decadal time frame.
There are too many variables that prevent that. One of them is thermal lag which would not be noticeable on a chart with low short term resolution.
4. There is a steep, straight up “Hockey Stick”, rise in C02 at the end of the chart. Because it is straight up in comparison to past increases and rises well above them as well. Temperature increase does not show up in the last few decades due to the poor resolution. Each graph line is approximately 270 years long and any temperature increase since then (coinciding with the start of the industrial revolution) would be hidden by the CO2 graph line.
5. When you look at a solar activity chart, superimposed on a temperature chart, you will notice that solar activity dropped temperatures by .2C since the mid 1980s. This includes a dramatic drop since 2002.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
The obvious implication of this is that whatever temperature rise or leveling off there was it was separate from the sun’s minor fluctuations.
If the sun’s activity is leveled off it would reveal a temperature rise higher than what the data sets indicate; since the mid 1980s and even more since 2002. Therefore, there has been no real leveling off in actual global warming since then. It’s simply been camouflaged by the drop in solar activity. This creates a somewhat artefactual reading on the temperature data sets.
The conclusion is that global warming has been underestimated due to the sun cooling off by a small amount.
WTF
“The conclusion is that global warming has been underestimated due to the sun cooling off by a small amount.”
NOW you want to count the Sun in. Cheaters.
IS it possible that the sun also got hotter than usual back when there were sunspots,
or does it only count when you say it counts ?
This chart “http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif” shows almost 0.4C increase in temp since 1981 (to be continued below due to second link) …
UAH shows 0.13C since 1981: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif
Skeptical Science has some explaining to do …
The conclusion is that global warming has been underestimated due to the sun cooling off by a small amount.
-or-
The conclusion is that global warming has been overestimated due to the sun previously being too warm
Ill, the problem with either argument is that we don’t know squat………
Sunsettomy: Steve never stated that Antarctica ice core data covers the world.”
Steve made a comparison between Anatarctic core data and the global increase of .7C.
What else can one conclude?
That you are a maroon?
That you’re scientifically illiterate? That you don’t understand the difference between an average, variability, & the historical temperature ranges?
I presume then Arctic melting is a local phenom. Not to be confused with global warming. For the latter you would have to look for a global ice columne average. IWB why do you hate polar bears?
It doesn’t make much difference here but note Antarctic temperature is not global temperature. Warming warming and cooling was very much reduced at low latitutes. Globally the picture was about 6C warming and cooling.
Even so I would say that halving of your estimate works in your favor. Because what I haven’t seen skeptics address is how they explain anything like 6C warming.
Considering that you guys think climate sensitivity is low, how do you propose a 6C warming can happen?
Explaining 6C warming from very weak orbital forcings is kinda easy if climate sensitivity is high. The 6C warming is then just basically a product of the weak orbital forcings and positive ice, CO2 and water vapor feedbacks.
But if you presume low climate sensitivity you are screwed to explain it. Take the idea that clouds increase if the Earth warms and reflect more sunlight for example. If that happened you’d need more “push” to get 6C. How much push? Well take a climate sensitivity of 0.25C/wm-2 (roughly 1C per doubling of CO2), to explain 6C warming you’d need a whopping 24wm-2 forcing. That’s something like a 10% increase in solar output. It’s massive.
That’s a 24wm-2 forcing that must be external to the climate, be correlated to the orbital forcing, and yet be much much much more powerful than the orbital forcing. And it’s so far undetected.
And you wonder why so many people accept high climate sensitivity? It’s not just models that suggest it, Earth’s history too.
I answers it by being hmmm-ble and not jumping on to scientific fairy tales.
I haven’t seen skeptics address is how they explain anything like 6C warming
Skeptics are under no particular onus to explain fairy tales.
Because what I haven’t seen skeptics address is how they explain anything like 6C warming.
=======================================================
That’s because it’s hard to say on one hand that this is all a load of BS….
…and then explain it using the same BS
It’s the true believers, drinking the koolaid, that want someone explained that
can’t be explained.
P.J. says:
July 1, 2011 at 12:58 am
UAH shows 0.13C since 1981: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif
PJ, I hope that you don’t suffer from severe astigmatism. UAH shows a .4C increase. Look again. A ruler comes in handy.
I also hope that this solar activity/temperature chart is more to your liking.
http://solar-center [dot] stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
I wish we could post images.
P.J. says:
July 1, 2011 at 12:58 am
UAH shows 0.13C since 1981: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif
PJ, I hope that you don’t suffer from severe astigmatism. UAH shows a .4C increase. Look again. A ruler comes in handy.
I also hope that this solar activity/temperature chart is more to your liking.
h t t p: //solar-center [dot] stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
I wish we could post images.
IWB says: “P.J. says:
July 1, 2011 at 12:58 am
UAH shows 0.13C since 1981: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif”
Look at the above, 3rd line … it says that I said 1981. Now look at the chart again. The base line is 1981. You took the 0.4C from 1979. If you look at the end of the chart, it says +0.13C, which is from the 1981 baseline. Even if you take the end of the red curve, it is 0.24C above 1981, which is much less than 0.4C.
Roy Spencer used to have a lower baseline before January 2011. When he changed it he stated that baselines where rather arbitrary.
Did you check the link I posted from Stanford Solar Center? What does the increase from 1979-2011 look like?
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
And here:
h t t p ://woodfortrees. org/plot/uah/mean:1/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2011/trend
Furthermore, we’ve strayed from the issue of solar irradiance bumping temperatures up and down relative to the trend. When solar irradiance is adjusted to filter out the effects of its decline since the late* 1980s, you get higher values for the temperature data.
Also, those higher values will show a progressive, year by year increase instead of the “staircase” type of jump that we’ve had twice already since the late 1970s.
Simple conclusion. The lowering in solar activity in the has depressed the warming trend.
* Correction from my former post. I said mid 1980s. It should have said late 1980s based on the Stanford chart.
Another correction. I forgot about your having said 1981.
I replotted it on Wood for Trees.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:1/plot/wti/from:1981/to:2011/trend
IWB says: “Did you check the link I posted from Stanford Solar Center? What does the increase from 1979-2011 look like?
I hate to break it to you, but the chart doesn’t go until 2011. I used a RULER and based on the fact that each 20 year increment is 1.5 cm, the last increment is only 0.5 cm, or 1/3 of 20 years or 6.67 years, thereby putting the end of the chart at 2006.67 (ie: not 2011). Also, the trend lines end around 2002 (used a ruler for that too).
IWB says, “Furthermore, we’ve strayed from the issue of solar irradiance ”
We sure have. Solar activity started declining around 2002, hitting a minimum around 2009. So, going back to “wood for trees”, if you plot UAH or GIS for 2002 to 2009, it is essentially flat (very slight increase):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2009/plot/uah/from:2002/trend
The slight increase is probably due to the thernal lag of the oceans, which you yourself have mentioned on this site before. But wait … it gets better (see next post to avoid moderation hell) …
Part 2: If you plot the same time frame (2002-2009) using HADCRUT (global adjusted or unadjusted), RSS, or WoodForTrees, you get … cooling! Oh dear!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend