| So temperatures not rising then 11:08 - Jan 3 with 19349 views | CountyJim |
2010-2019 wasn't as warm as the previous decade
Rather rubbishes global warming theories then that its getting hotter [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 11:08]
|  | | |  |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:19 - Jan 7 with 1394 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Damn, this global warming is terrible stuff.
https://www.indiatoday.in/indi
Where is Greta's outrage, where are the world headlines? [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 12:23]
|  | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:50 - Jan 7 with 1364 views | Humpty |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:19 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
Damn, this global warming is terrible stuff.
https://www.indiatoday.in/indi
Where is Greta's outrage, where are the world headlines? [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 12:23]
|
What's that got to to do with global warming?
Nobody said it would never be cold again, anywhere.
Using dead kids to make a childish point. Lovely. You should be shamed of yourself. |  | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 13:08 - Jan 7 with 1339 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:50 - Jan 7 by Humpty |
What's that got to to do with global warming?
Nobody said it would never be cold again, anywhere.
Using dead kids to make a childish point. Lovely. You should be shamed of yourself. |
Using dead people in Australia in every newspaper and TV station to push global warming is OK then.
What killed those kids in India is not enough fossil fueled heating.
Which warmists are trying to prevent them and every other developing country from having.
They are the ones who should be ashamed. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 14:57 - Jan 7 with 1311 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:05 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
For the sake of continung the discussion I will accept your statement that Emperical evidence proves CO2 causes warming in the Atmosphere, but there is also emperical evidence that CO2 cools the atmosphere.
But I would prefer it if you actually showed me that evidence.
So the height that CO2 is active (ie not completely overwhelmed by H2O is in the upper troposphere where the temperature is -50C.
Now I would like you to look at the Woodfortrees graph of Hadrut4 Global Temperatures.
here -
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl
They are a completely independent data service that will graph data from many sources.
You will note that up until the 1997/8 El Nino there was little in the way of increased temperature, then between 1997 and the 2016 El Nino there was also very little increase, that period was recognised as the "pause".
Since the 2016 spike the temperature has dropped 0.5C in 4 years.
Now the El Nino based steps are recognised by all Climate Scientists.
Can you explain how a warmer Upper Troposphere at -50C caused the El Ninos please?
Can you show me the peer reviewed science paper that explains it?
Now I would like you to look at this graph -
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl
Now compare the period between 1997/8 to 2015 with the Hadcrut 4 version.
Notice anything?
Now compare the to the Hadcrut 3 Unadjusted Global temperatures here
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl
and compare that to the other 2.
Notice anything? |
You do realise El nino and Climate Change are seperate issues don't you? | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 16:38 - Jan 7 with 1281 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 14:57 - Jan 7 by Scotia |
You do realise El nino and Climate Change are seperate issues don't you? |
THat is the whole point of my post and I am glad that you have acknowledged it.
So the increase in current temperatures was basically down to the 2 El Nino events of 1997/8 and 2016, although there were quite a few others between the cold period of 1975 and now.
Which has you have just said are not Climate Change, so how much was due to Climate Change?
THe next question is where did the energy for those El Ninos come from when it is not Climate Change.
I notice you did not bother to answer any of the questions on the Hadcrut graph, why was that?
Are you aware of the Inidian Ocean Dipole, which is also not Climate Change?
You know that IOD that controls the Droughts in Australia. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:27 - Jan 7 with 1263 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 16:38 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
THat is the whole point of my post and I am glad that you have acknowledged it.
So the increase in current temperatures was basically down to the 2 El Nino events of 1997/8 and 2016, although there were quite a few others between the cold period of 1975 and now.
Which has you have just said are not Climate Change, so how much was due to Climate Change?
THe next question is where did the energy for those El Ninos come from when it is not Climate Change.
I notice you did not bother to answer any of the questions on the Hadcrut graph, why was that?
Are you aware of the Inidian Ocean Dipole, which is also not Climate Change?
You know that IOD that controls the Droughts in Australia. |
El nino and la nina are individual weather influencing events caused by ocean temperature, they've been happening since the oceans were formed as they currently are. As I understand the jury is out on if climate change is eccacerbating them.
So two el nino events of 97 and 2016 have exclusively caused temperatures to rise but the others in between those dates didn't? Even though the decade in between saw warmer temperatures than the 10 - 20 decade, apparently.
Conversely how about la nina? Surely we'd see the opposite effect of periodic cooling? Or are these and other natural cooling spells something that you are planning on using to suggest climate change isn't happening even though they are completely unrelated.
Not overtly aware of how the IOP erforms, I'm not googling this is from my head. It is however likely to influence weather, but not climate. As I said it is too early to conclusively attribute the ozzie fires to climate change.
I haven't commented because I don't understand what point you are trying to make and was in work, from a brief look they appear to show a warming anomaly.
Are you saying that warming spells are due to el nino and not climate change? [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 18:26]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:56 - Jan 7 with 1236 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:27 - Jan 7 by Scotia |
El nino and la nina are individual weather influencing events caused by ocean temperature, they've been happening since the oceans were formed as they currently are. As I understand the jury is out on if climate change is eccacerbating them.
So two el nino events of 97 and 2016 have exclusively caused temperatures to rise but the others in between those dates didn't? Even though the decade in between saw warmer temperatures than the 10 - 20 decade, apparently.
Conversely how about la nina? Surely we'd see the opposite effect of periodic cooling? Or are these and other natural cooling spells something that you are planning on using to suggest climate change isn't happening even though they are completely unrelated.
Not overtly aware of how the IOP erforms, I'm not googling this is from my head. It is however likely to influence weather, but not climate. As I said it is too early to conclusively attribute the ozzie fires to climate change.
I haven't commented because I don't understand what point you are trying to make and was in work, from a brief look they appear to show a warming anomaly.
Are you saying that warming spells are due to el nino and not climate change? [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 18:26]
|
No, I was not saying that the other El Nino did not have an effect, just not as great, because they were not as strong.
And yes La Ninas can cause cooling.
Basically those 2 El Ninos injected a massive amount of Energy in to the Atmosphere. But not the drop of 0.5C in 4 years since the 2016 one as there was a drop of 0.3C after 1998.
As to the 3 Graphs they are different.
The data has been changed, officially for the Unadjusted to Adjusted Hadcrut3.
But Hadcrut4 does not match Hadcrut 3 year for year, particularly the 2007 El Nino, the changes are not as drastic as those made to GISS.
Yes I am saying that the majority of the warming spells, which are Steps in temperature are used to create a straight line warming Trend that is not down to Climate Change, because you have agreed that they are not climate change.
There is obviously an underlying Climate Change based trend since the LIA, but the steps cannot be caused by monotonic increases in CO2.
ps the IOD is probably the strongest ever, well since they have been measuring it. [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 19:17]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 20:35 - Jan 7 with 1205 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:56 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
No, I was not saying that the other El Nino did not have an effect, just not as great, because they were not as strong.
And yes La Ninas can cause cooling.
Basically those 2 El Ninos injected a massive amount of Energy in to the Atmosphere. But not the drop of 0.5C in 4 years since the 2016 one as there was a drop of 0.3C after 1998.
As to the 3 Graphs they are different.
The data has been changed, officially for the Unadjusted to Adjusted Hadcrut3.
But Hadcrut4 does not match Hadcrut 3 year for year, particularly the 2007 El Nino, the changes are not as drastic as those made to GISS.
Yes I am saying that the majority of the warming spells, which are Steps in temperature are used to create a straight line warming Trend that is not down to Climate Change, because you have agreed that they are not climate change.
There is obviously an underlying Climate Change based trend since the LIA, but the steps cannot be caused by monotonic increases in CO2.
ps the IOD is probably the strongest ever, well since they have been measuring it. [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 19:17]
|
Can you tell me why the same relationship isn't seen for the 1983 el nino event then which was the second most powerful event on record. More powerful than 1998 which you claim is being used to skew the graph.
Also 70% of the strongest el ninos occurred prior to 1983, but once again don't fit the pattern you suggest. They do show a peak in warming but not a long lasting shift, which is exactly what you would expect from a weather rather than a climatic event.
Those graphs are showing natural climatic variation within a clearly warming climate.
The warming anomaly is absolutely clear from that and all other graphs, outliers don't need to skew the line of best fit. It is obvious. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| So temperatures not rising then on 21:23 - Jan 7 with 1184 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 20:35 - Jan 7 by Scotia |
Can you tell me why the same relationship isn't seen for the 1983 el nino event then which was the second most powerful event on record. More powerful than 1998 which you claim is being used to skew the graph.
Also 70% of the strongest el ninos occurred prior to 1983, but once again don't fit the pattern you suggest. They do show a peak in warming but not a long lasting shift, which is exactly what you would expect from a weather rather than a climatic event.
Those graphs are showing natural climatic variation within a clearly warming climate.
The warming anomaly is absolutely clear from that and all other graphs, outliers don't need to skew the line of best fit. It is obvious. |
Sorry 1983 was not as high as either 97 or 2015.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/elni
Simple it does not only depend on the El Nino, it also depends on the phase of the AMO, when AMO is declining in the negative phase El Ninos have much less effect than when it is increasing in the positive phase. But the AMO is a much longer 60 year cycle.
Take a look at where the 1983 EN occurred in the AMO cycle, then look at where 97/8 and 2016 occurred in the cycle.
Then of course it was also confounded by the PDO cycle which is also about 60 years, but offset from the AMO.
The PDO also switched to an increasing mode in the great Pacific Climate shift in the early 80s, possibly boosted by the 82/3 El Nino and continued up to about 2010.
So for the late 20th century warming period you had both Oceans in positive mode.
You also have the IOD and the SOM all adding their bit to the chaos.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.
You see I do understand a bit of science.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/ima [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 21:36]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 21:52 - Jan 7 with 1167 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 21:23 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
Sorry 1983 was not as high as either 97 or 2015.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/elni
Simple it does not only depend on the El Nino, it also depends on the phase of the AMO, when AMO is declining in the negative phase El Ninos have much less effect than when it is increasing in the positive phase. But the AMO is a much longer 60 year cycle.
Take a look at where the 1983 EN occurred in the AMO cycle, then look at where 97/8 and 2016 occurred in the cycle.
Then of course it was also confounded by the PDO cycle which is also about 60 years, but offset from the AMO.
The PDO also switched to an increasing mode in the great Pacific Climate shift in the early 80s, possibly boosted by the 82/3 El Nino and continued up to about 2010.
So for the late 20th century warming period you had both Oceans in positive mode.
You also have the IOD and the SOM all adding their bit to the chaos.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.
You see I do understand a bit of science.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/ima [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 21:36]
|
Depending on what measure you use there isn't a huge amount in it, nevertheless it was still massive and when all aspects are considered the second largest on record. The other events I mention are also massive , but do not appear in your graph. But is it el nino at all? You seem to have changed your mind now and that is just part of the cause. I wonder why you didn't mention it earlier?
Sorry I don't believe that coincidentally over the last 10000 years those circumstances have only occurred twice in the last 20 years.
Anyway your fundamental point is that they are skewing the trend line, and they aren't. Increasing temperature is clearly being represented.
Google is a wonderful thing, but as I've said previously, concern yourself with the basics first. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:11 - Jan 7 with 1157 views | Scotia |
I've just checked on the graphs in the papers you have linked. Three of the ten strongest el nino appear to have happened in similar circumstances to those you mention but it isn't replicated on the temperature graph.
Anyway, probably to many peoples relief I'm getting a little bored of this now. We clearly aren't getting anywhere. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:35 - Jan 7 with 1137 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:11 - Jan 7 by Scotia |
I've just checked on the graphs in the papers you have linked. Three of the ten strongest el nino appear to have happened in similar circumstances to those you mention but it isn't replicated on the temperature graph.
Anyway, probably to many peoples relief I'm getting a little bored of this now. We clearly aren't getting anywhere. |
You can lead a horse to the water, which is what I was doing with the El Ninos.
I explained why they did not have the same effect and you choose to ignore it.
Have you considered how much energy is released when Ocean Temperatures rise by 0.8C compared to raisng Air to 0.8C?
You want to ignore the absolutely massive effects of a combined ascending PDO & AMO and would rather believe that CO2, 0.04% of the atmosphere can control the temperatures.
Like I have said before you have a closed mind.
And to think I didn't even get in to the Cloud cover and Temperature adjustments (which you totally ignored) making their contributions.
Still it was fun while it lasted, thanks for lasting so long, you have done better than anybody else. [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 7:31]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 07:30 - Jan 8 with 1100 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:35 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
You can lead a horse to the water, which is what I was doing with the El Ninos.
I explained why they did not have the same effect and you choose to ignore it.
Have you considered how much energy is released when Ocean Temperatures rise by 0.8C compared to raisng Air to 0.8C?
You want to ignore the absolutely massive effects of a combined ascending PDO & AMO and would rather believe that CO2, 0.04% of the atmosphere can control the temperatures.
Like I have said before you have a closed mind.
And to think I didn't even get in to the Cloud cover and Temperature adjustments (which you totally ignored) making their contributions.
Still it was fun while it lasted, thanks for lasting so long, you have done better than anybody else. [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 7:31]
|
As I said concentrate on the basics you have ignore. The fundamental point you made when you were solely referring to El Nino was that the warming trend shown in the graph was skewed and it isn't. The el ninos you mentioned were strong but other strong el ninos have not displayed the same, even with other conditions being the same. Such climatic events have been happening for 10000 years, but only the last 20 years fit your argument. Which is what I said and you haven't acknowledged. I haven't had to Google it, its clear.
Ocean oscillations are internl processes they do not increase or decrease available energy within the system. They move it between the ocean and the atmosphere, and believe it or not back again. They have done for thousands of years but you only seem to recognise the last twenty.
I don't believe Co2 is the only contributory factor to climate change, it is making a contribution . As are natural and most importantly anthropogenic factors, as these are artificially imbalancing the climatic system.
However the final point I'd like to make is that through 8 pages you have only mentioned Co2 as an anthropogenic factor in climate change. You haven't produced a shred of evidence to dispel that, your attempts to were farcical. You just seem to have introduced a lot of unrelated "noise" such as El Nino and Indian children dying because of a lack of basic hospital facilities.
So how about nitrous oxide and methane, two greenhouse gases more powerful than Co2, which we are also emitting loads of and you have ignored.
Anyway, just to prove how open minded you are, why don't you acknowledge that you may be wrong and support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for now. What's the worst that can happen? Surely that's a better place to be than looking back in 50 years time and thinking, I was wrong, I wish I'd done more as by then it will be too late. If you made changes for nothing at least you'll be proven correct. [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 9:05]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 09:56 - Jan 8 with 1068 views | Catullus |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:56 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
No, I was not saying that the other El Nino did not have an effect, just not as great, because they were not as strong.
And yes La Ninas can cause cooling.
Basically those 2 El Ninos injected a massive amount of Energy in to the Atmosphere. But not the drop of 0.5C in 4 years since the 2016 one as there was a drop of 0.3C after 1998.
As to the 3 Graphs they are different.
The data has been changed, officially for the Unadjusted to Adjusted Hadcrut3.
But Hadcrut4 does not match Hadcrut 3 year for year, particularly the 2007 El Nino, the changes are not as drastic as those made to GISS.
Yes I am saying that the majority of the warming spells, which are Steps in temperature are used to create a straight line warming Trend that is not down to Climate Change, because you have agreed that they are not climate change.
There is obviously an underlying Climate Change based trend since the LIA, but the steps cannot be caused by monotonic increases in CO2.
ps the IOD is probably the strongest ever, well since they have been measuring it. [Post edited 7 Jan 2020 19:17]
|
There is a line in there which makes me a sceptic about all data. The part where it's changed, or as scientists call it, adjusted.
The data IS the data. Once scientists start adjusting it then what is it but a scientists version of what happened. It goes down in the record books and in the future is used as reliable data but what if these adjustments are wildly wrong, even just skewed a bit. It's guess work, they adjust the data to fit whatever point they are trying to prove. | |
| |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:02 - Jan 8 with 1056 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 07:30 - Jan 8 by Scotia |
As I said concentrate on the basics you have ignore. The fundamental point you made when you were solely referring to El Nino was that the warming trend shown in the graph was skewed and it isn't. The el ninos you mentioned were strong but other strong el ninos have not displayed the same, even with other conditions being the same. Such climatic events have been happening for 10000 years, but only the last 20 years fit your argument. Which is what I said and you haven't acknowledged. I haven't had to Google it, its clear.
Ocean oscillations are internl processes they do not increase or decrease available energy within the system. They move it between the ocean and the atmosphere, and believe it or not back again. They have done for thousands of years but you only seem to recognise the last twenty.
I don't believe Co2 is the only contributory factor to climate change, it is making a contribution . As are natural and most importantly anthropogenic factors, as these are artificially imbalancing the climatic system.
However the final point I'd like to make is that through 8 pages you have only mentioned Co2 as an anthropogenic factor in climate change. You haven't produced a shred of evidence to dispel that, your attempts to were farcical. You just seem to have introduced a lot of unrelated "noise" such as El Nino and Indian children dying because of a lack of basic hospital facilities.
So how about nitrous oxide and methane, two greenhouse gases more powerful than Co2, which we are also emitting loads of and you have ignored.
Anyway, just to prove how open minded you are, why don't you acknowledge that you may be wrong and support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for now. What's the worst that can happen? Surely that's a better place to be than looking back in 50 years time and thinking, I was wrong, I wish I'd done more as by then it will be too late. If you made changes for nothing at least you'll be proven correct. [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 9:05]
|
The last 30 years fit the profile, why can't you see the difference between the decline & bottom of 2 negative Ocean shifts compared to the increase & peak of 2 positive Ocean sfifts.
When descending and at the bootom El Ninos can only slow the cooling.
When going positive El Ninos boost the warming.
I just don't see what is so hard to understand about it.
You also said
"Ocean oscillations are internl processes they do not increase or decrease available energy within the system."
Of course they don't increase the available enrgy, they take it from long term storage in the Ocean and put it into the atmosphere and on out to space.
However the Atmosphere cannot warm the Oceans to any significant amount, it is not physically possible. The amount of energy (specific heat) stored in the Atmosphereis only a 1/4 of the amount compared to water and water is over 700 times denser than air and therefore has more mass.
On top of that any increase in the SST at the air/water boundary causes increased evaporation which increases cooling of the surface.
You ask why I do not talk about GHGs other than CO2, the answer is due to the fact that their percentages of the atmosphere are much lower than CO2.
For a start the emissions of them are much lower than CO2.
CO2 - 76%
Methane - 16%
Nitrous Oxide - 6%
Atmospheric GHGs percentages
Water Vapour - 30,000ppm
CO2 - 413ppm
Methane - 1.87ppm
Nitrous Oxide - negligible.
The second largest human emitted GHG is Methane and yet that is still much lower than the Methane emitted by Termites, let alone the rest of nature.
You consider my attempts to explain why I do not belive that CO2 is any kind of forcing for climate is met by the term farcical.
Like I said thanks for the discussion it has been fun finding out just how little you appear to know about how climate change actually works.
Shame we didn't get around to back radiation, Photon mean path lengths, Power of White Light & UV Radiation compared to CO2 LWIR.
But with your fixation on CO2 & Methane there is no point in continuing.
Last but not least we have the appeal to the "precautionary principle" with "What's the worst that can happen?".
Well the worst that can happen is the waste of about $1.2Trillion per year which could be used to improve the living conditions of about 2 billion people who have no electricity, fresh water, medicine and still cook with dung and experience real atmospheric pollution.
It could also be used to actually improve real pollution.
But the fact that you would rather waste it on something that will have absolutely no effect on the the climate or any of those problems says it all for me. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:10 - Jan 8 with 1052 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 09:56 - Jan 8 by Catullus |
There is a line in there which makes me a sceptic about all data. The part where it's changed, or as scientists call it, adjusted.
The data IS the data. Once scientists start adjusting it then what is it but a scientists version of what happened. It goes down in the record books and in the future is used as reliable data but what if these adjustments are wildly wrong, even just skewed a bit. It's guess work, they adjust the data to fit whatever point they are trying to prove. |
That is the big problem, many people use that data in their Science studies.
The data is not real, therebody falsifying any results of their studies.
Making their life works worthless and even possibly dangerous.
BEST Temperature "Output" data is how the think it should have been based on modelling.
GISS data is changed to bring it's trend in line with the Keeling curve.
Just as Mann removed all the previous warming periods in his infamous "Hockey Stick".
Australian BOM data has been shown to restrict the reporting of low temperatures and use 1 second spikes as valid high tempertaures in complete contradiction to the World Meteological Organisation's guide lines. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:13 - Jan 8 with 1053 views | LeonWasGod |
| So temperatures not rising then on 13:08 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
Using dead people in Australia in every newspaper and TV station to push global warming is OK then.
What killed those kids in India is not enough fossil fueled heating.
Which warmists are trying to prevent them and every other developing country from having.
They are the ones who should be ashamed. |
That doesn't even remotely reflect the situation at that hospital. The article points out that they had the budget for the warmers but it hadn't been spent and other equipment hadn't been maintained or replaced. Noboody is trying to prevent people having heating.
Pretty desperate stuff this - it's like a cult. |  | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:41 - Jan 8 with 1039 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:13 - Jan 8 by LeonWasGod |
That doesn't even remotely reflect the situation at that hospital. The article points out that they had the budget for the warmers but it hadn't been spent and other equipment hadn't been maintained or replaced. Noboody is trying to prevent people having heating.
Pretty desperate stuff this - it's like a cult. |
You are correct that I should not have used that as an example of lack of cheap heating & electricity.
I appologise.
It still stands that nobody is talking about it, or excess cold deaths, whereas they all jumped on the climate bandwagon over Australian bush fires when it is not the reason for the quantity or the severity of those fires. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:09 - Jan 8 with 992 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:02 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
The last 30 years fit the profile, why can't you see the difference between the decline & bottom of 2 negative Ocean shifts compared to the increase & peak of 2 positive Ocean sfifts.
When descending and at the bootom El Ninos can only slow the cooling.
When going positive El Ninos boost the warming.
I just don't see what is so hard to understand about it.
You also said
"Ocean oscillations are internl processes they do not increase or decrease available energy within the system."
Of course they don't increase the available enrgy, they take it from long term storage in the Ocean and put it into the atmosphere and on out to space.
However the Atmosphere cannot warm the Oceans to any significant amount, it is not physically possible. The amount of energy (specific heat) stored in the Atmosphereis only a 1/4 of the amount compared to water and water is over 700 times denser than air and therefore has more mass.
On top of that any increase in the SST at the air/water boundary causes increased evaporation which increases cooling of the surface.
You ask why I do not talk about GHGs other than CO2, the answer is due to the fact that their percentages of the atmosphere are much lower than CO2.
For a start the emissions of them are much lower than CO2.
CO2 - 76%
Methane - 16%
Nitrous Oxide - 6%
Atmospheric GHGs percentages
Water Vapour - 30,000ppm
CO2 - 413ppm
Methane - 1.87ppm
Nitrous Oxide - negligible.
The second largest human emitted GHG is Methane and yet that is still much lower than the Methane emitted by Termites, let alone the rest of nature.
You consider my attempts to explain why I do not belive that CO2 is any kind of forcing for climate is met by the term farcical.
Like I said thanks for the discussion it has been fun finding out just how little you appear to know about how climate change actually works.
Shame we didn't get around to back radiation, Photon mean path lengths, Power of White Light & UV Radiation compared to CO2 LWIR.
But with your fixation on CO2 & Methane there is no point in continuing.
Last but not least we have the appeal to the "precautionary principle" with "What's the worst that can happen?".
Well the worst that can happen is the waste of about $1.2Trillion per year which could be used to improve the living conditions of about 2 billion people who have no electricity, fresh water, medicine and still cook with dung and experience real atmospheric pollution.
It could also be used to actually improve real pollution.
But the fact that you would rather waste it on something that will have absolutely no effect on the the climate or any of those problems says it all for me. |
Apologies from looking at the small scale graph on my phone I estimated it to be 20. It is as you say 30, meaning is only approx 9970 years or 99.7% of the time that the profile doesn't fit.
Sorry I don't see where you are getting your ocean current / climate change (permanent) relationship from, it isn't there. At least as you agree for 99.7% of the time it isn't anyway
I'm fully aware that emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are small compared to co2 however they are far more potent greenhouse gasses. Methane approximately 40 times and No2 nearly 300 times. That is enough to be seriously considered.
Sorry I don't believe the termite quote, and even if it were true termites often exploit deforested areas. Providing a clear link to anthropogenic climate change. As at present you seem to be lumping natural termite methane in with human emissions, you can't have it both ways it's either having an impact or not. We can't do much to control natural contributions like wildlife and volcanic eruptions. The same goes for water vapour we see enough of that in Wales.
I'd call a paper published within two months of being received and a paper acknowledged by the authors as not relating to climate change as your attempt to disprove nearly 200 years of peer reviewed science as farcical. Not forgotting Mr Watts.
Nice attempt at belittling me, it means a lot. I'm not going to embark on a debate about radiation etc, I don't know enough about it. I'm writing this from personal knowledge, I'm not scouring the Web. I'll be honest I don't think I need to, my point of anthropogenic climate change is clearly valid despite you throwing nonsense at it.
Here's an idea, why don't the fossil fuel companies spend some of their profits on the world's poorest people instead of exploiting them in so many areas? Are they trying to make us much money before the reality of climate change bites. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:52 - Jan 8 with 971 views | Catullus |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:10 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
That is the big problem, many people use that data in their Science studies.
The data is not real, therebody falsifying any results of their studies.
Making their life works worthless and even possibly dangerous.
BEST Temperature "Output" data is how the think it should have been based on modelling.
GISS data is changed to bring it's trend in line with the Keeling curve.
Just as Mann removed all the previous warming periods in his infamous "Hockey Stick".
Australian BOM data has been shown to restrict the reporting of low temperatures and use 1 second spikes as valid high tempertaures in complete contradiction to the World Meteological Organisation's guide lines. |
Adjusting data is everywhere too, including the polls, we (well usually around 1000 people) are asked a question then the data is weighted to take into account....something...and the results put out as fact. It's all nonsense and the reason why so many people don't trust experts. | |
| |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:53 - Jan 8 with 971 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Scotia, why did you lie about El Ninos and Global Temperature spikes?
For every El Nino Spike there is a following Temperature spike.
The only time a major increase in temperature has been maintained is when there are multiple Enso spikes following the major one or very shallow la ninas.
If there are deep la ninas instead the Temperature either falls back or declines.
I have put the two charts HADCRUT4 from 1950 to 2020 and Enso 1950 to 2020 one above the other and it is obvious.
Was it deliberate or did you just not bother to look closely enough because it was data that I presented?
It is unfortunate that this site does not allow attachments.
However there is a much more in depth paper on it here
https://www.researchgate.net/p [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 15:55]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:12 - Jan 8 with 948 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:53 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
Scotia, why did you lie about El Ninos and Global Temperature spikes?
For every El Nino Spike there is a following Temperature spike.
The only time a major increase in temperature has been maintained is when there are multiple Enso spikes following the major one or very shallow la ninas.
If there are deep la ninas instead the Temperature either falls back or declines.
I have put the two charts HADCRUT4 from 1950 to 2020 and Enso 1950 to 2020 one above the other and it is obvious.
Was it deliberate or did you just not bother to look closely enough because it was data that I presented?
It is unfortunate that this site does not allow attachments.
However there is a much more in depth paper on it here
https://www.researchgate.net/p [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 15:55]
|
A spike is not a long term trend, the long term trend is clear. It is a short term climatic change.
Any oceanic oscillation or current cannot generate heat that is an absolute law of science it just moves it temporarily. El nino, la nina, PDO or the NAO do not cause climate change. Unless that absolute law is wrong. [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 17:13]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:40 - Jan 8 with 932 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:12 - Jan 8 by Scotia |
A spike is not a long term trend, the long term trend is clear. It is a short term climatic change.
Any oceanic oscillation or current cannot generate heat that is an absolute law of science it just moves it temporarily. El nino, la nina, PDO or the NAO do not cause climate change. Unless that absolute law is wrong. [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 17:13]
|
You still lied.
You do not have to generate heat to cause Climate Change, have you never heard of it getting colder, oh I forgot you only believe in global warming which is not the whole of climate change?
Of course they do not generate heat, but they do release long stored Solar Energy in to the atmosphere which warms it and the land.
Heat Transfer is different to heat generation, the heat capacity of the oceans is massive compared to the atmosphere which is not only less dense, with a lower specific heat it is also radiates directly to space.
Where do you think the energy of the El Nino comes from that can warm the world by a whole degree C for a year.
I pointed to the Scientific paper that lays it out.
Perhaps you would like to go and argue with those scientists instead of me and tell them it can't possibly happen.
CO2 also does not generate any heat so what is your expalantion for that? [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 17:57]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:49 - Jan 8 with 907 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:52 - Jan 8 by Catullus |
Adjusting data is everywhere too, including the polls, we (well usually around 1000 people) are asked a question then the data is weighted to take into account....something...and the results put out as fact. It's all nonsense and the reason why so many people don't trust experts. |
Not only changing the data, but now they are changing the rules.
They say that they can show any single day is a signal of Climate Change.
So we no longer have to wait 30 years or whatever other period they decide on when we were talking about the pause.
https://www.nature.com/article [Post edited 8 Jan 2020 19:15]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.