2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

In the science method the strength of the data has no relationship to its purveyor. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a common logical fallacy engaged in by the feeble-minded.

 

Do you think the CO2 molecule is going to suddenly stop capturing 15 μm photons or something? Why would the warming trend not continue?

 

Then remind me...how well have Fred Singer's predictions of the global mean surface temperature worked out? How did his predictions of CFCs and ozone depletion work out? How well did his denial of the link between smoking and cancer work out? Let's have the evidence speak for itself shall we?

 

So if your hypothesis is that 2 consecutive declining years means the warming has stopped then it would have been falsified 21 times in the last 140 years. Do you really think that just because the troposphere in 2017 was cooler than 2016 and 2018 was cooler than 2017 that the Earth has stopped warming? Or do you think it's more likely that this will be the 22nd time this has occurred? Which one seems more plausible to you?

 

If people are the source of the problem, getting rid of people has to be the solution

 

What a load of crap.

When warming stops, it's stopped, regardless of what anyone hypothesizes.

 

Noting that the climate has stopped warming and has even cooled the last few years is not predictive, it's fact. This hard fact is unaffected by who notes it, Silly!

 

CO^2 is a weak greenhouse gas it's effect is not linear, it's logarithmic.

 

Where do you get this? And frankly, if you actually were looking at what this kind of science is marketing to you, no, this kind of extreme fluctuation isn't suppose to be able to happen. I get it, you skimmed something and you suppose you can then pejoratively pronounce your carefully considered verdict.. Laughable.

 

Extreme fluctuations in the weather is a predicted outcome from global warming.

Here is a report on a pair of studies published wednesday about the rate of ice melt (and subsequent sea level rise) around the arctic regions: https://grist.org/article/doomsday-postponed-what-to-take-from-the-big-new-antarctica-studies/

One study found this as its conclusion:

And I would suggest reading the article, if you disbelieve the threat of global warming, because it actually could be viewed as a fairly neutral article and I am sure you can find a quote or two in there that you like.

 

There was a MUCH greater CO2 level on the planet during this era.

And to be honest, going below a certain level of CO2 could actually become an extinction event.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/...-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/

 

As I stated before, the planet had a much greater CO2 level. There was also tectonic movement, however even after the the Pangaea era there were ample signs of Antarctica being a lush tropical area for millions of years.

 

It really is amazing how stupid people can keep going back to the same sources who keep getting their predictions so laughably wrong from Florida will be underwater by now to Manhattan should have been a lake already and they keep going right back to the trough of stupidity and drinking the same water over and over again.

How many more failed predictions is it going to take for liberals to wake up?

 

sorry, but the science won't go away because you don't like it and it goes against your ideology.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-and-extreme-weather/

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather

 

So you realize the first article doesn't respond to the question at all, and the second one supports my position. I know, you didn't actually bother reading them.

 

This fact is quantified by the additional fact that higher than normal volumes of water vapor are currently circulating in the atmosphere.

It is a fact that water vapor is by far the most common greenhouse gas.

Water vapor reflects heat away from the surface of the earth which accounts for the current cooling trend of the oceans. The cooling trends have been verified by the ARGO project.


Global warming is a scam.

What we do need to be concerned with is the toxic chemical waste and trash that third world countries continue to pour into the rivers and oceans of the world.

New York, New Jersey and California are the worst polluters in our own country. Crickets !!!

 

So you didn't read either one then. Got it. As both show the warming trend is causing the more severe weather areas are experiencing.

 

Quote, for the second citation:

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s,

Vose, R. S. et al., 2013: Monitoring and understanding changes in extremes: Extratropical storms, winds, and waves. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00162.1. URL | Detail

'>29 and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States.Wang, X. L., Y. Feng, G. P. Compo, V. R. Swail, F. W. Zwiers, R. J. Allan, and P. D. Sardeshmukh, 2012: Trends and low frequency variability of extra-tropical cyclone activity in the ensemble of twentieth century reanalysis. Climate Dynamics, 40, 2775-2800, doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1450-9. | Detail

'>30,Wang, X. L., V. R. Swail, and F. W. Zwiers, 2006: Climatology and changes of extratropical cyclone activity: Comparison of ERA-40 with NCEP-NCAR reanalysis for 1958-2001. Journal of Climate, 19, 3145-3166, doi:10.1175/JCLI3781.1. URL | Detail

'>31

Sorry, you aren't going to get away with not having read your own citations. And the fact that you haven't read them means citing them while trying to assert that they represent your own specious opinion is entirely laughable.

 

True That.

But cleaning up radioactive waste, oil mines, plastics, heavy metals, industrial and agricultural runoff, what's sexy about that?

Or how about imposing tariffs on exporters who pollute through their manufacturing so that we aren't buying the products of their filth? The Left always takes the environmental wreckers side, against the American Worker, in trade negotiations.

 

So you quoted the portion showing weather is more extreme, due to global increase in average temperature. Thank you.

 

Yeah. Exactly. There are a lot of factors that drive climate. They include solar radiation, albedo, aerosols, greenhouse gases, continental positioning, etc. Some of these are then modulated by other many factors themselves. For example solar radiation is modulated by the Sun's own output and the orbital parameters of the Earth/Sun system. Aerosols are modulated by flood basalt events, volcanoes, etc. CO2 happens to be a huge factor in all of this well. Theories that selectively ignore it's role fail spectacularly at explaining both past and present climate change.

Antarctica was once had a tropical-like climate because it was once part of Pangea and because the Earth wasn't always in an ice age. It's the same with the Arctic region as well. These facts are completely consistent with modern climate change theory.

 

No it's not. It's a fact. The lower troposphere really has had 20+ distinct events in which the temperature has declined in 2 consecutive years.

Then you're playing semantic games here. You're using a different definition of warming than everyone else. When scientists talk about global warming they are referring to the secular long term trend in the global mean temperature or oceanic heat content. Short term (1 or 2 years) does not define a trend.

 

Same explanation as above...

While the lower troposphere temperature has declined in the last couple of years that does not mean that global warming has stopped. Global warming is a long term phenomenon. Besides the geosphere as a whole actually did continue to warm in 2017 and 2018. Remember, the atmosphere represents < 5% of the thermal mass of the climate system. So myopically focusing on a small part of the climate system can lead you to a wrong conclusion.

 

Yes. It's effect is logarithmic. It's radiative forcing is approximated by a simple equation...the Arrhenius equation which states that RF = 5.35 * ln(Cn/Co) where Cn is the new concentration and Co is the old concentration. The fact that CO2's radiative forcing has a logarithmic relationship to the concentration in no way means that the warming has stopped.

 

We are in an agreement 100%. That is why I question today's climatology as there are various variables, including solar maximums that do not include human intervention.

And even during Pangaea. Antarctica was still presumed to be at the 66th parallel, not much higher than it resides today.