2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Goodbye! No time for post-truthists

 

As he dodges the question again and runs.

 

Again an example of the lack of curiosity and initiative. It's clear that you don't have a clue about the science of global warming. Carry on.

 

I'm happy for you to try to educate. Send me a reference of any recent published paper that rejects AGW

 

So far an "O" for on the list of responses to the question of the climate sensitivity of CO2. But we keep on tryin'.

 

Why do you assume I reject AGW ?? If you knew anything about climate science you'd be able to answer the question on climate sensitivity to CO2. That is the figure of merit upon which all discussions follow as they have in this forum. Go forth and learn grasshopper.

 

There you go, some progress from you. Let's try again. To what extent is AGW occurring? Present a quality reference in support

 

Still no response. Funny stuff. Your ignorance is on display.

 

Don't go backwards now. You've admitted AGW is real. To what extent does it dominate? Keep going

 

Do your homework. It's all there. All that is needed is curiosity and initiative. You can do it. What's the climate sensitivity to CO2 ??

 

I'm merely asking for your opinion. You've admitted AGW's importance. How important? Its not a trick question. Its not a hard one. Its just a question.

 

Uh-huh. Too much FOX News and other lying publications.


http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/our-changing-climate

 

More "lying with statistics". ^^ Anytime decades are used instead of the direct data this a clear indicator of deception. Scroll down to see the again deceptive graph of CO2 on one vertical scale and temperature on the other vertical scale and the deception is exposed along with the graphsmanship pointed out earlier.

 

How about this... put the decadal averages on the same chart as the yearly and monthly averages. Then split out the CO2 into its own chart. It's not going to change anything but if that makes you happy then I say go for it. What am I missing?

 

Anyway back on topic...so why is 2017 in the running for the second warmest instead of second coldest? If it isn't because anthropogenic GHGs warm the lower troposphere then what is the reason? Why aren't we early 1900's style cold right now?

 

What value is the decadal numbers ?? The trends in the "actual" data are what matter. Decadal averages obscure that.

 

Upward adjustment of temperature data would be one reason...

Because the second half of the 20th century saw the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years. The same millennium-scale solar cycle that caused the medieval warm period, the Roman warm period, the Minoan warm period, etc. is causing the post-Little-Ice-Age warm period. CO2's effect is modest, and almost certainly a net benefit.

 

What does it hurt and how does it obscure the trend? You don't think a 1 year moving average (monthly, daily, hourly, etc.) are going to suddenly show cooling do you? What am I missing?

 

And the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.

 

It's obvious by inspection. The fact that the warming rate was the same in the early 20th century as we are now experiencing is completely missing from the decadal graph.

 

Ah yes...the data has been "manipulated" argument. I agree though, proxy datasets usually require "manipulation" to derive a global mean temperature. Maybe we should stop using them and instead use complete atmospheric states from reanalysis which doesn't "manipulate" the observations at all? Guess what though...it still shows warming at roughly the same rate as all of those proxy datasets. I will put a plug in for you on the UAH v6 dataset that only shows 0.13C/decade rate of warming. No need to mention it...I'm fully aware. But you guessed it...it too is a proxy with an absurd amount of bias corrections and other nefarious "manipulations".

Yeah, I agree. Solar activity (and possibly volcanic activity) probably explains most of the temperature change in the past (at least since human civilization). So we should be able to apply the same peak/trough patterns (accounting for thermal inertia) and make predictions as to what the temperature should be doing now. Several have tried including Easterbrook (and those mentioned in post #196 for example) and failed. Some of the predictions, like those from Easterbrook, have failed so badly that they can't even get the direction of the temperature change right. Even the WUWT guy is fed up with Easterbrooks predictions. The modern max peaked around 60 years ago and according to solar theory advocates the secular minimum is expected in the 2040's or so and we are currently at a minimum between cycle 24 and 25. And yet here we are...2017 is shaping up to be the 2nd warmest on record. And that's with ENSO neutral to La Nina'd conditions throughout the year.

And why are we even talking about this? All temperature and solar activity datasets that go back that far are proxies which you and many other skeptics indict as fraudulent.

 

I get that a 10yr average smooths out the variations, but if you put the 1yr and monthly averages on the same graph what's the big deal. Hell, let's throw the noisy daily averages on that graph too. I'm completely ok with that. But, it doesn't change anything. The upward trend is obvious no matter what level of granularity you're looking at.

 

The upward trend periods are not proportionately related to CO2 increases. The cooling trend periods are obviously not related to CO2 increases. The periods of stable temperatures are not related to CO2 increases. And very very few argue that the globe is not warming - it is.

 

The years 2015-2017 are showing a much more accelerated warming than the previous years and decades. The lack of the cooling effect of a major volcano may be the reason. This Scientific American article discusses this in detail. It's a little unintuitive as to why volcanic activity cools the climate, when CO2 is actually released by the volcano. This article does a great job explaining this phenomenon.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-volcanoes-affect-w/

There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.
...
Initially, scientists believed that it was volcanoes' stratospheric ash clouds that had the dominant effect on global temperatures. The 1982 eruption of El Chichn in Mexico, however, altered that view. Only two years earlier, the major Mt. St. Helens eruption had lowered global temperatures by about 0.1 degree C. The much smaller eruption of El Chichn, in contrast, had three to five times the global cooling effect worldwide. Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichn emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur-rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption. Sulfate aerosols appear to take several years to settle out of the atmosphere, which is one of the reasons their effects are so widespread and long lasting.
.....
Interestingly, some scientists argue that without the cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions such as El Chichn and Mount Pinatubo, global warming effects caused by human activities would have been far more substantial.

 

You are seriously attempting to place meaning on a two year span (2017 is not yet over) ??