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

The scientific consensus has never predicted that Florida or Manhattan would be under water by now. If you disagree then all you need to do is cite the page number in one of the IPCC ARx reports.

And stop getting your science information from people who aren't scientists and have no idea what they are talking about.

 

The problem with your reason behind questioning today's climatology is that you are assuming that climatologists are unaware or incapable of analyzing those various variables as potential causes for the current climate change.

They are.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

This is correct.

This is correct. WV is on the order of 10000 ppm. CO2 is only 400 ppm. However, the difference between the two is that WV is not a catalyzer of temperature changes. It can participate in a feedback with the temperature and amplify a temperature change as long as something else forces that initial change, but WV cannot on it's own force a temperature change. This is actually intuitive if not mind numbingly obvious. Afterall, if WV could catalyze a temperature change on it's own then something as trivial as a hyperactive hurricane would have kick started a runaway greenhouse gas effect. But, alas, after a billion years of countless hurricanes that never happened. CO2, on the other hand, not only participates in a feedback with the temperature, but it is also a catalyzer of temperature changes. Unlike WV it can, on it's own, force a change in the temperature.

This is not correct. WV is interesting because it provides both a positive and a negative radiative forcing. In it's gaseous form it is full bore warming. In it's condensed state it can be both a cooling or a warming agent depending on what level of the atmosphere and what time of day the droplets form.

ARGO shows the oceans are definitely warming. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/nclimate2872.pdf

No. It's not. It's a fact confirmed by an insurmountable mountain of evidence dating back to the 1800's.

 

I never claimed that. Many, if not all do take these into account. Most, if not all think climate change is real. The question remains if human involvement is escalating climate change and is escalating climate change as an extinction event.

And BTW, in no way am I advocating being less of a steward to our planet. We definitely need clean our act up. Like we have vigorously over the last 75+ years.

I do think that political motivation help enact laws that people would normally pooh, pooh. I.E. The Patriot act after 9/11 that people on both sides of the spectrum were willing to allow after the events of 9/11.

Humans are sheep and are easily motivated to accept authority when frightened.

 

The high CO2 doubling GMT values reported in IPCC (2007) are for secular GMT trends of 0.2 and 0.3 oC/decade that are inconsistent with the observed secular GMT trend of about 0.1 oC/decade (Delsole et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011).

Note that as the annual GMT has been reported to have a multi-decadal oscillation (MDO) of about 55 to 70 years for the last 8000 years (Knudsen et al., 2011), a linear trend of at least a 70-year period should be used to remove the contribution of the MDO to determine the secular GMT trend, which gives about 0.1 oC/decade for the latest 70-year period from 1946 to 2016.

https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.c...ng-global-mean-temperature-from-observations/

 

The entire hypothesis is that rising CO^2 concentrations have a dangerous effect on temperature, even though temperature is not dangerous, CO^2 levels are nearly at the bottom of their natural range and while we are in an Ice Age interglacial with no expectation of even the current ice age ending, much less a return to the balmy paradise of Warm Earth Conditions.

Plant life stops at 0.15% CO^2
We were at 0.18% during the last glacial advance.
We have risen to 0.4% as of late.
CO^2 naturally ranged as high a 4% during the Cambrian Period, during one of the most vigorous productions of life in the history of the planet. Rather than being a problem, carbon dioxide is how earth's natural processes store life during ice age periods and then bring it forth during warm earth conditions, by converting carbon dioxide into living cells.

To put into perspective:

Lowest to Highest

--|--|------------------------------------|

The first mark is C0^2 at the last glacial advance, the next is current levels, the last is the levels during the Cambrian Explosion.

I'd gladly welcome Warm Earth Conditions, but with the current configuration of the continents, it simply is not in the cards, though I am certainly grateful for the inter-glacial, when that ends, the earth's ability to carry and sustain life is going to drop sharply until the next interglacial.

For extra credit;

What is the current length of our interglacial
How long did did the previous one last.
How long was the glacial advance between these two events?

 

Understand that Delsole and Wu are using statistical techniques to find multidecadal patterns in the overall warming trend and to express those periodic behaviors as separated components of the overall warming trend. They are not refuting the overall warming trend in any way. They are dividing the overall warming trend into short term components and long term components. The WUWT blog doesn't make it clear that a large part of the warming component has been removed when reporting only the long term component. And why would the long term component be lower? That is the expected result when the warming rate iss accelerating...which it is. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what these publications are saying. I'm just curious...would you consider their technique "fudging the data"?

Anyway, it's also important to realize that the IPCC prediction is the nominal rate of warming for the entire period. They are not saying that the warming rate will stay constant at any particular value. In other words, the only way to score that prediction is to wait until the completion of the period transpires and then divide the total warming by the number years to get the nominal rate. What we can say from actual observations is that the warming rate from 1958, 1978, and 1998 are 0.15C/decade, 0.19C/decade, and 0.23C/decade respectively for the last 60, 40, and 20 years. The rate of warming in the troposphere is accelerating and that is directly from the observed global mean surface temperature without any fancy statistical techniques being applied.

But let's assume the warming rate itself does not increase anymore from here on out. In fact, let's pick the more conservative middle value of 0.19C/decade instead of the most recent 0.23C/decade rate. That means the IPCC's best guess target of 3.0C of warming will be obtained in the year (3.0 - 1.1) / (0.19 / 10) + 2018 = 2118. And if CO2 continues to increase at a rate of 2.5 ppm/yr then a doubling will be obtained in the year [560 - 408] / 2.5 + 2018 = 2088. That is a difference of 30 years which is right in the ballpark of the inertial lag between heat uptake and final atmospheric response. And what would the transient climate response (TCR) be in 2088? It would be [2088 - 2018] * (0.19 / 10) + 1.1 = 2.25C. And because the TCR-to-ECR ratio is believed to be around 0.75 that yields an ECR of...wait for it...exactly 3.0C! And that's assuming the more conservative warming rate of 0.19C will persist from here on out.

Yes. I know the trick. Remove some of the warming that has actually occurred before you compute a warming trend. Sounds like fudging the data to me. What do you think?

 

No kidding. We are in an interglacial, which you can thank your lucky stars for. An interglacial period is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago. So far we have had two OPTIMUMS (most favorable life generating conditions of maximal warmth), but luckily enough warming trends re-established themselves and we did not return to the depths of a glacial advance. Our first optimum is known as the Atlanticum and ran from about 7,000BC - 3,000BC. The climate was warmer than today, and as in common during warming periods, more moist, sea levels were 9-10 feet higher than today. The treelines advanced toward the poles with lush forests.

Very quickly on heels of the cooling that followed, a second Optimum took hold, The Subboreal, this ran from about 3,000 BC to 500 BC. The climate was drier and a little cooler, but still warmer than today. Sadly the cooling ended the African Humid Period, bringing on the vast desertification of Africa that we see today.

From there it cooled a bit, until the Medieval Warming Period that lasted from 950 to 1250 AD. This brought on North America's warmest period since the Roman Warming Period, but alas, then we had the little ice age, from 1250 to 1850, accompanied by starvation and plague. Since 1850 we have had warming, finally bringing us back Medieval Warming Period Warmth, so yes, we are currently in a warming trend, within a cooling trend that has been in place for 9,000 years.

The last interglacial lasted 17,000 years and was followed by a 100,000 years of glacial advance until our current interglacial took hold. 20,000 years ago Chicago was under a mile of ice, so yes, cooling makes me a hell of lot more nervous than warming, I'll take warming with gratitude. Life does great in warming conditions, experiences mass extinctions during glacial advances.

Our current Ice Age has lasted 2.5 million years, and while I would welcome warm earth conditions, given the current configuration on the continents, it's not likely to end, though with luck our interglacial could persist another 5,000 years or so.

 

It's has a large role when an glacial advance ends, but after that first surge it quickly drops to a bit player.

You get a big spike initially and then the more it rises the more the effect flattens.


The more CO^2 rises the less effect it has on temperature, not that warmth isn't desirable, it's very desirable, but CO^2 is a bit player when it comes to warming after the initial burst. From there, the more it warms the less it matters and the fall off is rapid.

 

Within a 9,000 year cooling trend.

More like twice that. We have been on a warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age, 1850, or for 70 years. 3 years is 1.8% of that.

67 years is 0.7% of 9,000 years so your objection has 2.6 times the strength against the trend you are emphasizing as it has against my simple notation of the most current empirical data.

 

Again I submit that no one can claim complete authority on this issue & given the data & historical, err - umm, fudging - by the main stream faction, I choose to side with what I consider to be the most likely.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/08/the-planet-is-cooling-alarmists-shriek-its-warming/
The planet is cooling. Clearly this isn’t something the alarmists want you to hear, especially when they’ve got a shiny, expensive, new bridge to sell you with Green New Deal stamped on the side.
"Don’t sell your coat.
Oh and don’t trust a word these people say, either. They are all charlatans."

So to help out, the Climate Industrial Complex has played its usual trick of ramping up the climate scaremongering.

Delingpole: Alarmists Cook up Warming Scare as Planet Cools
Airman Magazine/Flickr
8 Feb 20192651

 

Delingpole is the exact opposite of a credible source and this is probably one of his more egregiously misleading posts I've seen. He sees two years (2017 and 201 that are cooler and claims that global warming has stopped. As I already pointed out above this has happened 20+ times before and yet despite the variability in the lower tropospheric temperature it continues it's long secular march higher. This is completely expected actually. When an El Nino happens the heat flux from ocean to atmosphere ramps up. When a La Nina happens it goes negative and transfers that energy back to the ocean. That's what happened here. It's called an ENSO cycle. He then goes on to completely misunderstand what the green, red, and blue envelops mean on the UK met's computer model forecast.

Why do you guys continually seek non-expert advice on the climate issues? Would you go to an automotive mechanic to be treated for a medical condition? Would you go to a chemist to seek legal advice? No, of course not. So why are you seeking out a journalist with a history of misleading his audience of climate issues?

 

Climate scientists are well aware of the CO2's logarithmic behavior. Actually this was discovered in the 1800's. This is not new. You have not figured something out that the world's leading experts haven't already known for over 100 years.

Anyway, let's play this out. The glacial/interglacial cycles have occurred with CO2 oscillating between 150 and 300 ppm. And a doubling of CO2 is defined as 280 * 2 = 560. Note that ln(300/150) = ln(560/280). In other words a doubling of CO2 today will put the exact same radiative forcing on the planet as it did during each and every glacial/interglacial cycle.

So do you really think scientists somehow forgot to account for this?

 

Well global mean temperatures are believed to have been the lowest between 1600 and 1700. So in that context the warming trend has been about 370 years. But even if you start the clock at 1850 that would actually be 170 years.

Anyway, why do you think it has been warming since the LIA? Do you think the same agents that caused the warming prior to 1850 are still largely responsible for the warming after 1850 as well? What if we set the clock at 1950...do you still think the same agents are acting on the climate system with the same magnitude?

 

Like your hero Trump you don't understand the difference between weather and climate.

 

Says the acolytes who scream about climate change after every hurricane that hits the coast of the US.

https://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/...ne-florence-proof-of-man-made-global-warming/

You guys couldn't be more hypocritical if you tried. Try harder. This is too easy.

 

Uuumagawd!

Someone who cannot read a graph?

 

How about those who not only scream “no global warming” every time there is a cold spell but cannot even spell it correctly?

 

Great article. Makes claims about liberal backwards thinking without being able to actually quote one example. Maybe you should learn to read your own sources.

 

And he seems to have great difficulty with the concept of “global”

 

You just proved me right and couldn't even grasp it. Don't ever change

 

LOL All you had to do was ask.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/opinion/hurricane-harvey-global-warming.html

How about another?

http://time.com/4933743/hurricane-irma-climate-change-global-warming/



Now what. Go ahead, I love a show.

 

Nope you still didn't read with comprehension. It said that Harvey was an example of the expected trend. Didn't say Harvey was evidence or proof. Try to learn to read.

 

DO NOT CONFUSE POOR JOURNALISM WITH GOOD SCIENCE

would you rather get your “science” from someone like Alex Jones?

 

LOL You just proved me right. Can't you even read what you wrote? You and the artcile are claiming one weather event proves global warming is a trend.

Good God do I have to educate you on your own replies now?