Earth just had its 400th straight warmer-than-average month thanks to global warming

Specifically, what natural mechanism can account for all of the warming?

"coming out of an ice age" is not a process or mechanism that changes the global mean temperature.

 

so you can't prove it. Thank you.

 

If that's my destiny. We will never be able to control the climate, I don't care how much money we throw at it.

 

Nature.

The Earth has been warming and cooling all by itself for billions of years.

 

Most of the human induced warming has occurred since 1960. In those 60 years we have warmed by approximately 1K. This puts the magnitude of the warming at about 3 parts in 1000 (1K / 331K where 331K is the global mean temperature). In terms of precision of measurement that's nothing. In fact, relative to other measurement problems in other disciplines of science this precision so uninteresting and so unremarkable that it isn't even noteworthy. If you want something truly remarkable and noteworthy consider LIGO. They measured the rippling of spacetime from colliding black holes billions of light years away to within 1/1000th the width of a proton while even having to cancel out the noise of the quantum induced rippling of the instrument itself. That measurement is good to at least 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. Now that is noteworthy!

 

Ok great. Which natural process can account for all of the warming?

Out of all of the natural processes known and extensively studied the net effect of them is to cool the Earth right now. So why isn't the Earth cooling?

 

Of course you say the 'precision of the measurments" isn't even "noteworthy".

The Margin Of Error for measuring global temps is larger than the claimed rise in temps, we could actually be cooling.....according to the science.

 

This issue is, without question, the most depressing I have ever encountered. I cannot find a sliver of optimism anywhere I look. Any solution will require such draconian measures, requiring economic political and social upheaval, on such a large scale as to subvert western values. We can't even decide on a global scale that that landmines are a bad thing to be discouraged and removed or that persons who commit crimes against humanity should be prosecuted regardless of their nationality. The planet is running out of time, and we ( The U. S and one of the largest polluters,) just threw away four more years.

 

We might not be able to control the climate like you control the temperature in your house, but certainly influence the climate. This is indisputable.

 

Same ones that have caused the climate to change for billions of years.

 

Yes, it is disputable.

 

The margin of error on a yearly global mean temperature from conventional datasets (surface station data only) is 0.05C. The margin of error on reanalysis datasets is 0.01C. That puts the observed warming since 1960 at a full 2 orders of magnitude higher than the margin of error. And that's assuming you went with the most conservative interpretation in which you happen to underestimated the earlier (1960) temperature by the maximum possible error and overestimated the latest (2017) temperature by the maximum possible error. In other words, even in the extremely unlikely scenario that our data was error'd in just the right way to maximize the skeptical viewpoint the only conclusion is that the Earth still warmed by an amount that was 2 full orders of magnitude higher than the measurement error!

 

Great. So I ask again. Why hasn't the Earth been cooling since 1960? Because those same mechanism that were responsible for global mean temperature fluctuation prior to the industrial revolution say that the Earth should have been cooling over the last 6 decades. And yet here we are...the Earth warmed.

 

You are playing with the numbers. The margin of error for ANY GIVEN MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL TEMPS is greater than the claimed warming. That applies to each measurement.

You are taking the warming the Cult claims over a 60 year period and trying to apply it to a MOE for a single measurement.

Typical Cult tactic. Manipulate the numbers. It won't work on me.

Try again.

 

So, what you are saying is your predictions of what should be happening is wrong, and nature has over ridden what you think should happen.

 

How did the last Great Ice Age come to a CRASHING HALT, 10,000-12,000 years ago, forming the Great Lakes, etc...FOR MORE INTENSE WARMING than anything going on now ??

The 1,000 meter thick ICE COVER over more than 1/3 of the Northern Hemisphere retreated MILES per week.

Paleolithic SUVs? Neanderthal power plants?

 

I'm saying the margin of error for a yearly global mean temperature is 0.01C. We have warmed by 1.0C since 1960. That is 2 orders of magnitude higher than any single yearly measurement of the global mean temperature.

Why not...sea ice extents have been declining especially in the Arctic region for decades. Do you think this is because the mean temperature in that area has gone up or because the law of physics (the melting point of ice) is changing? Any rational person would say it's because the temperature is going up. The laws of physics are the same everywhere and at any every point in time. Ice melts at 0C today just like it did 100 years ago.

 

What I'm saying is that net effect of all natural processes (solar cycles, volcanism, Milankovich cycles, galactic cosmic rays, etc.) is producing a downward pressure on the global mean temperature right now.

Theories that only consider natural processes fail badly at explaining and predicting the global mean temperature.

Theories that consider both natural and anthrprogenic process do quite well at explaining and predicting the global mean temperature. They certainly aren't perfect, but they are far better than the natural-only theories.

 

I agree. Humans do impact the climate if only because of the increase of human population. Approximately 100 years ago, the living population was approximately 1.7 billion. Today, in 2018, the population is almost 7.8 billion. Despite two horribly destructive world wars, which killed many millions of people, we've had THAT kind of population increase!

We've created enormous 'islands' of trash in the oceans that measure in the square-miles! We have developed huge mega-cities where the air is unbreathable much of the year, and people ride bicycles, wearing those pathetic little 'mouth-masks'. We've already got several destroyed nuclear power plant sites that will have to be 'entombed' in gigantic containers of some kind for thousands of years to come. We've got a situation in the Pacific Ocean where millions of gallons of heavily-contaminated, toxic, radioactive crap continues to pour in without any end in sight from Fukushima's wrecked reactors.

So, yeah, we're having an impact -- along with the SUN, in all likelihood, and who knows how many other factors....

 

You know what you call 33 years of data when studying climate? Insufficient evidence.

 

Again, I do not care about your personal life choices. Your personal impact is minimal. It is the same response that I have to the jackasses who try to ask why I bother using electricity to make posts about global warming when I could be conserving the electricity. The impact that I, on a personal level, have is minimal.

What I care about are larger changes - changes at the levels of corporations or governments.

 

30+ years of data is enough to establish an average when studying climate.

But the data from the OP actually references more than 100 years.

 

No, we have data that goes back millions of years.

 

No, there are actual physical processes that increase and decrease the temperature. Orbital mechanics, Solar Intensity, Meteors, Greenhouse Gases, etc.

 

At the rate the earth is warming, we only got like 10,000 years to fix it.