Hows your global warming?

So far thanks to sensible decisions by bush and trump we have been saved from the kyoto treaty and the paris accord

But of obama had gotten his third term things would be much different today

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...sasters-was-also-one-of-the-hottest-on-record

 

Thanks, but that doesn't actually explain how your way of life was going to be destroyed.

 

I know climate changes

But the estimates of oast and current temps are not reliable

 

It's not working so well in our neck of the woods in Virginia, either. Just a couple of nights ago we had the fireplace roaring...

 

This seems to be pretty representative of the person you see in your mirror... just sayin...

 

Where would you like start? Should we start with Arrhenius' prediction of the warming effect caused by CO2? Note, that prediction was made in 1896 long before computers were even a thing.

I'm not the one hyperventilating about it. My point was that if you accept the ice core data verbatim then you also have to accept ALL of it's conclusions and not just the ones that support your position. That was my point. You can't hold the positions 1) the warming rate now is not remarkable and 2) the Earth was warmer than it was today simultaneously because they are mutually contradictory per the verbatim ice core data. In other words, if you believe the data genuinely shows that the warming rate we observe today is not that remarkable relative to what has happen in the past then you necessarily must concede that we are warmer today than at any time in at least 100,000 years. So I'm asking. Do you put your full faith and trust in the ice core data or not? I already told you that I do not.

 

says you, a non-scientist.

the experts know the data, and the data shows the Earth warming at much higher rates than in the past.

 

So far my life has not been destroyed because we have successfully deflected the left

But its like playing russian roulette

Sooner or later you will lose

 

Right, but HOW was your life going to destroyed?

 

Ok, then present to the forum for all to see which single non-expert blogger I have used solely without an independent source of supporting evidence to advocate for my position in this thread or any thread in which I've participated.

 

The Deniers have no explanation whatsoever for the dramatic increased rate of warming.

 

Like, as in you "know" <wink> <wink>? Or do you know because you have access to some mysterious dataset that no one else has seen which shows the global mean temperature moving up and down and which you think is more reliable then the dozens of others maintained by bona-fide experts?

 

Back to the "we don't really have an answer answer" I see. Honestly, how do you believe that you can remain credible then? First, I would point out that CO2 saturation seems to also be a result, much like H2O saturation to be a result of temperature. As we see if the distribution of it, globally. Did this not occur to you? Also, given that the majority of warming isn't happening where the greatest concentrations of CO2 actually are, this doesn't seem to support the cited prediction, does it?

More, yes, you are hyperventilating about the trend, specifically the very short duration of time since 1960 or so that purposefully skews the trending lines that you then yammer on and on about as the trend that we should be addressing religiously and fervently. You wrote, not me, that you don't believe the sudden warming onset represented in the ice core data. I never actually mentioned it, or cited it. But returning to the claim that you must accept the entire record seems fatuous. You don't seem to so why enforce the same rigidity on others? Again, it is quite arbitrary, and doesn't seem to lend any additional credibility.

I can say, though, with a lot of certainty, that temperatures had to rise, a lot, to be able to rid the N US mainland of it's mantel of ice. We know, from the geologic record that this is factual. We can evaluate the geologic differences and see that yes, the land bridge that was once passable no longer is. See, sea state rise. And amazingly rapid, and amazingly impactful as the sea rose what, hundred or so feet? More? Hard to be accurate mind you, but clearly this happened. So, explain why. Absent an unknown human industrial age, how did this happen? What natural functions created the ability to do this?

And if you cannot articulate that relaxation and warming, why do you suppose that just now, you can be credible in articulating what we see today?

 

I tend to agree. AGW have been uniquely absent from providing any credible answers. Thanks for you acknowledgement.

 

Yeah, you got one of them there whole-Earth sized backyards too?

Isn't it strange how everyone's backyard seems to be global in scale these days?

 

thats cute.

the fact is the AGW deniers have refused to even attempt to come up with a hypothesis as to why and how the Earth is warming at a much faster rate. They often just blame "Liberal scientist liars".

its kinda like Holocaust-Deniers, as they also mostly just blame politics for their counter-views. They blame "Jewish liars".

 

I'm not sure I understand the points about CO2 and H2O saturation. Can you clarify a bit?

AGW does not predict that the warming will be spatially colocated with the highest CO2 concentrations. In fact, AGW specifically predicts that the warming will be most pronounced at the higher latitudes especially in the northern hemisphere.

I focus on 1960 and afterwards because that's the approximate point in time in which anthroprogenic influences became dominant. Much of the warming in the early 1900's was natural. The anthroprogenic influenc ramped up slowly over several decades culminating in it's dominance over natural influences after 1960. I'm not saying the pre-1960 climate isn't interesting. I'm just saying that AGW really only tries to describe the global mean temperature after industrialization and especially after 1960. Or said in another way, I'm claiming that climate change was almost purely natural prior to 1900 just like what you're claiming. So our disagreement isn't about the pre-1900 climate. Our disagreement is about the climate after 1900 and especially after 1960.

I don't disagree with you here. There are several natural processes that explain Earth's past climate. These include, but are not limited to, solar cycles, volcanism, Milankovich cycles, etc. What I disagree with you on is the cause for the warming after the start of the 20th century and especially after 1960. The same processes that are used to explain past climate changes don't work after 1960.

 

NASA has provided many credible facts: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Global temperature rise

• 
  The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 6

7
9


Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

15
4


Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

8


Image: Visualization of the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, the lowest on record

10
11,12This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.13,14
Summary for Policymakers

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

• In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
  

• National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
  
  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
  

• https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
  
  Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
  
  The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
  

• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
  
  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
  
  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

• https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/
  

• Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
  

• L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
  
  R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
  
  http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  
  World Glacier Monitoring Service

• "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016
  https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1
  
  Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334
  
  Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012.
  
  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/
  

• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

• C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
  

• Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  
  C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
  
  http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
  
  Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
  

Click here for a partial list of these public statements and related resources.




NASA studies an unusual Arctic warming event

• 
  Video: New study finds sea level rise accelerating

• 
  Video: Greenland's thinning ice

Explore
Interactives, galleries and apps

[paste:font size="6"]Climate Time Machine


[/paste:font]
Eyes on the Earth



[paste:font size="6"]Global Ice Viewer


[/paste:font]
Images of Change



[paste:font size="6"]Climate Mobile Apps


[/paste:font]
Climate Time Machine



[paste:font size="6"]Eyes on the Earth


[/paste:font]
Global Ice Viewer



[paste:font size="6"]Images of Change


[/paste:font]
Climate Mobile Apps


Climate Time Machine

MORE MULTIMEDIA

 

the AGW Deniers are not interested in facts or data.

 

Electric prices have risen thanks to obamas war on coal

And strawberries will be more expensive in the future because of the ban on methyl btomide

 

What gives you so much faith in the truthfullness of a politicized agency like NASA

They serve the same Derp State that the FBI does

Since obama everything is political

 

First, the article cites it's sources most of which are not from NASA.

Second, NASA has been around since before Obama took office. And most of the claims in the article occurred before Obama even became president. Many of these claims originate from the time Bush was president.

Third, it's not just NASA making these claims. It's a multitude of scientists and institutions spanning the globe and which having to do with the president, deep state, FBI, or even the United States. That's the thing with science. It transcends all political assignments.

 

Obama had eiight years to weed out the fairminded employees and replace them with political flunkies

Under obama one of NASAs missions was to make muslims feel pride in themselves

 

That's great, but Obama does control UKMET, ECMWF, JMA, CMC, plus a bunch of other non-US entities that all corroborate NASA's work climate research.