Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Not when describing opinions.

 

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

https://www.investors.com/politics/...ange-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

 

If you arbitrarily pick your start and ending point, you can find any trend in the data.

But it is interesting that you would cite to the 2016, 2017, and 2018. Those years are, respectively, the Hottest Year on Record, the Fourth Hottest Year on Record, and the Fifth Hottest Year on Record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

 

Thank you, captain obvious. Now remember that the next time any chart is posted.

 

Alarmists do that all the time.

It was warmer 1000 years ago when Iceland had no glaciers.

 

You should read what you post before posting it. What are measurements combined with ???

 

I wonder why they call Greenland, er ... never mind.

According to the left the 0.4% of atmospheric CO2 has more effect on climate than the daytime glowing orb in the sky.
The left want to reduce CO2? Why do they hate trees?

 

Real easy to skew the data. Just place the surface stations near artificial heat sources.

 

If you know of anything that shows the surface stations have been upgraded since then, post it.

 

Yes I think it's time Beijing and India address their pollution... you can add South Africa to that list since the ANC have destroyed South Africa's environment, wildlife and are polluting its air to the point people are dying because they took a breathe of air

 

And then claim the instrumentation is very accurate whilst ignoring the data corruption. Also any measurements which are compromised by urban heat and land use effects must be thrown out and not arbitrarily adjusted.

 

Germany, ~1910 to today
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/temperature

Japan
https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/temperature

Austalia
https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/temperature

China
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/temperature

Sweden
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/temperature

Funny how none of the temperature data sets match "Climate Change" unless they come from the NOAA

 

I assume you're speaking of Greenland...not Iceland. At the time (~1000 years ago) Greenland was still 80% covered with an ice sheet that's 400,000 - 800,000 years old and up to 3 km thick in places. The regions of Greenland that were warmer & green were very limited (the southwest coast) and could sustain only 2 or 3 settlements. During that time (the "Medieval Climatic Anomaly"), average global temperatures were still lower than they are today. Research suggests the naming of the newly discovered land as "Greenland" was an attempt by Erik the Red to attract more settlers after "Iceland" failed to attract the desired settlers.

(950-1250 AD)




Warming can be the result of a number of factors, so that the cause of past climate change is not necessarily implicated in current climate change. For instance, the Medieval Climatic Anomaly was characterised by relatively high solar activity, low volcanic activity and possible changes in ocean circulation patterns. These factors can explain both the scale and pattern of warmth at that time. However, they cannot explain recent warming. More to the point, changes in natural factors would probably have led to cooling in the past few decades. This contrasts with the multiple lines of evidence pointing to the role played by humans in recent warming, as illustrated by the the graph below.

https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

 

I’m talking about Iceland.

 

Why do I have to keep pointing out the obvious? Nowhere in that document does it state or prove a percentage of man made climate change.

How many times are you going to post the same fake news and pretend it answers the question?

 

Why are you using tradingeconomics.com for your temperature data sets?

 

The question that it answers is the question that you wanted answered.

The IPCC denotes a whole host of evidentiary links and conclusionary statements in support of the basic tenets of AGW. The IPCC notes that the evidence means that it is very likely that humans are the cause of the majority of the observed. Other points in the report, they note that their degree of confidence in that assertion is ~95%.

 

That 95% has nothing to do with their consensus of opinion.

 

LOL No it doesn't or you would be able to point to the number and evidence and you keep proving you can't do it.

Very likely is an opinion not a documented fact. How can you claim to be a lawyer and be so oblivious to the difference between opinion and fact?

You cannot point to ANY number that says "this percentage of climate change is caused by humans and here is the data to support it" much less a majority.

And every time you can't do it, you lose.

 

When was the last time Iceland had no glaciers?

FYI...the glaciers & icecaps in Iceland are melting at record pace.

 

The Medieval Warm Period.

No they aren’t. Please don’t reference the small ice pack which melted because of the volcano that it was beneath it.

 

We're still here, aren't we?

 

* Iceland was not without ice or glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period. Do you have a reference or link that shows otherwise? Studies also show the Medieval Warm Period was also not a global phenomenon.

* So all 269 glaciers are melting & 10 bodies of ice have completely melted because of one volcano?

* And it's not confirmed that heat from the volcano is causing the rapid melting of "Ok" glacier (no longer a glacier). If you have a link to an investigation showing any heat changes from the volcano I'd like to see it. The volcano is "active" but remains dormant. It should be noted also that retreating glaciers can make volcanoes more unstable from the reduction in pressure/weight altering the melting point of magma. This is another reason for increased volcanic activity around the globe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Iceland, lying just below the Arctic Circle, is one of the fastest-warming places on the planet – as much a four times the Northern Hemisphere average. The 300-some glaciers that cover more than 10 percent of the island are losing an average of 11 billion tons of ice a year.

The annual volume carried away from Iceland's glaciers and not replaced by new snow would fill 50 of the world's largest trucks every minute for the entire year.

'Highest losses on Earth'
"It is among the highest losses on the Earth," said pioneering glaciologist Helgi Bjornsson during an interview in his office at the University of Iceland's Institute of Earth Sciences, overflowing with 40 years of research and books about ice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The overall retreat there [Sólheimajökull glacier] since 1930 is around 1.5 km, and this is a typical magnitude of the retreat,” says Tómas. “Iceland’s total glacier-covered area has shrunk by roughly 2000 square kilometres since the end of the 19th Century. We now lose about 40 square kilometres annually, which is quite a remarkable area to become deglaciated each year.”

I remark that it sounds like Sólheimajökull could be headed for the same fate as Ok. “It’s a part of the larger Mýrdalsjökull ice cap,” says Tómas. “So the outlet will retreat to higher elevations, closer to the accumulation area. But this entire valley will be ice-free, in the end.”