NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18 Read Newsmax: Earth Cooled by Half a

That's just it, there's no consistent story here on:

1. exactly what it is that's "warming" (other than maybe someone woke up today w/ a really hot anomaly), and
   
2. how much it's warmed up to, given that nobody wants to say for example what today's total global average temperature measured out to for last month --nor
   
3. is there any agreement on what these same total average global temp yearly measurements were over maybe the past several 100k years for us to say what we're warmer than.

Those are only the first few steps; we'd still need to nail don't whether

1. a warmer climate's bad or good (historically mankind did a lot better during warmer eras),
   
2. this is a greenhouse, solar, or problem,
   
3. man-made CO2 is the overriding greenhouse mover, and
   
4. the cost of "un-burning" is really more than the cost of just burning.

Sure, lots of people have lots of numbers that 'prove' all this. The problem is that so too many of the numbers are contradictory, changing, or incomplete.

 

Actually it averages two different satellite data sets.

 

Yes. You are correct. I actually didn't notice that. I retract my first point.

 

Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't want your money in the sense that I don't want to redistribute it to someone else nor do I think you should necessarily pay anything personally anyway. My point is that humanity is going to be paying for climate change one way or another. We can either buck up and tackle the problem now or we can kick the can down the road and let our children pay for it. Either way humanity is going to pay for it. It makes me little difference either way what you decide. You may have really compelling arguments for letting the next generation handle the problem. That's perfectly fine. Just don't let denial of science be your rationale for doing so.

 

Correct. Deliberately lit fires in Oz has increased...arson is on the increase. So? Prove to me that increase of bushfires is due to global warming.

You are cherry picking.

 

The atmosphere and the oceans are what is warming.

The atmosphere has warmed by about 1C since 1960. The oceans have accumulated 40e22 joules of energy since 1960.

Yes.

Correct. Most of the warming since the Little Ice Age has been net beneficial to humanity. However, we are very near or have passed the threshold at which it becomes net harmful.

Greenhouse gases contribute about 150% to the warming trend since 1960. Aerosols contribute -50% to the warming trend since 1960. Natural process like solar cycles and volcanic activity have had a near 0% net effect since 1960.

Yes. CO2 accounts for more than 50% of the total human GHG emissions. And the increase from 280 ppm to 410 ppm is a near 100% match with the amount of carbon that has been dug out of the ground.

Hard to say. This is where the evidence isn't quite so clear. There is definitely a cost to not burning fossil fuels and that cost is very substantial. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the cost of not burning any fossil fuels at all would be so catastrophic that civilization would collapse. But, fortunately no one is recommending that (except for maybe the alarmists). The trick is figuring out the optimal balance. This a very difficult question to answer because it requires predicting the climate's response to CO2 with great accuracy, but also predicting human behavior. The former is difficult, but not impossible. The later is a crapshoot in my opinion. The other factors that make this difficult is that there are natural processes that might mitigate the warming for us that are nearly impossible to predict like solar grand minimums and larger volcanic eruptions. The IPCC's warming estimates do not take these unpredictable natural processes into account because...well...they can't be predicted...at least not deterministically. So it is possible that we could spend a lot of money to mitigate the warming only to have one of these events counteract the warming for us free of charge. So there's definitely a lot of factors to consider when trying to figure out the climate change policy. I certainly don't have all of the answers and neither do scientists. But, our knowledge of the problem is getting better and we can make some pretty broad statements with confidence that politicians can then use to formulate policy. Just don't expect our first stab at the problem to be the golden egg right off the bat. Mistakes will be made along the way.

 

So 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists are wrong, why?

:EDIT:

About anthropomorphic global warming, not necessarily CO2 models, I can't say.

 

...

 

You seem to be sincere about all of this, so I figure you might know the answer to this question...are our global average temps now at an all time high? At least within the last million years? We were here in some form a million years ago.

I think this might be very important.

 

Here's an important question:

The Paris accord was meant to slow down the warming of the planet, hence, even if global warming were wrong, wouldn't knowing how to affect global climate provide a unimaginable economic prosperity in the future for all humanity?

 

We are definitely not at an all time high; not even close. Within the last million years? It's debatable, but I hedge more towards no than yes on that too. And while I do think the paleoclimate record is useful it's certainly not perfect nor infallible.

 

iirc these are the system boundaries that we've considered before. This would be something that we could look at together if our fellow AGW advocates could refrain from arbitrarily moving the boundaries in order to shore up crumbling arguments. We could keep a lid on that if you've got a generally accepted pro-AGW link like IPCC, NASA, NOAA, etc..

The reasoning is that while I share your thinking that 'earth heat' is ignored in the equations we may want to put it back in there. One reason is that we know that solar heat gets absorbed by land surfaces and that ocean water/bed heat transfer has to be quantified --if for no other reason then to 'prove' it doesn't happen. The other reason is that while NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etc.may ignore solid surface heat absorption for for AGW equations, they turn right around and put it right back in when adding up negative impacts (re Far northern permafrost may unleash carbon within decades); we need to be clear about whether heat gets absorbed by earth solids or not.

We got a similar problem w/ the majority of the ocean's mass being below the thermocline and the controversy involved w/ heat xfer at depth:

--so are we saying the entire ocean's warming, part, or which parts?

 

No way am I saying they're wrong, where I'm at is I just want to hear what they're saying. Pse let me know who you talked to that asked 97% of the world's scientists. Personally, I sure haven't seen it. I'm recently retired from a U.S. Fed. Gov't Meteorology & Hydrology Branch where none of my co-workers said they could find any such surface/air/ocean temp trends, & we were amassing data sets for all of 'em.

Science isn't like that anyway, it's not what someone says it's what we all see. There's also the fun of it; like, I can read what folks say about Saturn's rings but it's different when I actually look myself w/ a telescope in my back yard.

 

I believe I've posted this before: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources." https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And only math has absolute proofs, any of the sciences do not.

 

That's a fair question, & it's a hard one to get just one answer to.

I think we can all agree that the earth is definitely cooler than it was about 4 billion years ago, and that the smart money's with the sun warming on its own enough to make life on earth impossible in 'just' one billion years from now.

 

So you think robots will make socialism possible and the producers of robot products will just give away their products to jobless people? Interesting, but I disagree.

 

Just to add, this is from the American Meteorological Society in the above post link of mine: "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7"

 

tx fer the link. That 97% number is not of all scientists tho, it's the percent of published statements that people are paid to publish. NASA pointed out on the link that the % of AGW advocates falls when the respondents are not being paid to favor AGW.

Not that it makes any difference tho. Like, there are similar studies that show the majority of scientists believe that God exists. imho I can't believe that this makes God exist until there's a re-vote & if God loses the election he can't exist until he's elected back into existence..

 

So it's all a conspiracy, and or, whatever that NASA, all those organizations cited and more support.

 

This is from IPCC AR5, page 3-73. "Box 3.1, Figure 1: Plot of energy accumulation in ZJ (1 ZJ = 10^21 J)"

(Warning, link goes to a very large download.)

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

See the part that says "land"? That's how much of the warming has been absorbed by the land. Your claim that the issue has been ignored is plainly false.

And see the part that says "ice"?

The things you say haven't been explored always end up being things that have been explored in great detail.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deep-ocean-waters-are-trapping-vast-stores-of-heat/

 

Look, if I've offended you we can set this aside; but I do thank u for your headsup on that link, I'd been hearing that the 97% was from Austrailia but NASA had more info. I got family working at NASA & they'll be interested in this.

 

Finally on this forum there is some manners shown.

 

I don't think I need be offended by you in general.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ooled-by-half-a.532916/page-8#post-1069094691

And that was on page 8.

 

I was not wrong with this idea.

You will say exactly the same 1000 cherries later. You remember me to some tourists in the mountains: They stood on the bridge and saw a wave coming down the river. They were fascinated, discussed, laughed, made pictures - from a greater distance some natives called and tried to warn them - suddenly some of the tourists understood what is going on: a wave was coming down the river and they stood on a bridge. When they started to run it was to late.

 

And you the scorpion begged me the frog to carry me across the river and you promised not to sting me. But half way across you did sting me and as I was dying and you were drowning I asked you why, why you stung me.

"Because its my nature".

And so we all get washed away. I will always be a frog and you a scorpion.