Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

Gore's warming started in 2006.

 

[BartW]

It looks to me like temperature and CO2 are diverging. CO2 is continuing up and temperature isn't. And, I used 400/280. It just recently crossed 400. That would put it at 43%. And, to me 2C is something we can easily live with. Some of the charts in AR5 indicate we won't even get to 2C. Also, by all indications nature gets rid of half the CO2 that is produced no matter how much is produced. Also, you are proving my point. Camels once lived in the Arctic. The climate has always changed and we can't really do a whole lot about it.

You missed the point of that example. Last time CO2 was this high the temperature was 2-3 C warmer and CO2 was chasing a declining T. Now T is chasing a rapidly increasing CO2. So even if we stopped emitting CO2 today the planet would continue warming until it reaches equilibrium. Feedbacks aren't instantaneous.

Even if climate sensitivity were lower than most scientists believe, say 2 C, that would still be plenty to worry about. If we continue business as usual we will more than double %CO2 by 2100. The last ice age was only 4-5 C colder

 

[BartW]

Btw I was trying to compare annual averages. We've measured 400 ppm but the 2013 average was 396.5. I brainfarted and compared the 1880 avg to the most recent measurement 397.8 (CO2 varies seasonally). Still comes to 2.3 C

 

[BartW]

Gore's warming started in 2006.

And c'mon you can take better shots at gore than that. You should know by now 7 years =\= climate trend. That's cherry picking data. So is pointing to UAH's tropical upper tropospheric T trend as a reason to doubt AGW

 

[tumscalcium]

And c'mon you can take better shots at gore than that. You should know by now 7 years =\= climate trend. That's cherry picking data. So is pointing to UAH's tropical upper tropospheric T trend as a reason to doubt AGW

100 years on a 4 1/2 billion year old planet doesn't mean crap either.

 

[BartW]

100 years on a 4 1/2 billion year old planet doesn't mean crap either.

Climate by definition concerns 30+ year trends so yes, yes it does. Especially when the warming is unprecedented in our planet's 4.5 billion year history

 

[tumscalcium]

Climate by definition concerns 30+ year trends so yes, yes it does. Especially when the warming is unprecedented in our planet's 4.5 billion year history

No, it doesn't. I can only imagine you'd have been locked in an insane asylum if sorts during the mini ice age. This last 100 years was "Unprecedented"? You know every single 30-year old or 100-year old block of climate date in the history of the world? I suggest you and your buddies do some more digging.

 

[BartW]

No, it doesn't. I can only imagine you'd have been locked in an insane asylum if sorts during the mini ice age. This last 100 years was "Unprecedented"? You know every single 30-year old or 100-year old block of climate date in the history of the world? I suggest you and your buddies do some more digging.

At the very least unprecedented in the last 800,000 years for which we have good proxy temperature data

 

[Sandvol]

You missed the point of that example. Last time CO2 was this high the temperature was 2-3 C warmer and CO2 was chasing a declining T. Now T is chasing a rapidly increasing CO2. So even if we stopped emitting CO2 today the planet would continue warming until it reaches equilibrium. Feedbacks aren't instantaneous.

Even if climate sensitivity were lower than most scientists believe, say 2 C, that would still be plenty to worry about. If we continue business as usual we will more than double %CO2 by 2100. The last ice age was only 4-5 C colder

No I got your point and I think 2C would be fairly minor but you missed my point that sensitivity might be a lot lower than that and closer to the satellite data. I think CO2 might well double but I believe nature has negative feedbacks that will take care of it.

 

[Sandvol]

btw i was trying to compare annual averages. We've measured 400 ppm but the 2013 average was 396.5. I brainfarted and compared the 1880 avg to the most recent measurement 397.8 (co2 varies seasonally). Still comes to 2.3 c

0.85/0.43=1.98

 

[tumscalcium]

At the very least unprecedented in the last 800,000 years for which we have good proxy temperature data

Uh huh.

 

[BartW]

No I got your point and I think 2C would be fairly minor but you missed my point that sensitivity might be a lot lower than that and closer to the satellite data. I think CO2 might well double but I believe nature has negative feedbacks that will take care of it.

You say "the satellite data" like all satellite data are inconsistent with surface measurements. Again, it's only the UAH analysis, only below 20 latitude, and only in the upper troposphere.

You can hope that climate sensitivity is lower (though 2 isn't that much less than the consensus 3 and would still cause a lot of damage). You can guess earth has some unforeseen negative feedback. But policy shouldn't be driven by hopes and guesses. Policy should be driven by science. It's a question of risk assessment. If you knew there was a 90% chance of a hurricane would you go deep sea fishing? As zreeves has been saying, we should hedge our bets. We're going to have to go green sooner or later anyway

 

[BartW]

0.85/0.43=1.98

Splitting hairs but .85/.37 = 2.3. Annual avg has gone from 290 in 1880 to 396.5 in 2013

 

[Sandvol]

Splitting hairs but .85/.37 = 2.3. Annual avg has gone from 290 in 1880 to 396.5 in 2013

AGW scientist grasping at straws.

 

[Sandvol]

Comparison of actual versus CMIP-5. Seems to indicate temperature and models using positive cloud feed back are diverging. Also, makes you wonder whether T following CO2 or visa versa.

 

[Sandvol]

You say "the satellite data" like all satellite data are inconsistent with surface measurements. Again, it's only the UAH analysis, only below 20 latitude, and only in the upper troposphere.

You can hope that climate sensitivity is lower (though 2 isn't that much less than the consensus 3 and would still cause a lot of damage). You can guess earth has some unforeseen negative feedback. But policy shouldn't be driven by hopes and guesses. Policy should be driven by science. It's a question of risk assessment. If you knew there was a 90% chance of a hurricane would you go deep sea fishing? As zreeves has been saying, we should hedge our bets. We're going to have to go green sooner or later anyway

That's just it. We can't do anything more to stop a hurricane than we can global climate.

P.S.-And if you really think man's the problem you better go talk to China and India because they're the problem.

 

[BartW]

AGW scientist grasping at straws.

Nope just correcting your math

 

[BartW]

Comparison of actual versus CMIP-5. Seems to indicate temperature and models using positive cloud feed back are diverging. Also, makes you wonder whether T following CO2 or visa versa.

I don't know why you're focusing on this particular model. We can tell T is following CO2 because the CO2 is not 'natural' it's from burning fossil fuels. This is confirmed by isotopic data.

 

[Sandvol]

I don't know why you're focusing on this particular model. We can tell T is following CO2 because the CO2 is not 'natural' it's from burning fossil fuels. This is confirmed by isotopic data.

But, it doesn't look like it is following CO2.

 

[Sandvol]

I don't know why you're focusing on this particular model. We can tell T is following CO2 because the CO2 is not 'natural' it's from burning fossil fuels. This is confirmed by isotopic data.

I didn't want to use Singer's stuff because he's such a denier so I thought I'd use your guys' stuff.

 

[Sandvol]

Nope just correcting your math

This is from Wiki, you know that place you like to quote so much:

"This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[32] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.[33][34] Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks."

 

[BartW]

But, it doesn't look like it is following CO2.

Interesting but flawed. For one thing, the y-axis is a 12 month differential so you inherently can’t tell long term trends from that figure. What it does pick up on is brief CO2 spikes following El Nino years (maxima in the SST – red in your figure), which is a well known phenomenon (though the authors of that paper apparently weren't aware). Also the implicit assumption that global average temperature should follow miniscule changes in the yearly rate of CO2 increase is silly. Here’s a meaningful graph:

CO2 has been rising since the mid 18th century but T didn’t take off until the 20th century. Again, isotopic data confirms that it’s not ‘natural’ CO2. Smoking gun

I didn't want to use Singer's stuff because he's such a denier so I thought I'd use your guys' stuff.

Zing! But really, what do you mean in post 2115? The observed and IPCC projected temperatures are all within CMIP-5’s projection, despite the recent ‘slowdown’.

This is from Wiki, you know that place you like to quote so much:

"This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[32] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.[33][34] Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks."

Don’t hate on Wiki I was using 1880 as a baseline. You can use ‘pre-industrial’ for a baseline if you like but then you also need to use the pre-industrial temperature. According to ya boi at Berkeley global average temperature has increased 1.5 C over the past 250 years.

1.5/.43 = 3.5

Sound the alarm!!!!

 

[UGADawg4Life]

The colder winters britain has been experiencing are due to global warming according to these scientists
Global warming 'will give Britain longer, colder winters' as melting sea ice plays havoc with weather patterns | Mail Online


A few years ago Global Warming scientists were saying the oposite:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

does anybody actually believe the global warming garbage, except the people that are making billions from this myth? LOL

I would imagine that we've been trending a little warmer since the Ice Age 50,000 years ago and the Mini Ice Age 10,000 years ago. Weather patterns on Earth are cyclical. The people who push Global Warming are the Al Gore's who make money off speaking and writing on the topic. If you're a climatologist, you have to have something going on to justify your salary.

 

[BartW]

I would imagine that we've been trending a little warmer since the Ice Age 50,000 years ago and the Mini Ice Age 10,000 years ago. Weather patterns on Earth are cyclical. The people who push Global Warming are the Al Gore's who make money off speaking and writing on the topic. If you're a climatologist, you have to have something going on to justify your salary.

Dawg drive-by or new participant? There's so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin. If you have a specific problem or question pertaining to the topic I'll address it. Chances are it's been covered in this thread more than once

 

[Sandvol]

Interesting but flawed. For one thing, the y-axis is a 12 month differential so you inherently can’t tell long term trends from that figure. What it does pick up on is brief CO2 spikes following El Nino years (maxima in the SST – red in your figure), which is a well known phenomenon (though the authors of that paper apparently weren't aware). Also the implicit assumption that global average temperature should follow miniscule changes in the yearly rate of CO2 increase is silly. Here’s a meaningful graph:

CO2 has been rising since the mid 18th century but T didn’t take off until the 20th century. Again, isotopic data confirms that it’s not ‘natural’ CO2. Smoking gun



Zing! But really, what do you mean in post 2115? The observed and IPCC projected temperatures are all within CMIP-5’s projection, despite the recent ‘slowdown’.



Don’t hate on Wiki I was using 1880 as a baseline. You can use ‘pre-industrial’ for a baseline if you like but then you also need to use the pre-industrial temperature. According to ya boi at Berkeley global average temperature has increased 1.5 C over the past 250 years.

1.5/.43 = 3.5

Sound the alarm!!!!

Hey, are you related to Mann?