Global Temperatures Are Mostly Fake

[Mithrae]

The climate has been changing since the beginning. It is not changing now at a rate that will doom human life. It is changing at a roughly normal rate. We will adapt, if we can keep ourselves from the global fascist progressive rule.

From Shakun et al 2012, the last major deglaciation saw an average global rate of warming (blue) around 0.04 degrees per century:


From Marcott et al 2013, after reaching a thermal maximum around 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, the millennial trend has been cooling:


Various shorter-term paleoclimate studies offer higher resolution insights into the past thousand-plus years of climate change (from McShane and Wyner 2010, if memory serves):

If an asteroid were hurtling toward earth with deadly impact results imminent there would be no disagreement with the science of the observation. Oddly, with the supposedly deadly climate issues, the faithful and skeptic groups fall along largely conservative / progressive lines. It just screams of political agenda.

Not quite accurate. Opposition to effective curtailment of GHG emissions comes largely from those opposed to unpopular regulation on business, including for example Al Gore when he was Vice President:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/dec/17/comment.world

"After 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session."

These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore.

The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore's team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement. Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts....​

If this were the vast international globalist agenda which some folk imagine, of all people the Clinton/Gore team should have pushed it hardest! Instead, the reality suggests that it is servitude to political donors, business interests and neoliberal economic ideology which is the main factor behind opposition to climate science.

Same thing as happened with asbestos.
Same thing as happened with tobacco.
Same thing as happened with CFCs.

 

[Jack Hays]

From Shakun et al 2012, the last major deglaciation saw an average global rate of warming (blue) around 0.04 degrees per century:
View attachment 67204680

From Marcott et al 2013, after reaching a thermal maximum around 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, the millennial trend has been cooling:
View attachment 67204682

Various shorter-term paleoclimate studies offer higher resolution insights into the past thousand-plus years of climate change (from McShane and Wyner 2010, if memory serves):
View attachment 67204683



Not quite accurate. Opposition to effective curtailment of GHG emissions comes largely from those opposed to unpopular regulation on business, including for example Al Gore when he was Vice President:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/dec/17/comment.world

"After 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session."

These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore.

The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore's team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement. Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts....​

If this were the vast international globalist agenda which some folk imagine, of all people the Clinton/Gore team should have pushed it hardest! Instead, the reality suggests that it is servitude to political donors, business interests and neoliberal economic ideology which is the main factor behind opposition to climate science.

Same thing as happened with asbestos.
Same thing as happened with tobacco.
Same thing as happened with CFCs.

Gutting Kyoto was a victory for all mankind.

 

[Cable]

Throw out the general population. If there were real AGW issues that were going to lead to our demise, wouldn't at least the scientific community agree 100%?
Or are there some Prof. D Boneheads?

I have a higher than average IQ and from what I can see of it all, I am not even slightly concerned about it.
I am very concerned about the fascist tactics employed to control the populations using this tool though. That screams of Globalism and tyranny.

 

[Threegoofs]

This is obvious if :

1) You read the actual papers, and not what the pundits say about the papers.
2) You actually understand what you read.
3) Have critical thinking skills and understand that words have meaning.

Apparently, you think the scientists who actually DO the research in this field don't know as much as you do about it .

That's why you're always good for a laugh.

 

[Mithrae]

Throw out the general population. If there were real AGW issues that were going to lead to our demise, wouldn't at least the scientific community agree 100%?
Or are there some Prof. D Boneheads?

I have a higher than average IQ and from what I can see of it all, I am not even slightly concerned about it.
I am very concerned about the fascist tactics employed to control the populations using this tool though. That screams of Globalism and tyranny.

Who said it's going to lead to our demise? Probably just a couple of hundred million extra deaths per decade and significantly worse living standards for a few billion, from what I've read. More flooding in wet regions, more drought in dry regions, better conditions for the spread of vector-borne diseases, that sort of thing. Nothing too serious.
Thead: IPCC synthesis report leaked.

And of course you're not concerned - you most likely live in a prosperous country. Unless it leads to mass migration and major wars, even your grandchildren probably won't be affected too badly, let alone you. Rev up the hummer, go for a picnic, eat, drink and be merry!

 

[Cable]

Who said it's going to lead to our demise? Probably just a couple of hundred million extra deaths per decade and significantly worse living standards for a few billion, from what I've read. More flooding in wet regions, more drought in dry regions, better conditions for the spread of vector-borne diseases, that sort of thing. Nothing too serious.
Thead: IPCC synthesis report leaked.

And of course you're not concerned - you most likely live in a prosperous country. Unless it leads to mass migration and major wars, even your grandchildren probably won't be affected too badly, let alone you. Rev up the hummer, go for a picnic, eat, drink and be merry!

I would hope you won't worry too much either. It's not good for you to fret over stuff you have no control over. Climate is one of those things.
Nothing is going to change very quickly, as history shows. The U.S. used to be fairly well covered in ice, the Sahara desert used to be lush and green. Things change, but as you can see, humans still manage to live in both places despite the fact that they have changed tremendously over time.
...Or maybe it will be like that stupid movie "day after tomorrow" where you step out of your vehicle and instantly freeze solid. That could happen, right? It happened in Hollywood....

Climate models.... Really? Scientists obviously don't know enough to create an accurate model. But that isn't stopping political agendas from seizing on the fear they might create for power. Some things never change.

The wet period, called the African Humid Period, started and ended suddenly, confirming previous studies by other groups, the sediments revealed. However, toward the Humid Period's end about 6,000 years ago, the dust was at about 20 percent of today's level, far less dusty than previous estimates, the study found.

The study may give scientists a better understanding of how changing dust levels relate to climate by providing inputs for climate models, David McGee, an MIT paleoclimatologist and lead study author, said in a statement. Sahara desert dust dominates modern-day ocean sediments off the African coast, and it can travel in the atmosphere all the way to North America.

McGee and his colleagues are now testing whether the dust measurements can resolve a long-standing problem: the inability of climate models to reproduce the magnitude of wet conditions in North Africa 6,000 years ago.

Sahara Went From Green to Desert in a Flash | Climate Change

 

[longview]

And there's no reason to suppose that they're wrong. To put this in perspective, here's what the diurnal damping effect looks like in the contiguous United States:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/nclimdiv-tmax-tmin

I have to wonder why the NOAA numbers for T-Max and T-Min warming vary so greatly from the published literature.
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States

As demonstrated in Fig. 1, the annual mean maximum air temperature has a slightly increasing trend at 0.002848 °C/yr,
but the annual mean minimum air temperature is rising at a much faster rate, 0.007506 °C/yr.
So, the significantly increasing trend of mean minimum temperature contributes to the decrease of mean DTR.

NOAA T-Max trend 1.2 F per century
NOAA T-Min trend 1.5 F per century
Paper's T-Max trend .2848 °C per century
Paper's T-Min trend .7506 °C per century
Even without converting F to C the ratios are all wrong.

The papers trends are similar to many other published papers.

 

[Threegoofs]

I would hope you won't worry too much either. It's not good for you to fret over stuff you have no control over. Climate is one of those things.
Nothing is going to change very quickly, as history shows. The U.S. used to be fairly well covered in ice, the Sahara desert used to be lush and green. Things change, but as you can see, humans still manage to live in both places despite the fact that they have changed tremendously over time.
...Or maybe it will be like that stupid movie "day after tomorrow" where you step out of your vehicle and instantly freeze solid. That could happen, right? It happened in Hollywood....

Climate models.... Really? Scientists obviously don't know enough to create an accurate model. But that isn't stopping political agendas from seizing on the fear they might create for power. Some things never change.

The wet period, called the African Humid Period, started and ended suddenly, confirming previous studies by other groups, the sediments revealed. However, toward the Humid Period's end about 6,000 years ago, the dust was at about 20 percent of today's level, far less dusty than previous estimates, the study found.

The study may give scientists a better understanding of how changing dust levels relate to climate by providing inputs for climate models, David McGee, an MIT paleoclimatologist and lead study author, said in a statement. Sahara desert dust dominates modern-day ocean sediments off the African coast, and it can travel in the atmosphere all the way to North America.

McGee and his colleagues are now testing whether the dust measurements can resolve a long-standing problem: the inability of climate models to reproduce the magnitude of wet conditions in North Africa 6,000 years ago.

Sahara Went From Green to Desert in a Flash | Climate Change

Says history shows climate doesn't change quickly.

References study showing climate changed quickly.

 

[Mithrae]

I have to wonder why the NOAA numbers for T-Max and T-Min warming vary so greatly from the published literature.
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States

NOAA T-Max trend 1.2 F per century
NOAA T-Min trend 1.5 F per century
Paper's T-Max trend .2848 °C per century
Paper's T-Min trend .7506 °C per century
Even without converting F to C the ratios are all wrong.
View attachment 67204707
The papers trends are similar to many other published papers.

That's a bit of a puzzle. I noticed the approx. 3:1 ratio in the Hansen paper you linked to also, but figured the difference was because Hansen's figures were global and only covered the early 1950s to early 1990s. Still, the facts remain that A) daytime and summer temperatures are significantly increasing, not just 'benign' winter/night increases and B) the main mechanisms which reduce the DTR (aerosol occlusion from carbon burning and greater immediate effect from GHGs at night time) do not have the long equalization time of the overall greenhouse warming effect, so even in the scenario of significant emissions reductions it's likely that Tmax will continue to increase.

 

[ludin]

I have to wonder why the NOAA numbers for T-Max and T-Min warming vary so greatly from the published literature.
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States

NOAA T-Max trend 1.2 F per century
NOAA T-Min trend 1.5 F per century
Paper's T-Max trend .2848 °C per century
Paper's T-Min trend .7506 °C per century
Even without converting F to C the ratios are all wrong.
View attachment 67204707
The papers trends are similar to many other published papers.

They need another 10m to fun their research?
Usually it is about money.

If you publish a real scientific paper that shows what is really going on and eliminate the
Bias that is being generated then you don't get you grant money you are probably threatened with your job,
And you won't get your paper published.

On the other hand you come out with a a paper claiming the do and gloom
Then you will probably win a noble prize, you will get 10s of millions in grant money, and
Top climate scientists will be all over you to work for them.

 

[longview]

That's a bit of a puzzle. I noticed the approx. 3:1 ratio in the Hansen paper you linked to also, but figured the difference was because Hansen's figures were global and only covered the early 1950s to early 1990s. Still, the facts remain that A) daytime and summer temperatures are significantly increasing, not just 'benign' winter/night increases and B) the main mechanisms which reduce the DTR (aerosol occlusion from carbon burning and greater immediate effect from GHGs at night time) do not have the long equalization time of the overall greenhouse warming effect, so even in the scenario of significant emissions reductions it's likely that Tmax will continue to increase.

Actually the published literature shows the complete opposite, for the US Summer and fall T-Max are deceasing, while only Winter and Spring T-Max is increasing.

 

[Cable]

Says history shows climate doesn't change quickly.

References study showing climate changed quickly.

Relatively quickly would be the key, and naturally to boot.

 

[Threegoofs]

Relatively quickly would be the key, and naturally to boot.

Kinda like this?

 

[longview]

Kinda like this?

As long as your understand the the majority of that warming was in winter evenings, and the the proxies from the earlier portion
of the graph are likely incapable of the resolution necessary to show the recent warming.

 

[Threegoofs]

As long as your understand the the majority of that warming was in winter evenings, and the the proxies from the earlier portion
of the graph are likely incapable of the resolution necessary to show the recent warming.

Well, you would know more than the authors.... because you are a proud random anonymous internet poster.

 

[longview]

Well, you would know more than the authors.... because you are a proud random anonymous internet poster.

You mean those authors like, Hansen, Karl, and Tyndail, they actually agree with me.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Arrhenius noted in his opening statement that Tyndail thought the effects were largely diurnal and annual variation.

 

[Mithrae]

Actually the published literature shows the complete opposite, for the US Summer and fall T-Max are deceasing, while only Winter and Spring T-Max is increasing.

Summer temperatures are increasing in the US (mean), and daytime temperatures are increasing in the US (annual), and summer daytime temperatures are increasing in the US northwest (~0.02/century) and especially southwest (~0.77/century); so that's not quite completely the opposite of what I said :lol: Moreover summer Tmax is increasing across the Northern Hemisphere as a whole (1950-1993), and even moreso in the south; only the northern autumn Tmax shows a decreasing trend:

http://web.csag.uct.ac.za/~daithi/papers/StoneDA_WeaverAJ_2002.pdf

 

[longview]

Summer temperatures are increasing in the US (mean), and daytime temperatures are increasing in the US (annual), and summer daytime temperatures are increasing in the US northwest (~0.02/century) and especially southwest (~0.77/century); so that's not quite completely the opposite of what I said :lol: Moreover summer Tmax is increasing across the Northern Hemisphere as a whole (1950-1993), and even moreso in the south; only the northern autumn Tmax shows a decreasing trend:

http://web.csag.uct.ac.za/~daithi/papers/StoneDA_WeaverAJ_2002.pdf

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the T-Max and T-Min data, and so much rely on the published
literature. Your citation Stone Weaver, 2002, covers a limited time period (1950 to 1993) and disagrees greatly
with other published works.
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States
From a wider time frame in a more recent publication(2014) Most of the warming has occurred,
in winter and spring T-Min temperatures, across all regions.

 

[Cable]

Well, you would know more than the authors.... because you are a proud random anonymous internet poster.

I don't play hockey with the weather, nor should any scientist. It is just not right.

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't play hockey with the weather, nor should any scientist. It is just not right.

I dont think anyone can argue with that statement. Literally.

 

[austrianecon]

Obviously warmer evenings and nights is a distinctive indication that the main cause is greenhouse gases retaining daytime heat (not daytime effects like a hotter sun or fewer clouds blocking sunlight or whatever other half-baked theories some 'sceptics' cling to).

Similarly hotter winter months specifically - and in the Northern Hemisphere especially, as you've pointed out before - indicate the feedback mechanism of reduced albedo from faster and earlier snow melt, further amplifying the initial GHG warming.

These are important things to point out. Summers and days are getting hotter too of course, but at a slower rate.

Or is it urban heating that has caused these problems as most of our cities and towns are asphalt and concrete.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Or is it urban heating that has caused these problems as most of our cities and towns are asphalt and concrete.

I'm very confident that the heat island effect is far greater than people think. Nearly all weather stations used for temperature are affected. Not only do we have the albedo and emissivity changes from land use that increase heat, but we reduce and in some cities all but eliminate transpiration from plants. When water is now diverted into storm sewers instead of growing plants, the cooling of the surface from transpiration is no longer present.

 

[austrianecon]

I'm very confident that the heat island effect is far greater than people think. Nearly all weather stations used for temperature are affected. Not only do we have the albedo and emissivity changes from land use that increase heat, but we reduce and in some cities all but eliminate transpiration from plants. When water is now diverted into storm sewers instead of growing plants, the cooling of the surface from transpiration is no longer present.

Absolutely. It's actually kinda funny watching official reading coming from Airports and Downtowns. For example.. BWI and Dulles set records yesterday at 100 plus degrees. If you are from the Baltimore/DC area, you know damn well, these areas are subject to Urban heating. Go out 10 miles from those official stations and temps drop off by 5 degrees.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Absolutely. It's actually kinda funny watching official reading coming from Airports and Downtowns. For example.. BWI and Dulles set records yesterday at 100 plus degrees. If you are from the Baltimore/DC area, you know damn well, these areas are subject to Urban heating. Go out 10 miles from those official stations and temps drop off by 5 degrees.

I see an almost constant 3F drop going from where I live, to another location I regularly go to that is as a lower altitude and should increase rather than decrease. I'm pretty certain that the cause is that I live in a suburban area that is probably at least 90% covered by asphalt, concrete, and buildings. However, this area that drops the 3 degrees is at least 90% open spaces with natural vegetation.

It's only 2 miles away or less.

 

[Mithrae]

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the T-Max and T-Min data, and so much rely on the published
literature. Your citation Stone Weaver, 2002, covers a limited time period (1950 to 1993) and disagrees greatly
with other published works.
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States

That's for the US, not hemispheric or global.


#####

Or is it urban heating that has caused these problems as most of our cities and towns are asphalt and concrete.

The image in my post above uses non-urban stations.