NPR: 2017 Warmest Non-El Nino Year On Record

Visbek said:

:roll:

Many activists do, in fact, take lots of steps to reduce their carbon footprint. However, individual action is only a small part of the solution -- and is not mutually exclusive with pushing for national action. Reducing my own carbon footprint doesn't make my neighbor's car more fuel efficient, or make coal plants vanish in a puff of CO2-less smoke. Pushing for public transport or HPV-friendly cities certainly doesn't stop me from commuting via public transportation or bicycle.

A quick glance at the sources of CO2 in the US ought to make it obvious that individual action can only do so much.

What I know is that your attempts to impugn character and to construct a false choice are a failure. I also know that you've done nothing to counter the evidence or in any way disprove that the environment is a common good which we ought to protect, and that requires coordinated national and international action.

Click to expand...

CO2 is, as you well should know, a lagging indicator of warming...right?

You folks are unwilling to go whole hog but expect us, the unconvinced, to take a forced hit to our national economy, and our individual wallets/jobs, based on your sides unprovable whims, projections and models by paid/influenced propagandists on the matter.

Wow, impugn my character by saying I impugn character when all I did was expose your sides hypocrisy in not practicing what they preach. I would suggest as a conservative I have a much much smaller footprint than nearly every left leaner I have ever known... and I knew of more than many being in public ed for 17 years.

So...I think they have ladders on sale at Lowes if you need help off the high horse.

Gaugingcatenate said:

CO2 is, as you well should know, a lagging indicator of warming...right?

Click to expand...

You know that because scientists have told you that, right?

Odd that you only listen when it’s convenient, and don’t bother to understand the entire story.

Threegoofs said:

You know that because scientists have told you that, right?

Odd that you only listen when it’s convenient, and don’t bother to understand the entire story.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Nope.

Visbek said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record

NOAA has released the latest State of the Climate report, its annual checkup on our planet.

So, how did Earth fare in 2017?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: highest concentrations ever. Global surface temperature: near-record high. Sea surface temperature: near-record high. Global sea level: highest on record.

Warm global temperatures have been a strong trend in recent years: the four warmest years on record all occurred since 2014, and last year was among them. In fact, 2017 was the warmest non-El Niño year ever recorded.
(Emphasis added)

For those who don't mind reading 300 pages of mostly bad news, the full PDF of the annual report is available here:
https://www.ametsoc.net/sotc2017/StateoftheClimate2017_lowres.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes, and . . . ?
The appropriate response is: So what?
This is just a way to create a headline including the word "warmest" after cooling (post-2016) has begun.

Lord of Planar said:

Sure, there is a small amount of opposing political influence. However, the dominating political forces are showing AGW to be a threat. Power and control.

Click to expand...

"Small amount?" Have you not noticed Republicans opposing AGW for a few decades now? Did you ignore the repeated attempts to prevent the EPA from regulating CO2? The millions of dollars spent, every year, by fossil fuel companies lobbying to fight CO2 regulation -- even as their own research supported the theory of AGW?

Not true. It's the opposite. Before the industrial period, there is a clear response of CO2 levels to temperature though. Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels as a warmer ocean cannot absorb as much gas. A colder ocean absorbs more.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, in the actual world...

We do not know how much. It is SWAG (scientific wild ass guess.) In a controlled environment we can measure it's forcing response. In the complex atmosphere, there are too many variables involved.

Click to expand...

And yet, you've never actually explained what those variables actually are, or why something like AERI is utterly incapable of dealing with them. I mean, it's not like it can distinguish sources of forcing such as CO2, CH4, water vapor, aerosols and ice crystals; and can measure atmospheric moisture, atmospheric temperatures, cloud effective radius, longwave spectral brightness temperature and more. Oh, wait. That's exactly what it does.

And they obviously can't take steps to reduce variables, like only using results from clear-sky conditions. Oh wait. That's exactly what they did.

And it's not like they can compare aspects of their results to other measures, such as comparing AERI results to MERRI and CT2011. Oh wait. That's exactly what they did.

So no, you cannot make a vague assertion that "there are too many variables!" and expect that to actually work.

Evidence does not make fact.

Click to expand...

lol... Then what should we use to determine facts? Ouija boards? Tea leaves? Tarot cards? Darts thrown at academic journals?

It leaves out important factor. I see you aren't willing to take my challenge.

Click to expand...

:roll:

There is no "challenge" to take. Read the document. It's not a climate change textbook. It's not trying to duplicate the work of the IPCC. It's an annual report on how the climate changed in 2017. The authors have no need to review the basics.

I don't need an author interpreting papers for me. I read the research papers.

Click to expand...

lol

Those aren't "authors interpreting papers." They're climate change textbooks. If you want to understand how greenhouse gases work, you should try reading one.

I do understand the material, obviously far far better than you.

Click to expand...

longview said:

This decade is not evidence that CO2 is linked to the observed warming, it may not even be evidence of warming at all,
as the decade is not done yet.

Click to expand...

Decades. Plural. As in: We have decades of data backing up these claims. As in: "There is decades of data which does exactly that."

I am familiar with Feldman, (A very good paper)what he found was a change in IR from the Sky between 2000 and 2010,
and this is the closest we have to real evidence, that CO2 causes energy to move in the atmosphere in different ways.
The problem is, is that if his numbers are correct and a 22 ppm change cause a 0.2 Wm-2,
then CO2 is much less sensitivity that the IPCC is predicting.

Click to expand...

Y'know, it is so funny that you're "familiar" with him, since you keep insisting there is no proof, and I could be wrong but you didn't seem to recognize the paper when I started talking about it recently. I guess it just... slipped your mind?

Anyway. Back in the real world, his numbers aren't that far off. NOAA's global numbers has 2000-2010 as an increase of 0.26Wm^2, and doesn't include mitigating local effects like photosynthesis. That's why he explicitly writes:

These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

If they are working to reduce the uncertainty, what they have been doing for the last 40 years is not working.
The range has been 1.5 to 4.5 C since 1979. (Carney report).

Click to expand...

Climate science has made a significant dent in the uncertainties just in the past decade. The reason why temperatures might go up by 1.5C to 4.5C is not because of the physical uncertainties, but because we don't know exactly what humans are going to do. We've discussed this. Try to keep up.

Actually the warming is not everywhere, and every time, in the places where we report the T-Max and T-Min, there is
a large asymmetry both diurnally and seasonally. In the lower 48 for example the summer maximums have hardly moved, compared
to the winter minimums.

Click to expand...

Translation: You still don't understand how to read trend lines, even when you're the one telling the chart to include it.

The reason that rational people are not concerned with the observations, it that our planet's climate appears to bouncing around the
top rail of it's dead band, all of what we are seeing is noise, the real signal is the one that causes us to move down about 6 C.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's just total bull****.

CO2 is at peak levels. Temperatures in 2017 were the highest for a non-ENSO year. Ocean levels broke a record. In fact, all sorts of records were broken in 2017. It's not "noise."

When the report uses wording like "near-record high" why do you think they chose those words?
it ether was or was not a record high.

Click to expand...

Hello? McFly? It's because it was the 3rd or 4th hottest year on record.

We don't use phrases like "near-record high" when it's the 30th hottest year on record. Egads.

This cannot be so difficult for you to understand.

Gaugingcatenate said:

CO2 is, as you well should know, a lagging indicator of warming...right?

Click to expand...

Yes, and...?

What is that, some sort of lame half-hearted attempt to refute decades of scientific work?

You folks are unwilling to go whole hog but expect us, the unconvinced, to take a forced hit to our national economy, and our individual wallets/jobs, based on your sides unprovable whims, projections and models by paid/influenced propagandists on the matter.

Click to expand...

The evidence is strong. The data is solid. Denial, at this point, is almost as irrational as Flat Earthism.

Fortunately, in most respects, going green is beneficial for the economy, not detrimental. It improves energy independence, and if we actually work on the issue and take leadership, then we'll have a new set of services and goods to export. Meanwhile, the costs of doing nothing rise every year -- as we see from the immense damage done by hurricanes (which get more intense due to climate change), droughts, coastal floods, heat waves and more.

Wow, impugn my character by saying I impugn character when all I did was expose your sides hypocrisy in not practicing what they preach. I would suggest as a conservative I have a much much smaller footprint than nearly every left leaner I have ever known... and I knew of more than many being in public ed for 17 years.

Click to expand...

Well, if you know people that match what you're describing in your insults, then it must be true! Yes, every conservative I know is rushing out right now to trade their cars for bicycles, advocating for increased public transportation, encourage recycling in their community, reducing consumption.... :lamo

To be clear, I know that some conservatives actually do care about the environment. E.g. there's a pro-environment movement in the evangelical community. Unfortunately, there are also lots of conservatives who don't want any regulation or environmental protections, and sometimes those same individuals suffer as a direct result of removing those protections. (Strangers in Their Own Land describes some of these individuals btw).

And sure, there are wasteful liberals. But there are also millions who are careful about their purchases; who buy smaller cars or hybrids instead of massive gas-burning SUVs; who live in smaller homes, take public transportation, try not to waste food, emphasize energy efficiency, and more.

None of that changes the fact that changing individual behavior is not mutually exclusive with making the kind of larger-scale changes required by the scope of the problem.


P.S. if you don't like my response, then next time, try to actually engage the issue rather than proffer snarky ad hominem attacks on straw men.

part 1:

Visbek said:

"Small amount?" Have you not noticed Republicans opposing AGW for a few decades now? Did you ignore the repeated attempts to prevent the EPA from regulating CO2?

Click to expand...

Republicans are keeping the insanity out of it. There is no need to pay for regulating CO2. It is an unnecessary burden on economics, unless the rest of the world plays ball too.

I meant however, the financing. For every dollar spent on grants for researching sensible climate realities, there is more than $200 spent to show AGW as a threat. This is the political type forces in play that are dangerous. Whatever happened to balance?

Visbek said:

The millions of dollars spent, every year, by fossil fuel companies lobbying to fight CO2 regulation -- even as their own research supported the theory of AGW?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a "theory." Not by scientific definition. That's OK though. I understand you received a substandard and indoctrinated education in our system.

Anyway, nobody is denying that AGW is real. What people like you are unwilling to discuss is the fact that AGW is much more than greenhouse gasses, and that nature has a role as well on global warming.

Visbek said:

Meanwhile, in the actual world...

View attachment 67237388

Click to expand...

Yawn...

care to discuss how the slopes have insignificant relevance to each other? The temperature anomaly is only 0.35% of the global temperature, while the change in CO2 is around 25%. That 0.35% is insignificant when considering there are so many other variables that contribute too.

Visbek said:

And yet, you've never actually explained what those variables actually are, or why something like AERI is utterly incapable of dealing with them. I mean, it's not like it can distinguish sources of forcing such as CO2, CH4, water vapor, aerosols and ice crystals; and can measure atmospheric moisture, atmospheric temperatures, cloud effective radius, longwave spectral brightness temperature and more. Oh, wait. That's exactly what it does.

Click to expand...

Too bad AERI only goes back a little over 20 years, and isn't in enough locations for any meaningful data. Even at that, they measure 0.5 cm and longer longwave. Not greenhouse longwave.

Why did you bring that up? Do you think it has enough significance now? Great for the future, but not enough data points yet.

I have spoke of variables. There are other greenhouse gasses, there is water vapor, there are aerosols, solar changes, cloud changes, land use, etc. The natural variables discounting seasonal variables have cycles as little as 11 years and some longer than 1500 years.

Think of the various systems as having different frequencies, based on mass, pressure, etc. Once perturbed, they have their own natural resonance. I'll bet these concepts of physics are beyond you though.

Visbek said:

And they obviously can't take steps to reduce variables, like only using results from clear-sky conditions. Oh wait. That's exactly what they did.

Click to expand...

Clear skies today are different than clear skies 50 years ago. Solar values are different. Only the "direct" forcing of the sun is considered in papers rather than the multi-decade response of the sun-ocean-atmospheric coupling.

part 2:

Visbek said:

And it's not like they can compare aspects of their results to other measures, such as comparing AERI results to MERRI and CT2011. Oh wait. That's exactly what they did.

So no, you cannot make a vague assertion that "there are too many variables!" and expect that to actually work.

Click to expand...

I absolutely can with integrity. Papers conveniently leave out variables that would be inconvenient for continued grant money. How many papers have you read that consider the direct and indirect forcing of the sun? How many papers have you read that actually measured the response of CO2 in the whole earth atmosphere, without using models? How many papers have you read that in their methodology explain how they corrected for the loss of evaporation cooling where populations are, without using something like homogenization?

I would love to read any of those papers! I have yet to find any!!! It would really be appreciated if you could link one.

Visbek said:

lol... Then what should we use to determine facts? Ouija boards? Tea leaves? Tarot cards? Darts thrown at academic journals?

Click to expand...

We cannot determine fact yet. That's the problem. The science is too far away from being settled. Especially when research in the little understood areas remain unfunded.

Visbek said:

:roll:

There is no "challenge" to take. Read the document. It's not a climate change textbook. It's not trying to duplicate the work of the IPCC. It's an annual report on how the climate changed in 2017. The authors have no need to review the basics.

Click to expand...

LOL...

Funny how they sourced the IPCC in their works...

Visbek said:

lol

Those aren't "authors interpreting papers." They're climate change textbooks. If you want to understand how greenhouse gases work, you should try reading one.

Click to expand...

I have read such material, and such material is derived from a biased viewpoint of what the actual peer reviewed papers say.

You should try reading the peer reviewed research some time.

Visbek said:

Click to expand...

Yes, cartoons would be your speed. Like John Cook... The cartoonist and respected expert of the alarmists.

Visbek said:

"Small amount?" Have you not noticed Republicans opposing AGW for a few decades now? Did you ignore the repeated attempts to prevent the EPA from regulating CO2? The millions of dollars spent, every year, by fossil fuel companies lobbying to fight CO2 regulation -- even as their own research supported the theory of AGW?



Meanwhile, in the actual world...

View attachment 67237388



And yet, you've never actually explained what those variables actually are, or why something like AERI is utterly incapable of dealing with them. I mean, it's not like it can distinguish sources of forcing such as CO2, CH4, water vapor, aerosols and ice crystals; and can measure atmospheric moisture, atmospheric temperatures, cloud effective radius, longwave spectral brightness temperature and more. Oh, wait. That's exactly what it does.

And they obviously can't take steps to reduce variables, like only using results from clear-sky conditions. Oh wait. That's exactly what they did.

And it's not like they can compare aspects of their results to other measures, such as comparing AERI results to MERRI and CT2011. Oh wait. That's exactly what they did.

So no, you cannot make a vague assertion that "there are too many variables!" and expect that to actually work.



lol... Then what should we use to determine facts? Ouija boards? Tea leaves? Tarot cards? Darts thrown at academic journals?



:roll:

There is no "challenge" to take. Read the document. It's not a climate change textbook. It's not trying to duplicate the work of the IPCC. It's an annual report on how the climate changed in 2017. The authors have no need to review the basics.



lol

Those aren't "authors interpreting papers." They're climate change textbooks. If you want to understand how greenhouse gases work, you should try reading one.



]

Click to expand...

Let’s just point out...

You’re arguing with a guy who calls people ‘libtards’.

Lord of Planar said:

Republicans are keeping the insanity out of it....

Click to expand...

lol... next

There is no need to pay for regulating CO2. It is an unnecessary burden on economics, unless the rest of the world plays ball too.

Click to expand...

There is a need to regulate CO2, namely it is damaging the entire planet. It is not a burden, especially compared to the cost of doing nothing. The rest of the world is acting -- it is America, a primary source of CO2 emissions for decades, that is slacking.

Whatever happened to balance?

Click to expand...

"Balance" does not mean throwing money at quack theories that have substandard evidence and/or little basis in fact. You might as well suggest that the government should spend as much on the Flat Earth Society as on NASA.

Anyway, nobody is denying that AGW is real. What people like you are unwilling to discuss is the fact that AGW is much more than greenhouse gasses, and that nature has a role as well on global warming.

Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to discuss other ways humans are damaging the environment. However, we have fixed some of the more obvious problems. As a result, at this time GHG emissions (mostly CO2) are without question perhaps the most damaging change we are making, and one that has long term effects. I.e. If I'm bleeding from my femoral artery, I'm not going to spend a lot of time asking the doctor about my hay fever.

care to discuss how the slopes have insignificant relevance to each other? The temperature anomaly is only 0.35% of the global temperature, while the change in CO2 is around 25%. That 0.35% is insignificant when considering there are so many other variables that contribute too.

Click to expand...

...except that the 0.35% change in temperatures is causing heat waves, droughts, loss of ice mass, rise of sea levels, melting permafrost, yadda yadda yadda....

Too bad AERI only goes back a little over 20 years, and isn't in enough locations for any meaningful data. Even at that, they measure 0.5 cm and longer longwave. Not greenhouse longwave.

Click to expand...

Meaning what, 10 years of direct empirical data that CO2 is causing warming isn't good enough? Please.

I have spoke of variables. There are other greenhouse gasses, there is water vapor, there are aerosols, solar changes, cloud changes, land use, etc.

Click to expand...

And again... AERI tracks most of those variables. We also track other relevant variables, like cloud cover. We know from lots of other research that solar cycles don't have a big impact. There's no indication of any substantial changes in land use in the test locations.

So much for "variables."

The natural variables discounting seasonal variables have cycles as little as 11 years and some longer than 1500 years.

Click to expand...

Right, the mysterious unnamed "natural variables" that no one seems able to identify, let alone quantify. Yeah, we should definitely assume they're causing most of the warming, even though we've pretty thoroughly proven that it's GHGs which are causing the warming, and a stunning lack of proof for these other alleged cycles.

Clear skies today are different than clear skies 50 years ago. Solar values are different. Only the "direct" forcing of the sun is considered in papers rather than the multi-decade response of the sun-ocean-atmospheric coupling.

Click to expand...

Riiiiiight

No, wait, that's pretty much wrong. Climate scientists are well aware that a lot of heat is absorbed by the oceans, and that it can release slowly; in fact, that's why we know that if we magically ceased all GHG gases today, the planet would continue to warm for decades.

If anything, it seems to be the deniers who take the ocean out of the equation. It wasn't too long ago that the so-called "pause" lauded by the deniers was a result of more heat going into the oceans than expected. Guess who accepted this, and who rejected it?

By the way, I'm curious as to what proof you have of the "sun-ocean-atmospheric coupling" you cite. Based on your own criteria, such an association would be impossible to prove -- after all, you now have variables in three systems to deal with! I'm curious, is it easier to fix the variables in solar and ocean and atmospheric experiments, than in just atmospheric ones? lol....

Threegoofs said:

Let’s just point out...

You’re arguing with a guy who calls people ‘libtards’.

Click to expand...

Says the guy who calls people deniers.(does any liberal own a mirrior ????)

You know who does that?

Libtards.

:lamo

Visbek said:

Yes, and...?

What is that, some sort of lame half-hearted attempt to refute decades of scientific work?


The evidence is strong. The data is solid. Denial, at this point, is almost as irrational as Flat Earthism.

Fortunately, in most respects, going green is beneficial for the economy, not detrimental. It improves energy independence, and if we actually work on the issue and take leadership, then we'll have a new set of services and goods to export. Meanwhile, the costs of doing nothing rise every year -- as we see from the immense damage done by hurricanes (which get more intense due to climate change), droughts, coastal floods, heat waves and more.



Well, if you know people that match what you're describing in your insults, then it must be true! Yes, every conservative I know is rushing out right now to trade their cars for bicycles, advocating for increased public transportation, encourage recycling in their community, reducing consumption.... snip

To be clear, I know that some conservatives actually do care about the environment. E.g. there's a pro-environment movement in the evangelical community. Unfortunately, there are also lots of conservatives who don't want any regulation or environmental protections, and sometimes those same individuals suffer as a direct result of removing those protections. (Strangers in Their Own Land describes some of these individuals btw).

And sure, there are wasteful liberals. But there are also millions who are careful about their purchases; who buy smaller cars or hybrids instead of massive gas-burning SUVs; who live in smaller homes, take public transportation, try not to waste food, emphasize energy efficiency, and more.

None of that changes the fact that changing individual behavior is not mutually exclusive with making the kind of larger-scale changes required by the scope of the problem.


P.S. if you don't like my response, then next time, try to actually engage the issue rather than proffer snarky ad hominem attacks on straw men.

Click to expand...

You protestest too too too much. Worthy of a five laugher. :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

Who said anything about refuting decades of research... just doesnt fit the predetermined script if GW is supposed man made and CO 2 lags by 800 years. Yano?

And watch the character impugning there, hoss. Practice what you preach.

Yes and every democrat quit driving their cars, dont fly on jets, all only walk or bicycle to work and back, dont use tvs, computers, cell phones, dont travel beyound where they can walk, dont, like your sides post here, they dont stop blowing hot CO2 out there mouths, methane out the other end. Pffffffttt.

Name one conservative that doesnt want ANY regulations? That is close to a flat out lie, bro.

And the so casual confirmation bias with which you paint conservatives places one in the partisan hackery category. Many many conservatives do many of the same things and more.

Just because your side goes off the deep end doesnt grant you any special priviledge to drag the rest of us over the cliff as well. Your science, your dictates as to what is the ultimate truth and your scientists do not pass the smell test.

Stick to policing you own brand of snarkiness, bro... if you dont like what I have to say, dont respond. I am guessing you just dont like being undone time after time after time. Up your game is my suggestion.

Lord of Planar said:

I absolutely can with integrity. Papers conveniently leave out variables that would be inconvenient for continued grant money. How many papers have you read that consider the direct and indirect forcing of the sun?

Click to expand...

Climate science is well aware of solar forcing. We've even quantified it. When CO2 levels are relatively stable, solar effects can make a difference. However, in solar forcing is vastly overwhelmed by the effects of GHGs. As I said above: When your femoral artery is bleeding, you don't worry about hay fever.

How many papers have you read that actually measured the response of CO2 in the whole earth atmosphere, without using models?

Click to expand...

Why, so you can complain that there are too many variables? lol

I hate to break this to you, but it's pretty much impossible to test the entire atmosphere simultaneously, with or without models. I might add that when you check the results of your models to observations, which is standard practice when possible, that pretty much means you can use the models in good faith.

How many papers have you read that in their methodology explain how they corrected for the loss of evaporation cooling where populations are, without using something like homogenization?

Click to expand...

Oh, good grief.

We cannot determine fact yet. That's the problem. The science is too far away from being settled. Especially when research in the little understood areas remain unfunded.

Click to expand...

Translation: Lord of Planar doesn't like the facts.

KLATTU said:

Says the guy who calls people deniers.(does any liberal own a mirrior ????)

You know who does that?

Libtards.

:lamo

Click to expand...

Odd. He just denied the basic accepted science.



Seems like an appropriate descriptor. You seem to think its some sort of insult...

Gaugingcatenate said:

You protestest too too too much.

Click to expand...

Whatever, dude. Your post provides no evidence and no reason to reject the science. You're just lobbing ineffective insults. Bored now.

Visbek said:

I hate to break this to you, but it's pretty much impossible to test the entire atmosphere simultaneously, with or without models.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Are you finally starting to understand this simple scientific concept?

Visbek said:

Whatever, dude. Your post provides no evidence and no reason to reject the science. You're just lobbing ineffective insults. Bored now.

Click to expand...

Your admitted crux is the greenhouse gas CO2, bro. I dismissed your entire argument in one fell swoop. If CO2 is a lagging indicator by 800 years (youve never countered this) then man cannot have been the culprit. Yano?

You see, its a naturally occurring phenomenom. Thank me.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Your admitted crux is the greenhouse gas CO2, bro. I dismissed your entire argument in one fell swoop. If CO2 is a lagging indicator by 800 years (youve never countered this) then man cannot have been the culprit. Yano?

You see, its a naturally occurring phenomenom. Thank me.

Click to expand...

I think nearly all scientists accept that CO2 lags natural variations by around 800 years. However, our adding CO2 in unnatural way changes the dynamics of all this. The biosphere was in balance until we started burning fossil fuels. It can currently sink about half of what we emit. This equalization process takes several centuries. We have changed the dynamics of this climate relationship.

Lord of Planar said:

Exactly.

Are you finally starting to understand this simple scientific concept?

Click to expand...

lol

OK then. By your own stipulations:

• We can't say that any medicines work, because we haven't tested them on every single person on the planet.

• We can't say that "water is H2O," because we can't sample every liter of water in the universe

• We can't say that "photons have properties of both waves and particles," because we haven't actually performed double-slit tests on all photons

• We can't claim that the total entropy of an isolated system cannot fall over time, because we haven't examined all isolated systems

• We can't disprove AGW, because we can't check every square inch of the atmosphere

I.e. you're making an unreasonable demand for an irrational standard, and one which no scientific effort could possibly meet. It's routine for scientists to extrapolate based on relatively small samples. It's called "induction," and science cannot function without it.

Best of all, and unsurprisingly, your position is self-defeating. Your own ability to make any claims is decimated, because you can't meet your own standard. Whoops.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Your admitted crux is the greenhouse gas CO2, bro. I dismissed your entire argument in one fell swoop. If CO2 is a lagging indicator by 800 years (youve never countered this) then man cannot have been the culprit. Yano?

Click to expand...

800 years?!? :lamo

Where did you get that nonsense? CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a long time, but not 800 years. It's more like 200.

There were some lags at the end of ice ages, but... That doesn't describe the current conditions, and doesn't refute AGW.

And no, you said nothing of the sort in this thread. All you said was it was a "lagging indicator," which is fairly accurate. Again, some of the heat increase goes into the oceans, and can take decades to release. Not centuries.

Comedy gold.

Minor cleanup to previous post:

I did not realize that there was a full-blown denialist trope, based on some natural systems where warming releases CO2 into the atmosphere (again, typically at the end of ice ages). So, I misread the original "lagging indicator" to simply mean "lag in effect." So, to be more precise:

- CO2 can be released during natural warming cycles.
- That release of CO2 can cause significant additional warming after the natural cycle ends.
- This chain of events does not change the fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere in fairly short order - even though some of the heat goes into the oceans, and gets released over decades. (I.e. atmospheric temperature increases slightly lags CO2 increases)
- I.e. instances where CO2 has increased after some temperature changes does not refute the facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere; that humans are emitting massive amounts of GHGs, thus causing the warming of the planet.
- For future reference, merely saying "CO2 lags temperature" without any explanation whatsoever doesn't actually refute anything.

Visbek said:

Decades. Plural. As in: We have decades of data backing up these claims. As in: "There is decades of data which does exactly that."



Y'know, it is so funny that you're "familiar" with him, since you keep insisting there is no proof, and I could be wrong but you didn't seem to recognize the paper when I started talking about it recently. I guess it just... slipped your mind?

Anyway. Back in the real world, his numbers aren't that far off. NOAA's global numbers has 2000-2010 as an increase of 0.26Wm^2, and doesn't include mitigating local effects like photosynthesis. That's why he explicitly writes:

These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.



Climate science has made a significant dent in the uncertainties just in the past decade. The reason why temperatures might go up by 1.5C to 4.5C is not because of the physical uncertainties, but because we don't know exactly what humans are going to do. We've discussed this. Try to keep up.



Translation: You still don't understand how to read trend lines, even when you're the one telling the chart to include it.



Yeah, that's just total bull****.

CO2 is at peak levels. Temperatures in 2017 were the highest for a non-ENSO year. Ocean levels broke a record. In fact, all sorts of records were broken in 2017. It's not "noise."



Hello? McFly? It's because it was the 3rd or 4th hottest year on record.

We don't use phrases like "near-record high" when it's the 30th hottest year on record. Egads.

This cannot be so difficult for you to understand.

Click to expand...

The Feldman paper covers a single decade, and records change in downward IR over that decade.
It is likely related to CO2, but we do not actually know.

Actually the uncertainty of ECS is not related to what Humans will do, but based on 2XCO2,
the bulk of the uncertainty is from our poor understanding of clouds interacting with radiation.
The RCP relate to Human activity, not ECS.

You may choose to deny the data, I have to accept what it says, and the data says that the observed warming has both diurnal and seasonal asymmetry.

CO2 may be at peak levels, but 800,000 years of data, says we are near the top rail of temperature.

Worry all you want, the data does not support your concerns!

longview said:

The Feldman paper covers a single decade, and records change in downward IR over that decade.
It is likely related to CO2, but we do not actually know.

Click to expand...

Uh, hello? The whole point of the Feldman paper is that it uses empirical tests to determine that increases in CO2 result in higher temperatures on the ground. In other words: We know.

You may choose to deny the data, I have to accept what it says, and the data says that the observed warming has both diurnal and seasonal asymmetry.

CO2 may be at peak levels, but 800,000 years of data, says we are near the top rail of temperature.

Click to expand...

lol... The irony is killing me.

I assure you, I'm not the one denying any data. Climate scientists are well aware of diurnal and seasonal variations (as you've been told more than once), and those variations do not in any way refute AGW (again, you've been told several times). Meanwhile, you routinely deny that sea level rise rates are accelerating, that CO2 causes the majority of warming, and so on.

If "top rail of temperature" means that "temperatures will not go any higher," that is absolutely absurd. There is absolutely no justification for such a claim. We are at levels of CO2 that the planet hasn't had in millions of years. There are no magic fairies in the atmosphere that will whisk away excess heat. We are nowhere near any sort of saturation point, at which additional CO2 will not trap additional heat.

Worry all you want, the data does not support your concerns!

Click to expand...

Get your head out of the sand.

Temperatures are rising. Records are being broken left and right. Yet again, ocean levels broke a record. San Diego just recorded record ocean temperatures. Even as I type this, Europe is facing its hottest day in recorded history. The list goes on.

The data supports, and is the basis of, my concerns. Climate science supports, and is the basis of, my concerns. The work done by climate scientists supports, and is the basis of, my concerns. We've seen week after week of record heat, year after year of record temperatures and record sea levels and record Arctic ice loss, we've seen decade after decade of CO2 increases going hand in hand with global temperature increases. So yes, my concerns are justified. Your blasé attitude is not.

Visbek said:

. . . We've seen week after week of record heat, year after year of record temperatures and record sea levels and record Arctic ice loss, we've seen decade after decade of CO2 increases going hand in hand with global temperature increases. So yes, my concerns are justified. Your blasé attitude is not.

Click to expand...

In 2018 near-record ice accumulation in Greenland.

Svensmark theory says that will result in further terrestrial cooling due to an increased albedo of the planet due to high cloud cover. The bellwether of ice sheets, the Greenland Ice Sheet, is already responding with ice accumulation at a near-record rate in 2018:

Figure 3: The accumulated surface mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from September 2017 to now