Can you explain the pause in CC

[greatcloudlives]

If you throw out the very warm El Nino year 1998, we have been at two and a half degrees warming average for twenty years.

This is the beginning of the global warming scare so much to early to say that the CO2 reductions worked. I am going to say that I believe the 23 Sun cycle following an even weaker 24 cycle is the best explaination.

What is your take on this ?

 

[Aussie Pete]

If you throw out the very warm El Nino year 1998, we have been at two and a half degrees warming average for twenty years.

This is the beginning of the global warming scare so much to early to say that the CO2 reductions worked. I am going to say that I believe the 23 Sun cycle following an even weaker 24 cycle is the best explaination.

What is your take on this ?

Who knows? According to some, we are entering a solar minimum that will bring about an new ice age. Others think that we will all cook in CO2 heat. And everything in between. Weather patterns are changing for sure. Personally, I think the real culprit is deforestation. God created the ideal CO2 balancing system, which man has proceeded to destroy. Now ways are being sought to solve the problem artificially. Of course, this is at enormous expense and a great deal of profit for some. So there is a vested interest in promoting climate change fear. The world has finally found a way to tax the air we breathe.

 

[sfs]

What pause do you mean?

 

[greatcloudlives]

Do you have any information about the next 11 year sun cycle ? I believe that it will be a low sunspot cycle also number 25th.

The CO2 level right now is optimal for the growth of plants so I hope that it levels out and compares to the temperature graphs.

 

[DerSchweik]

Global warming and cooling during the last 400,000 years.

The supposed "global warming trend" of the last 100 - 140 years cannot be seen in the graph below, the interval of time being so miniscule (less than the width of a human hair)

 

[sfs]

Global warming and cooling during the last 400,000 years.

The supposed "global warming trend" of the last 100 - 140 years cannot be seen in the graph below, the interval of time being so miniscule (less than the width of a human hair)

Which means it's happened really fast -- much faster than normal natural changes that are plotted here. That's a bad thing, right?

 

[greatcloudlives]

I am referring to the satellite graph found here https:// www.drroyspencer.com
The satellite graphs are without the fiddling added to the data and also cover the whole earth including Antarctica and the whole ocean especially the southern Atlantic ocean. Land based records don't include measurements for those areas. Also in 2015 NASA and NOAA changed their data sets and despite the supena by Congress to release the data from the graphs they have refused to do so.

 

[DerSchweik]

Which means it's happened really fast -- much faster than normal natural changes that are plotted here. That's a bad thing, right?

Oh c'mon, that's not at all what it means - nor is it what I said.

One barely even SEE the last 140 years on the above graph. Let's assume the graph is 3" wide. 100,000 years per inch. 140 years is 0.00035 x 4" or 0.00105" wide on that graph - which, to correct my statement above IS the diameter of a human hair.

Lay a human hair on that graph - anywhere on it and tell me we have definitive knowledge that whatever we think we've observed the last 140 years hasn't occurred at any time in the past - i.e. that what we're observing now is somehow "unique."

 

[sfs]

Do you mean this graph? It shows about a half a degree C rise over the last 20 years, if you leave the 1998 excursion out. So I still don't know what pause you mean.

 

[sfs]

Oh c'mon, that's not at all what it means - nor is it what I said.

One barely even SEE the last 140 years on the above graph. Let's assume the graph is 3" wide. 100,000 years per inch. 140 years is 0.00035 x 4" or 0.00105" wide on that graph - which, to correct my statement above IS the diameter of a human hair.

Lay a human hair on that graph - anywhere on it and tell me we have definitive knowledge that whatever we think we've observed the last 140 years hasn't occurred at any time in the past - i.e. that what we're observing now is somehow "unique."

Sorry, I didn't understand your point. The resolution of the graph doesn't tell us anything, however -- what's the resolution of the measurements?

 

[DerSchweik]

I was referring to the graph I posted... here (post #5 above):

Global warming and cooling during the last 400,000 years.

The supposed "global warming trend" of the last 100 - 140 years cannot be seen in the graph below, the interval of time being so miniscule (less than the width of a human hair)

View attachment 277084

 

[sfs]

I was referring to the graph I posted... here (post #5 above):

Yes, I know. You're trying to determine whether a temperature/CO2 increase like the one we're experiencing could be seen in the long-term record. You can't tell that by looking at the graph. You can only tell by finding out how fine the temporal resolution of the historical measurements is.

 

[DerSchweik]

My point is actually a simple one.

Per the 400,000 year graph, there is no rational way we can assume the data we've collected for the last 140 years is somehow UNIQUE. Yet, that's the alarmism being pushed by everyone enraptured by "climate change."

And I should note, it wasn't but 30-40 years ago we, in our hubris of knowledge, assumed the world was COOLING!

Since then we reverted to assuming it was WARMING.

Now, we're simply fine with calling it CHANGING.

 

[DerSchweik]

Yes, I know. You're trying to determine whether a temperature/CO2 increase like the one we're experiencing could be seen in the long-term record. You can't tell that by looking at the graph. You can only tell by finding out how fine the temporal resolution of the historical measurements is.

So, you're halfway to getting my point - no, we CANNOT tell that by the graph. Nor will we EVER be able to tell that by the graph. The data simply doesn't support it.

The second half of my point is that in our hubris of believing we're so smart about what's happening to our world is that we think our recent data is somehow UNIQUE in world history.

We can't say that.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Do you mean this graph? It shows about a half a degree C rise over the last 20 years, if you leave the 1998 excursion out. So I still don't know what pause you mean.

View attachment 277085

The satellite graph is in .1 degrees Celsius leaving out the smoothing found in the land based graph. Also 2015 was another large El Nino year.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Global warming and cooling during the last 400,000 years.

The supposed "global warming trend" of the last 100 - 140 years cannot be seen in the graph below, the interval of time being so miniscule (less than the width of a human hair)

View attachment 277084

The graph of the last 400,000 years shows the same warming we have been experiencing repeated over and over again. If you continue the graph you can see we have had nine warming periods every 1,500 years apart. So the poster is right this modern warming is not unique at all.

 

[Occams Barber]

I am referring to the satellite graph found here https:// www.drroyspencer.com
The satellite graphs are without the fiddling added to the data and also cover the whole earth including Antarctica and the whole ocean especially the southern Atlantic ocean. Land based records don't include measurements for those areas. Also in 2015 NASA and NOAA changed their data sets and despite the supena by Congress to release the data from the graphs they have refused to do so.

Your link is incorrect: This Roy Spencer, PhD is the correct link.

This graph comes from the website page you tried to link to and is, I assume, the graph you're referring to. It shows an ongoing upward trend from 1979 to 2020 when compared to the 1981 to 2010 average temperatures.

The reason land based measurements don't include the oceans is because they are land based measurements. Ocean based measurements are based on the collective data from satellites, surface floats and underwater probes. Prior to satellite measurement, ocean based measurement came from floats and ship based sensors.

OB

 

[greatcloudlives]

1998 and 2015 are high El Nino years without them the satellite graph shows a pause.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you have any information about the next 11 year sun cycle ? I believe that it will be a low sunspot cycle also number 25th.

So you got your time machine working then?

 

[greatcloudlives]

Occam's Barber the satellite graph does not agree with the models that project runaway global warming. We are left with a pause and it is contrary to what the CO2 theroy says.