Can you explain the pause in CC

[Hans Blaster]

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.

What does "is in .1 degrees Celsius" even mean?

There's a very specific reason why smoothing is used. For this particular graph the data is sampled monthly. Climate has this 1-year pattern you may have heard about. It's related to the Earth and the Sun.

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

Your graph shows an ongoing upward trend since 1979. There is no pause. There are year to year variations but overall the temperature is climbing.

OB

 

[greatcloudlives]

I prefer the month by month sampling of the temperatures it's more accurate.
The main point made so far in this thread is that the modern warming up is not unique. There have been at least nine other warmings 1,500 years apart in the temperature record. The MWP , the Roman warming the two Holocene maximums and four others.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I prefer the month by month sampling of the temperatures it's more accurate.
The main point made so far in this thread is that the modern warming up is not unique. There have been at least nine other warmings 1,500 years apart in the temperature record. The MWP , the Roman warming the two Holocene maximums and four others.

Monthly sampling gets one to lose the forest for the trees. The earth is not symmetric N/S, so the heating pattern is not identical in the two halves of the year. The 13-month average is specifically designed to avoid seeing irrelevant signals in the data that is intended for use in climate studies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The main point made so far in this thread is that the modern warming up is not unique. There have been at least nine other warmings 1,500 years apart in the temperature record. The MWP , the Roman warming the two Holocene maximums and four others.

None of those are seen in the chart you seem to want posted (but fail to link every time). Stay on target.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Never the less I much prefer the satellite graphs. I believe that they're more accurate. The month by month sampling and without smoothing shows a clearer picture of what is going on.

 

[DerSchweik]

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.

...which was precisely my point as well. Well to be precise, that we have no basis for asserting this modern warming is somehow unique.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Never the less I much prefer the satellite graphs. I believe that they're more accurate. The month by month sampling and without smoothing shows a clearer picture of what is going on.

Spoken as someone who's never worked with noisy data.

You really don't get this, do you?

Do you even understand what is meant by climate? I really wonder at this point.

 

[Occams Barber]

Never the less I much prefer the satellite graphs. I believe that they're more accurate. The month by month sampling and without smoothing shows a clearer picture of what is going on.

Even if you remove smoothing, the month by month figures still show an upward trend.

OK- let's get even more detailed. The table below, taken from the same website page, shows month by month variations from the average for 6 different global localities over 16 months, plus a global average. Of the 96 separate locality measurements only 6 are below average (highlighted in red). Based on your need for detail this should prove that temperatures are rising - yes?

Actually no. This data is too detailed to show where the long term trend trend is heading.

Smoothing and averaging are absolutely legitimate statistical methodologies which allow stepping back from detailed data to clearly see the overall trend.

OB

 

[VirOptimus]

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 ?

My take is that you should learn the basics about climatechange. The science is pretty much settled, the real question is what to do about it.

Denying climate change is tinfoil hat territory.

 

[Occams Barber]

...which was precisely my point as well. Well to be precise, that we have no basis for asserting this modern warming is somehow unique.

We don't need to assert that it's unique. The possibility that a similar sudden increase in global temperatures may or may not have happened before doesn't discount what's happening now. This summary may help you to understand the linkage between CO2 and climate change.

1. We know the temperature is increasing and we know the approximate rate of increase.

2. We understand what caused those earlier cyclic increases you've mentioned.

3. With the info from 2 we can discount these cyclic causes as causes of the current warming

4. We have been aware since 1859 that small amounts of CO2 cause a greenhouse effect

5. We have, through 150 years of fossil fuel consumption, increased the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

6. Through isotope measurements we have confirmed that increased atmospheric CO2 is from human sources

7. Through measurement we have confirmed that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increase

8. Alternative causes of warming like sunspots, clouds, volcanic activity, forest clearance, aerosols, methane release etc. have either been discounted or assessed as relatively minor factors.

9. Modelling has predicted a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming.

10. Comparing model predictions to actual results indicates that modelling is accurate for a given concentration of CO2

Uniqueness is not the issue.

OB

 

[eclipsenow]

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

Dude, the only reason you don't show it in your Denialist Cherrypicking Graph is that today's temperature goes off this scale!

 

[DerSchweik]

Dude, the only reason you don't show it in your Denialist Cherrypicking Graph is that today's temperature goes off this scale!

LOL - these aren't exactly "denialist cherrypicking graph" people:
Global warming and cooling during the past 400,000 years/TITLE>
Chart of 420,000 year history: temperature, CO2, sea level - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert

But *perhaps* to your point - here's an 800,000 year graph:

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Problem is, the 800,000 year graph, while it *may* be to your point, actually reinforces mine. Now our current 140 year interval of time is HALF the size of a human hair.

To reiterate my point - it is IMPOSSIBLE to assert with today's relative "accuracies" that what we've been experiencing the past 140 years has never happened before, that this is somehow unique in world history.

And for what it's worth - the TITLE of that graph by NASA? "THE RELENTLESS RISE OF CARBON DIOXIDE" - is just a little bogus too, don't you think? Nasa's own graph doesn't show a "relentless rise" but consistent CYCLE of CO2.

 

[Paulos23]

LOL - these aren't exactly "denialist cherrypicking graph" people:
Global warming and cooling during the past 400,000 years/TITLE>
Chart of 420,000 year history: temperature, CO2, sea level - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert

But *perhaps* to your point - here's an 800,000 year graph:
View attachment 277174
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Problem is, the 800,000 year graph, while it *may* be to your point, actually reinforces mine. Now our current 140 year interval of time is HALF the size of a human hair.

To reiterate my point - it is IMPOSSIBLE to assert with today's relative "accuracies" that what we've been experiencing the past 140 years has never happened before, that this is somehow unique in world history.

And for what it's worth - the TITLE of that graph by NASA? "THE RELENTLESS RISE OF CARBON DIOXIDE" - is just a little bogus too, don't you think? Nasa's own graph doesn't show a "relentless rise" but consistent CYCLE of CO2.

If you ignore the end of the graph where the line goes straight up, sure. But the line has blown past previous levels in the last century.

 

[DerSchweik]

If you ignore the end of the graph where the line goes straight up, sure. But the line has blown past previous levels in the last century.

I posted the graph - intentionally, and with full knowledge of that spike.

My point - again - is that we don't know that similar spikes haven't occurred in the past - no data can possibly support such knowledge - for quite obvious reasons stated.

Unless maybe you can produce the annual data for an equivalent period of time, say, 1300 to 1440? Or how about the annual data for 1440 BC to 1300 BC? 6140 BC to 6000 BC? 200,140 BC to 200,000 BC?

 

[Paulos23]

I posted the graph - intentionally, and with full knowledge of that spike.

My point - again - is that we don't know that similar spikes haven't occurred in the past - no data can possibly support such knowledge - for quite obvious reasons stated.

Unless maybe you can produce the annual data for an equivalent period of time, say, 1300 to 1440? Or how about the annual data for 1440 BC to 1300 BC? 6140 BC to 6000 BC? 200,140 BC to 200,000 BC?

Then where is the extra CO2 coming from? Because based on the isotopes of CO2 most of that is from the human burning of CO2.

You think we would see something similar to the recent spike in the past if it was natural. We don't.

ETA: link to an article backing up my claim.
How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Or a less technical version:
How much of the recent CO₂ increase is due to human activities?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I posted the graph - intentionally, and with full knowledge of that spike.

My point - again - is that we don't know that similar spikes haven't occurred in the past - no data can possibly support such knowledge - for quite obvious reasons stated.

Unless maybe you can produce the annual data for an equivalent period of time, say, 1300 to 1440? Or how about the annual data for 1440 BC to 1300 BC? 6140 BC to 6000 BC? 200,140 BC to 200,000 BC?

Where does the data in the chart come from? What method is used to determine the CO2 levels prior to scientific measurement?

(Note, I am not claiming the data is wrong, only that it is important to understand the method used to derive it.)

 

[DerSchweik]

Then where is the extra CO2 coming from? Because based on the isotopes of CO2 most of that is from the human burning of CO2.

You think we would see something similar to the recent spike in the past if it was natural. We don't.

AGAIN - my point was you cannot know if other spikes have, or have not occurred in the past. You cannot know. We cannot know. The most intelligent, educated, applauded climate scientist the world has ever known cannot, does not know.

Moreover, claiming that the current spike is due to human activities is NOT warrant for asserting the current spike is somehow unique; that's a non-sequitur of non-sequiturs.

 

[Paulos23]

AGAIN - my point was you cannot know if other spikes have, or have not occurred in the past. You cannot know. We cannot know. The most intelligent, educated, applauded climate scientist the world has ever known cannot, does not know.

Moreover, claiming that the current spike is due to human activities is NOT warrant for asserting the current spike is somehow unique; that's a non-sequitur of non-sequiturs.

Yes we can know.

The Proof Is in the Atmosphere | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

In fact, the last time they where this high was when 15 million years ago.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

So we can know. The question is, are we going to keep making it higher and raising the temperature, or are we going to level it out and try to make the Earth livable.

 

[DerSchweik]

Where does the data in the chart come from? What method is used to determine the CO2 levels prior to scientific measurement?

That's a good question - understand though - it's not my data - it's data gathered by, and used by climate scientists and their followers in support of their climate science claims. I posted the links in post #33.

Since I'm using their own data to make my point, presumably the origin of the data are not in question.

(Note, I am not claiming the data is wrong, only that it is important to understand the method used to derive it.)

Appreciated. I want to point out as well that I am not questioning the data either.

That said, the answer to your first question is that "scientific measurement" has always been the determination of CO2 levels - although what we use to measure CO2 today versus what we use to measure CO2 say 400,000 years ago are necessarily quite different. Moreover, they are not interchangeable. And more importantly, nor do they produce the same level of accuracy in results. Indeed, the farther back in time they measure, the less accurate their measurements / results necessarily become.

The fundamental premise of the entire climate change argument is that what we are measuring so accurately today is predominantly MAN MADE, or MAN CAUSED - so if the spike we're seeing today is man-made, specifically fossil-fuel driven (by and large), and since we don't see (per their main premise) similar spikes back in time, this 140 year "event" is therefore unique.

My argument (re all the above) is that the data - specifically our ability to gather credible data with such precision over such precise time frames in the past (as we have the past 140 years) does not support us concluding that we can know the last 140 year's worth of data is unique - i.e. therefore, man-made.