Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

That is not the trend over the last 100 years when we have been adding record amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

EXACTLY.

As you say, RECORD amounts; unheard, ungodly, devastating, massive, dangerous, run-for-the-hills amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere the last 100 years.

And yet the change in global temps barely makes a blip when you look at the 10000 year trend.

Again, what exactly is the problem?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ya got me. You're right, let's look at the long-term trend

And let us not commit the fallacy that Greenland is the entire world, andypro7 !
Climate scientists know that the world has been much warmer and much colder than it is today. They analyze these periods to see how sensitive the climate is to changes in drivers such as the Sun and CO2.
How sensitive is our climate?

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

What is important is what is happening to the modern climate today and what that means for climate predictions. What is happening is that our CO2 emissions have become the main driver of climate.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate

While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

Global warming has worse consequences with increasing temperatures: Positives and negatives of global warming

The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Again, what exactly is the problem?

The problem is the consequences of global warming, andypro7 - see my previous post. For example

Smith et al. (2009) (on which the late great Stephen Schneider was a co-author) updated the IPCC impact assessment, arriving at similar conclusions. For example,

"There is medium confidence that ~20–30% of known plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 °C to 2.5 °C over 1980–1999"

"increases in drought, heat waves, and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency, and flood risks (starting at less than 1 °C of additional warming above 1990 levels) and adverse health effects (slightly above 1 °C)"

"climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding after a further 2 °C warming from 1990 levels; reductions in water supplies (0.4 to 1.7 billion people affected with less than a 1 °C warming from 1990 levels); and increased health impacts (that are already being observed"​

 

[RealityCheck01]

And yet the change in global temps barely makes a blip when you look at the 10000 year trend.

What does climate science say about global temperatures, andypro7?
Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak (Scientific American 2013)

What does science say about the Greenland data:
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer is a climate skeptic myth from Monckton.

This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.

andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?

 

[andypro7]

What does climate science say about global temperatures, andypro7?
Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak (Scientific American 2013)

Originally Posted by RealityCheck01

What does climate science say about global temperatures, andypro7?
Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak (Scientific American 2013)
​

Of course climate science would say this, but what about REAL science:

Below is a graph showing what the study's author, Shaun Marcott, did. He used previously published ocean core data, but he ALTERED THE DATES, sometimes by as much as 1000 years.

If you can't read the small writing, the red line is the original dating done by, you know, SCIENTISTS. The black line is Marcott's fraudulent hockey stick style altering of the dates and data.

Steve McIntyre, the guy who uncovered Michael Mann's hockey stick fraud, also uncovered this fraud just days after it was released. For more on this US TAXPAYER FUNDED FRAUD, go:

More fraud in climate science | Behind The Black

McIntyre finds the Marcott ‘trick’ – How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? | Watts Up With That?

The Hockey Stick, Broken Again | Power Line

The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service « Climate Audit


Look, I could go on and on and on with links that almost immediately debunked the Marcott fraud, the last link there USES MARCOTTS OWN DATA to show his fraud. But here's the real question:

Why is it that you believe a paper that was thoroughly debunked nearly two years ago to prove your point? Why is it that it took me about 10 minutes to find SEVERAL scientific rebuttals of this fraud, but yet you had NO IDEA that it was a fraud?

This is a very important question for you. You should know that your rapid belief makes you susceptible to this kind of fraud. So, will you change you research habits? Will you become skeptical now seeing multiple fraudulent claims from the warmists? Will you have an open mind?

The answer should be yes, but in my experience people who post stuff like this and get utterly and thoroughly destroyed just slink away, and never learn a thing.

 

[eclipsenow]

Steve McIntyre, the guy who uncovered Michael Mann's hockey stick fraud, also uncovered this fraud just days after it was released.

Oh dear oh dear. Really? You're that far gone?

What counts in science, however, is not a single study. It is whether its finding can be replicated by others. Here Mann has been on a winning streak. Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years.

Part four: Climate change debate overheated after sceptics grasped 'hockey stick' | Environment | The Guardian

You should know that your rapid belief makes you susceptible to this kind of fraud.

Is that like your rapid belief that I just had to be wrong on the half-a-trillion dollar a year subsidy to fossil fuels?

Will you become skeptical now seeing multiple fraudulent claims from the warmists? Will you have an open mind?

Will you accept that Michael Mann's hockey stick has been independently criticised for minor 'cherrypicking' but has actually been more-or-less replicated by repeated scientific studies? That the whole of climate science does not rest on that one earlier graph, but has since evolved and adapted to lots of new studies? That would be great. Otherwise you're not just a climate-denier but a bit of a science-hater.

The answer should be yes, but in my experience people who post stuff like this and get utterly and thoroughly destroyed just slink away, and never learn a thing.

Is that like the way you slunk away from Harvard saying coal had a $500 billion dollar annual externalised cost to the American economy, and the way you slunk away from this graph?

 

[andypro7]

blah, blah, blah.....

Maybe you didn't get it from my last post, so I'll spell it out: I stopped reading anything you posted about 30 posts ago, when you continually refused to provide any evidence for your wild claims. I don't care what you have to say, because I'm sure it isn't the least bit intelligent.

Feel free to keep posting however, if you'd like.

 

[eclipsenow]

Maybe you didn't get it from my last post, so I'll spell it out: I stopped reading anything you posted about 30 posts ago, when you continually refused to provide any evidence for your wild claims. I don't care what you have to say, because I'm sure it isn't the least bit intelligent.

Oh, gee, I'm all cut up because some creationist / Republican worldview anti-climate anti-'greenie' implied I was dumb because they couldn't stand the pace!

Dude: where did I fail to provide YOU with evidence? It was precisely the other way around! I provided you with evidence for a $500 billion a year subsidy to fossil fuels: you lied (or betrayed huge ignorance of the world) and said there was no such thing. Then when you finally had to admit the subsidy was there, you said it was 98% for the poor. Another lie without any evidence to back it up!

Then I linked to Harvard. You just went quiet. Apparently coal COSTS America another $300 to $500 BILLION annually in additional pollution & health costs!

Nothing. No reply. No counter-evidence. Just nothing. You're sulking in silence.

But when I call you on accusing greenies of 'slinking off' after you'd just skulked away yourself... oh my. How emotional we're getting?

(Oh, and the counter-evidence for coal deaths and Harvard's claims has just been really overwhelming! No, really! )

 

[Loudmouth]

EXACTLY.

As you say, RECORD amounts; unheard, ungodly, devastating, massive, dangerous, run-for-the-hills amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere the last 100 years.

Twist and contort all you want. You aren't hiding the facts. Nowhere in the ice cores do we see CO2 going much above 300 ppm. CO2 is now at 400 ppm, a 30% increase over the previous natural levels.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or did you forget?

And yet the change in global temps barely makes a blip when you look at the 10000 year trend.

That's false. It is one of the most rapid increases in the record.

 

[andypro7]

That's false. It is one of the most rapid increases in the record.

Not a shread of truth in that statement. Ok, maybe a shread. It would appear to be a rapid increase, just like many other times over the past 10000 years.

Just a cursory look at the graph shows many similar rapid increases. Moreover, some of those rapid increases show much greater increases in temperatures, as well as much higher temps at the apex of the increase.

As I showed in my last reply to RealityCheck01, just because you come here and repeat a lie you read on far-left websites, it doesn't make it true.

Back to the drawing board, champ.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not a shread of truth in that statement. Ok, maybe a shread. It would appear to be a rapid increase, just like many other times over the past 10000 years.

Then show us a 100 year span with a similar increase in temperature.

 

[andypro7]

Then show us a 100 year span with a similar increase in temperature.

It's all in that graph. SEVERAL of them, as a matter of fact. And, ONCE AGAIN, some of them more pronounced and ending in much higher temperatures.

For instance, look at the gridline between 7956 yrs ago and 8286 years ago. At the very bottom temp by that gridline, you'll see a pronounced increase in temp that ends just after the gridline. We'd have to see the raw data for that one, but it's clearly a very short period of time. It also starts at a lower temp than the 1900 temps, and ends at a higher temp than current temps.

You can see these dips and rises all over this graph. Natural climate variability. Simple. No need to panic, you can now worry about real things, not made up things.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's all in that graph.

Then show us.

For instance, look at the gridline between 7956 yrs ago and 8286 years ago.

That's 330 years. Try again.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just to set the record straight since there is a major incorrect point here. Remember climate scientists do NOT PROVIDE A SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.

Point.....good...ish.....like? ?


Eco-Economy Indicators Global Temperature

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

 

[andypro7]

Then show us.



That's 330 years. Try again.

The ENTIRE PERIOD is 330 years. The rise begins JUST BEFORE the gridline and ends JUST AFTER IT, which anyone who knows how to read a graph can see takes up NOWHERE near the entire 330 years

Let me spell it out. It appears that the gridline in question is 8286 years ago. The gridline to it's right is 7956 years ago. The rise in temps starts just before the 8286 gridline, and end NOT EVEN 1/5 OF THE WAY to the 7956 gridline.

For you to claim it's 330 years is either dishonest or stupid.

Try again.

 

[Loudmouth]

The ENTIRE PERIOD is 330 years. The rise begins JUST BEFORE the gridline and ends JUST AFTER IT, which anyone who knows how to read a graph can see takes up NOWHERE near the entire 330 years

We need more concrete data than "it looks like". Show us the data and the real time period.

 

[andypro7]

We need more concrete data than "it looks like". Show us the data and the real time period.

I've done all I can do. You are intentionally being dumb because you're theory was proven false.

You know very well that the graph shows SEVERAL periods of greater temp increases and increases that led to much greater temps than today.

If you genuinely can't see that from the graph, then you won't have the intelligence to understand anything else I'd show you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've done all I can do. You are intentionally being dumb because you're theory was proven false.

Just present the data already.

If you genuinely can't see that from the graph, then you won't have the intelligence to understand anything else I'd show you.

Which graph?

 

[andypro7]

Just present the data already.



Which graph?

All right, you got me, you were trolling me the whole time. I admit it.

Good one.

 

[Loudmouth]

All right, you got me, you were trolling me the whole time. I admit it.

Good one.

You aren't going to present the data?