Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[greatcloudlives]

Richard Linzeden and his team discovered that a heat vent operates in the tropics, realeasing heat not water into space.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Richard Linzeden and his team discovered that a heat vent operates in the tropics, realeasing heat not water into space.

Citation please.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Natural Heat Vent May Counter Global Warming. by John Carlisle.


The heat vent discovered by Richard Linzeden and team in 2001 may counter global warming.

 

[Shemjaza]

Natural Heat Vent May Counter Global Warming. by John Carlisle.


The heat vent discovered by Richard Linzeden and team in 2001 may counter global warming.

Why don't you ever link to the pages you want to talk about? Also, use the reply function, it's just polite.

All ten of the hottest years on record happened after that article was written... so I'm pretty dubious about its reliability.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Those records were because of a high El Nino event especially in 2015 and 1998. It's currently cooling down the satellite graph at Roy Spencer global temperature is at 0.4 degrees Celsius above normal and going down. The solor cycle #23 was very low and the solor cycle #24 we are in is even lower. The temperature of the thirties and forties before heavy. CO2 produced by man were just as high as today.

 

[Shemjaza]

Those records were because of a high El Nino event especially in 2015 and 1998. It's currently cooling down the satellite graph at Roy Spencer global temperature is at 0.4 degrees Celsius above normal and going down. The solor cycle #23 was very low and the solor cycle #24 we are in is even lower. The temperature of the thirties and forties before heavy. CO2 produced by man were just as high as today.

No one is disputing that natural atmospheric and solar cycles also effect the environment.

But given that there is less El Nino effect and less solar activity why was 2019 is the second hottest year on record (and barely below 2016 at that).

Why haven't other years in the 20th century been as hot on a global scale.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The thirties and forties before CO2 levels were as high as today were as warm and global in extent. The satellite temperature is going down it's currently at .4 degrees Celsius above normal and I expect to see the monthly rate going down even further in June. This is due to the solor cycle #24 being very low in sunspots.

 

[Shemjaza]

The thirties and forties before CO2 levels were as high as today were as warm and global in extent. The satellite temperature is going down it's currently at .4 degrees Celsius above normal and I expect to see the monthly rate going down even further in June. This is due to the solor cycle #24 being very low in sunspots.

I think whatever source you are using is just making that up. I'm not searching google for you.

Find some reasonable source, that isn't just another claim without evidence.

You expect the temperate to drop... okay, can you give any kind of specifics? Will 2020 be lower then 2001?

Because the whole premise of this thread, that there has been a pause of temperature for 20 years... is a colossal error.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PHD

 

[Shemjaza]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PHD

That's a name... not evidence.

 

[greatcloudlives]

My cell phone will not let me make a hyperlink. Type in your search engine: Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PHD.

Also type in CO2 science for an interactive map of the MWP showing it was global and warmer than today.

 

[Shemjaza]

My cell phone will not let me make a hyperlink. Type in your search engine: Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PHD.

Also type in CO2 science for an interactive map of the MWP showing it was global and warmer than today.

I'm not researching your nonsense for you.

Post the links as plain text if that's all your phone can do.

Given how contrary your repetitive assertions are to published research, I'm not taking it on faith that you have any reasonable sources.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Natural Heat Vent May Counter Global Warming. by John Carlisle.

The heat vent discovered by Richard Linzeden and team in 2001 may counter global warming.

Colour me surprised - AGW denying organisation (National Center for Public Policy Research), funded by ExxonMobil, highlights speculative article by AGW sceptic scientist using a 'simple two-dimensional radiative–convective model'.

From the original paper: "Given the limited period and region considered as well as the incompleteness of spectral data at suitable spectral, temporal, and spatial resolution, and the limitations of the SST data, in addition to the possibility of alternative explanations of the data, the present results must still be regarded as tentative at best." Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou

So they didn't 'discover' a heat vent so much as speculate about such a possibility. This is typical of the quality of so-called 'evidence' presented by AGW deniers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Those records were because of a high El Nino event especially in 2015 and 1998. It's currently cooling down the satellite graph at Roy Spencer global temperature is at 0.4 degrees Celsius above normal and going down. The solor cycle #23 was very low and the solor cycle #24 we are in is even lower. The temperature of the thirties and forties before heavy. CO2 produced by man were just as high as today.

But the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is just a multi-year quasi-periodic oscillation of the climate related to the upwelling of cold water off the Pacific coast of South America. It sits *on top* of any larger trend. Instead of dismissing El Niño years, try comparing a sequence of temperature averages from *just* El Niño years (or alternatively La Niña years). Excluding one year or two because it seems anomalous is cherrypicking. Even better add a multi-year average to the data to remove the visual distraction of the outlier years.

 

[lordjeff]

C!aims are worthless if you cannot support them


And no, scientists are not allowed to assume things like that.

And where are your answers to the questions that I asked you about isotopes?

This is a religious forum, not a science contest. You have to know your audience & whom you are writing for. My goal is not to lose people in a bunch of stat wars. Climate changes because it changes. There is a marvelous interaction of meteorology, oceanography, geology, & astronomy on our planet. One basic concept that they are still investigating is that of cloud cover. Now we as a planet are not like our colleague Venus which is draped in perpetual cloud cover. Cloud cover preserves the temp below but also blocks a good amount of sunlight. Venus is the hottest planet in the system even thought it is further than Mercury & has this cloud cover. The lack of ocean basins & vegetation don't allow for the co2 to advect anywhere there. But by the same token even the IR in the solar wind would have trouble getting thru those clouds so this very specific gas is just something to place blame on. Again as I have said, this debate has nothing to do with reducing the planet's temperature or even reducing pollution. It's just an income redistribution system.

 

[eclipsenow]

This is a religious forum, not a science contest.

This is the scientific part of the religious forum - and as a Christian with a humanities background that also loves geeky stuff (and wishes I had more technical training and ability with STEM subjects) - I can only suggest not seeing this as a 'contest' for laypeople like us - but a learning experience.

You have to know your audience & whom you are writing for. My goal is not to lose people in a bunch of stat wars. Climate changes because it changes.

Yup, it's going where I thought it would from your opening line!

But by the same token even the IR in the solar wind would have trouble getting thru those clouds so this very specific gas is just something to place blame on. Again as I have said, this debate has nothing to do with reducing the planet's temperature or even reducing pollution. It's just an income redistribution system.

Wrong wrong wrong - and I'm a layperson!

1. It's not IR coming in that heats the planet, but IR being blocked from going out by the KNOWN properties of CO2 that we've known about for quite some time! (See my signature.)
2. Instead, shortwave sunlight comes in, bounces off the earth, and becomes longwave (infra-red) heat energy that cannot escape as efficiently through CO2.
3. That shortwave energy somewhat pierces some clouds, and mostly shoots right through CO2 like it isn't there.

4. It's not a 'debate' so much as established science.
5. If you want to see another illustration of this watch the candle. You can see the candle through the CO2 - as that's shortwave light - but the THERMAL camera that measures HEAT cannot see the heat of the candle flame because thermal heat is longwave energy trapped by the CO2 in the canister. (Short)

The fact that you call this a 'debate' and basically called it a communist redistribution scheme tells me vastly more about you than it does climate science. I can only assume you come from a pretty Republican church area and haven't met many Christians with a real respect for science (and reality). Did you know the first head of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, was a Christian? (He died in April this year.) Do you know there are Christian climatologists like Dr Katharine Hayhoe? (This is her PBS show below.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a religious forum, not a science contest. You have to know your audience & whom you are writing for. My goal is not to lose people in a bunch of stat wars. Climate changes because it changes. There is a marvelous interaction of meteorology, oceanography, geology, & astronomy on our planet. One basic concept that they are still investigating is that of cloud cover. Now we as a planet are not like our colleague Venus which is draped in perpetual cloud cover. Cloud cover preserves the temp below but also blocks a good amount of sunlight. Venus is the hottest planet in the system even thought it is further than Mercury & has this cloud cover. The lack of ocean basins & vegetation don't allow for the co2 to advect anywhere there. But by the same token even the IR in the solar wind would have trouble getting thru those clouds so this very specific gas is just something to place blame on. Again as I have said, this debate has nothing to do with reducing the planet's temperature or even reducing pollution. It's just an income redistribution system.

That sounds like an admission that you cannot support your claims. One thing that really irritates me from especially Christian science deniers is when they make a false claim of scientists "assuming". As I pointed out earlier scientists are not allowed to assume in the way that you appeared to use the term. That would put a burden of proof upon you. One thing to understand as a Christian is that the Ninth Commandment does not apply to just lying about your fellow man. If you pass on something that is false, even if you do not know that it is false, that is still a case of bearing false witness. Not knowing that one's claims are not true is not an excuse.

Global warming is fairly well understood. What you are talking about are factors that can make it even a bit worse. They do not eliminate the fact of AGW. Also you do not even understand the Greenhouse effect. What causes it is visible light that strikes the Earth and then the heat from that is not allowed to escape.

If you want to talk about the basics of the science I can help you to understand it. Your claim that "climate changes because it changes" is demonstrably false. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a huge factor. And guess what man has done to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[Aussie Pete]

That sounds like an admission that you cannot support your claims. One thing that really irritates me from especially Christian science deniers is when they make a false claim of scientists "assuming". As I pointed out earlier scientists are not allowed to assume in the way that you appeared to use the term. That would put a burden of proof upon you. One thing to understand as a Christian is that the Ninth Commandment does not apply to just lying about your fellow man. If you pass on something that is false, even if you do not know that it is false, that is still a case of bearing false witness. Not knowing that one's claims are not true is not an excuse.

Global warming is fairly well understood. What you are talking about are factors that can make it even a bit worse. They do not eliminate the fact of AGW. Also you do not even understand the Greenhouse effect. What causes it is visible light that strikes the Earth and then the heat from that is not allowed to escape.

If you want to talk about the basics of the science I can help you to understand it. Your claim that "climate changes because it changes" is demonstrably false. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a huge factor. And guess what man has done to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

What irritates me about the debate is the simplistic analysis that a great number of pundits indulge in. I know that they are trying to simplify arguments to make it understandable to more people. But that leaves many unconvinced because they see through the oversimplifications. And the near religious fervour of those committed to renewable energy sources is a part of that oversimplification.

The reality is that population growth is reaching the point where the earth cannot sustain it. China and other industrialised nations are destroying fish stocks all over the planet. Plastics are pouring into the sea and again, little is being done to stop it. Fish are badly affected by plastic waste also.

Deliberately lit forest fires are catastrophic for the environment. Deforestation has been going on for decades, the consequences are known and nothing is done to stop it. Oh, let's build a wind farm instead. It's like giving an extra bucket to the crew of the Titanic.

There are solutions to the problems. People are not willing to adopt those solutions. It's that simple.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... by the same token even the IR in the solar wind would have trouble getting thru those clouds...

The solar wind is charged particles not IR, and it's not incident IR that's relevant, it's higher frequency incident radiation that Earth re-radiates as IR that is the problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What irritates me about the debate is the simplistic analysis that a great number of pundits indulge in. I know that they are trying to simplify arguments to make it understandable to more people. But that leaves many unconvinced because they see through the oversimplifications. And the near religious fervour of those committed to renewable energy sources is a part of that oversimplification.

The reality is that population growth is reaching the point where the earth cannot sustain it. China and other industrialised nations are destroying fish stocks all over the planet. Plastics are pouring into the sea and again, little is being done to stop it. Fish are badly affected by plastic waste also.

Deliberately lit forest fires are catastrophic for the environment. Deforestation has been going on for decades, the consequences are known and nothing is done to stop it. Oh, let's build a wind farm instead. It's like giving an extra bucket to the crew of the Titanic.

There are solutions to the problems. People are not willing to adopt those solutions. It's that simple.

Renewable energy obviously can't solve all existential threats, but it has a crucial role in solving one of them.