patrick.net

Onvacation says

bob2356 says

The five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s
The 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998
The 20 warmest years on record have all come since 1995

But 2017 was cooler and 2018 will be cooler still. If global warming were caused by co2 shouldn't the temperature be hockey sticking instead of leveling off and falling?

Why? One or two year variation is far from leveling off and falling. How do you devine that 2018 will be cooler less than 4 months in? That is a very impressive talent.



The magic word is trend line.

bob2356 says

The magic word is trend line.

Hockey stick.

marcus says

I posted it twice already. Do you dare check it out. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php It shows every year in the arctic.

These charts show that the weather is cyclical. The arctic temperature was spiking up in the 70s the same way it is today.

The real question is why did dmi change the scale so that when you look at older years the peaks don't look as high?

Regarding 2017.

"The average amount of heat absorbed and trapped in the upper ocean last year was also higher than ever seen before"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2017-ranked-among-three-hottest-years-ever/

2017 was either the second warmest or third warmest on record, depending on who you ask. I guess it's better than every single year being a new all time hottest on record. But not much.

Onvacation says

The arctic temperature was spiking up in the 70s the same way it is today.

There were a couple years with spiked fluctuations, but not with it staying so much above the averages like it does every year the past five years..

Hell, in recent years the spike lows are above the averages. You can't see the difference from the 70s ?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

The only argument about all this should be how can we restrict population growth, yet still increase economic output

Why do you think restricting population growth will hurt economic output? As technology progresses, economic output per person increases.

We need to restrict population growth - economic output will take care of itself.

marcus says

2017 was either the second warmest or third warmest on record, depending on who you ask. I guess it's better than every single year being a new all time hottest on record.

How much has the temp gone up this century?
marcus says

not much

WookieMan says

I get so confused why people always debate/argue over this topic.

To stop the brainwashing.

Many children think that the world has catastrophically warmed and the only way to fix it is to recycle, turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater while stopping the evil polluting corporations by protesting.

Onvacation says

bob2356 says

The magic word is trend line.

Hockey stick

If there are people out there that don't know the difference then there is very little that can be done to help them.

bob2356 says

If there are people out there that don't know the difference then there is very little that can be done to help them

bob, 90% or better of Americans have no idea what the scientific method is or why it's important. That is why they are constantly being duped by hucksters with "sciency" schemes like "Magnets" and "alkaline water" and "wristband therapy."
Those are all billion dollar "Industries" based on absolute verifiable-by-actual-science lies, and they're so very profitable!
If there's anything we've learned, it's that a "Truthy" lie is more credible than a credulous fact.

bob2356 says

If there are people out there that don't know the difference then there is very little that can be done to help them.

Agreed!
When you mistake the steep part of a sine wave for the asymptote of destruction there is little hope.

marcus says

What are these billions in taxes being spent on climate change ?

$$ Billions have been given to climate change research and initiatives. Any simple Google search will find dozens of hits.

marcus says

Of course the goal is protecting the interests of big oil and big coal.

In 2018 Paul Ryan received around $500k from oil/gas. Many others received a fraction of that. Its certainly worth considering the effect of those donations.

marcus says

You mean like all the stupid scientists that come out of schools like, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Cal Tech, Oxford, Cambridge etc. ? Yes, the evil democrats have really pulled on over on those dumb ass "book larnin" folks.

This is where the left's standard perspective becomes insufferable. $$Billions has been put towards global warming. There is many times more capital flowing into climate change initiatives than from oil/gas companies.

Do you think $$billions, selectively distributed to broke research scientists who try to prove global warming theories, has no effect on the scientific literature? That's pure lunacy

Theories are meant to be questioned and tested and improved. The PC culture (which marcus displays w hus "book larnin" comment) combined w $$billions = propaganda for the purpose of power. Any reasonable adult should be able to admit this much.

marcus says

There were a couple years with spiked fluctuations, but not with it staying so much above the averages like it does every year the past five years..

Any idea why they changed the scale in the older years? It makes the temperature spike in 2018 look higher than the spike in 1976.

I digress.

Notice in your link that the actual melting season, the time when the temperature is above freezing and ice can actually melt, has not really changed since 1958. There is a short summer season where the ice actually is melting.

The way the media was spinning it you would think that the arctic was melting from these ten degree below freezing spikes.

These arctic spikes in temperature are not unprecedented. They happened in the 70's as you can see in the charts you linked. I recall reading somewhere that there where similiar spikes in the 30's. The spikes in temp are still well below freezing.

Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free?

Onvacation says

Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free?

By 2014 as manbearpig said.

mell says

By 2014 as manbearpig said

You mean Nobel laureates can be wrong?

jazz_music says

WookieMan says

I get so confused why people always debate/argue over this topic.

People do that because of a billion dollars invested in the same advertisers that created the tobacco health debate.

I'm confused. I believe we're trashing the planet, so don't take my comment here wrong. But who's to say that climate change isn't the new big tobacco? Big oil is obvious, they hire scientist to tout their views. There are other industries that stand to make profits though with knocking big oil down a peg or three. Unfortunately, I have a hard time trusting any of it to be honest because they all have a monetary agenda.

The only thing that really matters, regardless of what/who we want to blame, is that humans are trashing the planet. We need less of them. This is the only solution for climate change deniers or climate change believers. The ONLY. And this is why I don't get these arguments.

We've got regions in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen, that struggle with fresh water resources, right now. There's an entire continent south of Europe that is in utter and endless poverty and corruption. Yet we sit here and argue about ice cubes melting essentially? We can't even handle the people that are here, polluting the earth as much as they do, and we're worried about glaciers and ice caps? lol.

It's going to sound sick, but figure out a way to knock out 3B people and cap it at that and there's "maybe" a chance to save the planet. There's no way I'll ever be able to claim victory on this prediction, but I think this place is fucked in the next 500 years. Like extinction fucked.

WookieMan says

The only thing that really matters, regardless of what/who we want to blame, is that humans are trashing the planet. We need less of them. This is the only solution for climate change deniers or climate change believers. The ONLY. And this is why I don't get these arguments.

BINGO.

The Technofantasists think we can increase the demand on the power grid with EVs (which require massively polluting refining of rare earth metals and are minimally recyclable) while growing the population and converting to renewables all simultaneously.

The realistic and immediately 'doable' solution is to tax those with more than two kids and pay people to get irreversible tied tubes.

I bet half of adults in Africa would tie their tubes for $5k. We don't even need to pay the Argentines, Italians, Swedes, or Germans, they are doing it all by themselves. But that means no immigrants with 5 kids, either.

Lots of opposition - landlords don't want to face a huge drop in demand for housing in 20 years. Vacancies up the ass. No more $2000 for a studio, they may have to offer the whole Victorian for $2000.

CBOEtrader says

Theories are meant to be questioned and tested and improved. The PC culture (which marcus displays w hus "book larnin" comment) combined w $$billions = propaganda for the purpose of power. Any reasonable adult should be able to admit this much.

But denier scientists directly in the pay of energy companies are of course totally objective?? ROFLOL. Pretty interesting that the two most prolific climate denier scientists were also the scientists who produced most of the research for the tobacco industry saying tobacco wasn't harmful. They are astronomers. Just a little teeny, tiny bit out of their field in tobacco or climate science. .

WookieMan says

I believe we're trashing the planet,

Well known but sad fact.
bob2356 says

But denier scientists directly in the pay of energy companies are of course totally objective??

Link to said scientists please. The energy companies don't hire "denier scientists"

Onvacation says

These arctic spikes in temperature are not unprecedented. They happened in the 70's as you can see in the charts you linked. I recall reading somewhere that there where similiar spikes in the 30's. The spikes in temp are still well below freezing.

You still don't get it, and the scale has nothing to do with it. The lows of the down spikes are now above the averages. Everything is above the averages.

Recent years are absolutely nothing like the seventies. Yes there were wide swings in the seventies, they went from way below the LT averages to way above. Basically equidistant around the LT averages.

Now the wild swings are from way way way above the averages down to only a little above the averages.

This isn't hard to comprehend. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Onvacation says

There is a short summer season where the ice actually is melting.

Yes, but can you figure out why more would be melting during that time than years ago ? Hint: The winters up there are way less cold related to a feedback loop between how deeply the earth and oceans are chilled up there in the winter and the climate. If you cool something like the surface of the oceans it holds or retains that coldness (absence of heat). It must not be retaining as much coldness, since the strong trend you can see is that the winters are way less cold in recent years.

Think about it. Why doesn't it warm up way more (in summer) or way faster ? Because at this point there is still ice up there. But what if it disappears ? Is that what this leads to ?

I guess if we're all going to die before we find out the exact answer to these questions then it just doesn't matter.

Onvacation says

Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free?

I have no clue. I guess that means it isn't a problem. Don't worry, be happy. La deee dahhh....

marcus says

I have no clue.

Neither do the alarmist scientist with their failed models of doom.
Time tells truths that now will never know.

Onvacation says

Neither do the alarmist scientist with their failed models of doom.

Funny how you trust scientists when their science brings you new toys or better tools. But when it brings you bad news, you go in to a state of denial, based on what ? Propaganda payed for by big oil ?

www.youtube.com/embed/MsioIw4bvzI

"...research suggests a 75% chance of an ice free arctic during some of the summer months as early as 2013."

Lol

www.youtube.com/embed/1KkrlhoFbBM

"They can measure this precisely."

Lol

The coldest winter I ever had was a summer in San Francisco.

Onvacation says

Link to said scientists please. The energy companies don't hire "denier scientists"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2015/got-science-march-2015
https://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/
http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-575

How many do you want?

Check a copy of dark money out of your local library and read it if you want the details, names, dates, amounts paid and by who, research references, etc. etc., etc...

bob2356 says

How many do you want?

And Manhattan is still above water in spite of all those alarmist predictions!

marcus says

Funny how you trust scientists when their science brings you new toys or better tools. But when it brings you bad news, you go in to a state of denial, based on what ? Propaganda payed for by big oil ?

Not all scientists believe in CAGW. And the scientist that do have had to manipulate the data to match their beliefs.

Onvacation says

bob2356 says

How many do you want?

And Manhattan is still above water in spite of all those alarmist predictions!

Huh? What alarmist predictions were the industry funded climate change deniers making that would put Manhattan under water?

Onvacation says

Not all scientists believe in CAGW. And the scientist that do have had to manipulate the data to match their beliefs.

As do the ones that don't. or just make it up.

The facts speak for themselves.

As the years pass and the alarmists predictions continue to not come true the cult of global warming will lose members. The hard core alarmists gleefully await destruction (flooding and the wetbulb) and are disappointed that their high priests ("climate" scientists ) have pushed doomsday out to next century.

Except that mcpherson guy. He predicts total extinction by 2025.

What I learned from these debates:

At some point Gore says that the arctic MIGHT be ice free in the summer AS EARLY AS 2013. The denier team (red or blue?) claims that Gore said that the poles would be ice free by 2013. Gore was wrong. Therefore, the whole thing is a sham.

Any debate about the logical problems with this argument falls on deaf ears. That's about it in a nutshell. It's a bit like watching groundhog day.

Also, many think that the whole thing is a conspiracy of libby commy slavers to skim money from hard working Americans. Weird.

Onvacation says

The facts speak for themselves.

It does get warmer. The question is why, and that I can not answer with 100% confidence.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

At some point Gore says that the arctic MIGHT be ice free in the summer AS EARLY AS 2013.

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

Another way of looking at this is the following - does anyone really thinks that emitting 32+ gigatons of CO2 every single year will not have any effect and can safely be ignored?

drB6 says

Another way of looking at this is the following - does anyone really thinks that emitting 32+ gigatons of CO2 every single year will not have any effect and can safely be ignored?

I do. Releasing only CO2 presents no threat to humanity.

marcus says

Funny how you trust scientists when their science brings you new toys or better tools. But when it brings you bad news, you go in to a state of denial, based on what ? Propaganda payed for by big oil ?

Two thoughts. First, those scientists aren’t sitting around getting grants to write the same thing over and over, year after year. People who have been around the block can tell when a group is milking the system.

Second, the issue skeptics have is that climate change scientists are not practicing science. Science doesn’t have a desired outcome, so anyone who is impartial would have to concede that the predictions from the models didn’t happen, so therefore, the science is not settled on the issue, because no one can claim they understand all of the variables to Earth’s climates.

Malcolm says

Releasing only CO2 presents no threat to humanity.

How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

Malcolm says

Science doesn’t have a desired outcome

Yes, so we should keep an open mind.

drB6 says

How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

No, and neither can you.

drB6 says

Yes, so we should keep an open mind.

I'm agnostic. Climate change due to man has not been proved. It doesn't mean it hasn't or isn't happening, it just means the experts failed in their predictive theories.