Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Next
Comments 3551 to 3600:
-
John Mason at 19:05 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
For future reference, the Ed Hawkins graphic in the post uses HadCRUT5 data with the baseline being 1960-1990.
-
Fixitsan at 18:49 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Michael Sweet.
Coarse sea level rise since the start of the ice age melt, approx 20,000 years.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.nUK9Ty2xjWQgiVLRcDeFngHaE9%26pid%3DApi&f=1
Alternatively
https://kartverket.no/contentassets/ed899aa3266245028d9e9b502ba5930b/global-sea-level-change-past-20000-years.jpg?width=1104&height=621&quality=85&mode=crop&scale=both
If these are at all disagreeable please feel free to post a corrected version
Clearly, sea level is not changing around a middling value, it has only really risen continuously, for 20,000 years and therefore I feel safe in my position to say sea level decline is probably impossible given the massivity of the system and almost uncountable variables which affect it which currently trend upwards in their output effects.
My issue, again probably focussed more towards the media misreporting, which few climate scientists seem to contest, centres around the lack of context of reporting of sea level rise as a distinct topic, but instead it is bundled into one topic of climate change.
If more people were more aware that sea level rise is 'normal', as opposed to sea level decline or even sea level stability, then much fear could be taken out of the subject and less anxiety induced in young and influential minds who sometimes feel the need to take their own lives due to feelings of hopelessness about the future of the planet.
Sea level rise is undeniably normal, it is all we have really seen for 20,000 years, only the rate has varied over that time and the current rate is much less than it was previously
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted.
-
Fixitsan at 18:40 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
ONE PLANET
"Thank you for accepting that averaging larger amounts of data provides a clearer indication of long-term trends like the impacts of increasing CO2 levels.""
That is a deliberate misrepresentation of my words. I did not indicate any relationship between temperature and CO2 levels at all
Moderator Response:[BL] More from the Comments Policy that you are so eager to ignore:
No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.
-
Fixitsan at 18:39 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Bob...
""Bindidon states that he's been trying to get the data for the CET record, but has not yet succeeded.""
CET data can be downloaded by the public can it not ?
I recall several occassions in the past decade I have downloaded it, has it been taken offline ?
Moderator Response:[BL] Clear evidence that Fixitsan has not actually bothered to follow a link and read what it says.
-
Fixitsan at 18:36 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
MA Rodger,regarding tide guages, the tide guages around the UK show some decline in sea level rise.
One guage measuring the Thames estuary shows a decline, several Scottish ones too.
We're back to the topic of local evaluations not being representative of global trends I guess.
'Bendy sea'
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:48 PM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
And Tamino has a post today that also shows how hand waving assertions of "no trend in [insert choice] temperature" are debunked by proper analysis. In this case, it is Seattle summer maximum temperature, but it is of interest in this thread because it illustrates how to do things properly.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:31 PM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
For what it is worth, there is an example on Tamino's blog of what it is like when someone posts a comment that actually includes analysis, rather than just hand-waving.
Tamino's post on the recent UK heat wave has already been mentioned here in this thread:
...and yesterday a participant using the name bindidon posted a comment with links to two graphs that examine the frequency of record highs or lows for the last 125 years. One is for continental US stations:
and an equivalent one for global temperatures.
Bindidon states that he's been trying to get the data for the CET record, but has not yet succeeded.
The two graphs for US and global records clearly show that record cold events used to happen as frequently as (or more frequently than) record warm events, but now they are much less frequent. Exactly what is expected in a warming world.
...and showing that occasional record cold events can still happen, and are not evidence that climate science has failed. Analysis of extremes needs to be done properly - not by hand waving.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:06 AM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
To recap (a term used by fixitsan @2).
Fixitsan @67 claims “I made it5 clear in my first response that I was aware of a difference between local and regional and global terminologies”.
Their responses have clearly indicated something, but not what they hope to indicate.
Fixitsan @2 ends with the following para. I provide a response to each part in brackets:
So to recap, lets recall the amount of serious messaging about climate change which probably dates back to 1989, when Mrs Thatcher addressed the UN and stressed the importance of a worldwide commitment to reducing CO2 [Many global leaders spoke more strongly on the issue and did it years before Thatcher did. They had been learning since the 1972 Stockholm Conference which led to the 1987 Montreal Protocol about Ozone and formed the IPCC which issued its first report in 1990].
Anything since then is a year in an era when it has been fine to suggest we might only have ten years left to live, or only a few days left before doomsday due to climate change, [The correct understanding based on increased awareness and improved understanding since 1990 is undeniable. Avoiding the creation of significant harm to the future of humanity requires dramatic reduction of fossil fuel use by 2030. Many other dramatic corrections of harmful ways of living developed by humans are also required]
and recall how most of the CO2 was produced before 1989, [wrong, and shown to be wrong by other comments]
so how come that of the 12 months in every year, only 5 of those months have been hottest since 1989, [wrong – and proven by subsequent comments to be an incorrect claim, a gross misunderstanding about the meaning of bits of data found in the record of temperature in a small part of the planet. A ‘hottest date does not make a ‘hottest month’, or a ‘hottest year’. And finding a ‘hottest ’ in a region of the planet does not indicate a hottest global condition]
and 2 were hottest before the start of the industrial revolution (which apparently causes global warming, except not in April or May) [repeatedly proven to be a grossly incorrect way to think about the issue]
Further early evidence of fixitsan’s incorrect understanding is provided by fixitsan @8: ”Be honest you don't know if it was hotter 20 years ago in a place where there was no thermometer. Statictiscally possibl;e, as thermometers are located on such a small amount of area of the UK” [Nonsense belief that some actually collected temperature information indicates nothing meaningful ‘because everything hasn’t been measured rigorously everywhere all the time’. That nonsense appears to be the reason they refuse to learn about Sea Level rise or any other matter they do not want to learn about.]
That type of nonsensical thinking can be understood to be related to conspiracy type thinking - thinking that will not be a sustainable 'common sense' in any sub-set of humanity unless the subset is permanently isolated for all others. Review the following brief (about 6 minutes each) BBC Reel videos (I referred to the first one in my comment @51:
And that awareness and understanding makes sense of the success of the efforts to mislead people about climate science I refer to in my comment @39 pointing to my comment on the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #29 2022.
My comment on New Research for Week #29 links to The following BBC News item:
The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change
That BBC story includes the following concise summary point:
"What the geniuses of the PR firms who work for these big fossil fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it."
A concluding Note:
It appears likely that the massive efforts to mislead regarding climate science were a response to the way that global leaders collectively agreed to meddle in the marketplace to limit the harm done to the Ozone layer. That type of global leadership effort appeared to be working towards a similar action on climate impacts, which would focus of ending fossil fuel impacts – and some harmful misleading people believed that that ‘helpful harm reduction action’ had to be delayed any way that could be gotten away with.
People like fixitsan appear to have allowed themselves to be so deeply misled into conspiracy belief that they cannot easily be helped to learn what is really going on and what needs to happen to limit the harm being done.
Moderator Response:[BL} Please let's stop rehashing Fixitsan's earlier posts. Until he has something new to say (that will be on topic and survive application of the Comments Policy), let's all try to end this circular discussion.
-
John Mason at 01:27 AM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Initial figures are in on the estimated excess deaths in England and Wales on July 17-19 2022. 948 people (844 of them on July 18-19) according to a London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine researcher. The work is summarised in New Scientist. See:
-
michael sweet at 01:12 AM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan,
You need to read my last post at 69. Most of your questions are answered in my post. If you read the linked posts by Tamino that would answer the rest of your questions. It is not my problem that you do not do your homework.
The reason that Tamino's sea level rise rate is differrent than NASA is because Tamino uses a 10 year average and NASA uses a 30 year average. Simply looking at the graph in post 69 it is obvious that sea level rise is accelerating. Therefor a 30 year average underestimates current sea level rise.
The data I referenced only considers sea level rise, ground water extraction is a separate issue more important in other areas. Florida gets so much rain that ground water extraction is not an issue here.
All the rates that I quoted are from Tamino who is a professional statistician who specializes in time series analysis like looking at sea level rise. Your suggestion that I used three different sources is simply false.
Sea level rise is different in different places, as you have been told repeatedly on this thread. You claim that sea level rise is zero in the Maldives. I state that sea level rise is 11 mm.year in Florida. Since I live in Florida, along with 21 million other Americans, I care more about sea level rise in Florida. It turns out that sea level rise now and in the future on the US East coast will exceed the global average by a lot.
You are certainly well informed about deniers claims that sea level rise will not be too bad. Unfortunately, sunny day flooding has become a big ptoblem on the entire East coast of the USA. It is particularly bad in flat areas like Florida.
Path: pModerator Response:[BL] Note that Fixitsan's most recent ramblings on sea level have largely been snipped from his comment. This will continue until Fixitsan takes the time to find one of several sea level posts here at SkS where the discussion will not be a violation of the comments policy. MA Rodger has suggested one.
This post will be left as-is, because it contains general advice that Fixitsan needs to follow: read the responses to his comments, read the links presented (where he can obtain additional information), and stop repeating claims that others have debunked with actual analysis.
-
EddieEvans at 21:37 PM on 30 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #30 2022
This is an impressive page!
-
Jim Hunt at 21:29 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Getting back on the topic of UK "heat waves", the GEFS mid range forecast for sunny South West England is heating up again:
https://Davidstow.info/2022/07/drought-for-cornwall-later-in-2022/#comment-2627
This is one of the more extreme ensemble members:
-
Jim Hunt at 21:24 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan@77 - I heartily recommend that you read the attribution study I linked to @75 from cover to cover.
After that there are also numerous references the document links to.
I also feel compelled to point out that John's original post makes no mention of SLR. See also MAR@78. -
MA Rodger at 21:12 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @76,
You blather is entirely off-topic but if you were to examine the comment of michael sweet @69, you may perhaps see where the value of 5mm/year for global SLR is sourced. And you will possibly then note that the data used is from tidal gauges which measure the sea level round the coasts while the NASA data is satellite data that measures the level of the entire ocean. You may wish to consider which measure is more important for humanity.
The method of calculating SLR is also different.
But if you have anything sensible to say on this subject of SLR, I would suggest a different SkS thread, perhaps this one -'How much is sea level rising?' -
Fixitsan at 20:11 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Jim Hunt, if the temperature in one month is outside 'normal' parameters you get to say it is abnormal.
If I point out previous one day temperature highs or lows I'm called a denier and taken to task for only choosing one particular day with a follow up insult of being a data cherry picker.
You can argue the CET covers just one region of the planet, as indeed I have acknowledged myself, but can the area covered by CET which showed no overall warming for 70% of 1900-2000 be easily rejected on the grounds that it only covers one region.
I understand the basics of weather patterns and I know weathermen struggle to predict further ahead than three days, in our climate. If it was Saudi Arabia things might be different but the UK is in a very dynamic part of the world makign weather unpredictable.
This large variability suggests to me that we will see a fair share of lots of different active weather patterns as they pass over us and to that end it seems unreasonable to suggest that the UK is in a bubble and is less likely to experience the ffects of global variability. The importance of this fact is that it suggests we get a fair share of the effects of global climate change.
Therefore we get a lot of the effects of global climate change, influencing the CET long term average which began to be recorded in 1659. So why, if CET represents it's fair share of the effects of climate change, do we dismiss it on the grounds that it is one location, when it holds the records of hundreds of years.
I find it so unlilkely to believe that a place on the planet which shows no net warming for 70% of 1900-2000 can be easily dismissed on one hand because it is just a small region, yet is included in virtually every climate because of it's reliability. It can't cut both ways, or can it ?
Moderator Response:[BL] Assertions must be supported by evidence. You have been requested to actually show analysis of the CET temperatures, not just hand-waving. You are simply repeating previous assertions without providing any actual analysis.
More from the Comments Policy:
- Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
- No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans.
-
Fixitsan at 19:56 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Michael Sweet
Regarding see level rise you assert is 5mm/year.
NASA today reports 3.4mm/yr
What is a layperson supposed to think is the rate of sea level rise ?
Where did your 5mm/year come from and why is it about a third higher than the rate NASA says ?
It's very interesting that if someone who for want of better expression is known as a 'denier' disagrees with NASA they're called fools, yet right off the bat you're ignoring NASA ?
Breathtaking stuff, really.
Regarding Floridian rates of rise, easily explained by excessive groundwater removal. Of course someone clever might have found a way to rewrite that part too, but yet we can't say groundwater extraction has had zero effect at all, because it almost always does affect land level.
Reporters and commentators on this matter often find themselves satisfied in terms of quoting fearsome sea level rise by turnign tot he Pacific ring of fire, because the sea bed is rising and falling in accodance with underground volcanic activity.
In fact it is extremely difficult to measure not only sea level, but sea level rise, because what we're actually talking abotu with sea level rise is sea volume increase. It would be better if science would standardise on that, and explain why the changes in earths gravity field are changing sea levels in various regions.
I note in your message you not only say that today the sea level rate of rise is 5mm, you quotte another person who says it exceeded 4mm/year by 2010 (Tomino quote)
Back to NASA, sea level rise is 3.4mm/yr
Why are you bouncing about on different sources, quoting 3 different rates of rise I wonder ?
Could it be because you can't actually decide which data source is reliable either ?
Is NASA wrong
Moderator Response:[BL] From the Comments Policy, which you either have not read, have not understood, or refuse to follow:
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
- Make comments in the most appropriate thread. Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread. Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed. Moderator's directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Jim Hunt at 01:42 AM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
It seems that John Kennedy, who recently left UKMO, isn't entirely happy with the MSM coverage of the "this month's extreme heat in the UK" either:
https://twitter.com/micefearboggis/status/1552888125562781697There’s an attribution of the record breaking UK heat but of the three articles I read (Guardian, AP, Carbon Briefs), not one linked to the actual study. I can’t even find a link to it on the WWA web site, just a summary.
Here's the missing link to the World Weather Attribution study that Robert Rohde dug up:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/UK-heat-scientific-report.pdf[BW - comment updated per request]
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:34 PM on 29 July 2022CO2 effect is saturated
The sort-of-on-topic aspect of it is that a common error in looking at greenhouse gas absorption is to think of the atmosphere as a monolithic single layer. By only considering fluxes at the bottom (surface) and top (loss to space), people tend to lead themselves down many paths of misunderstanding. This is the most common error in most "saturated" arguments, and it plays a part in the "water vapour..." arguments as well.
Although simplified versions of radiative transfer can be useful in early learning stages, those simplified versions are not what drives climate models. You will see frequent references to MODTRAN in this forum. With the online version in the link I just gave, you can try various assumptions you wish to explore and see how a full radiative transfer model actually responds.
As well as absoprtion, the changes in emission are also important - and also need more than a "single layer" approach.
-
John Mason at 20:43 PM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Disturbing but unsurprising, Jim. There can be few things harder to cope with than buying wholeheartedly into a myth (climate change denialism, brexit, trump etc) then witnessing its disintegration.
-
MA Rodger at 19:55 PM on 29 July 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Likeitwarm @638,
While your "canard" is off-topic on this thread, a direct response to it is not.
The 15 micron absorption band of CO2 is about 3 microns of the spectrum (roughly 13.5µm to 16.5µm). While this waveband does sit in the edge of the big H2O radiation 'window' which stretches from 6µm to 16.5µm (termed a 'window' as it allows incoming radation in from space) and thus CO2 narrows that 'window', this is not the essential part of the operation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
The essential mechanism is that the CO2 greenhouse effect operates higher up in the atmosphere, above the bulk of of the atmospheric water vapour. Thus it is CO2 which determines the altitude from which the IR in this band is emitted into space, thus the amount of this IR emitted into space (determined by the atmospheric temperature of the point of emission) and thus it is CO2 which determines the amount of greenhouse warming from this waveband.
-
Jim Hunt at 19:02 PM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Some pertinent news from the BBC this morning (BST):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62323048
Weather forecasters faced unprecedented levels of trolling during this month's extreme heat in the UK, according to leading figures in the industry.The BBC's team received hundreds of abusive tweets or emails questioning their reports and telling them to "get a grip", as temperatures hit 40C.
BBC meteorologist Matt Taylor said he had never experienced anything like it in nearly 25 years working in weather.
The Royal Meteorological Society condemned the trolling.
Most of the abuse seems to have been prompted as links were made between the heatwave and climate change.
The UK saw record high temperatures on 19 July, with 40C exceeded for the first time. Dozens of locations saw temperatures above the previous UK record of 38.7C and 15 fire services declared a state of emergency because of a surge in blazes.
The Met Office estimated the heatwave had been made 10 times more likely because of climate change.
The BBC's Matt Taylor said: "It's a more abusive tone than I've ever received. I switched off a bit from it all as it became too depressing to read some of the responses."
etc.
-
GwsB at 15:54 PM on 29 July 2022The volcanic eruption in Alaska that rocked ancient Egypt
The pivotal sentence is: "And in Egypt, the Nile failed to flood for several years in a row." Unfortunately it is not clear on what evidence this statement is based.
Moderator Response:[PS] I believe the evidence is detailed in the peer reviewed paper referenced in the article
-
Jim Hunt at 07:46 AM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Thanks for the heads up John.
Ditto for the new record in Wales. The UKMO announcement:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/record-high-temperatures-verified -
John Mason at 07:23 AM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
You're welcome, Jim.
I heard today that the Coningsby 40.3C reading has passed the UKMO ratification procedure, BTW.
-
Likeitwarm at 05:52 AM on 29 July 2022CO2 effect is saturated
After much reading, it occurs to me that because H2O absorbs IR in such a wide array of wavelengths, including 15µm, and is so overwhelmingly prevalent being 95% of all "Greenhouse Gases", might it absorb almost all of the 15µm radiation available, leaving an insignificant amount to be absorbed directly by CO2 and other IR sensitive gases. Could this render CO2 just another molecule in the air and make it virtually impossible to measure any effect of CO2 related to atmospheric temperature making the "CO2 greenhouse effect" an unprovable theory? Isn't H2O the primary reason we have such a moderate climate?
Moderator Response:This cannard is off-topic here. Please see the myth "Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas". Read the article and if you have further doubts, please raise them there but only after studying the resources supplied.
And see also https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014287
-
Jim Hunt at 02:25 AM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
I hesitate to dip my toe in this evidently warm water, since things seem to have wandered a long way away from the recent UK heat wave!
However having been blogging about the UKMO forecasts since July 10th I can report that here in North Cornwall outside temperatures peaked at a record 36 ºC in Bude and inside temperatures reached 32 ºC in my home office on the edge of Bodmin Moor.
Here's a Carbon Brief explainer about those forecasts which may be of interest?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-the-uks-insane-40c-heat-was-forecast-weeks-in-advance/
The article quotes Dr. Simon Lee, who more recently has been taking the Express to task for misrepresenting his work. Believe it or not allegedly "Strange Pacific events to trigger MONTH of heatwaves as 40C hits"!
https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1552060364300455936 -
Bob Loblaw at 10:07 AM on 28 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Note that the equation dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), provided by GrindupBaker in comment 1515, is a simple approximation of radiative forcing due to changing CO2, based on more complex radiative transfer models. The original source is Myhre, 1998.
More information is available on this SkS page:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
-
grindupBaker at 09:34 AM on 28 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Frankamungus @1512 One interpretation of your question is that you simply want to see a formula such as:
f = 5.35 * ln (CO2<now>/CO2<before>) w / m**2 for the heater of a CO2 increase in Earth's atmosphere from CO2<before> to CO2<now>.
If so, that's the one on NASA Web site and I've vague recollections of seeing assertions of values other than the 5.35 over the years.
-
michael sweet at 02:41 AM on 28 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan,
In post 67 you say:
"I made it5 clear in my first response that I was aware of a difference between local and regional and global terminologies"
Then you refer to your claim that the sea level is not rising in the Maldives. We are not talking about a single location when we discuss sea level rise, we are talking about Global Sea level Rise. When you describe sea level rise at a single location and then claim that global sea level rise is not a problem it appears that you do not understand the difference between the Maldives and the entire world.
Fortunately Tamino has done an article on Global Sea level Rise (that is the average sea level rise for the entire globe, not just the Maldives).
We see that the global sea level rise is about 200 mm from 1900 to 2020. The current rate of Global sea level rise is 5 mm/yr. From year 0 (zero) to year 2000 we know that sea level rise was about zero siince Roman ports on the Med sea are still usable (as are major ports all around the world). If sea level rise was even 1 mm/yr that would have been 2 meters of sea level rise over a 2000 year period.
I look forward to your link to a site that shows current Global Sea level rise is comparable to the rise from 0 to 2000 CE.
I note that sea level rise is accelerating. According to Tamino, before 2010 the sea level rise rate was less than 4 mm/yr.
Where I live in Florida, Tamino shows that the current rate of sea level rise is 11 mm/yr. That is "scarily high". 21 million people live in Florida. Real estate in Florida near the ocean is increasing in value at a slower rate than inland since sunny day flooding is already a problem in most of the state near the ocean.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:27 AM on 28 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The comments in that Beer's Law post also provide a lot of relevant discussion, Frankamungus. I suggest that you post further questions on that thread, unless you have questions specifically related to the 2nd Law (this post).
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:11 AM on 28 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Frankamungus:
For the basics, you can read about the Beer-Lambert Law (atmospheric absorption of IR radiation) on this page:
https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-beer-lambert.html
Relating this absorption to increasing temperature is not the result of a single equation. It involves a system of equations relating the complete energy balance. Comment #15 on that blog post includes references to two early papers that do the math in one dimension (vertical).
-
Frankamungus at 00:50 AM on 28 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Can someone please share the math equation showing exactly how infrared radiation being trapped by CO2 is raising the temperature of the earth?
-
Eclectic at 21:40 PM on 27 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @67 , your return to this forum will be most welcome, if you choose to come with some well-reasoned arguments. Arguments which are scientific and Forth-right, rather than merely rhetorical.
Meanwhile, may I commend for you the specialist blog: "WUWT". That blog hosts a large number of denizens who delight in all sorts of motivated reasoning and deficiencies in self-awareness. Quite entertaining, to see how the WattsUpWithThat-ites fail to grasp science and fail to look at the Elephant In The Room. Indeed, a very recent article by a Mr Kip is chock-full of uninsightful wordiness. . . . about numbers ;-)
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted.
-
Fixitsan at 21:15 PM on 27 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
I made it5 clear in my first response that I was aware of a difference between local and regional and global terminologies
I was accused of not being aware of those differences several times by what must be assumed to be people who had not read the first post I made on this topic.
Which, is pretty frustrating, and further frustration is felt by other posters then sayying I did not accept a difference in those terms when clearly I had.
Look at it from my point of view, it appears there is deliberate twisting and deliberate misunderstanding of what I wrote for what I assume are just personal humour reasons.
You might as well have just said "Stupid denier" and be done with it.
What is it about a lack of sea level rise which makes it so obectionable in a discussion about climate change ona climate change website to make moderaters call it off topic.
Until climate change came along sea level rise was just a normal fact of life, before it became something that has been given a new name as if it is a new phenomenon.
I leave to play your games, I'm more than capable of a broad discussion and tolerate a lot of topic deviation because that is what happens during the turn of conversation in real life.
You don't want to talk about a lack of sea level rise of a rate which is considered to be a worldwide threat, yet would allow to be published anything which claims sea level rise is not normal at all, and the current rate is scarily high compared to the past, when it isn't.
Moderator Response:[BL] Accusations of dishonesty deleted. Derogatory attacks deleted.
Off-topic and erroneous claims about sea level deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
BaerbelW at 18:03 PM on 27 July 2022The FLICC-Poster - Downloads and Translations
The FLICC-poster is now also available in Spanish where the acronym translates to FRESI.
-
MA Rodger at 13:02 PM on 27 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
michael sweet @65,
To make plain the Moderator comment, @3 the record high night-time temperature of +25.8ºC is a HadUK value set 19/7/22. The +18.9ºC for 19/7/22 in HadCET was the second highest HadCET night-time temperature with the record +19.5ºC being set 20/7/16. And as this all suggests, there have been more recent record high night-time CET temperatures than have survived from earlier decades.
2003-22 - 104
1983-02 - 62
1963-82 - 33
1943-62 - 55
1923-42 - 50
1903-22 - 26
1878-02 - 23 -
michael sweet at 07:54 AM on 27 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
John Masons' post @3 shows that the all time high low at night was set during this heat wave. Everyone informed knows that nights are warming faster than days and that the warmth is statistically confirmed. Fixitsan is just making things up.
Fixitsan: provide a link that shows data that the low temperature at night is not increasing.
Moderator Response:[BL] Should Fixitsan wish to restore any credibility, he should provide such an analysis. Since his most recent claim (#59) references CET, he should focus on that.
For what it is worth, there are links in the comments to this blog post that will lead to the Met Office's daily CET data from 1878 to present.
Spoiler alert: the daily minimum temperature from 1878 to today results in a linear trend of 0.78C per century. If you look at just the last 50 years, it is over 2C per century.
-
JTLAVERY69 at 05:54 AM on 27 July 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:43 PM on 26 July 2022SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
plicoin24:
Air temperatures are strongly linked to ocean temperatures, so although they are more variable, they are useful. We also have air temperatures - especially over land - for much longer periods than we have good deep ocean data. As such, air temperature trends can be determined much further into the past than ocean temperatures.
Air temperatures are not "wrong", but it is correct to say that ocean data is better for global trends - if it is available. Climate science benefits from having both.
-
MA Rodger at 22:06 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @63,
I fear you are getting carried away with all this. While not exactly representitive of "maximum low" records, the record for such CET values for 1st Jan was set 2022 and for 31st Dec 2021 and most maximum monthly low averages are also recent.
CET RECORD HIGH NIGHT-TIME TEMP - Jan 1921, Feb 1903, Mar 1957, Apr 2011, May 1889, Jun 2017, Jul 2006, Aug 1997, Sep 2006, Oct 2001, Nov 1994, Dec 2015, Annual 2006
-
Fixitsan at 21:01 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
John Mason
No curiosity embedded in you at all then ?
Maximum highs are rising
Maximum lows are not
Lets hope next years maximum temperature is a normal maximum low.
The maximum highs might be hotter, but the maximum lows are not, adn there is no certainty that next year will be one of the maximum high year instead of a normal one
Moderator Response:[BL] Repetition deleted.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
John Mason at 20:48 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
This is all I need, plus the other answers above that patiently explain why the whole world is not warming at the sme pace. Data: NOAA.
-
Evan at 20:36 PM on 26 July 2022SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
David-acct@2, as nigelj pointed out, the variation due to solar fluctuations is small. We are currently warming about 0.2C/decade. I think it is difficult for most people to realize just how rapid that really is. Nature gave us cycles which, for the most part, slowly vary, such as TSI. The anthropogenic warming is currently swamping all other natural warming/cooling cycles.
-
John Mason at 20:31 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
In the same way that "the blob" south of Greeland does not. The Arctic is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth and the blob does not disquality that statement.
-
plincoln24 at 20:30 PM on 26 July 2022SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
Let us not forget that when we look at the graphs for global average surface temperature of the Earth vs. time, we are in some sense looking at the wrong graph if we want to know if the world is warming up. The fact that more than 90 % of the heat energy that the Earth accrues do the climate forcing supplied by greenhouse gases means that the lower atmosphere is much more subject to fluctuations in average temperature than than the ocean.
-
Fixitsan at 20:30 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
John Mason
How come the same temperature record you're discussing with me shows that Lowest maximums aren't rising like highest maximums are
This suggests that global warming doesn't affect lower temepratures.
Would you say that that makes sense ?
Moderator Response:[BL} Repetition deleted.
-
Fixitsan at 20:14 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Why does the CET show that all mean low temperatures are not recent ?
Surely warming would increase the average low temperatures too, or else we're only talking about increasing peak highs, which is not the same as a general warming trend
Moderator Response:[BL] You are literally arguing with yourself. First, you use the term "all" with reference to a local/regional example, and then you clam that this relates to some characteristic of "a general warming trend".
Your back and forth between local, regional, and global, and your repeated failure to be consistent in your interpretation, is turning your posts into incoherent rambling.
-
John Mason at 19:37 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Still flogging the same horse I see.....
High temperature records being broken time and time again all over the world are very strong evidence for global warming and the role of greenhouse gases in that process is something we have known about since the 19th century. Sarcasm does not change the laws of physics! -
Fixitsan at 19:21 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
One Planet
Thank you for explaining a short term datapoint is not indicitive of a long term trend
Perhaps a reply from you to the original poster of the #1 message to that effect ought to be posted, as the poster has asserted that 40 degrees, once, for a brief period, is proof of global warming !
Moderator Response:[BL] Bogus claim about what others have said deleted.
-
Fixitsan at 19:08 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
BOB Loblaw
rn
" grossly-inaccurate characterization that rising CO2 must cause constantly rising temperatures,"
rn
Well for goodness sake Bob please tell Mr Mason above about this.
rn
He said if only I had told him before about the Forth Bridge story before then this group of international conributors could have done something about it
rn
Then why aren't you doing something about the rest of the articles in the media who portray global warming to mean that CO2 rises equal temperature rises.
rn
Please get on to them and stop them from incorrectly making a connection between CO2 and temperature....I mean fo CO2 doesn't cause the temperature rise than that's a different matter entirely but i don't think any undergradute who wrote in a report ' CO2 rises produce temperature rises' would be marked down for doing so.
Moderator Response:[BL] Duplicate post contents deleted.
