Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Next
Comments 3751 to 3800:
-
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.
-
Fixitsan at 19:07 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
BOB Loblaw
" grossly-inaccurate characterization that rising CO2 must cause constantly rising temperatures,"
Well for goodness sake Bob please tell Mr Mason above about this.
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
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.
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} Mr. Mason can speak and read for himself. You are playing games. This site is about the science, not the media. Off topic snipped (warning).
-
Fixitsan at 19:01 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
MA Rodger
""you treat us to the bizarre idea that we should be able to use the house prices on the Maldives to measure AGW ""
No that is your own disingenuity regarding the economic certainty that if the Maldives were about to be abandioned then nobody would live there, the house prices would therefore be zero.
Is it actually true that you think an island on the brink of abandonment attracts serial investors and property sharks who pop up out of the water for no other purpose than tax avoidance ?
Are you in a place where houses which will soon be abandined have excellent values ?
We have lots of clifftop houses here which are worthless because they're about to fall into the sea due to longstanding coastal erosion, I just assumed nobody would be stupid enough to pretend to think a property on the brink of abandonment would hold any value in the proporty market, for the sake of trying to make a lousy point. But you did it !|
I don't know if you would pay for a worthless property or not now. perhaps you actually would !
But I think MOST investors, banks, economic deprtments of the Maldives, and even loan sharks would, quite sensibly steer people away from investing on things about to be washed into the sea.
Conclusion - the properties are safe, or the world has gone mad
Moderator Response:[BL} Off-topic rambling about economics deleted.
-
Fixitsan at 18:52 PM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Bob wrote
""And he returns to the CET temperature trend as if local variabilty disproves global trends.""
Actually if you had comprehended what it is about that record which is curious it is int's INVARIABILITY, and not it's variability, which is distractive
Moderator Response:[BL] Your continued inability to engage in constructive dialog, and your continued efforts to distort anything you read have forced me to step out of the discussion and enter a moderation role.
"Variability" can be large or small. You are playing word games. Look at definition 2 on this page:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/variability
-
nigelj at 11:44 AM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @46
"I wasn't talking about flat period of global temperatures mid last century, but instead a flat temperature in the UK from 1910 and proceding into the 1990s, which is 70% - 80% of the last century,...."
Ok, but I was just trying to make the point there are almost certainly logical explanations for that long flat period. So for example the first link I posted discussed how different regions warm at different rates, - and would also have different timing of the warming. I havent looked at mid Englands climate history and what factors have driven it, but there is bound to be some local or regional factor or combination of factors that explains the unusually long flat period of temperatures, despite rising CO2. And obviously a large part of that flat period is explained by sulphate aerosols (from about 1945 - 1980).
I agree quoting that particular temperature record could get you labelled a denier. Not sure what the solution to that is other than to say I don't personally dwell on very local temperature records like that, because its incredibly obvious that in our complex climate system there will be a lot of local variation. I'm mostly just interested in the global average trend and whats happening where I live myself. Local variation doesnt bother me because anyone with more than half a brain knows that doesn't represent the global trend and there are dozens of plausible reasons consistent with an anthropogenic warming trend.
And I agree the media sometimes exaggerate climate change. What can you do about that? I've complained to my local media for both exaggerating certain things, and and playing down other climate issues. It's the second problem thats a bit more concerning.
-
nigelj at 11:17 AM on 26 July 2022SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
David-acct @2
Changes in solar irradiance produce a much smaller warming effect than the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, so any solar heat energy thus sequestered in the oceans and later released, isn't going to be hugely significant. As follows:
"The Sun's overall brightness varies on timescales from minutes to millennia, and these changes are detectable in the global temperature record."
"During strong solar cycles, the Sun's total average brightness varies by up to 1 Watt per square meter; this variation affects global average temperature by 0.1 degrees Celsius or less. "
"Changes in the Sun's overall brightness since the pre-industrial period have been minimal, likely contributing no more than 0.01 degrees Celsius to the roughly 1 degree of warming that's occurred over the Industrial period."
"Projected warming due to increasing greenhouse gas levels in the coming decades will overpower even a very strong Grand Solar Minimum."
"Rising amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide have postponed the next Milankovitch-driven ice age by at least tens of thousands of years."
www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
-
David-acct at 10:45 AM on 26 July 2022SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
Good point on the elevator graph. though it raises an interesting point coupled with the article a few weeks ago on the ocean time lag and the recent knowledge gained from the research associated with the ocean time lag and how it can take 20-40 years for the warming to manifest in the atmosphere.
Total solar irradiance has increased since the late 1800's, and remains higher today than it was in the late 1800's . Granted TSI has dropped somewhat since the mid 1900 (circa 1950/1960) yet still remains higher than the early 1900's .
Scientists are just now getting a better understanding of the ocean time lag effect. It merits additional research into how much of the warming over the last few decades relates to warming from tsi and the long delay in tsi effect manifesting in the atmospheric temps
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/
-
David-acct at 10:29 AM on 26 July 2022SkS Analogy 7 - Christmas Dinner and the Faux Pause
Good point on the elevator graph. though it raises an interesting point coupled with the article a few weeks ago on the
https://skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_04_Ocean_Time_Lag_2022.html
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:17 AM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @42 (and other comments),
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 understanding leads to awareness that the surface temperature impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is best seen by the trend of the global 30-year moving average (the global version of the one for CET presented on the Wikipedia page I linked to @40). Also, the 30-year ‘global average’ is understandably the better indication of the trend than any regional 30-year average.
I have more to share regarding CO2 and temperatures. But the following will hopefully help explain the comments I will make.
We appear to agreed that many people appear to be uninterested in putting the effort into pursuing the most logical explanations for the ever increasing evidence of what is going on. Learning requires a willingness to change your mind based on ‘new information and evidence’. It can require giving up on developed (status quo) beliefs and actions (no matter how popular, profitable or enjoyable they are).
The following 6 minute BBC Reel item “The psychology behind conspiracy theories” is informative. Watch it. Think about it. Then watch it again. Then seriously consider the possibility that you are resisting learning for some reason(s).
When there is a lot of evidence, as there is regarding climate science (especially since the first IPCC Report in 1990), the understanding still improves as additional evidence is obtained. But the fundamental understanding developed by 1990 is very unlikely to change ‘statistically significantly’ due to new evidence. And the observations you make regarding CET are not ‘new evidence’ (btw, Why is your focus on anything other than what the CET 30-year average trend since 1990 indicates?)
Many other comments have been helpful (they really are), but I will only refer to a few of them.
Bob Loblaw @47 provides a great overlay of the history of CO2 levels and global average surface temperature (GAST). But the 30-year moving average temperature line looks even more like the CO2 line.
You can use the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator to see the 30-year GAST trend for the GISS v4 (the temperature dataset Bob Loblaw used). Choose GISTEMPv4 and set the follow: Start date = 1880; End date = 2023; Moving average = 360 months (30 years). The GISTempv4 30-year moving average increases between 1920 and 1950, and after 1965 (note that there is no ‘levelling off’ in a 600-month moving average). What is happening in the CET is similar. But local conditions can be understood, and expected, to vary relative to the global trend. The term ‘vary’ leads to the next points.
Many variables affect the GAST. It isn’t just the CO2 levels. Increased CO2, primarily due to fossil fuel use, is known to be ‘the major factor’. However, additional variables affecting GAST are already well understood (with more being learned – because – well that’s science for you). They include:
- Aerosols (see nigelj @45)
- Other ghgs in the atmosphere, not just CO2
- ENSO (el Nino, la Nina)
- Solar radiation levels
- Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles
In addition to variables affecting GAST, there are other factors affecting local climates including:
- ENSO (it affects regional climates as well as being large enough to affect the GAST)
- Atlantic meridional overturning circulation AMOC
The AMOC is weakening due to Global Warming. That could mean cooler winters in the CET region even with increased Global Warming due primarily to increased CO2, due primarily to human activity (primarily fossil fuel use).
So ... it is not wrong to say “Increased CO2 = increased GAST”. All that needs to be understood is that CO2 due to fossil fuel use is only the primary part of the 'increasing GAST and resulting Climate Change' problem.
Closing with a brief bit about the future of the Maldives due to increasing GAST. Reviewing the Climate Central Map of “Land projected to be below annual flood level in 2050” (a detail you missed or misunderstood when commenting about bridges near Edinburgh) you can see that only ‘most of the Maldives’ will be expected to be annually flooded by 2050 (using the default settings). More of the Maldives would be annually submerged in subsequent decades. Mind you, with the default settings, even by 2100 there are still little bits of the Maldives above the annual flood level. A related understanding is that people playing marketplace games can make 'very bad bets'.
A related understanding is that people playing marketplace games can make 'very bad bets', like investing in fossil fuelled pursuits, or buying in the Maldives (like the unfortunate people on Kona, the Big Island, Hawaii who chose to buy property and live in areas that are now under lava).
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:30 AM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
For anyone wishing to examine a more formal version of climate myth bingo, there are a couple of web sites where such things have been more thoroughly formulated:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/12/04/a-climateball-bingo-card/
-
MA Rodger at 00:04 AM on 26 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @42-44&46,
It seems SLR has gone Forth and we are now back amongst the sassenachs with their CET record.(Note you miss the point @43 where you respond to a caooment which is questioning why a discussion of CET should suddenly be discussing a strange article in the Edinburgh News abuot SLR projections.)
@42&44 you forget that it is the global average SAT which will show some warming from a positive climate forcing resulting from increased CO2, and react with lots of warming from a big positive climate forcing like the CO2 forcing within AGW.
But as you say up-thread (perhaps you have forgotten), the temperature record of a wider area provides a "better guide" than a smaller area. So @42 perhaps the question of what is causing these CET wobbles of the 1970s/80s (or any other period) may provide an exemplar for why a smaller area is more wobbly than a biggerer one. And @44 there appears to be some inane idea that global SAT (& thus also wobbly CET) should have been rising vigorously since that day Abraham Derby first thought to make his steel using coal rather than of charcoal.
@46 you treat us to the bizarre idea that we should be able to use the house prices on the Maldives to measure AGW (with some inverse correlation) and because there is no indication of any falling prices to be seen, "the average person" will thus conclude the political message on AGW is yet more nonsense from the political classes.
Yet in such a world, what "the average person" thinks or doesn't think makes no reference to the SLR records in the Maldives.
