Toronto Escorts

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No US Warming Since 2005

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,703
7,980
113
Toronto
Do 97% agree on how much warming there has been?
It is not a matter of degree.

It is a matter of degrees that are rising. That is the 97% consensus.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,156
2,147
113
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century,
This sound like it could be right. 1 degree c per century
We are coming out of an ice age & it was warmer in the medieval warm period

a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.
This is the theory. However proving this empirically is actually quite difficult
there are also other theories including natural variability, solar variability, ocean multidecadal oscillations etc

4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
why was 2017 & 2018 not warmer than 2016?
We put more CO2 in the air.
Obviously not an explicitly iron clad linear relationship


The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
This I question as accurately mapping the temperature of the oceans is extremely problematic. The oceans are huge
Any data from the 1960s -1990s will definitely be spotty, error prone and of questionable quality for making such a claim
There is a new Argo system which is likely far more reliable, however I do not think it has a long history 10-15 years maybe


The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.
Ice does tend to melt after an ice age

What is your source for the antarctic claim?
I have read the antarctic is actually increasing in ice mass

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
Ice does tend to melt after an ice age


Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.
How many millimeters per year? Head for the hills !!!!
a lot of sea level rise is actually settling of the land or erosion

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
In the summer
what happens in the winter

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
record temperatures How odd? The record is less than 200 years old. records will continue to be made
How many were in ever growing cities with more & more asphalt and other sources of heat vs say farmland, mountains scrub land or the forests?
Just about all of them I guess as there are not many weather stations set up in farmland, scrub land or the forests, despite them representing the vast majority of the land area

Intense rainfall??? , odd as rain tends to cool things down

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.
Careful with this claim
ph is logarithmic & you are measuring extremely dilute hydrogen ion concentrations
a 30% change as you describe is moving the ph from 8.37 to 8.24
I bet the ph meters used for most of those measurements are accurate to i decimal place

The oceans are filled with salts (borates ,carbonates, NaCl etc) these act as natural buffers to ph change (do you recall grade 12 chemistry?)
I am not saying the ph has not changed, but the oceans will never become acidic despite some claims/ (scare tactics- acid? oh that is bad) by alarmists

13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
The amount depends on who is calculating the carbon balance
The IPCCs numbers indicate an absorption time of 50 to 100 years (I can't recall exactly,but it a big double digit number)
Murray Salby & Hermann Hynde (spelling?) think it is closer to 5 years.
if it is 5 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which is man made is about 4%


BTW Murray Salby did a lot of the good work to help stave off Ozone depletion by CFCs

Oceans / water release CO2 with higher temperatures
The ice core studies show temperature increase before the CO2 increase in the past- That is a problem for alarmists

The IPCC predicts armageddon based upon computer models which produce predictions which have consistently overstated the actual temperature changes
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.


The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.


Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
97% of scientists agree on all of this?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,156
2,147
113
97% of scientists agree on all of this?
absolutely not
what they might agree upon is there has been some warming
a smaller number will agree humans are contributing to this warming
a far smaller number agree that it is dangerous

Again, science is not settled by opinion poll or consensus

EUGENICS: WHEN SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS LEADS TO MASS MURDER
https://www.thegwpf.com/eugenics-when-scientific-consensus-leads-to-mass-murder/

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,288
113
absolutely not
what they might agree upon is there has been some warming
a smaller number will agree humans are contributing to this warming
a far smaller number agree that it is dangerous
...
Where did you come up with this bullshit?

Here's a quick summary of the studies on support in the scientific community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Almost all agree there is warming.
Depending on the poll, between 66 and 97% of the scientific community says human impact contributes at least half the warming.
Up to 25% believe humans are having an impact but that impact represents less than half the warming.
1 or 2% believe humans are not having an impact and a similar claim there is no warming.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,156
2,147
113
Where did you come up with this bullshit?

Here's a quick summary of the studies on support in the scientific community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Almost all agree there is warming.
Depending on the poll, between 66 and 97% of the scientific community says human impact contributes at least half the warming.
Up to 25% believe humans are having an impact but that impact represents less than half the warming.
1 or 2% believe humans are not having an impact and a similar claim there is no warming.
None of which contradicts what I stated
what they might agree upon is there has been some warming
a smaller number will agree humans are contributing to this warming
a far smaller number agree that it is dangerou

Depending on the poll as you say

http://www.petitionproject.org/
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

Purpose of Petition

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
as best I can tell The source for the 97% was the clown John Cook
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09...te-scientists-believe-in-global-warming-meme/
Skeptical Science conspiracy theorist John Cook runs another survey trying to prove that false "97% of climate scientists believe in global warming" meme
Mr Cook committed a huge fraud. If you wrote a paper on climate you were counted in his 97 % regardless of your conclusion
When asked for his working papers for an audit they disappeared
he runs a well funded dis-information website
https://skepticalscience.com/
If you read the counter arguments carefully you will notice a pattern of deceit, defectionand in many cases avoidance of a direct answer
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,156
2,147
113
Only 3% say there's no warming like the OP claimed. That's pretty significant.
the planet has a long history (billions of years) of warming and cooling with lots of up and down cycles within cycles
we are still coming out of an ice age so some warming is to be expected
the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, the little age which followed it was colder than the present
the 1970s were colder than the 1930s

Again facts settle science not opinion polls
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking sixth behind 2012, 2016, 2015, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet, including the oceans. The land area of the U.S. accounts for only 2% of Earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. sweltering in 1934, that year was not especially hot over the rest of the planet, as you can see on the 1934 map below. Globally, 1934 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the 20th century.

Climate change skeptics have pointed to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. Choosing the year 1934 is an obvious example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. In fact they have to cherry pick both a location (the U.S.) and a year (1934) to find data that is far from the global trend. Globally, the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019 are the hottest on record, so far.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,561
113
the planet has a long history (billions of years) of warming and cooling with lots of up and down cycles within cycles
we are still coming out of an ice age so some warming is to be expected
the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, the little age which followed it was colder than the present
the 1970s were colder than the 1930s

Again facts settle science not opinion polls
Medieval warm period was a local event, not global.
Get your facts straight.

The planet has never been this warm in the history of humanity before and hasn't seen this high CO2 since the last time there was massive polar melts.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,156
2,147
113
Medieval warm period was a local event, not global.
Get your facts straight.

The planet has never been this warm in the history of humanity before and hasn't seen this high CO2 since the last time there was massive polar melts.
Oh you are back
That was a short little break for us

The medieval warm period was not an local event

The models of imminent doom have missed their predictions by a lot
Dont bother with your silly little graph- Nobody trusts you
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,135
3,572
113
The medieval warm period was not an local event
Indeed it wasnt (important parts in red): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.

It was likely related to warming elsewhere while some other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Average global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid 20th century warming.

Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,561
113
Oh you are back
That was a short little break forus

The medieval warm period was not an local event

The models of imminent doom have missed their predictions by a lot
Dont bother with your silly little graph- Nobody trusts you
Start with reading the wiki page on the period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

As for the graph, I don't care if you trust me.
This chart comes from Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's GISS program.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Its the most current and the most legit chart around.
The fact that you refuse to accept him as legit just cement's your 'science denier' title.

You don't get more legit then the head of NASA's climate department.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,561
113
From the wiki page you quoted but didn't understand:
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.


By the way, careful on your use of insults.
I owe you one and will be watching.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Medieval warm period was a local event, not global.
Get your facts straight.

The planet has never been this warm in the history of humanity before and hasn't seen this high CO2 since the last time there was massive polar melts.
Given accurate measuring devices are less than 150 years old and 2/3 of the globe is covered in water, that’s a bold statement.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,288
113
the planet has a long history (billions of years)...
No shit.

What you would notice that during those few changes that were as rapid as we are seeing we saw massive extinctions. In one of the ice ages the human population dropped from several hundred thousand to somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000. With modern technology that number would be far larger but the simple result (as has been seen in numerous periods of climactic change) is war and strife and is clearly no good for human society.

One of the current leading theories about the bronze age collapse is that climate change caused the uprooting of people who became raiders and caused the destruction of 3 of the 4 major empires of the time (only the Egyptians survived and that is only because after a battle they bribed the sea people with control over Egyptian land in what is now Israel and Lebanon).
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,156
2,147
113
Start with reading the wiki page on the period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Wiki?
Why note quote the Center for Ploicy alternatives or greenpeace
Come on, I thought you were going to serious


As for the graph, I don't care if you trust me.
This chart comes from Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's GISS program.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
The same Gavin Schmidt who refuses to debate any real scientists ?
He refused to be in the same interview with Roy spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA
If Gavin Schmidt is so sure of his position he should have no issue with a healthy debate with another scientist
Apparently not


Its the most current and the most legit chart around.
The fact that you refuse to accept him as legit just cement's your 'science denier' title.

You don't get more legit then the head of NASA's climate department.
You just got banned for two days for insulting & you call me a science denier first chance you get?
Are you sure that is a wise policy?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts