There is no Planet B

[CatNewBee]

... What I say, no free speech, "peer reviewed" opinion filters and silencing of uncomfortable scientists on a large scale, mafia methods...

This is the way to get undisputed science and 100% accord, simply silence and ridicule the opposition.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

And then there is this:


To bring context to the global goal of limiting warming to 2°C, we compare the global temperatures to an earlier, pre-industrial 1880-1910 baseline. 2018’s global temperatures were 1.90°F (1.06°C) above that baseline — more than halfway there. This made 2018 the second-warmest year on record without an El Niño event, behind only 2017. (El Niño can enhance warming, but it can’t explain all of it). Only 2016 and 2015 were warmer years, and 2014 rounds out the top five. With the five warmest years on record happening during the past five years — and the 20 warmest occurring over the past 22 — a consistent warming trend couldn’t be clearer. Meanwhile, monthly averaged atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen to 411 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory, thanks in part to an estimated 2.7 percent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.


https://www.climatecentral.org/galle...ears-on-record




Some on here say that because the last 2 years were slightly cooler then global warming is a hoax. I'll bet you a beer that 2019 is another hot one and will make the last 6 years the hottest on record.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Why is it that breaking record high and low temps prove global warming is real?

In the study of statistics, they will tell you that large fluctuations between min and max indicate that using the mean should be done very cautiously. Yet, we are quite happy to talk about the mean surface temperature in terms of 0.1 degree precision derived from raw data that has 50-60 degree or more min/max range.

Most statistics endeavors will seek to get rid of the outlier data points yet both sides of the MMGW debate cling to the outliers like a warm fuzzy blanket.

Interesting, I've just checked the all time weather records for Australia. Arguably, aside from highest annual rainfall, I can see little climate change signature in the data. With so many hottest years on record in recent years it strikes me as odd, considering the mechanism of greenhouse warming and claimed temperature increases, that absolute maximum records don't seem to be getting broken at the pace mainstream media would have us believe.

[SailOar]

Climate Change Could Leave Thousands of Lakes Ice-Free

....In a study published last week in the journal Nature Climate Change, scientists for the first time quantified the effects of rising temperatures on ice cover across 1.4 million lakes in the Northern Hemisphere. They found that, from Wisconsin to Japan, thousands of lakes that used to freeze reliably every winter already see some years without ice, and that “an extensive loss of lake ice will occur within the next generation.”....

Without winter ice, lakes begin warming earlier in the year. Warmer surface water increases the risk of toxic algal blooms and decreases oxygen levels in a lake, putting stress on fish and other organisms. Water temperature also affects which fish species can thrive. Certain fish — like walleye, salmon and trout — depend on cool, oxygen-rich waters and don’t fare as well in warm conditions.....

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Climate Change Could Leave Thousands of Lakes Ice-Free

What a BS, there are so many ice-free lakes around the world without this problems. How stupid do this journos think people are?

In contrast in freezing lakes lack of oxygen may become a problem for the fish, therefore people often break the ice or ventilate the ponds during winter.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

What a BS, there are so many ice-free lakes around the world without this problems. How stupid do this journos think people are?

In contrast in freezing lakes lack of oxygen may become a problem for the fish, therefore people often break the ice or ventilate the ponds during winter.

You would do well to engage your brain before your fingers.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, to get the ball rolling, the so called 1850 ish (I've even seen 1750 quoted at times - and that date is closer to the technically correct start date of the industrial revolution, but I digress) baseline occurred during a recognised period of abnormally cold weather.


Continue to join the dots from there.

Did not answer the question. What is the denier theory to explain the current warming trend.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually cooling now and due to solar activity across the spectrum not just the uv that the agw crowd tout as minimal. X-ray has a lot more effect than they will admit.
Do the cmip6 models with solar forcings and not co2 forcings then do it the other way.
You will come up with basically the same end results.

Exactly what is the interaction by which X-rays are causing the climate to warm?

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

and connect this for as well it started at the end of the centennial minimum and we went right into the modern grand solar maximum from there peaking in 1957. ( there are lag times for each effect from a month for sunspots and arctic temperatures to 50 years give or take for surface ocean temps to several centuries for deep ocean ( the Argo array just recently found cold water evidence for the lia at 2000 meters deep.)

How is the Solarn Maximum causing the warming? What is the physical process?

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Interesting, I've just checked the all time weather records for Australia. Arguably, aside from highest annual rainfall, I can see little climate change signature in the data. With so many hottest years on record in recent years it strikes me as odd, considering the mechanism of greenhouse warming and claimed temperature increases, that absolute maximum records don't seem to be getting broken at the pace mainstream media would have us believe.

I always love the term mainstream media because we all know that there is only one channel that doesn't fit in there. But I digress.
As others have said it's not just an all time record high that indicates a warming trend it's a whole bunch of above average or close to record high temps that do indicate a warming trend globally. Transmitterdan used this analogy somewhat incorrectly.
We go back to my favorite weather site and oh look a bunch more record or near record temps for the day or month. Some people have derided this site because it's unofficial but this guy put this together as a college student 25 years ago and now is a professor of meteorology. This little web page has been cited many times by many sources. It's just real verifiable data. Today's stats are 202 places that have broken or are near their daily or monthly high and 17 that have broken or are near their lows. Statistics show warming not cooling.
(Unofficial) Record-breaking temperatures across the Globe

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Exactly what is the interaction by which X-rays are causing the climate to warm?

actually the opposite large solar x ray bursts cool the planet . By causing s sudden drop in tsi these events are not long lived but do have a significant near instantaneous effect .

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

I can help you on this.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon. It is been around all the time. The major heat source is the sun and the hot core of the planet resulting of the energy unleashed by a huge impact with another planet long time ago. Since the the earth is slowly cooling, the surface is becomming thicker, we got a water surface with oceans and land masses, there is stil a lot of vulcanic activity, also external events like asteroids hat a big impact on climate in the past.

Another driver is the magnetic system, that is also changing and flipping from time to time, the biosphere plays a role too, we humans are part of it. The earth had in the past high CO2 concentrations and humidity, and also ages with almost O2 and N2 athmosphere with no CO2. During times with high co2, plants were dominant life forms, but almost extinct as co2 was all taken out of the system leading to near extinction, the life found a way of recycling and using the poisonous O2 to degrade all the dead plants and recover the energy stored, the next level of evolution was the one of predators, that eat the plant eaters, where we are now.

It was also always an up and down of dominant species during different ages, they are successfull to a certain level and extinct other species but then are overtaken and die out. Now we and the cockroaches are on the top for a while and will follow one day the dinos fate.

All this is natural and nothing to worry about. This ups and downs happen usually not during the lifespan of a single generation, and same applies to us. The next generation will not know much about our lifestyle and our chores, they will have their own, their successor will rise in a slightly different world with the then existing circumstances. If life gets difficult, there will be naturally a decreasing population. Nature regulates it. If there is one monoculture, nature finds a species to benefit of it and destroy it, it could be bacteria, viruses, insects or whatever, no ressource stays forever unused, but by the specialisation on this food this species advantage is also the reason she will extinct later when the resource vanishes.

I am optimistic of the future, we would not want to live in the stone age, nor in the medieval slavery or any past times just to keep the status quo, why would we enforce this on our children to live the way we think appropriate? Every generation must find their own way. There is no way back.

So this BS about climat change and safe the planet is nonsense. We have to behave somehow responsible but not overreact. We are what we are because we used our brain and the accessible ressources and the next generation will do the same. Some resources may end, other will be found.

The earth is a closed system, material does not disappear, it is still there, sometimes in a different form. All the oil and coal was there before as CO2, then eaten by plants and taken off the system, we close the circle and release it back for the generations of plants to come. We are a product of nature, the missing link, to close the circle of life and give it a new kick.

I completely agree that we need to act responsibly and will add that, IMHO, AWG is only one of several areas where we need to clean up our act soon.

1. Over population
2. Deflection of natural resources (oil, fresh water, fish, etc)
3. Anti-bacterial resistance
4. The overly complicated global financial system
5. AGW

However, back to the topic at hand, exactly which process are causing this “natural” warming, how high will the temperature go and when will it stop?

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Interesting, I've just checked the all time weather records for Australia. Arguably, aside from highest annual rainfall, I can see little climate change signature in the data. With so many hottest years on record in recent years it strikes me as odd, considering the mechanism of greenhouse warming and claimed temperature increases, that absolute maximum records don't seem to be getting broken at the pace mainstream media would have us believe.

I think there are many on both sides of the debate who hold mistaken ideas about how global warming expresses itself. I would expect to see little variation in Australian temperatures because the additional heat is largely transmitted toward the poles, especially the Arctic. And the temperature record in the Arctic and suarctic regions shows a marked increase.

Also removed that just upthread another denier stipulated to a 1.1°F, but said it was 90% natural. So apparently he sees the increase.

[hpeer]

So I’ve had 3 or 4 well meaning responses to my question of how deniers explain the “natural” warming, and in denying any warming at all.

The responses have so far been very non-specific as to the process. From X-rays to volcanism to metro strikes to something about the cooling core and sun cycles.

I’m striving to understand the alternate explanation.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

I always love the term mainstream media because we all know that there is only one channel that doesn't fit in there. But I digress.
As others have said it's not just an all time record high that indicates a warming trend it's a whole bunch of above average or close to record high temps that do indicate a warming trend globally. Transmitterdan used this analogy somewhat incorrectly.
We go back to my favorite weather site and oh look a bunch more record or near record temps for the day or month. Some people have derided this site because it's unofficial but this guy put this together as a college student 25 years ago and now is a professor of meteorology. This little web page has been cited many times by many sources. It's just real verifiable data. Today's stats are 202 places that have broken or are near their daily or monthly high and 17 that have broken or are near their lows. Statistics show warming not cooling.
(Unofficial) Record-breaking temperatures across the Globe

ok must picked one at random off of the link you provided that said it was a record temperature .

Here is the weather station from Google earth. Jersey airport in England.
At an airport in the middle of a big concrete parking lot.
( I'm sure I can prove the heat island has an effect on the temperature)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Did not answer the question. What is the denier theory to explain the current warming trend.

Ummmmmmmm.........


Recovering from the tail of the little ice age just might have something to do with the "extent" of the warming. The lemmings might not question the choice of setting some arbitrary baseline in the midst of a cold period and in which the last of those that physically experienced it died a century or so ago. They might also not question why the mid 19th century is used in concert with "industrial revolution" when the "industrial revolution" actually kicked off in the 18th century.



What's the alarmist theory to explain this choice?