2019 2nd Hottest Year On Record

[Lord of Planar]

And that is because the greenhouse gasses limit the infrared energy leaving the Earth.
Perhaps as much as 90% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor.
The actual claim is that between 9 and 26% of the 33 C is from CO2, so let's look at the possible ranges of ECS
from earlier all the doubling s of CO2 from 1 ppm to 256 ppm, that is after all what the % of 33C is all about.
If the attribution were 26%, then 8.58C of the 33C would be from CO2, and each doubling of CO2 between 1 ppm and 256 ppm
would have a value of 1.07C, which is likely a bit high since CO2 is usually referenced to 270 to 280 ppm.
For other end 9%, only 2.97 C of the 33C would be from CO2, and each of the 8 doubling s between 1ppm and 256 ppm,
would be .371 C, This is not simply the forcing amount but the fully equalized level, as CO2 levels have not been 256 ppm for
quite a few thousand years.

Well, I'm pretty confident the CO2 has less than 10% of the greenhouse effect.

 

[code1211]

Milankovitch Cycles. Look it up. Read the Shakun paper as an example.



Yaay, more pseudo-scientific denier bull****. :roll: Yes, the effects of CO2 are logarithmic rather than linear. No, we are nowhere near the point where "20ppm does nothing."



Did you LOOK at your own chart? Obviously not.

View attachment 67271905



Again: The climate hasn't been this warm in 100,000 years. What's wrong with your comprehension?



Holy ****, are you even remotely serious?

The glaciers ARE melting. GNP has lost 39% of its glacial coverage since 1966. In geological time, that's the blink of an eye. GNP will lose most of its glaciers in just a few decades.



Most of them started forming around 7000 years ago. They grew as the climate cooled. Now that the climate is warming, they are melting. What part of this are you missing? Is it this part?

You mean, when did I stop being a child about science? A long time ago.

Since you missed it: The planet is warming because of human activity. Denying AGW is equivalent to proclaiming that the Earth is flat, that cigarettes are healthy for you, and that perpetual motion machines are possible. Climate change deniers are not the heroes here. Y'all are the Flat Earthers in this debate.

People who relay the points you have posted are not always idiots, but not being able to understand basic ideas helps in the acceptance of the CAGW drivel.

You seem to understand that the glaciers in Glacier National Park STARTED to form 7000 years ago. The points you demonstrate with your unsourced charts undermine the conclusions you present.

I ASSUME that you understand that there were glaciers about 3 miles thick on that little part of Earth that disappeared entirely prior to formation of the currently melting glaciers. Do you understand this?

Climate changes. Folks that preach the stupidity of CAGW are preaching nonsense. Climate changes. Climate always changes. Climate always has changed. Climate likely always will change

Warming, Extreme Warming, more extremes than today, OBVIOUSLY occurred to end the last ice age.

Today, we see glaciers melting all over the world that only started to form within the last 7000 years. OBVIOUSLY, we are RECOVERING from excessive cooling.

Attaching data from the instrument record to the proxy record and discarding the proxies is useless as it is deceptive producing obviously skewed results.

IF the instrument record is to be applied to the proxy record, it should be just another data track and averaged into the rest. Most proxies reflect some warming points that are much warmer than current.

The various proxy records are what they are. Averaging them together produces a very slowly changing average of averages. Like this one that is, incidentally, sourced:

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia

​

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is only seen in the inset.

 

[Threegoofs]

Statistics is different. Significant in science means anything large enough to consider.

You said significant is 5%.

Why is 5% large enough but 4% isn’t?

Where did you get your number?

And precisely which high school science class did you ‘learn’ this in?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You said significant is 5%.

Why is 5% large enough but 4% isn’t?

Where did you get your number?

And precisely which high school science class did you ‘learn’ this in?

Stop being a nit.

You are nit-picking because you have already lost the argument.

I said scientist "generally" consider "about" 5% to be the point where something becomes "significant." I never placed a hard number on it. Talk to actual scientists, chemists, and engineers like I do, but you obviously do not.

Are you really that ignorant to the meaning of words, or do you think you are being slick with intellectual deception?

 

[Threegoofs]

Stop being a nit.

You are nit-picking because you have already lost the argument.

I said scientist "generally" consider "about" 5% to be the point where something becomes "significant." I never placed a hard number on it. Talk to actual scientists, chemists, and engineers like I do, but you obviously do not.

Are you really that ignorant to the meaning of words, or do you think you are being slick with intellectual deception?

No. You’re literally backtracking to justify your stupid 5% number, because you clearly confused it with 95% confidence intervals.

There is no special significance to a 5% difference. I guarantee you can’t find one single reference (not like you tried!) that supports this.

I literally talk to scientists all day. It’s what I do. And not one would agree some arbitrary number is ‘significant’.

I’m guessing when an engineer designs some precision equipment, a 4% - or even a 0.4% change would be considered ‘significant’, whereas a biologist looking at a chaotic data set would consider 5% variation - or even 20%- to be not a significant change.

It was a post of profound ignorance, and you’ve been told this before but seem unable to grasp it.

 

[longview]

Well, I'm pretty confident the CO2 has less than 10% of the greenhouse effect.

Given it was Gavin A. Schmidt who stated the 9 to 26% attribution, I am inclined to agree!

 

[Lord of Planar]

No. You’re literally backtracking to justify your stupid 5% number, because you clearly confused it with 95% confidence intervals.

There is no special significance to a 5% difference. I guarantee you can’t find one single reference (not like you tried!) that supports this.

I literally talk to scientists all day. It’s what I do. And not one would agree some arbitrary number is ‘significant’.

I’m guessing when an engineer designs some precision equipment, a 4% - or even a 0.4% change would be considered ‘significant’, whereas a biologist looking at a chaotic data set would consider 5% variation - or even 20%- to be not a significant change.

It was a post of profound ignorance, and you’ve been told this before but seem unable to grasp it.

My God man. How can you be so ignorant.

I specified I was not speaking of statistical significance.

In general, when a variable has a small enough influence to make a difference numeric outcome, it is significant. I'm saying it is generally considered about 5% or the effect or more. Others will claim other numbers, but they are at low percentages.

You should really get out of any scientific discussion. You have no clue.

 

[Threegoofs]

My God man. How can you be so ignorant.

I specified I was not speaking of statistical significance.

In general, when a variable has a small enough influence to make a difference numeric outcome, it is significant. I'm saying it is generally considered about 5% or the effect or more. Others will claim other numbers, but they are at low percentages.

You should really get out of any scientific discussion. You have no clue.

I have a good clue.

You made up 5% because you don’t understand statistical significance too well, and now are backtracking and pretending that, somehow, *I* am wrong.

There is literally no scientist in the world who would say some arbitrary percentage (5%) is a meaningful threshold for anything- it’s an abjectly stupid statement.

If it’s ‘generally considered’ I’m sure you could come up with dozens of textbook references, right?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have a good clue.

You made up 5% because you don’t understand statistical significance too well, and now are backtracking and pretending that, somehow, *I* am wrong.

There is literally no scientist in the world who would say some arbitrary percentage (5%) is a meaningful threshold for anything- it’s an abjectly stupid statement.

If it’s ‘generally considered’ I’m sure you could come up with dozens of textbook references, right?

No, you are clueless. You refuse to take any consideration that I may be right. You have a closed mind. And for the umpteen millionth time, when I say "about," the number that follows is not a hard number.

 

[Threegoofs]

No, you are clueless. You refuse to take any consideration that I may be right. You have a closed mind. And for the umpteen millionth time, when I say "about," the number that follows is not a hard number.

Ya said 5% is generally considered a significant amount.

That’s literally based upon nothing.

Realistically, from when we did this nine months ago, it’s clearly based on your confusion of statistical significance vs general significance (in medicine, we call it ‘clinical significance’) where an arbitrary number would be gibsmackingly stupid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ya said 5% is generally considered a significant amount.

That’s literally based upon nothing.

Realistically, from when we did this nine months ago, it’s clearly based on your confusion of statistical significance vs general significance (in medicine, we call it ‘clinical significance’) where an arbitrary number would be gibsmackingly stupid.

Maybe you should go back to school so you can learn the basics.

Not my place to educate you.

 

[Threegoofs]

Maybe you should go back to school so you can learn the basics.

Not my place to educate you.

Sure.

‘The basics’ .

If you were correct, you could support your statement.

But since you’re not, all you have is bluster.

It’s hilarious, actually.

 

[Visbek]

You seem to understand that the glaciers in Glacier National Park STARTED to form 7000 years ago. The points you demonstrate with your unsourced charts undermine the conclusions you present.

~~LOL~~

The source for the Marcott/HADCRUT is right on the chart itself, and very clearly shows that recent climate change is not natural. The chart in post #164 is the same one you used.

I ASSUME that you understand that there were glaciers about 3 miles thick on that little part of Earth that disappeared entirely prior to formation of the currently melting glaciers. Do you understand this?

Good grief. Yes, climate scientists are well aware that there was an Ice Age that started to warm around 18,000 years ago; then, temperatures plateaued for a few thousand years; that a handful of those earlier glaciers probably survived that relatively warm period; then, when it started to cool again... wait for it... glaciers formed and/or expanded.

And now that it's getting warmer again, due to human activity, the glaciers in GNP are retreating.

Climate changes.

There isn't a single climate scientist who denies natural climate change. Not a single one. The fact that climate can change because of natural causes does not disprove AGW.

I'm sure I've told you this before, but: Roughly 10% of lung cancers are due to natural causes. That does not, in any way shape or form, disprove the fact that 90% of lung cancers are due to human causes, primarily smoking cigarettes, as well as exposure to asbestos. Yeesh.

Warming, Extreme Warming, more extremes than today, OBVIOUSLY occurred to end the last ice age.

Nope nope nope, totally wrong.

At the end of the previous ice age, the planet warmed at approximately 0.003 per decade. Since 1900, the planet has warmed roughly 0.1C per decade. And again, temperatures haven't been this high in about 11,000 years.

Today, we see glaciers melting all over the world that only started to form within the last 7000 years. OBVIOUSLY, we are RECOVERING from excessive cooling.

That has to be one of the dumbest claims I've ever seen.

No, there is no "excessive cooling." There is no such thing when it comes to natural climate events. The planet doesn't have a thermostat. It doesn't regulate itself in that way.

In fact, we're in the middle of a cooling phase of a Milankovitch cycle. The planet started cooling about 6000 years ago, and would continue to cool for approximately another 19000 years, if it wasn't for human activity. Of course, you're too busy making wrong statements about natural cycles to realize that climate scientists are, in fact, aware of and keep track of those cycles...

Attaching data from the instrument record to the proxy record and discarding the proxies is useless as it is deceptive producing obviously skewed results.

IF the instrument record is to be applied to the proxy record, it should be just another data track and averaged into the rest.

Egads. Marcott's 2013 paper explains exactly why combining the two are legitimate. We should note that the incredibly rapid rate of warming, due to human activity, is another reason why we ought to combine the two.

Most proxies reflect some warming points that are much warmer than current.

And again, Marcott explains exactly why homogenizing the proxy record results in a valid approach.

The various proxy records are what they are. Averaging them together produces a very slowly changing average of averages. Like this one that is, incidentally, sourced:

LOL

You sourced it -- and YOU'RE IGNORING WHAT IT SAYS.

Look at the chart closely. Where is the marker for 2016?

Are you really going to keep Black Knighting?

 

[Jack Hays]

Friday Funny – hottest decade evah! #showyourstipes @ed_hawkins

This week at the big 100 year anniversary shindig of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) there was a press release session that featured NOAA and NASA GISS talking about how their climate data says that the world in 2019 was the second warmest ever, and the decade of 2010-2019 was the hottest ever (by a few…
Continue reading →

 

[Threegoofs]

Friday Funny – hottest decade evah! #showyourstipes @ed_hawkins

This week at the big 100 year anniversary shindig of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) there was a press release session that featured NOAA and NASA GISS talking about how their climate data says that the world in 2019 was the second warmest ever, and the decade of 2010-2019 was the hottest ever (by a few…
Continue reading →

Oh my. LoP is going to scream bout sourcing of the graph.

Oh, wait. No he won’t. It’s a denier graph.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh my. LoP is going to scream bout sourcing of the graph.

Oh, wait. No he won’t. It’s a denier graph.

The graph is linked.

 

[Threegoofs]

The graph is linked.

Linked to... what?

See... in the real world, when a graph is made there generally is a data source that its drawn from.

As far as I see, the graph going back thousands of years is just made up out of thin air.

But deniers think sourcing it to WUWT is legitimate, where when a graph looking at decadal temps from BEST isnt, because... well....

 

[Jack Hays]

Linked to... what?

See... in the real world, when a graph is made there generally is a data source that its drawn from.

As far as I see, the graph going back thousands of years is just made up out of thin air.

But deniers think sourcing it to WUWT is legitimate, where when a graph looking at decadal temps from BEST isnt, because... well....

In the best of all possible worlds a graph should be sourced and linked. In an adequate world it should be at least one or the other. Yours are usually neither.

 

[Threegoofs]

In the best of all possible worlds a graph should be sourced and linked. In an adequate world it should be at least one or the other. Yours are usually neither.

That graph was literally made up. I know of no paleoclimate data that looks like that.

But hey! It’s on a website! It’s sourced and linked!

LOL.

You guys are a joke.

 

[Jack Hays]

That graph was literally made up. I know of no paleoclimate data that looks like that.

But hey! It’s on a website! It’s sourced and linked!

LOL.

You guys are a joke.

That's fine. Make your case. But link or source your graphs.

 

[Robertinfremont]

You might ask yourself why Caltech invited him to give one of their most prestigious annual lectures.

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003


". . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . "

I took physics both in high school and the much more advanced physics in college. The latter included using Calculus in physics discussions and solutions.

I never heard any teacher speak of some consensus.

 

[Glitch]

I was right about the Chinook Winds last month. They came a month early this Winter. Which means that the unusually warmer temperatures created by the Chinook Winds will be recorded in December 2019 temperatures, instead of the January 2020 temperatures, as is typical for those winds. If the Chinook Winds return back to blowing during the month of January, like they normally do, then the next time they blow will be in January 2021. That should make the year 2020 just a tad cooler than it would have been normally.

 

[Jack Hays]

I was right about the Chinook Winds last month. They came a month early this Winter. Which means that the unusually warmer temperatures created by the Chinook Winds will be recorded in December 2019 temperatures, instead of the January 2020 temperatures, as is typical for those winds. If the Chinook Winds return back to blowing during the month of January, like they normally do, then the next time they blow will be in January 2021. That should make the year 2020 just a tad cooler than it would have been normally.

A Charles Russell print that was my father's, and now hangs on my home office wall.

​

​

 

[jpn]

Let's say it is getting hotter. Let's even agree with a limited number of scientists who think the increase in heat is caused by humans and can be fixed by humans. Why should that cause us to support the Paris Climate Accord which includes 'corrective' actions involving redistributing US wealth among the poor nations of the world. Are we so rich that we can afford to spend tens of trillions of dollars in foreign aid for the purpose of funding "sustainable growth" experiments in socialism around the world?

I understand this viewpoint. There are lots of reasons to not take action. Asking people to sacrifice is always difficult, especially when they see other people not making similar sacrifices. Starting in on a big discussion of what's fair is not going to be fruitful.

So.

I think we won't be able to depress consumption of fossil fuels by asking for sacrifice. I just don't think people will respond. Therefore, we need to be investigation carbon recapture technologies. Technology got us into this mess, hopefully technology can pull us out.

In the meantime, we should do what we can, like reduce our use, promote alternative energy sources, and whatnot. Alternative energy is a booming industry, now employing more people than the fossil fuel industry.

All told, nearly 1 million Americans are working near- or full-time in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicles sectors. This is almost five times the current employment in the fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers.

And at an absolute minimum, we should stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Use the money save to promote carbon recapture. Whoever builds the best mousetrap in that area will be minting money.

 

[Jack Hays]

I understand this viewpoint. There are lots of reasons to not take action. Asking people to sacrifice is always difficult, especially when they see other people not making similar sacrifices. Starting in on a big discussion of what's fair is not going to be fruitful.

So.

I think we won't be able to depress consumption of fossil fuels by asking for sacrifice. I just don't think people will respond. Therefore, we need to be investigation carbon recapture technologies. Technology got us into this mess, hopefully technology can pull us out.

In the meantime, we should do what we can, like reduce our use, promote alternative energy sources, and whatnot. Alternative energy is a booming industry, now employing more people than the fossil fuel industry.

And at an absolute minimum, we should stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Use the money save to promote carbon recapture. Whoever builds the best mousetrap in that area will be minting money.

We do not subsidize the fossil fuel industry.