Topic: The Warming Climate

[CW2274]

After our hottest March on record last month, this April will go down as 4th hottest here. Also of interest, I saw a graph on the largest forest fires in Arizona history today and out of the 16 displayed, 14 of them occurred this century, the other two were in 1996.

[Jáchym]

There is one station here in the Czech Republic in Prague, which has a continuous series since 1781! One of the longest in the world.

We keep statistics of the absolute max and min daily average for every day in the year.

Looking at the table, it includes approximately 700 years - for each day in the year there are two years - year of max and year of min.

The list of years for absolute maximum has over 70% years that start with a "2". The table with absolute min does not have a single one....

[CW2274]

Officially "broke the ice" as it's sometimes called around here with us hitting 100F today, which is seventh earliest occurrence on record.
With that, an unseasonably deep digging trough will be in the SW Tue. progged to give us three consecutive days of high temps in the 70's, something that hasn't happened here this late since 1979.
I'm wondering about the severe potential this might have in the Plains come Wed. and beyond.

[halifax]

The Al Gore's and others making a living pushing the bad science now want the Courts to make it illegal to even question climate change.
So we may be arrested soon for even disputing the garbage science. And they wonder why so many are angry with the direction we are headed. Just look at the USA election process this year. This is just the tip of the iceberg, we haven't seen anything yet.   

What’s  this world coming to? 

How much warmer must it get before it's no longer bad science?  7 straight days of 100 degrees or more in Fairbanks, Alaska?

I'm not disputing we aren't warming but its at the natural rate since the last ice age. Man has zero to do with the outcome based on the minuscule amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere.
These false alarmist are basing data on cooked books and computer models. Having a super strong El Nino being the generator behind the warmth this year has nothing to do with man caused warming. I guess we forgot about the 3-4 prior record cold winters.

I look at the big picture not the few years we have been here and don't reinforce the rhetoric based on remembering my childhood weather events.  People that do that are followers not innovators.

Watts Up With That, the worlds most visited climate change and global warming site has some graphs for the paleoclimate and some other good information including this years heat generator El Nino.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

Interesting. You reject the conclusions of 95% of climate scientists (translation: people who have dedicated their lives to climatology) and then use "the worlds most visited climate change and global warming site" to sell the Fox News of climate sites.

I'm a forest scientist with deep training in boundary layer climatology and I've literally read hundreds of papers on climate change and looked directly at datasets from paleo sites (primarily bogs) and long-term ecological stations (dendrochrono work) in the Northeast as part of my work in disturbance ecology. There is only one conclusion to draw and that is AGW is real. You can play all of the alternative facts games that you want but it doesn't change the data, the scientific method, or science's embrace of objectivity.

Attacking models for fine-grained failures is another demonstration of ignorance of modeling.

Here's a fact for you: deniers are almost without exception political partisans. If Trump came out tomorrow and said AGW was a crisis, his cult would drink that kool-aid in a flash.

As a scientist, it's all rather discouraging. One can never change the mind of a denier as they bounce irrationally from lie to lie, Kelly Ann Conway-style.

So with that, I'm out!

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[Mattk]

Main stream reasoning for the so called global warming has been the excuse around burning fossil fuel and CO2 but CO2 levels today are some of the lowest on record. So why continue with this CO2 excuse, don't they have a substantiated reason that actually correlates to something that is beyond question? If this was the case then there wouldn't be any need for wild assumptions based on factual non selective evidence 

[Jáchym]

One of the lowest on record...



Not to mention we are not talking just about the absolute values, but rather the rate of change

[waiukuweather]

Mattk, where do you get your altnerative facts that CO2 levesl are amoung the lowest on record?
what is your source?

check out the graph Jáchym posted...do you still stand by your statement?

[WheatonRon]

One of the lowest on record...



Not to mention we are not talking just about the absolute values, but rather the rate of change

A year from now, this CO2 graph will probably point downward.

[Mattk]

Mattk, where do you get your altnerative facts that CO2 levesl are amoung the lowest on record?
what is your source?

check out the graph Jáchym posted...do you still stand by your statement?

400,00 years is nothing but a mere blip in time, doesn't say much at all, lets see a graph back to before dinosaurs and beyond.     

[hankster]

Mattk, where do you get your altnerative facts that CO2 levesl are amoung the lowest on record?
what is your source?

check out the graph Jáchym posted...do you still stand by your statement?

400,00 years is nothing but a mere blip in time, doesn't say much at all, lets see a graph back to before dinosaurs and beyond.     

You still didn't answer the question.... where do you get your alternative facts?

[Mattk]

Mattk, where do you get your altnerative facts that CO2 levesl are amoung the lowest on record?
what is your source?

check out the graph Jáchym posted...do you still stand by your statement?

400,00 years is nothing but a mere blip in time, doesn't say much at all, lets see a graph back to before dinosaurs and beyond.     

You still didn't answer the question.... where do you get your alternative facts?

I like to deal with ALL the facts not just a convenient subset, how about you providing ALL the facts for a better overall comparison instead of a limited data set that fits your thinking and limited to a few hundred thousand years, it's really annoying when people only want to put up data subsets that suits their purpose. I really want to know who was burning all that coal and raising the CO2 levels all that time ago Maybe all those dinosaurs were big on flatulence!   

It's much like the news these days, yes folks it has been the hottest day on record ..... since 1952, so then it was hotter before 1952 .... oh how selective and sensational have some become.

[waiukuweather]

there are graphs showing CO2 levels going back much further in time -> the levels currently have not been seen for millions of years

A year from now, this CO2 graph will probably point downward.

CO2 leves do go up and down, yearly, as a cycle
(but the trend is up)
where is your evidence that the CO2 levels will trend downwars in a year from now, what do you base that on?

t's much like the news these days, yes folks it has been the hottest day on record ..... since 1952, so then it was hotter before 1952 .... oh how selective and sensational have some become.

yes, there are always outliers in the tempeature records (spikes)
that had not changed
but think of global warming as a Y axis offset..i.e you shift those spikes up (upward and downward spikes)..so we are now breaking more max
temperture records than min temperature records

[Bashy]

I like to deal with ALL the facts not just a convenient subset, how about you providing ALL the facts for a better overall comparison instead of a limited data set that fits your thinking and limited to a few hundred thousand years, it's really annoying when people only want to put up data subsets that suits their purpose. I really want to know who was burning all that coal and raising the CO2 levels all that time ago Maybe all those dinosaurs were big on flatulence!   

It's much like the news these days, yes folks it has been the hottest day on record ..... since 1952, so then it was hotter before 1952 .... oh how selective and sensational have some become.

There was much more volcanic activity back then chap, that would account for the CO2 in question

A good read....

https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/17/humans-now-steer-climate-bus

[Jáchym]

Mattk, where do you get your altnerative facts that CO2 levesl are amoung the lowest on record?
what is your source?

check out the graph Jáchym posted...do you still stand by your statement?

400,00 years is nothing but a mere blip in time, doesn't say much at all, lets see a graph back to before dinosaurs and beyond.     

You still didn't answer the question.... where do you get your alternative facts?

I like to deal with ALL the facts not just a convenient subset, how about you providing ALL the facts for a better overall comparison instead of a limited data set that fits your thinking and limited to a few hundred thousand years, it's really annoying when people only want to put up data subsets that suits their purpose. I really want to know who was burning all that coal and raising the CO2 levels all that time ago Maybe all those dinosaurs were big on flatulence!   

It's much like the news these days, yes folks it has been the hottest day on record ..... since 1952, so then it was hotter before 1952 .... oh how selective and sensational have some become.

Read the question you were asked and read your answer. This is exactly what I find really annoying. You try to diverge attention from the original question. You were asked very clearly - provide source and some exact data for your statement that CO2 levels are currently one of the lowest on record.

You obviously try avoiding answering this by again just debunking what we write, but I want you to ignore what I said for now and only provide some evidence for your arguments.

Look at what you wrote, instead answering the question:

how about you providing ALL the facts

Thats not evidence for your statements and ignore what we said for now.

[AWL]

600 million years?

[Jáchym]

But the problem is that you have to take into account two other things:
- the overall concentrations of all gases in the atmosphere were quite different in the past and there were no humans (which require certain levels of O2, CO2, T etc.)
- look at the rate of change, no-one is saying there are no cycles which cause fluctuation in T, CO2 etc. There is no doubt about that. The problem is how fast this is now changing and unlike the slow changes to which organisms can adapt, they cannot adapt to what is happening now in long term.

[hankster]

Let's not forget that during those early times there were a number of mass extinctions with 70 to 90 percent of all living creatures dying. Guess that graph kind of shows that may have been one of the things that lead up to those mass extinctions.

[Jáchym]

Exactly, you cannot look at hundreds of millions of yrs worth of data when you want to deduce the consequences for humans. For humans, the relevant graph is the one I posted above, and look at the rate of change and absolute value.

I have MSc in genetics and mol.bio and I know what sort of organisms were on Earth during the times you want to look at and yes you are right, bacteria and some other organisms wont mind very high CO2 concentrations, temperature swings etc.

[halifax]

Mattk, where do you get your altnerative facts that CO2 levesl are amoung the lowest on record?
what is your source?

check out the graph Jáchym posted...do you still stand by your statement?

400,00 years is nothing but a mere blip in time, doesn't say much at all, lets see a graph back to before dinosaurs and beyond.     

I'm sure that I just won our lab's monthly pool for best denier quote. Thanks.

[Jáchym]

Just to put things into perspective and explain why my graph is much more relevant:


Do you think for us, humans, it is useful to look at what was half a billion yrs ago?

[waiukuweather]

actually 800,000 years is the current limit for ice cores
but they are hoping to go over 1 million years
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/the-oldest-ice-core-finding-a-1-5-million-year-record-of-earths-climate/
but even 400,000 years covers lots of ice ages and inter warm periods

[Mattk]

Let's not forget that during those early times there were a number of mass extinctions with 70 to 90 percent of all living creatures dying. Guess that graph kind of shows that may have been one of the things that lead up to those mass extinctions.

But wait there's more, More assumptions, never ends. Some of the data obviously doesn't sit all that well with some, doesn't show what they want it to show and don't have any answers either.   

[Jáchym]

No, our graphs are quite clear.

If you want to look at consequences for the planet Earth - then look at million/billion yr spanning graphs. Those will show you that the planet is ok with much higher CO2 levels.

If you want to look at consequences for humans and higher animals - then look at 10k/100k yr spanning graphs.

So depends which one is important for you...

[Mattk]

Probably the biggest delusionists on all this global warming stuff are the very same people trying to sensationalize and keep all the misinformation in the headlines which is obviously for some reason other than the claims they are trying to make.

Once upon a time there was a certain professor (name isn't important but the title is relevant) who claimed the rains would fail totally, dams would never be full again and coastal parts of the country would be inundated by rising sea levels .... and people actually believed him. Well guess what the rains came (as usual), the dams over topped and the tide is still coming in and going out. Then with foot in mouth same professor comes out and claims the rains are due to global warming, hang on there, wasn't the rains supposed to fail because of global warming, can't have it both ways but some would like to think so. Talk about some rather bizarre thinking and getting it so spectacularly wrong and this professor is supposed to know something about climate science, what rubbish, just preaching what he was expected to preach for in this case political purposes. Guess what he even caught himself short on this one.

The one quote that came out of all this stupidity was: The professor is no expert, but neither are the experts. Way to many so called smart people who should know better confusing climate variability for climate change and when one wants to believe then it's rather difficult for these people to have an open mind.         

[saratogaWX]

Probably the biggest delusionists on all this global warming stuff are the very same people trying to sensationalize and keep all the misinformation in the headlines which is obviously for some reason other than the claims they are trying to make.
     

I happen to agree with your statement, but likely not in the way you'd first think.  I think the delusionists are the ones who bring up (continually) outlier cases as cause to dismiss the whole idea as some conspiracy.  Weather and climate science are not exact, but are statistically better to tease out the trends.  When 97% of the scientists in the field agree that human caused CO2 emissions are a major factor driving the warming trend, I think they know better (and have better reasoning) than the 3% of the climate scientists who may still disagree as to humans being the cause.  Irrespective of the underlying cause, the trend is plainly warmer as evidenced by record losses of Arctic sea-ice and glaciers receding worldwide at a pace not seen in modern times.  The permafrost in Alaska, Northern Canada, Europe and Russia are thawing at an alarming rate and likely to release even more methane in the future, which only exacerbates the warming trend.

Natural or human-exacerbated, the warming is continuing and major changes to human habitability zones are in our future.