From Jerry back here.
NASA Climate Change Effects
NCA Vol 1
NCA Vol 2
IPCC Report
So yes the temperature has increased about 1 deg C over 100 years. And unfortunately the rate of change started to increase in about 1970. :-( And us humans refuse to change. :-(
What you cannot deny is that the GISS temperature dataset YOU rely on, GISS, clearly shows, just as I have said:So I said I would post some charts to see if we do know this...
- Total warming over the last 140 years amounts to about 1 degree C or 0.7 degrees per century.
- Even assuming the recent "accelerated" warming [since 1960] shown by the chart is real and continues indefinitely, you are looking at 0.8 degrees C over 60 years, or 1.33 degrees per century.
- That is UNDER the LOWER target of the Paris Agreement!!"
- NOW, do you wish to deny your own preferred data?
NASA Climate Change Effects
NCA Vol 1
NCA Vol 2
IPCC Report
So yes the temperature has increased about 1 deg C over 100 years. And unfortunately the rate of change started to increase in about 1970. :-( And us humans refuse to change. :-(
26 comments:
--Your first source is all speculation, ASSUMING that CAGW is real.
--Your second and third sources have been repeatedly debunked.
--Your fourth simply says people have bought into the scaremongering and "did something" in Paris.
--Your first chart shows that the rate of change until 1970 (when we had the big "next ice age" scare)was as I have said, and that the rate since then has been less than 2 degrees per century. Other datasets, BTW, show the same thing.
-- Your second chart shows output from the computer models, but notice that "RCP2.5" shows LESS than a 2 degree rise.
-- Your third chart shows CO2 concentrations. It is wrong AND irrelevant, and that is just science. Correlation is not causation.
--Same with your last graph. "Human produced" greenhouse gasses are a minor factor. Natural water vapor (plus human produced) is 96% of greenhouse gasses, and natural CO2 is 96% or so of total CO2. And correlation is not causation.
In short, LOOK AT THE DATA. No proof of CO2 causation, no proof of manmade CO2 causation, no proof of catastrophic warming except in the extreme CO2-driven models. No evidence the models are correct, especially in the alarming scenarios generally used to prop up the hysteria.
The first 3 sources are US Government documents. All published during Trump's Presidency.
The 4th link is from 10/8/2018, long after Paris.
Your original statement was... "0.7 degrees per century" Which is obviously incorrect.
RCP2.5 would be great !!! But the reality is that our populations and carbon footprints are just continuing to grow... More like RCP8.5.
"The RCPs are consistent with a wide range of possible changes in future anthropogenic (i.e., human) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and aim to represent their atmospheric concentrations.
- RCP 2.6 assumes that global annual GHG emissions (measured in CO
2-equivalents) peak between 2010–2020, with emissions declining substantially thereafter.
-Emissions in RCP 4.5 peak around 2040, then decline.
- RCP 6, emissions peak around 2080, then decline.
- In RCP 8.5, emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century."
History Lesson
So, there are no speculators or charlatans in the US government? The EPA does not get more funding to fight this "crisis" and therefore has a vested interest in sustaining the hoax DESPITE the real data showing otherwise?
Of COURSE the 4th link is after Paris. It had to be to brag on it, but it's all hot air, refuted by the actual data.
My original statement was 0.7 degrees LAST century. As you repeatedly point out, the rise is faster the last 40 years but STILL, all official sources agree it is 2.0 or less.
RCP2.6 assumptions (including that manmade CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature) get shoved into computer models, yet pretty much match what the world is doing in reality, WITHOUT radical curbs to manmade CO2. That should tell you something.
Jerry,
I have provided sources and graphs...
Do you have any credible sources to back up your denial position?
And I do not mean some political scientist make unproven statements or idiots who believe in "intelligent" design.
Denial? I am looking at (charts from) the official temperature records from NASA, NOAA, GISS, RSS, UAH and the IPCC. There are no others official records of which I am aware, other than the projections from the climate models which are WAY above the actual measured data. Projections are not real, measured data. You seem to be the one relying on what some "expert" tells you about the data, rather than the data itself. That's what's crazy, here.
More of that pesky fact / data
And more info
"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."
Please go back and look at all of this wonderful data you found. For example, the last one ("0.15-0.20 per decade") Isn't that EXACTLY what I have been saying that the official record says?
What you said was...
"•Total warming over the last 140 years amounts to about 1 degree C or 0.7 degrees per century.
•Even assuming the recent "accelerated" warming [since 1960] shown by the chart is real and continues indefinitely, you are looking at 0.8 degrees C over 60 years, or 1.33 degrees per century."
Now my math says that there are 10 decades in a century.
And 10 X 0.175 deg / decade = 1.75 deg per century
And the theory states that the rate will increase since we have not changed our ways... And the graph shows a potential increase of 4 deg C by the end of this century. Which converts to about 7 deg F...
On the upside... We won't be around to see what our selfish actions have done to the Earth.
Again it is our Grandkids who will pay for our selfishness. :-(
Now... How could this be applied here?
Is it your math or your reading comprehension that needs work? There are two periods-- the last 140 years and the last 60 years. The charts indicate an abrupt change in the trend. That higher trend is below the Paris limits and is not increasing. There is no coming climate apocalypse. Can you accept good news?
Using the Denier opinion piece...
What evidence would convince you that human created green house gases are causing and will continue to cause the world to heat at an increasing rate?
Human Activity
Not directly climate related, but when someone tries to tell you that humans aren't affecting our planet's environment, the only reasonable thing to do is to laugh derisively in their face.
Moose
Though likely emotionally satisfying...
I am not sure it will solve the disagreement...
It is kind of like when Jerry says something like "you can agree with me or be wrong..."
I don't care if it solves the disagreement. There is no disagreement...only reality. Sometimes, you just have to jettison the baggage that's weighing you down and move on.
Moose
Well unfortunately you do not to get to jettison your fellow voting citizens...
Probably better to work it out if you are really serious about getting to preventing the "end of the world as we know it"...
"Not directly climate related, but when someone tries to tell you that humans aren't affecting our planet's environment, the only reasonable thing to do is to laugh derisively in their face." -- Moose
So smug. So confident in things you cannot possibly know, like humans having a predominant effect on the climate.
"Using the Denier opinion piece...
What evidence would convince you that human created green house gases are causing and will continue to cause the world to heat at an increasing rate?"
Do NOT use the "Denier opinion piece" whatever that is. Use the same sources I do-- the historical temperature records from NASA, NOAA, IPCC, RSS, HADLEY. They all say exactly the same thing-- 1.5-2.0 degrees rise projected by 2100. "Scientists" TALK as if the data shows something other than what it does; ignore them.
What would convince me? Turn it around. What evidence can you possibly have for catastrophic "climate change" since there is NOTHING it cannot do? The theory cannot be "falsified." That is there is no way to prove it will not happen or even IS not happening, because everything--hot weather, cold weather, more snow, less snow, drought, floods, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes and on and on (750 last count) are "caused by Climate Change." And yet the real data that all of "climate science" depends on shows that the catastrophic warming isn't happening, let alone because of fossil fuels. The only thing I am certain of caused by CC is that eye teeth have been stolen all over the planet.
The Denier Piece
You avoid answering my simple question.
OK, what would convince me? So long as the EPA, IPCC, NOAA, NASA, RSS and HADLEY-- /ALL/ the official data sources-- say exactly what I have been saying, I can conclude nothing other than that manmade CO2 is NOT causing catastrophic warming, NOR is anything else. I am relying on the experts and climate scientists themselves. Whom are you relying on?
I am relying on "EPA, IPCC, NOAA, NASA, RSS and HADLEY-- /ALL/ the official data sources-"...
All who support the graphs shown in this post.
So again I ask...
"What evidence would convince you that human created green house gases are causing and will continue to cause the world to heat at an increasing rate?"
And again, look at your favored charts. Any prediction beyond current is not real data, but it is from fatally flawed climate models that ASSUME manmade CO2 is the principal cause of global warming. ASSUME is not real data. Then look at your actual chart of temperatures. It shows 1 degree of warming over the last 100 years. Then in 1970 it "accelerates" to (rough eyeball trendline) 0.75 degrees in 50 years, or 1.5 degrees per century, meeting the LOWER (and still arbitrary) limit set in Paris.
And since CO2 continues to rise much faster than actual temperatures, it is obvious CO2 doesn't matter as the models (GIGO) say it does. Again, turn the question around. If your own preferred data says we have no problem, why do you insist we do?
Maybe I will answer your questions if you ever provide an answer to mine. :-)
OK. What evidence would convince me? If the actual temperature records ever started to track the much higher predictions of the computerized climate models and IF those climate models were sufficiently precise (not +/- 100%) and IF it could be proven that TOTAL CO2 was the proximate and essential cause of that warming, and IF it could be shown that manmade CO2 was the principal component of the increase in CO2, then all of them together would be a basis for concern. Since NONE of those things are happening in the real world, after thirty years of doomsaying and a multitude of failed predictions, count me a skeptic.
Your turn.
Post a Comment