The End Of Matter?

[Zakuska]

Actually it shows that it both leads and lags in a sort of feedback loop, if you look at the chart and the study. 

Ok I got that.

 

It lags in the Southern Hemisphere / Leads  in the Northern.

 

But those temperatures variations can simply be explained by the wobble of the planet and the sun. then Co2 simply following temperatures and disipating across the globe in an on going cycle of being absorbed and released. Cold water holds CO2 better than warm. 

 

Heres what Nasa has to say in 2014 about CO2 Lagging temperature.

 

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11362

 

 

Is there any merit to the studies that show that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature, and not lead them?  

Climate scientist Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, says yes, there's merit to those studies. In the pre-industrial age, the CO2 response to temperature was that the temperature would go up and CO2 would go up. Or if the temperature went down, CO2 would go down. And the reason for that is when the temperature went up, the whole biosphere revved up and emitted CO2, and we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So we understand that process.

 

  Of course I disagree with his Post-Industrial Age assesment, because of his assumptions going in.  Why would the Laws of Physics need to be rewritten just because the weather changed?

Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

NASA only had a 38% confidence level that 2014 was the warmest year.

 

Because NASA likes to be skeptical too skeptical about stuff that is obvious. NASA is probably 4% confident that Earth's mantle (Geology) exist. Still, it is 100% that 2014, 2005, 2012, 1998, and especially 2015 are the hottest years , so what is why they are 38% confident about 2014.

 

It goes back to 0, it doesn't add because it is the average of the weather and temperature of the entire year for the planet, so that means the planet is getting a lot warmer. 

 

and all the evidence says the Earth should be getting colder, but the opposite is true. 

 

 

But those temperatures variations can simply be explained by the wobble of the planet and the sun. then Co2 simply following temperatures and disipating across the globe in an on going cycle of being absorbed and released. Cold water holds CO2 better than warm. .

 

why do you ignore everything I just said,? read the previous page. 

 

PS how do you explain that the planet was a lot warmer than today when Solar output was around 4% weaker during the Cambrian-Ordovician 'greenhouse' period? 

Edited August 8, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

Because NASA likes to be skeptical too skeptical about stuff that is obvious. NASA is probably 4% confident that Earth's mantle (Geology) exist. Still, it is 100% that 2014, 2005, 2012, 1998, and especially 2015 are the hottest years , so what is why they are 38% confident about 2014.

 

It goes back to 0, it doesn't add because it is the average of the weather and temperature of the entire year for the planet, so that means the planet is getting a lot warmer. 

 

and all the evidence says the Earth should be getting colder, but the opposite is true. 

 

 

 

why do you ignore everything I just said,? read the previous page. 

 

PS how do you explain the planet was a lot warmer than today when Solar output was around 4% weaker during the Cambrian-Ordovician 'greenhouse' period? 

 

You mean back in the time prior to us having temperature/solar output recording devices? So its anyones guess?!

 

PDO is another good explanation.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

I got it wrong.

 

I thought that 1998 had only a 4% change and that 2014 was 38%. Or 2014 had a 34% greater chance over 1998 of being the warmest.

 

What did I say that 1998 only had a 38% chance of being the warmest? I guess I should go back and read what I wrote.

 

 Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right 

• Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
• But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
• Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all

 

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

 

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’

 

Scientists disagree over its significance, but there is little doubt that the rapid warming of the 1980s and early 1990s has slowed – although greenhouse gas emissions have surged.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[pogi]

Because NASA likes to be skeptical too skeptical about stuff that is obvious. 

 

So, making statements of fact when there is only a 38% chance of it being factual is honest and not misleading? 

 

P.S it is not "obvious" to me or NASA that 2014 was the hottest year on record.  It is "obviously" more unlikely than likely, but that's not what they told the media. 

[Zakuska]

Another couple good tagline Candidates:

 

‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ ---Dr David Whitehouse

 

“The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” -- NY Times

Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

Because NASA likes to be skeptical too skeptical about stuff that is obvious. NASA is probably 4% confident that Earth's mantle (Geology) exist. Still, it is 100% that 2014, 2005, 2012, 1998, and especially 2015 are the hottest years , so what is why they are 38% confident about 2014.

 

 

Get them on the phone.  I am sure they will be so impressed with you that their skepticism will be discarded immediately.  Get back to me when you hear from them.

[TheSkepticChristian]

So, making statements of fact when there is only a 38% chance of it being factual is honest and not misleading? 

 

Not at all, because 2014 is in the top 3, so what is the difference? it really doesn't matter.

The so-called skeptics make a lot of misleading arguments, why don't you complain about that? 

 

 

You mean back in the time prior to us having temperature/solar output recording devices? So its anyones guess?!

 

 

kind of funny that GW skeptics always point to the Cambrian-Ordovician period. They are always saying the Cambrian-Ordovician period was much warmer than today. 

You have been pointing to the distant past too, but only when it is convenient. 

 

Scientists use many independent methods to measure the temperature of the distant past, and all geologists and climate scientists agree the Cabrian-Ordovician was much warmer. 

 

The planet was a lot warmer than today during Cambrian-Ordovician 'greenhouse' period,  when Solar output was around 4% weaker, how do you explain that?

 

‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ ---Dr David Whitehouse

 

He is an astrophysicists, not a climatologist.  All the evidence says the Earth should be getting colder, but the opposite is true. 

Edited August 8, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

When the variation is within the margin of error for the past 15 years it makes all the difference in the world.

[TheSkepticChristian]

When the variation is within the margin of error for the past 15 years it makes all the difference in the world.

 

It doesn't because NASA is 99% confident that 2014 is in the top 4, and 2015 will clearly be the warmest year. 

2014 was special because it didn't have the aid of El Nino event, so 2014 is clearly the warmest year ever (on record) without the aid of El Nino. 

 

 

 

The planet was a lot warmer during Cambrian-Ordovician 'greenhouse' period, when Solar output was around 4% weaker, how do you explain that?

Edited August 8, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

2015 the warmest year? Rofl

Not where I live. We've had a record cold year. In fact. ... as I've been typing the the temp went from 90 to 64 in 15 minutes. Got to go is raining now.

Ps. 2015 has already set the record in global sea ice extent.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

2015 the warmest year? Rofl

Not where I live. We've had a record cold year. In fact. .. as I've been typing the the temp went from 90 to 64 in 15 minutes. Got to go is raining now.

Homer Simpson? 

 

 

Please do not ignore the things I said 

 

 

It doesn't because NASA is 99% confident that 2014 is in the top 4, and 2015 will clearly be the warmest year. 

2014 was special because it didn't have the aid of El Nino event, so 2014 is clearly the warmest year ever (on record) without the aid of El Nino. 

 

The planet was a lot warmer during Cambrian-Ordovician 'greenhouse' period, when Solar output was around 4% weaker, how do you explain that? 

 

Edited August 8, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

Honestly, I don't understand how this became such a loaded political argument or how it became a sort of mantra of conservatism, especially since I am a conservative Republican. 

 

So is Dr. Richard Alley, one of the worlds foremost experts on global warming.

[thesometimesaint]

2015 the warmest year? Rofl

Not where I live. We've had a record cold year. In fact. ... as I've been typing the the temp went from 90 to 64 in 15 minutes. Got to go is raining now.

Ps. 2015 has already set the record in global sea ice extent.

 

Average global temperature for last 100 years.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

 

Nope.

SEE http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

Here is what the National Academies of Science have to say on global warming

SEE http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

 

Here is what the American Association for the Advancement of Science has to say on global warming 

SEE http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Edited August 8, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Zakuska]

Why do you jump to northern hemisphere when I specifically said GLOBAL sea ice extent?

GLOBAL Sea ice extent is up +0.35% for the month of June setting a record high for that month.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201506

ps. Your chart ends in 2004 so is useless for talking about temps in 2015.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Why do you jump to northern hemisphere when I specifically said GLOBAL sea ice extent?

GLOBAL Sea ice extent is up +0.35% for the month of June setting a record high for that month.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201506

ps. Your chart ends in 2004 so is useless for talking about temps in 2015.

 

Because it is midwinter in the southern ice fields. I expect to find it snowing there in winter. Antarctica isn't covered with sea ice it is covered with land ice. Two entirely different things.

 

Land ice in Antarctica is melting.

SEE http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242/

 

Global Warming since 2004

SEE http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

 

Global warming since 2010.

SEE https://skepticalscience.com/

 

Why did you ignore what the National Academies of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science say on Global Warming?

[Zakuska]

And Out comes the Sunday cartoons. John cook isn't a reliable source.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Why did you ignore what the National Academies of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science say on Global Warming?

 

and he ignores 

 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

So is Dr. Richard Alley, one of the worlds foremost experts on global warming.

 

and you can't say that his politics influences his science

Edited August 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

Ignore... not in the least he explained exactly what I said. Sea ice EXTENT is up in a positive feedback.

Ps. During the day the firewall blocks streaming video.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Ignore... not in the least he explained exactly what I said. Sea ice EXTENT is up in a positive feedback.

Ps. During the day the firewall blocks streaming video.

 

I don't have time to respond at the moment, but you can respond to everything I said that you ignored. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Your chart ends in 2004 so is useless for talking about temps in 2015.