Britain Issues First Ever Heatwave Warning
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He's not a bad man unlike some on here but terribly naive, alarmists don't really think things through to be honest. Look at Covid and the huge over reaction to that, anyone that objected was accused of only caring about money by the usual suspects. Now look at what's happened, climate alarmism is the same, driven by exactly the same mentality. Anybody that seriously wants to create a post carbon energy economy needs to embrace hydrogen, ammonia and 4th gen nuclear to the hilt.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Is he saying that he's sceptical?
moon
Satire for Sanity
How climate skepticism was manufactured by corporations and their propaganda maggots;
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...led-How-Climate-Denier-dumbasses-were-created
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...led-How-Climate-Denier-dumbasses-were-created
We're hearing from the same pair of thinkers who touted a listing of 400 years of temperatures exceeding 100 degrees as evidence against climate change when more of temperatures were from the last 40 years than from the first 360, and most from the last 40 years are from the last 20.
Thanks, but don't expect science-deniers to accept science fact.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yet the period between 1910 and 1940 was on a scale comparable with the 1990s to now. Of course you aren't even aware of that, are you?
Early 20th century global warming
Posted on January 23, 2019
by Judith Curry
A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.
This is an issue that has long interested me. Peter Webster wrote a previous post Mid 20th Century Global(?) Warming, which focused on the warm bump that culminated in the 1940’s. My interest in this period was reignited while working on my report Sea Level and Climate Change. Then, the recent paper by Zanna et al. discussed in Ocean Heat Content Surprises further made the wheels turn.
In response to the Ocean Heat Content thread, David Appell posted a link to this paper on twitter:
The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes and consequences
Gabi Hegerl, Stefan Bronniman, Andrew Shurer, Tim Cowan
Abstract: “The most pronounced warming in the historical global climate record prior to the recent warming occurred over the first half of the 20th century and is known as the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW). Understanding this period and the subsequent slowdown of warming is key to disentangling the relationship between decadal variability and the response to human influences in the present and future climate. This review discusses the observed changes during the ETCW and hypotheses for the underlying causes and mechanisms. Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing, offset to some extent by aerosols. Natural variability also made a large contribution, particularly to regional anomalies like the Arctic warming in the 1920s and 1930s. The ETCW period also encompassed exceptional events, several of which are touched upon: Indian monsoon failures during the turn of the century, the “Dust Bowl” droughts and extreme heat waves in North America in the 1930s, the World War II period drought in Australia between 1937 and 1945; and the European droughts and heat waves of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Understanding the mechanisms involved in these events, and their links to large scale forcing is an important test for our understanding of modern climate change and for predicting impacts of future change.”
https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/early-20th-century-global-warming/
Whether or not I've been aware of it isn't an answer to why you argued hundreds of years of temperatures as equivalent to forty years of temperatures. Anyway, there are easily accessible explanations of early 20th Century warming.
Are you aware of those? Here are two:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/early-20th-century-global-warming/
From the first link:
"Although there was a significant increase in global temperature in the early 20th Century, the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 was lower than the rate of warming from 1975 to 2005, at about 1.3 vs. 1.8°C per century, respectively. That being said, it's worth taking a look at what caused the early century warming. Several different factors contributed.
Carbon Dioxide
Although humans were not burning very large amounts of fossil fuels or emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the early 20th Century, relative to the late century, CO2 emissions were non-negligible and did play a role in the early century warming.
From 1900 to 1940, atmospheric CO2 levels increased from approximately 295 to 310 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The equilibrium temperature change caused by this increase in CO2 is the climate sensitivity (λ) multiplied by the radiative forcing, which is approximately 5.35 times the natural log of the change in CO2 (Myhre 1998):
The best estimate for the climate sensitivity parameter is 0.8 (Wm-2K-1). Thus at equilibrium, this CO2 change would be expected to cause a 0.22°C increase in the average global surface air temperature.
Meehl et al. (2004) plots the estimated anthropogenic contribution to temperature change in Figure 1 below. Most of the anthropogenic influence comes from CO2...."
The article concludes:
"While natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn't as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.
But more importantly, we don't assume that the current warming is caused by humans because it's "unprecedented" or faster and larger than previous natural warming events. We know the current warming is anthropogenic because that's what the physical evidence tells us."
LIF. You are describing yourself.
I'm not.
It is not data. It is a fabrication. You are guessing.
It is outright guessing. There is no data.That is implied in the meaning of the word "estimate". That's why I used that word
No such thing.
Science does not use proxy 'data', because it's not data. It's someone's interpretation of data, made thirdhand by you.
Science demands direct measurements as evidence. Anything else is just fabrication.
He is denying physics. So do you. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
What 'climate disaster'????!? Buzzword fallacy.
Climate is not weather. Climate is not seasons. Climate cannot change. Weather does.
Word games.
Nope. Corporations didn't write the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you ignore.
Compositional error fallacy. Math errors: Failure to specify boundaries. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error value or including it in the summary.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.
You deny science. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Science isn't a government agency.
Manufactured data is not data. Argument from randU fallacy.
Manufactured data is not data. Argument from randU fallacy.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. No one from NASA was around hundreds of thousands of years ago to measure anything.