Britain Issues First Ever Heatwave Warning

[Into the Night]

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

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Until we can explain the early 20th century warming,

Nothing to explain. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

This is an issue that has long interested me.

Because you are religious nut in the Church of Global Warming.

Peter Webster wrote a previous post Mid 20th Century Global(?) Warming, which focused on the warm bump that culminated in the 1940’s.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

My interest in this period was reignited while working on my report Sea Level and Climate Change.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. Climate cannot change. There is value associated with climate. Climate is not temperature.

Then, the recent paper by Zanna et al. discussed in Ocean Heat Content

Heat is not contained in anything. Heat has no temperature. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are ignore again, which defines the concept of 'heat'.

Surprises further made the wheels turn.

Ah. Thinking of new ways to make your religious arguments? Don't bother. It's already been done.

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

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate is not a record. There is no such thing as a global climate. Pointing to a paper filled with religious text does not help you.

prior to the recent warming occurred over the first half of the 20th century and is known as the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW).

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Understanding this period and the subsequent slowdown of warming

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

is key to disentangling the relationship between decadal variability

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad.

and the response to human influences in the present and future climate.

Climate has no time nor is it a measure of time.

This review discusses the observed changes

Climate cannot change.

during the ETCW and hypotheses for the underlying causes and mechanisms.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. 'Greenhouse gas' is a meaningless buzzword. It is not a force.

and natural forcing,

Climate is not a force. Temperature is not a force. Making up numbers is not a force. There is no 'natural forcing'.

offset to some extent by aerosols.

No aerosol has the capability to cool the Earth. You cannot destroy energy into nothing.

Natural variability also made a large contribution, particularly to regional anomalies like the Arctic warming in the 1920s and 1930s.

You cannot measure the temperature of the Arctic.

The ETCW period also encompassed exceptional events, several of which are touched upon: Indian monsoon failures during the turn of the century,

Monsoons are not a temperature. Lack of them is not a temperature.

the “Dust Bowl” droughts

Poor soil management is not a temperature.

and extreme heat waves in North America in the 1930s,

It is not possible to measure the temperature of North America.

the World War II period drought in Australia between 1937 and 1945;

Define 'drought'.

and the European droughts

Define 'drought'.

and heat waves of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Define 'heat wave'.

Understanding the mechanisms involved in these events,

Weather.

and their links to large scale forcing

There is no magick 'forcing'.

is an important test for our understanding of modern climate change

Climate cannot change. It has no value associated with it. Climate is not temperature and has no temperature.

and for predicting impacts of future change.”

Religious text.

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/early-20th-century-global-warming/

So Judith Curry is a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming like you are. Big hairy deal.


Making up numbers and using them as data is a fallacy, dude, called the Argument from randU fallacy...a type of circular argument fallacy.

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil

What 'climate disaster'????!? Buzzword fallacy.

You're straight-jacket material.

 

[Into the Night]

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."

What current warming?

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil

Nope. Corporations didn't write the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you ignore.

Corporations constructed climate skepticism for their own ends. Thermodynamics has fuck all to do with it, clutz.


Besides, matter can be created- or there wouldn't be any, you dummkopf parrot.


Haw, haw........................haw.

 

[cancel2 2022]

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."

.

Are you joking? Asking me if I'm aware of John Cook's
webshite Skeptical Science is just truly laughable. He was the one that published a much derided study that drew the bullshit conclusion regarding the infamous 97% poll of scientists.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph...-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

He is also not a climate scientist yet that's rarely mentioned by alarmists. Yet Judith Curry, who you've obviously never heard of, is and has written many papers on climate. Here is one of her groundbreaking papers, co-written with Nik Lewis, who I'm sure you've never heard of either.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y

Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian former cartoonist and web developer, John Cook, who received a PhD degree in cognitive science in 2016.[4] In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments put forth by those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

 

[martin]

.

Are you joking? Asking me if I'm aware of John Cook's
webshite Skeptical Science is just truly laughable. He was the one that published a much derided study that drew the bullshit conclusion regarding the infamous 97% poll of scientists.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph...-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

He is also not a climate scientist yet that's rarely mentioned by alarmists. Yet Judith Curry, who you've obviously never heard of, is and has written many papers on climate. Here is one of her groundbreaking papers, co-written with Nik Lewis, who I'm sure you've never heard of either.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y

Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian former cartoonist and web developer, John Cook, who received a PhD degree in cognitive science in 2016.[4] In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments put forth by those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

Gave you two links, not one, including NOAA, together with the accepted understanding of early 20th Century warming but, in typical fashion, a denier ignores the argument and makes an attack on a source, an attack based on his approved source.

The poster, incidentally, expressed his hurt feelings at terming him a "denier" but in every post of his own I'm an "alarmist".

 

[moon]

He's in Denial for the money. Many are.

 

[Earl]

Gave you two links, not one, including NOAA, together with the accepted understanding of early 20th Century warming but, in typical fashion, a denier ignores the argument and makes an attack on a source, an attack based on his approved source.

The poster, incidentally, criticizes me for terming him a "denier" but in every post of his own I'm an "alarmist".

How about we call you what you are, Marty...an easily led fool who is an alarmist about a false ideology about so called “global warming.”

 

[moon]

How about we call you what you are, Marty...an easily led fool who is an alarmist about a false ideology about so called “global warming.”

Says another corporate invertebrate.



Haw, haw..........................haw.

 

[martin]

How about we call you what you are, Marty...an easily led fool who is an alarmist about a false ideology about so called “global warming.”

That would be about perfect, Earl. It captures its particular summary of the dizzy reasoning that puts George III, Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler on the same spectrum where you'll also find the revolutionary Founders and their intellectual guide John Locke ("the father of liberalism") to be conservatives.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Gave you two links, not one, including NOAA, together with the accepted understanding of early 20th Century warming but, in typical fashion, a denier ignores the argument and makes an attack on a source, an attack based on his approved source.

The poster, incidentally, expressed his hurt feelings at terming him a "denier" but in every post of his own I'm an "alarmist".

Yeh because I've never heard of NOAA ffs! I also looked at the date for that article which was way back in 2000, bet you didn't ever bother to check that!!

Further details regarding this study were published by T. Delworth and T. Knutson of NOAA/GFDL in the 24 March 2000 issue of Science (vol. 287, pp. 2246-2250).

 

[RB 60]

Holy shit!!

It hasn't been this hot since....2016!

(well, actually 1934)

 

[cancel2 2022]

That would be about perfect, Earl. It captures its particular summary of the dizzy reasoning that puts George III, Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler on the same spectrum where you'll also find the revolutionary Founders and their intellectual guide John Locke ("the father of liberalism") to be conservatives.

You're such a bullshitter, that's the same level of logic one might expect from Moonshi'ite.

 

[martin]

You're such a bullshitter, that's the same level of logic one might expect from Moonshi'ite.

Is unrelated to logic, Primy. It's about the confusion of history the Right finds to be helpful.

 

[moon]

You're such a bullshitter, that's the same level of logic one might expect from Moonshi'ite.

Says the author of;

There is no pandemic
The Boeing 747MAX is a safe aircraft
Trump will win
There is no global warming
Boris Johnson is loved
Brexit is a success



Haw, haw............................haw.

 

[Monad Portal]

You are spitting into the wind if you anticipate an actual exchange on climate change

The Flat Earthers are never going to admit the reality, the likes of talk radio politicized climate change decades ago, and others leaning right, although they know man made climate change is real, will never support nor argue for any measure to address the situation, which is why we are in the situation we are today

climate alarmism is lies to justify genocidal policies.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[martin]

Yeh because I've never heard of NOAA ffs! I also looked at the date for that article which was way back in 2000, bet you didn't ever bother to check that!!

Do you think the warming pattern has lessened since "way back" then?

 

[Lionfish]