Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change (organic, Alaska, Georgia)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aha.. Now I see why that plot in the denial web site looks so different.
All the other web sites show the actual temperature anomaly in C.
The denial web site instead looks at the RATE OF CHANGE in the temperature per time. Ie, the other guys posted actual temperature, the denial site looks at the SLOPE of the temperature increase. A perfect linear temperature increase with time would show a flat line when plotted as rate of change since the slope would always be constant.
Since I cant go back and read that again, I think all the conclusions were made based on the slope. PLease correct me if I am wrong but CO2 was dismissed as causing our current temp increase because it should have a fairly constant slope due to a exponentially increasing CO2 emission. The slope has a slightly upward trend which would mean that temperatures are actually increasing FASTER than can be explained by CO2..
Well.. you can see natural drivers influencing the temp over the entire time period (but most noticeable before about 1970) but after about 1970, there is what looks to be a fairly linear increase in temps.
And I could even argue looking at the denier plot that the slope kind of looks flat after about 1970 which I think would go along with CO2 as being the driver.
Once again, that web site dismissed CO2 and discussed 60 year natural cycles of energy going between the oceans and the atmosphere and natural variations in sun power. I think we all ruled out the 60 year cycle. So the driver for our current temperature increase must either be CO2 or an increase in solar input.
So.. it will be interesting to look at how other web sites looked at changes in the suns energy causing the current temperature increase.
Sadly, you're off by around 30,000 years, the 1980's did nothing to change our trajectory of our orbit in relation to the sun, which is responsible for the warming trend we are currently in. We need to face the fact that we are getting closer to the sun, and as we warm, we should be searching for ways to pipe all that new salt water into the areas that will be experiencing drought.
Sure, we still need to purify our air, clean the garbage out of our oceans, etc. But we didn't almost stop warming after 1989, that's just living in world of "hope for change" which won't stop us from getting hotter.
[quote]trajectory of our orbit in relation to the sun, which is responsible for the warming trend we are currently in.[/QUOTE
No references for this? Everything I see when fact checking says this is completely inaccurate. But maybe you have a reference that I missed?
The warming is either due to human caused green house gasses (CO2) or natural variations such as the 60 year cycle or an increase in solar energy to the planet. Clear to me that the 60 year natural cycles are NOT what is causing the temperature increase we see (post 314 and 315). Its either solar or CO2..
So the question regarding solar.. is the current very fast increase in our global temperature due to solar activity? Here are the links I found, please share any credible links with different information.
FYI, all of these links show that solar input to the planet is actually recently decreasing. If solar was the driver here, the current temps would be decreasing rather than staying the same or increasing.
Note that the global temperature increasing past about 1980 despite the solar irradiance decreasing
Quote:
Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.
The evidence shows that although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun.
The illustrations at left show the raw data for temperature and solar activity at the top, then that data with a 11 year running average to filter out the normal solar activity period. The middle graph suggests a correlation between solar activity and temperature, even though the peaks are offset. But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity.
The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present.
"During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained.
He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
As far as the long-term change in the solar activity is concerned, the Sun is evidently currently in what, from the perspective of Earth's inhabitants, is a very interesting phase. Sunspot counts in the past years indicate that solar activity is on the decline again after 60 very active years. For the coming decades, the researchers expect a decrease in solar activity. Climate change skeptics now claim that this cooling could counterbalance the global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. But Krivova dismisses this: "Current scientific work and the reports of the IPCC clearly show that greenhouse gases have contributed many times more than the Sun to the change in the Earth's heat balance in the past decades."
Once again by taking the alternative approach of seeing if anything other than CO2 is the cause... the ONLY thing that describes our 1C temperature increase is green house gas.
Last edited by waltcolorado; 09-02-2018 at 11:11 AM..
Re: rate of co2 change vs rate of temp change-- that's the point- co2 rate has been accelerating but temp rate of change is constant ie- co2 less important in cause & effect
solar cycles vs temps-- very close correlation
PDO & AMO ocean cycles vs temps-- very close correlation
Several posts back you pointed out how I had said there was 6 & 4 degC differences in Holo Opt & Med warm periods from now, when it should have been 0.6 & o.4. I'm embarrassed and stand corrected. OTOH- now I don't believe the numbers-- I moved two years ago about 250 miles north of my previous location. Average daily temps are consistently 2degF (call it 1degC) cooler, yet I can't tell the difference. The growing season here is about 3 weeks shorter, but that has to do with hours of daylight, not temps.
I have to doubt that a 0.4degC warming would allow Vikings to successfully grow grapes for wine in Iceland and then be force out by a mere 0.4deg fall in temps. Something does not compute. My BS detector is ticking away wildly.
It's absurd for people to post research stating ancient temps based on proxy measures to be accurate to tenths of a degree. Give me a break. Our current instrumental readings are only accurate to 0.5deg. Either those graphs we've been posting showing Holocene temps falling by 0.6deg and now rising by 1deg are patently wrong or else the Holocene temp changes are statistically insignificant.(ie-<2SD from the mean)
Regards 60 yr cycle-- we "should" be in a cooling portion of the cycle, but temps have remained steady for the last 20 yrs. Something is "preventing" the expected cooling. CO2 or something else or all of the above? Forecasts are for a brutally cold winter. Time will tell.
Re- divergence of temps vs solar cycle-- remember trig class? As I said before, graph out the function sin X + sin 2X + sin 3X = y. The independent sin waves add algebraically, each at times adding positive values and at times negative value to the sum to give a highly variable but repeating graph-- just like adding up the influence of all the cycles of different lengths going into our temps. It's naïve if not outright silly to attribute all current changes to just one factor.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 09-02-2018 at 01:38 PM..
Anyone guess the hottest temp in American recorded history? 1913..........Death Valley........137 degrees. ucch ouch.
I have a bone to pick with you folks that claim the seas are raising. I have a bungalow on a west coast beach in SoCal. The place was built in the thirties and I have been going to this family hut for 68 years The tides haven't changed other than high to low and low to high. Nothing other than that. Sooo....I call hogwash to the claim.
Am I an expert?...no...but got eyes....and they work. Unlike computer forecasts.........that don't
Anyone guess the hottest temp in American recorded history? 1913..........Death Valley........137 degrees. ucch ouch.
I have a bone to pick with you folks that claim the seas are raising. I have a bungalow on a west coast beach in SoCal. The place was built in the thirties and I have been going to this family hut for 68 years The tides haven't changed other than high to low and low to high. Nothing other than that. Sooo....I call hogwash to the claim.
Am I an expert?...no...but got eyes....and they work. Unlike computer forecasts.........that don't
Sea level doesn't rise uniformly across the globe. You're not an expert so you might have to spend a few moments researching fluid dynamics.
PDO & AMO ocean cycles vs temps-- very close correlation
This was true until around 1970 - 1980 time frame. I have linked to a couple images again (first image reference in post 323, second image reference in post 314.
One graph is solar irradiance over time vs temp and the second is the 60 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation over time vs temp.
Before about 1980, you can see correlation in the global temperature and those two variables. However, past about 1980, "something" else begins to influence warming and the temperature starts to rise and is no longer has good correlation. Assuming that something is Human produced green house gas, its affect may have been smaller than the natural drivers but as its magnitude built up, it starts to be the dominate feature of the temperature rise. As time goes on, the correlation of the natural drivers gets worse.
Quote:
It's naïve if not outright silly to attribute all current changes to just one factor.
Yes.. of course. Every driver of global temperature are still active. And on top of that there are additional feedback mechanisms influencing the temperature rate of change such as increased water vapor. Another reason that it is a little silly to look at a graph of the changing slope of global temperature over time and try to make a conclusion about one of the drivers (CO2) because it didnt exactly match a LN(C02) to temperature.
Last edited by waltcolorado; 09-03-2018 at 10:02 AM..
Ohh.........so other oceans rise........but not the Pacific ocean. Who knew?
Follow the grant money, find the fluid dynamic charts.
Actually, the sea level of the Pacific Ocean is already always somewhat higher than that of the Atlantic and other seas. The levels change most noticeably right where the currents flow round the southern tip of South America and it has nothing to do with the daily tides. If all the sea levels everywhere around the world were to rise the level of the Pacific would still always be higher than all the others. It is what it is.
And - there is a small round upward bulge of sea level that swells up like a molehill in the middle of the Atlantic (somewhere nearby but just north east of the Bahamas if I recall correctly). It looks like an abscess just starting to form under the skin but never progresses in height beyond that. It is not from the topography or from water welling up from below the ocean floor. It's just a stationary hump in the Atlantic's water level that is higher in that one spot than it is in the rest of the Atlantic around it.
There are other strange anomalies like that in some of Earth's other large bodies of water including some of the biggest lakes. There's probably also water level anomalies that are as yet undiscovered.
Earth is still so mysterious and exciting and awesome to learn about, isn't it?
With climate change we indeed should be addressing whether the problem is man-made, and also whether anything we do in the U.S. and Canada likely has any effect. Or if we're just giving license to notorious employers of slave labor such as China to pollute more.
China is making a massive investment in solar energy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
