Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
ludo said:
I think LooneyTunes mentioned something about "moving the goalposts". I wasn't going to bother posting again, but you couldn't have illustrated your game any more clearly. Of course you won't accept that and will bluster some more, but it's far too boring for me.
ETA: Nobody questions that global temperatures had been basically flat from about 1940 to the start of the 1970s. But then again that makes the prediction of global warming by Manabe and Wetherald and the other early climate modellers so impressive. They predicted it before it happened.
ETA: I think the answer is also "no" from what I remember of the paper. Temperatures had been basically static since 1940, but that is not "significant global cooling", and it was thought that the aerosol cooling was offsetting the expected warming from GHGs, and that was the primary evidence for the existence of aerosol driven cooling. I pointed that out earlier in the discussion, but I am fed up of going back and checking what has been said in the discussion already, as I seem to be the only person doing it.
The paper does accept the significant cooling. Seeing as you're fed up, here is a quote from the paper, so you don't even have to go back to look...ETA: Nobody questions that global temperatures had been basically flat from about 1940 to the start of the 1970s. But then again that makes the prediction of global warming by Manabe and Wetherald and the other early climate modellers so impressive. They predicted it before it happened.
ETA: I think the answer is also "no" from what I remember of the paper. Temperatures had been basically static since 1940, but that is not "significant global cooling", and it was thought that the aerosol cooling was offsetting the expected warming from GHGs, and that was the primary evidence for the existence of aerosol driven cooling. I pointed that out earlier in the discussion, but I am fed up of going back and checking what has been said in the discussion already, as I seem to be the only person doing it.
Edited by ludo on Wednesday 3rd April 17:01
Edited by ludo on Wednesday 3rd April 17:04
chunder27 said:
To me, to deny climate change is beyond stupid.
Even looking at my own area.
Every singe sodding day since about mid Febvruary it has been sunny, hardly any cloud and only brief amounts of rain.
There is hardly any winter, it lasts about 2 months, the rest of the year is made up slightly warmer or colder summer days.
Our summer lasts about 6 months, the rest is just slightly cooler.
Have you looked at the Central England Temperature record? That record shows climate has been changing since 1659.Even looking at my own area.
Every singe sodding day since about mid Febvruary it has been sunny, hardly any cloud and only brief amounts of rain.
There is hardly any winter, it lasts about 2 months, the rest of the year is made up slightly warmer or colder summer days.
Our summer lasts about 6 months, the rest is just slightly cooler.
Do you know what is really beyond beyond stupid? Believing climate science backed alarmism.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
The reduction of the pre-1940's trend has the main effect of reducing the "unexplained" warming in the early part of the last century. This is to nullify the arguments around the current temperature trend being broadly similar to previous trends when CO2 was not considered the dominant factor (not enough in the atmosphere) .
Yayyy, it had to happen eventually - we now have diagonally opposing conspiracy theories! Awkward for wc98 and kawasicki - maybe there'll be a fight?
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
The reduction of the pre-1940's trend has the main effect of reducing the "unexplained" warming in the early part of the last century. This is to nullify the arguments around the current temperature trend being broadly similar to previous trends when CO2 was not considered the dominant factor (not enough in the atmosphere) .
Yayyy, it had to happen eventually - we now have diagonally opposing conspiracy theories! Awkward for wc98 and kawasicki - maybe there'll be a fight?
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
You've projected that onto it.
'Time' is nullifying that argument as the warming continues.
It's no big secret that the 1940-1945 spike in the obs is a puzzlement that scientists have struggled to explain. I think that period will always have a question mark over it.
kerplunk said:
Where does it say anything about "This is to nullify the arguments around the current temperature trend being broadly similar to previous trends when CO2 was not considered the dominant factor (not enough in the atmosphere)"
You've projected that onto it.
'Time' is nullifying that argument as the warming continues.
It's no big secret that the 1940-1945 spike in the obs is a puzzlement that scientists have struggled to explain. I think that period will always have a question mark over it.
You may need to read more of the emails - quite a few have been released again via the latest Mann court case (so have not be leaked and are in the public domain legitimately - if that was your concern) . You've projected that onto it.
'Time' is nullifying that argument as the warming continues.
It's no big secret that the 1940-1945 spike in the obs is a puzzlement that scientists have struggled to explain. I think that period will always have a question mark over it.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Where does it say anything about "This is to nullify the arguments around the current temperature trend being broadly similar to previous trends when CO2 was not considered the dominant factor (not enough in the atmosphere)"
You've projected that onto it.
'Time' is nullifying that argument as the warming continues.
It's no big secret that the 1940-1945 spike in the obs is a puzzlement that scientists have struggled to explain. I think that period will always have a question mark over it.
You may need to read more of the emails - quite a few have been released again via the latest Mann court case (so have not be leaked and are in the public domain legitimately - if that was your concern) . You've projected that onto it.
'Time' is nullifying that argument as the warming continues.
It's no big secret that the 1940-1945 spike in the obs is a puzzlement that scientists have struggled to explain. I think that period will always have a question mark over it.
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
The reduction of the pre-1940's trend has the main effect of reducing the "unexplained" warming in the early part of the last century. This is to nullify the arguments around the current temperature trend being broadly similar to previous trends when CO2 was not considered the dominant factor (not enough in the atmosphere) .
Yayyy, it had to happen eventually - we now have diagonally opposing conspiracy theories! Awkward for wc98 and kawasicki - maybe there'll be a fight?
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
You've projected that onto it.
'Time' is nullifying that argument as the warming continues.
It's no big secret that the 1940-1945 spike in the obs is a puzzlement that scientists have struggled to explain. I think that period will always have a question mark over it.
And by the way it wasn’t just a spike between 1940-1945.
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
The reduction of the pre-1940's trend has the main effect of reducing the "unexplained" warming in the early part of the last century. This is to nullify the arguments around the current temperature trend being broadly similar to previous trends when CO2 was not considered the dominant factor (not enough in the atmosphere) .
Yayyy, it had to happen eventually - we now have diagonally opposing conspiracy theories! Awkward for wc98 and kawasicki - maybe there'll be a fight?
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
You've projected that onto it.
'Time' is nullifying that argument as the warming continues.
It's no big secret that the 1940-1945 spike in the obs is a puzzlement that scientists have struggled to explain. I think that period will always have a question mark over it.
And by the way it wasn’t just a spike between 1940-1945.
LoonyTunes said:
Kawasicki said:
...so sorry if I left out something critical.
deeps said:
You have the patience of a saint Kawasicki, and your logic is faultless.
Sadly your logic isn't faultless deeps.I'd like to say it again, sincerely, to the posts I've just read.
You have the patience of a saints Kawasicki, wc98 and jinx, and your logic is faultless. Nice to read your posts. The trouble with the climate debate, politics and science, is it's rather like bouncing a ball off a brick wall, day after day, year after year.
It will be interesting to see what time has in store for us, and time is the only thing that will reveal all, despite some people's apparent certainty.
You have the patience of a saints Kawasicki, wc98 and jinx, and your logic is faultless. Nice to read your posts. The trouble with the climate debate, politics and science, is it's rather like bouncing a ball off a brick wall, day after day, year after year.
It will be interesting to see what time has in store for us, and time is the only thing that will reveal all, despite some people's apparent certainty.
deeps said:
I'd like to say it again, sincerely, to the posts I've just read.
You have the patience of a saints Kawasicki, wc98 and jinx, and your logic is faultless. Nice to read your posts. The trouble with the climate debate, politics and science, is it's rather like bouncing a ball off a brick wall, day after day, year after year.
It will be interesting to see what time has in store for us, and time is the only thing that will reveal all, despite some people's apparent certainty.
So no Science once again...just log in, talk rubbish that gets refuted yet again then log out.You have the patience of a saints Kawasicki, wc98 and jinx, and your logic is faultless. Nice to read your posts. The trouble with the climate debate, politics and science, is it's rather like bouncing a ball off a brick wall, day after day, year after year.
It will be interesting to see what time has in store for us, and time is the only thing that will reveal all, despite some people's apparent certainty.
Congrats, you actually are the peanut gallery that's been mentioned.
kerplunk said:
The 1940-45 spike hasn't actually gone very far - the biggest change is to the sharp drop after 1945:
It would be interesting to see if WW2 had a statistically obvious effect on the planet either way. It was a time when manufacturing was increasing in some countries but decreasing massively in others due to bombing etc.A topic for climate historians to ponder about.
The North Sea cod stocks got a huge boost though due to reduction in fishing. Now sadly gone
As I haven't been on here for years, I've no idea if this was posted before but here goes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
XM5ER said:
As I haven't been on here for years, I've no idea if this was posted before but here goes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
No time to read it at the moment but cheers.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
PS. is that the sound of scurrying feet i can here by the usual suspects off to find any links to Big Oil or the Heartland Institute?
XM5ER said:
As I haven't been on here for years, I've no idea if this was posted before but here goes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems weird how the paper nowhere mentions that warming IS more enhanced at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere - it's right there in Table 1 (north pole lower trop warming twice as fast as the tropics lower trop) but in the discussion of Table 1 it says:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
"According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 5th April 13:26
kerplunk said:
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems weird how the paper nowhere mentions that warming IS more enhanced at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere - it's right there in Table 1 (north pole lower trop warming twice as fast as the tropics lower trop) but in the discussion of Table 1 it says:
"According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Feel free to write a rebuttal."According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 5th April 13:26
kerplunk said:
XM5ER said:
As I haven't been on here for years, I've no idea if this was posted before but here goes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems weird how the paper nowhere mentions that warming IS more enhanced at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere - it's right there in Table 1 (north pole lower trop warming twice as fast as the tropics lower trop) but in the discussion of Table 1 it says:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
"Highlights
•
The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•
The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•
The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence."
"According to Hoskins (1991) the expectation for global warming is to be more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface. That is, in the case of global warming occurrence, warming would have been stronger at the poles and would gradually decrease by approaching the equator. However, the pattern depicted in Table 1 does not comply with the gradual increase of the warming with latitude as predicted by the global warming theory."
???
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 5th April 13:26
Actually, just joking. At first glimpse, I agree with you, it seems quite odd.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff