Perhaps. I suspect he'll either rule for 2 years, or 16. It all depends on whether he can stand doing the job.
Third Year in a Row of Record Warmth.
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Perhaps. I suspect he'll either rule for 2 years, or 16. It all depends on whether he can stand doing the job.
I think he's extremely well suited to the Job.
Perhaps the best ever.
You know he's the oldest ever right?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This is the third straight year of record warmth.
Also global sea ice extent is the lowest on record.
CO2 is also continuing to climb.
And fyi, solar output is down.
But hey we have a nominee for the EPA that doesn't want to tell us what his position is on climate change!
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. (Revelation 16:8-9).
In what way? He has the thinnest skin of anyone I've ever witnessed, other than Cruc, and he has no attention span.
Ok. 12.
ClimateSanity
New member
Look at that huge drop at the end of the year. The low extent in sea for November is an anomaly. Weather is not climate.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Look at that huge drop at the end of the year. The low extent in sea for November is an anomaly. Weather is not climate.
Indeed weather is not climate. But weather receives signals from the climate. Low sea ice extent is an anomaly, but it's an anomaly made far more likely by a warming climate. It's another piece of data that tells you the same thing the temperature averages are telling you. Temperatures around the globe are rising. Climate and weather are both noisy, but the overall trend is up and has been that way for decades.
ClimateSanity
New member
It's actually been that way for centuries. There have been greater spurts of warming even in the recent past before there was any significant industrialization.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Such as?
ClimateSanity
New member
The first instrumental record of global temperatures was kept in Central England from 1659. From 1695-1735, a period of 40 years preceding the onset of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, temperatures in central England, which are a respectable proxy for global temperatures, rose by 2.2 K (4 F°). Yet global temperatures have risen by only 0.65 K (1.2 F
°) since 1950, and 0.7 K (1.3 F°) in the whole of the 20th century.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bbickm...e-monckton-files-we-are-the-world/amp/?client
The DOW broke 20,000 !!! Trump -
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, one location on earth is not a proxy for global temperature, especially not central England. Why? because the climate of the UK is strongly affected by ocean currents. If the ocean currents change a little, temperature can change a lot.
Other problem with your story is Thermometers as we know them today didn't exist. Something like thermometers existed but there was no standard scale in place, so measurements can't really be compared.
ClimateSanity
New member
I didn't say a proxy for temperature; it is a proxy for rate of change. Generally, when there is a fast ride in temperature globally, you will find many local areas also rising in temperature rapidly.
As for the thermometers.....they read temperature. It doesn't matter if the actual temperature was off,, it matters how much the temperature changed in a period of time.
If we use your logic, all temperature readings before 1950 should not be used to show temperature change over time.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Evidence? Recent climate change has not borne that out at all. The northernmost parts of the world are changing much faster than the rest of the world.
Wow, so much ignorance in one post. You can't know how much temperature changes or how fast if nobody knows what a degree is! This is why climate scientists show the global temperature record starting in 1860.
It's like you think it doesn't matter if you measure something in feet or inches. You can't compare two sets of numbers that were measured in different units. And before standardization, you can't be sure what units were actually used since everyone made up their own.
Your source is also a blog posting quote of someone else that actually being ATTACKED by the author of the posting! (I guess you didn't read it)
Here's what the actual author of your link says about rate of change:
| Our knowledge of climate history shows that sustained climate change can bring us to “tipping points” where the changes become even more rapid. Even if “change” isn’t necessarily bad, exceptionally rapid change can cause all sorts of problems. E.g., humans and other organisms might have to move to survive if climate conditions change, sea level rapidly rises, and so on. This will be expensive and disruptive for humans–I expect wars will be fought over it. It could be much more traumatic for many other organisms, however. What happens when animals have to migrate to new areas, but the plants they depend on can’t move fast enough to keep up with shifting climate zones? The animals’ habitat shrinks, that’s what. Second, do we really want to push the climate into Paleozoic conditions over one or two hundred years, for Pete’s sake? |
And here's what he says about local vs. global variation.
| Once again, Monckton has mistaken local climate variation (this time in central Greenland) for global variation. The IPCC warns, [L]ocal changes must not be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback). Large changes in global mean temperature, in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in greenhouse gas concentration or solar activity). This is even more true of a place like Greenland than others, because global temperature changes are amplified in the Arctic relative to other places on the globe, including Antarctica. The huge Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink and dampens temperature changes around Antarctica. |
So maybe you should actually read your links next time. :chuckle:
ClimateSanity
New member
Take a look at the CET after 1722. The thermometer technology has improved from 1 degree F accuracy in 1659 to .1 degree accuracy.
Now look at another 40 year period after 1722. A huge rise in temperature. You cannot dismiss this over thermometer accuracy now.
As you can see that CET is indeed a fair proxy for global rises and falls in temperature over long time spans.
If CET followed hadcrut from 1880 until 2002 why not from 1722 until 1762?
ClimateSanity
New member
As for rapid rates of change, we are talking about short periods of time that are usually accompanied by rapid falls in temperature. Yes, life suffers but life is incredibly resilient and the result is changing ecosystems and changing geography for existing ecosystems. This is hardly catastrophic and with modern technology, easily dealt with. Insurance underwrites should be writing enormously expensive, accounting for inflation, policies if climate change is that expensive.
Tinark
Active member
do you have any idea how much strip mining will increase to meet the demand for rare earth metals for next generation batteries and motors?
and tesla ain't gonna make these babies :banana:
That thing is a child's toy compared to this puppy
Tinark
Active member
This is the third straight year of record warmth.
Also global sea ice extent is the lowest on record.
CO2 is also continuing to climb.
And fyi, solar output is down.
But hey we have a nominee for the EPA that doesn't want to tell us what his position is on climate change!
Meh, it was a pretty hopeless cause in any event. Everything from driving Priuses to installing solar panels on one's roof are merely a symbolic platitude with essentially zero effect on CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.
The solution has been with us for quite some time: nuclear power, something that the left has fought tooth and nail. If there was ever any hope about the left being serious about fighting climate change, this was it, and they rejected it wholeheartedly.
Furthermore, the main reason why the US has been able to reduce CO2 emissions to any significant degree is the shutting down of coal power plants due to cheap, abundant natural gas from fracking. Fracking which was also been rejected wholeheartedly by the left. Between the left being an obstacle to real solutions and the right's denialism, it's been a pretty hopeless cause to all clear thinking people for quite some time.
Here is what our energy future looks like based on the best predictions:
The real political and scientific focus should be about how best to cope with it and maybe investigate some promising geoengineering techniques to help mitigate it.