Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[frigidweirdo]

Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

You stated:
"So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions."

That's not true.

Where have any of the forecasts from Global Warming radicals proven to be true? Simple...none.We

We've had, as you know, nearly two decades without Global Warming.

We've had nearly that long where the product from your Global Warming promoters has been to be fraudulent, figures adjusted with the intent to make it APPEAR that Global Warming had taken place. All in order to keep the grants coming to pay for the phony science.

As I've said before, people make predictions based on the evidence they've got. Just because they haven't got their prediction science right yet, doesn't mean that something isn't happening.

You don't seem to understand how science works.

People make hypothesis, they go and try and prove it, they think they succeed or they don't, and their work gets peer reviewed and criticized if they think they got it, and then they go back to the drawing board if there isn't consensus.

You seem to be making out that because these guys aren't getting it spot on, that nothing is happening. As if, one day they get it right, then all of a sudden man made global warming starts to do something.

That's ridiculous. What is happening is happening. The fact that we, as humans, don't understand it perfectly, is neither here nor there.

Look at weather forecasts. Do they get it right all the time? Do you sit watching the weather forecast and see they predict rain, and then say "well, they sometimes get it wrong, so what they say IS WRONG, therefore they have shown it WON'T RAIN"??? That's basically your argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

No actual evidence....no.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.

CO2 is the "molecule". Carbon and Oxygen are called "atoms".

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

The combined atoms have vibration modes which do react to LWIR.

H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,

They are atoms not molecules.

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons.

Water has similar vibration modes to CO2

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon.

Combined atoms!! A single molecule does not warm. It takes an ensemble of molecules to define heat. In absorbing LWIR a single molecule will excite one of it's vibration states. That is called an excited molecule; not heat.

The rest of your essay doesn't follow because of your faulty premises on molecules absorbing LWIR.

Billy Bob you are making stuff up again. It just doesn't work for you.

Nope.....

That should have read "Atoms", Posting while tired is not the best thing in the world...

Molecules are the basis of warming. If they are not excitable they do not create thermal output. CO2 does not become warm when it absorbs and re-emits a photon. The rate of photon release is 100%

Water however is quite different. It becomes excited and as those molecules then bounce around. They create thermal output and warm. As convection and upward motion occur, it cools the molecules. they re-emit at lower spectrum values placing much out of reach of CO2 to absorb and re-emit while then being unrestricted allowing escape to space. The water vapor re-nucleates into droplets or ice crystals once the heat is fully released and the molecule becomes stable again.

Residency time (how long the heat stays near surface) is the key to the whole premise.

As we see in deserts, when no or low water vapor is present, CO2 can not hold the warmth near surface. And within minuets of sun set the temp drop is near 35 deg F. Within 3 hours the air temp has fallen 75-100 degrees. When you realize the ground temp was 135 degrees (in the sun) and it took just three hours to drop to near freezing you finally get the drift.

You say back-radiation warms water in the atmosphere but you cant quantify or measure it. No tropospheric hot spot has occurred. Heat loss can be measured in reference to humidity levels and depth of cloud formation leaving CO2 totally out of the equations. Without CO2 being able to retain heat your whole AGW premise dies...

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

No actual evidence....no.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

No actual evidence....no.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

No actual evidence....no.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

No, we should not.

You don't know the consequences of such an action.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

No actual evidence....no.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

Going to double my wood pile this year... Long range patterns say it should be a cold one and longer for most of the US this year. Current patterns look to remain for one more month or so.. It looks to be a short lived summer for the Northern Hemisphere..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No actual evidence....no.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

No, we should not.

You don't know the consequences of such an action.

Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.

 

[IanC]

CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.

CO2 is the "molecule". Carbon and Oxygen are called "atoms".

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

The combined atoms have vibration modes which do react to LWIR.

H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,

They are atoms not molecules.

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons.

Water has similar vibration modes to CO2

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon.

Combined atoms!! A single molecule does not warm. It takes an ensemble of molecules to define heat. In absorbing LWIR a single molecule will excite one of it's vibration states. That is called an excited molecule; not heat.

The rest of your essay doesn't follow because of your faulty premises on molecules absorbing LWIR.

Billy Bob you are making stuff up again. It just doesn't work for you.

Nope.....

That should have read "Atoms", Posting while tired is not the best thing in the world...

Molecules are the basis of warming. If they are not excitable they do not create thermal output. CO2 does not become warm when it absorbs and re-emits a photon. The rate of photon release is 100%

Water however is quite different. It becomes excited and as those molecules then bounce around. They create thermal output and warm. As convection and upward motion occur, it cools the molecules. they re-emit at lower spectrum values placing much out of reach of CO2 to absorb and re-emit while then being unrestricted allowing escape to space. The water vapor re-nucleates into droplets or ice crystals once the heat is fully released and the molecule becomes stable again.

Residency time (how long the heat stays near surface) is the key to the whole premise.

As we see in deserts, when no or low water vapor is present, CO2 can not hold the warmth near surface. And within minuets of sun set the temp drop is near 35 deg F. Within 3 hours the air temp has fallen 75-100 degrees. When you realize the ground temp was 135 degrees (in the sun) and it took just three hours to drop to near freezing you finally get the drift.

You say back-radiation warms water in the atmosphere but you cant quantify or measure it. No tropospheric hot spot has occurred. Heat loss can be measured in reference to humidity levels and depth of cloud formation leaving CO2 totally out of the equations. Without CO2 being able to retain heat your whole AGW premise dies...

I think it was Heisenberg who coined the phrase "He's not even wrong", after sitting through an incoherent dissertation. Billybob takes it to a new level.

For those who are not sure what 'The Hot Spot' is all about, here is a ridiculously simplified explanation. AGW models claim that the 1C warming caused by doubling CO2 will be tripled in most part by increased evaporation. This increase of water vapour by convection should be dumping much more heat into the atmosphere at the cloud boundary, causing a hot spot. There has been no, or very little increase. This doesn't disprove AGW, but it does mean the climate models are incorrect.

 

[Crick]

Going to double my wood pile this year... Long range patterns say it should be a cold one and longer for most of the US this year. Current patterns look to remain for one more month or so.. It looks to be a short lived summer for the Northern Hemisphere..

Does this have as much predictive power as your repeated assertions that the El Nino just passing was going to last a week or two tops?

 

[Wuwei]

I think it was Heisenberg who coined the phrase "He's not even wrong", after sitting through an incoherent dissertation. Billybob takes it to a new level.

I have a morbid fascination of the weird things that SSDD and his minions expound on. Yes, I remember the phrase "not even wrong". Moe and his stooges are a prime example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

No, we should not.

You don't know the consequences of such an action.

Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.

You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

No, we should not.

You don't know the consequences of such an action.

Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.

You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right?

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die.

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

No, we should not.

You don't know the consequences of such an action.

Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.

You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

How? I don't necessarily know.

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You'd have us sitting at the top of the cliff till its too late. Many scientists believe that's already the case. On behalf of my children and there's, fuck you very much.

Until it's too late for what? Sitting on the cliff is not taking the leap into the unknown. The unknown is the effect of man made climate change. Doing something to prevent man made climate change is sitting on the cliff. Jumping in is saying to hell with the consequences.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You'd have us sitting at the top of the cliff till its too late. Many scientists believe that's already the case. .........

April Temperature Anomalies - Global vs. Northern Hemisphere
These graphs are based on the April anomalies from the NASA GISS data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts.csv

I chose to normalize my graphs to the average of 1880-1930 readings. I chose 1930 as the baseline cutoff point because that was just before the first step change is visible in the data.

• The Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been consistently warmer than the global average.
  
• In April 2016, the global anomaly relative to the chosen baseline was +1.8° C.
  
• The Northern Hemisphere 2016 anomaly was half a degree higher than the global anomaly: +2.32° C above the baseline.

I looked at linear trends since 1965, which is when the temperatures really began to rise.

• The world appears to be warming at about 0.2° C per decade, while the NH is warming at 0.3° C per decade.
  
• The NH trend finishes in 2050 at +2.75° C
  
• The global anomaly trend finishes at about +2.15° C
  
  
• The global anomaly in 2016 was 0.55° C higher than the 2010-2015 average.
  
• The NH anomaly was 0.685° C higher than the preceding 5 year-average.

A note about El Nino:

There has been a lot of speculation about how much the recent El Nino has added to the recent temperature increase. On these graphs you can see that the 1998 El Nino caused quite a minor deviation. In 2016, the global temperature response to El Nino has been about 50% stronger than in 1998, but the NH response was only 10% stronger, compared to the anomaly one year earlier in 1997 and 2015.
I expect the temperature rise over the next year or two to moderate from the torrid pace of 2016, perhaps by a couple of tenths of a degree or so. In the other hand, it could be that 2016 marks another acceleration point, similar to what the world saw in 1965. We'll have to wait and see. While it's too early to declare a non-linear trend, but it seems to be a definite possibility.

It looks like some really bad times are coming.

 

[Crick]

You'd have us sitting at the top of the cliff till its too late. Many scientists believe that's already the case. On behalf of my children and there's, fuck you very much.

Until it's too late for what? Sitting on the cliff is not taking the leap into the unknown. The unknown is the effect of man made climate change. Doing something to prevent man made climate change is sitting on the cliff. Jumping in is saying to hell with the consequences.

Then I have stepped into the conversation facing in the wrong direction. Mea culpa for assuming that an action was being used as an analogy for an action and vice versa. Post deleted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You'd have us sitting at the top of the cliff till its too late. Many scientists believe that's already the case. On behalf of my children and there's, fuck you very much.

Until it's too late for what? Sitting on the cliff is not taking the leap into the unknown. The unknown is the effect of man made climate change. Doing something to prevent man made climate change is sitting on the cliff. Jumping in is saying to hell with the consequences.

Then I have stepped into the conversation facing in the wrong direction. Mea culpa for assuming that an action was being used as an analogy for an action and vice versa. Post deleted.

No worries, I kind of thought that might be the case. It's a bit of a strange analogy, but the one that sticks in my head.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,

Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.

No, we should not.

You don't know the consequences of such an action.

Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.

You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

How? I don't necessarily know.

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, we should not.

You don't know the consequences of such an action.

Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.

You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

How? I don't necessarily know.

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them.

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.