Reality of global warming

[Ben Dhyan]

False. The data, to keep track of such a large time period, has been averaged over 30 year periods and stops at 2000. That is why the mean anomaly is 0.2 between 1970-2000.

Obviously current temperature anomaly is 0.9 which is hotter than it has ever been in the past 100,000 years. Further its rapid and accelerating.

What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”? | NOAA Climate.gov

Associated paper

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years | Science

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

1. Shaun A. Marcott1,
2. Jeremy D. Shakun2,
3. Peter U. Clark1,
4. Alan C. Mix1

+ See all authors and affiliations

Science 08 Mar 2013:


Abstract
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

As is seen, never in the last 10,000 years have temperature gone above 0.6. And it was decreasing slowly in historic times. (interglacial is ending as it usually does). We had utterly and rapidly reversed this trend. The speed of warming is higher than anytime since the dinosaurs went extinct.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
Now we are touching 0.9. More than it has ever been in the last 100,000 years.



Come, I have Linked dozens of papers from scientific publications from Science and Nature with all the plots that demonstrate my points and answer all your questions. So far, you have linked nothing but opinion pieces in blog posts. It's time that you link more than mere opinions.

You have only been posting agw propaganda, and have not shown proof that humans are the predominate cause of the present warming because the science is not settled. Those IPCC researchers whose models temperature projections overestimate the human CO2 warming contribution are in error.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Each model has a spread of 95% confidence interval which has not been shown in this plot to avoid clutter. Given current data, about 80-85% fall within this range and hence is a successful prediction.(Standard practice in all CFD modeling including the plane in which you fly).
Note that this figure (from a blogger) has missed the change where sea surface temperature is used, which moves All the models towards centerline in 2000-2010 period as well.

You do understand that I am a scientist and often to CFD modeling of thermal and fluid systems? If something seems too technical in what I say, feel free to ask. I will clarify. I am happy to go over the entire IPCC physical science basis page by page if you want. The models I use are far more complicated than what climatologists use, so I can understand them if I give some effort (I model fire dynamics and turbulent flow reacting systems in jet planes)

Nonsense, you are typical of most alarmists, not even honest. If the models do not correlate with the reality, they are in error and hence the science is not settled.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Around 85% of them. Yes.

Nonsense, you are not being honest, people like you give science a bad name. And besides, even if it were true, 15% in disagreement still proves the science is not settled, which is my whole point, and that of Dr curry and most skeptics.

 

[sayak83]

You have only been posting agw propaganda, and have not shown proof that humans are the predominate cause of the present warming because the science is not settled. Those IPCC researchers whose models temperature projections overestimate the human CO2 warming contribution are in error.

You are repeating things I have already disproven. Smacks of desperation. I have shown
a) the current signature of warming can only come from green house gas emissions by man
b) 85% of all models ever produced over a 25 year period used by the IPCC is good match for current temperature data. The current temperature trends lie within the mean center of all models and match the models from ar4 and AR5 excellently.
c) non anthropogenic contributions are zero to negative for all models that successfully predict temperature trend. No model and no physics can explain current warming by natural forcing. NONE.
d) There has been no pause in warming
e) the hockey stick curve is still correct


Your complaint that a few models (less than 15%) either overestimate or underestimate current trends is just illogical. The plot you showed had many many models from Ar1 and Ar2 from several decades ago when models had to be much much simpler because of low computer power. They are from early 1990s and 2000s before windows or Microsoft. It's silly to suggest those early simple models have the same level of accuracy as sophisticated models that are run on modern supercomputers. Their uncertainty bars are also much much larger. Go back and look. Many of the other models deliberately enhance certain effects to simulate worst case and best case scenarios... like failure analysis for dams or earthquakes often do. If you (i have) model the fire retardence of a material you deliberately create best case and worst case models because that helps designers create factors of safety (for example in a car crash or fire retardant paint). Adding all of them willy nilly without info on what each model is For is unscientific.

Science is never settled. We are still publishing paper on how hydrogen burns with oxygen. Global warming due to human cause and the expected temperature rise within +-0.2 degrees of mean model predictions is settled. Just as hydrogen and oxygen burning to form water is settled.

 

[sayak83]

Nonsense, you are not being honest, people like you give science a bad name. And besides, even if it were true, 15% in disagreement still proves the science is not settled, which is my whole point, and that of Dr curry and most skeptics.

I am both honest and knowledgeable and a scientist. You maybe honest but not knowledgeable and not a scientist. 15% scientists are not disagreeing. 15% of past models, (mostly from 1990,2000) are less accurate than recent ones because they are crude (low computer power then). Most of those researchers have published enhanced versions later that agree and predict we'll.

 

[sayak83]

You have only been posting agw propaganda, and have not shown proof that humans are the predominate cause of the present warming because the science is not settled. Those IPCC researchers whose models temperature projections overestimate the human CO2 warming contribution are in error.

No. I have shown the evidence. Refute it if you can. I have shown that models predict and fit data very well and they show all warming coming from man. Physics of how warming occurs also supports this. You have been able to refute nothing at all.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sorry but that is a stupid post, time for you to just post on threads you have some knowledge about.

The sun's radiation is always changing.
The ocean oscillations are periodic and have a huge affect on planetary temperature.
Clouds do not take up heat, they reflect incoming solar radiation back into space so it does not heat up the lower atmospheres and surface.
The majority of GHG are not human derived, only about 4% of atmospheric CO2 is human derived, the rest is natural.

You take things too restrictively.
The total radiation from tthe sun ,of course fluctuates, but does so about a mean that stays fairly steady over long periods.
Clouds do take up heat, they consist of water vapour which takes up massive amounts of heat as they form, it also reflects and absorbs sunlight as part of that process,
Just about.All realease of co2 and methane is a natural process, however most is instigated or enhanced by man in some way albeit not directly. Even if it it is a natural process of cattle and agricultural decay.
The oceans are a heat sink and do influence the weather by redistributing heat, however they do not add to it.

It is you that is showing lack of depth to your knowledge in this instance.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are repeating things I have already disproven. Smacks of desperation. I have shown
a) the current signature of warming can only come from green house gas emissions by man
b) 85% of all models ever produced over a 25 year period used by the IPCC is good match for current temperature data. The current temperature trends lie within the mean center of all models and match the models from ar4 and AR5 excellently.
c) non anthropogenic contributions are zero to negative for all models that successfully predict temperature trend. No model and no physics can explain current warming by natural forcing. NONE.
d) There has been no pause in warming
e) the hockey stick curve is still correct


Your complaint that a few models (less than 15%) either overestimate or underestimate current trends is just illogical. The plot you showed had many many models from Ar1 and Ar2 from several decades ago when models had to be much much simpler because of low computer power. They are from early 1990s and 2000s before windows or Microsoft. It's silly to suggest those early simple models have the same level of accuracy as sophisticated models that are run on modern supercomputers. Their uncertainty bars are also much much larger. Go back and look. Many of the other models deliberately enhance certain effects to simulate worst case and best case scenarios... like failure analysis for dams or earthquakes often do. If you (i have) model the fire retardence of a material you deliberately create best case and worst case models because that helps designers create factors of safety (for example in a car crash or fire retardant paint). Adding all of them willy nilly without info on what each model is For is unscientific.

Science is never settled. We are still publishing paper on how hydrogen burns with oxygen. Global warming due to human cause and the expected temperature rise within +-0.2 degrees of mean model predictions is settled. Just as hydrogen and oxygen burning to form water is settled.

And I have consistently shown you to be ignorant of the science at best, and dishonest at worst, all you seem to want to do is copy and paste alarmist propaganda...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am both honest and knowledgeable and a scientist. You maybe honest but not knowledgeable and not a scientist. 15% scientists are not disagreeing. 15% of past models, (mostly from 1990,2000) are less accurate than recent ones because they are crude (low computer power then). Most of those researchers have published enhanced versions later that agree and predict we'll.

Regardless, their is no agreement between them all on the human contribution, so the science is not settled. This is logic, not science, to know that if the climate modelers can not agree on the contribution of all the variables, then the science is not settled.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. I have shown the evidence. Refute it if you can. I have shown that models predict and fit data very well and they show all warming coming from man. Physics of how warming occurs also supports this. You have been able to refute nothing at all.

But you are not listening, if the modelers can not agree with each other, due to attributing more or less to the human contribution, then the science is not settled...plain logic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You take things too restrictively.
The total radiation from tthe sun ,of course fluctuates, but does so about a mean that stays fairly steady over long periods.
Clouds do take up heat, they consist of water vapour which takes up massive amounts of heat as they form, it also reflects and absorbs sunlight as part of that process,
Just about.All realease of co2 and methane is a natural process, however most is instigated or enhanced by man in some way albeit not directly. Even if it it is a natural process of cattle and agricultural decay.
The oceans are a heat sink and do influence the weather by redistributing heat, however they do not add to it.

It is you that is showing lack of depth to your knowledge in this instance.

Nice second try, but you are playing catch up. We have moved on, the science is not settled because the IPCC modellers can not agree of the amount of human contribution..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh, I did not realize it has already happened....the pause is back....can I claim prescience?

Global mean temperature 1997 -2017 — source Met Office (HadCrut4)

‘Slowdown’ in ocean heating gives sceptics a warm glow‘

Met Office vs NOAA | Climate Change Dispatch

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Nice second try, but you are playing catch up. We have moved on, the science is not settled because the IPCC modellers can not agree of the amount of human contribution..

when have scientist statisticians and snollygosters ever agreed on anything.?
You arrear to fit into the third category., as do most deniers.
Those things that are contributed by human interventions are significant, even if the exact proportion is difficult to estimate.
there is significant correlation between ice melt and hydro carbon usage. However other factors such as forest destruction and urbanisation also have significant effects. These changes are visible to the naked eye of any one who cares enough to look for themselves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

when have scientist statisticians and snollygosters ever agreed on anything.?
You arrear to fit into the third category., as do most deniers.
Those things that are contributed by human interventions are significant, even if the exact proportion is difficult to estimate.
there is significant correlation between ice melt and hydro carbon usage. However other factors such as forest destruction and urbanisation also have significant effects. These changes are visible to the naked eye of any one who cares enough to look for themselves.

"These changes are visible to the naked eye of any one who cares enough to look for themselves." - Terrywoodenpic
Who needs the scientific method.....spoken like a real agw scientist, sayak will be proud of you...

 

[sayak83]

And I have consistently shown you to be ignorant of the science at best, and dishonest at worst, all you seem to want to do is copy and paste alarmist propaganda...

You have only exposed your deluded dishonesty. Nothing more.

 

[sayak83]

Regardless, their is no agreement between them all on the human contribution, so the science is not settled. This is logic, not science, to know that if the climate modelers can not agree on the contribution of all the variables, then the science is not settled.

The divergences are only for very early models in 1990 and early 2000. The models of the last 12 years constitute the 85% that do converge. The science has been settled in the 1990s that humans were causing global warming. The science of how much warming humans are causing has been settled from around 2006-2007. From that time all models converge and predict impressively.

 

[bobhikes]

The divergences are only for very early models in 1990 and early 2000. The models of the last 12 years constitute the 85% that do converge. The science has been settled in the 1990s that humans were causing global warming. The science of how much warming humans are causing has been settled from around 2006-2007. From that time all models converge and predict impressively.

How many end of the World theories have been accurate to date. This one is different somehow.

Scott Adams Explains Pivot To Climate Change: ‘The Argument Is Absurd’

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have only exposed your deluded dishonesty. Nothing more.

Yada yada...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The divergences are only for very early models in 1990 and early 2000. The models of the last 12 years constitute the 85% that do converge. The science has been settled in the 1990s that humans were causing global warming. The science of how much warming humans are causing has been settled from around 2006-2007. From that time all models converge and predict impressively.

Nonsense, if the science was settled, the temperatures would have correlated with the IPCC model projections. For heavens sake man, why do you think the best scientific minds wrt climate, including Dr Judith Curry were so influential in persuading the US government to pull out of the Paris COP.

 

[sayak83]

Nonsense, if the science was settled, the temperatures would have correlated with the IPCC model projections. For heavens sake man, why do you think the best scientific minds wrt climate, including Dr Judith Curry were so influential in persuading the US government to pull out of the Paris COP.

For the same reason US government chose to believe a few experts about the presence of mass destruction over everyone else regardless of truth or merit. Since when has politicians cared about truth.

I am still waiting for the paper (not blog post or unreviewed policy documents) where Judith Curry has refuted the fidelity of climate models...

And temperatures are excellently correlated with the models. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not change the figures.

Also ocean temperature is rising rapidly as well, as predicted. There has been no pause in rising ocean temperatures either.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

Source
Global ocean heat and salt contentheat_content2000m.png