|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 16, 2023 16:05:51 GMT
OZ seems to show a cooling trend in the UAH Lower Troposphere data series. Chart pinched from Electroverse.co.  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 16, 2023 16:50:59 GMT
If I weren't half blind ... and related to a Missouri Mule ... I might think there could be some relationship between Australia UAH Lower Troposphere deviations and ENSO Nino4 SSTAs and solar cycles. I do not have a reliable Western Warm Pool SSTA times series, so Nino 4 is as close as I can get. Certainly a downward trend since 2016 ... but there was an even stronger decline on the down-slope of SC23.
I think the current downturn is going to exceed our series in coolness and extent across the front and middle of SC25. So ... like SC20, but deeper, as it's following a previous small cycle.
There is nothing catastrophic in this time series. No Deniers have been skinned in the making of this graph. The current drop in the indexes will I think be at least as low as any since 1979 ... and longer. Nina 4 is immediately adjacent to the Pacific Warm Pool. What happens in 4 doesn't stay in 4.  |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 16, 2023 18:04:47 GMT
I would summarize the charts above as (1) showing there is a significant overall CO2 greenhouse gas effect of several degrees (picture the sum of all the solid bars which is the total of the incremental effects), and (2) the effect of additional CO2 is relatively small due to saturation. I would contrast that to the denial of a greenhouse gas effect or statement that there may not be a greenhouse effect. Here's why I think this is important. I became interested in climate change years ago when I started to read claims that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) was happening fast and we needed to quickly eliminate the use of fossil fuels. There were many scientists who questioned CAGW and amongst those there was a small number who questioned whether CO2 had any warming effect at all. Somehow Al Gore and others were able to focus the argument on CAGW vs no warming (deniers). The majority of scientists didn't believe either side. Science showed that CO2 caused warming, but CAGW was an unknown hiding behind models. So CAGW gained acceptance by default. Al Gore got rich. Climate scientists took advantage of the attention and increased it by overstating the warming. In the ensuing years, the true deniers of the greenhouse gas effect have dwindled. The proponents of a very slow rate of warming have grown. The idea of "tipping point" which would lead to a global catastrophe has been pretty much eliminated from the discussions and the term CAGW is rarely seen. The public concern about global warming has subsided. You don't hear the term deniers very often. There is still reason to believe the models are overstating warming but putting forth faulty science ultimately helps the other side.
Because I am a contrarian/sceptic and because of the hype associated with the CO2 effect on temperature that pervades media reporting, I'm inclined to look in different directions, For example ... The List Grows – Now 85 Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate Do you have an opinion on adiabatic heating? ( Nikolov and Zeller, Holmes) Ratty, when I glance through the list of links you've provided and look at the charts above, most, if not all, say the same thing. The greenhouse effect is real, but small. It's less than the models indicate. That's consistent with what I say. I expect the average global temperatures over the 2007 to 2037 period to be nearly flat versus the increases predicted by the models.
A small effect or minuscule effect is not no effect. It doesn't mean Arrhenius was wrong.
When someone says there is no greenhouse gas effect, it hurts the case of the skeptics in the public forum in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 16, 2023 18:59:12 GMT
I would summarize the charts above as (1) showing there is a significant overall CO2 greenhouse gas effect of several degrees (picture the sum of all the solid bars which is the total of the incremental effects), and (2) the effect of additional CO2 is relatively small due to saturation. I would contrast that to the denial of a greenhouse gas effect or statement that there may not be a greenhouse effect.
Here's why I think this is important.
I became interested in climate change years ago when I started to read claims that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) was happening fast and we needed to quickly eliminate the use of fossil fuels. There were many scientists who questioned CAGW and amongst those there was a small number who questioned whether CO2 had any warming effect at all. Somehow Al Gore and others were able to focus the argument on CAGW vs no warming (deniers). The majority of scientists didn't believe either side. Science showed that CO2 caused warming, but CAGW was an unknown hiding behind models. So CAGW gained acceptance by default. Al Gore got rich. Climate scientists took advantage of the attention and increased it by overstating the warming.
In the ensuing years, the true deniers of the greenhouse gas effect have dwindled. The proponents of a very slow rate of warming have grown. The idea of "tipping point" which would lead to a global catastrophe has been pretty much eliminated from the discussions and the term CAGW is rarely seen. The public concern about global warming has subsided. You don't hear the term deniers very often.
There is still reason to believe the models are overstating warming but putting forth faulty science ultimately helps the other side.
Totally agree ... with one big exception ... parts of the highlighted sentence. Perhaps certain discussions are moderating, but not those of the far Left and their enablers in the fourth estate. There, catastrophic is still very much the watch word. And where not, it is global warming or climate change with the usual implications. It is impossible to peruse a range of weather or news articles without being pounded by the dreaded "cat". Tipping points still make the rounds too. I cannot detect that the message tempo is declining. I remain forever hopeful that science will carry the day over fanaticism.
Perhaps you have noticed a trend in politics or business that might yet save us from the worst excesses of the true believers and their charlatans. Please share.
My comments were focused on the notion that things have calmed down somewhat in the Global Warming discussions. I think the "worst excesses" would have been the total elimination of fossil fuels by now as some were proposing 25 years ago. Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press and others were writing weekly articles which appeared prominently in the Sunday editions of the newspapers I read in Ohio and Arizona. In one of these articles Hansen predicted New York City streets would be underwater by now. In another article the prediction was made that Class 3 hurricanes would be monthly occurences in the summer and fall by now. He stressed that the deniers were totally out of touch with reality and should be ignored.
I think there has been some progress towards less wild predictions.
I think its hard enough for people like Watts and Spencer and Curry to make a ripple in the Climate Change discussion. We don't need to make effective skepticism impossible by establishing in people's minds a close link between climate change skepticism and lunacy. Saying there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect may or may not be reach the level of lunacy but I believe Watts and Spencer and Curry don't want to part o a group which makes that claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 16, 2023 19:12:27 GMT
Ratty, when I glance through the list of links you've provided and look at the charts above, most, if not all, say the same thing. The greenhouse effect is real, but small. It's less than the models indicate. That's consistent with what I say. I expect the average global temperatures over the 2007 to 2037 period to be nearly flat versus the increases predicted by the models.
A small effect or minuscule effect is not no effect. It doesn't mean Arrhenius was wrong.
When someone says there is no greenhouse gas effect, it hurts the case of the skeptics in the public forum in my opinion.
Agreed. As a matter of public policy, there needs to be a very public presentation of the science, and a debate of the implications for the nation. An official, select committee of the US House of Representatives, while perhaps boring to the Public, would seem to be the logical official forum, as the House must offer and pass the trillions in expenditures that are emerging as the national response to CO2 envisioned as a catastrophic threat to the Nation. It IS the responsibility of our elected representatives to ensure that public funds are appropriately allocated for the public good. OK ... laugh. But that IS part of their job.
Your words duwayne would set an appropriate reason. "The greenhouse effect is real, but small." Many reputable scientists conclude that CO2 does not constitute a "catastrophic" threat to the Nation or the World. As the Public's Elected Representatives, it is our duty to, once and for all, determine the likely nature of such threats to our Republic. Etc. etc. Personally, I would buy tickets to such an event.  |
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Jan 17, 2023 8:05:26 GMT
Back in August 2021 - e360.yale.edu/digest/un-climate-panel-contends-with-models-showing-implausibly-fast-warmingNext week, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will unveil its latest scientific assessment, widely considered the most authoritative review of climate research. But ahead of its release, scientists have had to grapple with the fact that several next-generation models used in the assessment project that the Earth will warm far faster than previous estimates, Science reported. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary — and wrong,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jan 17, 2023 12:24:29 GMT
Totally agree ... with one big exception ... parts of the highlighted sentence. Perhaps certain discussions are moderating, but not those of the far Left and their enablers in the fourth estate. There, catastrophic is still very much the watch word. And where not, it is global warming or climate change with the usual implications. It is impossible to peruse a range of weather or news articles without being pounded by the dreaded "cat". Tipping points still make the rounds too. I cannot detect that the message tempo is declining. I remain forever hopeful that science will carry the day over fanaticism.
Perhaps you have noticed a trend in politics or business that might yet save us from the worst excesses of the true believers and their charlatans. Please share.
My comments were focused on the notion that things have calmed down somewhat in the Global Warming discussions. I think the "worst excesses" would have been the total elimination of fossil fuels by now as some were proposing 25 years ago. Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press and others were writing weekly articles which appeared prominently in the Sunday editions of the newspapers I read in Ohio and Arizona. In one of these articles Hansen predicted New York City streets would be underwater by now. In another article the prediction was made that Class 3 hurricanes would be monthly occurences in the summer and fall by now. He stressed that the deniers were totally out of touch with reality and should be ignored.
I think there has been some progress towards less wild predictions.
I think its hard enough for people like Watts and Spencer and Curry to make a ripple in the Climate Change discussion. We don't need to make effective skepticism impossible by establishing in people's minds a close link between climate change skepticism and lunacy. Saying there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect may or may not be reach the level of lunacy but I believe Watts and Spencer and Curry don't want to part o a group which makes that claim.
I agree. Not only Watts, Spencer, Curry, Sig doesn't want to be part of a group that denies physics. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 17, 2023 21:35:23 GMT
Back in August 2021 - e360.yale.edu/digest/un-climate-panel-contends-with-models-showing-implausibly-fast-warmingNext week, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will unveil its latest scientific assessment, widely considered the most authoritative review of climate research. But ahead of its release, scientists have had to grapple with the fact that several next-generation models used in the assessment project that the Earth will warm far faster than previous estimates, Science reported. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary — and wrong,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Quite a confession. I'm writing it down to remind him from time to time. Maybe Gavin sees the worm in the apple of catastrophic global warming and will beat a retreat to more stable ground. A bureaucrat that can smell the roses. This is where you put in a southern rebel yell.  |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on May 24, 2024 11:50:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flearider on May 31, 2024 5:48:37 GMT
anyone want to tell the sun it's now june and to warm the f**k up .. forecast for this week highs of 15c low's of 9-11c  ? |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on May 31, 2024 10:03:44 GMT
anyone want to tell the sun it's now june and to warm the f**k up .. forecast for this week highs of 15c low's of 9-11c ? It's cold here too: 19.1°C at 8:00PM. First day of Winter tomorrow, forecast is for 17-25°C and rain. |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on May 31, 2024 15:00:58 GMT
The weather has been insane here in SE Texas. Hail, tornados, floods and incredible lighting displays with each round of storms.
|
|
|
|
Post by code on May 31, 2024 17:05:24 GMT
anyone want to tell the sun it's now june and to warm the f**k up .. forecast for this week highs of 15c low's of 9-11c ? It's cold here too: 19.1°C at 8:00PM. First day of Winter tomorrow, forecast is for 17-25°C and rain. 77 F is cold? |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 31, 2024 20:15:51 GMT
Warm by comparison with Auckland 18C yesterday but long night and feels like winter.
3 weeks to lengthening days.
Still no ski season in sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on May 31, 2024 22:16:34 GMT
It's cold here too: 19.1°C at 8:00PM. First day of Winter tomorrow, forecast is for 17-25°C and rain. 77 F is cold? It's a relative thing and I have a lot of relatives. |
|
? 
