1) The temperature change is 0.65C not 0.2C
John the TIB
41

That’s not how it’s done. You don’t look at the two endpoints.

You missed the point. My point was that your graphs are different from each other and you didn’t explain it. (But while we’re on the topic, least-squares is parameterized by the degree of the fitting curve; which degree do you think is right? and why not use a moving average?)

First, as I have said if you want to use land records then you have to admit that CO2 isn’t the cause of most of this warming.

No. That’s a non sequitur.

0.35C as produced by satellites

Who says 0.35? Citation needed.

the warming over the entire period from 1945–2017 is probably closer to 0.15–0.25C.

Even cherry-picking 1945 as the start point, that has to be wrong.

You need evidence. You’ve provided none.

There are many reasons to believe the land records are fudged. I have documented them many times

You have merely repeated unsourced claims many times.

If you think repetition makes truth, I should be sure to say there has been 0.64C±0.06C warming over 1951–2010 in every reply…

(Curve smoothing doesn’t change the result, btw:)

If the temp on the surface is so much higher it changes the lapse rate of heat with altitude. There is no scientific reason to expect that. It is in fact not clear this is possible from a number of angles. Therefore, the land records CANNOT be valid. It would violate thermodynamics.

“cannot” does not follow from “not clear”, especially when “not clear” just means “not clear to you”.

The lapse rate issue, which ties into the troposphere issue, is not simple enough to explain in one paragraph as you attempt to do. I’d suggest looking at longer explanations like this one:

The problem with their analysis is obvious and I am sure many scientists would agree with me.

Who? Name one climatologist and the evidence that they agree with you.

1880–1910: Down
1910–1940: Up
1940–1970: Down
1970–2000: Up
2000–2030: Flat may end up down or slightly up

Why did you exempt 2000–2030 from going Down?

The sun has been in a state of low activity and irradiance. What’s stopping the PDO from taking temperatures down?

PDO/AMO explains 500 years of variation that climate scientists have fudged with for decades. Many scientists are coming around to this

As the PDO is an oscillation, there’s no obvious reason to expect a long term trend. Whatever the impact of one phase might be, the opposite phase should have the opposite effect so after a full cycle the system would be brought back to where it was at the beginning. Over a roughly 60-year period (say, the most recent 60 years), the PDO should have minimal impact. (AMO is weaker and it has a similar period).

To change the atmosphere by 0.23C over 30 years means the ocean only has to change 0.00023C or 2 millicentigrade.

What are you talking about? There are seven teams measuring ocean temperatures at all latitude bands and several depths. The ocean is warming a lot, not just the atmosphere. It does not make sense that the atmosphere would warm while the ocean would not. The two are strongly correlated, especially near the surface. And while global warming occurs at the surface, over the years, ocean currents can move that heat lower.

Bumbling idiots.

Speak for yourself.

For the 1880–1910 climate scientists have no explanation.

I have only your word on that.

The surface cooled in that time period. Is this important, or are you just taking a potshot at climate scientists?

Now we know from multiple studies that aerosols are very unlikely to have much impact on climate.

Which studies?

Now from 2000–2010 they blame the flatness on deep ocean accumulation.

What is “deep ocean accumulation” supposed to be?

Seen elsewhere: Two studies by scientists at the University of New South Wales found “an increase in the strength of trade winds around the equator in the Pacific Ocean had pushed warmer surface waters deeper, having an overall cooling effect on global surface temperatures.”

This science is a disaster. One theory after another no evidence no data.

There are something like 20,000 published peer-reviewed papers in climate science. No evidence? There’s evidence. It’s challenging to sift through, but it’s there.

What this means is that over the period 1940–2000 we have one full PDO/AMO cycle and thus we can say that the full change of 0.25–0.35C may have been caused by CO2.

Why did you change your claimed warming from 0.2C to 0.25–0.35C?

There is a 1000 year cycle going back 8,000 years with ups and downs every 500 years.

Citation needed. From what I’ve seen I have little reason to put much confidence in temperature proxies older than about 1000 years, as the number of available proxies decreases as we go farther back in time, and proxies I’ve seen diverge a lot. Of course, if I had a deeper understanding of proxies maybe I could understand this:

The black line is merely an average. Source

If there’s a meaningful 1000-year cycle, I’m not seeing it.

It is impossible to argue scientifically anyway that the atmosphere will warm more than 0.35C by another 30% increase.

That would be true if I accepted your unsourced number 0.35C. I don’t.

However, the rate at which CO2 concentrations increase is slated to go up (until we “go green”), because human CO2 emissions are accelerating and because carbon sinks are predicted to reduce their net absorption of CO2 in the future.

30% additional CO2 is almost precisely what the worst case additional CO2 possible before 2100

Who says? The IPCC’s worst-case scenario is RCP8.5, in which emissions increase every single year until finally stabilizing in 2100. Under this scenario, ocean pH drops substantially (below 7.8 by 2100) and CO2 concentrations rise to about 900ppm. Much more than 30%!

Source: IPCC AR5

This is plausible due to massive increases in the prosperity of the world’s people, the rising global population, and advances in fossil-fuel technology such as mining of methane hydrates, but it’s implausible because I’m sure there will be a major shift to green energy outside the U.S.

My argument is irrefutable by any scientist.

Nonsense. If your argument had any scientific basis, you could cite papers to back up your claims. Papers that no scientist has refuted.

In order for temps to rise by more than 0.35C by 2100 would require that there be a “store” of energy somewhere that is supplying massive additional heat to catch up to their predictions.

Nonsense. No “store” is required for increasing temperatures, nor do climate scientists claim warming will be driven by a “store”. The warming is predicted based on the greenhouse effect combined with climate feedbacks.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated David Piepgrass’s story.