UN warning that we are now on course for 3C of global warming

a reply to: Greven

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

No it is not!

It is the gas that plants need to grow.

Temperature rise comes first. Then CO2 increases. CO2 does not cause the problem.

You are trying to tell us that 0.04% of the atmosphere can heat up the planet.

That is just not very logical is it?

P

originally posted by: Phage
Source?

The problem is you can find models of all kinds here is one showing actuals compared to models.

We do, as individuals, produce far more CO2 than any other nation.

Do you produce more than the rest of the world, will we pay more than the rest of the world? Lets talk pollution too...Go live in China...well if you dare.

A fan of the mythology of Tesla are you?

Are you a fan of Thomas Edison? I'm not a fan of carbon credits... Batteries will win the day. In the near future the gas engine will become history, like the horse. All that is needed is for a electrical car to be as good or better than a gas car and we are very close to that. As we continue to reduce electrical needs though tech we will see houses become mostly self reliant as they produce their own energy. Just give this all a little time, I would say in the next 50 years we will see massive changes with or without the Paris accord.

The Sun has been changing a lot, has it? You don't understand the concept of radiative forcing?

Throw in a Maunder Minimum, a few big volcano and ocean current changes and we would have another mini ice age like we saw from about the 1400s to 1800s no matter what we do...

a reply to: pheonix358

No it is not!

Yes, it is.

It is the gas that plants need to grow.

It is that as well.

Temperature rise comes first. Then CO2 increases.

That has been true at times. Other times the reverse has happened. Currently increasing CO2 concentrations are causing rising temperatures. And yes, it is us who are causing CO2 concentrations to increase. www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are trying to tell us that 0.04% of the atmosphere can heat up the planet.

That is just not very logical is it?

Actually it is. If there were no CO2, the planet would be a very cold place. Just because some is good, it doesn't mean more is better. Ask a heroin addict.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The problem is you can find models of all kinds here is one showing actuals compared to models.

But that's not what you said. Remember, here's what you said:

current models suggest if we do nothing we will not hit +2C

That's the statement for which I requested sourcing.

Throw in a Maunder Minimum, a few big volcano and ocean current changes and we would have another mini ice age like we saw from about the 1400s to 1800s no matter what we do...

Ok. Let's just keep our fingers crossed then. God will save us. Again. That's the ticket.



You may want to update your source though.
www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Greven

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

No it is not!

It is the gas that plants need to grow.

Temperature rise comes first. Then CO2 increases. CO2 does not cause the problem.

You are trying to tell us that 0.04% of the atmosphere can heat up the planet.

That is just not very logical is it?

P

What part of this picture did you not understand:

a reply to: Greven

The squiggly part. I think.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Phage
Source?

The problem is you can find models of all kinds here is one showing actuals compared to models.

We do, as individuals, produce far more CO2 than any other nation.

Do you produce more than the rest of the world, will we pay more than the rest of the world? Lets talk pollution too...Go live in China...well if you dare.

A fan of the mythology of Tesla are you?

Are you a fan of Thomas Edison? I'm not a fan of carbon credits... Batteries will win the day. In the near future the gas engine will become history, like the horse. All that is needed is for a electrical car to be as good or better than a gas car and we are very close to that. As we continue to reduce electrical needs though tech we will see houses become mostly self reliant as they produce their own energy. Just give this all a little time, I would say in the next 50 years we will see massive changes with or without the Paris accord.

The Sun has been changing a lot, has it? You don't understand the concept of radiative forcing?

Throw in a Maunder Minimum, a few big volcano and ocean current changes and we would have another mini ice age like we saw from about the 1400s to 1800s no matter what we do...

Did you miss on the last page where I showed decadal averages?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: BlissSeeker

Total BS without Exact Scientific Evidence . Has the UN also started Mining Green Cheese on the Moon yet ?

It's all in the public record to see. Here are two for you:
UAH lower troposphere data:
1970s Mean : -0.284583 (1978 & 1979)
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.223583 (through May 2017)

Radiosonde surface data going back to 1958, which shows a much larger change:
1950s mean: -0.05 (1958 & 1959)
1960s mean: -0.118
1970s mean: -0.13
1980s mean: 0.06
1990s mean: 0.185
2000s mean: 0.352
2010s mean: 0.739 (through 2016)

This would be one of the two satellite sets and one of the four 'balloon' sets.

Do you see a discrepancy in the 2010s between the radiosonde set from the actual source as compared to the graph you cite?

Also, just for the record, satellites measurements sample large portions of the atmosphere. They continue to tweak the algorithms to try and match radiosonde data; they do not measure surface temperature, but rather near- 0km to something like 10km (I forget the exact height) and create a single measurement - one which will under-represent surface warming. The portion of the atmosphere that warms the most. Also, it warms at the expense of the rest of the atmosphere. See my explanation at the end of the previous page about that.

a reply to: Greven

Well, the data is 5 years old, but the model output seems off as well. It shows an increase of 0.9º by 2020. Perhaps there was some cherry picking there.

a reply to: Phage

Alas, the model seems optimistic, given that the average temperature last year was + 0.94°C in 2016 for the entire year. Damn El Niños throwing wrenches into the mix... (comparatively, UAH was right above +0.51°C for the 2016).

a reply to: Greven

Spikes in the trend. This year is shaping up to be a close second.
Even Spencer's data shows it.

a reply to: Phage
Unsurprising, but disturbing nevertheless.

Nothing to worry about I'm sure; we got some people who say we ain't doing it so I guess nothing can be done!

originally posted by: Phage
That's the statement for which I requested sourcing.

Ok... Current historical readings do not follow current models..better? Not sure your point here...

Ok. Let's just keep our fingers crossed then. God will save us. Again. That's the ticket.

Do you see a large increase in global temperatures in the near future? I guess you can go watch Al's inconvenient truth again...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Really?

Because radiosonde data I posted above (one of the 4 'balloon' sets averaged in however that was done there) claimed this:
2001 +0.22°C
2002 +0.40°C
2003 +0.35°C
2004 +0.33°C
2005 +0.50°C
2006 +0.40°C
2007 +0.49°C
2008 +0.31°C
2009 +0.40°C
2010 +0.54°C
2011 +0.50°C
2012 +0.54°C
2013 +0.68°C
2014 +0.74°C
2015 +1.02°C
2016 +1.15°C

Strange that your chart shows the 'averaged' balloon sets as below +0.3°C, when the last time it was below that threshold was 2001 and the chart is supposedly from 2012.

I suppose you might have gotten that chart from here which doesn't bother to explain how they got it in any way. An inconvenient truth, indeed.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Greven

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

No it is not!

It is the gas that plants need to grow.

Temperature rise comes first. Then CO2 increases. CO2 does not cause the problem.

You are trying to tell us that 0.04% of the atmosphere can heat up the planet.

That is just not very logical is it?

P

0.04% is more than enough of a chemical to disrupt a complex and balanced system of any kind. Our atmosphere is no different.

a reply to: BlissSeeker

Water and earthquakes and volcanoes, Oh My!!!

/yawn

You know the thing I find constantly amazing about this whole thing. Coming at this with a background in environmental archaeology and paleo-climatology.

It's the way 99.9% of the worlds scientists are united in being concerned about man-made climate change. The US military has even flagged it as a major security concern.

So on one side of the argument we have the worlds climate scientists, who are funded by a plethora of universities, trusts, government bursaries, private bursaries, self funding, charity funded, the whole range of different ways that different science projects are funded.


And on the other side we have a tiny number of pseudo-scientists based overwhelmingly in America where they are funded by the oil companies, who churn out these papers that are picked up by laymen who think they are armchair climatologists, and that all the other research that contradicts what the oil companies tell them to believe is funded by the UN as part of some weird plan to take over the world and force Americans to pay more taxes.


And it's just bafflingly crazy to me. I mean I get that climate change is scary, and people don't want to believe what the science is saying, because it is genuinely terrifying. But the way so many people just bury their heads in the sand and believe the cozy lie the oil companies are selling them. I despair, I really do.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Xtrozero

Really?

Because radiosonde data I posted above (one of the 4 'balloon' sets averaged in however that was done there) claimed this:
2001 +0.22°C
2002 +0.40°C
2003 +0.35°C
2004 +0.33°C
2005 +0.50°C
2006 +0.40°C
2007 +0.49°C
2008 +0.31°C
2009 +0.40°C
2010 +0.54°C
2011 +0.50°C
2012 +0.54°C
2013 +0.68°C
2014 +0.74°C
2015 +1.02°C
2016 +1.15°C

What I find interesting is the amount of CO2 from the 70s compared to today. Except for China and India the CO2 production has been basically the same for most industrial countries. Now this chart below only list main areas, so I'm not sure where places like central/south America is on this, or all other Asian countries combined outside of China is in comparison from the 80s to today. China is basically a fourfold increase from the 70s putting out more than all industrial countries combined. It is interesting that China started huge increases in 2002 and that kind of matches your chart.



There seems to be other factors involved in we all know there is climate change but why didn't we see this earlier in the 70s if humans were the major contributing factor, or is China the culprit that is putting us over the top?

reply to: Xtrozero

That's a chart of CO2 annual emissions, not atmospheric CO2 ppm, which looks like this:


Each year, we add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere - it doesn't just vanish on New Year's Eve.

CO2 levels decline very slowly, because CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere awhile.

This isn't that complicated.

Climate change is inevitable, it's happened before and will happen again.

Man-made pollution is BAD
Heck some natural forms of pollution aren't so great either, but I digress. Man-made pollution is unnecessary and toxic as all giddy-up. Dumb too cause even a baby bird knows not to poop in the nest. Anyone remember those old scientific papers that figured out how many times the water was drank an peed out by people in different geographical areas?
Enlightening stuff!

If the UN were actually serious they'd address pollution and countries would pay based on that, or clean it up. They aren't serious tho an are pretty much yanking our chains. Doesn't even matter why, what matters is they are fluffing around and riling everyone up with their stupid.

The only thing keeping companies from cleaning up their waste is cost an the possibility of crashing the worlds economy. Plus the outcry of people who don't want to give up their creature comforts.

Batteries are a stepping stone but not the ultimate answer as manufacture and disposal of them is no less polluting than other alternatives.

(waiting to get stomped on)

edited to add, CO2 is the wrong measure to judge this by. Start looking at methane releases. CO2 is childs play compared to Methane.

I seem to remember the the UN and IPCC originally predicting a warming of 3C on a doubling of CO2 back in the day, and then the best estimate was changed to around 2C. Is it back at 3C again?