Your friendly climate update

[brenthutch 444]

Atmospheric CO2 comes in at 417.64 ppm  (vs last year’s 414.74 ppm)

Q1 global temperature barely cracks the top ten coming in at a cool 9th place (coldest in many years)

Global sea ice continues to recover

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

https://www.noaa.gov/news/march-2021-and-year-to-date-were-among-earth-s-top-10-warmest

And for more good news.  The latest science suggests we are very near to saturation levels of the effectiveness of CO2 as a GHG and that further Increases in CO2 will produce little to no additional warming 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf

 Double post, sorry can a moderator please delete 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by brenthutch

[BIGUN 1,314]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Double post, sorry can a moderator please delete 

Both of them?

[Phil1111 1,149]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Double post, sorry can a moderator please delete 

 

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

All of them?

FIFY   

[brenthutch 444]

6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Both of them?

Why both?  What is wrong with the first one?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Why both?  What is wrong with the first one?

Nothing. I for one can't get enough.

Atmospheric CO2 comes in at 417.64 ppm  (vs last year’s 414.74 ppm)

Q1 global temperature barely cracks the top ten coming in at a cool 9th place (coldest in many years)

Global sea ice continues to recover

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

https://www.noaa.gov/news/march-2021-and-year-to-date-were-among-earth-s-top-10-warmest

And for more good news.  The latest science suggests we are very near to saturation levels of the effectiveness of CO2 as a GHG and that further Increases in CO2 will produce little to no additional warming 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf

 Double post, sorry can a moderator please delete 

[olofscience 480]

Cute. Brent once again pretending he can read scientific papers.

[brenthutch 444]

9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Cute. Brent once again pretending he can read scientific papers.

Can you read this from climate.gov?

”Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero”

[olofscience 480]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Can you read this from climate.gov?

Oh, but I wasn't talking about that. How about we discuss the paper? You posted it, after all.

Edited April 16, 2021 by olofscience

[billvon 2,991]

24 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Oh, but I wasn't talking about that. How about we discuss the paper? You posted it, after all.

That would sort of defeat the purpose of his post.

[brenthutch 444]

35 minutes ago, billvon said:

That would sort of defeat the purpose of his post.

The purpose of my post was to share the latest from the climate scientists at NOAA.  I didn’t invite debate, there is nothing to debate, the facts are the facts.

Edited April 16, 2021 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Can you read this from climate.gov?

”Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero”

The speed of events is a curious thing. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by JoeWeber

[olofscience 480]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I didn’t invite debate, there is nothing to debate

Wow he turned and ran pretty quick

If there's nothing to debate, time to delete this thread then

[gowlerk 2,192]

Last time he started a thread about this the bullshit went on for months before the inevitable lock. I have blocked him, but there is no way to block threads from my end. Someone dressed in green, please, end it now.

[brenthutch 444]

16 minutes ago, olofscience said:

If there's nothing to debate, time to delete this thread then

Delete it?  You sound like the church officials who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.  Afraid of the truth eh?

[wmw999 2,447]

This is a discussion forum. That means that material that's posted is subject to discussion. It also means that your choice of source, you selection of specific data, and the data itself is subject to discussion.

Discussion, as defined by Webster, means consideration of a topic in open and usually informal debate.

So if you don't intend this to happen to what you post, then don't post it. Trolling is still banned as well.

Wendy P.

[wmw999 2,447]

Now to get back to the topic, saying that "it hasn't changed this century" is very different from saying "it hasn't changed in a century." We have data going back much farther, and cherry-picking the data is exactly that -- cherry picking to get the result you want, in order to: stop discussion!

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Delete it?  You sound like the church officials who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.  Afraid of the truth eh?

Galileo? Don't sell yourself short. I was thinking more of Da Vinci or maybe Sagan's opening to "Brocas Brain". "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".

[gowlerk 2,192]

8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

So if you don't intend this to happen to what you post, then don't post it. Trolling is still banned as well.

The last time he started a trolling thread on this very subject it was locked down. Now he has waited a few weeks and started up a fresh one to get around the lock. How is this allowed?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The last time he started a trolling thread on this very subject it was locked down. Now he has waited a few weeks and started up a fresh one to get around the lock. How is this allowed?

If he truly believes it's more akin to proselytizing than trolling, I'd say. Like our Christian friends his data is a bit faulty and the interpretations are often comedic but I'm thinking Brent isn't just trolling us. He has fun with people for self amusement, of course. For sure I don't want to see that banned.

[gowlerk 2,192]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

For sure I don't want to see that banned.

Why was the last thread locked?

 

[brenthutch 444]

10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Now to get back to the topic, saying that "it hasn't changed this century" is very different from saying "it hasn't changed in a century." We have data going back much farther, and cherry-picking the data is exactly that -- cherry picking to get the result you want, in order to: stop discussion!

Wendy P.

 

11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Now to get back to the topic, saying that "it hasn't changed this century" is very different from saying "it hasn't changed in a century." We have data going back much farther, and cherry-picking the data is exactly that -- cherry picking to get the result you want, in order to: stop discussion!

Wendy P.

We didn’t have reliable ocean data until the deployment of the ARGO buoy system in 1999.  To compare today’s data with that from a century ago is an apples to oranges comparison.  With warming stalled for the past two decades (despite ever rising CO2) we are talking about global warmer, not global warming.

[brenthutch 444]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Why was the last thread locked?

 

Olaf

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Why was the last thread locked?

 

Got me. I'd rather try to figure out Brent than a Mysterious Mod Mind.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

21 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The last time he started a trolling thread on this very subject it was locked down. Now he has waited a few weeks and started up a fresh one to get around the lock. How is this allowed?

Hi Ken,

I'm with you.

Mods, do your job.

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,447]

The original post is one of the most intellectually dishonest cherry-picking posts I've read in awhile. I parsed one of the sources that was quoted - the NOAA page. There were 12 statements that included judgment. 11 of them made reference to less ice and/or warmer temperatures. The twelfth simply said that the area (Oceania) had its smallest temperature departure since 2012.

So basically you're playing Queen of Hearts, saying that words mean whatever you want them to mean, because they sure don't mean what you seem to be inferring.

As far as "agriculture depends on CO2, well, yes, it does. You depend on water, too, but you can drown in it.

Wendy P.