Your friendly climate update

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Ah, so "the coldest this century" is actually the 21 years since 2000?

 

Coldest of the millennium?

[BIGUN 1,306]

53 minutes ago, billvon said:

The Wijngaarden/Happer paper?  Yeah, I thought that was a good overview of radiative forcing, and it confirmed earlier work that quantified forcings due to increases in the various GHG's.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/unpublished-paper-former-white-house-climate-adviser-calls-methane-irrelevant-climate

[olofscience 480]

42 minutes ago, billvon said:

The Wijngaarden/Happer paper?  Yeah, I thought that was a good overview of radiative forcing, and it confirmed earlier work that quantified forcings due to increases in the various GHG's.

But with the prediction of 800ppm warming by 2.2 C, and without the humidity adjustment their model's prediction is 1.4C - and we're already at 1.7ish, the first prediction is already wrong and I've got a bad feeling we'll blow past the second figure without even hitting 600ppm.

[olofscience 480]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/unpublished-paper-former-white-house-climate-adviser-calls-methane-irrelevant-climate

There's a reason why brent posted an arXiv link, it's because the paper hasn't passed peer review and been published in a journal. Happer is a well known climate skeptic.

It would have been interesting to peer review it here, but clearly it's quite a bit beyond brent's ability to even read, much less discuss.

[BIGUN 1,306]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

hasn't passed peer review and been published in a journal.

 I read his first post this morning, saw it had been cherry-picked, then saw the reference to the Wijngaarden/Happer paper and wanted to point out that it didn't pass the sniff test. I'm not going down this road with him again - was just sharing with you and Bill. . 

[billvon 2,990]

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

His point of the diminishing greenhouse effect of CO2 seems to be borne out by observation.  CO2 at record levels, temperatures not.

Once again you don't understand what you are reading.

1) Temperature have been rising for decades.  They were rising back in 2000 when you were one of the people bleating "global warming ended in 1998!"  They were rising in 2010.  They are rising today.  This is due primarily to increasing CO2 concentrations.

2) Yes, everyone knows that the effect of CO2 decreases as it approaches saturation.  That's why we have warmed ~2 degrees F instead of 20 degrees F when we increased the CO2 concentration by 50%.  That's why we will warm ~5 degrees F if we double it instead of 50 degrees F.  It seems that everyone here understands this except you.

[billvon 2,990]

16 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But with the prediction of 800ppm warming by 2.2 C, and without the humidity adjustment their model's prediction is 1.4C - and we're already at 1.7ish, the first prediction is already wrong and I've got a bad feeling we'll blow past the second figure without even hitting 600ppm.

Keep in mind that the paper was from 2006 - so they missed a lot of the more recent work on positive feedback and albedo changes, as well as being able to get direct longwave observations from satellites.

[brenthutch 444]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

Once again you don't understand what you are reading.

 

 

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

Keep in mind that the paper was from 2006 - so they missed a lot of the more recent work on positive feedback and albedo changes, as well as being able to get direct longwave observations from satellites.

Looks like I am not the only one not understanding 

Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
W. A. van Wijngaarden1 and W. Happer2
1Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada, wlaser@yorku.ca
2Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA, happer@Princeton.edu June 8, 2020

June 2020

Edited April 16, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 480]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Looks like I am not the only one not understanding

You can read the date anything else?

How about the fact that the first number from their model, 1.4 K, is ALREADY wrong. We've blown past that for several years now and we're nowhere near 800ppm.

[billvon 2,990]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Looks like I am not the only one not understanding 

Nor, apparently, do you even understand what the rest of us are talking about.

Look, you failed this trolling attempt pretty miserably.  Maybe start again with an attack on Biden's wife or something?

[brenthutch 444]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nor, apparently, do you even understand what the rest of us are talking about.

 

I understand what you are NOT talking about

“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”

According to NOAA

[olofscience 480]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I understand what you are NOT talking about

 

“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”

According to NOAA

It's sad to see someone lose their mind and just repeat the same mantra over and over...

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

cool 9th place (coldest in many years)

Let me help you here. you can replace the word "many" with "eight". No sense in using "many" when we know the exact number. You can do it!

[Phil1111 1,149]

16 hours ago, BIGUN said:

 I read his first post this morning, saw it had been cherry-picked, .... I'm not going down this road with him again - was just sharing with you and Bill. . 

Quick on the uptake.

16 hours ago, olofscience said:

You can read the date anything else?....

Slower on the uptake.

16 hours ago, billvon said:

Nor, apparently, do you even understand what the rest of us are talking about.....

Slowest on the uptake.

Be it guns, politics, economics, climate, etc. Brent has puzzled his teachers since kindergarten.

[Phil1111 1,149]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

....2) Yes, everyone knows that the effect of CO2 decreases as it approaches saturation.  That's why we have warmed ~2 degrees F instead of 20 degrees F when we increased the CO2 concentration by 50%.  That's why we will warm ~5 degrees F if we double it instead of 50 degrees F.  It seems that everyone here understands this except you.

Well I didn't know that. What i do know is that i can go to the NOAA website and the headlines are all the same.I know i can trust NOAA. I understand how the Facebook algorithms feed an individuals desires for misinformation. That watching FOX can damage human brains after only 24 hours of immersion.

That 40 years ago at Easter there was always 10 inches of snow on the ground sometimes 30 inches. Now the odd tree is just starting to bud out. That a decade ago I'd never seen a mole. Now they and other pests/viruses like West Nile are here.

With the interwebs. I've also learned of "flat-earthers" Q-Anoners, etc. existence.

[kallend 2,026]

Lots of troll-feeding going on in this thread.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

Lots of troll-feeding going on in this thread.

Does the new format allow a thread to 'catch fire'?

If it does, the term 'troll' may need to be changed to 'arsonist'.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

12 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Quick on the uptake.

Slower on the uptake.

Slowest on the uptake.

Be it guns, politics, economics, climate, etc. Brent has puzzled his teachers since kindergarten.

Brent has lived his life in a small pond. His currency is his coterie. He made a big mistake thinking it was so real he could come here.

[brenthutch 444]

Wow, a whole lot of hate, just for sharing government climate data.  It would seem a nerve has been struck.  Mind you, all I did was to provide information.  I don’t understand why that would illicit personal attacks. I think that says more about you guys than it does about me.

I will probably get a timeout when I share next month’s data (temperatures will continue to cool from their highs and that will make you mad)

Edited April 18, 2021 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,720]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wow, a whole lot of hate, just for sharing government climate data.  It would seem a nerve has been struck.  Mind you, all I did was to provide information.  I don’t understand why that would illicit personal attacks. I think that says more about you guys than it does about me.

No hate, man. But you go on endlessly like the phantom twitch of a missing limb. If you aren't just a one trick pony show us something else. 

[Erroll 80]

 

"Visual evidence can cut to the core of the debate in a way that words cannot and communicate complex issues to everyone," said Rebecca Moore, a director of Google Earth, in a blog post on Thursday.

 

Google Earth Timelapse

[olofscience 480]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Wow, a whole lot of hate, just for sharing propaganda.  It would seem a nerve has been struck.  Mind you, all I did was to provide MISinformation.  I don’t understand why that would illicit personal attacks. I think that says more about you guys than it does about me.

I will probably get a timeout when I share next month’s data (temperatures will continue to cool from their highs and that will make you mad)

Fixed it for you.

You just shared it and refused to discuss it, now you're crying victim? Posting and refusing to discuss says more about you that it does about us. (namely...someone's scared)

 

And next month you'll do the same thing, run away at the first suggestion to discuss whatever stuff you posted. I don't expect anything different.

[BIGUN 1,306]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

His currency is his coterie.

coterie - Sorry, it had to be done.

[BIGUN 1,306]

7 hours ago, Erroll said:

"Visual evidence can cut to the core of the debate in a way that words cannot and communicate complex issues to everyone," said Rebecca Moore, a director of Google Earth, in a blog post on Thursday.

Just read this - this morning and have been playing around on Google Earth's Climate Change Model.

https://www.sciencealert.com/google-earth-now-lets-you-look-back-at-the-impact-of-climate-change-in-3d

https://earth.google.com/web/@61.05987082,-147.05927869,5a,22434d,35y,-23h,70t,0r/data=CjYSNBIgM2ZkOTk3YWI0Njk4MTFlYTlkZWUyZGUyNWIyYWZmNjkiEGNvbHVtYmlhLWdsYWNpZXI

Edited April 18, 2021 by BIGUN

[Erroll 80]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Google Earth's Climate Change Model

One has to wonder how some folks can honestly still deny that this is happening given that level of evidence.

[murps2000 86]

5 minutes ago, Erroll said:

One has to wonder how some folks can honestly still deny that this is happening given that level of evidence.

Maybe like this?