2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

Last year’s average global surface temperature was 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit above the late 19th century average, according to NASA. It was the fifth consecutive year of more than 2 degrees above that base line.

The seven hottest years in 140 years of record keeping are the last seven. In descending record order, they are 2020 and 2016, 2019, 2017, 2015, 2018 and 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, kallend said:

Last year’s average global surface temperature was 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit above the late 19th century average, according to NASA. It was the fifth consecutive year of more than 2 degrees above that base line.

The seven hottest years in 140 years of record keeping are the last seven. In descending record order, they are 2020 and 2016, 2019, 2017, 2015, 2018 and 2014.

So the seven hottest years in the last 140 are the LAST seven years, out of order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So the seven hottest years in the last 140 are the LAST seven years, out of order.

I'm sure BH will be along soon to tell us that since 2019 was cooler than 2016, the Earth is actually cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There IS a problem with global warming - it stopped in (erase erase erase) 2020!

Fun fact - this thread originally claimed that climate change ended in 1998, because that was the warmest year for several years that followed.  1998 isn't even in the top 10 of hottest years any more.

In 20 years we will be looking back at 2020 saying "wow, it was cool back then."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, billvon said:

There IS a problem with global warming - it stopped in (erase erase erase) 2020!

Fun fact - this thread originally claimed that climate change ended in 1998, because that was the warmest year for several years that followed.  1998 isn't even in the top 10 of hottest years any more.

In 20 years we will be looking back at 2020 saying "wow, it was cool back then."

Less than a half a degree of warming since ‘98 :ohmygod: and much of that can be attributed to the natural warming we have been experiencing since the end of the Little Ice Age.  Again,  is worth noting there has been ZERO warming in the last half decade while CO2 levels have continued to skyrocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/233/2021/

Abstract

We combine satellite observations and numerical models to show that Earth lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice between 1994 and 2017. Arctic sea ice (7.6 trillion tonnes), Antarctic ice shelves (6.5 trillion tonnes), mountain glaciers (6.1 trillion tonnes), the Greenland ice sheet (3.8 trillion tonnes), the Antarctic ice sheet (2.5 trillion tonnes), and Southern Ocean sea ice (0.9 trillion tonnes) have all decreased in mass. Just over half (58 %) of the ice loss was from the Northern Hemisphere, and the remainder (42 %) was from the Southern Hemisphere. The rate of ice loss has risen by 57 % since the 1990s – from 0.8 to 1.2 trillion tonnes per year – owing to increased losses from mountain glaciers, Antarctica, Greenland and from Antarctic ice shelves. During the same period, the loss of grounded ice from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and mountain glaciers raised the global sea level by 34.6 ± 3.1 mm. The majority of all ice losses were driven by atmospheric melting (68 % from Arctic sea ice, mountain glaciers ice shelf calving and ice sheet surface mass balance), with the remaining losses (32 % from ice sheet discharge and ice shelf thinning) being driven by oceanic melting. Altogether, these elements of the cryosphere have taken up 3.2 % of the global energy imbalance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/1/eaba7282

Abstract

The retreat and acceleration of Greenland glaciers since the mid-1990s have been attributed to the enhanced intrusion of warm Atlantic Waters (AW) into fjords, but this assertion has not been quantitatively tested on a Greenland-wide basis or included in models. Here, we investigate how AW influenced retreat at 226 marine-terminating glaciers using ocean modeling, remote sensing, and in situ observations. We identify 74 glaciers in deep fjords with AW controlling 49% of the mass loss that retreated when warming increased undercutting by 48%. Conversely, 27 glaciers calving on shallow ridges and 24 in cold, shallow waters retreated little, contributing 15% of the loss, while 10 glaciers retreated substantially following the collapse of several ice shelves. The retreat mechanisms remain undiagnosed at 87 glaciers without ocean and bathymetry data, which controlled 19% of the loss. Ice sheet projections that exclude ocean-induced undercutting may underestimate mass loss by at least a factor of 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 1:46 PM, brenthutch said:

Less than a half a degree of warming since ‘98 :ohmygod: and much of that can be attributed to the natural warming we have been experiencing since the end of the Little Ice Age.  Again,  is worth noting there has been ZERO warming in the last half decade while CO2 levels have continued to skyrocket.

Just because we count in units of degree does not mean a 1/2 degree or less isn't worth counting or is insignificant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Just because we count in units of degree does not mean a 1/2 degree or less isn't worth counting or is insignificant. 

.500, simple people respond better to that.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “it’s cold because it’s warm” theory has been debunked.

“The polar vortex theory takes a beating: The claim a warm Arctic is behind the brutally cold winter conditions at the mid latitudes is shown by a Nature study to be scientifically baseless.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The “it’s cold because it’s warm” theory has been debunked.

“The polar vortex theory takes a beating: The claim a warm Arctic is behind the brutally cold winter conditions at the mid latitudes is shown by a Nature study to be scientifically baseless.”

As usual, a citation free claim by BH turns out to be a half-truth at best.  The original article in Nature says nothing of the sort.

 

The author of the quote is P. Gosselin, a well known climate denier with no credentials in climatology or meteorology.  He cannot get his articles published in bona fide refereed journals.

Edited by kallend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kallend said:

As usual, a citation free claim by BH turns out to be a half-truth at best.  The original article in Nature says nothing of the sort.

 

The author of the quote is P. Gosselin, a well known climate denier with no credentials in climatology or meteorology.  He cannot get his articles published in bona fide refereed journals.

Hi John,

Re:  As usual

A leopard is incapable of changing his spots.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kallend said:

 The original article in Nature says nothing of the sort.

From the article in Nature

“It is indefensible to continue to rely on past short-term trends, which have since disappeared, as evidence of a large influence of Arctic warming on mid-latitude winter climate and extreme weather”

That sound just like what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

From the article in Nature

“It is indefensible to continue to rely on past short-term trends, which have since disappeared, as evidence of a large influence of Arctic warming on mid-latitude winter climate and extreme weather”

That sound just like what I said.

No, it doesn't.  Your reading comprehension sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kallend said:

No, it doesn't.  Your reading comprehension sucks.

I posted the quote from a “denier” knowing that you would be triggered into an attack on  my veracity, only to subsequently quote the Nature article directly.  Any quibbles with my wording I will just chalk up to a distinction without a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I posted the quote from a “denier” knowing that you would be triggered into an attack on  my veracity, only to subsequently quote the Nature article directly.  Any quibbles with my wording I will just chalk up to a distinction without a difference.

The quote from Nature is NOT equivalent to the quote from your denier source.  Your reading comprehension still sucks and/or you are intellectually dishonest. 

And another thing you omitted is that the Nature article quite clearly indicates that global warming is real and that  Arctic warming is part of it.   Intellectual dishonesty by omission.

Edited by kallend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, kallend said:

No, it doesn't.  Your reading comprehension sucks.

His reading comprehension is fine.  He's not posting things that he believes, that are honest or that reflect anything at all; he is posting things intended solely to piss you off.  From his own post:

"I posted the quote from a “denier” knowing that you would be triggered"

That's his only goal here - to anger people.  He has said as much several times.  You keep falling for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonyhays said:

And yet you let him continue with his trolling.  

Given that you can easily ignore him - and we even have tools for that now! - seems like a problem that you could solve if you dislike his trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2