As Climate Worsens, a Cascade of Tipping Points Looms

I respect the data, not arm waving or tub thumping. "Threatened with extinction" =/= extinction. We are all threatened with extinction. And if you're going to talk about extinctions and then worry about a "fixation with the IUCN red list" then you obviously don't know the issue. Sorry, but I'm not the one who can't hold his own.

 

I know the issue well enough, the holocene beginnings and the anthropocene continuation. Do you? I bet you cant, even when smacked in the face with it, see the cookie crumb. You held up the IUCN link as if it were the holy grail of extinction data, which it obviously is not. Even then you ignore data from the link. We are all threatened with extinction? Not within the IUCN context, for there threatened with extinction has a more immediate meaning. If you want to deal with what is, fine. If you would rather continue as you have been, I don't even want to hear from you or talk with you.

 

Tropospheric Warming Over the the Past Two Decades Using Satellite Measurements of the Mid to Upper Troposphere (TMT)

Does this meet the criteria of a tropospheric "hot spot"? If not, it is close.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7


Satellite estimates of global changes in the temperature of the mid- to upper troposphere (TMT) are currently available from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), the Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR), and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). All three groups provide older and more recent TMT datasets4, 5, 7. The newer, more reliable datasets are the primary focus here.

Satellite TMT measurements include a contribution from the cooling stratosphere. To study warming of the troposphere, we used a standard regression method8,9,10,11 to remove the stratospheric cooling contribution to TMT (see Methods). The corrected TMT data show pronounced tropospheric warming (Fig. 1A). In the most recent versions of the RSS, STAR, and UAH datasets, the TMT trend over the full 38-year period of the satellite record is 0.199 °C, 0.202 °C, and 0.142 °C per decade (respectively).






Evaluation of claimed “leveling off” of warming in satellite temperature data. Results are for monthly-mean anomalies in the temperature of the mid- to upper troposphere (TMT), corrected for stratospheric cooling8 and spatially averaged over 82.5°N–82.5°S. The average of the latest satellite dataset versions (RSS v4.0, STAR v4.0, and UAH v6.0) has a warming trend of 0.181 °C/decade over the 456-month period from January 1979 to December 2016 (panel A). Maximally overlapping 20-year (240-month) trends in the six individual satellite TMT time series are plotted on the end month of the trend-fitting period (panel B). The p-values for these trends (panel C) are for tests of the null hypothesis that observed tropospheric warming could be due to natural internal variability alone3. The grey shaded box is the rejection region (at a stipulated 10% significance level) for the null hypothesis. The p-value calculations rely on estimates of the multi-decadal internal variability of the climate system from model pre-industrial control runs. These simulations have no year-to-year changes in natural or human external forcings. The sampling distributions of control run TMT trends on 20-year and 38-year timescales (the orange histograms in panels D and E, respectively) are based on results from 36 different models. The symbols (plus signs) in panel D are the final 20-year trends from panel B. Bold vertical lines in panel D are the averages of the overlapping 20-year trends in panel B (see arrows to the right of panel B). Vertical lines in panel E are observed trends over the full 456-month satellite record. Results in D and E are for the latest satellite dataset versions only. Full analysis details are in ref. 3 and the Methods section.

 

When you say the IUCN is not the holy grail of extinction data you out yourself as a charlatan. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

 

Really you fell for this misleading paper?

They didn't even show that by THEIR statements, the slight warming is not even close to the modeled warming projection.in the time frame given in the first place.

"After “remov[ing] the stratospheric cooling contribution,” SVP arrived at an apparent trend of 0.01 degree Celsius per year. Even if this value is statistically significant, 0.01 degrees Celsius per year does mean levelling off. Scott Pruitt was correct. Such apparent trend is in line with non-alarmist computations. But Santer et al. decided to further embarrass themselves by comparing variability from measurements to the “natural variability” from the IPCC models! Unsurprisingly, the IPCC models agreed with themselves. SVP accurately stated that the comparison was done with the computer models, not with the real world. It has not even claimed to refute the statement of the new EPA head. SVP abstract says:” Satellite temperature measurements do not support the recent claim of a ‘leveling off of warming’ over the past two decades.”

LINK

Dr. Spencer who knows a lot more about Satellite data, debunked this paper with ease, since Santer and his warmist clowns wrote up the paper in response to Scoot Pruitt, it is a beautiful take down:

Santer takes on Pruitt: The Global Warming Pause and the Devolution of Climate Science
May 25th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
A new paper in Nature: Scientific Reports by Santer et al entitled Tropospheric Warming Over the Past Two Decades begins with this:

After a recent Senate confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming. We test this claim here.

LINK

 

The NOAA has the latest updates on the RATPAC data, gave you the link on and they are updated to last month.

Current Version
The current version of RATPAC is Version 2. The difference between this version and the original version of RATPAC is that the IGRA component of Version 2 originates from IGRA v2 rather than IGRA v1. for the latest information on the status of RATPAC, see the status file. To receive email notifications regarding changes to RATPAC, please register online using this Optional Registration Form.

and,

RATPAC Updates
NCEI scientists recalculate the RATPAC time series once a month on the sixth day of the month.

The NOAA is the official site for the data.

 

The earth's surface is all in the lower troposphere where abundant water vapor makes CO2 irrelevant to temperature. The effect of increased CO2 is to increase the average effective final emission altitude (AEFEA, which is above the altitude where there is any significant water vapor, and thus varies somewhat with latitude and season) and reduce its temperature, thus maintaining the earth's thermal equilibrium. The region of the atmosphere immediately below the AEFEA -- the mid- to upper troposphere -- is warmed, but this increased warmth does not extend into the lower troposphere or reach the surface because its thermal IR radiation is blocked by water vapor. The region immediately above the AEFEA -- the lower stratosphere -- is cooled because the increased concentration of CO2 molecules means more IR energy is lost to the cold of outer space at the AEFEA. The models account for most of this reasonably well, but don't accurately account for the blockage of downward IR radiation by water vapor below the AEFEA.

But much less in the lower troposphere where all of the earth's surface is located than in the mid- and upper troposphere, as explained above.

This method removes the latitude dependence of water vapor and thus AEFEA, reducing the model's validity.

IOW, they assume away the effect of solar variation.

 

It shows only those in danger of extinction. If that was all there is, that would be the end of it. While it doubtless does a good job at its assumed task, that is less than half of the story. You know this, I have already shown this, and you are, for some unfathomable reason, insisting on being seen as stupid, and I wonder why this is.

 

You have much to learn.

 

He thinks it is stupid to post that link in post 623, the one he avoids like the bubonic plague.

What a funny guy!

 

Doh! As do we all. I continually try fix that. I read, I study, I follow links and look for the underlying arguments. I seek multiple sources for any point I try to make. I present data, reasoned arguments and in response I get "He is stupid", "you've got a lot to learn", I am labeled a charlatan, hit with a wealth of ad hominems and not a single response worthy of the name. You offer up the IUCN red list as an argument against mass extinction? And you don't think that was a little foolish? You not only do not respond in kind, you refuse to even acknowledge arguments presented. Why in the hell should I waste another minute with you?

 

Here's an argument I have never seen adequately addressed: given that 99.99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct, what exactly is so catastrophic about a species becoming extinct? Doesn't evolution run on continuous extinction of the least fit species?

 

Your primary argument has been to call me "stupid" (twice IIRC) so I suggest you get off your high horse. And yes, the IUCN Red List is a crushing argument against claims of mass extinction.
If you regard this exchange as a waste of time then please feel free to focus your energies elsewhere.

 

Yes, it does. The concern is that the current rate of extinctions is 100 to 1000 rimes greater than background, or naturally occurring, extinctions, and they are the result of human actions. The important thing that is threatened is biodiversity. The important thing to remember is that we are a part of that biodiversity.

 

You would argue with a stop sign, wouldn't you? Well, stupid is as stupid does. To my ignore list with you.

 

Good luck in your future endeavors.

 

And one has to work really, really hard to get on my ignore list. Currently there are only 2.

 

Because we are the baddest mofos ever, by far. We exterminate other species by the thousand without even meaning to, just by going about our own business.

Why is biodiversity important? Why is it better to have 143 different species of owls rather than 142, or 98?

Again, why is that important? We are actually the result of a quick decline in the biodiversity of hominid populations: 200Kya there were several hominid species. Now it's down to us. Evolution is not pretty.

 

I gave you the data. I won't do your research for you. If you are to lazy to do your own research, that is on you.

 

And FYI, very soon -- in the blink of an evolutionary eye -- OUR gene editing technology is going to produce the greatest increase in biodiversity ever seen on the planet. Although it is impossible to predict how it will play out, it is virtually certain that we will see an explosion of new species created for our medical, industrial, military (careful!!!) and even recreational purposes. Want a pet that is as loving as a dog, as cute as a baby seal, but as low-maintenance as a cat? There's going to be an app for that.

 

But I asked you WHY, a question that your data do not provide even a hint of an answer to.

Or your own thinking, evidently.

What kind of research do you suggest would answer the question of why a world with 143 species of owls is better than one with 142 species? It will very soon be possible for us to create new species virtually at will. How many more owl species should we create? What is the exact number for optimum owl biodiversity, hmmmmmm?

 

Me! Me! Pick ME!!

 

Yeah a member who post more information in a month than you have in 5 years!

You did it because you don't want to debate him, that is why. He has been a very civil member the whole time.

I have been tougher by language on you than he has and I am NOT on the list?

 

But you refuse to discuss it, and while you ignore post 623 link in the meantime, that is being dishonest.