Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

Many more people die from cold than heat. Warming saves lives.

 

How Deniers Deny
Posted on December 7, 2019 | 40 Comments
Kip Hansen is so peeved at the New York Times for their recent article about global warming accelerating, that he posts at WUWT denying any and all acceleration claimed in the article. His “rebuttal” is riddled with mistakes and falsehoods, par for the course at WUWT.

One of the things accelerating which the Times article mentions and Kip Hansen denies, is sea level rise. Let’s look at his approach to sea level rise acceleration, in order to find out how this climate denier manages to deny the undeniable.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/12/07/how-deniers-deny/

Kip's denialism is well known, as is yours.

 

Tamino? Lol.

 

Fake News. Which you could figure out, rather quickly with your searchbar.

• The oceans have been rising for 20,000 years since the peak of the glacial advance.
• Over the last 20,000 years the oceans have risen 400 feet.
• That's 0.24"/yr
• The current rate of rise is 0.18"/yr
• The current rate of sea level rise is 25% LESS than the 20,000 year average.

 

'Greenlash' Is Here

'The results from the recent European parliament elections were quite something. Right populists did very well indeed while the European Greens took big losses. They lost 18 of their 72 seats in the European parliament and their performance was particularly bad in the E.U.’s two largest states, Germany and France. In Germany, the core country of the European green movement, support for the Greens plunged from 20.5 percent in 2019 to 12 percent. Shockingly, among voters under 25, the German Greens actually did worse than the hard right Alternative for Germany (AfD). That contrasts with the 2019 elections, when the Greens did seven times better than the AfD among these young voters.'

'And in France, Green support crashed from 13.5 percent to 5.5 percent. The latter figure is barely above the required threshold for party representation in the French delegation.'

We tire of their totalitarian idiocy in search of illicit control and graft.

'the fattest target for this greenlash was naturally the Greens, the most fervent proponents of the European “Green Deal” and associated policies. The implications of this are huge. '

Read the whole thing.

 

The moment you use that inane, absurd, and disingenuous term, you have effectively admitted that your intention is to deceive. Who has denied that climate changes, hmmmm?

"Record" since when? Since accurate thermometers and coverage began in India ~50 years ago, at the end of the mid-20th century cooling period? Or since ~180 years ago, at the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years? Why would you not expect to see warming after the cooling phase of a natural cycle?

Yeah, well, I remember my great uncle who served in the British Army in India in the 1920s -- i.e., 100 years ago -- relating that one of his fellows had been killed by the heat while riding a troop train. So no, India's heat killing people is nothing new, and it is absurd and disingenuous to claim it never happened before CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

Yep. Do you know what the term, "normal distribution" means?

Sounds like you don't like modernity.

<yawn> Nothing like that has happened, or will. It's just more absurd scare nonscience.

As I have already explained so very clearly and patiently, multiple times, the political reduction of oil supply in obeisance to the CO2 climate narrative is extremely profitable for the oil industry because demand is so inelastic.

 

I'm more of a casual participant on climate. The broader circumstance, namely the greenhouse effect, easy to understand. I further find the IPCC one of the more credible institutions on the planet. For me, NASA is another one, they too, the state of the climate undeniable. But for over 20 years now, the counterargument remains identical. It offers no alternative explanation, it's about worming into any & every pocket of gray there is. Science accounts for variables & uncertainty, elsewhere it's believed that the IPCC is more apt to understate the impacts of climate. Are you aware of no such example?

My understanding that the wording they use is agreed upon by all the authors & member states where the 20+ laboratories are located. So, the evidence for this contention that they take the work of others and propagate concern that's unfounded is what exactly? These other studies & methodology, the conclusions are entirely contrary?

 

Dude we have a solar maximum and a La nina and you think it is going to be cooler than usual???

 

There is, actually, a powerful alternative explanation. This is known as the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis. I suggest you inform yourself about it.

 

Right, but it's El Nino, and there is another warming factor in the last two years that may be even more important: the Tonga submarine volcano injected a huge plume of water vapor into the stratosphere, enough to increase stratospheric water vapor by 30%, warming the earth about as much as all the CO2 emitted from fossil fuels in the last 50 years. Normally volcanoes -- which are almost all terrestrial -- have a cooling effect because they inject SO2 into the stratosphere, which increases the earth's albedo. Submarine volcanoes can have the opposite effect, as their ejected SO2 is dissolved by seawater and replaced with water vapor, which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

 

Of course you do: they work hard at looking credible. But IMO, their scientific bona fides are quite shaky because they often resort to non sequiturs, post hoc fallacies, cherry picking, and other nonscience.

You mean the fact that it is not noticeably warmer than it was 80 years ago, before the mid-20th century cooling period?

That's just baldly false. The alternative explanations are very clear: solar activity was at the highest sustained level in thousands of years in the 20th century, and has been unexpectedly high for the last two years -- which have also seen the warming effects of the switch from La Nina to El Nino and the Tonga submarine volcano.

No.

No.

Pretty much.

 

As a starting point, did you read the entire post you quoted from? Do you dispute the fact the IPCC produces literature reviews? Do you dispute the fact literature reviews are review of literature hand picked by the authors that they feel supports the narrative of the review?

I did not simply post my opinion. I pointed to peer reviewed literature and accepted definitions of literature review by the scientific community.

Did I say literature reviews are inherently bad?

Did I deny climate change or its (numerous anthropogenic pathways) causes in any way?

I don’t post opinions on climate change. Everything I post is founded on peer reviewed research published in reputable journals of science. Here’s a recent example of a criticism of the IPCC and their practices. It’s a case where they exclude voluminous amounts of evidence, misquote a study they cite, and form a narrative that hunger will increase along with increase of higher volumes of food/nutrients.

The IPCC is no better or worse than other organizations tasked with influencing public opinion and government policy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1074855121/

 

@markrc99


I have repeatedly asked for anyone to provide evidence this post included peer reviewed evidence that comes to incorrect conclusions. Can you provide that evidence? You may notice if you read the post I cite both the IPCC and NASA.

 

My garden seems to be producing very well. I seem to be getting good growth on everything except zucchini and crook neck yellow squash and cucumbers. The squash were victims of neglect but the cucumbers were really hit by the heat. But growth seemed to take off early. It seems there may be an acceleration in green growth when CO2 is higher. It is just my hypothesis but there is evidence for it....I guess.

 

The solar activity graph at the bottom is from NASA, you can also access it through the linked material below. Accordingly, temperature has been rising despite a downward trend in solar activity. The article also mentions several smoking guns, love NASA!

Now, article just below is the product of researchers at Harvard, citing the work of Exxon-Mobil scientists.

"... Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate... The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate. ... “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.” https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

So what do we have? We have your unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that the IPCC knowingly presents a threat to earth's climate that is largely fraudulent. Problematic of course is that we have a U.S. government agency (NASA), academia, researchers from Harvard citing the work of Exxon-Mobil scientists. That's just a short list, there are any number of sources telling us the same things.

"The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century." https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

 

Exxon-Mobil published or otherwise shared with the IPCC all their research findings from the beginning.

 

Yep! Learnt a long time ago that WUWT will publish ANYTHING including drivel from the likes of Monckton.

 

Please! That is the funniest thing you posted so far! This is the SAME industry polluting the planet with plastics which are now so ubiquitous that they have been found clogging arteries, in placental tissue and even in testicles! Profit over planet

 

Purported "media bias" sites can't tell you anything except how closely aligned the rater's view is to the rated sites' alleged views.
Both NTZ and WUWT are significantly more thorough and careful to document and link their claims than are the orthodox climate sites you and MB/FC prefer.
WUWT, in particular, has a stellar record of posting opposing views. Their record for fairness is unmatched.
Denigrating WUWT and NTZ is merely a tactic to dodge real debate on real substance.

 

It does accelerate growth but plants do not rely on CO2 alone and like your squash if they suffer from neglect they will still wither and die. There has to also be right temperature, right water conditions, right amount of water and sunlight.

 

The historical and documentary record is clear. Exxon-Mobil published or otherwise shared with the IPCC all their research results from the beginning. Your response is a mere regurgitation of unfounded propaganda.

 

You are applauding obsolete science, now superseded.
How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
Posted on April 18, 2024 by curryja | 391 comments
by Javier Vinós

Part I of a three part series.

Continue reading →
. . . Since low solar activity causes cooling, it stands to reason that high activity must cause warming. Solar activity in the 20th century was very high, in the top 10% of the last 11,000 years.

If we count the number of sunspots in each solar cycle over the last 300 years and divide by the length of each cycle, we can see how much solar activity has deviated from the average. Since the Maunder Minimum, during the Little Ice Age, solar activity has been increasing and was well above average between 1933 and 1996, a period of six cycles of increased solar activity that formed the 20th century solar maximum.



Although we cannot know how much of the 20th century warming is due to this modern solar maximum, there is no denying that it is a significant part, because as we have seen, the Sun has been the cause of much of the major climate change over the past 11,000 years.

1. Conclusions

There are two pieces of good news. The first is that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum. It is not like CO₂, which can keep going up. The Sun’s activity can stay high or go down, but it cannot go up, so the warming should not accelerate and should not be dangerous.

In 2016, I developed a model to predict solar activity in the 21st century. At the time, some scientists believed that solar activity would continue to decline until a new grand solar minimum and mini-ice age. But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right.

The second piece of good news is that if much of the 20th century warming is due to the Sun, then there is no climate emergency. Believing that all climate change is due to our emissions is one of those errors that sometimes occur in science, like believing that the Earth is the center of the solar system, that interplanetary space is full of ether, or that stomach ulcers are caused by stress, not bacteria.

 

Monckton - they publish rubbish from “Lord” Monckton ‘nuff said. No peer review but enough cherry picking to feed the planet.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

I just love how all the universities in the world are wrong but an internet blog is somehow right.

 

Lols. When? I see though you are not backing your claim