The North Pole just surged above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists

From the data I've seen this isn't true. In fact, it is the reverse. But, since I've already cited these statistics, I'd ask you to produce a set of data that supports your tenuous claim here.

 

According to whom? And based on what data do you suppose that just the last 60 years is the only slice that seems important to you. If you factor in data from the 1850s, your 1.5C number completely evaporates, and the .8C I use from IPCC is in fact the more appropriate number. I would also point out that the .8C number is only deliverable after the immense lowering of the restatement data values you seem so tied to. So, even though the historic record say from the 1930s is significantly higher than the restated numbers, the .8C value still overstated.

 

Because last 60 years starting from 1960 or so is about the point in time in which anthroprogenic influences really started to dominate. So the period prior to 1900 was 100% dominated by natural causes. Then as we move through the 20th century that natural dominance began to wane, but it's not like flipping a light switch. It's more like a dimmer switch. The human influence ramped up slowly over several decades. Most of the warming in early 1900's can be pinned on natural variation.

Also, we have to be precise with terminology in these discussions. The 100-170% figure I mentioned above is the human contribution to the warming. But, keep in mind, that "warming" is term used to describe what is happening to the global mean temperature which is totally different than what is influencing it. The global mean temperature is driven by many factors both natural and anthroprogenic. The temperature trend itself still has a natural influence to it. So in those terms the ratio of natural to anthroprogenic on the influence is about 10/90 according to the consensus. But, if you isolate only the warming part of the trend and ask how did humans contribute to the warming and only the warming part that's how you get a figure that is over 100%. So if your question is "what is the human influence on the global mean temperature?" then the answer is closer to 90%. If you ask "what is the human contribution to the 0.9C of warming since 1960?" then the answer is closer to 130% because the natural influences had a -40% impact. Remember, the natural mechanisms are trying to cool the Earth right now.

The 0.9C of warming since 1960 is apparent with or without adjustments to the conventional datasets. Remember, the net effect of adjustments has a bigger impact on the data prior to 1960. This happens to be a period of time in which we already know that nature was the dominating factor in the temperature variability. Nevermind, that these adjustments are necessary to correct for known problems. All of these adjustments are openly discussed in the academic community. I've posted links to the peer reviewed publications many times that itemize these adjustments and explain why they have to be included. I agree with all of them. And again, for period after which anthroprogenic influences were nearly maximized the adjustments have almost no effect on the conventional datasets anyway. That 0.9C of warming is still 0.9C with or without the adjustments. Nevermind, that our reanalysis datasets make no adjustments at all and still confirm that our handling of the conventional datasets prior to 1960 is very likely to be correct. Note, that the conventional datasets have a 0.1C margin of error for the early 1900's and a 0.05C margin of error after 1960. Reanalysis, because it incorporates so much more data, has error margin that are even lower than that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 0.9C of warming after 1960 isn't going to magically disappear if you decide not include the necessary adjustments.

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009GL040736
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

 

As they say in court, facts, not in evidence. Your assumption that this is true, though, seems problematic.

 

Look to your own data. And you relied on total absolute highs vs absolute lows, but the more important data is number of low highs which vastly outstrips total absolute highs. In my little burb, we have now recently experienced a number of these. So while we didn't set absolute low temps records, we experienced a number of coldest high temps ever. That these temps were easily 30F lower than averages, does it really make that much difference that it wasn't also an absolute cold temp?

 

Trying to control Global Warming with emissions control while "Some 46-58 thousand square miles of forest are lost each year—equivalent to 36 football fields every minute. is like treating a gaping chainsaw wound with a Flintstones Band-Aid and a tube of Unguentine. What it tells me is those with faux concern over emissions while ignoring the main cause of the problem are simply profiteers of the worst ilk. Their proposals will NEVER control warming without the cessation of 46-58 thousand square miles of deforestation every year, I'm sure they know that. However, if deforestation was stopped and the temp stops rising at it's 10ths of a degree every hundred years, the profiteering from their eco terrorism would end as well. As in nature Leeches always keep the host alive by not bleeding them too much. Should the time come where deforestation results in planting as many trees as they cut down, then I'll listen. Till such a time spare me the the sale pitch and fear mongering, without addressing the real problem ya'alls emission schemes are just a fancy con game where some get richer, most get poorer and the problem still persists.

Please I have a CNS degree and manage my own website, carbonbrief chose to hide their identity like the car salesman wearing a mask. So again I ask would you buy a car from a dealership where everyone was wearing masks? A simple yes or no will do.

No you're getting it wrong, Trees are carbon sinks. They absorb CO2 and emit O2. Cutting them down reduces the amount of CO2 they absorb and the CO2 they absorb is reintroduced to the atmosphere. I am advocating a deforestation tax.

 

They aren't hiding their identity. All of their contact information is right there on their website. They publish the names of their editors as well as their phone number and mailing address. What is it that you think they are hiding?

Yes. I understand all of that. I'm not suggesting that mitigating deforestation is a bad thing. I'm just saying that if you're doing it in hopes of reducing carbon emissions the overwhelming majority of the research says that it's not going to make a very big dent relatively speaking.

 

Sorry, yea it is.

foxnews.com

Registrant Contact
Name: Intellectual Property Department (Fox News)
Organization: Fox News Network, LLC
Mailing Address: c/o Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 10201 W. Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90213 US

https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=foxnews.com

There is a non anonymous news source.

Research by whom? The discredited HADCrut?

 

LOL, seems the truth really does hurt.

 

So you've said many a time. What I'm still missing is some reason to give a damn.

On the contrary, WRT the only prediction that matters, all their track records are identically nonexistent.

I suppose that's one way of characterizing the insistence on calling a spade a spade.

Dunno what that's supposed to mean.

And you somehow imagine that would be a pillar were it not absolute. How very...odd.

Which of course requires you to emphasize the aspect of it that superficially supports your argument even as you ignore all the aspects thereof that contravene it.

If you insist on forfeiting your own credibility, who am I to complain?

 

Alright, if that's the response you want to go with, I'm just putting you on ignore.

 

If that's your solution to receiving the Truth, then its your loss, and it affects me not a wit.

 

The global mean temperature is the defining metric of AGW.

 

The North Pole just surged above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists
....and returned to normal shortly thereafter. The warmest day we have seen in our back yard this year occurred in Mid February. It hasn't reached that level since.

 

But deforestation only accounts for 10% of the world's greenhoise gas emissions.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...al-warming-carbon-emissions.html#.W0U0Jp8pA0M

 

Yeah, that's why trying to solve the carbon budget problem by focusing solely on deforestation isn't going to make a very big dent in the grand scheme of things.

 

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All this makes my ideas on deliberately turning deserts green on a massive scale.... all the more relevant.........

Should Sorek 2 be in Australia or California?

 

I am fifty nine years old and I am wide open to the possibility that I could well live to see ocean levels rise by at least one foot...... .if not one meter.... and thus I am trying my best to put that possibility and how best to address it in front of local political leaders.


M. P. Bill Casey... President Trump has a 4.3 trillion dollar problem....

www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/

Carl Cantrell.

 

My very simple advice to you Dennis is to move inland. There is no 'Solution" to rising ocean levels but preparation and elimination of risk. The Bay of Fundy will not be effected any more that other coastlines beyond the effects of a rising ocean level and storm damages. The shape causes the enormous tidal changes and will not be changed by anything except erosion and that will take thousands of years.

 

I actually am quite safe..... but the road that I travel on could soon be affected....... (and arguable already was earlier in 2018 .......
but if you watch this video you will understand my concerns for the people of Truro more clearly..........

If... the difference from low tide to high tide near where I live is one meter.......

and if the difference from low tide to high tide near Truro is fifteen meters........
why wouldn't a rise of one foot in average oceans levels...........
produce high tide levels twice daily that could be up by nearly fifteen feet near Truro, N. S., Canada???????



I think that this is simple physics... the behavior of a liquid within a container.... . but the inertia of all that water..... could remind us of how the sea walls in Japan...... could not stop the water of the Tsunami.

 

Physics indicate the tide will rise at the level of the ocean and Fundy (for the most part) will not be overly effected beyond terrain. This is basic mathematics and volume calculations. There may be localized sections where terrain amplifies but not in general.

 

Models show trends, and the new facts only give more support to the Global Warming trend. You're wasting valuable time resisting the truth of Global Warming. Wait too long and it could be beyond anyone's ability to stop. Would that make you happy?

 

even a meter isn't much when the coast has vertical cliff faces or rocky hills rising from the sea...where it'll be felt most is gently sloping shorelines, river deltas, coastal marshes with easily erodible soils, in those areas a meter will be devastating

 

It also means extreme events start out with a higher baseline level. Superstorm Sandy would have been even worse if the sea level were already 1 meter higher before the storm even approached.