Estimated by who, and nho paid them to estimate?
(Granted, in some regions like
As usual fdudeg te data to preserve the narrative
How about the fact that its stopped warmning almost completely since
1997, when urabanization around the weather stations was completed, but CO2 has kept on increassing
It's pretty obvious that temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising and polar ice is melting. The issue is what to do about it, not to waste time bickering over detail in the models and predictions. Deniers are just wasting everyone's time.
No, it is not.
sea levels are
Se levels have been risng for 10,000 years
and polar ice is melting.
EWr no. Actually in antarcica it is currently increaseomd
You dont need to do much about something that isnt happening
Its not obvious at all..
temps have risen by virtually zero in the last 20 years.
sea levels haven't risen by much.
there isn't much less ice, its just in different places.
You don't actually think the videos they show of ice breaking off glaciers is something new do you?
Where do you think the iceberg that sank Titanic in 1912(IIRC) came from?
Dunno perhap[s it was colder then than it is now and the icebergs that would normally be there have melted.
At all times there is ice melting and ice freezing, it's called dynamic equilibrium. Some people believe anything.
Your information is at best misleading, at worst, wrong.
I check the global temperature anomaly* data every month, as published by the Hadley Centre in Exeter, part of our own Met Office, in conjunction with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
For example, loading the Hadley data into EXCEL and doing a least-squares analysis of selected date ranges, and also of the data-set whole as a gives the following:
Between Jan 1850 and Dec 1879, the global temperature increased by
0.0039°C/yr;Between Jan 1880 and Dec 1909, the temperature decreased by
0.0053°C/yr;Between Jan 1910 and Dec 1944 it increased by 0.0142°C/yr;
Between Jan 1945 and Dec 1974 it decreased by 0.0012°C/yr;
Between Jan 1975 and Dec 1999 it increased by 0.019°C/yr,
and from Jan 2000 to Dec 2014 it increased by 0.0031°C/yr.
The overall increase in global temperatures over the period Jan 1850 - Nov 2015 was 0.0049°C/yr, an overall increase of 0.8°C, or about
0.05°C per decade, rather less that the 1°C in total or the 0.1-0.2°C per decade you say.I've not got round to extending the analysis beyond 2015, in part because the massive El Nino event between 2015 and 2016 would grossly distort the underlying trend. In fact the temperature anomalies since that El Nino have pretty much returned to pre - El Nino values.
Over the last 40 years (the time interval you chose), 1978 - 2018, the annual global temperatures anomalies have gone from an average of
-0.062 in 1978 to 0.596°C in 2018, an increase of 0.658°C, near enough to your figure of 0.7°C for me not to quibble.
The average monthly temperature anomaly for 2002 was 0.498°C, an increase of 0.647°C over that 27 year period from 1978, so you can see that a substantial part of the 0.658°C temperature increase above was in the last quarter of the last century.
The average monthly temperature anomaly for 2018 was 0.596°C, while for 2002 it was 0.498°C, an increase of 0.098°C over that period. So since 2002 there has been a dramatic reduction in global temperature increase; not quite flat but very nearly so, and certainly nothing to be worried about, as at 0.006°C/yr (0.06°C/decade) its actually increasing slower than the long-term average, and much slower than the
0.1-0.2°C per decade you say.*note that the temperature anomalies being discussed are the differences between the actual global temperatures and the average temperature over the period 1961 - 1910, generally accepted as 14°C.
That is more arguable:
The videos of receding glaciers are.
When I visited glaciers in Chamonix and at the head of the Rhone in the late 60s very early 70s, there were signs then which pointed out how much the glaciers had receded in the previous 100 years.
where are the videos of the advancing ones?
Are those the ones that are uncovering stumps of 1000 year old trees?
More to the point why do the temperature graphs stop at around 2000 on all these sites? Its not as though the data isn't there or that the sites don't claim to have been produced in 2001, so why?
I can only think of one reason, they are diniers that there is a pause in warming and are being run by alarmists and not scientists.
They want to prove their point by using carefully selected data.
Everything the alarmists accuse others of!
It doesn't work with anyone with a science background, the alarmists will just have to go back to insulting their intelligence to try and discredit them, like they do!
Search me. I was just pointing out that this receding of the glaciers is nothing new.
Temperatures have been rising ever since the end of the last Ice Age, some 11,000 years ago. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, sometimes they go a bit slower, sometimes a bit faster (as they did ~1975 to ~2000), and sometimes they reverse a little and the globe actually cools for a decade or two.
Like the global temperature, sea levels have been rising at a pretty constant rate ever since they've been measured, about 160 years. Traditionally, tidal gauges have been used to measure sea levels, but results can be difficult to interpret because land masses also rise and fall. As a result, since the early 1990's, satellite altimetry has also been used to measure sea levels, and the satellite data suggests an increase in rate of rise over the last thirty years or so compared with before. But the traditional tidal gauges show no such increased rate. IOW, if we didn't have the satellite measurements, no one would be getting alarmed about sea level rise, and all the talk about coastal flooding and coral atolls disappearing wouldn't be happening.
That it's only the satellite data that seems to be seeing the increased rate of sea level rise raises a question about the reliability of that data. Remember they're trying to measure the distance between the ocean surface and the satellite to very close tolerance, and AIUI the orbit of the satellite itself isn't that precise. Maybe it averages out.
There's also a question over the conversion of the time interval between transmitting and receiving the radar signals, into a distance. Although light waves (and radar waves) travel at a very accurately known velocity _in_a_vacuum_, the velocity in air changes very slightly due to changing air humidity, and if the humidity throughout the path of the radar wave isn't known accurately, it's effect can't be correctly allowed for when trying to calculate millimetre distance changes over several miles of altitude. More about sea level rises here:
True, in as much as it has gone through a period of melting, but that seems to have bottomed out now, and evidence is beginning to appear that it may be starting to rise again. Two points: first, one has to distinguish between sea-ice (the stuff that's floating offshore), and land-ice (the stuff that can be thousands of feet thick, that sits high above sea level and on a solid rock foundation). AIUI they do behave a bit differently. Second, the two poles also seem to be behaving differently, so it's not a matter of 'one description fits all'. (AIUI, much of the alarmism about the South Pole ice-cap melting was based on data from the so-called West Antarctic ice sheet, which was later found to be above a magma plume from the earth's core and/or a volcano under the ice sheet in that part of Antarctica
Agreed
But if the models and predictions are wrong, then the efforts to do something about it are misguided.
No they're not. Not many deny that warming is happening slowly and intermittently, and there are changes to our environment as a consequence. But a huge amount of money and effort is being expended on reducing CO2 levels, when really that money and effort should be critically examining exactly what factors are actually changing as a consequence of the temperature rise, rather than all the false alarmism about hurricanes, wild fires, sea levels, ocean acidity, polar bears etc. etc., most of which just aren't true (but politicians and other parties who wish gain by stoking the fires of alarmism continue to emphasise them) and then taking steps to mitigate the effect.
CO2 is just a massive and expensive, time-wasting red herring.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.