[MallowTheCloud]

Unsurprisingly, the satellite-based near-surface extreme warmth this year, thanks in large part to ENSO, has been on the wane. The MEI has been falling since the Jan/Feb peak, and though the lag would have suggested cooler global temperatures should have started in earnest a couple months ago, it appears we may now be finally seeing the impacts of the lower ENSO state.

We're still higher than any year back to at least 1999 at this point, but we're now right near the highest previous value instead of well above it.

 globaltemps.png (1.53MB)
Number of downloads: 14

[wednesday's_wx]

Could you perhaps expand a bit regarding your thinking here above.


I'm not finding myself able to clue onto some of the ideas that you've pointed to.

[MallowTheCloud]

wednesday, on 30 July 2010 - 10:32 AM, said:

Could you perhaps expand a bit regarding your thinking here above.

I'm not finding myself able to clue onto some of the ideas that you've pointed to.

What in particular are you confused about?

[snow_wizard]

If this year doesn't beat 1998 that is going to be a real problem for people who think we will warm 7 degrees over the next century. To do that we would have to be setting new global records at least every other year. This will be 12 years and counting if it doesn't top that year. Given the strength of the Nina now I think 1998 will stand.

[MallowTheCloud]

snow_wizard, on 30 July 2010 - 11:08 AM, said:

If this year doesn't beat 1998 that is going to be a real problem for people who think we will warm 7 degrees over the next century. To do that we would have to be setting new global records at least every other year. This will be 12 years and counting if it doesn't top that year. Given the strength of the Nina now I think 1998 will stand.

1998 may stand (though it will be close).

But we certainly would not have to beat records "at least every other year" to warm 7 degrees (celsius or fahrenheit?) over 100 years. That's an average of 0.07 degrees per year, and year-to-year global temperature variability is MUCH higher than that.

[wednesday's_wx]

.. Guess I'm just looking to appreciate your reasoning regarding each of the main ideas that you've pointed to, more generally.

[snow_wizard]

MallowTheCloud, on 30 July 2010 - 07:16 PM, said:

1998 may stand (though it will be close).

But we certainly would not have to beat records "at least every other year" to warm 7 degrees (celsius or fahrenheit?) over 100 years. That's an average of 0.07 degrees per year, and year-to-year global temperature variability is MUCH higher than that.

I happen to think people would have to be out of their minds to believe it could possibly warm 7 degrees that fast anyway. If we are lucky we have warmed about 1 over the last 100. It just makes no sense that anyone could believe 7 degrees. I doubt if you do either.

[MallowTheCloud]

wednesday, on 30 July 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

.. Guess I'm just looking to appreciate your reasoning regarding each of the main ideas that you've pointed to, more generally.

I'm just confused, because I didn't really make any claims or express any ideas. I just stated what's occurring.

snow_wizard, on 30 July 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

I happen to think people would have to be out of their minds to believe it could possibly warm 7 degrees that fast anyway. If we are lucky we have warmed about 1 over the last 100. It just makes no sense that anyone could believe 7 degrees. I doubt if you do either.

Fahrenheit, or Celsius? I think it's extremely unlikely we'd warm 7°C in the next 100 years. 7°F is more reasonable, though... but I'd guess closer to 2.5°C (4.5°F)

[snow_wizard]

MallowTheCloud, on 30 July 2010 - 07:30 PM, said:

I'm just confused, because I didn't really make any claims or express any ideas. I just stated what's occurring.




Fahrenheit, or Celsius? I think it's extremely unlikely we'd warm 7°C in the next 100 years. 7°F is more reasonable, though...

I can't remember, but I think it was MIT that said that. Even 7F sounds impossible to me. The warming would have to accelerate FAR beyond anything seen so far. I think the solar grand maximum was responsible for much of the 20th century warming anyway. There is far too much we don't know about natural cycles. As I have said a million times the Earth managed to go from ice age cold to modern era type warmth all by itself many times. People like Al Gore just don't get that fact.

[MallowTheCloud]

snow_wizard, on 30 July 2010 - 11:35 AM, said:

I can't remember, but I think it was MIT that said that. Even 7F sounds impossible to me. The warming would have to accelerate FAR beyond anything seen so far. I think the solar grand maximum was responsible for much of the 20th century warming anyway. There is far too much we don't know about natural cycles. As I have said a million times the Earth managed to go from ice age cold to modern era type warmth all by itself many times. People like Al Gore just don't get that fact.

7°F doesn't sound impossible to me. Unreasonable, maybe, but not impossible.

The ice-age-to-warm-period is thought to be understood as part of a cyclical change in orbital parameters of Earth, so it's kind of hard to compare that to the modern, relatively short-period "rapid" warming. Besides, physically speaking, increased CO2 concentrations must necessarily warm the Earth's surface.

[wednesday's_wx]

.. Perhaps a more expanded version of what's occurring, or has occurred, is more what I'm looking for then.

I apologize. I'm just trying to see a bit more into your thinking connected to what you've pointed to.

[MallowTheCloud]

richard583, on 30 July 2010 - 11:41 AM, said:

.. Perhaps a more expanded version of what's occurring, or has occurred, is more what I'm looking for then.

I apologize. I'm just trying to see a bit more into your thinking connected to what you've pointed to.

Richard...

I don't know what to say. You'll have to be more specific...

[snow_wizard]

MallowTheCloud, on 30 July 2010 - 07:41 PM, said:

7°F doesn't sound impossible to me. Unreasonable, maybe, but not impossible.

The ice-age-to-warm-period is thought to be understood as part of a cyclical change in orbital parameters of Earth, so it's kind of hard to compare that to the modern, relatively short-period "rapid" warming. Besides, physically speaking, increased CO2 concentrations must necessarily warm the Earth's surface.

Unless the Earth has a natural mechanism to counteract the increaed CO2. That is far from impossible. I have seen studies that indicate the atmosphere had 1000 times more CO2 millions of years ago that it has now and yet it was never more than 10F warmer than it is now. That makes the very slight increase in CO2 percentage seen in the modern era seem pretty unimpressive.

[richard583]

-

.. Perhaps .. "elaborate", would have been a better word, from the outset ..


You've pointed to some ideas, either whether generally appreciated - per what you've said /- at some level, .. these along together with your also having included some of your own thinking, more general, connected to them.

What I'd been hoping to appreciate (and would be interested in hearing, still at this point) was perhaps a slightly more detailed version of what you've pointed to, together with suggested additionally.

This, with your perhaps expanding with respect to, both, the main development having taken place, along together with also perhaps, your own reasoning, more specific, related, where suggested.

Hope this is more clear.
-

[MallowTheCloud]

snow_wizard, on 30 July 2010 - 11:46 AM, said:

Unless the Earth has a natural mechanism to counteract the increaed CO2. That is far from impossible. I have seen studies that indicate the atmosphere had 1000 times more CO2 millions of years ago that it has now and yet it was never more than 10F warmer than it is now. That makes the very slight increase in CO2 percentage seen in the modern era seem pretty unimpressive.

There has never been a time when atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Earth was 1000 times higher than it is today. More like 20 times higher 500 million years ago, but the direct comparison is invalid, because there was a much weaker sun and a very different orientation of landmasses. And global temperatures were, as you said, generally about 10-12F higher... but that (and the CO2 estimate) is a very rough, very long-term average (like... a 100,000 year average).

If you mean to say that the Earth has a natural mechanism to counteract the warming induced by CO2, then the mechanism would have to counteract all types of warming, since the warming due to CO2 is no different from warming by most other means (it makes the globe warmer). And since the Earth has warmed in the past, there's no reason to believe it can't warm now. If you mean that the Earth has a natural mechanism to counteract the increased concentration of CO2, we know that can't be the case on any relevant scale since CO2 is still on the rise.

[MallowTheCloud]

richard583, on 30 July 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

-

.. Perhaps .. "elaborate", would have been a better word, from the outset ..


You've pointed to some ideas, either whether generally appreciated - per what you've said /- at some level, .. these along together with your also having included some of your own thinking, more general, connected to them.

What I'd been hoping to appreciate (and would be interested in hearing, still at this point) was perhaps a slightly more detailed version of what you've pointed to, together with suggested additionally.

This, with your perhaps expanding with respect to, both, the main development having taken place, along together with also perhaps, your own reasoning, more specific, related, where suggested.

Hope this is more clear.
-

Crystal.

[richard583]

-

And, so. (?)

[MallowTheCloud]

richard583, on 30 July 2010 - 12:17 PM, said:

-

And, so. (?)

I think the angle of the cold should induce probabilities such that Americans with maps might perceive a large polarizing filter upon the Occidental horizon. This could rapidly distinguish the verdant juxtaposition of the up quarks, leading to a large-scale all-out global fiasco the likes of which we've not seen since the great happening of 2017.

[richard583]

-

Apparently. ?


Sorry to have been a bother.

http://discover.itsc....edu/amsutemps/

[Jesse]

richard583, on 30 July 2010 - 12:26 PM, said:

-

Apparently. ?


Sorry to have been a bother.

http://discover.itsc....edu/amsutemps/

You know posting under two different profiles is grounds for banning, right?