Warmists have been fearmongering that warming will be speeding up SOON for decades, even during warming pauses
Is climate change speeding up? Here’s what the science says.
For the past several years, a small group of scientists has warned that sometime early this century, the rate of global warming — which has remained largely steady for decades — might accelerate. Temperatures could rise higher, faster. The drumbeat of weather disasters may become more insistent.
And now, after what is poised to be the hottest year in recorded history, the same experts believe that it is already happening.
In a paper published last month, climate scientist James E. Hansen and a group of colleagues argued that the pace of global warming is poised to increase by 50 percent in the coming decades, with an accompanying escalation of impacts.
According to the scientists, an increased amount of heat energy trapped within the planet’s system — known as the planet’s “energy imbalance” — will accelerate warming. “If there’s more energy coming in than going out, you get warmer, and if you double that imbalance, you’re going to get warmer faster,” Hansen said in a phone interview.
It’s always sometime in the future, but, they won’t say exactly when. Just in the future. And, what if it doesn’t happen? Who loses their job?
But not everyone agrees. University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann has argued that no acceleration is visible yet: “The truth is bad enough,” he wrote in a blog post. Many other researchers also remain skeptical, saying that while such an increase may be predicted in some climate simulations, they don’t see it clearly in the data from the planet itself. At least not yet.
Well, good on the WP for mentioning that, because the data doesn’t support it, no matter what the climate cultists attempt to do with their computer models.
The Washington Post used a data set from NASA to to analyze global average surface temperatures from 1880 to 2023.
The record shows that the pace of warming clearly sped up around the year 1970. Scientists have long known that this acceleration stems from a steep increase in greenhouse gas emissions, combined with efforts in many countries to reduce the amount of sun-reflecting pollution in the air. But the data is much more uncertain on whether a second acceleration is underway.
The fallacy is using that data period, which ignores the cold temperatures during the Little Ice Age, and failing to mention that the late 40’s through mid-70’s was a period of slight cooling. And the fudged data they use erases that cooling period along with the long pause. Nor does it note that there have been multiple periods during the Modern Warm Period, starting in 1850, where there was warming, followed by plateaus/pauses. What caused this back when CO2 was under the “safe” level of 350ppm?
Thought those assholes at the WaPo went on strike.
#Trump2024
Bwaha! Lolgf
The Little Ice was in fact little.
It affected primarily the North Atlantic region which is a relatively small portion of the Earth. The same people who give importance to this area where Europeans live also probably look at a map and think Greenland is almost as big as Africa when in fact it is really only about 1/7th the size
The global temps averaged about , 5C cooler with the North Atlantic area being 2C cooler (which sme people , but not me, might term “miniscule” the global temp changes during the Little Ice Age were no where near as dramatic as the temp changes that have occured during the lifetime of Teach
Look at the graph on Wiki on the page Little Ice Age. It will show the recent changes are at least 209% larger than during the Little Ice Age. And yesctgstcrate of change I’d increasing
Johnny-you forgot it also says “The LIA can be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere.”
H
It affected primarily the North Atlantic region
“Scientists have tentatively identified seven possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows,[139] fluctuations in the human population in different parts of the world causing reforestation or deforestation, and the inherent variability of global climate.”
And the question is….. Why won’t this happen again nullifying “global warming?”
In fact, assuming that we have lowered CO2 to the “desired” level or lower, wouldn’t the lack of warming cause world wide destruction, loss of agriculture leading to starvation, wars, etc.?
Far fetched? Well, we need to look no farther than the wild fires in CA caused by the no cutting rules in “forest management” to see how the Left’s hubris leads to destruction.
And if the cooling of the Little Ice Age was “localized,” why can’t “global warming also be localized reversals by some of the claimed causes of local cooling??
The point is you don’t know. I don’t know and “we” don’t know. What you have is a bunch of “observations” being called “science” and idiots trying to “save” the world. Which means they have to have “control.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#:~:text=Scientists%20have%20tentatively%20identified%20seven,or%20deforestation%2C%20and%20the%20inherent
Here’s another one for you, H
Ocean circulation
Thermohaline circulation or Oceanic conveyor belt illustrated
In the early 2000s, a slowing of thermohaline circulation was proposed as an explanation for the LIA,[61][139][152] specifically, through the weakening of the North Atlantic Gyre.[153][154] The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic and might have been caused by a period of warming before the LIA that is known as the Medieval Warm Period.[41][155][156] Some researchers have thus classified the LIA as a Bond event.[157] In 2005 there was some concern that a shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming.[158][159]
More recent research indicates that the overall Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation may already be weaker now than it was during the LIA,[160][161] or perhaps even over the past millennium.[162] While there is still a robust debate about the present-day AMOC strength,[163][164][165] these findings make the link between AMOC and the LIA unlikely. However, some research instead suggests that a far more localized disruption of the North Subpolar Gyre convection was involved in the LIA.[166] This is potentially relevant for the near future, as a minority of climate models project a permanent collapse of this convection under some scenarios of future climate change.[167][168][169]
IOW, the ice melting causes a cooling.
And you Lefties told us how bad that is back in the 70’s.
What a bunch of assholes.
jl
Mass media told you that the Earth would turn into a snowball, they were the same people who told you that we were winning in Vietnam and Afghanistan for decades.
90% of peer reviewed journals disagreed in the 70s and said we were going to get hotter.
The first American politician to warn up about Climate change from burning fossil fuels was Ronald Reagan a rightwing conservative.
Did you believe him?
James, do you thin k the Earth is warming? Even Teach now admits that, finally. If it is warming what do you think is causing it?
2023 is going down as hottest year EVAAHH
Yes James the ice is melting and slowing down the Gulf Steam. Scientists (and lefties) have been worried about that for some time. It is the Gulf Steam that keeps the UK mostly snow free even though London is located far north of Montreal. In fact much of the UK is located as far north that in Canada they have polar bears.
jl as i have said before the FIRST American politician to warn us about burning fossil fuels was Ronald Reagan, he was a conservative right winger, not a leftie.
h
You gonna blame mass media? REally??
Who in hell do you think is pushing global warming?
Show me a peer reviewed article from the 70’s or admit you are BSing.
And if the Gulf Stream flops cooling will occur. Will it offset any increases?? I don’t know if there will be any increases and neither do you. But if there are the floping of the GS will mediate it? How much??? NOBODY knows.
Listen. Climate changes. It has always changed. Quit trying to destroy civilization to save it.
James Lewis: Show me a peer reviewed article from the 70’s
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, Climate Research Board, National Research Council 1979: “When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes.”
The basic science has been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Nope-that’s the theory. Never been verified. That’s why it “modeled”.
Jl: Nope-that’s the theory. Never been verified.
The question was for a peer reviewed article from the 70s concerning global warming. The question was answered.
As for verification, the evidence strongly supports anthropogenic global warming, including the basic science of heat dynamics: Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the surface to warm.
Yet…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/u-s-surface-temperature/
Bwaha! Lolgfy
Z
Thank you.
“When it is ASSUMED that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts PREDICT a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes.”
Assume. Ass u me
According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments.
I advise you to read Popper.
A theory that cannot be tested cannot be a Scientific Theory. Observational Theories, which is what Man Made Global Warming is, must rely on predictions and associated facts.
I observe that the sun rises in the morning and a cock crows before. From that a theory that the cock crowing is the cause of sun rise is presented.
That prediction is at least as good as all the dire warming predictions. They have all been in error except for the observation that the sun does rise every morning. The sun comes up.
We know why the sun comes up. We know that the earth has warmed and cooled. A variety of theories have been presented. Global tilt, sun spot increases, volcano eruptions but CO2 increases lead the pack. There is nothing man can do to impact global tilt, volcano eruptions and sun spot cycles.
So people who desire to control have latched on to reducing CO2 by stopping the burning of carbon based fuel. That is petroleum. They have seem to have no idea that to replace oil they need devices that currently produce 4 trillion kwhs a year. Government says no more ICE’s yet they have no plan on increasing electricity production beyond build more solar panels and windmills which cannot solve the problem. (A year ago Texas proved that windmills are not a solution.)
So set around and base your plans on unproven theories and do not consider the consequences, unintended mostly. Do not try and figure out ways to mediate any of the forecasted problems. That would be too intelligent and mature. You know, just in case one of your predictions does come true.
James Lewis: Assume.
That’s exactly how science works. A hypothesis is a tentative assumption, which is then tested through observation against its entailments. In this case, the prediction was an increase of 2-3.5°C per doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2. That is consistent with the observed warming. And that is supporting evidence for the hypothesis. If the Earth hadn’t warmed or had cooled instead, it would represent a falsification of the (first-order) hypothesis.
Z
You man made global warmers have presented the theory as a fact with dire consequences with no mediating events or actions. You have backed this up with numerous fictional claims and failed predictions.
Come back when you don’t depend on “models.”
Science???
One black swan amongst the white ones.
James Lewis: You man made global warmers have presented the theory as a fact
You asked for a paper from the 1970s. This was provided. The paper from the National Research Council made specific testable predictions, which were correct in degree and sign. That’s a much stronger argument than “Is not,” or even “IS NOT! ISNOT!”
And do you think I give a shit what a politician says?
James Lewis: Why won’t this happen again nullifying “global warming?”
Well, it certainly could. A giant meteor could slam into the Earth, the debris blocking the Sun for a generation. Or humanity could be wiped out by a virus, ending industrial emissions. The Sun could burp and significantly decrease—or increase—its radiation. A supervolcano could erupt and spew sulfur particulates into the atmosphere. An alien civilization could blast the Earth to make room for a hyperspatial express route. (That’s why you should spend all your money today before that happens.)
James Lewis: In fact, assuming that we have lowered CO2 to the “desired” level or lower, wouldn’t the lack of warming cause world wide destruction, loss of agriculture leading to starvation, wars, etc.?
Humans will be lucky to stabilize CO2 at about double the natural concentration. There is no option at this point to actually reduce the concentration.
James Lewis: no cutting rules in “forest management”
You do realize that’s an argument not to toy with the natural levels of CO2?
James Lewis: And if the cooling of the Little Ice Age was “localized,” why can’t “global warming also be localized reversals by some of the claimed causes of local cooling??
Not quite sure what you are saying here. If the heat of the Earth’s climate system is stable, then cooling in one place will be offset by warming elsewhere, a phenomenon called internal variability. However, if the Sun were to increase its radiation, then the Earth’s entire climate system will warm. Though some areas may cool while others warm, the entire system will have more energy than it would otherwise have had. The mean temperature of the lower and upper atmosphere will increase.
With greenhouse warming, it’s a bit different. The mean temperature of the lower atmosphere increases, but the mean temperature of that upper atmosphere decreases. And that is what is observed.
The Earth’s Temperature
C
https://temperature.global/