CO2 forcing is a logarithmic function. There is not a 1 to 1 correspondence of CO2 concentration and heat trapping.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No one is suggesting there is. Climate sensitivity is based on a doubling of CO2. But just because the effect from 300 => 310 is greater than the effect from 400 => 410 doesn't mean going to 410 from 400 is harmless.
Where is the ERSSTv5 data that matches the ovservations on Spencers graph? I'm honestly just curious as to where those numbers came from
Weird how they all have the same upward slope since ~1980 except his...
Why can't you find ERSSTv5 data the actually matches Spencers overlay of ERSSTv5 data?
I guess the only way to 'prove their point' is to use fake data. That was a fun video where Dr. Spencer admitted to warming after claiming it was cooling. My guess is that NASA was going to revoke his award if he did not come clean. LOL
Because I know Spencer didn't falsify the sea surface temperature data set. If you believe he did, go on his web page and try to expose him for the fraud you think he is and get him fired from UAH. But you won't do that because a bunch of scientists will blow you out of the water if you tried. They would make you look stupid, and you don't want that to happen to you. You are the one making the slanderous claim against Spencer. Let's see how much substance you have in making the claim. I know what the substance is - a null set.Why can't you find ERSSTv5 data the actually matches Spencers overlay of ERSSTv5 data?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Good to know... so where is it? If there's a ERSSTv5 I just want to know what it is... and why did they give it the exact same name as the other ERSSTv5? Is that just a really common name for data? Like the data version of 'John'?
You need your eyes examined. There is a 0.6C rise from 1980 through 2016 on the graph you are bitching about.No one is suggesting there is. Climate sensitivity is based on a doubling of CO2. But just because the effect from 300 => 310 is greater than the effect from 400 => 410 doesn't mean going to 410 from 400 is harmless.
Where is the ERSSTv5 data that matches the ovservations on Spencers graph? I'm honestly just curious as to where those numbers came from
Weird how they all have the same upward slope since ~1980 except his...
View attachment 658064
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Really? You think all these graphs are of the same data? REALLY? Probably 5/6 are... def not 6/6. Let's play a game... which one doesn't match...
Pro-Tip: If there's a SUPER-ovvious typo in the title.... you should probably look for data somewhere else
Last edited:
Greenland has shown a considerable recovery from the 2011-2012 melt season.
The surface mass balance of Greenland is running along normal. It was slightly below normal during the 2020 summer melt season.
All show a 0.6C rise from 1980 through 2016. So what is your goofy point again?Really? You think all these graphs are of the same data? REALLY? Probably 5/6 are... def not 6/6. Let's play a game... which one doesn't match...
Pro-Tip: If there's a SUPER-ovvious typo in the title.... you should probably look for data somewhere else
View attachment 658075
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Did you skip the day where they taught 'line of best fit'? A spike to 0.6C is not the same as trending toward 0.8C in 2020 as all but one graph does. Still no sign of whatever 'ERSSTv5 ovservation' data Spencer was using?
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
What in the heck makes you call that dying? Greenland has plenty of ice!
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
This is from the Polar Portal 2020 Season Report -
"At the end of the season (31 August 2020), the surface mass balance’s net result was 349 Gt. This is very close to the 1981- 2020 average, which is 341 Gt. As a point of reference, the lowest calculated SMB was just 38 Gt in 2012."
Yes, the Greenland ice sheet was melting at a relatively fast pace a decade ago. It is now going back to normal.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? It's still losing Ice and 2019 was a record melt beating 2012... how exactly is that 'going back to normal'???
Another thing. your favored 5 graphs all end before 2020. Spencer's goes into 2021, showing the recent cooling. Apparently, that is the part that pisses you off.Really? You think all these graphs are of the same data? REALLY? Probably 5/6 are... def not 6/6. Let's play a game... which one doesn't match...
Pro-Tip: If there's a SUPER-ovvious typo in the title.... you should probably look for data somewhere else
View attachment 658075
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... another data point that doesn't match reality...
2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows
The most recent ERSSTv5 was published in ~2018... so.... how DOES his graph go past available data? So for the third time.... still no sign of exactly what data Spencer was using? Is there a newer ERSSTv5 that's not listed? Where?
Last edited:
2019 did NOT beat 2012. The total mass balance in 2012 was around -460 Gt. In 2019, -320 Gt. In 2020, the TMB was -150 Gt. TMB also factors in calving - glacial ice flowing in the Atlantic Ocean.
See page 4.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Going with JPL on this one...
Study: 2019 Sees Record Loss of Greenland Ice
But... does it really matter if 2019 was the worst or slightly better than the worst year??? The trend could not be more clear....
Similar threads
- Article
