Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen Global Warming

Here are the links for the UAH dataset which is produced by an AGW skeptic.

Lower Troposphere: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
Middle Troposhere: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0beta5.txt
Stratosphere: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0beta5.txt

 

The earth is always warming/cooling. This is a coin flip.

They always do regardless of reason so not even a coin flip it's a given.

Unrelated to AGW. Stratospheric cooling is a well known effect of extra CO2 in the stratosphere that has nothing to do with AGW.

They also predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decline as well but that hasn't happened.

But again this isn't proof of AGW. It's just proof of warming. Again we are back to the initial coin flip.

You are basically taking a victory lap over heads or tails.

 

Did I say Mid/Lower? Did I not say tropopause.

But even looking at that data it's clearly backwards the LT should follow the MT not the other way around. Surface warming is an after effect of what is happening at the troposphere tropopause boundary.

 

Yes, you did. My mistake.

It shows what AGW predicts. AGW does not posit that the heating will be top down. It posits that the vertical temperature gradient will increase with a warmer on the bottom and cooler at the top configuration. Who is saying it should be the other way around?

 

No that is not what it postulates. CO2 is saturated at the surface. It is due to spectral broadening in the upper atmosphere that CO2 is able to have any significant warming effect.

 

That's a denier hypothesis. And the prediction is failing. It's failing so bad in this case that they can't even get the orientation of the vertical temperature gradient correct.

 

And you fall off the deep end.

What the he'll are you talking about temperature gradient? AGW won't create an inversion. I said the upper atmosphere will warm faster and first not that it would become warmer. We are taking 10ths of a degree here.

The picture I just posted is from the IPCC AR4.

 

One thing we can confidently predict is that human CO2 emissions will continue at least at current levels and likely higher for many years to come. All of the trillions of dollars that have been spent globally on wind and solar have not brought down CO2 emission levels. They continue to rise. What we can't predict is what effect this will have on future climate. The media and a few scientists are pushing catastrophic climate change, but this is pure fear mongering. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we will simply adapt as needed to whatever changes occur.

 

guess you missed the part about tbat creating thousands and thousands of jobs....here...in the U.S.

 

And yet, you cannot. Because you cannot actually provide the consumption equation that otherwise explains both the acceleration of natural CO2 production at the same time and differentiate that outcome from the additional <3% of over all CO2 production that man produces to the equation. Cannot. So asserting that you can simply defies the science method you say you're wedded to. So, it that an indication that there is more than just the science to your assertion? I'd say, yes.

Just pointing it out, again. The IPCC believes that .15C per decade is well within the expectation of what "natural" conditions could produce. Why not you?

And, just my two cents, but I don't know anyone who you claim is a "denier" that also claims that "cooling is just around the corner". What has been said, repeatedly, is that the factors the are associable to the matrix of causalities inferred by AGW don't take into account those physical factors, like Solar output variation, cosmic ray interactions, or orbital vacillation that impact the amount of energy to begin with. So, the "earth continues to warm" as you say. Again, so what? Why hyperventilate at all about it?

 

Are you a denier of history or science. Perhaps since you seem to think you are so informed please show me a single time in history when the climate was not undergoing one change or another. And before you use the word unprecedented I will remind you that there have been at least 25 abrupt climate shifts documented in the last 100,000 years.

Just me but I like warm weather, there is a reason more people live in temperate and tropical climates than in the artic

 

Neither I nor climate scientists deny that the climate changes and has done so in the past quite happily without human involvement.

Yeah, me too. Though, I do like a good snowstorm from time to time.

 

AGW posits that the warming will occur bottom up. Deniers claim that it will warm top down. Observations confirm that AGW is correct and deniers are wrong.

Yes, some models (but not all) did predict that the middle to upper troposphere will warm faster than the lower part in tropical regions. That chart is from Santer's research in 2000. He actually has a pretty good update to this line of research here published in 2017. Based on improvements in understanding the difference in modeled-vs-actual has diminished considerably. However, differences still remain. Clearly this is one problem that still needs to be resolved. But, note that this does not refute AGW. It does however suggest that our modeling isn't perfect. But, we already know that because it overestimates warming in general and underestimates the Arctic sea ice melt rates plus a bunch of other problems.

 

then why the hide the decline hockey stick trick which was crafted to eliminate the medieval warm period and Maunder Minimum

 

I don't know. I don't have much love for Mann. He claimed to have won a Nobel Prize when no such thing happened. So I'd like nothing more than to see him disgraced. However, the irony is that since Mann's infamous hockey stick there have been dozens of reconstructions of the preindustrial temperature record some of which were specifically commissioned to refute Mann's work and they overwhelmingly confirmed it...more or less anyway.

Honestly, I just don't know a lot about the temperature reconstruction before the industrial revolution. I guess I should probably educate myself.

 

here are 60 recent peer reviewed papers that do not use Mann's trick and affirm that we are currently coming out of a cooling period

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/22/...ecedented-or-remarkable/#sthash.bRio3Due.dpbs

 

Sure, like you understand it any better than he does. The only reason the complexities don't hurt your brain is that you appreciate their utility in bamboozling the masses into acceptance of government by star chamber.

I can hardly answer for a theoretical politician, but as for AGW, no such thing exists - and I doubt there are even any climatologists who claim otherwise.

Taking the phrase at face value, the very idea is just stupid. "99% of science" doesn't say anything, because science is about knowledge, and that's an all or nothing deal. If you mean to say 99% (or, for that matter 100%) of scientists asserting this or that makes it real, only the comically credulous believe that.