Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

I know there are those who dispute the temperature recordings of the last 12 months but we are seeing the effects of higher temperatures we don’t really need thermometers

https://www.climatecentral.org/clim...ail&utm_term=0_b27a691814-e37f5c5e4b-51847612

In the full report https://www.climatecentral.org/report/the-hottest-12-month-stretch-in-recorded-history-2023. It states that this coming year is predicted to be even hotter as the El Niño kicks in. I live in Australia we are bracing for a record fire season and preparing for the worst. The real concern though will be Asia where there is little to no air conditioning and even though most are adapted for heat this may cause an increase in heat related deaths

 

Hmmm.......

"Our Attribution Science and Climate Fingerprints program uses statistical methods to quantify whether and to what extent human-caused climate change altered the likelihood of specific weather events."

Another NGO dedicated to creative horror stories to raise money. Probably quite a bit of money.

Just can't bring myself to care.

 

The ice caps were supposed to be melted and all the coastal cities underwater by now. Guess what didn't happen....

 

Australia is 99% desert, so that seems par for the course. What did you expect?

 

Well, that would have harshed the Obama's mansions on the beach buzz. Can't have that.

 

Fun Fact: Australia is mostly uninhabitable, climate change or not. 99% of the population lives in 5 coastal cities. There are more people in the state of Texas than the entire continent of Australia...

 

Are you suggesting that Earth heats in Australia, but not in other places - that somehow Australia has a different relationship with the sun, Earth's atmosphere, etc.?

Or, are you just suggesting that Australia is expendable?

 

Site the prediction you are referencing.

 

Well, I hate to tell you but science makes extensive use of math!! Weather analysis uses super computers to carry out the modeling they depend upon, because anything less isn't good enough.

Do you really think there is ANY branch of science that doesn't use statistical methods? Stock market? Economics? Insurance? Healthcare? ... Anything??

 

Wow, I guess all those statistics have raised the accuracy of weather forecasts to almost 30%. Yeah, you got me there.

And of course statistics are used in all kinds of technical fields, particularly if you can keep the number of degrees of freedom down so you don't create other problems with false positives. Heck, in automotive we use modeling to evaluate different cylinder designs or body aerodynamics so we cut down on the number of test bucks that need to be built for actual testing.

See, we're required to get certification from the EPA every year to be allowed to sell our vehicles. That requires building real, fully functional parts and vehicles and running them for 120,000 miles to make absolutely sure our emissions systems work for the long term.

Any idiot that walked into EPA offices and said, "don't worry, we've run millions of computer models so we're sure we meet all the emissions standards. You can just give us our certificates" would be laughed out of the building.

And then he would be told to go do the actual hardware testing and don't ever waste our time ever again.

It's why hypothesis' are tested empirically. Modeling, while useful, doesn't prove anything. In automotive engineering or climate change.

Oh, and the reference to economics is hilarious.

 

There are warming streaks and cooling streaks. That has always been the case. On average the global temperature has increased 1 degree C over the past 100 years. Global warming is real but trivial.

 

There is no "global temperature data" (none that's accurate within any meaningful margin of error per statistical mathematics, anyway). It's all a farce.

 

There are more people who live in Madison, Wisconsin than who live in the entire Northern Territory of Australia... and Wisconsin isn't exactly a populous State.

 

Reading comprehension goes a long way.

He suggested that Australia is basically a vast desert in which the vast majority of people have settled along a handful of coastal cities. Very few people have settled inland. There's a reason for that.

Idk how you managed to get "expendable" out of a discussion solely about the prevailing climate that exists throughout much of Australia......

 

Why do you care? You outright deny mathematics, remember?

 

Made up numbers. There is no feasible method of measuring Earth's temperature to any useable/meaningful accuracy.

Global Warming is a made up religion meant to fool people (for political purposes) who aren't well versed in logic, science, and/or mathematics... especially science.

You say "Earth's temperature is increasing". I must ask: Where is the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature coming from (assuming constant output from the Sun)? Is it being magically created out of nothing? Is it a "miracle"?

 

Additional heat from the Sun, etc., is not necessary.

Scientists point out that changing the balance between arriving and departing heat is all that is necessary to warm Earth.

They point out that the increase in CO2, methane, etc. is allowing solar radiation to reach Earth, but that it is slowing the departure of heat to space - changing that balance.

 

Error #1: 'heat' and 'thermal energy' are not interchangeable terms. Learn what they mean.

Error #2: Yes, you most certainly DO need additional thermal energy in order to increase the temperature of something. Do you know what temperature IS?

Who, exactly?

There is no such thing as "heat balance". Heat is a flow, not a balance. Learn what heat is.

Note: The redistributing of Earth's EXISTING thermal energy does nothing to add any ADDITIONAL thermal energy to Earth.

Who is "they"? Reference who you are supposedly talking about.

... all made up numbers. It is not possible to measure the global content of CO2, methane, etc to any meaningful accuracy.

Continued misuse of the word 'heat'. Heat is a flow, not a balance.

Here, you are appealing to what I'll call argument '2b' of "The Endless Cycle".

- 2b. greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a big, warm, cumfy wool blanket that cradles the earth in Global Warming. This cumfy blanket is totally transparent/non-existent to inbound solar energy, but then "traps" some of earth's "heat" by preventing earth's radiance (thermal radiation) from escaping into space. This causes a direct increase in the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

... when it is pointed out that point 2b is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, because radiance and temperature always move in the same direction, i.e. you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance, the preacher backpedals from 2b with the words "no one is claiming that radiance is being decreased ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2c, as such:

- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.

... when it is pointed out that point 2c is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the much warmer lithosphere cannot be heated by the much cooler atmosphere, the preacher backpedals from 2c with the words "no one is claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow warming the earth ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2a, as such:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... and the cycle continues forever.

 

No, slowing heat from leaving Earth means Earth will be warmer.

 

According to the global warmists it arises from greenhouse effect. Heat that would otherwise dissipate in the atmosphere is held down. Measuring temperature is trivial. Anyone can do it. There is no doubt that there is some warming. There is also no doubt that it is trivial.

 

Here, besides your poor wording, you are denying the Stefan Boltzmann Law. The law is as follows:

[Radiance] = [Temperature^4] * [Boltzmann Constant] * [Emissivity Constant]

Since the other two values on the right side of the equation are constants, the only values that can change are [Radiance] and [Temperature^4].

[Radiance] is about the energy that is leaving Earth, and you're attempting to lower that amount via "trapped heat" or "slowed heat" or whatever incorrect language you wish to use to describe a scenario in which "less thermal energy is leaving Earth".

Anyway, according to the equation, less radiance would actually result in a correspondingly lower temperature...

Your religion denies physics, dude.

 

Yup, "greenhouse effect" is the religious dogma relating to their physics defying 'miracles'. If they would simply be honest about their religion being a religion and their miracles being miracles, then I wouldn't even bother with responding about science... I'd just let them have their religion and their miracles within it.

In fact, I'm a Christian, so I totally get it... Christianity is one religion that I believe in, and there are a number of beliefs within it that run counter to physics, so those beliefs are simply passed off as 'miracles'. BUT, unlike myself, the global warmists wish to pretend that their religion is science. That's where I have to step in and correct them, and remind them of the physics that their religion is denying (Namely the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but also the 2nd LOT, the Stefan Boltzmann Law, and a number of others depending on how dedicated they are to keeping up with their false pretense that their religion is somehow science).

This is their 'miracle' of "trapped heat" (Earth's radiation has decreased) which violates the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

... for a specific location at a specific moment of time, and there's also the tolerance of the thermometer that can't be ignored. That's just for one specific locality, not for the whole Earth. For the whole Earth, it gets MUCH more complicated, and MUCH more is required in order to even yield any sort of usably accurate result to any usable margin of error... to the tune of maybe a billion thermometers or so.

... which means that there is "no doubt" some additional thermal energy that is coming from somewhere. Assuming constant output from the Sun, where is this additional thermal energy coming from?

Assuming constant output from the Sun, it's LESS than trivial... it's not happening at all.

 

Apparently they can measure temperature from satellites so getting a global average is trivial with that technology. Incidentally it shows that there has been zero increase in global temperature over the past 8 years. I saw post claiming that 2023 is the hottest year in recorded history. Not sure how that applies to satellite measurements. Probably no application at all. Temps increase and decrease and stay the same on average for the most part. It is a curious religion that has swept the planet for some reason. Actually I do know the reason. As usual it is about power and money. Now if we could just clear up the confusion about gender. Not much power and money involved in that.

 

Follow the science.
New Study: 90% Of Recent Warming Is From Shortwave Cloud Forcing…Humans Contributed 0.03°C
By Kenneth Richard on 8. May 2023

Share this...
Data analysis again reveals the increase in absorbed shortwave forcing has been driving modern climate change since the 1970s. CO2 changes are more of an effect than a cause of temperature increases.
Scientists have for years been pointing to the causality sequencing problem inherent in the claim that CO2 is the driver of temperature changes.

The sequencing observation clearly supports the conclusion that variations in the CO2 growth rate lag changes in temperatures by about 4-10 months (Humlum et al., 2013, Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz, 2020, Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022). Effects can only lag – not lead – causes.

Wang et al. (2013) further estimate only 10% of the variance in global CO2 growth rates can be explained by fossil fuel emissions. Instead, there is a “strong and persistent coupling (r² ≈ 0.50) between interannual variations of the CO2 growth rate and tropical land-surface temperature during 1959-2011.”

Image Source: Wang et al., 2013
Building on this temperature→CO2 directional causality, Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi (2023), Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, have used existing CO2 and temperature data to calculate an 83 ppm CO2 increase associated with a 1°C surface temperature increase. The authors suggest this 83 ppm/°C value is consistent with Henry’s Law and CO2 residence time calculations.

Kauppinen and Malmi further assess the warming in recent decades has been predominantly (90%) driven by the increase in absorbed solar radiation due to the downward trend in cloud cover.

The greenhouse effect has contributed just 10% to the warming trend, and the human contribution to the CO2 concentration changes is only a fraction (hundredths of a degree) of that 10% impact – about 0.03°C since 1980.

Thus, not only is the “causality used in IPCC reports wrong,” but “the greenhouse effect cannot explain climate change.”

“Since 1970, according to the observations, the changes of the low cloud cover have caused practically the observed temperature changes. The low cloud cover has gradually decreased starting in 1975. The human contribution was about 0.01°C in 1980 and now it is close 0.03°C.”


Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2023

 

Claims of heating are accompanied by closing down scientific inquiry.
Physicists: CO2 Only Affects 10% Of IR In 3% Of The Troposphere
By Kenneth Richard on 19. October 2023

Share this...
There are many scientifically invalid assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that the editors of a journal, Earth System Dynamics (ESD), now insist they will never again allow to be subjected to critical analysis in future publications, as the editors of this journal are committed to only publishing studies agreeing with the “consensus.”
In a editorial comment published in the MDPI journal Entropy responding to an editorial written by the editors of ESD, two Portuguese scientists (Khmelinskii and Woodcock, 2023) identify at least 8 assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that lack scientific validation. Despite the lack of observational evidence supporting their viewpoints, proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis prefer to dismiss and ignore challenges to what they believe is the “consensus” – the opposite of what the scientific method requires.

For brevity’s sake, only a few of the challenges are summarized below.

• CO2 can only absorb 10% of all radiation in the specific IR bands CO2 affects. CO2 “absorbs absolutely nothing at all other IR wavelengths.” Thus, CO2 has no effect on IR in 90% of absorption bands.

• CO2 can only absorb IR in the top 300 m, or 0.3 km, of the surface-troposphere, which is 10 km thick. Thus, CO2 can only affect 10% of the IR in 3% of the surface-troposphere, where climate change occurs.

• Because of its vanishingly small effects, doubling CO2 concentrations could only lead to a 0.015°C surface temperature change, at most. Understatedly, “this effect would not even be measurable.”

• Uncertainty in the Earth’s radiation balance is ±17 W/m². The estimated radiation imbalance is 0.6 W/m², which is “orders of magnitude” smaller than the uncertainty in its derivation. Thus, the “global balance of energy fluxes…cannot be derived from measured fluxes“… and this “profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

The editors at ESD do not view observational uncertainty – or questions regarding the magnitude of CO2’s effects – as worthy of critical analysis.



Image Source: Khmelinskii and Woodcock, 2023