George, I really have a hard time figuring out if you just constantly try to build strawmen or are actually going senile before our eyes. Either way, most people understand that global temperature is a result of multiple factors, not just CO2. And with that, other influences can change the temperature, even if there remains a GHG-based forcing that increases the temperature from what it would have been based solely on the other, natural factors.
Let's rewind and go back to another time you've tried to use this simpleton's approach:
So even though there were elements in nature that should have influenced the climate cooler, warm temperatures were still found. What do you think will happen if those factors turn back to normal? It seems that Hansen at least expects new records coming.
What is insufficient is your grasp of science George. And lack of ability to state your case for why the planet can absorb more energy than it emits and that this energy somehow disappears??? Anyone with the most basic understanding of science knows that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - yet for some reason the deniers seem to assume it possible because the implications of such reality might negatively impact coal or oil companies.
Maybe you chose to ignore the information about the deep ocean heating, but finding nearly a third of ocean's heat that was previously not accounted for seems pretty important. That may have thrown off the correlation of land surface temperatures but still represents GHG influence on the global environment and should help refine the models in the future. This would not have been possible without the investment and data collection to support such. Likewise, accounting for variable intake of CO2 by plankton can help revise models as well. The key is to use science and research to explain the world around us and understand the impact of our decisions - instead of acting in complete and utter ignorance.
Let's rewind and go back to another time you've tried to use this simpleton's approach:
Anyway, to respond the the argument that you leaned on several times...
Although apparently you forgot that the "warming had stopped" rebuttal had been mentioned before.
Just like the cherry picking you usually do, using one high data point to focus comparison against while ignoring the large overall trend is misleading. 1998 made it possible to average out a flat line, even if:
And guess wait a couple of years and see if this prediction pans out...
Although apparently you forgot that the "warming had stopped" rebuttal had been mentioned before.
Just like the cherry picking you usually do, using one high data point to focus comparison against while ignoring the large overall trend is misleading. 1998 made it possible to average out a flat line, even if:
"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS Director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."
The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record (2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.
The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.
The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record (2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.
The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.
And guess wait a couple of years and see if this prediction pans out...
Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.
"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."
"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."
What is insufficient is your grasp of science George. And lack of ability to state your case for why the planet can absorb more energy than it emits and that this energy somehow disappears??? Anyone with the most basic understanding of science knows that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - yet for some reason the deniers seem to assume it possible because the implications of such reality might negatively impact coal or oil companies.
Maybe you chose to ignore the information about the deep ocean heating, but finding nearly a third of ocean's heat that was previously not accounted for seems pretty important. That may have thrown off the correlation of land surface temperatures but still represents GHG influence on the global environment and should help refine the models in the future. This would not have been possible without the investment and data collection to support such. Likewise, accounting for variable intake of CO2 by plankton can help revise models as well. The key is to use science and research to explain the world around us and understand the impact of our decisions - instead of acting in complete and utter ignorance.
Comment