Reposted from The Fabius Maximus Blog
Larry Kummer, Editor Climate change, Science & Nature 17 August 2019
Summary: Let’s take a break from political bickering to see how fast the Earth is warming. Just the facts, please.
The world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century. Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII. The core consensus of climate scientists, proven by a bizarre number of studies (pouring more water on a rock doesn’t make it wetter), was clearly stated in the Summary of Policymakers by Working Group I of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.
“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
Alarmists slap the “95% of scientists believe” label on all sorts of claims, many quite delusional. But as somebody said, “God is in the details.” So is science. How fast is the world warming? Journalists eager for clickbait headlines, seldom give us this vital information. Fortunately, in the 21st century this information is easily available at NOAA’s invaluable “Climate At A Glance” website.
Fiddling with the controls tells us the warming rate over different periods of time. Left and Right pick random periods that suit their needs. The most recent month is July 2019.
- 0.08°C/decade (0.14°F) – 1880-2019 – The full instrument record. Of course, the earlier data is much less reliable.
- 0.12°C/decade (0.22°F) – 1918-1950 – The instrument record for the pre-anthro era for those skeptical of global temp. data before WWI.
- 0.14°C/decade (0.25°F) – 1950-2019 – The anthropogenic era, per the finding of the IPCC’s AR5.
- 0.19°C/decade (0.34°F) – 1989-2019 – The past 30 years, the period for climate metrics defined by the World Meteorological Organization.
- 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F) – 1998-2016 – What an economist might use: the warming rate from peak to peak (18 years) of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
Whatever we choose, there are two obvious and incontrovertible conclusions. First, the rate of warming is very slow. It is small compared to natural intra-annual variations and those over decades – and small compared to natural variations over centuries and millennia. This puts a big burden of proof on those saying that we have already seen severe weather changes from anthropogenic warming. So far it has not (a subject for a future post).
Second, the rate of warming has accelerated in the anthro era (i.e., due to us).
The seas are equally important!
The eminent Roger Pielke Sr. (see Wikipedia) has long said that the focus on the surface air temperature was inappropriate, and that…
“The spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes including global warming.” (Source.)
This, along with his many other now accepted insights, earned Pielke smears by climate activists (“denier”), such as those at Skeptical Science (Dana Nuccitelli’s launch pad, which should be called “skeptical of science”). See this note for more detail about that pitiful story. The “pause” or “hiatus” in warming brought recognition that he was correct (see links to papers in section 7 here). So what are the oceans, Earth’s giant heat reservoirs, doing?
Again we turn to NOAA’s invaluable website. Ocean heat measurements became quite accurate after roughly 2004 with data from the ARGO float network (after implementation of the OW quality control method). See the graphs here. The oceans warm more slowly than the atmosphere due to their vastly larger thermal inertia. The ocean’s top 100 meters have warmed approximately 0.12°C (0.22°F) over 2004-2018 – or ~0.09°C/decade (0.16°F). Similar to the long-term change (since the Little Ice Age) in the surface temperature record. This warming affects the oceans’ ecosystems as much or more than warming affects the surface world.
The top 700 meters have warmed more slowly than the upper ocean: ~0.04°C/decade (0.07°F).
Conclusions
The most obvious one: the world is not “burning”, despite the thousands of hysterical screams by climate activists. But the warming warrants policy action. The RCP’s provide a basis for that analysis and planning. But that science is insufficient to push the public to support climate activists’ goals. Hence the current propaganda barrage. Science is exaggerated and misrepresented. Normal extreme weather is attributed to anthropogenic climate change. (See links below for examples.) This makes effective policy action more difficult. It is the big reason that we do so little to prepare for climate change.
But anthro warming is cumulative, and we will see big changes – certainly unpleasant – if warming continues at this rate during the 21st century. Taking the logical warming rate (and highest recent rate) – that is, using the WMO standard, the past 30 years – global temperature would increase by 1°C (1.8°F) roughly every 50 years. That does not mean an Apocalypse would arrive in 2070 or that climate change is the most serious problem we face (e.g., continuing to wreck the oceans might create an apocalypse by 2070).
That rise of 1°C (1.8°F) becomes likely if the centuries-long trend in technological progress slows and if fertility stops falling. Those are key assumptions in RCP8.5, the worst-case assumption in AR5. A large body of research shows that under RCP8.5 the results would be terrible by 2100. Such a slowdown in tech seems unlikely since a new industrial revolution appears to have begun – including, among other things, radical changes in energy tech (perhaps even fusion). There is no evidence that global fertility is stabilizing, nor have I seen any plausible case for that happening in the next decade or so.
But even smaller increases in global temperature would be unpleasant, and are worth avoiding. Especially since the logical path is reducing emissions from fossil fuels through improved efficiency and use of cleaner energy sources. For instance, replacing coal, which is especially polluting to mine and burn, with natural gas. Also effective would be continuing research to produce less expensive electric vehicles and providing reasonable incentives for their purchase.
America’s cities were wired for electricity and telephone over two decades, a radical change beyond anything we have seen since. We can make such jumps today. We need only invest in the necessary research and the will to make it happen.
Examples of climate misinformation
- Activists hope that fake news about droughts will win.
- The North Pole is now a lake! Are you afraid yet?
- A look at the workings of Climate Propaganda Inc.
- New climate porn: it forces walruses to jump to their death!
- Another heartbreaking story of climate doom! – About the Okjökull glacier in Iceland.
- An example of climate activists at work that shows why they lost.
- Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!
Normal weather becomes evidence of a Climate Apocalypse!
- 90% of the biggest Yosemite glacier has melted. Did we do it?
- What we learned from the freak storm that “melted the North Pole” on December 30.
- This El Niño is not Godzilla. What can we learn from the 2 years of hype?
- Lessons learned from the end of California’s not so “permanent drought.”
- The Texas drought ends; climate alarmists wrong again!
- Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!
- Weather porn about Texas, a lesson for Earth Day 2019.
- Wildfires and climate change: fake news in action.
For More Information
Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see all posts about doomsters, about peak oil, about The keys to understanding climate change and especially these…
- Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.
- Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
- The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science.
- “Climate’s Uncertainty Principle“ by Garth Paltridge.
- Listening to climate doomsters makes our situation worse.
To help us better understand today’s weather
To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We often see this claim made here. Yet the global temperature trend in HadCRUT4 for the first 80 years of the record (1850 to 1930) is dead flat.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1931/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1931/trend
BEST, which has a wider spatial distribution than HadCRUT4, is flat from 1850 to the mid 1920s, more than 70 years. NOAA and GISS, both of which start in 1880, also have flat or negative trends up to ~1935, the first 55 years of their respective records.
So where does this frequent claim that “the world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century” come from? What evidence is there for it? Yes, it is warmer now than it was in the 1850s, but that warming has really only occurred over the past 70-80 years.
You obviously fail to see the problem of using data from 1850-1930 and claiming anything.
So lets use Australia as an example and here are sites for all the early temperature recordings
Look at figure 1
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gdj3.19
Notice the problem most of the sites are on the coast and the data is from one small area
It really doesn’t improve by huge amounts until after the war in 1945. So you really the entire Southern Hemisphere data is probably less than useless up to 1945. I suspect much of Asia and India will be the same in the Northern Hemisphere.
The message here is don’t use wiggly lines on graphs as evidence unless you understand the data behind those wiggly lines.
“You obviously fail to see the problem of using data from 1850-1930”
You obviously didn’t read your link. It describes data sources for South East Australia up to 1859. And yes, they are sparse.
LdB
Odd that you didn’t use this same reasoning to question the author of this article’s claim that ‘the world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century’. If we can’t rely on global temperature data before 1945 then how can anyone know whether the world was warming or not?
In any case, the paper from your own link states ‘that the historical records are of good quality, and are capable of providing information on relative climate variability in SEA’; so much so that the authors say the historical observations they used are of sufficient quality to be ‘used for long‐term analysis of climate variability in Australian and the wider Southern Hemisphere’.
How does this support your view that older records are unreliable?
You can argue anything you like with the old records they are problematic, what you can’t do is use them as conclusive proof of anything. Other than that knock yourself out argue whatever what do I care.
Nick try looking up the foundation dates of major townships in Western Australia 🙂
Off Hand I would say Perth, Fremantle, Albany and perhaps Geraldton exist in 1850. I didn’t bother looking because I know most won’t exist only the Port Towns. I know Kalgoorlie as one of the larger central towns was not establish until 1889 🙂
I do believe the author made a typo in this statement and meant instead to say “. . . middle of the 20th century.” The presented NOAA chart of global land and ocean temperature anomalies following this sentence starts at 1880, which is beyond the middle of the 19th century and it even displays COOLING from 1880 to about 1911.
Furthermore, in the paragraph immediately below this chart, the author references “1880-2019 – The full instrument record.” So clearly (to me at least), there never was intent to discuss temperatures around the mid-1800’s, which from the data presented was a period of indicated cooling (fully recognizing the failings of obtaining accurate “global” temperatures during those times).
“and it even displays COOLING from 1880 to about 1911.”
Yes, around 1911 is one of the coldest periods of the recent past, equivalent to the cold of the late 1970’s, according to the Hansen 1999 US chart.
It went like this: 1910, cold period, warms up to the 1930’s, then cools down from 1940’s to the late 1970’s to just about the same cold level as 1910, then the weather warms from the late 1970’s to the present and the highest temperature reached in the present is equal to or less than the high point of the 1930’s. And since reaching the current high point (2016) the temperaures have cooled by about 0.5C.
So, like President Trump says, the temperatures go up a little, and then they go down a little, and then they go up a little, again.
That is the “normal” behavior of the Earth’s climate. There is nothing scary here.
The alarmists want us to believe that the temperatures are at record levels now (hottest July evah!) and will continue to climb as we increase the amount of CO2 we produce. Their only “evidence” for this is the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. Without it their whole argument is dead in the water. It’s the only thing they can point to. Take it away and they have nothing. Nothing on which to base Trillions of dollars in taxpayers expeditures.
Hansen 1999 US:
I wonder what Steinbeck would say if he looked at that NOAA graph between 1930 and 40. Definitely ‘man made global warming’ but through adjustments, otherwise he would have to rewrite all his books.
The world is not currently warming. For a start most of the warming in that bogus graph is due to effects like urban heating and bogus adjustments like time of day. THEY HAVE NO VALIDITY IN ASSESSING LONG TERM TEMPERATURE CHANGE. Instead, the only credible global temperature comes from satellites.
That clearly shows that since 2016 it’s been cooling and for the last 20 years there’s been no meaningful change that cannot be explained by the El Nino cycle.
But even though the ground based stations are clearly massively contaminated by measurements and adjustements, no change in the last century has exceed what would be expected from natural variation and as we know we were coming out of a little ice-age there is no way any actual scientist would ascribe warming with any certainty to humanity. Particularly as those models based on human caused warming have been spectacular failures.
I know that NOAA and others adjust historical and current data for various reasons. What I don’t know is if it is a blanket adjustment, incorrect in my view, or on a station by station measurement by measurement adjustment, which is not perfect but more acceptable. When making UHI adjustments you have to know the conditions at the time of measurement, things like wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation to name a few. I suspect none of this is available or taken into account making adjusted data worthless.
“Fortunately, in the 21st century this information is easily available at NOAA’s invaluable “Climate At A Glance” website.”
BUT can you trust it – almost certainly not.
However, it will certainly not underestimate any warming, so if the data is still not indicating an impending apocalypse, we can safely assume there isn’t much of an issue.
Most, if not all, the increasing heat people experience is simply down to living in densely urbanized areas.
Any feeling that weather events are actually getting more extreme is simply down to hysterically dishonest obsessive propaganda from much of the MSM, the data simply does not support that convincingly.
Is The Global Temperature Record Credible?
“How fast is the world warming?”
It isn’t.
The record shown in the article is little more than urban land temperature, which can’t be separated from urban development. The only real record of the earth’s temperature is from satellites, which goes back only a couple of decades.
Is the earth’s average temperature a bit warmer today than it was half a century earlier? Yes.
Is the earth’s temperature changing systematically? NO.
See the lecture by Professor Salby:
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548 at (16:00)
Note the following two points:
•0.12°C/decade (0.22°F) – 1918-1950 – The instrument record for the pre-anthro era for those skeptical of global temp. data before WWI.
•0.19°C/decade (0.34°F) – 1989-2019 – The past 30 years, the period for climate metrics defined by the World Meteorological Organization.
That first bulletpoint is warming of 0.12 degC per decade BEFORE the IPCC says that man-made influences are significant.
The second bulletpoint is the higher warming rate in the current period, which the IPCC says has anthropogenic influence – at least 50% is caused by man. Not 100%, at least 50%
BUT if we take the first period as natural we can subtract the first rate from the second rate to give a possible bound for anthropogenic influence which is 0.19 – 0.12 = 0.07 degC/decade, which is actually less than the 50% plus claim by the IPCC. The quasi-periodicity of about 60-70 years in the temperature and sea level rate curves (and UK precipitation) suggest the recent period could have a natural warming element the same as the earlier period in the 20th Century.
If we take this lower bound, it implies that anthropogenic influence could be as low as 0.7 degC warming over a century. Which looks much more consistent with a sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (without adding unproven water vapour feedback) in the order of 1.0 degC per doubling. Note also that the IPCC “at least 50%” claim itself puts a lower bound of 0.19/2 = 0.095 degC/decade, or about 1 degC per century.
Doesn’t look very alarming when you actually parse what the IPCC says. Climate hysterics claim Armageddon, but the IPCC itself states a lower bound of only 1 degC per century is possible.
You are forgetting that at least 0.6C of the Global Warming is from the authorised adjustments, see
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/menne-etal2009.pdf
I was aware, but thanks for the linked paper – really good.
TS
Authorized maybe, but valid?
They all add up to a straight line when plotted vs CO2 concentration.
And whatever the reasoning, it amounts to sophistry when then correction for UHI winds up resulting in lowering temps that were recorded in the past, this making the trend towards warming steeper.
UHI adjustments, if made, ought to remove excess heat from recent temps, and leave older ones alone.
Instead they remove heat from older temps, and leave newer ones alone.
Total BS, and everyone who has every payed attention to the temp difference in increasingly urbanized areas knows that UHI makes it hotter, so correcting for it should make it cooler in recent years than what was measured.
Besides for that, this seems to be the only look at the switch to MMTS and concluded they produced a cooling bias.
Authorized wrongness is still wrong, authorized sophistry is still sophistry, and whatever the reasons and excuses given for each incremental adjustment, when they add up to this:
(Link to photo)
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1137944770003767296?s=20
then they are not just mistaken, but deliberately fraudulent.
Anytime long term NOAA and GISS temperature data are being used is an indication that you WILL get misleading results.
Try the RURAL data only and make REGIONAL data sets too.
A single global temperature will lead you to a false conclusion.
True dat!
Straight up, yo.
Current UK Met office records for the period 1929 to 2018 show a significant increase in annual sunshine commencing from around 1980. This seems to indicate a decrease in cloudiness over this period and maybe a reduction in air pollution a result of the Clean Air Act (1968). The trend is matched by an increase in mean annual temperature of about 1deg C. (www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/summaries/index).
I cannot see any linkage of decreased cloudiness to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Surely this data must cast doubt on the orthodox global warming theory, but nobody I talk to seems to consider these findings significant. Am I barking up the wrong tree or simply barking.
DR. Spencer brought this up several times in the past. Here is one:
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
This is the graph that shows what you are talking about, although for global it is Tropical Cloud Cover that counts.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
“But the warming warrants policy action”
Bull. No other way to say it but bull. You don’t know any better than anyone else how much warming CO2 is causing, you cant control it and like so many, you quickly fall into the trap of ‘pull the government levers.
Until you can prove that warming is caused by CO2 rather than the blanket nonsensical statement that ‘it is’, you cannot claim that policy action is needed. More than that, you then have to demonstrate that some ‘policy’ can do something that is actually beneficial.
How the hell do you people know that a little bit of warming isn’t a lot better for us? How are you so self-certain, so amazingly knowledgeable that you can recommend policy actions to correct something that you cannot even state is a problem?
I have heard the same thing from some outwardly very smart people, but you who believe in ‘action’ are all wrong – and demonstrably so.
Disparate groups want policy action for their own ends: some to accrue political power, some to accrue money. I suspect Larry falls into the latter group.
CO2 is apparently quite a magic molecule when it chooses to participate—or not—in global warming. As the NOAA chart in the above article clearly shows, there was a period of global cooling from 1940 to 1970. During this interval, the world released 15% of the total CO2 attributed to mankind’s activities up to 2019. Yet despite this, the globe cooled down!
In fact, by 1970, a total of 26% of the cumulative total of CO2 attributed to mankind’s activities up to 2019 had been put into Earth’s biosphere.
Re: my last sentence above: actually, the combination of atmosphere and biosphere. I cannot venture to tell you what the split is.
“n fact, by 1970, a total of 26% of the cumulative total of CO2 attributed to mankind’s activities up to 2019 had been put into Earth’s biosphere.”
By the 1970’s climate scientists were telling us it was likely we were entering into another Ice Age because the temperatures had been cooling for decades, with no end in sight. All the while, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. I sense a disconnect here with Alarmist theory. 🙂
Larry Kummer, “Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII.”
There is zero evidence any of the warming is human-caused. The IPCC touts models that have zero predictive value.
And then, to prove your case, you go on to cite temperature trends of 0.14 C per decade using data that’s not good to better than ±0.5 C.
You’re no more rational than the worst of the alarmist coterie, Larry.
None of you people know how to think in detail. After all, if you did do, you’d have nothing to talk about. Can’t have that.
I agree with you Pat. He literally writes that he doesn’t know how strong the effect is, makes a massive unsupported assumption in the middle that warming is mostly human emission induced, and then concludes ‘do something!!!’ when there is nothing to do.
It is the worst problem because we still get the crazy socialist ‘something’ with no consideration of outcome. Hell, warmer might actually be a lot better, does he even think for a second about that? No, he does not. I know personally that I’m more concerned about the next ice age than I am about a tiny bit of warming – and I’m not that worried about either.
Thank-you, Jeff. Totally agree.
“Hell, warmer might actually be a lot better”
My parser struggled with that one.
In Hell at least, maybe not so much.
“There is zero evidence any of the warming is human-caused.”
If we are talking about that graph, and others like it, rather than the actual atmosphere…I think we can safely say with little uncertainty that virtually all of the warming seen is Mann-made.
But not all.
Some is Hansen-made, and some is Gavin-made.
Very little of it is real, and what is, or may be, is lost in the noise and BS on those graphs.
The statistical treatment of individual measurements, in many places over a long period of time, as if it was multiple measurements of the same thing, is perhaps even worse than the problem of inadequate device resolution for the numbers being offered as evidence of warming.
I am glad that more and more folks are recognizing that the various proclamations of temperature increases are really within the noise boundaries of errors, both systemic and measurement resolution.
Error of the mean when used with measurements of different things, with different devices, at different times only tells you how accurate your calculations were. That is all.
Averaging temperatures from Kansas City and Omaha that were recorded to +/- 0.5 degrees simply can’t decrease the measurement error of either reading and therefore the average error is similar to the original measurement error. The +/- 0.5 degrees must carry through, like it or not.
The way things are routinely done and reported in climate scientism is directly counter to literally everything I ever learned about the treatments of accuracy, precision, significant figures…everything involving error and uncertainty.
These things can even be looked up and the methods used compared to the standards of the science of metrology.
Once upon a time there were error bars on many and perhaps most of the time series graphs of temperature.
But nowadays, the people doing this “work” behave and speak, and apparently actually believe, that where there is a broad range of uncertainty, the center line drawn through these values is the “real” value.
That wide area of uncertainty?
Not even mentioned.
Like with Marcott 2011:
https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/status/1141481325972611072?s=20
Which is morphed to this:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1147971369344389120?s=20
The world has been warming since the end of the 17th century, during the depths of the Little Ice Age in the Maunder Minimum. Warming cycles since then have been interrupted by cooling cycles, but the secular trend has been warming. The early 18th century warming, rebounding from the cold Maunder, lasted longer and warmed more than the late 20th century warming. The early 20th century warming was comparable to the late 20th century warming. Those two cycles were separated by a pronounced cooling from the 1940s until 1977, when the PDO flipped mode.
Thus during the first 32 years after WWII, earth dramatically despite steadily rising man-made CO2. Thus it’s not valid to conclude that “human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII”. The bizarre number of studies does not support the “core consensus of climate scientists” asserted in the Summary of Policymakers by Working Group I of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report:
“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
It’s not possible to separate human causes from those which would have occurred had we remained at a preindustrial level of development with half a billion hungry, sick and cold people with nasty, brutish and short lives, ie cutting fewer forests, farming fewer acres, dirtying, then cleaning the air, irrigating more land, burning fossil fuels, etc. We definitely do affect local climates, such as urban heat islands, through farming practices and real pollution. But globally, due to putting more plant food in the air, not so much.
Science knows too little to conclude that we are mainly responsible for the balmier weather we’ve enjoyed in recent decades. It’s not possible to reject the null hypothesis that nothing observable lies outside normal variation.
Unfortunately, the longer term cooling trend of the past 3000 to 5000 years remains intact. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the planet’s surface fresh water, stopped retreating about 3000 years ago, after the Minoan Warm Period, despite the cooler Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods. This fact bodes ill.
Putting my polite hat on: Go on, convince me.
Exactly. Slowly changing temperatures should be easily accommodated and accepted as reality. Where is it written that warming can only have negative effects?
Instead of looking at current warming trends (which are biased by UHI anyway) with no context, one should look at them compared to other similar periods, like the Roman Warm Period. If the warming trend looks wildly different, then one can “suppose” that mankind might be impacting it. (Still hard to prove anything)
When I compare older warming trends with the current one, I see nothing wildly different, therefore I conclude that mankind has little effect on warming.
The problem remains that accounting for UHI is extremely important and the climate scientists seem determined to ignore it. UHI could easily account for half of the modern observed “warming”. If the IPCC says that at least half of modern warming is not natural – well, I kind of agree with them. Not only is it not natural, it isn’t happening anywhere but in urban areas.
Larry
“I’m sure Sydney is a nice place, but what matters is the global temp. As Roger Pielke Sr has long said, local factors produce local weather – which might not match global trends. See the NOAA website, which confirms what the news media have been saying: the past few months have been warm.”
So.
What might be the error range of this “global Temperature”?
Presuming such a creature could exist?
Did you perhaps mean the “Estimate Average Global temperature?”
And what might that have been on 1950?
To what degree of accuracy?
Face it,we cannot be sure if we are warming or cooling, when the proclaimed “signal” is less than the error range.
Brad Keyes.
Nice to see you still got the magic.
My only question is, how was the zero line on the graph chosen? Since we have only been measuring the temperature for the past 180 years. How does the zero line relate to the past 180 million years?
That is a good question. Obviously it is not using the accepted baseline of the current climate period average, which is 1980 to 2010 (it will change next year to the 1990-2020 avg).
Maybe they are using the average of the entire period shown, but it is not labelled and it should be.
Here is what the graphs look like without the misleading scaling:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1137580002663440385?s=20
ctm,
again beginning with
“The world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century. Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII.”
and again the attempt to appear objectively with the quote
“Similar to the long-term change (since the Little Ice Age) in the surface temperature record. This warming affects the oceans’ ecosystems as much or more than warming affects the surface world.”
But you base your theses on “temperature anomalies” and hide the absolute temperature history to go over to
Conclusions:
[ … ] the warming warrants policy action.
[ … ] science is insufficient to push the public to support climate activists’ goals.
[ …] Normal extreme weather is attributed to anthropogenic climate change [… ] This makes effective policy action more difficult. It is the big reason that we do so little to prepare for climate change.
But anthro warming is cumulative, and we will see big changes – certainly unpleasant – if warming continues at this rate during the 21st century.
[ …] That does not mean an Apocalypse would arrive in 2070 or that climate change is the most serious problem we face (e.g.,
continuing to wreck the oceans
might create an apocalypse by 2070).
_________________________________________________________
“science” tells about “anthro warming” “continuing to wreck the oceans”
with no underlying facts: this is short and simple implausible.
Aber nur weiter so, nur Mut. Nach einem weiteren Jahrhundert wird die Wahrheit offen sichtbar sein … oh wait, ein Jahrhundert später werden deine gleichgesinnten genauso weitermachen auf gut Glück.
But keep it up, full courage. After another century, the truth will be openly visible … oh wait, a century later your like-minded people will go on doing the same as you, full courage.
Good luck!