'Time running out' as CO2 levels hit new high, UN says

Rooting for 500 ppm. 10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.

@hurricane - smug and self righteous and wrong much?

By your idiotic logic human average has been declining because the tallest man lived 80 years ago when in fact, the average height has been increasing. Cherry picked baselines don't win your argument they reveal your intention to deceive.

10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.

@hurricane25
BaconBits has it right
you see the world like this: http://www.skepti...rame.jpg
whereas SCIENCE will see this: http://www.skepti...rame.gif

this is taken from an article here: http://www.skepti...php?g=47

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtu...rwwT6Zps

At least we can rock some badass tunes while we burn....

The oceans are some 1.6C/2.9F warmer than pre-industrial, the Arctic has more of an effect on climate than anyone would have stated 10-years ago and it's heated 3-times faster than models ... the thawing permafrost & clathrates will finish the job ... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that, so what is going on? ... mass fracking for fossil methane ... perfect summary of human wisdom as a species.

........but it has been so damn cold. I guess CO2 with only 0.04% of the total of all atmospheric gases must not mean so much after all.

The only thing wrong with global warming theory is that it has failed since 1998. We have simply recovered from the little ice age (1400-1850), a very good thing. Temperatures are below the average of the last 12,000 years. Global warming based on increased CO2 works great in a beaker in the laboratory, but not in the atmosphere. The theory is a failure. It did not predict and cannot explain the cessation of warming since 1998. How many more years of no warming will it take to convince the alarmists that they are barking up the wrong tree?

@hurricane25, cantdrive85, Benni, 3432682,

All aboard the denial Escalator!

http://www.skepti...php?g=47

wheeeeee, what fun...

How do you explain this? http://www.drroys...-RSS.png On top of this it was warming .2c/decade in the 1990's, but since 2005, I honestly couldn't sniff any out.

A case could be made we're within the 50's through 70's again, but the positive forcing should be so strong now comparably it would take a far larger negative to be the reason for the stall. Why don't you alarmist consider the evidence all around you and hone in on this a little? Just saying that all debate is over is silly.

How do you explain this? http://www.drroys...-RSS.png On top of this it was warming .2c/decade in the 1990's, but since 2005, I honestly couldn't sniff any out.

A case could be made we're within the 50's through 70's again, but the positive forcing should be so strong now comparably it would take a far larger negative to be the reason for the stall. Why don't you alarmist consider the evidence all around you and hone in on this a little? Just saying that all debate is over is silly.

PE --do you mind?

hurricane25--

Can't you understand a simple graphic depiction of the duplicitous nature of the claim you are making? PE has already shown it you once, but since you obviously either missed it or didn't understand it, please --have a(nother) look:

http://www.skepti...php?g=47

...now do you get it?

... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends. Anybody checking methane levels?

@hurricane25,

How do you explain this? http://www.drroys...-RSS.png

The UAH and RSS data sets Spencer likes using have been known to low-ball surface temperatures due to measurement and analysis errors (some of which have been corrected), and even now seem to continue low-balling (they don't track either the GISS or CRU series, nor the SST series (the oceans being 70% of the planet's surface...):

http://woodfortre...rom:1970

Aside from Spencer's advocacy, how do you explain this?

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Lastly, I'm not concerned with natural climate variability, even multidecadal cycles like the PDO and AMO. They only add wobbles around the surface temp. trend, not total heat trend. If we were to get off easy for another 30 years thanks to them, we'll only pay all that much harder and faster on the other side of the cycle in the 30 years after.

Denial is natural, when there seem to be no options. It is not that people are so dense that they don't understand the science, or simple reason. They are emotionally unable to, and when they fear for their jobs, they not only ignore it, they fight against reason and science. If however, they think there is a solution, then they are equally irrational on demanding that politicians do something.
We should investigate and develop Pluvinergy for two reasons, one is to give people a solution. A second reason is that with our intensive study of climate science it has become clear that civilization will always be threatened not only by human caused climate catastrophe, but by natural variation. We need to have capacity to cool the planet or to warm it. This is what Pluvinergy claims, if it works as proposed is another matter. The point is we need solutions, not just valid scientific facts.
This is why people here cling to their escalator graphs, any little bit of support to deny reality.

Denial is natural, when there seem to be no options. It is not that people are so dense that they don't understand the science, or simple reason. They are emotionally unable to, and when they[...]. We need to have capacity to cool the planet or to warm it. This is what Pluvinergy claims, if it works as proposed is another matter. The point is we need solutions, not just valid scientific facts.
This is why people here cling to their escalator graphs, any little bit of support to deny reality

Okey dokey!

Let's have your link, so that we can LEARN what there is to know about pluvinergy, before we debate its relatives merits, shall we?

Is that asking too much, PluviAl?

... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends.

I do have a simple question - If we keep in mind this historical record - is there possibly something ELSE causing a global temp rise that we have not considered? Like - Earth itself heating up? Maybe caused by removal of an "insulating blanket" of Oil?
I know, I know - way out there...

... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends.

I do have a simple question - If we keep in mind this historical record - is there possibly something ELSE causing a global temp rise that we have not considered? Like - Earth itself heating up? Maybe caused by removal of an "insulating blanket" of Oil?
I know, I know - way out there...

Would the answer to that lie in cave and mine shaft temperatures? Are they recorded? Have they changed?

... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends.

I do have a simple question - If we keep in mind this historical record - is there possibly something ELSE causing a global temp rise that we have not considered? Like - Earth itself heating up? Maybe caused by removal of an "insulating blanket" of Oil?
I know, I know - way out there...

Would the answer to that lie in cave and mine shaft temperatures? Are they recorded? Have they changed?

All you have to do is to make some calculations of how temperature can change inside the earth. When I took the PE exam for Mechanical Engineering they had a heat transfer problem where they wanted to have us calculate the change in temperature with depth every year for the annual change in average temperature at the surface. It turns out heat does not travel fast through the earth. Cont

Cont: One way to look at that is permafrost. The temperature of the surface gets above freezing for extended periods of time every year. However, when you go a meter or so down into the soil it remains frozen through the summer season (hence the "perma" part of the word). The only way that heat moves quickly through the crust is by convection of magma or lava (from volcanoes). Petroleum products don't move that way. They are trapped below layers that prevent them from leaking over geological time (or they wouldn't be there). When we pull the petroleum products out it doesn't change the "diffusivity" of the earth much at all and we would have to measure to decide which direction it goes. That is the long way of saying that it is unlikely that changes to the crust would change heat transfer from the mantel to the surface in anything faster than "geological" time frames.

@ thermo

Thanks.

Although I wasn't too serious about the proposal, and I don't think WG was either, it would be interesting to note if the crust is warming a little. The permafrost layer is getting deeper from the surface and I expect it is retreating towards the poles also. This would be yet another reservoir of latent heat similar to the oceans but obviously absent mixing currents and waves. Thus a much smaller & slower uptake of energy, but the value cannot be zero.

Although I wasn't too serious about the proposal, and I don't think WG was either, it would be interesting to note if the crust is warming a little. The permafrost layer is getting deeper from the surface and I expect it is retreating towards the poles also. This would be yet another reservoir of latent heat similar to the oceans but obviously absent mixing currents and waves. Thus a much smaller & slower uptake of energy, but the value cannot be zero.

Was a "thought" experiment...:-)
That said, we need to look at the complete cycle. "Black body" heat absorption generates higher temps causing increased liquid phase water, leading to increased water vapor, leading to higher volume of rain which "washes out" the absorptive factors and which then collect on the earths surface, get covered by the increased surface water, carried down to sea floor, leaving the water reflectivity to then "cool" the planet - Again...
Bottom line is - Earth wins, regardless of us...:-)

........but it has been so damn cold. I guess CO2 with only 0.04% of the total of all atmospheric gases must not mean so much after all.

The Engineer! He says its been cold! Yet here is what scientists say:

http://www.climat...ly-17196
http://www.washin...hivered/
http://www.weathe...20140220

But Benni the Engineer lives in the US and it was cold there! So, because he is an engineer and all, he KNOWS more then all them PAID OFF scientists FOISTING that CONSPIRACY on us!

........but it has been so damn cold. I guess CO2 with only 0.04% of the total of all atmospheric gases must not mean so much after all

@Benni
guess you forgot all about that video I linked to you already... more than once...
http://qz.com/163...n-worse/
try just THIS link... you can just watch the video...
http://www.youtub...m9JAdfcs

I don't know about Magnus, but given that you tend to ignore any evidence that does not conform to the belief that you post about here, & that you ignore as well as argue against observed and empirical data, and that you continually misrepresent climate science...in times like this I find it very difficult to believe that you are an engineer.

Those cooling towers are belching steam. What of it?

Rooting for 500 ppm. 10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.

10? Only 10? Where have you been? It's been much longer than that. Try 18 years!

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.

@hurricane25 BaconBits has it right you see the world like this: http://www.skepti...rame.jpg whereas SCIENCE will see this: http://www.skepti...rame.gif

this is taken from an article here: http://www.skepti...php?g=47

Funny how that last step keeps getting longer ...and longer ...and longer...

Have you ever really examined that chart? Did you know the previously longest step only lasted eight years? We're more than double that now.

The oceans are some 1.6C/2.9F warmer than pre-industrial, the Arctic has more of an effect on climate than anyone would have stated 10-years ago and it's heated 3-times faster than models ... the thawing permafrost & clathrates will finish the job ... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that, so what is going on? ... mass fracking for fossil methane ... perfect summary of human wisdom as a species.

References?

Did you know the oceans have actually been cooling for more than a dozen years?

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

The oceans are some 1.6C/2.9F warmer than pre-industrial, the Arctic has more of an effect on climate than anyone would have stated 10-years ago and it's heated 3-times faster than models ... the thawing permafrost & clathrates will finish the job ... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that, so what is going on? ... mass fracking for fossil methane ... perfect summary of human wisdom as a species.

References?

Did you know the oceans have actually been cooling for more than a dozen years?

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Damn, ubybooby --that's really weird, since they've been heating rapidly for the last 6 years!

Looky:

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Cherrypicking moron.

Uba: You keep putting up the same woodfortrees data every time you post. Using it you are trying to show a "pause" in warming. Even your link does not show anything other than a slow down, but it is a limited measurement.

What I would like to see from you is a post of any reliable source that shows a "pause" in heating. Your posts show a slow down in warming for the sites that measure surface temperatures. What others have pointed out to you is that those temperatures are not indicative of the heating that can go on by melting ice (isothermal) or heating oceans (high heat capacity).

The concept of the greenhouse effect is that it traps heat, in the form of IR, within the atmospheric envelop. So, that heat goes into heating the earth.

Can you show one link that shows the earth is not being heated as time is marching on?