Darwinist

For better or worse, we will all have extra time available from tomorrow.  What will you do with it?

Find another site and carry on crusading in some way?

Or perhaps you have learnt everything you needed here and are ready to move on to pastures new.  

Perhaps, like me, you will be glad to be free of the distraction for a while.  I will miss this place and I'll miss the people such as David, Dirac, Elizabeth, Koshka, AI P, antarcticice, FSM, too many to list; indeed anyone who has been accused of being Dirac!  Thanks guys; I really appreciate what you've done.  

I like to think I will be back somewhere, someday, making whatever contribution I can, but for the present, I need to focus on life in the real world.  Retirement beckons and then I'll have the time ...

Was it the proponents, who were saying that the warming would continue at around 0.2C/decade?

Was it the skeptics, who were saying that the warming had stopped?

Or was it the deniers, who were saying that, based on solar acticity, we would see rapid cooling over coming decade?

Ten years ago, what did YOU think would have happened by now and how accurate did that turn out to be?

Now I know it's not as black and white as that, but I've had to repeat the question.  The original was prone to "ghosting" so I'm trying again without updates or links.

Thanks in anticipation and, regardless of your view, please accept my best wishes for the season and for a prosperous 2021.

Proponents, who said warming would continue at around 0.2C/decade?

Skeptics, who said that the warming had stopped?

Or deniers, who said that, based on solar acticity, we would see rapid cooling over coming decade?

Ten years ago, what did YOU think would have happened by now and how accurate did that turn out to be?

That Greenhouse effect "skeptics" will come up with credible alternative explanations for Earth's equilibrium temperature and the current warming trend?

Or that Donald Trump will concede defeat in a fair election?

Both pretty unlikely, but which is the least likely?

Please feel free to elaborate on either topic.  Thanks in anticipation ...

... a term often used by "skeptics"; rarely by proponents.

But what exactly does the term mean?

In your view, what would have to happen for the warning to be considered "catastrophic"? ... and how likely would it be for that to occur?Finally, does it HAVE to be catastrophic, in order to justify taking action to limit it?

I seem to ask something like this every four years or so.   A neurtal question; just interested in the views of the regulars here.

So who would you prefer as the next US president, and why?

... and your view on global warming?

Best determined randomly from all 'complete and not too offensive' answers.  Thanks in anticipation ...

Normally a record year is as a result of a strong El Nino as well as the underlying warming trend.  Whilst we have seen a  weak event in recent months, I wouldn't have expected this to be sufficient to break the record.

Yet the year is running warm so far, with a new record a distinct possibility.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/june-2020-tied-as-earth-...

So could there be something else going on?  Could there have been a reduction in Global Dimming from aerosols, as a result of reduced emissions during lockdowns; dimming that would normally offset some of the warming?

Of course, one warm year is neither here nor there; it's the underlying warming that gives cause for concern.  But for those who are interested in the detail ...

How warm do you think 2020 is likely to be and, if it does break the record, what do you think the main factors will have been?

Thanks in anticipation ...

Just wondering where the regulars have all gone.

So, proponents and skeptics; if you see this, just feel free to say "Hi" and add anything about what you're doing now, your view on the current state of this place, what would have to change if you were to come back, anything really; if I recognize you I'll put you in the draw for best answer.  Thanks in anticipation ...

What are they doing and, if you are not happy with that, what else would you like to see done?

Thanks in anticipation; I see this as a neutral question and will keep this in mind when picking best answer.

Life is getting rather busy and will continue be so well into this year, so I need to take a break from here for a while. Hopefully there will still be a YA/GW section to come back to; if there is, then I would like to return as a more effective contributor.

To that end, what should I be reading to broaden my knowledge of climate change?

All I have really looked at in depth is the greenhouse effect itself. My knowledge of other areas; feedbacks, climate sensitivity, weather changes etc, is less good; just what I have picked up here.

To give you an idea of the level, the last book I read was GW Petty's, A First Course In Atmospheric Radiation; an excellent book, aimed at undergraduate students of Meteorology and climatology.

So, with that level in mind, any recommendations?

Thanks in anticipation; hope to be back in the summer.

When I first took an interest here about 11 years ago, skeptics were quite content with GISTEMP, since they could, by picking the 1997/98 El Nino as a starting point, draw a flat trendline to the most recent data and claim that the warming had stopped. But, as the underlying trend continued upwards, this ceased to be possible, so they switched to the RSS satellite data and continued with their claim of a pause. But RSS made some changes and the pause floundered. Luckily, UAH also made some changes and the pause was back on, eventually lasting for around 18 years, providing UAH was used. But now, with the underlying trend continuing upwards, they are unable to coax a pause out of any of the data.

So do they stick with UAH as the last one in favour, also the one that shows the least warming?

Do they have another one that better suits their purposes?

Or do they now reject all of them as being somehow untrustworthy, flawed or dishonest?

Leaving aside the question of the consequences of warming and what we should do about it; is there any reason to be skeptical of the greenhouse effect itself?

Is there any reason to be skeptical of the GHE as the reason Earth's surface temperature is around 33C higher than it needs to be for equilibrium, and for the increase in greenhouse gasses to be the main, if not the only reason, for the current warming?I

If there is, then exactly what is it you are skeptical of and what alternative explanation(s) do you think more credible?

https://s.yimg.com/tr/i/6fddee072537464ca80538d6bf...

I did try to include more info, but the question ghosted! Still seems to be a problem here ...

Question repeated due to the activities of the troll.

I would be interested to see any evidence to support the idea that the current warming is a recovery from the LIA. Looking at the instrumental record, temps were fairly flat in the second half of the 19th century and early 20th, so isn't it likely that any recovery was over by then?

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/p...

Also, if the current warming is not due principally to increasing GHG's, then what IS it due to?

Or is increasing GHG's the best; indeed the only reasonable explanation?

I would be interested to see any evidence to support the idea that the current warming is a recovery from the LIA. Looking at the instrumental record, temps were fairly flat in the second half of the 19th century and early 20th, so isn't it likely that any recovery was over by then?

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/p...

Also, if the current warming is not due principally to increasing GHG's, then what IS it due to?

Or is increasing GHG's the best; indeed the only reasonable explanation?

... in the context of global warming?

Question repeated due to the activities of the troll.

So what can you tell me about them?

Whatever you call them; wildfires, brushfires, bushfires etc. Why do they occur and why, (assuming they are) are they expected to increase in a warming environment? Is there any evidence, so far, that they are increasing, either in number or intensity?

Looking at the news, in California, the Amazon and currently Australia, it certainly seems that way ...

... in the context of global warming?

Whatever you call them; wildfires, brushfires, bushfires etc. Why do they occur and why, (assuming they are) are they expected to increase in a warming environment? Is there any evidence, so far, that they are increasing, either in number or intensity?

Looking at the news, in California, the Amazon and currently Australia, it certainly seems that way ...

As this decade draws to a close, it is clear that it will be warmer than the 2000 s, and by a similar margin to that of the 2000 s over the 1990 s. (Still no sign of the imminent cooling that some on the "skeptics" side have been predicting)

But what about the next couple of decades?

Assuming things continue more or less as they have been, regarding GHG emissions, volcanic activity etc, (probably a reasonable assumption for a couple of decades of so) what do you expect to happen to the rate of warming?

... continue more or less as it has been for the last few decades? ... increase? ... decrease, stop or reverse? (cooling)

What do you think is most likely and what do you see as the main factors?

Finally, whatever your politics, religion and global warming views, please accept my best wishes for the season and for a prosperous 2020.

Thanks everyone.

... as it draws to do a close?

Question repeated due to the activities of the troll.

In the context of Global Warming and Climate Change, what are your thoughts on the last ten years?Have things proceeded more or less as you would have expected?Or has anything in this decade caused you to modify or change your view?Finally, and regardless of your AGW position, may I wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy prosperous new year.

... in your view?

I know there are some crackpot ideas out there; Solar Wind's "Intelligent Emission" theory for one, but are there any CREDIBLE alternatives to increasing greenhouse gasses; principally CO2?