UN Report Warns Of Asia's Increasing Climate Crisis

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, susanlea said:

That's what they said 20 years ago. In 20 years time it will only be 0.3 degrees warmer which is nothing. Tomorrow is forecast to be 2 degrees cooler.

Someone else who apparently doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

[Danderman123]

46 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Your chart shows a 0.35 increase in 26 years. I can't even feel a 0.35 increase. Neither can you. 

It looks like you can't read a chart.

 

From the beginning of the satellite temperature record, global temperature has risen by 1 degree, and the rate of increase is accelerating.

[Danderman123]

34 minutes ago, susanlea said:

33 degrees now, forecast rain tomorrow and a 2 degree temperature drop.

 

Why isn't it 55 with seas 6m higher? Gore was wrong.

Climate is what you expect.

 

Weather is what you get.

 

 

[susanlea]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

It looks like you can't read a chart.

 

From the beginning of the satellite temperature record, global temperature has risen by 1 degree, and the rate of increase is accelerating.

Wrong on both points. The rate is steady at 0.15 degrees per decade and temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees since 1900. You don't even know what you are posting.

[susanlea]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

Climate is what you expect.

 

Weather is what you get.

 

 

Wrong again. Climate is long term trends in weather patterns not expectations. Pretty embarrassing you don't know this.

[Danderman123]

2 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Wrong on both points. The rate is steady at 0.15 degrees per decade and temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees since 1900. You don't even know what you are posting.

The technique you are using is called "gaslighting", where you ask the other person to not believe their eyes.

 

In this case, the satellite record began at -.4 degrees below the mean, and this month is +.6 degrees above. That's a total increase of 1 degree.

 

The increase over the last 10 years is .6 degrees.

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Wrong again. Climate is long term trends in weather patterns not expectations. Pretty embarrassing you don't know this.

Why is the stratosphere cooling?

 

It would be pretty embarrassing if you didn't know why, and had to resort to insults or "I don't care".

Edited May 6 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

Just now, susanlea said:

It is very embarrassing that you post charts without understanding any of it.

So, why is the stratosphere cooling?

[susanlea]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The technique you are using is called "gaslighting", where you ask the other person to not believe their eyes.

 

In this case, the satellite record began at -.4 degrees below the mean, and this month is +.6 degrees above. That's a total increase of 1 degree.

 

The increase over the last 10 years is .6 degrees.

That's just embarrassing how badly you represent numbers and a graph. You score an F.

[susanlea]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The increase over the last 10 years is .6 degrees.

Embarrassingly ignorant.

 

"The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land)."

 

https://www.drroyspencer.com

 

 

[placeholder]

57 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Wrong on both points. The rate is steady at 0.15 degrees per decade and temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees since 1900. You don't even know what you are posting.

You sure about that?

Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades

In this study, we demonstrate that since 1960, the warming of the world ocean has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0.15 ± 0.05 (W/m2)/decade, while the land, cryosphere, and atmosphere have exhibited an accelerated pace of 0.013 ± 0.003 (W/m2)/decade. This has led to a substantial increase in ocean warming, with a magnitude of 0.91 ± 0.80 W/m2 between the decades 1960–1970 and 2010–2020, which overlies substantial decadal-scale variability in ocean warming of up to 0.6 W/m2. Our findings withstand a wide range of sensitivity analyses and are consistent across different observation-based datasets.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1

 

An expected acceleration
The most notable thing about the current apparent acceleration in warming is that it was expected.

Climate models have long shown a faster rate of warming in current and future decades than has been observed to date, though there is some disagreement among modelling estimates. 

The table below shows a compilation of both observed rates of warming to date and different model projections out to 2050. 

Projection	Time period	Trend (C/decade)
Observed trend since 1970	1970-2023	0.19 (0.17 to 0.21)
Observed trend since 2009	2009-2023	0.30 (0.17 to 0.43)
Estimated human contribution (Forster et al, 2023)	2013-2022	0.23
IPCC AR6 assessed warming projections under SSP2-4.5	2015-2050	0.24 (0.17 to 0.34)
Full CMIP6 ensemble under SSP2-4.5	2015-2050	0.29 (0.2 to 0.4)
Hansen et al, 2023	2011-2050	0.32 (0.27 to 0.36)

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/#:~:text=Trend (C%2Fdecade)&text=Global surface temperatures have warmed,given the shorter time period.

[Rimmer]

Some bickering baiting posts getting into personal attacks have been removed also replies, keep that up and posts will not be the only thing removed, you know who you are

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, susanlea said:

Embarrassingly ignorant.

 

"The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land)."

 

https://www.drroyspencer.com

 

 

Which amounts to about 1 degree since 1979, but now the trend is accelerating.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, susanlea said:

Wrong on both points. The rate is steady at 0.15 degrees per decade and temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees since 1900. You don't even know what you are posting.

Does this look a steady increase to you?

[susanlea]

37 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Does this look a steady increase to you?

It looks like a drunk guy picked the low and high with scribbles. The correct ways to do this is low to low or high to high or midpoint to midpoint. You didn't do any of those things because you have an agenda to push. You are a time waster. Learn how science works or don't bother.

 

 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, susanlea said:

It looks like a drunk guy picked the low and high with scribbles. The correct ways to do this is low to low or high to high or midpoint to midpoint. You didn't do any of those things because you have an agenda to push. You are a time waster. Learn how science works or don't bother.

 

 

Actually, this graph was created by Dr. Roy Spencer, the denialist scientist you quoted above. He and his collaborator, John Christie have a history of being wrong in their hypotheses, measurements and predictions. Spencer actually claims that there is a conspiracy to suppress his work

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

https://skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

 

So his graph is worthless.

[susanlea]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Actually, this graph was created by Dr. Roy Spencer, the denialist scientist you quoted above. He and his collaborator, John Christie have a history of being wrong in their hypotheses, measurements and predictions. Spencer actually claims that there is a conspiracy to suppress his work

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

https://skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

 

So his graph is worthless.

The graph is based on satellite data and it is not my graph posting. Secondly there are no 100% correct scientists. You aren't even a scientist and you have made incorrect statements today alone. Don't throw stones when you barely know the science. 

 

The beach was great today. Beautiful weather.

[susanlea]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

 

https://skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

 

 

Your source is worthless. The guy behind it has a checked past and known alarmist. Also not a climate scientist. He was exposed as a fraud years ago.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, susanlea said:

The graph is based on satellite data and it is not my graph posting. Secondly there are no 100% correct scientists. You aren't even a scientist and you have made incorrect statements today alone. Don't throw stones when you barely know the science. 

 

The beach was great today. Beautiful weather.

Again with the personal comments. Whether or not I am a scientist is utterly irrelevant to the issues at hand.  What matters is the sources I cite. Yours are mainly denialists or organizations who get their funding from oil interests.. As for "there are no 100% correct scientists".. maybe so, but some are a lot more wrong than others. I provided links to show just how wrong Spencer is.  You have provided nothing to challenge this. Spencer is someone who claims there is a conspiracy to keep him from publishing in journals. 

 

 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, susanlea said:

Your source is worthless. The guy behind it has a checked past and known alarmist. Also not a climate scientist. He was exposed as a fraud years ago.

Really?

John Cook is a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. He is also affiliated with the Center for Climate Change Communication as adjunct faculty. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course at the University of Queensland on climate science denial, that has received over 25,000 enrollments.

https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/team_member/john-cook/

John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016.

Got some evidence that he's a known alarmist. Got any evidence to show that he was exposed as a fraud?

[susanlea]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really?

John Cook is a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. He is also affiliated with the Center for Climate Change Communication as adjunct faculty. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course at the University of Queensland on climate science denial, that has received over 25,000 enrollments.

https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/team_member/john-cook/

John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016.

Got some evidence that he's a known alarmist. Got any evidence to show that he was exposed as a fraud?

Social scientist, not a climate scientist. He was unemployed when he started the misinformation website. He was caught out misrepresenting reports and nobody respects him. Basically a fraudster.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, susanlea said:

Social scientist, not a climate scientist. He was unemployed when he started the misinformation website. He was caught out misrepresenting reports and nobody respects him. Basically a fraudster.

Once again you have provided no evidence. Just empty claims.

[susanlea]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

. Got any evidence to show that he was exposed as a fraud?

Exposed as a climate fraudster in 2013

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/?sh=78f1d55f485d

 

 

A dishonest fraudster who pretends to be an expert on climate.

 

Edited May 6 by susanlea

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, susanlea said:

Exposed as a climate fraudster in 2013

https://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2024/05/01/which-of-these-12-tax-dodges-will-be-taken-away/?sh=53321f2342cf

 

 

 

A dishonest fraudster who pretends to be an expert on climate.

 

Tax dodges? What are you on about?

[susanlea]

Just now, placeholder said:

Tax dodges? What are you on about?

Wrong link corrected to show the climate fraud he did. He is a shonk.

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Exposed as a climate fraudster in 2013

https://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2024/05/01/which-of-these-12-tax-dodges-will-be-taken-away/?sh=53321f2342cf

 

 

 

A dishonest fraudster who pretends to be an expert on climate.

 

This is the same James Taylor who claimed that 2015 was not the hottest year on record but rather that 1998 was.

James Taylor wrote an article in Forbes claiming that 2015 was not the hottest year on record:⁴⁹a7

“Forget what global warming activists would lead you to believe – 2015 was not even close to the hottest year on record.

Satellite temperature readings going back to 1979 show 1998 was by far the warmest year in the satellite era, followed by 2010. 2015 comes in third. And these results are only for the period since 1979.”⁵⁰

https://www.desmog.com/james-taylor/

And given his long record of propagating falsehoods, I'm very dubious about his veracity.

https://www.desmog.com/james-taylor/

 

Whereas John Cook is 

[susanlea]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

This is the same James Taylor who claimed that 2015 was not the hottest year on record but rather that 1998 was.

James Taylor wrote an article in Forbes claiming that 2015 was not the hottest year on record:⁴⁹a7

“Forget what global warming activists would lead you to believe – 2015 was not even close to the hottest year on record.

Satellite temperature readings going back to 1979 show 1998 was by far the warmest year in the satellite era, followed by 2010. 2015 comes in third. And these results are only for the period since 1979.”⁵⁰

https://www.desmog.com/james-taylor/

And given his long record of propagating falsehoods, I'm very dubious about his veracity.

https://www.desmog.com/james-taylor/

 

Whereas John Cook is 

Cook is a proven fraudster. A liar, an alarmist and totally dishonest.

 

1998 was the hottest year on record for many years.

 

Your post is also dishonest.

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, susanlea said:

Wrong on both points. The rate is steady at 0.15 degrees per decade and temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees since 1900. You don't even know what you are posting.

Once again, here's that article from Nature which casts a lot of doubt on that assertion of yours:

Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades

In this study, we demonstrate that since 1960, the warming of the world ocean has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0.15 ± 0.05 (W/m2)/decade, while the land, cryosphere, and atmosphere have exhibited an accelerated pace of 0.013 ± 0.003 (W/m2)/decade. This has led to a substantial increase in ocean warming, with a magnitude of 0.91 ± 0.80 W/m2 between the decades 1960–1970 and 2010–2020, which overlies substantial decadal-scale variability in ocean warming of up to 0.6 W/m2. Our findings withstand a wide range of sensitivity analyses and are consistent across different observation-based datasets.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1

 

[susanlea]

Just now, placeholder said:

Once again, here's that article from Nature which casts a lot of doubt on that assertion of yours:

Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades

In this study, we demonstrate that since 1960, the warming of the world ocean has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0.15 ± 0.05 (W/m2)/decade, while the land, cryosphere, and atmosphere have exhibited an accelerated pace of 0.013 ± 0.003 (W/m2)/decade. This has led to a substantial increase in ocean warming, with a magnitude of 0.91 ± 0.80 W/m2 between the decades 1960–1970 and 2010–2020, which overlies substantial decadal-scale variability in ocean warming of up to 0.6 W/m2. Our findings withstand a wide range of sensitivity analyses and are consistent across different observation-based datasets.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1

 

Nothing post. 

[susanlea]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Does this look a steady increase to you?

1998 was the hottest year until 2016 so it held the record for 18 years.