[rockdoc123]

That global warming is real scientifically proven and the CO2 released by human activity is the major reason that it is happening;

Yes. I understand that.

completely unrelated to what was being discussed here...not sure why you want to draw attention to some significant comprehension problems on your part. Its a bit like quoting high school basketball scores to argue about the viability of electric cars...interesting but completely unrelated and to be honest, inane.

So apparently you all think I've made this up (just go and get the US climate history network data and plot it yourself) but are you going to argue that the US Global Change Research Program also made it up?

USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

Here are two plots from that study clearly showing the higher heat waves in the 1930's than recent.





and this has been presented numerous times in the published literature. Example:

Peterson et al, 2013. Monitoring and understanding changes in heat waves, cold waves, floods and droughts in the United States, State of Knowledge. Bulletin of Amer Met Soc., pp 821 – 834
DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1



And with that I'm done with the topic.

[clif]

well croc doc since the title of the thread IS global warming, NOT USA warming, I just returned to the topic at hand.......

as fer yer rant, buh bye

[dissident]

The difference between the two graphs is

croc docs graph are JUST the US

Where as dissident's graph is the whole planet......

something croc doc seems to hope we miss,

I wonder why

Although your point is generally valid, the graph I posted is actually for the USA:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... emperature

This figure shows how annual average temperatures in the contiguous 48 states have changed since 1901. Surface data come from land-based weather stations. Satellite measurements cover the lower troposphere, which is the lowest level of the Earth’s atmosphere. “UAH” and “RSS” represent two different methods of analyzing the original satellite measurements. This graph uses the 1901–2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time.

Data source: NOAA, 2016

[rockdoc123]

Although your point is generally valid, the graph I posted is actually for the USA:

but still not maximum temperature which is where the argument was centered. So good job of talking about something unrelated to the argument. In the future would be useful to tell everyone what is plotted as well.

[Keith_McClary]

The raw data is available at NOAA but it amalgamates data from the global network GHCN which is the dataset that almost all of the main temperature indices (HadCrut, Best etc) use in one manner or another. The calculation of average is done through a gridding process on their computers and is not a simple average as it takes into account all of the stations which recorded daily highs and lows and have had corrections applied to them. Those overlapping grids are then averaged in the NOAA dataset by State or Region etc. The argument can be made that this method ignores distance between stations but for the US this is much less important due to the closeness and vast number of station measurements used. As such the grid chosen is small and the error due to distance affects is much less than it might be where stations are further apart such as parts of South America, Africa and Europe. In those situations, kriging is used by most researchers to arrive at averages. A good explaination of the methodology appears in

Rohde, R et al, 2013. Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process. Geoinfor Geostt: an Overview 2013, 1:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/gigs.1000103

Yes, I know NOAA and Berkeley Earth do not use a simple average, but they did not make the graph you posted.

What is the source of your graph?

[Graeme]

Biofuels Could Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 96%

There is nothing inherently wrong with internal combustion engines. The problem is the fuels we use to run them emit billions of tons of greenhouse gases every year, gases which cause the Earth to get hotter. The byproducts from burning gasoline or diesel fuel account for almost a third of all US greenhouse gas emissions according to the EPA.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/01/biofuels-could-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-96/

[clif]

What is the source of your graph?

Yes croc doc, what IS the source?

[rockdoc123]

Yes croc doc, what IS the source?

Oh FFS.....the data is all there for you to plot whatever it is you want to potentially show me wrong. Go for it. And if you don't know how to deal with the actual data go to the instructions on the site. Apparently you think you are smarter than everyone else so have at it.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/ ... 52j.tar.gz

It is somewhat telling that you are more interested in somehow trying to discredit people rather than actually arguing something scientifically credible. But go ahead plot to your heart's content and prove me wrong.
Oh, do I have to point to the official USGRP report again? Are you arguing that all those scientists are wrong? Those plots I posted replicate exactly what I was saying.
Can I suggest if you have nothing to offer here of substance you just go away?

[clif]

I guess he has NO actual source for the graph .........

otherwise posting the link for it would be sooooooooooooooo easy

but for some strange reason he cannot or will not.

[Keith_McClary]

Blast from the past:
"National Action Plan for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions", 1993
https://books.google.ca/books?id=5eyDD5Eqd4IC

[Newfie]

Here is kind of a nice summary of recent analysis.

Where I think the author misses the mark is that all projections stop at 2100. That sort of primes readers to think the warming will stop in 2100. It will not, it will continue to build. And after that it gets scary.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019 ... istic.html

[dohboi]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... torm-study

Frequency of intense floods and storms could double in 13 years

[jedrider]

I told you that just personal observation is a good measure of climate change:

Wind gusts at Kirkwood reach 209 mph, setting a new California record
https://www.sacbee.com/news/weather-news/article240133118.html

Ocean currents are getting faster
https://www.livescience.com/ocean-currents-speeding-up.html

Observation and common sense can tell you a lot.

Another combination of observations that is perhaps relevant to fire hazard, particularly in North America
is that the last ice age has scraped the land from south to north and the now very wavy jet stream probably
plays on that in increasing fire hazard in mountain valleys. Just an observation though at how climate change
and fire hazard can be linked.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Here is kind of a nice summary of recent analysis.

Where I think the author misses the mark is that all projections stop at 2100. That sort of primes readers to think the warming will stop in 2100. It will not, it will continue to build. And after that it gets scary.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019 ... istic.html

Neither author of this work or you are planning to live beyond 2100.
That is why there are no further projections.

[jedrider]

There are no future projections beyond 2100 because no one has genetic material that may make it that far out. If we're still here at 2050, I do think they will have a 2150 projection ready, though.

[dissident]

But this is a projection gap since society last much longer than individual humans. Informing the deciders about the post 2100 cataclysm is not academic, it is mandatory. It will quash all the delusional BS among policy people in various governments that humans will adapt. Even if we could adapt to 2100 conditions (not likely since agriculture will be in a state of collapse by 2050), that does not mean we can adapt to the progressively worsening conditions after 2100.

[Newfie]

Dissident,

I think you are 100% correct.

My gut tells men that when we limit our projections to 2100 people hear that as saying that is the end of warming, that is the end of the influence. Intellectually they may know it is not, but back in the snake brain, back where they make decisions, it’s the end.

And that is an extremely dangerous problem for humanity.

[rockdoc123]

There are no future projections beyond 2100 because no one has genetic material that may make it that far out. If we're still here at 2050, I do think they will have a 2150 projection ready, though.

Actually, in AR5 the IPCC projected a number of things out to 2300 based on the models available at the time and the various RCP scenarions. (see chapter 12 AR5, antrhopogenic forcing, temperature and AMO were all projected out that far).
As well there are lots of papers published that go into longer-term projections eg:
Garner, A. J. Impact of climate change on New York City’s coastal flood hazard: Increasing flood heights from the preindustrial to 2300 CE. PNAS 114 (45) pp 11861-11866
which like all of these long term projections use CMIP5.
The reason projecting beyond 2100 is not done is the assumptions made regarding concentration pathways and other forcing changes have more and more uncertainty the further projected into the future. Hence beyond 2100 you are really in the realm of...if we make all these assumptions lined out here (of which we have little confidence in) these are the modeled results. It is interesting but not very meaningful for any sort of policymaking.

[ROCKMAN]

Newfie - Very true especially in a broader LONG TERM sense. Ample evidence proving the earth is in a long term warming cycle. Yes: short term up and down pulses. But on a geologic time scale (IOW 100,000+ thousand year) view warming up. No doubt man's activity is producing a sharp up cycle.

Things may go to shit in 100 years (or less) and much/most of wildlife and plant life won't be able to adapt. But much of mankind will...and 100's of million (if not billions) won't. Would still have happened in thousands (or tens of thousands of years) without man's help.

[Yonnipun]

There is no man made global warming. Man can not increase the output of the sun.