MAY 2020 CLIMATE SUMMARY

DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

For more details see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxp0ZJ0XH7E

DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

For more details see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxp0ZJ0XH7E

DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average

I don't doubt it but couldn't that have been said often in the past 12,000 years?

Here is what I would like to understand better:
Does anyone think they have a handle on what is going on besides AGW? If there were no AGW impact would the temp be rising, falling or flat over the past 425 months.

If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

If it was supposed to be rising then it may mean very little.

I'd truly like your take on that DRKTS

gfm7175 wrote: There is no "supposed to"...

DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

...deleted Holy Video...

keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years. The short term warming trend is much stronger than the very long term cooling trend.

IBdaMann wrote:**bonus point award ceremony**

gfm7175 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years. The short term warming trend is much stronger than the very long term cooling trend.

keepit,
I think the earth is headed on a very short term path towards complete and total destruction (due to "dangerously high" atmospheric CO2 levels and people not "doing something" about it). The problem is deciding precisely how we all should sulk, bitch, moan, and completely piss away the final 10 years of existence that we have left.

gfm7175 wrote:


SCIENCE!!!! Yo, SCIENCE!!!! Where art thou, SCIENCE?!??!?!?!

No science here people... move along...

DRKTS wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:


SCIENCE!!!! Yo, SCIENCE!!!! Where art thou, SCIENCE?!??!?!?!

No science here people... move along...

Apparently you did not watch the video or don't know what science is.

HarveyH55 wrote:


Total load of bullshit...
Doesn't arctic ice melt during the summer? If we didn't live thousands of years in a warmer climate, we would have evolved hairy all over, like other mammals.

CO2, highest level? How would you possibly know that? The ideal level for most plant life, falls in the 700-800 ppm range. 150 ppm is insufficient for plants to survive. OSHA believes 1200 ppm is a safe work environment, no protective gear, or ventilation required. Why isn't CO2 more toxic to life, if we are able to do well at higher concentrations? Plants do remarkably well at twice the current level. It been studied a great deal. Commercial indoor growing commonly augment CO2 to those levels, to produce a superior product, much quicker, than outdoors. This indicates that we had much more CO2 in the environment, and it was also much warmer, no clothing required...

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average

I don't doubt it but couldn't that have been said often in the past 12,000 years?

Here is what I would like to understand better:
Does anyone think they have a handle on what is going on besides AGW? If there were no AGW impact would the temp be rising, falling or flat over the past 425 months.

If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

If it was supposed to be rising then it may mean very little.

I'd truly like your take on that DRKTS

gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...

Into the Night wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

...deleted Holy Video...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. it is not possible to measure the total ice and snow on Earth. it is not possible to measure the amount of ice at any pole. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. ENSO has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth or it's oceans. The winter Arctic ice extent for 2018/2019 is larger than 2017/2018.

DRKTS wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...

There are 3 possibilities for the year to year variation of temperature

It can be average

It can be below average

It can be above average.

In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

So what is the likelihood of getting 425 consecutive months in a row above average? It is like a heads/tails coin toss but the coin has 3 sides.

So that would be 3 ^ (425-1) or 1 in 2x10^(202). That is more that the number of atoms in the Universe (10^(89))

I'll take those odds!

DRKTS wrote: Yes the Arctic melts in the summer - the graph I showed was compared with previous Mays so the melting should be the same but for the last 19 years in a row there has been more melting than average.

DRKTS wrote:Past CO2 levels are derived from ice cores, sediments, etc.

DRKTS wrote:CO2 is good for SOME plants,

DRKTS wrote: CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

DRKTS wrote:The questions are:

DRKTS wrote: 1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?

DRKTS wrote: 2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?

DRKTS wrote: 3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

Nitrogen comprises 80% of our atmosphere, and it will kill all life if you increase that to 100% (a mere 25% increase).

.

DRKTS wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Total load of bullshit...
Doesn't arctic ice melt during the summer? If we didn't live thousands of years in a warmer climate, we would have evolved hairy all over, like other mammals.

CO2, highest level? How would you possibly know that? The ideal level for most plant life, falls in the 700-800 ppm range. 150 ppm is insufficient for plants to survive. OSHA believes 1200 ppm is a safe work environment, no protective gear, or ventilation required. Why isn't CO2 more toxic to life, if we are able to do well at higher concentrations? Plants do remarkably well at twice the current level. It been studied a great deal. Commercial indoor growing commonly augment CO2 to those levels, to produce a superior product, much quicker, than outdoors. This indicates that we had much more CO2 in the environment, and it was also much warmer, no clothing required...

Yes the Arctic melts in the summer - the graph I showed was compared with previous Mays so the melting should be the same but for the last 19 years in a row there has been more melting than average.

Past CO2 levels are derived from ice cores, sediments, etc.

CO2 is good for SOME plants, especially in controlled environments (water and nutrients) - CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

DRKTS wrote:
CO2 is good for SOME plants, especially in controlled environments (water and nutrients) - CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?

DRKTS wrote:
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?

DRKTS wrote:
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

DRKTS wrote:
When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account

DRKTS wrote:
then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.

DRKTS wrote:...deleted holy link...

That is why you see some estimates of AGW saying that it explains 110% of the warming since 1900.

DRKTS wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...

There are 3 possibilities for the year to year variation of temperature

It can be average

It can be below average

It can be above average.

In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

So what is the likelihood of getting 425 consecutive months in a row above average? It is like a heads/tails coin toss but the coin has 3 sides.

So that would be 3 ^ (425-1) or 1 in 2x10^(202). That is more that the number of atoms in the Universe (10^(89))

I'll take those odds!

DRKTS wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:


SCIENCE!!!! Yo, SCIENCE!!!! Where art thou, SCIENCE?!??!?!?!

No science here people... move along...

Apparently you did not watch the video or don't know what science is.

DRKTS wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Total load of bullshit...
Doesn't arctic ice melt during the summer? If we didn't live thousands of years in a warmer climate, we would have evolved hairy all over, like other mammals.

CO2, highest level? How would you possibly know that? The ideal level for most plant life, falls in the 700-800 ppm range. 150 ppm is insufficient for plants to survive. OSHA believes 1200 ppm is a safe work environment, no protective gear, or ventilation required. Why isn't CO2 more toxic to life, if we are able to do well at higher concentrations? Plants do remarkably well at twice the current level. It been studied a great deal. Commercial indoor growing commonly augment CO2 to those levels, to produce a superior product, much quicker, than outdoors. This indicates that we had much more CO2 in the environment, and it was also much warmer, no clothing required...

Yes the Arctic melts in the summer - the graph I showed was compared with previous Mays so the melting should be the same but for the last 19 years in a row there has been more melting than average.

DRKTS wrote:
Past CO2 levels are derived from ice cores, sediments, etc.

DRKTS wrote:
CO2 is good for SOME plants, especially in controlled environments (water and nutrients) - CO2 can kill as several sudden lake emissions have led to the deaths of villagers and their cattle.

DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?

DRKTS wrote:
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?

DRKTS wrote:
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

DRKTS wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
425 months in a row above the 20th century average

I don't doubt it but couldn't that have been said often in the past 12,000 years?

Here is what I would like to understand better:
Does anyone think they have a handle on what is going on besides AGW? If there were no AGW impact would the temp be rising, falling or flat over the past 425 months.

If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

If it was supposed to be rising then it may mean very little.

I'd truly like your take on that DRKTS

When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.

DRKTS wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

DRKTS wrote:
That is why you see some estimates of AGW saying that it explains 110% of the warming since 1900.

DRKTS wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Weather happens, dude... AGW is nothing more than wacky religious dogma that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no "supposed to"...

There are 3 possibilities for the year to year variation of temperature

It can be average

It can be below average

It can be above average.

In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

So what is the likelihood of getting 425 consecutive months in a row above average? It is like a heads/tails coin toss but the coin has 3 sides.

So that would be 3 ^ (425-1) or 1 in 2x10^(202). That is more that the number of atoms in the Universe (10^(89))

I'll take those odds!

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Warmest May on record

12 months in a row of the warmest or second warmest month on record

2020 on track to be at least the second warmest year on record

425 months in a row above the 20th century average

Siberia remains a "hot spot"

ENSO Neutral conditions prevail

19 consecutive years of below average Arctic Sea Ice in the month of May

5th consecutive year with below average Antarctic Sea Ice.

CO2 reaches its highest level (417 ppm) since humans walked the Earth.

...deleted Holy Video...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. it is not possible to measure the total ice and snow on Earth. it is not possible to measure the amount of ice at any pole. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. ENSO has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth or it's oceans. The winter Arctic ice extent for 2018/2019 is larger than 2017/2018.

Lots of not possibles in there but the only one that counts is that seems impossible for you to understand basic data especially if it punctures our delusional bubble.

keepit wrote:
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:If it was supposed to be falling ...

There is no "supposed to"...

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

DRKTS wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.
See

DRKTS wrote:
In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
I think the earth is headed on a very long term path towards another ice age. The problem is taking care of the next 100 to 200 years.

Yeah well said.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:If it was supposed to be falling ...

There is no "supposed to"...

Were you actually confused about what I was communicating? I can put it in different words for you:
If the temperature would have been falling otherwise. Make sense?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Or Denver right ITN? Or GFM's house. Just say it's not possible to measure the temperature of anything as you've never given an example.

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
The questions are:
1) How much land are you willing to lose as sea levels rise?
2) How much lower can ocean pH go before it destroys the food chain that 1/3 of the world's population depends on?
3) How much higher can we permit global temperatures to go before the global economy collapses?

But of course those questions come AFTER each one of those events is substantiated. The scale of what is happening is critically important. The Sun is burning out but so slowly it doesn't concern us for example.

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
If it was supposed to be falling that makes the stat of record highs very significant.

When you take all the natural factors that change global temperatures into account then global temperatures should have fallen by about 0.1C over the last 100 years.
...deleted graph of random numbers...

Thank you! That is exactly what I wanted to see. My first question/topic here was about an island that was identified as sinking and in the news report they mentioned the first half had sunk in the 1800s. So I was like wait a minute! Tangier Island , should it be used as an example? That chart does actually show the blue line being flat +0.01 though doesn't it?

tmiddles wrote:
I'd really like to talk more with you directly on here DRKTS. I'm sick of ITN/IBD taking up all our time.

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
In a non warming world the above and below months would average out to the average (by definition)

Well said. A seemingly chaotic/random event that depends on probability, like rolling a die for example, will describe it's true character more and more clearly with repetition.

tmiddles wrote:
So DRKTS regarding the image you found above. It was included here:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused/
Where is states:"To understand why 'this current' global warming is human caused and not natural cycle, one needs to get an idea of what the natural cycle is and what are the basic mechanisms that cause climate change in the natural cycle. The absolute essentials that you need to understand are the drivers:

tmiddles wrote:
Milankovitch Cycles" So thanks again for finding this for me.

tmiddles wrote:
I think looking at the ability to measure and predict the past temperature patterns is worthwhile.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has taken the factors like Milankovitch Cycles in the past and compared them with what we've learned about temperature in the past.

tmiddles wrote:
Even just being able to correlate relatively warmer and cooler spans of time would be a start.

Into the Night wrote:
Take care of what? Define the problem.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
If the temperature would have been falling otherwise. Make sense?

No. From when to when? Why those particular times? Why not any other particular times.

Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.

Into the Night wrote:No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

tgoebbles wrote: The temp increasing rapidly.

tgoebbles wrote: We are aware of when CO2 emissions from human activity increase dramatically and that is in the last 100 year. But it is the temperature increase per year that is relevant, not the span of years looked at.

tgoebbles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.

You continue to ask that and then ignore the answer.

tgoebbles wrote: Both terms refer to an increase in the mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

tgoebbles wrote: The Sun warms Earth and only the Sun. The atmosphere allows for more of that thermal energy to be present.

IBdaMann wrote:...Is that happening?..increase?...temperature?...Am I mistaken?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Take care of what? Define the problem.

The temp increasing rapidly.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
If the temperature would have been falling otherwise. Make sense?

No. From when to when? Why those particular times? Why not any other particular times.

The Earth has an annual temperature cycle due to it's orbit. We are aware of when CO2 emissions from human activity increase dramatically and that is in the last 100 year.

tmiddles wrote:
But it is the temperature increase per year that is relevant, not the span of years looked at.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.

You continue to ask that and then ignore the answer.

tmiddles wrote:
Both terms refer to an increase in the mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The Sun warms Earth and only the Sun. The atmosphere allows for more of that thermal energy to be present.

gfm7175 wrote:
So you're now dodging

tmiddles wrote: If you actually want to debate these things I'm ready.

tmiddles wrote:...deleted evasion...Mantras 17...15a...15b...15a...15b...6...10h...29...

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...15a...6...