More chart study. I believe the one chart that is hard to find and seldom seen is of literally vital importance. It has implications that no one ever talks about–so that is exactly what I am going to do, in my own fumbling and sadly unscientific sort of way. (Maybe someone who is more professional can pick up the ball and do it right!) The second chart, which is basically the one constantly referred to in all climate change writings, is needed for comparison, and I think the best version has the same source, namely the James Hansen website, which uses good data and is kept up to date reasonably well. The two charts I use both have an 1880-1920 base period, which is thought to closely represent the genuine pre-industrial numbers that are simply unavailable. The one chart is only offered on pdf, and the most compatible version of the other is also stuck on pdf, which in both cases is something of an inconvenience for filing and disseminating, that maybe Hansen could correct some day.
If you face any of above sexual dysfunction, which is affecting your sexual life viagra on line you could try these out like never before. Other more litigating factors that directly contribute to Male impotence can Find Out More sans prescription viagra include smoking cigarettes. Many of online pharmacies have viagra cheap canada come up with online presence to help their busy customers. The effect of this drug remains till 4-6 hours and in some cases it has been noticed that not everymen get suffer with sexual disorder but some with certain diseases, life issues, tensions and stress may taste the sexual concern. viagra buy online
1. go to…http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/…on the 5th line below the top chart, click the 1889-1920 base period link for a totally improved representation.
…on the 2nd line below, click on “pdf” for the best view of the image.
.
One more caveat. On both charts the numbers you see before 1950 are open to question, much more so than the later ones. This is particularly true in the case of sea surface measurements, and there is a common belief that those which were reported during the war years in the early 40s are the most unreliable of all. Almost every year has a story behind it, some larger than others, like big volcanoes, El Nino events and so on. Our main interest is centered on the basic trend that has take shape since about 1975, a time of the most explosive increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which can readily be seen on charts elsewhere. (All of the Hansen charts are also worth studying.)
.
Land and sea. Land and sea. That is the sticky one. Its story is seldom told, but what a story. Where to begin? I believe it provides glaring evidence that the climate science establishment, best represented by the IPCC, has been following the wrong track to start with, and beyond that has been unable to accommodate much of the creative research published in the most recent years. As a result the whole concept of climate sensitivity has become obsolete and so has the foundation on which the Paris Agreement was built. The radically uneven and continuously diverging way in which land and ocean regions are warming is in fact not being taken into account. The “global temperature” curve has become a meaningless fiction, and that is because lower atmosphere air temperatures over the oceans, 70% of the total, don’t really mean anything that is of consequence for what the vast majority of humans are exposed to every day. Where we live temperatures on average have risen by 1.6 to 1.7C, even 1.8 in a recent extreme year, not the 1.1 we always hear about. That is why day after day we keep being surprised by the intensity of a string of unexpected events. When the fictitious global average number finally hits 1.5, which will largely depend on how various ocean currents that move the ocean heat around feel like circulating, we landlubbers will be seeing 2.0 and all of its gruesome effects well to the back of our rear-view mirror.
.
Sensitivity (defined as the expected rise in global air temperature due to a quick doubling of atmospheric CO2.) It needs to be organized in a way that, first of all, shows the expected change of temperature on continental land, where there is a now-demonstrated minimum of any delaying effects due to “thermal inertia.” When change in the air temperature over seas is included, making sensitivity a truly global measure, inertia must be taken into account because today so much heat is slowly being diverted from the surface into the deeper waters rather than upward. Eventually, after perhaps a hundred years or more, that will cease, and surface air will catch up with the temperature of air over land. That can happen only when the the ocean surface throws as much heat (per unit of area) into the air as land, instead of allowing so much to drop below. Beyond that point, all of the many other changes that are destined to occur because of the warming, especially changes of an albedo nature, will determine the ultimate sensitivity outcome after many hundreds of years, probably quite a bit higher yet.
.
In the present warming episode the land and sea charts are telling us that sensitivity is almost certainly greater than three degrees before any of the really long range effects, but not necessarily more than 3.5, and it will very likely take at least one hundred years for the oceans to add the full amount of outbound radiation needed to complete their share of this total. With respect to sea level rise the oceans are already contributing their share or more of the heat that is required by delivering it from the underside of coastal ice, as they are quite able to do.
—–
More news stories again tomorrow. Here is one for today that puts things into perspective quite well, except that he misses the point I have been trying to make.
Carl