freediver wrote on Sep 1
st, 2019 at 10:11am:
The lie (or the idiocy depending on the person) from the denialist camp is that it was a case of global warming.
And now of course it is Global Warming based on an assessment of Global Temperatures, even though there were only 10 long term stations in the Southern Hemisphere.
Good golly Miss Molly, talk about biased. And then of course if you look at the NOAA maps they show huge grey areas where there in't no reading.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/map-l...Not only Arctic and Antarctic but also large parts of South America and Southern Africa.
But beyond that what you are saying it was regional warming not global,
But what about regional cooling? Shouldn't that be treated the same way?
"Regional cooling in a warming world: Recent temperature trends in
the southeast Pacific and along the west coast of subtropical South
America (1979–2006)"
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008JD010519Then of course in the model world -
"Global and regional surface cooling in a warming climate: a multi-model analysis"
"A central issue in climate research in recent years
has been the apparent paradox that global surface temperature has not been increasing in tandem with increasing emissions of human-induced greenhouse gases. This paradox has generated a lot of attention among researchers (e.g., Easterling and Wehner 2009; Foster and Rahmstorf 2011; Katsman and van Oldenborgh 2011; Santer et al. 2011, 2014; Trenberth and Fasullo 2013; Huber and Knutti 2014; Maher et al. 2014; Risbey et al. 2014; Watanabe et al. 2014) and the general public (Tollefson 2014). It has also been used to cast doubts about the reliability of climate research in general and climate models in particular (Showstack 2014) since the ensemble mean of the models do not reproduce the so-called surface temperature hiatus."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2811-ySo it is apparent this paradox is a cause of concern.
But they continue. -
"We therefore include four main emission scenarios for the twentyfirst century. These
range from a high, business-as-usual, scenario (RCP8.5), two intermediate scenarios with maximum emissions occurring around 2080 (RCP6.0) and 2040 (RCP4.5), and a low-emission scenario (RCP2.6). RCP2.6 is constructed to be in line with the so-called two-degree target (Rijsberman and Swart 1990; Jaeger and Jaeger 2011). The observed CO2 -emissions indicate that we are currently tracking the RCP 8.5 scenario (Quéré et al. 2014). If continued, this will lead to almost a threefold increase of present day CO2 -emissions by the end of the century."
ibidHere they maintain their philosophy of pretending RCP 8.5 is a "business-as-usual" scenario.
Climate Cchange
TM must be the only discipline studied where they use an ultra-low, a mid low, and a "business-as-usual" scenario.
In the real world they use a low, a "business-as-usual" and a high scenario.
Only in climate science.