''Tropospheric temperatures are not surface temperatures. The troposphere is warming more slowly than the surface.''
If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about, you'd know why this matters. The warmists predicted that one of the signs of man-caused warming would be a tropical tropospheric "hot spot". It has been shown to be false, which falsifies one portion of the AGW theory.
It "goes away" every summer in the northern hemisphere. I already posted information that the amount of ice is up significantly from the supposed "low of 2007", which you evidently ignored. WHO is cherry picking?
quote
why are we not cooling?
The point is, we AREN'T warming even though CO2 is climbing.
FAR MORE THEN YOU LIVE ABOARD IN HURRICANE WATERS YOU LEARN
''Arctic sea ice extent during the first two weeks of August continued to track below 2007 record low daily ice extents. As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss. Overall, weather patterns in the Arctic Ocean through the summer of 2012 have been a mixed bag, with no consistent pattern.
Arctic sea ice extent on August 13 was 5.09 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This is 2.69 million square kilometers (1.04 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent for the date, and is 483,000 square kilometers (186,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the date, which occurred in 2007. ''
Originally posted by ray b: ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record
...which only goes back to 1979. I've previously posted news stories from the early and mid 1900s that show the SAME kinds of conditions, including the opening of the "northwest passage". The ice may be lower than in 1979, or a 30 year average, but it doesn't mean s***, ray. On geologic scales, it is MEANINGLESS.
Oh, and I thought we were talking about *temperature*, ray, not ice extent. Can't win, so change the subject?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-22-2012).]
I realize that you are trying to be scientific about this, but I think there is a real possibility that you are inadvertently cherry picking the data that is available by singling out just certain widely separated years, before the advent of satellite data, where the ice was reported to be at a minimum.
Not too long ago (February) NASA released a study of the Arctic ice based on satellite data covering the period from 1980 to 2012, which is summarized (with images) on line. (The study itself was published in the Journal of Climate.)
Looks to me like the extent of the Arctic ice has been in an overall continuous decline since 1980.
It's hard for me to imagine that anyone can go back to the time before satellites (as you are doing in your last post) and find enough high quality data on the ice cap for a long enough period of time to draw statistically significant conclusions.
Also your reference to "geologic scale":
There is no known geologic precedent for how rapidly CO2 has been building up in the atmosphere since they started monitoring it continuously with air sample measurements. So we have to be very careful about what we try to infer from the historical data, whether we are looking backwards over just decades or centuries, or thousands and millions of years. (A point that is disregarded by many of the other posters.)
...which only goes back to 1979. I've previously posted news stories from the early and mid 1900s that show the SAME kinds of conditions, including the opening of the "northwest passage". The ice may be lower than in 1979, or a 30 year average, but it doesn't mean s***, ray. On geologic scales, it is MEANINGLESS.
Oh, and I thought we were talking about *temperature*, ray, not ice extent. Can't win, so change the subject?
TO QUOTE RAYGUN YOU KNOW SO MUCH THAT JUST AIN'T TRUE
ICE MELTS AS TEMP'S GO UP IS THAT REALLY SO HARD A CONCEPT ?
INPUT EFFECTS OUTPUT WEAK SUN BUT HOTTEST JULY EVER ?
SOMETHING IS HAPPENING AND YOU DONOT KNOW WHAT IT IS
I realize that you are trying to be scientific about this, but I think there is a real possibility that you are inadvertently cherry picking the data that is available by singling out just certain widely separated years, before the advent of satellite data, where the ice was reported to be at a minimum.
Not too long ago (February) NASA released a study of the Arctic ice based on satellite data covering the period from 1980 to 2012, which is summarized (with images) on line. (The study itself was published in the Journal of Climate.)
Looks to me like the extent of the Arctic ice has been in an overall continuous decline since 1980.
It's hard for me to imagine that anyone can go back to the time before satellites (as you are doing in your last post) and find enough high quality data on the ice cap for a long enough period of time to draw statistically significant conclusions.
Also your reference to "geologic scale":
There is no known geologic precedent for how rapidly CO2 has been building up in the atmosphere since they started monitoring it continuously with air sample measurements. So we have to be very careful about what we try to infer from the historical data, whether we are looking backwards over just decades or centuries, or thousands and millions of years. (A point that is disregarded by many of the other posters.)
Also from what most scientists are saying the extent is not the biggest issue, even though it's a major one, it's that the thick long term ice is disappearing and the ice that returns is thinner sheet ice.
I realize that you are trying to be scientific about this, but I think there is a real possibility that you are inadvertently cherry picking the data that is available by singling out just certain widely separated years, before the advent of satellite data, where the ice was reported to be at a minimum.
No, the idea is that the warmists are saying that the ice melt is "unprecedented", and that such melt will continue exponentially until the ice doesn't return at all.
quote
Not too long ago (February) NASA released a study of the Arctic ice based on satellite data covering the period from 1980 to 2012, which is summarized (with images) on line. (The study itself was published in the Journal of Climate.)
Looks to me like the extent of the Arctic ice has been in an overall continuous decline since 1980.
But it might not matter, given that 30 years is such a short period of time, in the big picture. The articles I posted showed that such melt seems to have already happened a few decades before CO2 was considered an issue, and it came back to this mythical 1979 "holy grail" of amount of ice.
No, the idea is that the warmists are saying that the ice melt is "unprecedented", and that such melt will continue exponentially until the ice doesn't return at all.
Who is it that is making this claim and is it based on science and data?
I will agree that scare mongering for the sake of making a point isn't a good thing.
Using the worst case scenario and trying to convince people it will happen should be tempered with facts and logic.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-22-2012).]
Not sure what you are even asking is Climate Change Good or Bad for the U.S. and Hurricanes? Why are you comparing Florida and the U.S. as a nation? That is a head scratch!
If you are asking what the relationship between Climate change and Hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean then....
What are scientists/meteorologists saying?
IMO I would think there are many factors that influence Hurricane production, climate change being just one.
Latest science says that global warming is inevitable. Partly human caused and partly nature. They say that at this point all we can do is mitigate and adapt.
"A UC Riverside study found that commercially cooked hamburgers cause more air pollution than diesel trucks. The study, which focused on commercial charbroilers found in burger restaurants, said the equipment generates grease, smoke, water vapors and combustion products, which emit a large amount of particulate matter into the air. “For comparison, an 18-wheeler diesel engine truck would have to drive 143 miles on the freeway to put out the same mass of particulates as a single charbroiled hamburger patty,” said Bill Welch, the principle engineer. Researchers also found few regulations for the restaurant emissions."
"A UC Riverside study found that commercially cooked hamburgers cause more air pollution than diesel trucks. The study, which focused on commercial charbroilers found in burger restaurants, said the equipment generates grease, smoke, water vapors and combustion products, which emit a large amount of particulate matter into the air. “For comparison, an 18-wheeler diesel engine truck would have to drive 143 miles on the freeway to put out the same mass of particulates as a single charbroiled hamburger patty,” said Bill Welch, the principle engineer. Researchers also found few regulations for the restaurant emissions."
Ya..
There is also a bit of history to take into consideration. Until World War II, North American furnaces and kitchens mostly all ran on coal, charcoal, and wood. The factories mostly ran on coal. Today we produce far less actual pollution in the use of gas and gasoline per person. It is hard to imagine that a housewife during the 1930's was putting out many times the volume of contaminates that a modern truck does.
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year. Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.
Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms. Flawed science costs us dearly
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.
They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.
‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
(Comment: Then stop goddamn telling us that the issue is settled, and that mankind is certainly the cause of warming.)
Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.
Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’
Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
(Comment: EXACTLY the problem with so called "climate scientists". They tell us the issue is settled, and they are right. When the are wrong, they "move the bar".)
Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.
Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.
Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.
Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.
The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.
Actually the earth is not net warming. It is pretty much status quo.
While the Arctic ice fields have retreated some, the Antarctic ice fields are growing. story on Antarctic ice growth
"The agency that tracks polar ice reported Tuesday that winter coverage of sea ice in Antarctica has set a 33-year high. The ice hit its maximum extent on Sept. 26, at the peak of Antarctic winter, when it covered 7.5 million square miles of the Southern Ocean. That’s a half-percent increase over the previous record, set in 2006."
Actually the earth is not net warming. It is pretty much status quo.
While the Arctic ice fields have retreated some, the Antarctic ice fields are growing. story on Antarctic ice growth
"The agency that tracks polar ice reported Tuesday that winter coverage of sea ice in Antarctica has set a 33-year high. The ice hit its maximum extent on Sept. 26, at the peak of Antarctic winter, when it covered 7.5 million square miles of the Southern Ocean. That’s a half-percent increase over the previous record, set in 2006."
Yup. And the global warming a-holes said that both poles would melt, and the Antarctic ice would flood the world. Now they're walking it back, saying "oh, gee, we meant that Antarctic ice would grow" or some bullshit.
Actually the earth is not net warming. It is pretty much status quo.
While the Arctic ice fields have retreated some, the Antarctic ice fields are growing. story on Antarctic ice growth
"The agency that tracks polar ice reported Tuesday that winter coverage of sea ice in Antarctica has set a 33-year high. The ice hit its maximum extent on Sept. 26, at the peak of Antarctic winter, when it covered 7.5 million square miles of the Southern Ocean. That’s a half-percent increase over the previous record, set in 2006."
Of course I read the article. There are still lots of people out there who blame record cold and snow on Global Warming with the kitschy phrase "climate change". The fact is there are multiple factors at work, not the least of which is the tilt of the earth which varies between 23 and 25 degrees. The further tilt the colder the winter, and if it oscillates back close to the same this winter, we could have a pretty long and cold one here too. The other factor is sun spots, and as I've posted before the record sun spot activity of the 90's just hasn't come back. For instance today there are 4 spots facing earth with no solar storms. This is way down from the peak in late 90's.
The article gives the data and then tries to interpret the data based on Global Warming. I don't share the writer's interpretation of the data. The data still stands on its own. We have a record cold winter in Antarctica instead of the predicted melt down. The Global Warming alarmists were wrong again. No drowning polar bears, no record hurricanes, not inundated islands, no surging tides.
Of course I read the article. There are still lots of people out there who blame record cold and snow on Global Warming with the kitschy phrase "climate change". The fact is there are multiple factors at work, not the least of which is the tilt of the earth which varies between 23 and 25 degrees. The further tilt the colder the winter, and if it oscillates back close to the same this winter, we could have a pretty long and cold one here too. The other factor is sun spots, and as I've posted before the record sun spot activity of the 90's just hasn't come back. For instance today there are 4 spots facing earth with no solar storms. This is way down from the peak in late 90's.
The article gives the data and then tries to interpret the data based on Global Warming. I don't share the writer's interpretation of the data. The data still stands on its own. We have a record cold winter in Antarctica instead of the predicted melt down. The Global Warming alarmists were wrong again. No drowning polar bears, no record hurricanes, not inundated islands, no surging tides.
as you say the sun is in a low output phase but WHY NO COOLING ? the heat was turned down but no cooling we do see less warming but no cooling due too the sun cycle
ARCTIC ICE IS GOING AWAY, WHY ?
hint it ain't the tilt that is a very long term cycle
your side jumps on minor details but misses the big picture
do you ever read non nut-con sites ? try real non spin sites like science news SA nature ect why is almost every link you post to nut-con sites ?
Ray you sound like you've been drinking the Al Gore Koolaide. Every time a scientific fact contradicts his crew, they attack it as not credible. Wake up and smell the coffee. Winter comes again, and so it continues. There is no Global Warming for the past 16 years, or did you not read?
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 10-15-2012).]
Ray you sound like you've been drinking the Al Gore Koolaide. Every time a scientific fact contradicts his crew, they attack it as not credible. Wake up and smell the coffee. Winter comes again, and so it continues. There is no Global Warming for the past 16 years, or did you not read?
Arn
not attacking facts just the site and spin it puts on everything
I do note you post spin too
and never answer questions like why no cooling if the sun is out putting less energy ? or why is the northern ice shrinking in a less solar output time
and why repeat BS [in this thread that stands for bear chit] like the pole tilt when we know that ain't true for current short term temp rises want to trot out M cycles too ? but those do not fit current time frames ether
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 10-15-2012).]
You are missing the point Ray. There has been no Global Warming for 16 years. Argue all you want over the minutia, try to oversimplify complex scientific issues, but the bottom line remains. No Global Warming. One pole gets warmer while the other pole gets colder, one winter is a record cold, the other winter is milder.
Bottom line is again, No Global Warming. Arguements all lost.
No, the idea is that the warmists are saying that the ice melt is "unprecedented", and that such melt will continue exponentially until the ice doesn't return at all.
Well that settles it...I am going to go out and get me some Canadian Artic Ice but it in the freezer until it all melts in the north and doesn't come back and then sell it on eBay :evil:
Seriously to all of you man made warming crowd - remember there was this big panic back in the 70's about the coming ice age, and we all know how that turns out - this is just more of the same and there is nothing that we did or can do (other than stop being such a disposable society).
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Seriously to all of you man made warming crowd - remember there was this big panic back in the 70's about the coming ice age, and we all know how that turns out - this is just more of the same and there is nothing that we did or can do (other than stop being such a disposable society).
Aerosols: Industrial emissions of solid matter that become suspended in the atmosphere. Contributed to global cooling trend from 1940s through 1970s. Global temperatures started climbing again after widespread measures were effected (starting about 1980) to reduce industrial aerosols.
Did you actually read the article?
