What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Because interglacials happen slowly over thousands of years. Normally, glaciers don't melt siginifantly in a few decades. At the moment things happen at a greatly accelerated rate.
Sure it's been happening, sea level has changed over 100 meters since the last ice age after all, in the past 10,000 years temperatures have risen by several degrees. The point is, it is *still* happening. That can only be explained by rising temperatures (melt waters and thermal expansion).
http://dutch.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
I quote from this article: "Since any increase in solar radiation would heat both the lower and upper atmosphere, the observed drop in upper atmospheric temperatures in the past 30 years argues against a large portion of the observed greenhouse effect being caused by solar variability."
Basically we have a relatively cool stratosphere and a relatively warm troposphere. You cannot explain that by a solar influence.
The CO2 is being absorbed ... see: the acidification and previous post and perhaps this article which explains it plain and simple:
https://web.duke.edu/nicholas/bio217/spring2010/chang/Causes%20of%20Ocean%20Acidification.htm
The physical process behind this is increased partial-pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, which requires an increased partial-pressure of CO2 in the ocean. This is more important than the release of CO2 by warming. Most of the absorbed CO2 is turned into acids, only 1% of the CO2 stays in the ocean as a gas.
Read this.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/similar-melts-from-1938-43.html
While the records may show some variability in ice sheet cover, it's not been as thin and small as in recent years.
And how do the 30s compare with the last 20 years of repeated records... I'll tell you: they're an incident, while we're now in a trend. And what do the 30s tell you about the global average ... nothing really. It's a local variation.
I suppose you're reading rubbish like this: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/which-was-the-warmest-decade/ Such articles are completely biased by regional short-term effects. The global record, on the other hand, is as much corrected for regionality as possible. That is more reliable... not perfect I suppose, but it's the best we have.
It's just one more example of throwing away a lot of knowledge and keeping just the few biased data that prove the point one wants to make... and throw in a few flashy graphics and boast about how stupid and unreliable the scientific community is to make the article seem "superior" even though it's complete garbage.
Science is not semantics. If you are clueless about the issue, please bone up on it. The issue is heat retention, not heat generation. Mann, Trenberth, Briffa, Jones, et. al. have clearly stated that the cause of the warming is NOT the sun, hence it is NOT additional heat.
That is not semantics. That is called science.
I most certainly do. However I do not dance to your tune. When you decide to pay for my social life, I will report when I am available to you and at what times. Not before.
#1 - Please show me where I have argued against AGW.
#2 - AGW is about surface temperature. A recent addition to the debate is the deep ocean heat retention. However no data exists to support or refute that point.
#3 - It is not mud slinging. If you read the link I gave you, you will find they photoshopped the pictures themselves! No one did it to them. it is not mud slinging to note what someone has done.
[/quote]
You should read your own source:
"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,"
"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-07-temperatures-co2-climate.html#jCp "Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-07-temperatures-co2-climate.html#jCp
That is a good concept to follow. Perhaps if the "team" used that standard, we would still be doing science instead of hysterics.
While I admit I have not read every comment, for the most part, the discussion has been civil. A hat tip to you and your moderating.
Good job!
Keep the boots. Supply the Beer!
Lucky for you since cold air sinks. If not for the pressure heating you up, you would be a Popsicle!
Ok, what he said.
Actually the sea does not have "rising acidity". It is less base, but still base. By a considerable degree.
Coming to think of it, the marble (or limestone) adds a lot of CaCo3 into the ocean. However, that's not an acid. Actually, the Ca atoms bond with the carbonates...
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/giving-geo-engineering-another-go-dumping-limestone-into-the-oceans-to-fight-acidification.html
So, the opposite would happen. More marble would've implied a more stable pH.
And this article concludes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17804807
"On a global scale, the alterations in surface water chemistry from anthropogenic nitrogen and sulfur deposition are a few percent of the acidification and DIC increases due to the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO(2)."
A new commentary on global warming.
http://www.livescience.com/40941-decade-too-long-to-wait-to-cut-carbon.html
Kinda exaggerated. I think it would be best if we start now with measures to reduce CO2 output, however the world won't end in such a short time. If I'm realistic, I think it will take 20 to 50 years before the GW effect will dwarf the other effects (el Nino, solar variation). By that time, people will understand better that the GW is real, and then they'll be more motivated to make the necessary changes. Unfortunately we will be at 500 pmm or higher by then... that's pretty high. It'll take another 50 years to reform the economies, by then the levels of CO2 could be as high as 600 ppm and if we are unlucky then we will already be triggering feedback events such as a complete collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet.
Sigh. If we are talking about green house gasses, then the conversation has always been about retention. I have NO IDEA what you are talking about or what you are referring to.
And my "your playing semantics" statement still stands. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. I guess neither of us know what you are talking about.
The dutch are severely indoctrinated over the past 20 years with AGW, so you can't blame GeomanNL for spouting the same doctrine over and over ad nauseam. In the end the eyes just glaze over at the endless repeating of pseudoscience. It starts already at primary school. It'll take generations to undo the havoc created by the environmental lobby.
Just read a statement by the 'scientists' that 'the warming pause may last till 2035". The warming pause. Let that sink in. Cooling is now a warming pause. How old is your freezer? It's warming pause now lasts 3 years.
A beautiful analogue from the EU who managed to mislay 6 billion euro's, about exactly their budget deficit. Their spox:
"Waste is a too subjective word to use in this context. Waste is not defined in the treaty. Waste is not defined in any legislation. It is not waste. It is just spent not in accordance with the rules."
Sounds like a IPCC spox on the warming pause.
Interesting article. - http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9071781/one-religion-is-enough/
Basic reading comprehension would serve you well, I wont expect such miraculous developments though. Perhaps, if you read it again slowly, you'll discover that "completely unrelated" had other words in front of it. I also gave you the other major cause, but laziness knows no bounds so I wont expect you to bother looking up the acidification effects of nitrogen based fertilizers being used in massive quantities to create ethanol.
CaCO3. Also known as marble. The primary ingredient of common antacids being powdered marble. As an antacid, it modifies the acidity of the fluid environment it's added to. In the direction we'd want.
It's also what most sea shells are made out of. Coral and whatnot depend on a specific acidity, and the availability of dissolved calcium ions(compliments of runoff dissolving marble in nature), in order to reform CaCO3 in their exoskeletal structures. Tums can solve more than just your heart burn.
Thermosphere != stratosphere. If you're going to give me dire consequences that are completely unrelated, don't go getting them confused for entirely different subjects after I shoot it down...
The bullshit is as follows. Oh no, our thermosphere is collapsing, we're all going to die because AGW got rid of the heat barrier that blocks most of the infrared out in space!
It's nonsense. It's also completely unrelated to the stratospheric cooling, which stopped. In the mid 90's.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/
Plot away and see for yourself. Rapid decline in the 80's, and by y2k it's damn near flat. Kinda like the tropospheric temperatures have been flat. Only difference is stratovolcanic eruptions are what make the large spikes, instead of ENSO. Funny how the declines are following the spikes from volcanic activity. It's almost as if it's entirely unrelated to AGW, a product of all the aerosols Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helen's pumped into the stratosphere...
The paleo record is not the current man made CO2 increase. Stop bringing it up if you're going to pretend I'm arguing the other every time I point out that the oceans absorb and expel CO2 relative to temperature. It's pissing me off.
Note how the northwest passage isn't clear of ice in the picture of the ice extent in 1938. The passage was sailed in 1906, by Roald Amundsen. It was again sailed in the 40's, on multiple occasions, by the RCMPV St. Roch. The data for 1940-46 is missing from the source material. I'll leave the why to someone less paranoid than I am. After all, it's not like they've been padding the record or something. Okay, so they have, but you probably don't believe that either. It's not like someone had satellite records to prove that they added an area the size of greenland to past ice extents in that graph. It's just hand drawn maps!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2009.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_1958.png
What does ice extent really say? The difference between where we were in the early 40's, ice wise, and where we are now, is just a couple more years of melt. Hit the mid 2000's and oh look, the late 30's! Not exactly proof of epic ice failure coming. Glaciers have been expanding the last few years too.
What do they tell you about the USHCN? That it's been doctored. I don't understand how you can beat your head against this wall so often without getting it through. The temperature record doesn't show the "local" and "incidental" heat wave that lasted well over a decade. It's been reducing in severity and duration with every successive iteration of GHCN.
The question is not why am I trying to disprove AGW by saying it was warmer in the 30's in a particular area. The question is why does the USHCN record, which covers the dust bowl era, not reflect the actual higher temperatures of historic record.
You prove the problem with this link you trashed as being regional and short term. What does the GHCN v3 say on that particular region? That it was one of the larger warming trends between those two. It can't be both. Either we were warmer back then, regionally, or we weren't. The GHCN says no, despite the historical contradiction and the complete lack of such a trend shown in the stations that are present for both time periods.
True.
Actually the graph does not have "increasing position". It is less negative, but still negative.
It doesn't matter that it's cooler and it's flat. The global warming of the troposphere is warmer has also been flat for the last 10 or 15 years.
The point is, that the temperature change has opposite sign.
This cannot be explained by solar intensity changes. That leaves a change in the spectrum that is received from the earth's surface and the top of the troposphere - and that has changed because of an increase in CO2 (and I suppose also an increase in H2O).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
This is where they explain their procedure.
It looks a bit scary at first sight, but if you consider what such temperature records are used for (to see unbiased trends in time), then what do you do first? You first get rid of as many artificial changes as you can possible detect. That's what they are doing. They are getting rid of any bias that they "know" of (by modeling that bias and then subtracting it).
It states that they've tested their results (for recent years) against a more robust network and the results agree. This gives some confidence that their correction software doesn't produce significant bias.
So why is this a problem really. I think it's the best they can do given the data they have. Would you rather use data full of artificial gaps and strange trends that we already know has nothing to do with overal temperature patterns? Why wouldn't you remove such artifacts first?
And considering the error bars in their data, why would you worry about a 0.2 degree difference in temperature in one particular year... it's hardly important in the overall picture.
These are temperatures at Mauna Loa. I don't know how reliable those are of course, it doesn't say.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?himaun
I strongly suggest you don't reproduce.
McAuliffe and his environmentalist supporters have characterized Cuccinelli as a science denier, as demonstrated by the legal challenge that Cuccinelli mounted soon after becoming attorney general in 2010 to the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases implicated in global warming. Cuccinelli is also known for his controversial attempt to investigate a climate researcher at the University of Virginia. McAuliffe has said that Cuccinelli’s investigation of Michael Mann shows why the Republican would be “bad for business.” At a recent appearance in Charlottesville with Mann, McAuliffe sought to draw a sharp contrast when he said: “That’s not a welcoming message to bring scientists and technologists and professors from all over the globe to come to Virginia when you know you will be harassed by the attorney general of the state. Not a welcoming message. We need to move away from that. ”http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-19/local/42216197_1_climate-change-tom-steyer-virginia
McAuliffe and his environmentalist supporters have characterized Cuccinelli as a science denier, as demonstrated by the legal challenge that Cuccinelli mounted soon after becoming attorney general in 2010 to the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases implicated in global warming.
Cuccinelli is also known for his controversial attempt to investigate a climate researcher at the University of Virginia. McAuliffe has said that Cuccinelli’s investigation of Michael Mann shows why the Republican would be “bad for business.”
At a recent appearance in Charlottesville with Mann, McAuliffe sought to draw a sharp contrast when he said: “That’s not a welcoming message to bring scientists and technologists and professors from all over the globe to come to Virginia when you know you will be harassed by the attorney general of the state. Not a welcoming message. We need to move away from that. ”http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-19/local/42216197_1_climate-change-tom-steyer-virginia
A new govonour, bought and paid for by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer.
Nice how politics also will not allow an investigation without mud slinging. "Burn the earth hating heretic at the stake!".
OMG, OMG, don't look behind the curtain. Trust us that taxing you into oblivion with stuff we made up behind closed doors is in your best interest.
Such things can only happen in the US.
Oh wait... wasn't there this Italian seimologist who was investigated for not predicting an earthquake and causing the death of hundreds of people.
And didn't China have this huge revolution in the 60s or so, where every scientists was deported to labor camps for "re-education" ?
Look psychoak, when you've got data and you know it has artifcats in them, would you use those data at face value?
Of course not... because then you know that your results are wrong.
You will do everything you can to remove those artifacts first.
Anyway... this doesn't seem worse than your beloved ice core data. Do you have any clue what kind of assumptions and modeling went into that before the data were presented ?
Timing: interpolation between calibration points - by correlating with known volcanic events. Or if that's not possible, by modeling accumulation rate.
CO2 values: timing is corrected using a model of diffusion.
T values: are calculated using a theoretical relationships between oxygen and deuterium.
And what do they produce? A graphic without error bars for the large public (like you). It's understandable, but it gives a wrong picture that data are perfect... because they aren't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores
http://nov79.com/gbwm/fakery.html
See psychoak... you have to remove artifacts first as well as you can, before you present them to the world.
I'm not really happy with this either, I would prefer "perfect" data, but those do not exist and it's better than doing nothing. And as long as someone includes proper error estimates, it should be fine.
And yeah... sometimes a different modeling technique is used and then the data change. That's only to be expected.
The data will probably change again in the future, when new insights arise.
But to be honest, I didn't know that measuring something as simple as a temperature would be so complicated in reality ^^
This one shows the global seawater temperature anomalies over the last 150 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/revisiting-historical-ocean-surface-temperatures/
It includes error estimates due to the different sources of uncertainty. This dataset has also corrections (and assumptions) so it's not perfect either, but that's just the way it is .
I suppose we really do have to wait 50 more years so that temperature rise will exceed the noise level.
But what does that mean for our future? What will happen if humanity waits 50 years before undertaking any action?
Best scenario: little will happen. We'll hit 500 ppm of CO2 and temperatures will have risen less than 1 degree without much melting in the artics. After this, urgent action is taken, resulting in a significant reduction of CO2 emissions within 30 years. We'll have about 550 ppm by that time, the antarctic icesheet is still intact (or at least melting slowly) and CO2 levels won't rise further or drop slowly.
Worst scenario: after 50 years, temperatures have risen not enough to convince people. They decide to wait another 50 years and increase the cheap coal consumption. After this 100 years, with increased consumption, CO2 levels reach about 650 ppm. By that time, the temperature rise is above noise level, but still not enough to alarm people. No action is taken and another 50 years are wasted. Levels reach 750 ppm and feedback effects take place. The antarctic icesheet shows significant melt. The permafrost line is moving north, adding more land area to the carbon cycle. Methane is stirring on the northern continental slopes. People get worried and take action, reducing CO2 emissions, but that takes time. 50 years later, levels reach 850 before CO2 emissions are reduced enough to effectively halt further build-up of CO2. However by that time it's too late, significant amounts of methane and CO2 from thawing permafrost are added to the atmosphere, building up heat further and further. To counter this, humanity starts a great project to store CO2 under ground, but it comes at enormous cost - to store trillions of tonnes of CO2, you need to expend a lot of energy and effort. This period is going to be characterized by poverty and deep recessions, which makes people doubt if it's really worth the effort. But let's just say they'll continue the effort and who knows... maybe they can actually do it.
Whatever the case, the world will be a very different place in 100 to 200 years from now.
Don't need science, junk or otherwise, to know that.
You do need a lot of fear to enact world wide population controls and wealth distribution via supposed ECO Taxation.
A known past climate extreme is simply gone from the record, and you post a bunch of nonsense about artifacts in the surface station data. As if the hilariously obvious excuse for why they've managed to knock a degree off a multi-century high were actually an explanation.
When I tell you not to breed, because the last thing this world needs is more absurdly gullible people that can't break the brainwashing they got in school, you once again shoot holes in AGW yourself by crucifying the CO2 record. Did you even realize that was a skeptic shooting holes in AGW?
I'm guessing no. After all, you seem to be under the equally hilarious impression that I'm somehow enamored with the ice core data. It's as if this 42 page long argument hasn't been filled with AGW alarmists pointing to the ice core data as proof that we're all going to die if we don't stop polluting our precious planet, immediately.
Keep this up long enough and you might convince yourself.
It was reduced a little bit... and for all I know it's all within the noise bandwidth. I couldn't care less about that !!
Psychoak, you're gambling with "our" future based on a shitload of nonsensical ideas and noisy shit.
Now, if it were only your own future then I'd think "go to hell with it".
But in this case, we'll all go to hell.
So get real and start thinking straight ok!
You are looking at all kind of details which you see as "proof" that the overall picture is wrong, but you miss so much!
There is so much evidence pointing in the direction of global warming.
Look... if you are so distrusting of temperature measurements, why don't you learn more about the physical principles then, and build up your knowledge from point zero.
That could work for you.
And don't get distracted by a few narrow-minded papers that say that global warming isn't relevant based on a few details theories ... those may be interesting in their own right, but do they hold up in the big picture and do they have common-sense? Not really, so try to keep the big picture in mind. And start with the most robust concepts and expand on those.
Eg., don't get distracted by papers that say that CO2 is expelled from the ocean into the atmosphere. Those are complete nonsense. The atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 increases, therefore there is only one way that CO2 can go: into the ocean. That's physics 101.
Eg., don't get distracted by papers that say that CO2 is "saturated", because that's such utter crap that even a dog wouldn't be able to believe. More CO2 retains energy for longer, therefore the total energy of the atmosphere rises. Go from such basic principles and then onward! Follow the most robust path until you come up with a robus result!
And details? Those will never, ever give you a robust result, you'll just end up with nonsense ideas like you have now, which are based on extremely narrow-minded articles/opinions that have no relevance whatsoever on the grand scale of things, they are just distracting you.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
