Still Following the Heat

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 04:08 GMT le 07 mai 2010

Share this Blog
5
+

Still Following the Heat - Bumps and Wiggles (5):

Introduction: This is the fifth in a series on understanding climate variability, global warming, and what we might do about it. The series focuses on the past 30 years and the next 30 years. There has been so much going on it has become a bit of a ramble, but it’s a blog – so.

The basic idea in this series is that climate model projections and observational verifications are precise enough to tell us with extremely high confidence that the Earth’s surface will warm because of increasing carbon dioxide. With this knowledge in hand, a new standard is evolving in climate modeling, which is more in the spirit of traditional weather predictions. That is, more specific information about what is going to happen at a certain place at a certain time. To reach this new standard, it becomes imperative that we better quantify the bumps and wiggles in the observations for the last 30 years and use this information to develop our prediction skills for the next 30 years. It is no longer adequate to simply say that – given the observed natural variability, that any discrepancies between existing projections and observations are, formally, small. That is, they are noise.

Improving our ability to diagnose the discrepancies between model projections and observations challenges all aspects of the scientific investigation of the climate. Better observations are needed to sample climate variability. Better models are needed, and in particular, we will have to quantify better how pieces fit together and interact. Pieces? When we develop hypotheses, theories and predictive models, we break the climate system into pieces. One piece might be the type of convective cloud that causes thunderstorms, and that piece has to fit together with all of the other pieces that make up the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere has to fit together with the ocean and the land and the glaciers and the ice sheets and the sea ice and the trees and the people – it is a big problem. An important and understudied (I assert) part of climate science is “how do the pieces fit together.” While we know a lot, if we are going to understand the bumps and wiggles, then we are going to have to know more. (And for those who want to say it’s just a theory.)

So we break down the problem, and so far in this series (all linked below), we have talked about the Sun and the carbon dioxide that comes from volcanoes and “following the heat.” Of these the most important is following the heat. This is important because if you take a simple look at the warming due to carbon dioxide, the observed warming of the Earth’s surface is not as high as predicted. So what is wrong? In the second blog of the series we followed the heat into the ocean. Broadly in the last 30 years the heat content of the ocean has increased, and that is a far more convincing measure of a warming planet than the surface air temperature measurements. I want to revisit this because of a recent perspective by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo, who, investigating the recent bumps and wiggles, ask the question - why isn’t the ocean warming even faster? There is still missing heat. But first a diversion.

In the third entry of this series I introduced Simple Earth. Read that entry if you want the full description of the figure. Below is the same figure, but there has been one thing added to the figure. Namely, the blurry, reddish line on the surface. What this line represents is that if greenhouse gases increase, then there will be warming at the surface. (There will also be cooling in, say, the upper troposphere.)



Figure 1: Simple Earth 2: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate and surface heating.

I also argued in that third entry that in the end, we were truly concerned about climate, climate change and humans. Sure we can dismiss the current warming as some cycle, but that takes humans and human-care out of the picture, and it is in our best interest to always think about climate and climate change in a human context. So when we think about it in the human context, we start to wonder about the warming at the surface, and especially, at the surface over land. Of course most of the Earth’s surface is ocean, and heat goes into the ocean. That’s what I represent in this figure:





Figure 2: Simple Earth 3: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate. There is heat going into the ocean. (This is simple Earth, so this is vastly over simplified heat transport.)

So this brings us back to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo. In Science Magazine on April 16, 2010, they have a Perspective, where they discuss missing heat. The point of their article is that if you look at the heat budget of the Earth from satellites in space, we can measure that the Earth is not currently in balance. Heat is staying on the planet; hence, it must be warming. If you focus on the past five years, then the planet is just not warming as fast as it should. They do not say that the basic conclusions that the surface of the Earth is warming and will warm more are incorrect. Again, neither they nor their data challenge those foundational results, but if you look at the details, the bumps and wiggles, then we have some work left to do to fully understand what is going on. They conclude that now that geoengineering is entering our discussion, we really must be able to understand these bumps and wiggles.

This heat will be found, probably in the deep ocean, where we don’t have such good observations. The discrepancy will be explained. It is, ultimately, better observations that Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo call for. (The discussion of the paper in blogs amongst both scientists and politically motivated sorts is pretty interesting. ( 1 , 2 , 3))

During my career, I have been fortunate enough to have some scientific successes – figured out something new, helped build an algorithm that got some use, or figured out a technique that mattered. Each time the result seemed big and significant in the moment. It’s not long after getting such a result that it seems mundane, perhaps almost self-evident – why did it take so long to figure that out? This is a little of what we are talking about here. So when Trenberth and Fasullo say,

“So, although some heat has gone into the recordbreaking loss of Arctic sea ice, and some has undoubtedly contributed to the unprecedented melting of Greenland and Antarctica, it does not add up to anywhere near enough to account for the measured energy difference at the top of the atmosphere.” (Emphasis mine.)

They are looking at the next problem, the bumps, the wiggles. They, their analysis, their observations offer no serious relief from the warming, the sea level rise, and the changing weather.


r

Bumps and Wiggles (1): Predictions and Projections

Bumps and Wiggles (2): Some Jobs for Models and Modelers (Sun and Ocean)

Bumps and Wiggles (3): Simple Earth

Bumps and Wiggles (4): Volcanoes and Long Cycles




And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 395 - 345

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

"Normal Person"

..here?

LOL

ESL by LSU



COSMO-Skymed Oil Spill Radar Image from CSTARS, May 16, 2010
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129360
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Well to be technical, it's a 25.3% increase from the 1958 low. But yes it should be about 6 years.

However, ice core data shows that CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm in the past 430,000 years until the industrial revolution. So in fact, the increase in CO2 already exceeds 30% from natural levels.


Of course, some people believe in the following graph, which shows past CO2 concentrations much higher than today, as recently as the 1940s:



Never mind that common sense should tell you that it is impossible for CO2 levels to change that rapidly, not that anything can explain the changes either. The explanation of course is that earlier methods of measuring CO2 weren't that accurate, compared to modern/Mauna Loa readings (also note the dots for ice core measurements - which, as you can see, nicely extend the Mauna Loa record backwards):

Now, a normal person looking at that would conclude that chemical measurement of CO2 concentrations was not particularly accurate, but Beck concludes that there were huge fluctations in CO2 that ended by some strange coincidence exactly when they started making more accurate measurements.


As one comment puts it, to put such fluctuations into perspective:

In the period from about 1943-1946, the CO2 concentration dropped like a rock from 470ppm to 350ppm, the equivalent of removing almost 1 trillion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. Talk about a giant sucking sound.

Then, in the next two years the CO2 concentration jumped back up by 80ppm (from 350ppm to 430ppm), the equivalent of adding 615 billion metric ton of CO2 to the atmosphere.

In the next couple years, it again dropped by 110ppm, the equivalent of sucking 845 billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.

For comparison, burning of fossil fuels currently increases the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 1.5ppm (11.5 billion metric tons CO2) each year.


Another reason for those crazy fluctuations is that some were measured in cities, where CO2 levels can be much higher than in the country.
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
№ 390
I was using the annual mean data to avoid biasing with seasonal variations at the start/end points, but whatever. My point about specifying when proxies are considered is that they are subject to error in both interpretation as well as time resolution and are certainly less reliable than direct observations. Regardless, I don't dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is likely a significant contributor of the recent increase, but that the warming effect of CO2 on temperature is overstated due to climate models' reliance on feedbacks that have not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. I suppose I also take some issue with specifically how much warming has occurred, it's context in relation with past events, and the predicted consequences that would result from anticipated warming.

My point was more to how everybody tends to emphasize data favorable to their point and deëmphasize data that isn't, in some cases possibly without even realizing it.
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
@SSIGG
Quote: CO2 has risen by 30% and is continuing to rise rapidly
The rise in annual mean CO2 from direct observations from ESRL is 22.6%. A bit nit-picky perhaps, but 30% is an exaggeration unless you are comparing today's direct observations to proxy reconstructions of some point in the past. If so, it's probably best to specify. Take heart though, in another six years or so you may be able to say that it rounds up to 30% :^)

№ 382
@skepticall2
The graph with the flat CO2 line is utterly worthless, but I have to admit I always laugh when someone posts it though.
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
answers for 373?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The National Snow and Ice Data Center
Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976

plot the graphs
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 381
Ahh...But everybody on both sides seem to like to use statistical and/or visual "tricks" to make their points. Why do you think AGW proponents use maps with 1200km extrapolations when they want to show arctic warming?

I've long realized this was par for the course and one must sort through the "trickery" to obtain the real data, after which you can come to your own conclusions.
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
№ 384
They are based on GISS temperatures. Here is the UAH satellite record for comparison:

From here. So far, peaks in temperature due to the 2009/10 El Niño are still comparable to the 1998 event. The 2000 an 2008 La Niña events exhibit similar global temperatures as well.

The GISS temperature record is what it is. It is homogenized for location changes and adjusted for effects such as UHI, which papers such as this one suggest are not done properly and lead to a warming bias in the data set. Some agree with this and some don't. Regardless, I'm sure NOAA will continue to highlight peaks in the GISS record until the next La Niña-driven decreases take place, when the temperatures will take a back seat to other climate-change headlines.
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Quoting Patrap:
Read it and weep sportsfan's.


NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record
Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted


Do you know if the readings used for the monthly reports are based on satellite readings, ground readings or a combination of both for USA and for global? Do you notice that for the last couple of years the global readings have been warmer than the USA average readings relative to history? Why do you think that seems to be true?
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting MichaelSTL:


(what I mean is, make the graph much taller and narrower - graphs like what you posted show one trick denialists do to make trends "disappear").


Trends disappearing huh?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

This is the graph that global warming believers use all the time yet it is very misleading. I bet they can do parts per thousand to make it seem bigger too.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Quoting crucilandia:
no much change in the long term trend of Global sea ice since 1979



Did you actually plot a trend with that? Even without doing so, it is evident that the 1970s had more ice than now, and if the graph were plotted with a much higher vertical resolution and not so wide, it would be very obvious (what I mean is, make the graph much taller and narrower - graphs like what you posted show one trick denialists do to make trends "disappear").
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Florida, did you read #379? Does it suggest that disagreeing with you might be justified? Do you know how to define "might be?"
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
A good read.
Link
Member Since: 17 janvier 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
Quoting crucilandia:
no much change in the long term trend of Global sea ice since 1979



"Not much change", what the heck does that mean?
Member Since: 17 janvier 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
no much change in the long term trend of Global sea ice since 1979

Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. (earth observatory data)

The image on the left shows the average number of days that the ocean surface was covered by sea ice from 1979 to 1999. The image on the right shows the change in duration of sea ice coverage over that period. Blue and green colors show areas where the sea ice is lasting longer, while orange and red colors represent a decrease in the number of days the ocean is frozen. The larger area covered by longer-lasting ice indicates an increase in the amount of Antarctic ice.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
349

1. Why are you showing the trends from mid 2007 to 2010?

2. Whyd are you showing shots of march and april only?

3. whdy are you showing temperature at 4km high?

4. Is 11.991 statistically diffrent from 11.115?

5. what is the standard deviation of the 1978-2008 mean?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:

DATE: May 16, 2010 11:45:16 CST
Update on Riser Insertion Tube Tool progress




Deepwater Horizon Incident
Joint Information Center

Phone: (985) 902-5231
(985) 902-5240

ROBERT, La. - The Unified Area Command for the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill continues to advance multiple subsea options to contain and ultimately stop the flow of oil from the MC 252 well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Overnight the Riser Insertion Tube Tool was successfully tested and inserted into the leaking riser, capturing some amounts of oil and gas. The oil was stored on board the Discoverer Enterprise drill ship 5,000 feet above on the water's surface, and natural gas was burned through a flare system on board the ship.

The test was halted temporarily when the tube was dislodged. While this is disappointing, it is not unexpected given the challenging operating environment.

Technicians have fully inspected the system and have re-inserted the tool.

The tool is fashioned from a 4-inch pipe and is inserted into the leaking riser, from which the majority of the flow is coming. While not collecting all of the leaking oil, this tool is an important step in reducing the amount of oil being released into Gulf waters.

The procedure - never attempted before at such depths - involves inserting a 5-foot length of the specifically-designed tool into the end of the existing, damaged riser from where the oil and gas is leaking. In a procedure approved by federal agencies and the Federal On Scene Coordinator, methanol will also be flowed into the riser to help prevent the formation of gas crystals, known as hydrates. Gas and oil will then flow to the surface to the Discoverer Enterprise drillship.

The Enterprise has the capability to separate the oil, gas and water mixture safely and eventually store or offload the recovered oil onto another vessel.

We will continue to provide updates as they become available.

For information about the response effort, visit www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com.


Deepwater Horizon Incident, Unified Area Command, terms that sound like a science fiction movie. I wonder, on the positive side, whether or not this incident will inspire new technology that will benefit mankind in the long term. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970

DATE: May 16, 2010 11:45:16 CST
Update on Riser Insertion Tube Tool progress




Deepwater Horizon Incident
Joint Information Center

Phone: (985) 902-5231
(985) 902-5240

ROBERT, La. - The Unified Area Command for the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill continues to advance multiple subsea options to contain and ultimately stop the flow of oil from the MC 252 well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Overnight the Riser Insertion Tube Tool was successfully tested and inserted into the leaking riser, capturing some amounts of oil and gas. The oil was stored on board the Discoverer Enterprise drill ship 5,000 feet above on the water's surface, and natural gas was burned through a flare system on board the ship.

The test was halted temporarily when the tube was dislodged. While this is disappointing, it is not unexpected given the challenging operating environment.

Technicians have fully inspected the system and have re-inserted the tool.

The tool is fashioned from a 4-inch pipe and is inserted into the leaking riser, from which the majority of the flow is coming. While not collecting all of the leaking oil, this tool is an important step in reducing the amount of oil being released into Gulf waters.

The procedure - never attempted before at such depths - involves inserting a 5-foot length of the specifically-designed tool into the end of the existing, damaged riser from where the oil and gas is leaking. In a procedure approved by federal agencies and the Federal On Scene Coordinator, methanol will also be flowed into the riser to help prevent the formation of gas crystals, known as hydrates. Gas and oil will then flow to the surface to the Discoverer Enterprise drillship.

The Enterprise has the capability to separate the oil, gas and water mixture safely and eventually store or offload the recovered oil onto another vessel.

We will continue to provide updates as they become available.

For information about the response effort, visit www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com.
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129360
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Let's see: 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick

Let's make it 30 square miles 300 feet deep.

A square mile has 27,878,400 square feet.
Let's multiply that by 30 square miles.
30 x 27,878,400 = 836,352,000 square feet.

836,352,000 square feet X 300 feet = 250,905,600,000 cubic feet.

Now to convert to gallons!

250,905,600,000 X 7.48 = 1,876,773,888,000 gallons.

One trillion eight hundred seventy six billion seven hundred seventy three million eight hundred and eighty eight thousand gallons!

And they say only 210,000 gallons per day? It doesn't add up folks!



Cyclone, divide the total gallons by 42 gallons to get the total barrels of oil, and then divide that by the number of days, about 25, and you get about 170-180 million barrels per day. I guess the plume doesn't add up either. Just that one well takes care of almost all of the worlds needs twice a day.
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
№ 365

Quote: One trillion eight hundred seventy six billion seven hundred seventy three million eight hundred and eighty eight thousand gallons!

LOL! Calmly step away from the slide-rule before somebody gets hurt...

Hopefully they will cap this soon. I can't imagine the posts we'll see here in a few months if the leak continues...

"The amount of spilled oil in the Gulf may well exceed infinity!"
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Let's see: 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick

Let's make it 30 square miles 300 feet deep.

A square mile has 27,878,400 square feet.
Let's multiply that by 30 square miles.
30 x 27,878,400 = 836,352,000 square feet.

836,352,000 square feet X 300 feet = 250,905,600,000 cubic feet.

Now to convert to gallons!

250,905,600,000 X 7.48 = 1,876,773,888,000 gallons.

One trillion eight hundred seventy six billion seven hundred seventy three million eight hundred and eighty eight thousand gallons!

And they say only 210,000 gallons per day? It doesn't add up folks!




Cyclone, how much treated sewage do you think the USA and the rest of the world put into the oceans daily? How much of that effluent is loaded with carbon and nitrogen and other compounds that will oxidize as it mixes with the ocean waters? Really, you should think about this before you make a big deal out of the effects of this oil plume on marine life.
Just for reference,the City of Columbus, a city of about 1.5 million persons, puts out about 150 million gallons of effluent a day. What do you think New York, Tokyo, L.A. and Mumbai put out per day?
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Let's see: 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick

Let's make it 30 square miles 300 feet deep.

A square mile has 27,878,400 square feet.
Let's multiply that by 30 square miles.
30 x 27,878,400 = 836,352,000 square feet.

836,352,000 square feet X 300 feet = 250,905,600,000 cubic feet.

Now to convert to gallons!

250,905,600,000 X 7.48 = 1,876,773,888,000 gallons.

One trillion eight hundred seventy six billion seven hundred seventy three million eight hundred and eighty eight thousand gallons!

And they say only 210,000 gallons per day? It doesn't add up folks!

Lets see how many gallons that is and compare it to what they say is leaking per day???
Scientists find giant oil plumes under Gulf
One is about 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick

By JUSTIN GILLIS

updated 7:04 p.m. CT, Sat., May 15, 2010
NEW YORK - Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given.

“There’s a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to what you see in the surface water,” said Samantha Joye, a researcher at the University of Georgia who is involved in one of the first scientific missions to gather details about what is happening in the gulf. “There’s a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column.”

The plumes are depleting the oxygen dissolved in the gulf, worrying scientists, who fear that the oxygen level could eventually fall so low as to kill off much of the sea life near the plumes.

Link
Quote: No matter what, they'll always find some way to claim that global warming (and all of the related physics - going back to the 1800s) is a fraud and swindle - when in reality it is the other way around.

I don't think there is necessarily fraud going on, but I do think that the surface temperature records obviously have some problems with siting and homogenization/adjustment issues. I think, that while it's clear there has been a general warming trend since the 19th century, some of the warming indicated in the surface temperature may be overstated.

While I don't subscribe to the idea of some vast conspiracy to convince the world of AGW, I do believe there are some people, both politicians and politically minded people in the field, that are using the incomplete work of scientists to further their own agendas. I also think that there is some political pressure on scientists to arrive at preconceived conclusions, or to come to premature conclusions without a sufficient analysis of all the data. I don't believe that these politically-minded people really believe that, or even care if, AGW will be a problem or not, as long as their desired goals are met.
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Good to see the Graph Wars Again..

Been way too Long.
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129360
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Yeah, yeah, that surfacestations nonsense - if you actually BOTHERED to read the link I gave, it obviously debunks that as denialist nonsense - because it in a response to it, showing that there is little difference between the best stations and those that are supposedly biasing the record (in fact, you can hardly tell the difference)!


I like to take parts of what other people say and comment on that first without commenting on the other part just so you get caught up.

Really no difference?

This is a surface station that is placed in a good area

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

This is one as you can tell is in a horrible spot.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
№ 355

Disproven? I don't know about that. That graph comes from the NCDC "Talking Points" Memo in response to work done by surfacestations.org. A good rebuttal to that "proof" comes here:

McIntyre on the NCDC Talking Points Memo
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Quoting skepticall2:


Go to the site Link read up on what the person in charge has done...


Yeah, yeah, that surfacestations nonsense - if you actually BOTHERED to read the link I gave, it obviously debunks that as denialist nonsense - because it in a response to it, showing that there is little difference between the best stations and those that are supposedly biasing the record (in fact, you can hardly tell the difference)!

And what about those satellites - the ones that currently show all-time record highs for the month so far and for many recent months (and are in close agreement with surface observations, maybe not identical, but that is to be expected since they are not measuring the same thing)?

What about radiosondes, which show anomalies larger than anything ever measured by satellites or surface stations (and that is for January-March - a three month period - as opposed to a single monthly anomaly for satellite/surface)?

You guys never give up. Well, just wait until Congress passes climate bills and the like (and assuming that they are actually implemented - we'd be sorry if not) - though I doubt you'll give up when you'd normally realize that you lost.
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Never mind that sea surface temperatures are also warming, and account for 3/4ths of the global surface area.



In fact, it looks almost the same as the land+ocean index! Less warming yes - because water heats up slower than land, consistent with past observations and expectations. Just see for yourself using the link I posted with the other graph.
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Yeah, so the clueless deniers claim - and continue to claim even as they are disproven!



No matter what, they'll always find some way to claim that global warming (and all of the related physics - going back to the 1800s) is a fraud and swindle - when in reality it is the other way around.


Go to the site Link read up on what the person in charge has done. See how many stations he has been to and the pictures of these stations here are a couple provided by google I'm betting. Other pictures on his site are taken by him or fellow people that live near by them.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Quoting skepticall2:


Oh so we are using Surface stations pre satellites right?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

So we are using warm biased surface stations and comparing them with satellite records why that makes no sense. Seems fishy.


Yeah, so the clueless deniers claim - and continue to claim even as they are disproven!



No matter what, they'll always find some way to claim that global warming (and all of the related physics - going back to the 1800s) is a fraud and swindle - when in reality it is the other way around.
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Well, then here is the entire record, since 1880 (12 month running mean, and speaking of which, it has risen even further):




Oh so we are using Surface stations pre satellites right?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

So we are using warm biased surface stations and comparing them with satellite records why that makes no sense. Seems fishy.
Quoting skepticall2:
Quoting STL

Quoting MichaelSTL:


I laughed as well - I have posted it often enough (along with links to it) so you needn't ask. Well, maybe I should clarify - select trends for "map type" and 1980-2009 for "time interval" (base period doesn't matter for trends).


I like how we only use 29 years to discuss global warming.


Well, then here is the entire record, since 1880 (12 month running mean, and speaking of which, it has risen even further):


Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting STL

Quoting MichaelSTL:


I laughed as well - I have posted it often enough (along with links to it) so you needn't ask. Well, maybe I should clarify - select trends for "map type" and 1980-2009 for "time interval" (base period doesn't matter for trends).


I like how we only use 29 years to discuss global warming.
Same map as in № 316 with 250 km (instead of 1200 km) extrapolation.



From here

Edit: Never mind, image has expired. I guess you have to upload the images somewhere permanent first. Perhaps later.
Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Roy Spencer's site shows some interesting stuff lately (it'd be nice if they showed averages and record highs for the second graph, close to the surface, I believe the first is the "official" satellite channel used for temperatures):



(ignore what it says at the bottom - somebody actually pointed that out, claiming that it was only one day!)
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Also, the latest monthly map does show "global cooling" in Antarctica:



But, March was the opposite:



Note also that these support the NSIDC - that despite higher ice extent, the Arctic is NOT cooling (on a recent monthly basis, of course, because long-term trends are what really matter). In fact, ice area has been rapidly falling in recent weeks and is now lower than 2008 or 2009:



Unfortunately, the ice volume site hasn't updated since April 30 (it says that it updates every 3-5 days), nor has it updated for the month of April yet.
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting crucilandia:
316

explain yourself since this graph now shows

1. cooling in several parts of Antarctica

2. cooling over the Elnino zone during a super el nino year

3. that this graph is very different from the other ones you posted showing antarctica as red as fire and the pacific way above normal

4. what year does it refer to?


That is a map showing global temperature TRENDS from 1980 to 2009...

Now, why does it show as you ask? Well, the Pacific obviously shows the change from a positive PDO in the 1980s and 1990s to a negative PDO recently, thus a cooling trend (even though it ends with a El Nino year, and of course 1997-98 was only a small part of the 30 years shown, and not that recent). Antarctica? Well, some areas show cooling, but not like certain maps posted earlier that show almost all of Antarctica with massive cooling.

Evidentally, you didn't see my comment regarding where I got the map from, as I explain how to recreate it - in comment 327, which I will repost for your benefit:


Quoting MichaelSTL:


I laughed as well - I have posted it often enough (along with links to it) so you needn't ask. Well, maybe I should clarify - select trends for "map type" and 1980-2009 for "time interval" (base period doesn't matter for trends).
Member Since: 22 février 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
I heard from a shaky source that some of the gulf stream water is splitting and going up into baffin bay near the north pole. Is this true?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This map shows the 10-year average (2000-2009) temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
cool animation

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 395 - 345

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.