Submitted by Charlton Stanley (aka Otteray Scribe), Guest Blogger
Approximately 1,000 weather reporting stations all over the world have been monitoring local temperatures for decades. Temperature data have been compiled and analyzed by NASA scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. The tenth? From the 20th Century, that was 1998. Temperature rise is not completely steady and consistent from one year to the next. That is due to factors such as volcanic eruptions and other natural causes; however, trends are the important thing.
We can see from the short video below the flip that Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. Weather experts warn that a consistent global average change of even a half-degree Fahrenheit can have catastrophic effects on global weather patterns. Anyone recall April and May 2011?
130 years in 27 seconds:
Your “hunch” would be entirely ignorant of how the chemistry of carbon sequestration in water works. When carbon is scrubbed from the air by sea water, it is converted into calcium carbonate. As the levels of calcium carbonate rises, the pH of the ocean lowers i.e. it becomes acidic.
If you look back far enough to when CO2 was at its peak levels on the planet you will find that most mollusks and carbonate dependent organisms evolved at the same time that atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 8,000ppm. Before you get to claim that carbonate organisms are having problems they need to answer why carbonate organisms can’t deal with a CO2 increase of 30% while their ancestors thrived at concentrations higher than 200%. It just doesn’t make sense.
Pardon me, I mispoke the influence of pain medication. I meant carbonic acid. Good catch, Bron. Mea maxima culpa.
I am wondering how calcium carbonate acidifies the seas. Since that is what tums are made of.
Your “hunch” would be entirely ignorant of how the chemistry of carbon sequestration in water works. When carbon is scrubbed from the air by sea water, it is converted into calcium carbonate. As the levels of calcium carbonate rises, the pH of the ocean lowers i.e. it becomes acidic. The more acidic the ocean, the less hospitable to life the sea becomes. In the past, ocean acidification has been directly traced to episodes of mass vulcanism and it led to mass extinctions in the seas. But we know where the carbon came from. Volcanoes releasing carbon that is otherwise normally trapped in geological strata. So absent some supervening event like vulcanism, the effects of global warming would not continue as they have. The carbon is coming from somewhere. That somewhere is the free release of carbon into the atmosphere and hydrosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is caused by man. We’re the ones making the carbon available that would otherwise be trapped in geologic strata by drilling oil and mining coal and burning them.
Nevertheless I think Davidm2575 has a good question regarding data and any tampering.
I have known of some controversy regarding data tampering for more than a decade and stayed clear because I know that to really evaluate the issues one has to know some math and something about the subject.
But there are some articles that seem to hit the main points, even if not the gory technical detail.
Wikipedia has an article that addresses Climate Research Unit Email controversy. And a web sit called skeptical science at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm
also addresses the issue. I am sure there are many more
Essentially some email came to light (hacked) that suggested that climate data was being manipulated.
The real issue is not was data manipulated – transformed but whether that action was reasonable from the standpoint of science.
Apparently the data ‘manipulation’ at CRU was investigated a number of times and the conclusion was that while the emails sound incriminating to non scientist the data was handled appropriately from the point of view science.
A man has to know his limits and I know some of mine. If professionals in field who actually work with the data say that the transformations were appropriate then I have no tools to contradict them.
I also came across an article published by CATO institute. One of the first listings on one of my google searches.
That article (Michaels, Global Warming: correcting the data) says that the data collection he looked at was biased by social influences such as the growth of large urban areas. His calculation showed that the probability that the data set was free of bias was 1 in 14 trillion.
But after all the correction Michaels’ conclusion was that the data set overstated global warming by only about 15% and that global warming was real but proceeding at a slower pace than previously asserted.
I personally have to conclude that charges regarding data transformation indicate that the institution of science is working the way it is supposed to.
One professional publishes. Someone else looks over his data and his model and presents their own ideas. If someone thinks the transformation is inappropriate then that person is free to make their own transformation and publish their own conclusions for everyone else’s review and comment.
That is the way science works.
Gene H wrote: “Your “hunch” would be entirely ignorant of how the chemistry of carbon sequestration in water works. When carbon is scrubbed from the air by sea water, it is converted into calcium carbonate. As the levels of calcium carbonate rises, the pH of the ocean lowers i.e. it becomes acidic.”
It is strange how you accuse me of being “entirely ignorant” by putting out false information that reveals your own ignorance. The carbon cycle is a bit more complicated than you portray it to be. When CO2 is dissolved in the oceans, the molecules generally formed toward the surface are carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3-), and Carbonate (CO3-2). The process of forming bicarbonate and carbonate releases hydrogen ions which are responsible for the pH increase. Calcium Carbonate is a base, not an acid, and it acts toward increasing the pH, making it less acidic, not decreasing it. Calcium Carbonate is a byproduct too, but it formed at deeper levels in the oceans, usually in the form of aragonite and calcite. The depth at which this happens is important for the biology being discussed. None of this detracts from the bottom line that CO2 works toward lowering pH in oceans, but your understanding of it and how that happens, and especially how organisms that rely on calcium production are affected, is not really based in science knowledge but the propaganda being put out by climatologists (who are scientists too, but scientists with a political agenda to secure grants and funding for themselves). Thirty years ago, there were scientists concerned about climate change, but it was a very small voice that didn’t gain the kind of traction representative of religious organizations because there was not a Vice President of the greatest nation on earth singing its praises and heralding its warnings. Since this has happened, investors have their checkbooks out to get in on the game and politicians all over the world are using tax dollars to fund research.
Gene H wrote: ” So absent some supervening event like vulcanism, the effects of global warming would not continue as they have.”
Please don’t tell me that you assume volcanism is a process of the past, or that it serves as a primary source of CO2. Gases like Sulphur Dioxide are more prevalent in that process, but I tire of giving science lessons to people who think that I am entirely ignorant of something for which I have a college degree. If you don’t like my hunches, so be it.
DavidM,
With all due respect you’ve got a great patter going, but the problem is we can easily guess what side you’ll take in any discussion.
JoeBlow,
I think you need to read that article more closely. I didn’t cherry pick information from that article. I posted an excerpt from and a link to the entire article–which wasn’t about just the year 2012.
Here’s an excerpt from the excerpt that I posted above:
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual “checking on the pulse of the planet.” The report, written by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it puts them in context of what’s been happening to Earth over decades.”
Here’s another excerpt from the article:
“Karl says surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 10 years, but he notes that is only a blip in time due to natural variability. When looking at more scientifically meaningful time frames of 30 years, 50 years and more than 100 years, temperatures are rising quite a bit, Karl said. Since records have been kept in 1880, all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years, NOAA records show.”
Elaine quoted article: “Karl says surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 10 years, but he notes that is only a blip in time due to natural variability. When looking at more scientifically meaningful time frames of 30 years, 50 years and more than 100 years, temperatures are rising quite a bit, Karl said. Since records have been kept in 1880, all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years, NOAA records show.”
Everyone is talking past each other, picking and choosing data and how to present it. I’m talking about both sides, as illustrated here in your quote.
Previously I pointed to data manipulation to hide data trends, smooth data, and even eliminate data to show what the presenters wanted to show. I also referenced an article by McIntyre and McKitrick. It showed that for the long data trend being talked about in your quote, the infamous hockey stick graph, the data trend is a result of the transformations. They did the same transformations to randomly generated data and got the same hockey stick. So statistical significance of the trend is questionable.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/abstract
I don’t know what to believe because I don’t trust the data and I don’t trust the ones giving us the data. There is money to be made, Al Gore being estimated at raising his net worth to $200 million through his climate change agenda. Many say he is on track to become the first carbon billionaire. Everyone wants a piece of that financial pie. So in the end, we have politically motivated science going on, with scientists having their hands out for investments in their research into global warming.
My gut tells me that there probably is some warming trend, but that human activity makes only a slight contribution to it. No doubt that burning fuels contribute to warming because we understand the effect of sunlight on the gases produced, but if we stopped all fuel burning today and had a zero carbon footprint, I think the global warming trend, if it really exists, would still continue at pretty much the same pace. Again, this is only a hunch because I don’t trust the data being reported. My hunch is based more upon understanding the scrubbing effect the natural planet has and our current population levels and the vast amount of ocean surface etc.
Talk about cherry picking EM post a link to a story all about one year 2012.
The data also shows a record-high sea level.
Do you consider 1 inch a decade sea level rising fast. Do the math and tell me how long it will take for the seas to rise a foot.
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
The red line in this image shows the long-term increase in global sea level since satellite altimeters began measuring it in the early 1990s. Since then, sea level has risen by a little more than an inch each decade, or about 3 millimeters per year. While most years have recorded a rise in global sea level, the recent drop of nearly a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter, is attributable to the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific. The insets show sea level changes in the Pacific Ocean caused by the recent El Niño and La Niña
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-262
Sullivan says what is noticeable “are remarkable changes in key climate indicators,” mentioning dramatic spikes in ocean heat content, a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer, and whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland last year. The data also shows a record-high sea level.
The most noticeable and startling changes seen were in the Arctic, says report co-editor Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief at the data center. Breaking records in the Arctic is so common that it is becoming the new normal, says study co-author Jackie Richter-Menge of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.
*mentioning dramatic spikes in ocean heat content
They don’t know what it is. They are theorizing and the theory behind the last 15 year pause in warming is the warmth has to go some place so it must be in the deep ocean ready to come back to the surface with a vengence and produce rapid warming.
Kevin Trenberth NCAR
“In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution..”
We only measure sea surface temperature. There are no measuring devices below 700 meters of the ocean. Hence the knock joke has Trenberth found the missing heat. That is the heat the models were predicting for surface temperature.
* a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer-
TRUE but already discussed Great Arctic Cyclone 2012. Now Arctic sea Ice 2nd highest on record IN SUMMER
* whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland last year.
NASA
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-217
Bron,
You lose.
Elaine:
I am pretty certain that industrial civilization is not the cause of global warming. My bet is that it is caused by the sun.
Bron,,
You said…
“manipulating and screwing up the economy isnt enough for libs?”
Then you said…
“for every business that will be underwater, there will be a business that has waterfront property.”
*****
It appears you have a selective concern about problems with our economy. If coastal cities are flooded, seaports destroyed, waterfront businesses ruined due to rising sea levels, you couldn’t care less. You only care about economic problems caused by “libs.” Did I get that right?
NOAA Report Card For 2012’s Climate: More Warming
SETH BORENSTEIN
August 7, 2013
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/noaa-report-card-for-2012s-climate-more-warming.php?ref=fpb
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new massive federal study says the world in 2012 sweltered with continued signs of climate change. Rising sea levels, snow melt, heat buildup in the oceans, and melting Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets, all broke or nearly broke records, but temperatures only sneaked into the top 10.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual “checking on the pulse of the planet.” The report, written by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it puts them in context of what’s been happening to Earth over decades.
“It’s critically important to compile a big picture,” National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl says. “The signs that we see are of a warming world.”
Sullivan says what is noticeable “are remarkable changes in key climate indicators,” mentioning dramatic spikes in ocean heat content, a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer, and whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland last year. The data also shows a record-high sea level.
The most noticeable and startling changes seen were in the Arctic, says report co-editor Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief at the data center. Breaking records in the Arctic is so common that it is becoming the new normal, says study co-author Jackie Richter-Menge of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.
Karl says when looked at together, all the indicators show a climate that is changing over the decades. Individually, however, the story isn’t as simple.
Karl says surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 10 years, but he notes that is only a blip in time due to natural variability. When looking at more scientifically meaningful time frames of 30 years, 50 years and more than 100 years, temperatures are rising quite a bit, Karl said. Since records have been kept in 1880, all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years, NOAA records show.
Bruce,
There is nothing that can be done that will deter the next ice age. They are caused by cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongating Earth’s orbit. This effect combines with periodical but slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth’s tilt (called “precession”) that are caused by the gravity of our moon. You cannot combat celestial mechanics. You can, however, alter the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere.
Bron,
“Why do you think man is the cause of global warming when the sun is what powers the earth?
Why is CO2 any different than any other gas in our atmosphere? What is so special about CO2? If it was such a great insulator they would use it in double pain windows.”
Your second question answered your first question.
The nature of your questions indicates that you already know the answers.
You are being willfully ignorant.
Like the other deniers.
“Why is CO2 any different than any other gas in our atmosphere? What is so special about CO2? If it was such a great insulator they would use it in double pain windows.”
Maybe it is time someone attempted a more detailed answer to this question. I am going to have to go to Wikipedia or something and look it up.
But as a first cut: every gas has specific chemical and optical qualities. CO2 allows a broad spectrum light to pass through. That is one important fact because that allows light from the sun to warm the surface of the earth. But CO2 has different properties for infrared energy, which is the way heat radiates. CO2 tends not to transmit the infrared energy as well which is the second important point. When the infrared energy cannot radiate away from the surface of the earth, the earth heats up more than it otherwise would.
Increasing levels of CO2 tend to trap more heat at the earths surface causing the earth to heat up more.
CO2 is not a particularly good insulator. Even the most pessimistic projections suggest changes of a few degrees per century. But the effect on the earth can be great because the effect acts over long periods of time and over the entire surface of the earth which is huge. So when it comes to window pains which cover a few percent of you homes surface area, even if you run your Amish heater year round you will not see any significant difference in you utility bill.
Is CO2 the only factor that affects global warming? The simple answer is – no. Specifically, there are many sources for CO2, and there are many gasses in the atmosphere and they all have different characteristics when it comes to the transmission of light and heat. Two other gasses frequently mentioned in regard to global warming are methane and refrigerant gasses like freon. But increasing levels of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age seem a likely factor in the global warming that we see today.
I apologize for any damage I might have done to science or scientists everywhere.
If your really need a good explanation for how CO2 acts to warm the planet talk to any HS student who passed chemistry or physics.
I would rather have global warming than an another ice age, can you imagine a glacier sliding down the Hudson River.
That remark seems to assume the only choices are global warming or an ice age. Surely we can figure out a way to strike a middle ground that avoids both.
And it is not clear to me that the engineering challenges of dealing with an ice age are greater than dealing with global warming.
Within a limited range, say +- 100c it might be less difficult to deal with the cold. If average ambient is 60c I could imagine many surviving -40c. I don’t see many surviving +160c.
That being said, +160 is far beyond anything projected for global warming – at least in the next century or so.
Is there any possibility of entering a range where a positive feed back loop leads to more and more warming. I am reminded of Venus with a surface temperature above 400c.
Wow, Bron. For someone who says they are a civil engineer, you have remarakably little appreciation for the reality of flooding and its damages. Or perhaps you think that – like magic – the water will be pristine.
It isn’t.
And it stays polluted and filled with debris for a long time.
Kind of like a mind flooded with Rand and von Mises.
Elaine:
for every business that will be underwater, there will be a business that has waterfront property.
So now you know the Arctic will not be Ice free in 2013 and even if it was it has been near that before, google USS Skate surfaces at the North Pole.
Then look at how many times and the locations.
So although posters here CHERRY PICKED last year as the Arctic with lowest sea ice on record. They failed to look at the cause and it was not temperature.
So as not to Cherry pick one year look at the 9 year running mean
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Then it was like Ice cubes floating in a bowl of water then somebody put the bowl in the freezer and Wa-La like magic it is now over 19,000 Manhattans strong at the end of the Summer Melt Season.