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:
My post lost in WordPress again. 🙁
Bron did you do this. It’s clear to see whats happening.
Try this exercise at the Cryosphere, not sure how cry and sphere were put together. March 1st widely accepted as first of spring, some say April. Compare April 30th 2013 to April 30 1979 the beginning of the record. Decrease 2013 by one year leaving the beginning date of April 30th 1979. If it says no image available skip that year and go to the next.
When finished do the reverse. Leave April 30th 2013 as the end date and increase April 30th 1979 by one year increments.repeat 10 times.
What do you see
Dates preset to start
Cryosphere Today Daily Sea Ice Comparison
Not only is ice increasing the snow cap is increasing. We are cooling now.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=30&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=30&sy=2013
Joe Blow:
when I worked up in Alaska we pulled anchor in September to head to Victoria, BC for drydock to avoid the sea ice. You telling me its earlier now than it was 30 years ago?
The polar bears love Old Man Winter and he has come two weeks early this year as the Arctic has now dropped below freezing signaling that the summer melt season is over.
Facts are always interesting. Please don’t bring Al Gore into the picture. Just like the polar bears (Numbers are increasing) we don’t talk about him this time of year.. We wait for winter and let Old Man Winter pound on him some.
joe blow:
that was some fascinating information.
Thank the gods there are still people curious about our world and who are seeking the truth.
I dont think we know enough to really have a good idea as to what is going on. Most probably a natural cycle. Say, werent there glaciers covering North America a while back?
Thank god there was no human industry back then, we would still be living in caves and praying to Achk for deliverance from solar eclipses.
Hmm, makes one wonder about the motivation of warmers doesnt it?
OS:
“For anyone taking a cavalier approach to this issue for short term money,”
you talking about Al Gore?
And if seas are rising at an unprecedented rate the Marshall islands would be covered by now. But if one was to exam they would find that there has been near 0 SEA LEVEL RISE in the Islands. Not hard to fathom seeing how NASA records a rate of one inch of sea level rise per ten years since we began measuring via satellite.
Most places that have recorded sea level rises mostly along the East Coast and North Gulf Coast is because the land is sinking. FACT
Excerpt
Coral is again flourishing in the crater left by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States, 54 years after the blast on Bikini Atoll, marine scientists reported Tuesday.
A team of research divers visited Bravo crater — ground zero for the test of a thermonuclear weapon in the remote Marshall Islands on March 1, 1954 — and found large numbers of fish and coral growing, although some species appeared locally extinct.
“I didn’t know what to expect, some kind of moonscape perhaps. But it was incredible, huge matrices of branching Porites coral had established, creating thriving coral reef habitat,” Zoe Richards, from Australia’s James Cook University, said of the trip to the atoll in the South Pacific.
Richards, from the Australian government-backed Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said the research team from Germany, Italy, Hawaii, Australia and the Marshall Islands found corals up to 27 feet tall and some with 12 inch-thick trunks.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24132798/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/coral-flourishing-bikini-atoll-atomic-test-site/#.UgS-yqzKGfU
“We saw communities not too far from any coral reef, with plenty of fish, corals and action going on, some really striking individual colonies,” she said.
The 15 megaton hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times more powerful than the blast that destroyed Hiroshima, vaporizing islands with temperatures hitting 99,000 degres Fahrenheit, and shaking islands up to 120 miles away.
Joe Blow –
That was an interesting link to the Bikini Atoll. Evolutionists have long used coral reef growth data as an empirical clock to debunk creationist models of origins. I’m sure some of the creationists will use this data to debunk the critics of creationism, but our school systems will continue to refuse to allow this kind of interpretation and data into the classroom.
Did you notice how the “surprised” Zoe Richards was quick to add at the end, “… resiliency does not mean the threat to corals from climate change had been overestimated. Climate change is an ongoing struggle to survive with coral, with no reprieve in sight.” Such a statement is a typical example of how it doesn’t matter what the data says, the dogma and paradigm overrules everything else. People think science has no bias, but examples like this keep reminding the observant reader that scientists are humans like everybody else, and they are far less objective than what they pretend to be.
@davidm2575
Just trying to be clear, are you saying there is no threat to coral, or are you saying coral can adapt to the threat?
And it is not clear to me that the challenge to life posed by atomic blast or nuclear radiation is the same as that posed by long term climate change.
Maybe the forces are similar or even the same. But so far as I know that has not been established here, and in the absence of further explanation does not seem likely to me.
bigfatmike wrote: “are you saying there is no threat to coral, or are you saying coral can adapt to the threat?”
The nuclear blast decimated everything there. The scientist was surprised at the huge coral there, growing like trees. She was surprised at what she found there because they always harp on how long it takes coral to grow, and that we are destroying something that will take 100,000 years to come back. I’m not joking. It is an artifact concerning how they interpret data through a uniformitarian mindset, and the popularity among other biologists to preach an environmental sermon about what they know. Sometimes information that comes from a super smart scientist or a prophet in touch with God himself is about the same thing.
” Sometimes information that comes from a super smart scientist or a prophet in touch with God himself is about the same thing.”
Well I think we at least agree on a couple of things: sometimes scientist get it wrong and sometimes the smarter they are the more certain they are of themselves.
Its curious, but if science is the process of attempting to falsify propositions, then scientist work in one of the very few professions where they get paid to prove themselves wrong.
I am curious though regarding the coral, did anyone actually check to see if the formations were new growth? Or is it possible the large formations were actually saved from destruction by discontinuities in the blast and fireball?
If the ocean is becoming more acidic preventing coral to grow and as some suggest leading to bleaching thus death how does one explain the coral at Bikini Atoll
I will also point out that the ocean isn’t the only mechanism to remove CO2 from the atmosphere there are things called plants. And as CO2 has been steadily rising the tropical rain forest around the world or getting greener and greener. Now if we can just stop them from cutting them down.
In a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved “able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years.” In any case, freshwater mussels thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five.
Laboratory experiments find that more marine creatures thrive than suffer when carbon dioxide lowers the pH level to 7.8. This is because the carbon dioxide dissolves mainly as bicarbonate, which many calcifiers use as raw material for carbonate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028.html
Author Matt Ridley as in Turtle-Shell
NEXT
Excerpt— Key words Scientist at San Diego’s Scripps Institution
Last month scientists at San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year.
“On both a monthly and annual scale, even the most stable open ocean sites see pH changes many times larger than the annual rate of acidification,” say the authors of the study, adding that because good instruments to measure ocean pH have only recently been deployed, “this variation has been under-appreciated.” Over coral reefs, the pH decline between dusk and dawn is almost half as much as the decrease in average pH expected over the next 100 years. The noise is greater than the signal.
Another recent study, by scientists from the U.K., Hawaii and Massachusetts, concluded that “marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions,” and that “in many freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the 22nd-century oceans can occur over periods of hours.”
My comment was swallowed, but OS said the same thing I did, anyway.
Yes. If the environment changes very slowly, say over millions of years, random mutations may allow organisms to adapt. They might just go extinct, instead. The mutations are random, not purposeful.
If human interference causes the environment to change significantly within, say, 100 years, it’s very unlikely that organisms will adapt. They’ll probably just die out.
And we’ll follow them. Poetic justice is satisfying, less so if you’re the one getting the justice.
What Mike A. said about evolution. if an organism has thousands, or even millions of years to adapt, covering untold millions of generations, that is one thing. Having less than a century to adapt, let alone a few tens of years is quite another. Also, given that a human generation only occurs about every twenty five years, four generations a century, we adapt WAY too slow.
For anyone taking a cavalier approach to this issue for short term money, think about your great grandchildren watching their great-grandchildren having families. What will their lives be like if we ignore the problem? Or will they have lives? At what point does the earth become unsustainable? The Koch brothers and their ilk cannot take it with them, but they sure as heck are not going to give it to the unwashed masses. Also, fossil fuel sources are finite. What then?
Joe Blow:
You state that it doesn’t make sense that carbonate organisms in the oceans should have trouble adapting to higher CO2 levels when their ancestors survived at much higher levels. The quick answer is that today’s organisms are not their ancestors. It may also be the case that acidity is increasing at a rate beyond the ability of organisms to adapt. I suspect that may be the case. What I know for a fact is what I have observed diving off the coast of Florida for the past 30 plus years: massive amounts of coral bleaching and actual coral disintegration. As others have noted, reef systems thrive within a narrow range of temperature and Ph.
Scuba divers also understand that CO2 is not a harmless gas. It becomes toxic and extremely dangerous when it becomes too concentrated.
BFM,
My son had a hobby of raising tropical fish when he was a teenager. There were two things that caused more headaches than anything else. He asked me to help him. It did not take me long to learn that Ph balance and temperature range are vitally important when you have a dozen expensive fish in the tank. If the Ph was not within range, or the water temps were outside recommended limits, there were problems. Diseases and parasites would thrive, or the fish would simply die. Anyone who has kept an aquarium in home or office is probably rather sensitive to those two things. Fish have requirements, and hot or acidic water are not among them.
” 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.”
The statement does not say that it is carbon itself that is the problem as you suggest. The statement clearly describes how carbon can lead to acidification of water. It is common knowledge that organisms require a narrow range of ph for life. If conditions are to acidic or to base then the organism will fail.and eventually die. Pickling with acetic or lactic acid is an example of using a solution with a ph balance that prevents the growth of most bacteria in order to preserve food.
If you really believe that CO2 is not a problem at any level then you might demonstrate that by breathing 10% or 15% CO2 and let us know how that works out for you.
Final remark on data transformation:
As I was reading about data manipulation I came across several variables that never occurred to me. I have mentioned the growth of large urban areas mentioned in the Michaels’ paper, And I have previously mentioned the necessity to bias automated equipment and to correct data if a problem in calibration is later discovered.
But others mention factors related to much simpler aspects of technology.
In one period of time ocean temperature measurements were made from water dredged with canvas buckets and hauled up onto the deck of a ship. Does changing the method of collecting water temperature reading change the way we should handle the data? It should.
Another person pointed out that thermometers might not change in accuracy but the aging of the color of the paint on the protective enclosure might affect the readings because darker enclosures would trap more heat. Should we try to account for that kind of change? Definitely, if we can make a reasonable estimate.
Another pointed out that readings run for 24 hours starting at mid night. Now the readings are mostly automated so we can be assured of getting the maximum and the minimum for that 24 hour period.
But decades ago readings were frequently made by hand at uniform but convenient hours. For example readings might be made at 7am and 5pm. Does that matter? It might if the thermometer had a device to capture the minimum temperature. If the thermometer was read at 7am and the minimum temperature capture device reset, then it is possible that the minimum recorded for the succeeding day would actually be the minimum from the preceding day. Should we correct for that. Well, if the data analyst can figure it out then sure, definitely.
I have no idea if all the adjustments made to data sets are the best use we can make of the data regarding global warming. But it seems to me that the idea that we should try to use raw data with out any attempt to adjust to various anomalies reflects a naïve view that cannot be supported when one considers the many different conditions of data collection.