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:
The Globe has warmed hence Global Warming is real
The Globe has cooled and it is now cooling again
“The Globe has cooled and it is now cooling again”
Climate change is long term change in seasonal averages. No event, season, year, or even a series of years can demonstrate or refute climate change. Some in the field suggest that periods of 30 years are the shortest that would be sufficient to distinguish trend from noise (the normal increases and decreases in temperature readings) in regard to climate change.
What, exactly, is the evidence for global cooling. If the trend line is shorter than 30 years, how would we know that what we are seeing really is global cooling rather than the normal ups and downs we would expect to see as global warming occurs?
Read and weep suckers
Titlu : ELIMINATION North Pole Lake
Caption : EDITORS, PHOTO EDITORS, AND PHOTO LIBRARIANS – PLEASE ELIMINATE AP PHOTO NY109 THAT WAS SENT ON SATURDAY, JULY 27, 2013. THE CAPTION INACCURATELY STATED THAT ‘THE SHALLOW MELTWATER LAKE IS OCCURRING DUE TO AN UNUSUALLY WARM PERIOD.’ IN FACT, THE WATER ACCUMULATES IN THIS WAY EVERY SUMMER. IN ADDITION, THE IMAGES DO NOT NECESSARILY SHOW CONDITIONS AT THE NORTH POLE, BECAUSE THE WEATHER BUOY CARRYING THE CAMERA USED BY THE NORTH POLE ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATORY HAS DRIFTED HUNDREDS OF MILES FROM ITS ORIGINAL POSITION, WHICH WAS A FEW DOZEN MILES FROM THE POLE- This frame grab provided by NOAA shows images from the wide-angle camera trained on a weather buoy maintained by the North Pole Environmental Observatory at the North Pole. The top image is a June 7, 2013 frame grab. The bottom image is a July 25, 2013 frame grab. (AP Photo/NOAA)
http://foto.agerpres.ro/index.php?i=7147048
Poll is from 2011 and really is the problem with you folks constantly living in the past.
“Poll is from 2011 and really is the problem with you folks constantly living in the past.”
Actually a well constructed poll from 2011 might be a very good indicator of current attitudes. It depends on how much and how fast attitudes are changing.
In any case living in the recent past beats living in denial any day.
Oh, did I mention evidence of obvious mental confusion:
” Yes Global Warming is real, CO2 is just not the main driver.”
“The Globe is now cooling.”
Or are these just the remarks of someone who will say anything to obscure the facts.
The Partisan Divide on Global Warming
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/the-partisan-divide-on-global-warming/
Excerpt:
While 63% of Americans overall believe there is solid evidence of global warming, there is a sharp partisan and ideological divide on the issue. Nearly eight-in-ten (77%) Democrats believe that global warming is occurring compared to 43% of Republicans. Just over seven-in-ten (73%) of Democrats who describe themselves as conservative or moderate believe there is solid evidence of warming, as do 84% of liberal Democrats.
Among Republicans, only 31% of conservatives believe in global warming. An intra-party division exists, as 63% of Republicans who describe themselves as moderate or liberal believe in global warming – though but they constitute a smaller share of the party than do conservatives.
The large partisan and ideological gap over the existence of global warming is also reflected in opinions about whether it represents a serious problem. Nine-in-ten (90%) liberal Democrats say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 64% calling it “very serious.” Nearly three-quarters of conservative Republicans (73%) say global warming either is not too serious a problem or not a problem.
Tea Party affiliation is also a useful prism for understanding Republican divisions on global warming.
Among all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 30% say there is solid evidence of global warming and 11% say it is mostly caused by human activity. A majority (56%) of Republicans and GOP leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party see solid evidence of global warming, and 28% say it is mostly caused by human activity.
P asks scientist Sebastian Mernild of the Glaciology and Climate Change Laboratory Center for Scientific Studies in Chile, who insists that ocean currents have taken the heat “down to the deep sea”.
Once unthinkable just a few years ago, the European media and JP are now starting to admit the oceans are a poorly understood wild card in the climate equation after all. JP openly states, “The oceans are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.” Jylland Posten ends its 2-page feature story with questions and comments by Svensmark:
How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”
The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”
So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.
Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?
Image right: The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.
Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!
Just a few FACTS as CO2 continues to rise currently 400PPM. Next you’ll be claiming we need pump up CO2 to reverse this trend
Coldest summer on record at the North Pole
Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006
Record high August Antarctic ice extent
No major hurricane strikes for eight years
World Wide Cyclones 30-40 year lows 4 years in a row
Slowest tornado season on record
No global warming for 15 years
Second slowest fire season on record
Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008
from NBC news: “The healthy condition of the coral at Bikini atoll today is proof of their resilience and ability to bounce back from massive disturbances,” Zoe said, “that is, if the reef is left undisturbed and there are healthy nearby reefs to source the recovery….She added that that 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,” she said”
Davidm2575: “Such a statement is a typical example of how it doesn’t matter what the data says, the dogma and paradigm overrules everything else.”
I think before I could conclude the observer is overlooking or denying something I would have to first to conclude that the situation is not just local and really does have implications for the world wide coral habitat.
Reefs, currents, underwater land masses and islands all might affect local conditions of temperature, ph, salinity, and water borne nutrients. I am sure that anyone with an interest in biology could suggest other important factors.
If the coral growth is due to local conditions then there may be no implications for global warming. In that circumstance there would be nothing to deny or overlook.
I would argue that the facts presented in the article are not sufficient to determine if conditions at the atoll are local or more typical of the world wide habitat for coral. Without more facts it is an open question to what degree coral growth at the atoll reflects local conditions and what if any implications there are for global warming.
Until we determine that there really are implications for global warming that are being ignored, we cannot reasonably conclude that “dogma and paradigm overrules everything else.”
Joe Blow 1, August 9, 2013 at 2:24 pm
The sky is falling
===================================
You cognition is failing.
Try getting counsel, assuming you are an adult.
Otherwise, talk with your parents about it.
One of the tests of a scientific hypothesis is whether or not it can predict future events based upon its constructs.
Jim Hansen, in a 1981 peer reviewed paper, made predictions that have come to pass:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang///id/1380
1960-1961:
http://svalbardrepublic.org/lansing.htm
lots more ice and snow than in 1911 and 1879, hmmmmm.
In the forecast business this is known as a BUSTED forecast
Back when the sea was thick and lasted for years, cyclones tended to spread the ice out and actually increase its extent, said Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Now, when ice gets spread out, it simply breaks up and disappears.
“As our ice cover has thinned, some of our old rules are changing,” said Stroeve.
This year “will without a doubt” rank in the top five lowest levels of ice extent ever recorded in the satellite era, and there is a good possibility that 2013 could rank second in terms of recorded ice lows, said Walt Meier, a scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center.
“It’s kind of remarkable that it’s as low as it is [this year], given that the weather conditions were not terribly optimal for ice loss,” Meier said.
Centre for Ocean and Ice – Danish Meteorological Institute
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
1911 too:
http://svalbardrepublic.org/sval-zep1911.html
OS:
maybe these pictures of Svalbard circa 1879 will make you feel better.
http://svalbardrepublic.org/sval-first1897.html
The sky is falling
Bron 1, August 7, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Dredd:
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.
==============================
In general … according to Epistemology … basically, and in one word, trust:
(The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?, quoting a scientific journal). I am like everyone else who is not a professional climate scientist, in that, I listen to scientists, read scientific papers, and then come to a personal conclusion by choosing which scientists to rely upon.
Like professional scientists do (they rely on other scientists).
Now, to your specific questions:
‘Powering the Earth’ is a poor choice of words.
Nevertheless, energy in the form of photons emanating from the Sun enter the Earths atmosphere and are absorbed.
That increases the ‘heat quantity’ around the globe.
Concurrently heat is being radiated back into space from the Earth.
When the amount being radiated back into space does not equal the amount entering the Earth, then an increase in heat energy takes place.
Following the Fifth Mass Extinction Event, ~65 mya, caused by an asteroid impact, which was millions of years prior to ‘Petroleum Man’ there was a certain atmospheric mix.
It was balanced – heat in = heat out.
The industrial revolution of current human civilization began to burn fossil fuels, first coal, then petroleum, and natural gas.
These eventually upset the atmospheric balance as to green house gases in the atmosphere – gases which inhibit the release of heat back into space.
Thus, the biosphere / ecosphere begins to absorb the heat. Today the imbalance of heat in – heat out is about equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs per day. PER DAY.
When the various carbon sinks can’t absorb it, the atmospheric content of green house gases increases causing the heat radiation back into space to decrease.
The heat of the globe increases accordingly.
Next you wrote:
It has a different number of elements (1 ‘C’ atom, 2 ‘O’ atoms) in its molecules compared to other gases.
Next you wrote:
Special is not a good choice … all gases are different from one another because of the quantity of atoms that are bound together to form their molecular construct.
Next you wrote:
Engineering based on molecular structure of gases, liquids, and solids is best done following experiments.
Insulation technology as an applied science is based upon the experiments conducted in a specific context.
Practicality then arises in terms of efficiency related to costs.
That is why it is not used in double pane windows in most contexts.
OS,
The deniers and Koch Inc. are like the bears they are involved in slowly killing:
(your link / ring of fire). They are bringing this on all of us.
The photograph deniers and the Koch brothers don’t want you to see:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/43748/large/130807-polar-bear-01.photoblog600.jpg?1375965784
Story here:
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2013/08/climate-change-causing-polar-bear-starvation-deaths/
OS – I am not a denier, but articles like the one you link to bother me because they always quote some authority rather than objectively talk about the data. It kind of reminds me of the anti-abortionists who show a picture of a dead fetus and then quote some medical doctor who promotes their cause. I get suspicious of propaganda and agendas when reading articles like these.
Some populations of polar bears are doing better and are increasing and some are doing worse. The ice sheet in the arctic has been shrinking, but how does this affect the 20,000 polar bears living there exactly?
Here is some actual data that might help balance the article to which you link.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
I also consider the data with some skepticism because there definitely is an agenda to get a certain result.