2014 is USA's Coolest Year on Record

[Impenitent]

If you are uncertain that the earth is warming, and you think that someone's messing with the temperature record, you only need look at the actual condition of the earth: the melting of land ice (glaciers) and the sea level rise, which are unexplainable in a cooling earth.

Ice? You mean things like the 29% INCREASE in Arctic ice last year?

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.....

And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online

That changes annually, and now it's all gone. This is 2014, and it's already reached its minimum at the 6th lowest figure of record.

But land ice is far different from sea ice. Only land ice melt (Greenland and Glaciers) can change sea level - and you cannot deny they are melting, and threatening coastal cities around the world.

Can you explain what is different than the last 1000 years?

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

And here is cumulative glacial melt. As you can see it is increasing.

glacial melt graph - Bing Images

 

[westwall]

Ice? You mean things like the 29% INCREASE in Arctic ice last year?

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.....

And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online

That changes annually, and now it's all gone. This is 2014, and it's already reached its minimum at the 6th lowest figure of record.

But land ice is far different from sea ice. Only land ice melt (Greenland and Glaciers) can change sea level - and you cannot deny they are melting, and threatening coastal cities around the world.

Can you explain what is different than the last 1000 years?

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

That advice applies more to you than anyone else. And look at sources other than your highly biased ones. Here's a chart from wiki which I would normally not use but in this instance the chart is accurate. And look at that. Sea level rise has been remarkably slow for a while now.

 

[Impenitent]

That changes annually, and now it's all gone. This is 2014, and it's already reached its minimum at the 6th lowest figure of record.

But land ice is far different from sea ice. Only land ice melt (Greenland and Glaciers) can change sea level - and you cannot deny they are melting, and threatening coastal cities around the world.

Can you explain what is different than the last 1000 years?

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

That advice applies more to you than anyone else. And look at sources other than your highly biased ones. Here's a chart from wiki which I would normally not use but in this instance the chart is accurate. And look at that. Sea level rise has been remarkably slow for a while now.

The question was about the last 1000 years, not the last 24,000 years. You do realize that the scale you use obscures recent acceleration of sea-level rise, eh geographer?

 

[Impenitent]

That changes annually, and now it's all gone. This is 2014, and it's already reached its minimum at the 6th lowest figure of record.

But land ice is far different from sea ice. Only land ice melt (Greenland and Glaciers) can change sea level - and you cannot deny they are melting, and threatening coastal cities around the world.

Can you explain what is different than the last 1000 years?

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

That advice applies more to you than anyone else. And look at sources other than your highly biased ones. Here's a chart from wiki which I would normally not use but in this instance the chart is accurate. And look at that. Sea level rise has been remarkably slow for a while now.

If you like wiki so much, chew on this quote from them:

Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[2] Sea level rises can considerably influence human populations in coastal and island regions[3] and natural environments like marine ecosystems.[4]

 

[Pogo]

Agreed. My position is and has always been, I don't have the perspective to know we're causing a temp rise or fall or whatever -- I doubt anyone does -- but what the hell's the harm in cleaning up after ourselves?

All this partisan denialist crap smacks of energetically resisting the idea of putting food away in your kitchen just because yesterday you left it out and didn't see any roaches or rats.

There are plenty of real environmental problems that need to be dealt with, but they can't be addressed till the AGW hoax is put to bed...it is so divisive that it overwhelms everything else....Hell, look at this board...there is an environmental section....what gets talked about here?...actual environmental problems or the AGW hoax. The actual problems get a small mention in a larger AGW related thread....or a thread that dies quickly and is soon shuffled to the bottom of the deck. The AGW hoax is about the acquisition of money and power...not addressing any real environmental issue.

I don't see how. Where's the money in that?

On the other hand, where's the money in the Denialism camp? Everywhere.

The bottom line is still this -- regardless whether this theory works or that theory doesn't, and regardless whether we are significantly driving the climactic crazy train or not ---- why would we NOT clean up after ourselves? Why would you wait to see actual rats before you clean up your own kitchen and until that point, deny that food left open will attract them?

That's what Denialism sounds like: "your theory that a messy kitchen will attract rodents and roaches is unproven science and therefore we resist it. A power play by the housekeeper".

Makes no sense.

 

[mamooth]

Well. He lost his suit against Dr. Ball because he refused to release his data (for the aforementioned reasons) and is now being countersued by Dr. Ball for 10 million bucks. Which, based on Manns performance in Canadian Court he will lose in spectacular fasion.

Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse

So Westwall is now using self-proclaimed "kiddie fiddler" John O' Sullivan as a source. That would be one of the PSI "The greenhouse effect is a fraud!" loons, along with Tim Ball.

Back in the real world, Mann's lawsuits against both Steyn and Ball are still creeping along at a glacial pace, due to the endless procedural hurdles from the deniers. They really don't want discovery to happen, those deniers. Someone wants to hide data, and it's not Mann.

Now, here's TheBook on Canadian libel law.

Canadian Libel and Slander Actions Roger McConchie David Potts 9781552210567 Amazon.com Books

The first author there would be Mann's lawyer. Yep, he's the guy who wrote TheBook, literally. I imagine he's quite happy to see Ball throwing out frivolous countersuits.

 

[westwall]

Can you explain what is different than the last 1000 years?

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

That advice applies more to you than anyone else. And look at sources other than your highly biased ones. Here's a chart from wiki which I would normally not use but in this instance the chart is accurate. And look at that. Sea level rise has been remarkably slow for a while now.

The question was about the last 1000 years, not the last 24,000 years. You do realize that the scale you use obscures recent acceleration of sea-level rise, eh geographer?

No, what it does is show the sea level rise in context because the Earth unlike you is fantastically old and while you exist for a mere blink of an eye the Earth operates on time scales that you cannot comprehend. And it's geologist, silly boy.

 

[Impenitent]

T

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

That advice applies more to you than anyone else. And look at sources other than your highly biased ones. Here's a chart from wiki which I would normally not use but in this instance the chart is accurate. And look at that. Sea level rise has been remarkably slow for a while now.

The question was about the last 1000 years, not the last 24,000 years. You do realize that the scale you use obscures recent acceleration of sea-level rise, eh geographer?

No, what it does is show the sea level rise in context because the Earth unlike you is fantastically old and while you exist for a mere blink of an eye the Earth operates on time scales that you cannot comprehend. And it's geologist, silly boy.

The blinks are fairly well known now, and the one from 1850 to the present is unlike any ever seen before; you, as a geologist, would likely quantify it as a "blink with continuous eye-roll."

 

[SSDD]

Ice? You mean things like the 29% INCREASE in Arctic ice last year?

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.....

And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online

That changes annually, and now it's all gone. This is 2014, and it's already reached its minimum at the 6th lowest figure of record.

But land ice is far different from sea ice. Only land ice melt (Greenland and Glaciers) can change sea level - and you cannot deny they are melting, and threatening coastal cities around the world.

Can you explain what is different than the last 1000 years?

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

oooooohhhhhh, a graph that isn't even a graph....you embarrassed to even post it?

 

[Old Rocks]

There are plenty of real environmental problems that need to be dealt with, but they can't be addressed till the AGW hoax is put to bed...it is so divisive that it overwhelms everything else....Hell, look at this board...there is an environmental section....what gets talked about here?...actual environmental problems or the AGW hoax. The actual problems get a small mention in a larger AGW related thread....or a thread that dies quickly and is soon shuffled to the bottom of the deck. The AGW hoax is about the acquisition of money and power...not addressing any real environmental issue.

Bingo. Green is the New Red.

Bingo, and you are an ignorant fool.

 

[boedicca]

There are plenty of real environmental problems that need to be dealt with, but they can't be addressed till the AGW hoax is put to bed...it is so divisive that it overwhelms everything else....Hell, look at this board...there is an environmental section....what gets talked about here?...actual environmental problems or the AGW hoax. The actual problems get a small mention in a larger AGW related thread....or a thread that dies quickly and is soon shuffled to the bottom of the deck. The AGW hoax is about the acquisition of money and power...not addressing any real environmental issue.

Bingo. Green is the New Red.

Bingo, and you are an ignorant fool.

I am rubber
You are glue
The mean things you say
Bounce off me
And stick to you

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, sea level was essentially constant for the last 2000 years, before it began a more rapid rise in the mid 1800's. Same thing for glacial melt.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

That advice applies more to you than anyone else. And look at sources other than your highly biased ones. Here's a chart from wiki which I would normally not use but in this instance the chart is accurate. And look at that. Sea level rise has been remarkably slow for a while now.

The question was about the last 1000 years, not the last 24,000 years. You do realize that the scale you use obscures recent acceleration of sea-level rise, eh geographer?

No, what it does is show the sea level rise in context because the Earth unlike you is fantastically old and while you exist for a mere blink of an eye the Earth operates on time scales that you cannot comprehend. And it's geologist, silly boy.

Seems you are the person that has a difficult time comprehending things geological, Walleyes. There have been times of sea level rise that far exceeded what we are seeing right now. And those times involved a rapidly warming earth, one in which the CO2 level went from about 180 ppm to 280 to 300 ppm over a period of only about 15,000 years. The forcing of the Milankovic Cycles began the out gassing and that made a greater forcing that rapidly melted the continental ice caps. All from an increase of only 120 ppm of CO2. We have already exceeded that forcing, because we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, and the CH4 from about 760 ppb to over 1800 ppb. And CH4, on a decadal scale, is over 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

Now as the rise in GHGs continues at an increasing pace, and the permafrost and clathrates threaton to render anything that we might do irrelevant, perhaps we had better be studying what happens in time of very rapid change on this planet. And eyeblink, indeed. But that eyeblink is all we and our descendents have, and because people like you would choose to throw away that eyeblink for our descendents, does not mean the rest of us feel that way.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are plenty of real environmental problems that need to be dealt with, but they can't be addressed till the AGW hoax is put to bed...it is so divisive that it overwhelms everything else....Hell, look at this board...there is an environmental section....what gets talked about here?...actual environmental problems or the AGW hoax. The actual problems get a small mention in a larger AGW related thread....or a thread that dies quickly and is soon shuffled to the bottom of the deck. The AGW hoax is about the acquisition of money and power...not addressing any real environmental issue.

Bingo. Green is the New Red.

Bingo, and you are an ignorant fool.

I am rubber
You are glue
The mean things you say
Bounce off me
And stick to you

Just gotta love the intellect displayed by that commentary.

 

[skookerasbil]

Snow in southern New York this weekend.......

Here we go again.......talk to any of the folks living here about their concern with temperatures related to global warming, especially after a summer of low 80's, only two days of over 90 degree's and zero days anywhere near 100. The furthest thing from anybody's mind is global warming.....

Now......think of the chances of government pushing something like windmills offshore here and telling people struggling to make their bills to open their wallets to stem the tide of rising temperatures here.......when people are freezing their asses off 8 months in a row!!

 

[jc456]

Most of the change you reference was done prior to WWII...sea level...temperature...and glacial melt.

Not true at all about lea level. Here's a graph.

ail&id=0011D4A99184BDF3E0ED4A250D712DC000714F07&selectedIndex=12

You should check a few sources before you post.

That advice applies more to you than anyone else. And look at sources other than your highly biased ones. Here's a chart from wiki which I would normally not use but in this instance the chart is accurate. And look at that. Sea level rise has been remarkably slow for a while now.

The question was about the last 1000 years, not the last 24,000 years. You do realize that the scale you use obscures recent acceleration of sea-level rise, eh geographer?

No, what it does is show the sea level rise in context because the Earth unlike you is fantastically old and while you exist for a mere blink of an eye the Earth operates on time scales that you cannot comprehend. And it's geologist, silly boy.

Seems you are the person that has a difficult time comprehending things geological, Walleyes. There have been times of sea level rise that far exceeded what we are seeing right now. And those times involved a rapidly warming earth, one in which the CO2 level went from about 180 ppm to 280 to 300 ppm over a period of only about 15,000 years. The forcing of the Milankovic Cycles began the out gassing and that made a greater forcing that rapidly melted the continental ice caps. All from an increase of only 120 ppm of CO2. We have already exceeded that forcing, because we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, and the CH4 from about 760 ppb to over 1800 ppb. And CH4, on a decadal scale, is over 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

Now as the rise in GHGs continues at an increasing pace, and the permafrost and clathrates threaton to render anything that we might do irrelevant, perhaps we had better be studying what happens in time of very rapid change on this planet. And eyeblink, indeed. But that eyeblink is all we and our descendents have, and because people like you would choose to throw away that eyeblink for our descendents, does not mean the rest of us feel that way.

And yet you can't disprove this:

 

[Billy_Bob]

Seems you are the person that has a difficult time comprehending things geological, Walleyes. There have been times of sea level rise that far exceeded what we are seeing right now. And those times involved a rapidly warming earth, one in which the CO2 level went from about 180 ppm to 280 to 300 ppm over a period of only about 15,000 years. The forcing of the Milankovic Cycles began the out gassing and that made a greater forcing that rapidly melted the continental ice caps. All from an increase of only 120 ppm of CO2. We have already exceeded that forcing, because we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, and the CH4 from about 760 ppb to over 1800 ppb. And CH4, on a decadal scale, is over 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

Now as the rise in GHGs continues at an increasing pace, and the permafrost and clathrates threaton to render anything that we might do irrelevant, perhaps we had better be studying what happens in time of very rapid change on this planet. And eyeblink, indeed. But that eyeblink is all we and our descendents have, and because people like you would choose to throw away that eyeblink for our descendents, does not mean the rest of us feel that way.

MORON ALERT...

Please provide proof that ANY warming was caused by man in the last 75 years. And dont be stupid and forget about natural variation and its equivalent rate to 1900-1950..

 

[Crick]

Things don't happen without cause. What "natural" cause do you have for the warming of the last 150 years? And on what grounds do you believe the gigatonnes of CO2 humans have put in to the atmosphere could have had no effect?

 

[SSDD]

Things don't happen without cause. What "natural" cause do you have for the warming of the last 150 years? And on what grounds do you believe the gigatonnes of CO2 humans have put in to the atmosphere could have had no effect?

You might start with the fact that previous warming periods which were warmer happened without the benefit of CO2 and the fact that the present ice age began with CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm. History simply doesn't support your hysterics.

 

[Crick]

I never asked it to do so. Humans burning fossil fuels is unprecedented. Did you fail to note that or do you disagree?

 

[jc456]

Things don't happen without cause. What "natural" cause do you have for the warming of the last 150 years? And on what grounds do you believe the gigatonnes of CO2 humans have put in to the atmosphere could have had no effect?