BAMS State of the Climate - 2012

[CrusaderFrank]

This is about as informative and compelling as a typical State of the Union address.

Must really suck to be a Govt scientist at the patronage of a govt who demands report products that meet preconceived notions of correctness.

Compiling
the activity over all seven TC basins, the 2012 season
(2011/12 in the Southern Hemisphere) had 84 named
storms (wind speeds ≥34 kts or 18 m s-1), which is
below the 1981–2010 average of 89. However, the
2012 total was higher than the previous two seasons,
with 2010 having the lowest number of global named
storms since the start of the satellite era. The 2012
season also featured 41 hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones
(HTC; wind speeds ≥64 kts or 33 m s-1), which is
below the 1981–2010 average of 44 HTCs (Knapp et
al. 2010). Of these, 19 (which is the global average)
reached major HTC status (wind speeds ≥96 kts or
49 m s-1; WMO 2013).
There were only three Category 5 systems during
the year [Samba, Bopha (named Pablo in the Philippines
region), and Jelawat—all in the western North
Pacific], which ties with 2011 as the all-time low number
during the satellite era.

Same with most of the hysterical climate change arguments about Global Warming killing firefighters and the Prez lying about the temperature "increasing faster than any predictions"..

Ho-Hum .. Wait til NEXT year.. The sea will rise the same amount as it has risen for 100 yrs and the glaciers will continue to recede. But I bet SEVERAL virgins WILL be sacrificed...

Maybe Oro-man ought to admit what parts of this are earth-shattering and scaring him 1/2 to death..

Maybe you will learn to actually read scientific material rather than continueing to post nonsense.

There are 8 pages of the names and institutions of the contributing scientists at the front of that reports. All top scientists in their fields of endevour. In the meantime, we have internet posters with two digit IQs stating that they know more than the leading scientists in the world. Oh, who to believe

Can you explain to us how atmospheric heat gets sucked into the ocean deep because of AGW

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie boy, read the damned report. Put down the comic book, and read something about oceanography.

In the meantime, are there any of you that are actually going to discuss anything from the report? Or are you going to simply demostrate why those of us that actually read science hold you people in such well deserved contempt.

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate science is makey-uppey science. There is nothing "real" about it and never has been.

Anyway....even if we knew it was real, predicting with any level of certainty into the future is IMPOSSIBLE, so who cares??!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie boy, read the damned report. Put down the comic book, and read something about oceanography.

In the meantime, are there any of you that are actually going to discuss anything from the report? Or are you going to simply demostrate why those of us that actually read science hold you people in such well deserved contempt.

I'm so hurt.

Did you ever get around to reading the Scarfetta and West paper I posted, the one that backed up my statement that the AGW Cult assigned 30% of climate change to That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky using the "Because we say so" method?

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is about as informative and compelling as a typical State of the Union address.

Must really suck to be a Govt scientist at the patronage of a govt who demands report products that meet preconceived notions of correctness.



Same with most of the hysterical climate change arguments about Global Warming killing firefighters and the Prez lying about the temperature "increasing faster than any predictions"..

Ho-Hum .. Wait til NEXT year.. The sea will rise the same amount as it has risen for 100 yrs and the glaciers will continue to recede. But I bet SEVERAL virgins WILL be sacrificed...

Maybe Oro-man ought to admit what parts of this are earth-shattering and scaring him 1/2 to death..

Maybe you will learn to actually read scientific material rather than continueing to post nonsense.

There are 8 pages of the names and institutions of the contributing scientists at the front of that reports. All top scientists in their fields of endevour. In the meantime, we have internet posters with two digit IQs stating that they know more than the leading scientists in the world. Oh, who to believe

Can you explain to us how atmospheric heat gets sucked into the ocean deep because of AGW

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The average temperature distribution represents a balance between 3 major processes:

(1) surface heating by the sun (mitigated by surface evaporation and infrared radiative loss) which warms the relatively shallow ocean mixed layer;

(2) cold deepwater formation at high latitudes, which slowly sinks and fills up the oceans on time scales of centuries to millennia, and

(3) vertical mixing from wind-driven waves, the thermohaline circulation, and turbulence generated by flow over ocean bottom topography (the latter being partly driven by tidal forces).


The key thing to understand is that while processes (1) and (2) continuously act to INCREASE the temperature difference between the warm mixed layer and the cold deep ocean, the vertical mixing processes in (3) continuously act to DECREASE the temperature difference, that is, make the ocean more vertically uniform in temperature.

The average temperature distribution we see is the net result of these different, competing processes. And so, a change in ANY of these processes can cause surface warming or cooling, without any radiative forcing of the climate system whatsoever.

More on Trenberth’s Missing Heat « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[ScienceRocks]

Frankie boy, read the damned report. Put down the comic book, and read something about oceanography.

In the meantime, are there any of you that are actually going to discuss anything from the report? Or are you going to simply demostrate why those of us that actually read science hold you people in such well deserved contempt.

I'm so hurt.

Did you ever get around to reading the Scarfetta and West paper I posted, the one that backed up my statement that the AGW Cult assigned 30% of climate change to That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky using the "Because we say so" method?

Between 1880-1950...You're right. Since that time the solar flex has been "slowly" decreasing when you avg both the max/min out.

Shouldn't we be cooling? I know the 1990's had a short period of really high flex...But that doesn't explain what we're seeing.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is about as informative and compelling as a typical State of the Union address.

Must really suck to be a Govt scientist at the patronage of a govt who demands report products that meet preconceived notions of correctness.

Compiling
the activity over all seven TC basins, the 2012 season
(2011/12 in the Southern Hemisphere) had 84 named
storms (wind speeds ≥34 kts or 18 m s-1), which is
below the 1981–2010 average of 89. However, the
2012 total was higher than the previous two seasons,
with 2010 having the lowest number of global named
storms since the start of the satellite era. The 2012
season also featured 41 hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones
(HTC; wind speeds ≥64 kts or 33 m s-1), which is
below the 1981–2010 average of 44 HTCs (Knapp et
al. 2010). Of these, 19 (which is the global average)
reached major HTC status (wind speeds ≥96 kts or
49 m s-1; WMO 2013).
There were only three Category 5 systems during
the year [Samba, Bopha (named Pablo in the Philippines
region), and Jelawat—all in the western North
Pacific], which ties with 2011 as the all-time low number
during the satellite era.

Same with most of the hysterical climate change arguments about Global Warming killing firefighters and the Prez lying about the temperature "increasing faster than any predictions"..

Ho-Hum .. Wait til NEXT year.. The sea will rise the same amount as it has risen for 100 yrs and the glaciers will continue to recede. But I bet SEVERAL virgins WILL be sacrificed...

Maybe Oro-man ought to admit what parts of this are earth-shattering and scaring him 1/2 to death..

Maybe you will learn to actually read scientific material rather than continueing to post nonsense.

There are 8 pages of the names and institutions of the contributing scientists at the front of that reports. All top scientists in their fields of endevour. In the meantime, we have internet posters with two digit IQs stating that they know more than the leading scientists in the world. Oh, who to believe

So you're impressed by a list of NOAA scientists? Fine.. As tho THAT is the issue here..
Go find me STATEMENTS in that report (like I did) that STATE that Global Warming is CAUSING anything other than ice to melt...

So it isn't HURRICANES is it?? It also wasn't many other metrics that SHOULD BE POPPING OFF VIOLENTLY -- if you had an ounce of evidence on your side..

Go Fetch --- and stop telling me --- I'm posting nonsense..
Scare the shit out of me with what those 8 pages of scientists say in that report..

 

[flacaltenn]

Frankie boy, read the damned report. Put down the comic book, and read something about oceanography.

In the meantime, are there any of you that are actually going to discuss anything from the report? Or are you going to simply demostrate why those of us that actually read science hold you people in such well deserved contempt.

I'm so hurt.

Did you ever get around to reading the Scarfetta and West paper I posted, the one that backed up my statement that the AGW Cult assigned 30% of climate change to That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky using the "Because we say so" method?

Between 1880-1950...You're right. Since that time the solar flex has been "slowly" decreasing when you avg both the max/min out.

Shouldn't we be cooling? I know the 1990's had a short period of really high flex...But that doesn't explain what we're seeing.

Actually, the new Trenberth paper proposes how that CAN happen.. The heat is temporarily stored in a place where it's NOT affecting weather and can't partake in the atmospheric/surface exchange..

It's not unrealistic to expect a delay between a forcing function and some simple metric like average surface temp.. In the real world of physics, you'd be silly to presume that the Earth IMMEDIATELY assumes a new temp. equilibrium as a response to a forcing stimulus.

The whole idea of looking for INSTANTANEOUS relationships between surface temp and forcings was (and is) pretty juvenile.

Not only do the graphs of forcing and temperature NOT have to be simultaneous.. They also don't have to have a literal high correlation value.. You can pump power to a system in non-linear fashion and get perfectly linear temperature response..

That's why I'm a skeptic.. The AGW fairytale was never really complicated enough to be climate science..

 

[Old Rocks]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate.pdf


Achberger, Christine, Department of Earth Sciences, University
of Gothenburg, Sweden
Ackerman, Stephen A., Cooperative Institute for Meteorological
Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison,
WI
Albanil, Adelina, National Meteorological Service of Mexico,
Mexico
Alexander, P., Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
City College of New York, New York, NY
Alfaro, Eric J., Center for Geophysical Research and School of
Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Allan, Rob, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
Alves, Lincoln M., Centro de Ciencias do Sistema Terrestre
(CCST), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE),
Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Amador, Jorge A., Center for Geophysical Research and School
of Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Ambenje, Peter, Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD),
Nairobi, Kenya
Andrianjafinirina, Solonomenjanahary, Direction de la Meteorologie
Nationale de Madagascar, Tananarive, Madagascar
Antonov, John, NOAA/NESDIS National Oceanographic Data
Center, Silver Spring, MD; and University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Aravequia, Jose A., Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos
Climáticos, INPE, Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Arendt, A., Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK
Arévalo, Juan, Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología de
Venezuela (INAMEH), Caracas, Venezuela
Arndt, Derek S., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Ashik, I., Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg,
Russia
Atheru, Zachary, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications
Centre (ICPAC), Nairobi, Kenya
Banzon, Viva, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Baringer, Molly O., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL
Barreira, Sandra, Argentine Naval Hydrographic Service, Buenos
Aires, Argentina
Barriopedro, David E., Universidad Complutense de Madrid
(UCM), Spain
Beard, Grant, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Becker, Andreas, Global Precipitation Climatology Centre,
Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Offenbach, Germany
Behrenfeld, Michael J., Oregon State University, OR

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm so hurt.

Did you ever get around to reading the Scarfetta and West paper I posted, the one that backed up my statement that the AGW Cult assigned 30% of climate change to That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky using the "Because we say so" method?

Between 1880-1950...You're right. Since that time the solar flex has been "slowly" decreasing when you avg both the max/min out.

Shouldn't we be cooling? I know the 1990's had a short period of really high flex...But that doesn't explain what we're seeing.

Actually, the new Trenberth paper proposes how that CAN happen.. The heat is temporarily stored in a place where it's NOT affecting weather and can't partake in the atmospheric/surface exchange..

It's not unrealistic to expect a delay between a forcing function and some simple metric like average surface temp.. In the real world of physics, you'd be silly to presume that the Earth IMMEDIATELY assumes a new temp. equilibrium as a response to a forcing stimulus.

The whole idea of looking for INSTANTANEOUS relationships between surface temp and forcings was (and is) pretty juvenile.

Not only do the graphs of forcing and temperature NOT have to be simultaneous.. They also don't have to have a literal high correlation value.. You can pump power to a system in non-linear fashion and get perfectly linear temperature response..

That's why I'm a skeptic.. The AGW fairytale was never really complicated enough to be climate science..

No, Flat, you are not a skeptic. You are a fool. As a matter of fact, the climate scientist know full well you can pump energy into the system without an immediate response. That is why they state that even if we stopped contributing GHGs right now, there is still at least 30 to 50 years of warming in the system.

That is the problem with you. When you are not misrepresenting what the scientists are stating, you are outright lying about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Between 1880-1950...You're right. Since that time the solar flex has been "slowly" decreasing when you avg both the max/min out.

Shouldn't we be cooling? I know the 1990's had a short period of really high flex...But that doesn't explain what we're seeing.

Actually, the new Trenberth paper proposes how that CAN happen.. The heat is temporarily stored in a place where it's NOT affecting weather and can't partake in the atmospheric/surface exchange..

It's not unrealistic to expect a delay between a forcing function and some simple metric like average surface temp.. In the real world of physics, you'd be silly to presume that the Earth IMMEDIATELY assumes a new temp. equilibrium as a response to a forcing stimulus.

The whole idea of looking for INSTANTANEOUS relationships between surface temp and forcings was (and is) pretty juvenile.

Not only do the graphs of forcing and temperature NOT have to be simultaneous.. They also don't have to have a literal high correlation value.. You can pump power to a system in non-linear fashion and get perfectly linear temperature response..

That's why I'm a skeptic.. The AGW fairytale was never really complicated enough to be climate science..

No, Flat, you are not a skeptic. You are a fool. As a matter of fact, the climate scientist know full well you can pump energy into the system without an immediate response. That is why they state that even if we stopped contributing GHGs right now, there is still at least 30 to 50 years of warming in the system.

That is the problem with you. When you are not misrepresenting what the scientists are stating, you are outright lying about it.

Then why does the IPCC immediately discard any forcing function that doesn't show IMMEDIATE simultaneous tracking with temperature??? That's the excuse of EVERY FUNKING warmer blog on the Internet for not discussing the 1.2W/m2 increase of solar insolation since 1700?

And why do you INSIST that solar can't have ANY effect when the 1.2W/m2 represents AT LEAST 30% of the warming that's been observed?? Go ahead --- look it up anywhere.. The AGW answer is it is not SIMULTANEOUS with the observed warming.. Convienient excuse to not include it, study it, and UNDERESTIMATE it on purpose to control the PR media show.

 

[gslack]

The "means" temperature hasn't warmed to the point to push us into top spots every year. SO yes we haven't warmed much since 1998...

When avging temperature "if" the last decade had cooler overall temperatures = a warmer decade. Who knows how much it is warming at the moment.

Sorry Matt but the whole claim and article is a snowjob. It uses ambiguous claims, and tries topass them off as fact...

Another dumb ass demonstrates that he makes statements concerning a report, 258 pages worth, that he did not even look at, let alone bother to read. One has to wonder how such knownothing asses find their way out of bed in the morning.

Oh go sell your solar panels elsewhere asshole...

Your latest fake scientist is no better thasn the last one.. I did look at it,I even cited a line from it and not from the first page either.. Which is more than you have done for any non-warmer since I have known you.

here's an idea, why don't you either read my posts or ignore me and quit crying...

 

[flacaltenn]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate.pdf


Achberger, Christine, Department of Earth Sciences, University
of Gothenburg, Sweden
Ackerman, Stephen A., Cooperative Institute for Meteorological
Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison,
WI
Albanil, Adelina, National Meteorological Service of Mexico,
Mexico
Alexander, P., Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
City College of New York, New York, NY
Alfaro, Eric J., Center for Geophysical Research and School of
Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Allan, Rob, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
Alves, Lincoln M., Centro de Ciencias do Sistema Terrestre
(CCST), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE),
Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Amador, Jorge A., Center for Geophysical Research and School
of Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Ambenje, Peter, Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD),
Nairobi, Kenya
Andrianjafinirina, Solonomenjanahary, Direction de la Meteorologie
Nationale de Madagascar, Tananarive, Madagascar
Antonov, John, NOAA/NESDIS National Oceanographic Data
Center, Silver Spring, MD; and University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Aravequia, Jose A., Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos
Climáticos, INPE, Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Arendt, A., Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK
Arévalo, Juan, Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología de
Venezuela (INAMEH), Caracas, Venezuela
Arndt, Derek S., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Ashik, I., Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg,
Russia
Atheru, Zachary, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications
Centre (ICPAC), Nairobi, Kenya
Banzon, Viva, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Baringer, Molly O., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL
Barreira, Sandra, Argentine Naval Hydrographic Service, Buenos
Aires, Argentina
Barriopedro, David E., Universidad Complutense de Madrid
(UCM), Spain
Beard, Grant, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Becker, Andreas, Global Precipitation Climatology Centre,
Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Offenbach, Germany
Behrenfeld, Michael J., Oregon State University, OR

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

I don't care if Williard Scott, Al Roker AND Stephanie Abrahms is on that list.. I'm concerned with WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.. And for some reason --- you can't tell me how statements like I posted of NO FREAKING evidence of hurricane/cyclone influence is backing your extreme CC charlatanism..

GO FETCH SOMETHING that YOU think is important out of it that isn't simply more melting ice... Something that justifies your whining about "cooler springs, earlier summers" in Finland or whereever..

I did not see a blazing iconic bush in that report that validates your psychic premonitions about Climate destruction everytime the weather changes..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe you will learn to actually read scientific material rather than continueing to post nonsense.

There are 8 pages of the names and institutions of the contributing scientists at the front of that reports. All top scientists in their fields of endevour. In the meantime, we have internet posters with two digit IQs stating that they know more than the leading scientists in the world. Oh, who to believe

Can you explain to us how atmospheric heat gets sucked into the ocean deep because of AGW

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The average temperature distribution represents a balance between 3 major processes:

(1) surface heating by the sun (mitigated by surface evaporation and infrared radiative loss) which warms the relatively shallow ocean mixed layer;

(2) cold deepwater formation at high latitudes, which slowly sinks and fills up the oceans on time scales of centuries to millennia, and

(3) vertical mixing from wind-driven waves, the thermohaline circulation, and turbulence generated by flow over ocean bottom topography (the latter being partly driven by tidal forces).


The key thing to understand is that while processes (1) and (2) continuously act to INCREASE the temperature difference between the warm mixed layer and the cold deep ocean, the vertical mixing processes in (3) continuously act to DECREASE the temperature difference, that is, make the ocean more vertically uniform in temperature.

The average temperature distribution we see is the net result of these different, competing processes. And so, a change in ANY of these processes can cause surface warming or cooling, without any radiative forcing of the climate system whatsoever.

More on Trenberth’s Missing Heat « Roy Spencer, PhD

But the system is too complicated to replicate in a lab, all we know for certain is AGW

 

[Old Rocks]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate.pdf


Achberger, Christine, Department of Earth Sciences, University
of Gothenburg, Sweden
Ackerman, Stephen A., Cooperative Institute for Meteorological
Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison,
WI
Albanil, Adelina, National Meteorological Service of Mexico,
Mexico
Alexander, P., Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
City College of New York, New York, NY
Alfaro, Eric J., Center for Geophysical Research and School of
Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Allan, Rob, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
Alves, Lincoln M., Centro de Ciencias do Sistema Terrestre
(CCST), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE),
Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Amador, Jorge A., Center for Geophysical Research and School
of Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Ambenje, Peter, Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD),
Nairobi, Kenya
Andrianjafinirina, Solonomenjanahary, Direction de la Meteorologie
Nationale de Madagascar, Tananarive, Madagascar
Antonov, John, NOAA/NESDIS National Oceanographic Data
Center, Silver Spring, MD; and University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Aravequia, Jose A., Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos
Climáticos, INPE, Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Arendt, A., Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK
Arévalo, Juan, Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología de
Venezuela (INAMEH), Caracas, Venezuela
Arndt, Derek S., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Ashik, I., Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg,
Russia
Atheru, Zachary, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications
Centre (ICPAC), Nairobi, Kenya
Banzon, Viva, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Baringer, Molly O., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL
Barreira, Sandra, Argentine Naval Hydrographic Service, Buenos
Aires, Argentina
Barriopedro, David E., Universidad Complutense de Madrid
(UCM), Spain
Beard, Grant, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Becker, Andreas, Global Precipitation Climatology Centre,
Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Offenbach, Germany
Behrenfeld, Michael J., Oregon State University, OR

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

I don't care if Williard Scott, Al Roker AND Stephanie Abrahms is on that list.. I'm concerned with WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.. And for some reason --- you can't tell me how statements like I posted of NO FREAKING evidence of hurricane/cyclone influence is backing your extreme CC charlatanism..

GO FETCH SOMETHING that YOU think is important out of it that isn't simply more melting ice... Something that justifies your whining about "cooler springs, earlier summers" in Finland or whereever..

I did not see a blazing iconic bush in that report that validates your psychic premonitions about Climate destruction everytime the weather changes..

I have only fast read 36 pages. But have seen all kinds of information on atmospheric water vapor, permafrost temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, and many, many other factors in the climate.

No, you do not care how many scientists are offering supporting evidence, what the evidence is, or how it was gathered. You have your mind made up, and no amount of reality is going to change it. You are willfully ignorant, and proud of it. No differant than the rednecks I used to see on the greenchain in the sawmills. No one could convince them that they needed to up their educational level, that their job was going to be taken over by a machine. Now they are bitter old men, not having had a job, or decent paying job, in a couple of decades. And they blame everybody but themselves for their lot.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maybe you will learn to actually read scientific material rather than continueing to post nonsense.

There are 8 pages of the names and institutions of the contributing scientists at the front of that reports. All top scientists in their fields of endevour. In the meantime, we have internet posters with two digit IQs stating that they know more than the leading scientists in the world. Oh, who to believe

Can you explain to us how atmospheric heat gets sucked into the ocean deep because of AGW

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The average temperature distribution represents a balance between 3 major processes:

(1) surface heating by the sun (mitigated by surface evaporation and infrared radiative loss) which warms the relatively shallow ocean mixed layer;

(2) cold deepwater formation at high latitudes, which slowly sinks and fills up the oceans on time scales of centuries to millennia, and

(3) vertical mixing from wind-driven waves, the thermohaline circulation, and turbulence generated by flow over ocean bottom topography (the latter being partly driven by tidal forces).


The key thing to understand is that while processes (1) and (2) continuously act to INCREASE the temperature difference between the warm mixed layer and the cold deep ocean, the vertical mixing processes in (3) continuously act to DECREASE the temperature difference, that is, make the ocean more vertically uniform in temperature.

The average temperature distribution we see is the net result of these different, competing processes. And so, a change in ANY of these processes can cause surface warming or cooling, without any radiative forcing of the climate system whatsoever.

More on Trenberth’s Missing Heat « Roy Spencer, PhD

A submariner will tell you how drastic this layering actually is.. You can find a thermocline almost ANYWHERE that'll hide your boat from sonar. A lot of temperature inversions at varying depths. Just FINDING "hidden heat" doesn't actually prove how much of an imbalance the Earth thermal system has.

Those hot spots have always been there. So you need to have ample HISTORICAL evidence of the trends and SPECIFIC currents that are manifesting..

The most unscientific thing you could do --- is to calculate a "GLOBAL" average of all this temperature profiling.. It's a sure thing --- that's what climate scientists will choose to do..

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, when almost all the glaciers in the world are in rapid retreat on decadal scales, you can be pretty sure that the global temperature is going up. Pretty damned simple.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, when almost all the glaciers in the world are in rapid retreat on decadal scales, you can be pretty sure that the global temperature is going up. Pretty damned simple.

IS THAT the damning evidence that your 8 pages of brain-trust have pointed out??

C'mon man --- give me ALL the bad news that doesn't have to do with ice? How many more folks are gonna die from tornadoes and mosquitoes in Iowa next year?

 

[flacaltenn]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate.pdf


Achberger, Christine, Department of Earth Sciences, University
of Gothenburg, Sweden
Ackerman, Stephen A., Cooperative Institute for Meteorological
Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison,
WI
Albanil, Adelina, National Meteorological Service of Mexico,
Mexico
Alexander, P., Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
City College of New York, New York, NY
Alfaro, Eric J., Center for Geophysical Research and School of
Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Allan, Rob, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
Alves, Lincoln M., Centro de Ciencias do Sistema Terrestre
(CCST), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE),
Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Amador, Jorge A., Center for Geophysical Research and School
of Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Ambenje, Peter, Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD),
Nairobi, Kenya
Andrianjafinirina, Solonomenjanahary, Direction de la Meteorologie
Nationale de Madagascar, Tananarive, Madagascar
Antonov, John, NOAA/NESDIS National Oceanographic Data
Center, Silver Spring, MD; and University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Aravequia, Jose A., Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos
Climáticos, INPE, Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Arendt, A., Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK
Arévalo, Juan, Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología de
Venezuela (INAMEH), Caracas, Venezuela
Arndt, Derek S., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Ashik, I., Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg,
Russia
Atheru, Zachary, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications
Centre (ICPAC), Nairobi, Kenya
Banzon, Viva, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Baringer, Molly O., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL
Barreira, Sandra, Argentine Naval Hydrographic Service, Buenos
Aires, Argentina
Barriopedro, David E., Universidad Complutense de Madrid
(UCM), Spain
Beard, Grant, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Becker, Andreas, Global Precipitation Climatology Centre,
Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Offenbach, Germany
Behrenfeld, Michael J., Oregon State University, OR

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

I don't care if Williard Scott, Al Roker AND Stephanie Abrahms is on that list.. I'm concerned with WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.. And for some reason --- you can't tell me how statements like I posted of NO FREAKING evidence of hurricane/cyclone influence is backing your extreme CC charlatanism..

GO FETCH SOMETHING that YOU think is important out of it that isn't simply more melting ice... Something that justifies your whining about "cooler springs, earlier summers" in Finland or whereever..

I did not see a blazing iconic bush in that report that validates your psychic premonitions about Climate destruction everytime the weather changes..

I have only fast read 36 pages. But have seen all kinds of information on atmospheric water vapor, permafrost temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, and many, many other factors in the climate.

No, you do not care how many scientists are offering supporting evidence, what the evidence is, or how it was gathered. You have your mind made up, and no amount of reality is going to change it. You are willfully ignorant, and proud of it. No differant than the rednecks I used to see on the greenchain in the sawmills. No one could convince them that they needed to up their educational level, that their job was going to be taken over by a machine. Now they are bitter old men, not having had a job, or decent paying job, in a couple of decades. And they blame everybody but themselves for their lot.

I read ALL the evidence -- whether I like it or not.. Even force myself to watch 6 minutes of Rachael Maddow EVERY night.

That report is LARGELY a weather summary for 2012.. With VERY LITTLE damning evidence for your gig as the tribal witch doctor of Climate Change.

 

[gslack]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate.pdf


Achberger, Christine, Department of Earth Sciences, University
of Gothenburg, Sweden
Ackerman, Stephen A., Cooperative Institute for Meteorological
Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison,
WI
Albanil, Adelina, National Meteorological Service of Mexico,
Mexico
Alexander, P., Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
City College of New York, New York, NY
Alfaro, Eric J., Center for Geophysical Research and School of
Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Allan, Rob, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
Alves, Lincoln M., Centro de Ciencias do Sistema Terrestre
(CCST), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE),
Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Amador, Jorge A., Center for Geophysical Research and School
of Physics, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
Ambenje, Peter, Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD),
Nairobi, Kenya
Andrianjafinirina, Solonomenjanahary, Direction de la Meteorologie
Nationale de Madagascar, Tananarive, Madagascar
Antonov, John, NOAA/NESDIS National Oceanographic Data
Center, Silver Spring, MD; and University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Aravequia, Jose A., Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos
Climáticos, INPE, Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Arendt, A., Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, AK
Arévalo, Juan, Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología de
Venezuela (INAMEH), Caracas, Venezuela
Arndt, Derek S., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Ashik, I., Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg,
Russia
Atheru, Zachary, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications
Centre (ICPAC), Nairobi, Kenya
Banzon, Viva, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC
Baringer, Molly O., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL
Barreira, Sandra, Argentine Naval Hydrographic Service, Buenos
Aires, Argentina
Barriopedro, David E., Universidad Complutense de Madrid
(UCM), Spain
Beard, Grant, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Becker, Andreas, Global Precipitation Climatology Centre,
Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Offenbach, Germany
Behrenfeld, Michael J., Oregon State University, OR

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

Oh goody another of your "out of proper context lists" I have come toknow and love slapping you with.. Ready? LOL

Your list comes from this page title of that linked PDF file you supplied...

EDITOR & AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS (ALphABetiCAL By nAme)

Now that we have context we can see the list is of "EDITOR & AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS (ALphABetiCAL By nAme)" .. Meaning they didn't all contribute, nor do they all necessarily agree with the paper or it's contentions, but rather they are affiliated with the editors and authors in some fashion.

And interestingly enough, the list is in fact one of virtually every organization/group/ society that relies on funding due to climate change.... And yes the list has a shitload of NOAA scientists, researchers, hell probably even the janitors.. Why not? it's not saying anything really, just that the listed are affiliated with the authors and editors.. LOL,might want to practice what you preach there non-reader..

But wait! there's more...

Overall, the 2012 average temperature across global
land and ocean surfaces ranked among the 10 warmest
years on record. The global land surface temperature alone
was also among the 10 warmest on record. In the upper
atmosphere, the average stratospheric temperature was
record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset.

So in other words, the average was among the 10 warmest years on record, but the upper atmosphere, where AGW should be showing the most according to the theory, it was actually colder in fact at or near record colder, whatever that means.. Sounds like double-speak to me.. But let's not rush to judgement...

After a 30-year warming trend from 1970 to 1999 for
global sea surface temperatures, the period 2000–12 had
little further trend.

Wait a tick... If the upper atmosphere was colder, and the sea surface temps "had little further trend" since 1999, yet the land temps were higher, something isn't right.. How can the biggest surface area on the planet show no change and and the upper atmosphere show a cooling trend, and the land heat up, if the theory is correct? According to warmer theory the oceans should be warming,and the atmosphere as well... But we will get back to that.. moving on....

Global tropical cyclone activity during 2012 was near
average, with a total of 84 storms compared with the
1981–2010 average of 89

Now hold on.. No overall increase in tropical cyclones??? What the hell man, you just tried to tell us all about the extreme weather that is going on... Damn dude, I don't think you actually read this paper at all.....

In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was
published.

Ah and now we see the real reason for this report... IPCC PR.. nice.. maybe I am quick to judge let's look some more...

This was the first step in
creating the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)
program, which was a key outcome of the Second World
Climate Conference held in 1990 and led to the formal
establishment of GCOS in 1992.

Ah yes a big project and funding for climate science... How, expected... Let's look further...

In 2003, The Second Report on the Adequacy of the
Global Observing Systems for Climate in Support of the
UNFCCC (GCOS 2003) first documented the concept
of Essential Climate Variables (ECVs). The focus of this
seminal report was to establish a set of ECVs that were
feasible for global implementation and had high impact
with respect to the requirements of both the United
Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and the IPCC.

ANd there it is.. Another IPCC and affiliates promotion.. Dude,that's a governmental body, not a scientific one, why are they treated like a scientific body?? oh that's right money...

And the rest of it is a IPCC boot-licking fest.. They sold out, plain and simple.. They want funding so they push the IPCC stance on it at every turn. If the data doesn't support it, no matter they will present it in a way to make fit...Hence this line...

Although the 2012 global surface
temperature (combining land air
and sea surface temperature) was not
a record-setting value, it remained
above the 1981–2010 average—ranking among the top 10 warmest years
on record.

Soin their own words, even though it wasn't a record breaking year as far as warming, it's still record setting anyway because they will compare it in an interesting way... Got it, and the band plays on...

Thanks socks, I enjoyed that read...