Global warming is accelerating, but how much? NCDC data in OP:

[Oddball]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPL7nN99jno]Gloom, Despair and Agony on Me - YouTube[/ame]

 

[wirebender]

Take a look at this very simple (even you should be able to understand it) graph describing the temperature history of the earth then tell me exactly what it is about the present climate that you find troubling, or unusual, or unprecedented.

 

[bobgnote]

Bitch, your graph is modestly interesting, since it shows what a piece of shit you are, which could stink for millions of years, but your latest load is of no practical use. It isn't anything but an unreferenced piece of shit, which you loaded, without explanation of the plots or the calibration of the lines, and it is on its side, which is typical of a wingpunk-fucktard, like you, who is full of shit, so we all have to know about it.

What could be gayer, than you are? You left off the Holocene, and you are too queer, to notice Anthrocene. Eat ancient shit; it'll make you big, strong, and queer as a three-dollar-bill, punk.

You didn't even load something, with both measurements listed. You may have found a double plot of CO2 and temperature, but you don't load all the rap, from your site or a link, since you are a stupid, punkass Wienerbitch. Try this shit at your Log Cabin buddies.

Baffle 'em with bullshit, and get laid, with your own kind, asshole.

 

[IanC]

this is exactly the type of graph that really pisses me off. it is a non sequitor with two images on the same graph with the y axis and origins manipulated to give a false impression that the two things under discussion are connected

 

[IanC]

yet another fraud perpetrated by the IPCC. different models were used for the two graphs. if the same models were used with only different values for CO2 inputted that would suggest that CO2 was important or that the models were insufficient in accounting for all the necessary variables. as it stands this graph is comparing apples to oranges

 

[tjvh]

The NCDC publishes great media:

Global Climate Change Indicators

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements.

These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites.

There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.

Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace.

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years.

Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.

While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.

Northern Hemisphere average annual snow cover has declined in recent decades. This pattern is consistent with warmer global temperatures. Some of the largest declines have been observed in the spring and summer months.

Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade.

Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America.

One way climate changes can be assessed is by measuring the frequency of events considered "extreme" (among the most rare of temperature, precipitation and storm intensity values). The Climate Extremes Index (CEI) value for the contiguous United States is an objective way to determine whether extreme events are on the rise. The figure to the left shows the the number of extreme climate events (those which place among the most unusual of the historical record) has been rising over the last four decades.

How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.

The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years.

The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures.

The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution.

Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.

So speaks the NCDC, boys and girls. Global warming is accelerating, AGW is the reason, sea levels are rising, and there is HELL TO PAY. Come and get it.

All this^ to remind me I need to get my Air Conditioner up, and running... Thanks.

 

[IanC]

tidal gauges ha shown a 2mm/yr rise over the history of measurement. satellites have shown a 3mm/yr rise since they came on line in the '90s. if you believe that the rate jumped 50% exactly at the same time as we started using satellites then you are credulous. there has been a documented history of 'pushing' the results in the 'right' direction every time a new satellite comes on line and needs to be calibrated. and when the sea levels were actually dropping two years ago, they added an adjustment for earth crust rebound that leads to ridiculous results if you run it backwards into the past instead of just 'starting' it when it was necessary to prop up the declining numbers.

 

[bobgnote]

I don't think the US Government scientists or other reputable scientists are lying or failing, unless they screwed up, by failing to study acidification, which will kill all the shellfish, without the oceans even becoming caustic, as they will become.

Then the seas will go up and over, on major coastal cities. We could lose a lot of Florida and big parts of NOLA and other US cities, by 2050, if this goes as fast as it could. Too bad anybody with Crapforbrains won't prepare.

 

[wirebender]

Bitch, your graph is modestly interesting, since it shows what a piece of shit you are, which could stink for millions of years, but your latest load is of no practical use.

No answer? How completely unsurprising. Can't you stand to look at data that shows that your hand waving hysterics are pointless as the earth has spent most of its history at a temperature that was so high that no ice was to be found....anywhere? Tell me, can you read the graph well enough to state what the mean temperature of the earth was before it entered the ice age that we are presently climbing out of?

[ It isn't anything but an unreferenced piece of shit, which you loaded, without explanation of the plots or the calibration of the lines, and it is on its side, which is typical of a wingpunk-fucktard, like you, who is full of shit, so we all have to know about it.

Typical. Of course I wouldn't bother posting anything that was unsourced and clearly you are far to impolite and angry over your suppressed homosexuality to ask. The graph is from the paleomap project. Hansen himself wouldn't question this source as it is one of the most respected compliations of paleohistory on the internet. And if you can't look at that graph and determine what it says, then you are even more stupid than I first supposed.

Home Page

What could be gayer, than you are?

You of course.

You left off the Holocene, and you are too queer, to notice Anthrocene. Eat ancient shit; it'll make you big, strong, and queer as a three-dollar-bill, punk.

And in case I might have actually been wondering, you actually are more stupid than I first thought. The holocene, goober, began at the end of the Pleistocene about 12K (K=1000 in case you didn't know) and continues to the present. See the little block at the end of the graph labled "today"? That is the period of the Pleistocene.

Geez guy, this isn't even the difficult stuff and you are as lost as a little lamb.

You didn't even load something, with both measurements listed. You may have found a double plot of CO2 and temperature, but you don't load all the rap, from your site or a link, since you are a stupid, punkass Wienerbitch. Try this shit at your Log Cabin buddies.

I purposely didn't give you a graph with CO2 on it as well. Clearly, you aren't able to handle a simple temperature graph. Adding CO2 will surely put the whole thing so far over your head that you will never be able to understand. But if you would like to see a graph with CO2, here:

[/IMG]

Baffle 'em with bullshit, and get laid, with your own kind, asshole.

Sorry that you were unable to understand such a simple graph. Seems that everything baffles you.

 

[wirebender]

Then the seas will go up and over, on major coastal cities. We could lose a lot of Florida and big parts of NOLA and other US cities, by 2050, if this goes as fast as it could. Too bad anybody with Crapforbrains won't prepare.[/I][/B]

Do you have any idea what the atmospheric CO2 levels were when most modern day shellfish evolved? Just checking.

Here is a clue. Most of them evolved during a period that begins with T and ends with riassic. And what did the atmospheric CO2 concentration look like back then? And you are seriously worried that atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400ppm or 500ppm, or 1000ppm is going to cause them a problem?

 

[bobgnote]

Those graphs of yours are shit, Wienerbitch. You are a fecophile, who picks bad proxy media, about long-past timelines. Your latest graph ends at the Cenozoic Period. Your temperature graph had two plots, with only temperature, listed. Since you posted no explanation for the graph or accompanying commentary, it's anybody's guess which line was which, maybe ocean temps, maybe land temps, maybe CO2. Maybe you suck, dya think?

So you are a stupid feocphile, with no hope. Your media is ambiguous, since you are queer.

Here's a good article, from Nature Magazine:

Climate Change: A planet in flux : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Human activities have added billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise. We are beginning to see how warmer temperatures are altering climates all over the planet and to understand the effects they are having on animals, agriculture and people. What will Earth look like in the year 2100? How will climate change have altered the planet's biology?

A changing world

Fly over the high Arctic in summer and you will see a landscape speckled with shallow ponds, some ringed by mossy wetlands. Frozen for most of the year, these ponds melt for a few months and become biodiversity hotspots teeming with plants, animals and microorganisms. The Arctic's isolation and extreme environment have made it difficult to gather observational data on the region's ecological changes, and existing records are sparse and incomplete. Fortunately, the ponds and lakes in this region can help scientists build a picture of the high Arctic's environmental conditions going back thousands of years.

The sediments of these remote ponds reveal their history. They contain pollen grains, dead algae and invertebrate fossils, as well as other biological, chemical and physical information. Their accumulation at the bottom of the ponds, one layer on top of the next, produces a vertically arranged historic timeline. Rather like tree rings, which reflect the growing conditions of years past, sediment records provide a glimpse of earlier climates and environmental disturbances. We can think of them as being like an aircraft's 'black box', only for the ecosystem.

In 1983, my lab began studying about 40 of these freshwater ponds on the east–central side of Ellesmere Island, the most northerly island in the Canadian archipelago. We chose shallow ponds because their small size means they are highly susceptible to change. Each year we return to the Arctic to collect water samples and sediment deposits from these ponds and other northern regions for comparison.

At first we knew very little about these aquatic environments or the microorganisms they contain. We began by studying the fossils of diatoms, miniscule jewel-like algae found in almost every pond and lake. My earlier work in other parts of Canada had shown how environmental change alters these diatom communities over time. Each diatom species requires a specific set of environmental conditions to survive and reproduce. By knowing which species live in which environments, we can use the past occurrences of diatoms to understand the environmental conditions at the time. Initially, I planned to track these subtle variations to learn more about how the region had changed over thousands of years.

In 1994, we discovered some unexpected changes in the diatom collections of these Arctic ponds. At one site, we sank a hollow tube about 100 cm into the pond bottom, extracted a sediment core and sliced it into sections. By using dating techniques based on the radioisotopes carbon-14 and lead-210, we knew that this particular core stretched back about 6,500 years. For most of that time, the same three or four diatom species had dominated the pond. But around the mid- to late-nineteenth century, the diatom community changed dramatically: it became more diverse and complex, a sign that the ice cover had declined1. We hypothesized that a warmer climate could have brought on the sudden shift. Other scientists were already proposing that humans might be altering the climate, but our study suggested that this warming had started about a century earlier in the high Arctic.

There were soon other dramatic signs of climate change in our study area. During the 1990s, the Arctic ponds became saltier and their water levels dropped, evidence that they were evaporating rather than losing water by other means. We speculated that if the warming continued, the ponds might disappear within the next century.



----------------------------------------- (to read the rest, you might have to sign in to Nature)

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the coy and pasting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fI8834iCgo]Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science - YouTube[/ame]


A new one on me Wirebender............now the k00ks are throwing bombs using the beetle to hype the angst!!! Geee........that should get people real alarmed.



I gotta say.........if Guiness Book of World Records is ever looking for candidates for the category of "Persons Hitting Head Against Wall Most Consecutive Times" is there any doubt that the winner could conceivably come from amongst 5 or 6 people posting on this forum??????!!!

 

[wirebender]

Those graphs of yours are shit, Wienerbitch.

So you keep saying and yet, you seem completely unable to answer a simple question. Tell me, what do you believe the mean global temperature was before the earth entered the present ice age? Easy question, you should be able to answer in two or 3 words. Think you can manage that?

You are a fecophile, who picks bad proxy media, about long-past timelines.

Long past timelines? I am asking about the temeprature before the earth entered the present ice age. Got any idea what it was?

Your latest graph ends at the Cenozoic Period.

Once more you prove that you don't have a clue. The Cenozoic Period is is the current and most recent of the three Phanerozoic geological eras, following the Mesozoic Era and covering the period from 65.5 Ma to the present.

You really should try to at least learn something before you come here making a complete idiot out of yourself. It is clear to anyone who reads your drivel that you, like rocks, konradv, et al avidly read as much warmist propaganda as you can get your hands on, understand none of it and regurgitate it at every opportunity.

As to your "good" article from nature. The first sentence establishes the tone and that tone is pure pseudoscientific fantasy. The author begins by saying "Human activities have added billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise." Show me one pice of hard evidence, or observable repeatable experimentation that proves that the CO2 we release into the atmosphere has caused the temperature to rise.

 

[wirebender]

A new one on me Wirebender............now the k00ks are throwing bombs using the beetle to hype the angst!!! Geee........that should get people real alarmed.

Got to say, every time I think they have reached a new low on the stupid-o-meter, one of them comes along and sets the bar at a whole new low. And not a single one of them can actually discuss the science and those who do routinely violate the various laws of physics with their "explanations".

 

[skookerasbil]

A new one on me Wirebender............now the k00ks are throwing bombs using the beetle to hype the angst!!! Geee........that should get people real alarmed.

Got to say, every time I think they have reached a new low on the stupid-o-meter, one of them comes along and sets the bar at a whole new low. And not a single one of them can actually discuss the science and those who do routinely violate the various laws of physics with their "explanations".

But they are indeed good at posting up 1,000 times recycled science links!!!

 

[wirebender]

But they are indeed good at posting up 1,000 times recycled science links!!!

They are unfortunate victims of the very same error cascade that has ruined climate science and done nearly irreprable damage to science as a whole. They unfortunately don't know enough to catch the foundational errors climate science has made and simply believe as opposed to know.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[youtube]aUyh2yaZPno&feature[/youtube]

 

[skookerasbil]

But they are indeed good at posting up 1,000 times recycled science links!!!

They are unfortunate victims of the very same error cascade that has ruined climate science and done nearly irreprable damage to science as a whole. They unfortunately don't know enough to catch the foundational errors climate science has made and simply believe as opposed to know.

= THE DEFINITION OF A MENTAL CASE.

When you do things over and over and over and over and over and still expect a different outcome.



And Wire..........check this out...........cars being powered by natural gas to replace electric cars.


http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/national-laboratory-pivots-from-electric-to-natural-gas-vehicles.php



So much winning..............

 

[bobgnote]

But they are indeed good at posting up 1,000 times recycled science links!!!

= THE DEFINITION OF A MENTAL CASE.

When you do things over and over and over and over and over and still expect a different outcome.

And Wire..........check this out...........cars being powered by natural gas to replace electric cars.

So much winning..............

Retards on methamphetamines, natural gas buses and cars are all over the roads, and they won't go away, but so what. "So much winning . . ." What kind of shithead writes this, with tons of smileys, where science is discussed? A gay speedfreak.

Natural gas is still a source of CO2, retards are still driving, CO2 is rising, the planet is heating up, and retards don't realize the only way for stupids to survive is to swim in 30+C oceans of the future, as an H2S respirator. You guys think "accelerating" means speedfreaks, get over here!

Are those ancient oceanic life-forms as stupid as you wingpunks? Hard to say. Past generations of these guys are all DEAD. We breathe O2, fucktards.

 

[wirebender]

What kind of shithead writes this, with tons of smileys, where science is discussed?

You don't discuss science bob. You have made that abundantly clear. You are a cut and paste drone who understands very little, if any of what you paste. You have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you are unable to actually discuss the science at even the most rudimentary level. Cut and paste is the extent of your ability.