NASA: Climate Change

[CrusaderFrank]

That is simply a lie. There are enormous amounts of empirical evidence to be found in the IPCC's assessment reports. And if you want to make any prediction whatsoever - that global warming has ended, that it's tapering off or that the Earth will boil next week, you will need to use a model. Denier's universal rejection of computer models is simply one more in a long chain of indicators that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the argument they've chosen to adopt.

Altered data fed into a computer designed to show warming is still not evidence

Frank, I don't know with what level of conversation your intelligence qualifies you to participate, but this ain't it.

Still no evidence

 

[Old Rocks]

that you ever possessed a brain.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I repeat, altered data fed into a computer is not evidence, nor is it an experiment.

Finally, the AGWCult is forced to rely on every third graders lame excuse: The dog (Ocean) ate my homework (warming)

It's funny

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yeah after thinking about it I will go with NASA and the Pentagon on climate change vs "internet scientists".

 

[SSDD]

Yeah after thinking about it I will go with NASA and the Pentagon on climate change vs "internet scientists".

Because governments never deceive their citizens in an effort to gain ever more power.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah after thinking about it I will go with NASA and the Pentagon on climate change vs "internet scientists".

Can you explain the concept of "excess heat"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is simply a lie. There are enormous amounts of empirical evidence to be found in the IPCC's assessment reports. And if you want to make any prediction whatsoever - that global warming has ended, that it's tapering off or that the Earth will boil next week, you will need to use a model. Denier's universal rejection of computer models is simply one more in a long chain of indicators that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the argument they've chosen to adopt.

Altered data fed into a computer designed to show warming is still not evidence

Frank, I don't know with what level of conversation your intelligence qualifies you to participate, but this ain't it.

Mr. Off the DENIERS!!, please provide us one single piece of evidence that is not either the top story on the Weather Channel or altered data fed into a flawed computer model

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

NASA has a wonderful website about climate change, and to be honest, I'll trust NASA and the overwhelming majority of scientists then some deniers on an internet forum.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first chart tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.

The second chart, derived from coastal tide gauge data, shows how much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The time series below shows the five-year average variation of global surface temperatures from 1884 to 2014. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/937/

Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.

Scientists have studied the rates of basal melt, or the melting of the ice shelves from underneath, of individual ice shelves, the floating extensions of glaciers that empty into the sea. But this is the first comprehensive survey of all Antarctic ice shelves. The study found basal melt accounted for 55 percent of all Antarctic ice shelf mass loss from 2003 to 2008, an amount much higher than previously thought.

Antarctica holds about 60 percent of the planet's fresh water locked into its massive ice sheet. Ice shelves buttress the glaciers behind them, modulating the speed at which these rivers of ice flow into the ocean. Determining how ice shelves melt will help scientists improve projections of how the Antarctic ice sheet will respond to a warming ocean and contribute to sea level rise. It also will improve global models of ocean circulation by providing a better estimate of the amount of fresh water ice shelf melting adds to Antarctic coastal waters.

The study uses reconstructions of ice accumulation, satellite and aircraft readings of ice thickness, and changes in elevation and ice velocity to determine how fast ice shelves melt and compare the mass lost with the amount released by the calving, or splitting, of icebergs.

"The traditional view on Antarctic mass loss is it is almost entirely controlled by iceberg calving," said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. Rignot is lead author of the study to be published in the June 14 issue of the journal Science. "Our study shows melting from below by the ocean waters is larger, and this should change our perspective on the evolution of the ice sheet in a warming climate."

Ice shelves grow through a combination of land ice flowing to the sea and snow accumulating on their surface. To determine how much ice and snowfall enters a specific ice shelf and how much makes it to an iceberg, where it may split off, the research team used a regional climate model for snow accumulation and combined the results with ice velocity data from satellites, ice shelf thickness measurements from NASA's Operation IceBridge -- a continuing aerial survey of Earth's poles -- and a new map of Antarctica's bedrock. Using this information, Rignot and colleagues were able to deduce whether the ice shelf was losing mass through basal melting or gaining it through the basal freezing of seawater.

In some places, basal melt exceeds iceberg calving. In other places, the opposite is true. But in total, Antarctic ice shelves lost 2,921 trillion pounds (1,325 trillion kilograms) of ice per year in2003 to 2008 through basal melt, while iceberg formation accounted for 2,400 trillion pounds(1,089 trillion kilograms) of mass loss each year.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice

Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Arctic Sea Ice Minimum

Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

The animated time series below shows the annual Arctic sea ice minimum since 1979, based on satellite observations. The 2012 sea ice extent is the lowest in the satellite record.

Global Ice Viewer - Very interesting.
Much more to add...

You dont know NASA very well do you?
The place is a den of thieves.

 

[Politico]

Darn, the deniers know they can't refute cold hard evidence. What a shame.

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

What do you consider "Evidence"?

Still pushing the pause bullshit? The international community and most climate scientists disagree. Ill trust the UN, scientists in every country (virtually) and the evidence.

Srill pushing the cow farts cause global warming thing?

 

[edthecynic]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

 

[PredFan]

NASA has a wonderful website about climate change, and to be honest, I'll trust NASA and the overwhelming majority of scientists then some deniers on an internet forum.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Sea Level

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first chart tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.

The second chart, derived from coastal tide gauge data, shows how much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The time series below shows the five-year average variation of global surface temperatures from 1884 to 2014. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Warming ocean causing most Antarctic ice shelf mass loss

Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.

Scientists have studied the rates of basal melt, or the melting of the ice shelves from underneath, of individual ice shelves, the floating extensions of glaciers that empty into the sea. But this is the first comprehensive survey of all Antarctic ice shelves. The study found basal melt accounted for 55 percent of all Antarctic ice shelf mass loss from 2003 to 2008, an amount much higher than previously thought.

Antarctica holds about 60 percent of the planet's fresh water locked into its massive ice sheet. Ice shelves buttress the glaciers behind them, modulating the speed at which these rivers of ice flow into the ocean. Determining how ice shelves melt will help scientists improve projections of how the Antarctic ice sheet will respond to a warming ocean and contribute to sea level rise. It also will improve global models of ocean circulation by providing a better estimate of the amount of fresh water ice shelf melting adds to Antarctic coastal waters.

The study uses reconstructions of ice accumulation, satellite and aircraft readings of ice thickness, and changes in elevation and ice velocity to determine how fast ice shelves melt and compare the mass lost with the amount released by the calving, or splitting, of icebergs.

"The traditional view on Antarctic mass loss is it is almost entirely controlled by iceberg calving," said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. Rignot is lead author of the study to be published in the June 14 issue of the journal Science. "Our study shows melting from below by the ocean waters is larger, and this should change our perspective on the evolution of the ice sheet in a warming climate."

Ice shelves grow through a combination of land ice flowing to the sea and snow accumulating on their surface. To determine how much ice and snowfall enters a specific ice shelf and how much makes it to an iceberg, where it may split off, the research team used a regional climate model for snow accumulation and combined the results with ice velocity data from satellites, ice shelf thickness measurements from NASA's Operation IceBridge -- a continuing aerial survey of Earth's poles -- and a new map of Antarctica's bedrock. Using this information, Rignot and colleagues were able to deduce whether the ice shelf was losing mass through basal melting or gaining it through the basal freezing of seawater.

In some places, basal melt exceeds iceberg calving. In other places, the opposite is true. But in total, Antarctic ice shelves lost 2,921 trillion pounds (1,325 trillion kilograms) of ice per year in2003 to 2008 through basal melt, while iceberg formation accounted for 2,400 trillion pounds(1,089 trillion kilograms) of mass loss each year.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice

Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Arctic Sea Ice Minimum

Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

The animated time series below shows the annual Arctic sea ice minimum since 1979, based on satellite observations. The 2012 sea ice extent is the lowest in the satellite record.

Global Ice Viewer - Very interesting.
Much more to add...

This just in:

Global Warming Scientists find evidence of Global Warming! Get to keep Jobs!

Details after the break....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

LOLz.

The Ocean ate my warming.

You should stop being so gullible

 

[edthecynic]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

LOLz.
The Ocean ate my warming.
You should stop being so gullible

So you can't explain your lie.
Thank you.

You should stop being a liar.

 

[flacaltenn]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

 

[edthecynic]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

LOL!!

Funniest AGWCult statement ever!!

"Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all"

 

[Billy_Bob]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Not only is it not warming but RSS says it has actually been cooling. Only your heavily adjusted and manipulated data shows any warming. Even US-CRN shows cooling for more than 15 years now.

 

[edthecynic]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

LOL!!

Funniest AGWCult statement ever!!

"Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all"

Truth always sounds funny to the truly ignorant, The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiant energy, which is then fed into a model that spits out a temperature. Spencer and Christy at UAH are famous for cooking their model to change global warming into global cooling.

 

[edthecynic]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

View attachment 50895
Not only is it not warming but RSS says it has actually been cooling. Only your heavily adjusted and manipulated data shows any warming. Even US-CRN shows cooling for more than 15 years now.

RSS temperatures have been cooling relative to the UAH temperatures (or UAH warming relative to RSS…same thing). The discrepancy is pretty substantial…since 1998, the divergence is over 50% of the long-term temperature trends seen in both datasets.

So, why the discrepancy? According to Spencer and Christy at UAH, the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.

So what did Spencer do? He created a whole new fudge factor in v6.0 that gave a trend cooler than the RSS trend Spencer admits is flawed by spurious cooling.

As you can see, Spencer's entire cooling trend for the last 15 years comes from his new v6.0 fudge factor.

 

[flacaltenn]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

Now there is some Ultra and Fudgey Denial for ya -- right there. A regular Luddite festival of anti-technology and science. SHOOT the satellites down -- spawns of Satan..

Where'd ya get that sketchy data??