The new normal.....rising temperatures

[Old Rocks]

The rise in ocean temperatures, and the effects of that rise, are well documented.

Rising sea surface temperature: towards ice-free Arctic summers and a changing marine food chain - Coasts and seas — EEA

Rising sea surface temperature: towards ice-free Arctic summers and a changing marine food chain
Document Actions Global sea surface temperature is approximately 1 degree C higher now than 140 years ago, and is one of the primary physical impacts of climate change. Sea surface temperature in European seas is increasing more rapidly than in the global oceans. Projections show the temperature increases will persist throughout this century. Ice-free summers are expected in the Arctic by the end of this century, if not earlier. Already, there is evidence that many marine ecosystems in European seas are affected by rising sea temperature.

Over the past 25 years the rate of increase in sea surface temperature in all European seas has been about 10 times faster than the average rate of increase during the past century. In five European seas the warming occurs even more rapidly. In the North and Baltic Seas temperature rose five to six times faster than the global average over the past 25 years, and three times faster in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now here you are, Bern, a paper from the National Academy of Sciences. Of course we know them thar all pointy headed pinko scientists don't know nuthin' at all, now don't we, Bernie Boy.

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Global temperature change
James Hansen*,†,‡, Makiko Sato*,†, Reto Ruedy*,§, Ken Lo*,§, David W. Lea¶, and Martin Medina-Elizade¶
+ Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006

Next SectionAbstract
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

climate change El Niños global warming sea level species extinctions
Global temperature is a popular metric for summarizing the state of global climate. Climate effects are felt locally, but the global distribution of climate response to many global climate forcings is reasonably congruent in climate models (1), suggesting that the global metric is surprisingly useful. We will argue further, consistent with earlier discussion (2, 3), that measurements in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans provide a good indication of global temperature change.

We first update our analysis of surface temperature change based on instrumental data and compare observed temperature change with predictions of global climate change made in the 1980s. We then examine current temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean and discuss their possible significance. Finally, we compare paleoclimate and recent data, using the Earth's history to estimate the magnitude of global warming that is likely to constitute dangerous human-made climate change.

 

[KissMy]

It is also well documented that Rising Global Temperature Causes Rising CO2 Levels. The Extreme Rising Global CO2 levels over the last 11 years has not cause rising global temperature.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is also well documented that Rising Global Temperature Causes Rising CO2 Levels. The Extreme Rising Global CO2 levels over the last 11 years has not cause rising global temperature.

That is not at all what has been documented by the ending of the ice ages.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Now, as we warm the Arctic Permafrost and Arctic Ocean Clathrates, we will definately see where temperature causes an increase in CO2 and CH4, which leads to higher temperatures, which leads to the release of Ocean Clathrates at lower lattitudes.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is also well documented that Rising Global Temperature Causes Rising CO2 Levels. The Extreme Rising Global CO2 levels over the last 11 years has not cause rising global temperature.

That is not at all what has been documented by the ending of the ice ages.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Now, as we warm the Arctic Permafrost and Arctic Ocean Clathrates, we will definately see where temperature causes an increase in CO2 and CH4, which leads to higher temperatures, which leads to the release of Ocean Clathrates at lower lattitudes.

cool............but all theory and not at all proveable............

The operative phrase in the above post.........."what the science says" is exactly that..........what the alarmist science says.

Rocks here thinks this whole thing as about "the science"..............which is exactly what the people who concocted this scam knew all along: that there would be millions of persons who could be led around by the nose with numbers and some slick photos and videos. These same people have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Nothing less than a brilliant scheme, I must admit..................

 

[KissMy]

 

[Samson]

^^^^^^^^

<<<<<sigh>>>>>>

For Christssakes.


You people realise you'll all be dead soon, regardless of the weather, right?

 

[westwall]

You know......considering the amount of snow in DC over the winter, combined with the record temperatures in NYC this summer........you may wish to look at something else......

Maybe it's not global warming, but rather weather intensification. I mean, look at the floods and all the other places where things have been stronger than what scientists predicted.

It's not global warming, it's global climate change and you can bet, the weather is going to continue to go a bit stronger each time.

Did you notice that there were record tornado storms this summer?

Gore used the same reasoning to claim that hurricanes were getting stronger and more frequent. The problem was he limited his data set to 30 years, and yes indeed in that 30 year period there was definately a trend towards more hurricanes. However, if you went back 50 years it was found that there were many more hurricanes during that decade and they were in general more powerful.

It is all cyclical. If you go back far enough the storms were the same intensity and frequency. And do please note with all of Chris' doom and gloom about temperature records being broken.....that means that 20, 40, 100, 150 or however many years ago the record was first set, the fact remains that the record was set....BEFORE man had had a lot of time to pollute the atmosphere. This simple fact seems to escape their notice all the time.

 

[westwall]

News flash to the zombies.....................

Weather is cyclical..........it always has been. It always will be. And anyway............you stupid dumbasses, this climate change crap has nothing to do with climate at all. Never has...............

Listen to this guy and dont be a fcukking zombie.......................


CFACT



>>edit.............stolen from Westwall..............<<edit

I prefer the term borrowed and I didn't make it so credit to CFACT.

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah right Tell that to the Californians freezing their asses off. Or how about those poor folks in South America who really DID freeze to death with the record cold down there.


Trend News: 175 people killed in South America cold spell

Give the propaganda a break. No one pays any attention to it anymore.

You first there Slick.
Isn't it winter in South America now? Why yes, yes it is, and a rather warm one at that in spite of the short winter freeze.

 

[westwall]

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

Again perspective. If CO2 were 25-30% of our atmosphere as opposed to not only a trace gas, but a trace greenhouse gas as well, I might be concerned. On top of that man's contribution to said gas being miniscule when all sources of it are considered that would have to be one powerful gas to have such a dramatic impact on climate. We should expect to see an increase in CO2 to be magnified in temperature increases. Yet we don't see that. Have you ever noticed that there is an awful lot of talk about increasing temps, but comparitively little data is presented when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

Really? The acidification of the ocean that we are measuring is means nothing? Has nothing to do with the increase in CO2 that man has created?

Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean

Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean

Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean
Robert H. Byrne

College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, Saint Petersburg, Florida, USA

Sabine Mecking

Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Richard A. Feely

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA

Xuewu Liu

College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, Saint Petersburg, Florida, USA

Global ocean acidification is a prominent, inexorable change associated with rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Here we present the first basin-wide direct observations of recently declining pH, along with estimates of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contributions to that signal. Along 152°W in the North Pacific Ocean (22–56°N), pH changes between 1991 and 2006 were essentially zero below about 800 m depth. However, in the upper 500 m, significant pH changes, as large as &#8722;0.06, were observed. Anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contributions over the upper 800 m are estimated to be of similar magnitude. In the surface mixed layer (depths to &#8764;100 m), the extent of pH change is consistent with that expected under conditions of seawater/atmosphere equilibration, with an average rate of change of &#8722;0.0017/yr. Future mixed layer changes can be expected to closely mirror changes in atmospheric CO2, with surface seawater pH continuing to fall as atmospheric CO2 rises.

Jeez old fraud don't you have ANY new material. Ocean acidification is a farce. The pH level, if we burned every carbonate rock possible, would possibly drop to 8 from its current 8.1. The geologic record tells us that corals evolved when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 20 TIMES the current concentrations. Try again because this is pure horse crap.

Quadrant Online - Why scientists get it wrong

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

Acid Oceans Due to Undersea Volcanoes?: New Study Refutes Theory Humans Are Responsible for Acidification

CO2 Science

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Oceangate nonsense.pdf

CO2 Science

Research shows deep-sea volcanoes slow climate change | WORLD News

Ocean Acidification Scam Buy the Truth

Toxic Seawater Fraud Buy the Truth

 

[westwall]

The rise in ocean temperatures, and the effects of that rise, are well documented.

Rising sea surface temperature: towards ice-free Arctic summers and a changing marine food chain - Coasts and seas &mdash; EEA

Rising sea surface temperature: towards ice-free Arctic summers and a changing marine food chain
Document Actions Global sea surface temperature is approximately 1 degree C higher now than 140 years ago, and is one of the primary physical impacts of climate change. Sea surface temperature in European seas is increasing more rapidly than in the global oceans. Projections show the temperature increases will persist throughout this century. Ice-free summers are expected in the Arctic by the end of this century, if not earlier. Already, there is evidence that many marine ecosystems in European seas are affected by rising sea temperature.

Over the past 25 years the rate of increase in sea surface temperature in all European seas has been about 10 times faster than the average rate of increase during the past century. In five European seas the warming occurs even more rapidly. In the North and Baltic Seas temperature rose five to six times faster than the global average over the past 25 years, and three times faster in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

This is just simply more propaganda from a noted warmist group. Try again.

 

[edthecynic]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil "AGW" Jones: Yes

So typical of pathological CON$ervoFascist lying scum, you failed to tell the WHOLE truth. CON$ traditionally tell just enough truth and then shut up, effectively lying to your level of ignorance.

Now this in not the first time you've told this lie by half-truth, and I've already nailed you on it in another thread, again proving CON$ are premeditated liars and not the stupid liars they pretend to be.

Here is the WHOLE answer he gave!!!!

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

[westwall]

Now here you are, Bern, a paper from the National Academy of Sciences. Of course we know them thar all pointy headed pinko scientists don't know nuthin' at all, now don't we, Bernie Boy.

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Global temperature change
James Hansen*,†,‡, Makiko Sato*,†, Reto Ruedy*,§, Ken Lo*,§, David W. Lea¶, and Martin Medina-Elizade¶
+ Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006

Next SectionAbstract
Global surface temperature has increased &#8776;0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within &#8776;1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than &#8776;1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

climate change El Niños global warming sea level species extinctions
Global temperature is a popular metric for summarizing the state of global climate. Climate effects are felt locally, but the global distribution of climate response to many global climate forcings is reasonably congruent in climate models (1), suggesting that the global metric is surprisingly useful. We will argue further, consistent with earlier discussion (2, 3), that measurements in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans provide a good indication of global temperature change.

We first update our analysis of surface temperature change based on instrumental data and compare observed temperature change with predictions of global climate change made in the 1980s. We then examine current temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean and discuss their possible significance. Finally, we compare paleoclimate and recent data, using the Earth's history to estimate the magnitude of global warming that is likely to constitute dangerous human-made climate change.

Hate to tell you but Hansen has lost ALL credibility with any legit scientist....

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Pajamas Media Climategate: James Hansen Finds Complying with FOIA To Be Too Much of a Burden

 

[edthecynic]

The summers are undoutably warmer on the East coast than they were when I was a kid.

The heat waves are getting longer, and their temps higher than any time I can remember in my lifetime.

Whether this is merely a normal deviation from the norm, or the result of global warming I truly cannot say.

But to deny the blantently obvious seems foolish to me.

Whatever the reason, the summers have been getting warmer and the winters milder.

The REASON for this is debateable.

The FACT is undeniable.

Winters milder??? WTF s0n? Maybe in Maine.......not in New York. We froze out asses off from late October right through late May this year. I was putting my kids on the bus in early June and they had sweaters on every morning and Im saying to myself

All the environmental zombies freak out when there is a warmer than normal day or two. Sh!t...........I distinctly remember a couple of summers ago in New York we had a 51 degree day on August 10th. Never saw that in my 50 years s0n................oh, but wait, I guess that is due to man made global warming too!!

LIAR.

 

[westwall]

It is also well documented that Rising Global Temperature Causes Rising CO2 Levels. The Extreme Rising Global CO2 levels over the last 11 years has not cause rising global temperature.

That is not at all what has been documented by the ending of the ice ages.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Now, as we warm the Arctic Permafrost and Arctic Ocean Clathrates, we will definately see where temperature causes an increase in CO2 and CH4, which leads to higher temperatures, which leads to the release of Ocean Clathrates at lower lattitudes.

Ahh yes the infamous Skeptical Science site, who's editor is ....shall we say a tad biased, but let's take a closer look at how he tries to rationalise the fact that CO2 increases lag the
warming temperatures by an average of 800 YEARS in other words 600 years BEFORE INDUSTRIALISATION

"the warming is not initiated by CO2"

How much plainer do you need it to be made to you? The rest is theory that so far is completely unproven and if you actually believe the second Law of Thermodynamics to be true then it can never be true. There is no known way to get more energy out of a system than you put into it. That is called perpetual motion and as any true sceptic will tell you, that is impossible.

 

[edthecynic]

News flash to the zombies.....................

Weather is cyclical..........it always has been. It always will be. And anyway............you stupid dumbasses, this climate change crap has nothing to do with climate at all. Never has...............

Listen to this guy and dont be a fcukking zombie.......................


CFACT

>>edit.............stolen from Westwall..............<<edit

I prefer the term borrowed and I didn't make it so credit to CFACT.

And the natural climate cycles oscillate between warm and COLD. We are oscillating between warm and FLAT the last 100 years.

 

[westwall]

Yeah right Tell that to the Californians freezing their asses off. Or how about those poor folks in South America who really DID freeze to death with the record cold down there.


Trend News: 175 people killed in South America cold spell

Give the propaganda a break. No one pays any attention to it anymore.

You first there Slick.
Isn't it winter in South America now? Why yes, yes it is, and a rather warm one at that in spite of the short winter freeze.

Why yes it is winter in the southern hemisphere. But doesn't that mean its summer here....slick? And the year to year anomolies are anecdotal and mean nothing by themselves. As does the cold. It means nothing on a long term climate scale. That is the point we are making. For the warmists any temperature "event" is a sign of GW, whether it is a hot record or a cold record. We say the day to day temps mean nothing in the short term (2-3 decades) because the climate is cyclical.

Warming in Last 50 Years Predicted by Natural Climate Cycles Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah right Tell that to the Californians freezing their asses off. Or how about those poor folks in South America who really DID freeze to death with the record cold down there.


Trend News: 175 people killed in South America cold spell

Give the propaganda a break. No one pays any attention to it anymore.

You first there Slick.
Isn't it winter in South America now? Why yes, yes it is, and a rather warm one at that in spite of the short winter freeze.

Why yes it is winter in the southern hemisphere. But doesn't that mean its summer here....slick? And the year to year anomolies are anecdotal and mean nothing by themselves. As does the cold. It means nothing on a long term climate scale. That is the point we are making. For the warmists any temperature "event" is a sign of GW, whether it is a hot record or a cold record. We say the day to day temps mean nothing in the short term (2-3 decades) because the climate is cyclical.

Warming in Last 50 Years Predicted by Natural Climate Cycles Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

You do know that Stuttering LimpTard's climatologist Spencer and his partner in crime Christy at the UAH have no credibility. They were caught deliberately using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift in order to create data used by deniers to claim global cooling.

One very interesting question in the comments is very revealing in how Spencer operates. I suspect he did shift the training window around and it didn't reproduce the record accurately because any competent scientist would have done that to verify his assumptions, and it also explains why he has not invested the mere couple of hours it would take to do it in the ample amount of time he has had since the excellent question was asked.

Dave Springer says:
June 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM
If you shift the training window around does it still reproduce the rest of the record accurately?

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
June 7, 2010 at 6:36 AM
I haven’t looked at that…this was the result of a couple of hours of work on the weekend, and I didn’t mean to start a whole new research effort. Just get people thinking.

 

[westwall]

You first there Slick.
Isn't it winter in South America now? Why yes, yes it is, and a rather warm one at that in spite of the short winter freeze.

Why yes it is winter in the southern hemisphere. But doesn't that mean its summer here....slick? And the year to year anomolies are anecdotal and mean nothing by themselves. As does the cold. It means nothing on a long term climate scale. That is the point we are making. For the warmists any temperature "event" is a sign of GW, whether it is a hot record or a cold record. We say the day to day temps mean nothing in the short term (2-3 decades) because the climate is cyclical.

Warming in Last 50 Years Predicted by Natural Climate Cycles Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

You do know that Stuttering LimpTard's climatologist Spencer and his partner in crime Christy at the UAH have no credibility. They were caught deliberately using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift in order to create data used by deniers to claim global cooling.

One very interesting question in the comments is very revealing in how Spencer operates. I suspect he did shift the training window around and it didn't reproduce the record accurately because any competent scientist would have done that to verify his assumptions, and it also explains why he has not invested the mere couple of hours it would take to do it in the ample amount of time he has had since the excellent question was asked.

Dave Springer says:
June 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM
If you shift the training window around does it still reproduce the rest of the record accurately?

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
June 7, 2010 at 6:36 AM
I haven’t looked at that…this was the result of a couple of hours of work on the weekend, and I didn’t mean to start a whole new research effort. Just get people thinking.

Yes I did know that. It seems a sad state of affairs that I can think of very few climateologists who DON'T have ethical baggage. Just so you know the .12 degree C that Jones mentions is so trivial as to be statistically meaningless. No true statistician would dare use it as its Confidence Interval is basically nonexistent.