2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[westwall]

LOLOLOL......oh kookster, you funny little retard, do you ever actually read what you post or do you just cut and paste from denier cult blogs without even trying to understand what is actually being said? LOLOL.

The scientists say that the highest mountains in the Himalayas seem to be accumulating more ice from increased snowfall, rather than losing ice mass as much as was previously estimated. They also said this other stuff that you must want to ignore:

(excerpts from your linked article)

However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern. "Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before." His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate. Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said:: "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."


***

So, tell me. If polar ice is melting, how come the sea level is decreasing?

Explain that for us OK?

the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific.

So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. "This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.

NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Ooohhh, so now all of a sudden cycles matter. Interesting how you ignored natural variability for two decades and now that the cult is collapsing you suddenly remember natural cycles. You're too late, your ship sank.

 

[westwall]

Of course it is as the only thing changing is the amount of water vapor in the air.

Not true.

One of the pre-Columbian civilizations that lived in the high mountains farmed and did so with what was regarded as a very strange type of irrigation. Raised beds in which the crops were planted surrounded by moats of water.

It turns out that the moats of water observed heat during the day and radiated it during the night. This prevented the crops from freezing as the temperature dropped during the night in the high, dry cold of the mountains.

Water warms more slowly than the land and retains and radiates the heat. Talking about liquid water. Liquid water can act on the air without becoming water vapor.

No single cause is responsible for climate unless that cause is the Sun.

Hmm..... So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing?

A23A

Actually, as you well know, Code, there are two driving factors on long term climate, energy recieved from the sun, and energy retained. But you are not paid to bring that up.

Ummmm, where's the retained energy? Energy doesn't just magically hang around it MUST be doing something.

 

[code1211]

Your discounting fog machines code1211.

I don't follow...

 

[code1211]

Of course it is as the only thing changing is the amount of water vapor in the air.

Not true.

One of the pre-Columbian civilizations that lived in the high mountains farmed and did so with what was regarded as a very strange type of irrigation. Raised beds in which the crops were planted surrounded by moats of water.

It turns out that the moats of water observed heat during the day and radiated it during the night. This prevented the crops from freezing as the temperature dropped during the night in the high, dry cold of the mountains.

Water warms more slowly than the land and retains and radiates the heat. Talking about liquid water. Liquid water can act on the air without becoming water vapor.

No single cause is responsible for climate unless that cause is the Sun.

Hmm..... So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing?

A23A

Actually, as you well know, Code, there are two driving factors on long term climate, energy recieved from the sun, and energy retained. But you are not paid to bring that up.

I think that anyone who read that would have noted that i said that there are many factors that affect climate and the prime driver of climate is the Sun.

 

[code1211]

Because it is not. Because you are either believing obese junkies on the radio, or undergreed, ex-TV weathermen.

Sea Level Trends

Please link to an article with pictures of any continental coastline with photos from about 1850 and photos of today to show the encroaching seas.

At the rate of rise you espouse, the rise of the sea level should have been 1 foot vertical.

I would be interested in seeing the effect of the 12 foot rise in Miami, Houston, London, Rio, or any other major coastal city with documented coastal regains.

I'll wait.

A less intelligent reply than usual, Code. But we do have tidal gauge records back to 1850 or even further.

There are also photographs of that time. Show photographic evidence of your claims.

I found photographs of the shoreline of Coney island that show that, if there was a change in the level of the ocean on the shore, it had receded.

Show photographs that demonstrate your claim.

 

[saveliberty]

Your discounting fog machines code1211.

I don't follow...

Just as well really. Your brain is in a better place.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

So just to make sure we are on the same page.
You are saying that atmosphere cools down a planet, but more atmosphere heats it up.
And water vapor is the only GHG that keeps heat in, and also that all gases keep heat in.
Nope I don't see any contradictions between your two posts.

The ideal gas laws predict that the more dense an atmosphere is and therefore the more atmospheric pressure is present, the warmer said atmosphere will be. Venus is hot because its atmosphere is 90 times more dense than that of earth, not because it is composed of so called greenhouse gasses.

Look at planets like jupiter and saturn. The atmospheres are mostly hydrogen and helium and yet, deep down in those atmospheres they are warm. Not because of greenhouse gasses but because of pressure.

Again, look at the atmosphere of venus at an altitude at which the atmospheric pressure is equal to 1 bar of earth pressure. You will find that the temperature is almost the same as ours even though it is composed almost enetirely of so called greenhouse gasses.

And yes, water vapor is the only gas within our atmosphere that has the capacity to absorb, and hold heat. It has to do with the fact that water is the only substance known to science that can change to all its phases in the open atmosphere.

Any contradictions you believe that you see is due to a lack of knowledge on your part.

So I guess the question becomes, why is the atmosphere so dense on Venus? Is it because Venus is 20% smaller then earth, and has less gravity to hold in an atmosphere? Nope that obviously can't be it. Or maybe its because CO2 weighs more then Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen?
What happens when you have an over abundance of CO2 is you find that the CO2 collects in the lower atmosphere, and since it weighs so much that it actually compresses itself making the air very dense. What you also see is that it forces up the rest of the Oxygen and lighter gases, such as Nitrogen. What you end up with is a lower atmosphere that is very dense and mainly CO2, and an upper atmosphere that is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen.
Remember your example of the temperature at 60km being the same as on earth where the pressure is the same? Well guess what? The gases are also very similar, its 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, and look at that! Almost no GHGs to speak of.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So, tell me. If polar ice is melting, how come the sea level is decreasing?

Explain that for us OK?

the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific.

So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. "This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year," says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.

NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Ooohhh, so now all of a sudden cycles matter.

No, not all of a sudden.

Interesting how you ignored natural variability for two decades and now that the cult is collapsing you suddenly remember natural cycles.

No one has ignored natural variability for two decades.

You're too late, your ship sank

There are no seafaring vessels involved in this discussion.

 

[westwall]

the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific.

NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Ooohhh, so now all of a sudden cycles matter.

No, not all of a sudden.

Interesting how you ignored natural variability for two decades and now that the cult is collapsing you suddenly remember natural cycles.

No one has ignored natural variability for two decades.

You're too late, your ship sank

There are no seafaring vessels involved in this discussion.

Then show me a single peer reviewed paper made by the AGW supporters in the 20 years before this one, where natural variability was even mentioned much less acknowledged, as a possible source of the warming trend of the 80's and 90's.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ooohhh, so now all of a sudden cycles matter.

No, not all of a sudden.



No one has ignored natural variability for two decades.

You're too late, your ship sank

There are no seafaring vessels involved in this discussion.

Then show me a single peer reviewed paper made by the AGW supporters in the 20 years before this one, where natural variability was even mentioned much less acknowledged, as a possible source of the warming trend of the 80's and 90's.

FAQ 2.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.


Greenhouse Gases

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Ooohhh, so now all of a sudden cycles matter.

No, not all of a sudden.



No one has ignored natural variability for two decades.

You're too late, your ship sank

There are no seafaring vessels involved in this discussion.

Then show me a single peer reviewed paper made by the AGW supporters in the 20 years before this one, where natural variability was even mentioned much less acknowledged, as a possible source of the warming trend of the 80's and 90's.

\
solar variability global warming - Google Scholar

Top hit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good find, nice to see someone else researching the science on the subject instead of just flapping yap.

 

[saveliberty]

Looks like cooling to me. Only the ninth warmest? The hockey stick has a big chunk out of it right now.

 

[wirebender]

Water warms more slowly than the land and retains and radiates the heat. Talking about liquid water. Liquid water can act on the air without becoming water vapor.

Actually, it can't. If it is open water, then it is becoming water vapor. I use drums of water stacked up on each other and bermed with earth facing south to heat my barn. It radiates heat at night but in the same way heated rocks, or any other heated material would radiate. The system you describe operates because of water's capacity to become vapor at practically any temperature above freezing.

No single cause is responsible for climate unless that cause is the Sun.

There is one type of molecule in the atmosphere that can actually trap, and retain heat. That molecule is water vapor. The "trapping" mechanism that warmers like to talk about isn't the so called greenhouse effect claimed by climate science.

 

[wirebender]

Hmm..... So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing?

So you finally get it. CO2 does nothing because it has no mechanism by which do do anything that might result in warming. It absorbs and disperses IR radiated from the earth. If anything, the dispersion is a cooling mechanism, not a warming one.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hmm..... So the normal GHGs have no effect? CO2 does nothing?

So you finally get it. CO2 does nothing because it has no mechanism by which do do anything that might result in warming. It absorbs and disperses IR radiated from the earth. If anything, the dispersion is a cooling mechanism, not a warming one.

That makes no sense.

 

[westwall]

No, not all of a sudden.



No one has ignored natural variability for two decades.



There are no seafaring vessels involved in this discussion.

Then show me a single peer reviewed paper made by the AGW supporters in the 20 years before this one, where natural variability was even mentioned much less acknowledged, as a possible source of the warming trend of the 80's and 90's.

FAQ 2.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.


Greenhouse Gases

A quote from your source.


"The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes."


In other words, FAIL.

 

[westwall]

No, not all of a sudden.



No one has ignored natural variability for two decades.



There are no seafaring vessels involved in this discussion.

Then show me a single peer reviewed paper made by the AGW supporters in the 20 years before this one, where natural variability was even mentioned much less acknowledged, as a possible source of the warming trend of the 80's and 90's.

\
solar variability global warming - Google Scholar

Top hit.

Ummmm, I said from one of your AGW supporters. Did I not? There are plenty of papers attributing warming to natural cycles from sceptics and unafiliated scientists. How about from the warmist side?

 

[wirebender]

So I guess the question becomes, why is the atmosphere so dense on Venus? Is it because Venus is 20% smaller then earth, and has less gravity to hold in an atmosphere? Nope that obviously can't be it. Or maybe its because CO2 weighs more then Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen?

If the weight of CO2 is what keeps it in place, then how do gas giants form? Saturn and Jupiter, for example, are almost entirely hydrogen and helium, the lightest of all the gasses and yet, there they are, not floating away.

What happens when you have an over abundance of CO2 is you find that the CO2 collects in the lower atmosphere, and since it weighs so much that it actually compresses itself making the air very dense.

Are you working on intuition, or did you actually read this malarky somewhere? Check out the composition of the atmosphere on venus. It isn't in layers, it is distributed pretty evenly throughout the column. The same is true for the gas giants, and everywhere else.

What you also see is that it forces up the rest of the Oxygen and lighter gases, such as Nitrogen. What you end up with is a lower atmosphere that is very dense and mainly CO2, and an upper atmosphere that is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen.

The atmosphere of venus is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% nitrogen Were is this oxygen nitrogen atmosphere you claim exists?

Remember your example of the temperature at 60km being the same as on earth where the pressure is the same? Well guess what? The gases are also very similar, its 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, and look at that! Almost no GHGs to speak of.

There isn't enough oxygen on venus to even list it as a trace gas, much less enough to say that the atmosphere at 1 bar is anything like that of earth. Where do you get this stuff?

 

[westwall]

So I guess the question becomes, why is the atmosphere so dense on Venus? Is it because Venus is 20% smaller then earth, and has less gravity to hold in an atmosphere? Nope that obviously can't be it. Or maybe its because CO2 weighs more then Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen?

If the weight of CO2 is what keeps it in place, then how do gas giants form? Saturn and Jupiter, for example, are almost entirely hydrogen and helium, the lightest of all the gasses and yet, there they are, not floating away.

What happens when you have an over abundance of CO2 is you find that the CO2 collects in the lower atmosphere, and since it weighs so much that it actually compresses itself making the air very dense.

Are you working on intuition, or did you actually read this malarky somewhere? Check out the composition of the atmosphere on venus. It isn't in layers, it is distributed pretty evenly throughout the column. The same is true for the gas giants, and everywhere else.

What you also see is that it forces up the rest of the Oxygen and lighter gases, such as Nitrogen. What you end up with is a lower atmosphere that is very dense and mainly CO2, and an upper atmosphere that is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen.

The atmosphere of venus is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% nitrogen Were is this oxygen nitrogen atmosphere you claim exists?

Remember your example of the temperature at 60km being the same as on earth where the pressure is the same? Well guess what? The gases are also very similar, its 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, and look at that! Almost no GHGs to speak of.

There isn't enough oxygen on venus to even list it as a trace gas, much less enough to say that the atmosphere at 1 bar is anything like that of earth. Where do you get this stuff?

Mostly from his keester.