Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[RollingThunder]

As Earths Climate changes, so do our other planets.
It is not just Earth but many of our solar system planets are experiencing climate changes.
Humans are not causing our climate to change.

I guess you're too brainwashed and retarded to grasp the fact that your denier cult myth about the other planets was completely debunked a ling time ago.

What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system
(excerpts)

Denier Myth - Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.

What the science says - There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. * Not all planets in the solar system are warming. * The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. * There are explanations for why other planets are warming. - The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001). Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

 

[Saigon]

Come over baby, a whole lotta smoothin' goin' on!

Was 2012 the hottest year in American history?

Well considering we only have data for a couple hundred years - no one has the foggiest idea. The continent did exist before we got here.

I just posted temperature charts going back a millenium, genius.

 

[RollingThunder]

The fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine continues to grind out new pseudo-science and misinformation. Witness the recent spurt of bogus articles claiming something like "climate scientists are puzzled by halt in global warming for last 15 years". The Earth has continued to retain more of the sun's energy than it can radiate away into space due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that mankind has created, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, but because the rise in surface temperatures has slowed down compared to the three previous decades of very rapid increases in surface temperatures, many people has misinterpreted that to mean that global warming has paused or is in a "lull". This is not true. The excess heat energy retained by the excess CO2 has been transferring itself to the ocean depths, but it will eventually return to the surface and radically increase surface temperatures once again in the next decade. Meanwhile, global warming has continued to manifest itself in the melting of the Arctic ice cap, Greenland, West Antarctica and the world's glaciers, as well as the many other symptoms, like the changing of seasonal timing and increases in extreme weather events.

Global warming is actually still accelerating and competent climate scientists are not puzzled about what is happening. Here's a good explanation of just what is really happening.

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms
ClimateProgress
By Dana Nuccitelli
Mar 25, 2013
A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
* Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
* As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
* Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
* The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

Figure 1: Ocean Heat Content from 0 to 300 meters (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members.


(continued on website linked in article headline)

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh good -- THey found it..

Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----

we can fabricate the temperature of the Pacific in 1935 at 700m depths from sea snail rings or some other reliable thermometer.

Pheeewww.. Am I relieved...

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh good -- THey found it..

Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----

we can fabricate the temperature of the Pacific in 1935 at 700m depths from sea snail rings or some other reliable thermometer.

Pheeewww.. Am I relieved...

Still rejecting all of the science and clinging to your cult myths and moronic conspiracy theories like a good little obedient denier cult retard, I see. Nice knee-jerk reaction there, fecalton.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh good -- THey found it..

Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----

we can fabricate the temperature of the Pacific in 1935 at 700m depths from sea snail rings or some other reliable thermometer.

Pheeewww.. Am I relieved...

Still rejecting all of the science and clinging to your myths like a good little obedient denier cult retard, I see. Nice knee-jerk reaction there, fecalton.

I've had months to consider this dodgey assertion your klan is making..

Thimk for a minute here -- even if it hurts..

Where does the deep ocean temp record come from for 1900 to maybe 1940? How much of the world's oceans did it cover? How much is proxies and how much is an actual thermometer?

So many questions -- so little answers...

 

[flacaltenn]

'Nother question.. (maybe I'll read the paper for giggles)...

Is that historical plot even REAL DATA --- or a model?? What TF is ORAS4 if not a model?

<<<<Edit>>>>>

ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations. These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre's EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table&#8201;1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo profilers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S).

No joke?? autonomous pinniped bathythermographs ???? How do you get those elephant seals down off the coast of Brazil eh?
Do they have their own bunks on the ship... Covered under ObamaCare??

Clyde wanna fish??

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh good -- THey found it..

Now that satellites prevent them from botching up the land surface record, or using a selected tree as a thermometer for 1100BC, ----

we can fabricate the temperature of the Pacific in 1935 at 700m depths from sea snail rings or some other reliable thermometer.

Pheeewww.. Am I relieved...

Still rejecting all of the science and clinging to your myths like a good little obedient denier cult retard, I see. Nice knee-jerk reaction there, fecalton.

I've had months to consider this dodgey assertion your klan is making..

Thimk for a minute here -- even if it hurts..

Where does the deep ocean temp record come from for 1900 to maybe 1940? How much of the world's oceans did it cover? How much is proxies and how much is an actual thermometer?

So many questions -- so little answers...

You denier cultists are so funny. You admit your almost complete ignorance on this topic but you're still absolutely sure that you understand it better than the professional scientists who've been studying this subject for decades.

Here's a little background to throw some light on your ignorant denial.

Researchers match modern ocean temperature records to those of the 1870s
arstechnica
by Scott K. Johnson
Apr 3 2012
In 1872, the HMS Challenger left Portsmouth on a daring mission, but it didn’t set sail as a military ship. It had been retrofitted, not to project power, but to humbly petition the ocean to give up some of its secrets. Over three and a half years, the Challenger and its crew of over 200 (at the start, that is) circumnavigated the globe, collecting every scrap of information they found along the way. The crew frequently measured the depth of the seafloor and the temperature profile of the water, and brought up sediment samples (sometimes including living organisms). Among other accomplishments, the expedition discovered the submarine mountains of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, described more than 4,700 new species, and learned that the ocean was stratified by temperature.

There is still much we do not know about the ocean, but quite a lot has changed. Thanks to the Argo project, we’re now up to 3,500 automated buoys that continuously record data from the upper 2 kilometers of Earth’s oceans. Using that incredible data coverage, oceanographers were able to compare Challenger’s temperature measurements to today’s oceans. For each of 273 Challenger temperature profiles from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, researchers interpolated Argo measurements from the same location, depth, and time of year. Modern surface ocean temperatures (averaged over 2004-2010) were higher at 211 of those points. On average, the surface of the Atlantic is about 1°C warmer—0.4°C for the Pacific.

 

[RollingThunder]

'Nother question.. (maybe I'll read the paper for giggles)...

Is that historical plot even REAL DATA --- or a model?? What TF is ORAS4 if not a model?

<<<<Edit>>>>>

ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations. These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre's EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table&#8201;1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo profilers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S).

Considering that you're too brainwashed and ignorant to recognize "REAL DATA" if it bit you, your question is absurd and based only on your well demonstrated inability to understand what you read.

"expendable bathythermographs" = real data

"conductivity-temperature-depth sensors" = real data

"TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings" = real data

"Argo profilers" = real data

"autonomous pinniped bathythermograph" = real data

No joke?? autonomous pinniped bathythermographs ???? How do you get those elephant seals down off the coast of Brazil eh?
Do they have their own bunks on the ship... Covered under ObamaCare??

Clyde wanna fish??

Sneering at the scientific techniques that you're too ignorant and retarded to comprehend is indeed the mark of a true denier cult dingbat.

 

[RollingThunder]

It has become a common propaganda meme of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign to claim that "global warming stopped 16 years ago" but that is based on distortions and misrepresentations of the actual science. Climate scientists are very aware that surface temperature changes represent only a small fraction of the picture. Surface temperatures have risen over the beginning of this century with each of the last 12 years (2001 - 2012) being one of the 14 warmest years on record and with 2010 and 2005 being tied for the position of the warmest year on record. After very rapid rises in surface air temperatures in the 70's, 80's and 90's, the rate of rise in surface air temperatures slowed a bit since 2000 but research has shown that the Earth has continued to warm at an accelerating rate with more of the excess heat going into the oceans than was the case in the previous three decades. Here is what the denier cult dupes want to ignore.

Figure 1 - A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3 versus where skeptics/contrarians seem to think it's going. Note the graphic totals 99.9%, so 0.1% is unaccounted for.
(source)

 

[flacaltenn]

So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling?

The models you're presenting here claim to based on knowledge we've had for a couple decades.

Where is this "thermal inertia" part of the IPCC modeling? And why doesn't it count for the 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance that we've seen since the 1800s? Maybe all THAT got "stored in the deep oceans" also...

Oceans are huge heatsinks. To have that effect SUDDENLY and CONVIENIENTLY kick in UNANTICIPATED and UNANNOUNCED (in a short number of years) just illustrates how this AGW sideshow isn't even out of "concept phase" yet..

 

[Staidhup]

I just love these whack jobs running around the chicken coop yelling the sky is falling, so big deal, the world has been experiencing cooling and warming changes for millions upon millions of years. The fact is possibly man was destined all along to only inhabit the earth for a short period of time. So get over it, we are just a small speck of sand along the evolutionary highway of time. We will either adapt or perish, whats wrong with that? The primary problem is that mankind views it self as absolute, like your scientists, and we need to have someone or thing to blame for everything that does not go our way. so get naked and go back to your cave, but don't forget your solar cells and for Gods sake don't burn any wood! You people are such pathetic whiners.

 

[Staidhup]

One final thought, without carbon in the atmosphere, this world would be an ice cube.

 

[Katzndogz]

What's that about ignoring science again?

 

[RollingThunder]

So ---- How come this "deep ocean absorption" wasn't part of the modeling? The models you're presenting here claim to based on knowledge we've had for a couple decades.

I'm not "presenting models"; I'm presenting the evidence that scientific studies have produced showing that, due to persistent La Nina events over the last eight years, a great deal of heat energy has been transferred to the ocean depths, thus slowing the rate of rise in surface air temperatures, even though global warming has not "paused" or "stopped", but in fact has continued to accelerate. Try and keep up with what is actually being said instead of getting lost in your straw man argument fantasies.

Where is this "thermal inertia" part of the IPCC modeling? And why doesn't it count for the 1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance that we've seen since the 1800s? Maybe all THAT got "stored in the deep oceans" also...

Sunspot activity has played a major role in long-term climate change.
The Maunder Minimum most likely caused the Little Ice Age.
The Recent Modern Maximum peaked in 1960.
Only 0.1 ° C of the 0.8 ° C of warming since the late 1800s is due to solar irradiance. Since direct satellite measurements (1980 –present) solar contribution to the observed rapid warming is negligible.
In fact, the sun has been WEAKER while the climate WARMS since 1960.
There is no evidence that variations in the strength of the sun are the cause of the modern day climate change.
While the troposphere (the lower region of the atmosphere) has warmed, the stratosphere, just above it, has cooled. If solar changes provided the dominant forcing, warming would be expected in both atmospheric layers.
(source - slides 6,7,8,9 - you should watch the whole slide show)

Oceans are huge heatsinks. To have that effect SUDDENLY and CONVIENIENTLY kick in UNANTICIPATED and UNANNOUNCED (in a short number of years) just illustrates how this AGW sideshow isn't even out of "concept phase" yet..

Climate scientists have figured out quite a bit about what's happening but it is still a rapidly developing science and no one has ever claimed that they already know everything about the Earth's climate and the year to year impacts of anthropogenic global warming. Climate scientists are, however, nowhere near as clueless and ignorant as you bamboozled anti-science denier cult retards have been duped into thinking they are. La Nina events have been happening for at least a part of every year from 2005 to 2012, and they tend to draw surface heat into the ocean depths.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's something that corroborates what I've been saying, from a prominent meteorologist, Dr. Jeff Masters, who has studies and writes about this modern global warming/climate change crisis.

Global warming continues with no slow down
Dr. Jeff Masters
March 27, 2013
(excerpts)
One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends.

Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution to global temperature changes
We know that natural global warming or cooling on time scales of 1 - 11 years can be caused by changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in solar energy. For example, a study published in March 2013 in Geophysical Research Letters found that dust in the stratosphere has increased by 4 - 10% since 2000 due to volcanic eruptions, keeping the level of global warming up to 25% lower than might be expected. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 34 years for which we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, "Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010", took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 34 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.

Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2012, adjusted to remove natural variations due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in solar energy. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK Met Office, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image is an update (via realclimate.org) of one from a 2011 study, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010 , by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

 

[Politico]

Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.

 

[Old Rocks]

One final thought, without carbon in the atmosphere, this world would be an ice cube.

You dumb fuck, you just blew your own arguement right out of the water. That is correct, without the GHGs naturally present, the oceans would freeze down to the equator. But with too great of an amount of GHGs, you get a very rapid climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't stress Thunder. If it's real it won't matter. You'll be long since dead.

No, not at all. In 2000, had someone told me that the Arctic Sea Ice was going to be gone for part of the summer by 2020, I would have said that is way too fast. Reality is that the scientists have been far too conservative in judging the effects of the warming. From the increase in extreme wildfire events, to the extreme flood events, we are seeing consequences right now.

 

[Stephanie]

I know thinkprogress is where I go for the truth on anything...fer sure they don't peddle Propaganda for GLOBULL WARMING

hahahahahahahahahahaha