Uh oh, more bad news for global climate warming change

[Medic007]

When the data isn't cooperating with your agenda, make up data that does! That's the liberal way.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...overnment-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/

 

[JimmyBob]

Gotta keep the "lie" alive.

 

[Headhunter]

Please use a credible source.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Please use a credible source.

Lol!

 

[imprimis]

Two professors, one from Harvard and one from Syracuse, caught lying to help Obama with his new, unconstitutional, climate rules.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rs-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

Yep, I know, another non-credible source.

 

[davidallen]

Ummm yeah... I mean just look at the difference these "corrections make" - I would say the whole thing is just a big lie!!!!!

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/...rl-of-noaancei-regarding-hiatus-busting-data/

 

[Medic007]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/...rl-of-noaancei-regarding-hiatus-busting-data/

Mr. Duncan, that's going to leave a mark. It's interesting that the independent scientists can find these issues but the government backed researchers cannot.

 

[MegaPoke]

Ummm yeah... I mean just look at the difference these "corrections make" - I would say the whole thing is just a big lie!!!!!

Why, I wonder, is one line so thinly struck compared to the other? It's almost as if the corrected graph were thickened so that on an overlap comparison, it would not seem to separate itself from the thinner "uncorrected" line.

This is sort of the fake before/after fitness pic in reverse.

Like this girl who's before/after pic were taken 5 minutes apart:

 

[windriverrange]

MMGW is bullshit and always was. Saw where some liberal rage of a paper that MMGW was so pronounced and dangerous that some (or part) of NYC would be underwater by June of. 2015.....opps.
The earth warms, the earth cools....I ice recedes and ice grows thickens total money grabbing scam. Or is it? Because we all know government agencies won't lie for a larger cut of the funding pie.
Always find it interesting that some of the biggest proponents of this scam have no problem flying in private jets, having numerous houses /mansions and generally living a life that contributes far more CO2 to the atmosphere then all us uneducated deniers.
Previous ice core studies showed that temperatures rose before CO2 levels rose. Wonder why it's different now?

 

[imprimis]

MMGW is bullshit and always was. Saw where some liberal rage of a paper that MMGW was so pronounced and dangerous that some (or part) of NYC would be underwater by June of. 2015.....opps.
The earth warms, the earth cools....I ice recedes and ice grows thickens total money grabbing scam. Or is it? Because we all know government agencies won't lie for a larger cut of the funding pie.
Always find it interesting that some of the biggest proponents of this scam have no problem flying in private jets, having numerous houses /mansions and generally living a life that contributes far more CO2 to the atmosphere then all us uneducated deniers.
Previous ice core studies showed that temperatures rose before CO2 levels rose. Wonder why it's different now?

$$$$$$$

 

[Headhunter]

Remembering that the “science is settled,” this is the year that ABC predicted that New York City would be under several feet of water due to rising seas caused by global warming.
That wasn’t all ABC News thought would be going on by 2015 as predicted in its 2008 news special entitled Earth 2100. As Newsbusters’ Scott Witlock reports, the news department also claimed that by 2015 we’d be paying $9 per gallon for gasoline, that milk would cost $13 a gallon, and that many other parts of the US would be under water thanks to that “settled science.”

ABC wasn’t done with the doomsaying, either. Here in the real 2015 researchers estimate that there are about 7.125 billion people on the planet. But in 2008 ABC was sure that by its assumed 2015 the earth’s population would have dwindled to a mere 2.7 billion due to food shortages, clean water shortages, wars, and increased temperatures.

The program, which was produced in 2008 but aired in 2009, was advertised with the fear-inducing claim that we may be “living in the last century of our civilization.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...d-be-under-water-from-climate-change-by-2015/

 

[07pilt]

"this program was developed to show the worst-case scenario for human civilization. Again, we are not saying that these events will happen — rather, that if we fail to seriously address the complex problems of climate change, resource depletion and overpopulation, they are much more likely to happen."

It is very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels. The increasing concentration causes an energy imbalance (energy in is greater than energy out). There is a limited number of sinks for that excess energy (energy can only take on so many forms), and unless you can find an infinite sink the only way to balance out the energy is for surface and atmospheric temperatures to increase. If you don't believe in global warming you must disagree with one of the sentences above, otherwise we are only disagreeing about the extent and timing. Which one is it?

 

[windriverrange]

Thanks Headhunter....just unbelievable really.

 

[Headhunter]

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/a...-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/#ixzz3dA1reAEy

 

[07pilt]

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/a...-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/#ixzz3dA1reAEy

If those unadjusted NOAA readings showed a warming trend would you concede?

Care to answer my post above, what part of the science do you deny?

 

[Inky29]

All I know is that polar bears are now eating dolphins, apparently that's all the proof that's needed that global warming is real.

 

[Headhunter]

I think it is a lot more complicated than the amount of CO2 that affects the Earth's climate and increased CO2 does have positive environmental aspects.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

It is very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
But the CO2 molecule is linear and symmetrical and therefore does not have a permanent dipole moment so it can only interfere with thermal radiation from the Earth over a narrow band centered on 14.77µ resonant with its vibrational mode of interaction. The 14.77µ band of the Earth’s thermal radiation is already too close to saturation from existing 398.55ppmv (2014) concentration for additional CO2 concentration to have any more than a few tenths of a degree C further effect for even a doubling of CO2.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels.
The current emissions rate of 37gigatonnes per year represents less than 10% of the material sourcing the observed 2.18ppmv/year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration with the bulk of the increase coming from oceans degassing.


The increasing concentration causes an energy imbalance (energy in is greater than energy out).
The increasing (CO2) concentration may slightly enhance the atmospheric insulation but it in no way causes energy imbalance with (TSI – Albedo)/4 still equaling OLR.

There is a limited number of sinks for that excess energy (energy can only take on so many forms), and unless you can find an infinite sink the only way to balance out the energy is for surface and atmospheric temperatures to increase.
The global temperature has been decreasing slightly since 2002 because of reduced output from the sun,so it is not necessary to find an energy sink responsible for loss of heat energy because the loss occurred at the sun

If you don't believe in global warming you must disagree with one of the sentences above, otherwise we are only disagreeing about the extent and timing. Which one is it?
I only believe in global warming when the data shows warming and global cooling when the data shows cooling, so today with the world now cooling for over 13 years I do not currently believe in global warming; either human caused or otherwise.

 

[JimmyBob]

It is very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
But the CO2 molecule is linear and symmetrical and therefore does not have a permanent dipole moment so it can only interfere with thermal radiation from the Earth over a narrow band centered on 14.77µ resonant with its vibrational mode of interaction. The 14.77µ band of the Earth’s thermal radiation is already too close to saturation from existing 398.55ppmv (2014) concentration for additional CO2 concentration to have any more than a few tenths of a degree C further effect for even a doubling of CO2.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels.
The current emissions rate of 37gigatonnes per year represents less than 10% of the material sourcing the observed 2.18ppmv/year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration with the bulk of the increase coming from oceans degassing.


The increasing concentration causes an energy imbalance (energy in is greater than energy out).
The increasing (CO2) concentration may slightly enhance the atmospheric insulation but it in no way causes energy imbalance with (TSI – Albedo)/4 still equaling OLR.

There is a limited number of sinks for that excess energy (energy can only take on so many forms), and unless you can find an infinite sink the only way to balance out the energy is for surface and atmospheric temperatures to increase.
The global temperature has been decreasing slightly since 2002 because of reduced output from the sun,so it is not necessary to find an energy sink responsible for loss of heat energy because the loss occurred at the sun

If you don't believe in global warming you must disagree with one of the sentences above, otherwise we are only disagreeing about the extent and timing. Which one is it?
I only believe in global warming when the data shows warming and global cooling when the data shows cooling, so today with the world now cooling for over 13 years I do not currently believe in global warming; either human caused or otherwise.

At the end of the day, when it's the end of the day, and we all know it's the end of the day, it will be the end of the day and the income redistribution whores will be spread-legged screwing the data to "service" their agenda. It's the only way they survive.

 

[Medic007]

"this program was developed to show the worst-case scenario for human civilization. Again, we are not saying that these events will happen — rather, that if we fail to seriously address the complex problems of climate change, resource depletion and overpopulation, they are much more likely to happen."

It is very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels. The increasing concentration causes an energy imbalance (energy in is greater than energy out). There is a limited number of sinks for that excess energy (energy can only take on so many forms), and unless you can find an infinite sink the only way to balance out the energy is for surface and atmospheric temperatures to increase. If you don't believe in global warming you must disagree with one of the sentences above, otherwise we are only disagreeing about the extent and timing. Which one is it?

So, to simplify what Pappagiorgio posted, how can CO2 trap outgoing radiation, but it can't deflect incoming radiation with the same veracity? I know the climate change crowd would like to think it's selective, but it isn't. If CO2 could create the conditions the climate alarmists claim it can in regards to heat trapping, we'd be headed for the next ice age due to a greatly enhanced radiation deflection. The earth is not a true black box now, and it will never be one.

 

[Medic007]

If those unadjusted NOAA readings showed a warming trend would you concede?

But they don't, and that's the point.

 

[imprimis]

Freeman Dyson, who inherited the title of "the most brilliant physicist on the planet" when Einstein died says of CO2, that atmospheric carbon dioxide may actually be improving the environment.

"It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil."

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html

 

[07pilt]

It is very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
But the CO2 molecule is linear and symmetrical and therefore does not have a permanent dipole moment so it can only interfere with thermal radiation from the Earth over a narrow band centered on 14.77µ resonant with its vibrational mode of interaction. The 14.77µ band of the Earth’s thermal radiation is already too close to saturation from existing 398.55ppmv (2014) concentration for additional CO2 concentration to have any more than a few tenths of a degree C further effect for even a doubling of CO2.

the 14.77micron wavelength is only saturated at lower altitudes. Doubling the concentration of CO2 increases the amount of light absorbed in the cooler upper atmosphere. Think of it like blankets.
CO2 absorbs light at 10-22 microns, even at sea level conditions only the ban from about 13.2 to 16.9 is saturated.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The current emissions rate of 37gigatonnes per year represents less than 10% of the material sourcing the observed 2.18ppmv/year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration with the bulk of the increase coming from oceans degassing.

Lets do the math. Mass of the atmosphere 5.67 peta tons (10^15). 2.18 ppmv is about 3.3 ppmm (of CO2). 5.67*10^15*3.3 / 10^6= 1.87*10^10, which is 18.7 gigatonnes. So 37 gigatonnes actually makes up about 200% of the 2.18 ppm/year.

The increasing concentration causes an energy imbalance (energy in is greater than energy out).

The increasing (CO2) concentration may slightly enhance the atmospheric insulation but it in no way causes energy imbalance with (TSI – Albedo)/4 still equaling OLR.

The equation is TSI*(1-Albedo)/4 = OLR (or just radiation out). This is the equilibrium equation, which means it assumes equilibrium, thus it can't be used to show equilibrium exists. Experimental data puts the energy imbalance at .6 watts per square meter (measured at solar minimum)

There is a limited number of sinks for that excess energy (energy can only take on so many forms), and unless you can find an infinite sink the only way to balance out the energy is for surface and atmospheric temperatures to increase.

The global temperature has been decreasing slightly since 2002 because of reduced output from the sun,so it is not necessary to find an energy sink responsible for loss of heat energy because the loss occurred at the sun

What happens when we aren't at a solar minimum?

If you don't believe in global warming you must disagree with one of the sentences above, otherwise we are only disagreeing about the extent and timing. Which one is it?

I only believe in global warming when the data shows warming and global cooling when the data shows cooling, so today with the world now cooling for over 13 years I do not currently believe in global warming; either human caused or otherwise.

Please tell me what data set you approve for temperature measurements. I know a lot of you like the RSS data. If it shows warming will that be enough to convert you?

 

[07pilt]

So, to simplify what Pappagiorgio posted, how can CO2 trap outgoing radiation, but it can't deflect incoming radiation with the same veracity? I know the climate change crowd would like to think it's selective, but it isn't. If CO2 could create the conditions the climate alarmists claim it can in regards to heat trapping, we'd be headed for the next ice age due to a greatly enhanced radiation deflection. The earth is not a true black box now, and it will never be one.

CO2 lets shorter wave radiation (visible, UV) through, and blocks longer wave radiation (infrared).

 

[07pilt]

But they don't, and that's the point.

Yeah they do. Check Davidallen's post above. The aqua colored line is the uncorrected data.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Comments by Judith Curry on the Karl paper:

The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.

I am also unconvinced by NOAA’s gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis. I addressed the issue of gap filling in the Arctic in this recent publication: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84.


Relevant text:
Gap filling in the Arctic is complicated by the presence of land, open water and temporally varying sea ice extent, because each surface type has a distinctly different amplitude and phasing of the annual cycle of surface temperature. Notably, the surface temperature of sea ice remains flat during the sea ice melt period roughly between June and September, whereas land surface warming peaks around July 1. Hence using land temperatures to infer ocean or sea ice temperatures can incur significant biases.


With regards to uncertainty, in their ‘warmest year’ announcement last January, NOAA cited an error margin in the global average surface temperature anomaly of 0.09oC. The adjustments to the global average surface temperature anomaly is within the error margin, but the large magnitude of the adjustments further support a larger error margin. But they now cite a substantially greater trend for the period 1998-2014, that is now statistically greater than zero at the 90% confidence level.

My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

From the Cato Institute:

IS THERE NO “HIATUS” IN GLOBAL WARMING AFTER ALL?
Patrick J. Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, Paul C. Knappenberger


A new paper, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors[1], that removes the “hiatus” in global warming, will doubtless receive much attention in both scientific and policy circles. As with many scientific publications, Karl et al. prompts many serious scientific questions.
While this will be heralded as an important finding, the main claim[2] that it uncovers a significant recent warming trend is certainly dubious. The significance level (.10) is hardly normative and the use of it certainly will prompt many readers to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.

The treatment of the buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data. They were adjusted upwards 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and they were never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose for the buoys. Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.

The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, so that the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.

Additionally, there multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature that are made independently from surface measurements and which indicate the existence of a “hiatus”[3]. If the Karl et al., result were in fact robust, it could only mean that the disparity between surface and midtropospheric temperatures is even larger that previously noted.

Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong invalidates virtually every forecast of sensible weather made by a climate model, as much of that weather (including rainfall) is determined in large part by the vertical structure of the atmosphere.

Instead, it would seem more logical to seriously question the Karl et al. result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in these other global records.