It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wildly? Are you sure?
For the last 20 years UN climate models have been wildy wrong in their projected climate data. It has simply not happened. Garbage in...garbage out.
What's just around the corner? The science says that we will see an overall increase in the rate of warming, not that something will suddenly happen.
Global warming advocates or Climate Change Theory supporters....whatever you've branded yourselves now...... keep on saying it's just around the corner
Wonderful graph, with no reference points.....so what is the "Mean" in temperature? What factor in real temperature is the "0" point?
reply to post by Phage
All of the calculations show an overall rise in global temperatures.
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF).
Following a gradual rise of about 0.2 degrees from 1990 to 2000, global temperatures have stopped increasing and have actually fallen slightly. The only IPCC prediction which remains consistent with the current data is the lower prediction of a 0.7 degree rise from 1990 to 2030. The “Best” IPCC estimate and the higher 1.5 degree rise are ruled out by the data.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise over the last 10 years (see overlay to temperature comparison below in Figure 3) but temperatures have not risen since 2000. This implies that CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures on these time periods and that other natural mechanisms are at least as important. No evidence of any positive temperature feedback with increasing CO2 levels is found.
Take your time and review the charts provided....any thoughts?
That would sort of point to this whole human driven, carbon dioxide nightmare, global warming scare as being rather....overstated....wouldn't it?
Considering the 1800s to early 1900s burned a huge amount of wood, coal etc and caused a great amount of pollution. At least possibly as much as now.
reply to post by Phage
Yes. Which "predictions" are being used?
Oh, predictions through 2030. Is it 2030 yet? My how time flies.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.
The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
BTW, who is Clive Best?
See, what's happening is that we are seeing fewer all time low records and more all time high records. Doesn't that sort of cause a raising of eyebrows? Fewer lows, more highs...hint, hint.
reply to post by markosity1973
Because while we bicker over whether what's causing it, or if anything is happening at all the clock ticks and we have one less day to get on to doing something about it.
or if anything is happening at all
open minded as to what the cause of climate change may be because I think science is still working on that one.
The global climate is changing
We need to ensure that the system doesn't fail when we need it the most.
Hold that thought....supply the plain, easily seen and easily understood compare and contrast of real world figures to show it...or simply accept that, not everyone accepts that explanation as being valid or having the same basis in science as it's claimed to have. I hear the claim often...I never see the supporting material or even a clear place to find supporting material
Guess what, that is a predicted result of warming.
North American snow cover at 3rd-highest level on record
Warming does not mean there will not be low temperature records set. It means there will be fewer low temperature records and more high temperature records.
Cold Dis-comfort: Antarctica Set Record Of -135.8
Tell me, how many of those were all time low records as opposed to daily lows? It doesn't really mean much if a particular day was colder one year than another. What means something is the coldest temperature ever recorded. On a global basis we are seen fewer of those and more all time highs.
It's COLD out there! Nearly 1000 Record Low Temperatures Set!
reply to post by VoidHawk
Ha! The global warming crowd have covered just about every kind of weather!
"Its hot so proof of global warming"
"Its cold so proof of global warming"
"Its.... insert ANYTHING here...so proof of global warming"
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I would only add that in 2006 Al Gore gave a speech in which he said that Arctic Ice would be gone by 2013.
Just to give you a laugh here is an honest to god article title from Al Gore and his wing nuts....
More ice than last year is still bad news for the Arctic...
You can't make this stuff up....LOL
edit on 9-3-2014 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)
Scientists say the weather is the main reason more ice has stuck around this summer.
The IPCC uses a number of models. I was wondering which one(s) he was using. I don't know of any which show a linear increase in global temperatures.
I'm confused....I thought that was clear, the IPCC.
Asking who someone is an ad hominem attack?
Ad hominem attacks are sloppy as I have heard you say elsewhere on other threads
I wonder if we might use sources a bit more detailed than Wikipedia? It would help a whole lot...... This chart at NASA's Earth Observatory section is interesting for example, and shows a historic line of temp too.
There have been more all time high records set since 1960 (73) than all time low temperature records (41).
There have been 48 high temperature records set in the past 10 years compared to 5 low temperature records.
Source: Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
The linear change in temperature between 1920 and 1984 is calculated for 961 stations in the conterminous United States. Annual, winter, and summer maps of these temperature changes reveal pronounced geographical patterns, with widespread cooling in the major south-central portion of the United States and general warming in the northeast and west. Stepwise multiple regression analysis identifies a statistically significant impact of population change on these temperature trends, even though the stations utilized in this study had a median population of only 5832 in 1980. Both the observed mean annual cooling of the country and the warming bias provided by these small urban centers suggest that we may not yet have a proper perspective on global climatic change.
Source: On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
 Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Source: International Journal of Climatology
The village of Barrow, Alaska, is the northernmost settlement in the USA and the largest native community in the Arctic. The population has grown from about 300 residents in 1900 to more than 4600 in 2000. In recent decades, a general increase of mean annual and mean winter air temperature has been recorded near the centre of the village, and a concurrent trend of progressively earlier snowmelt in the village has been documented. Satellite observations and data from a nearby climate observatory indicate a corresponding but much weaker snow melt trend in the surrounding regions of relatively undisturbed tundra.
Source: Global Summary Information - January 2014
Neither El Niño nor La Niña conditions were present across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during January. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, neutral conditions are expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014.
Source: Global Summary Information - January 2014
The globally combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent during January was 7.89 million square miles, 290,000 square miles (3.8 percent) above the 1981–2010 average of 7.60 million square miles. The global sea ice extent during January was the seventh largest since records began in 1979 and was the largest since 2008.
Yes. The "heat island" topic is interesting and work has been done on the problem over the past 20+ years since that paper was published.
May not have the proper perspective?
Because homogenization is largely successful in removing urban bias in the USHCN temperature data, it appears that only about 5% of the period]of]record USHCN version 2 minimum temperature trends across the CONUS can be attributed to local urban influences and, further, that most of this contribution is coming from data for years prior to 1930. This residual urban bias for the earlier years in the record may be a consequence of the reduced station density of the Coop network in the early part of the twentieth century, which limits the number of pairs available for detecting inhomogenities some of which may be related to urbanization.
Sea levels began rising around the turn of the 20th century for the first time in more than 1000 years. Interestingly, around the same time temperatures started rising. One of the causes of rising sea levels is thermal expansion. As oceans warm up, sea level rises.
that doesn't jive well with the suggested causes and what we know as science for the time delay issues which come with them, does it?
Your link is for February 2011 and I only see daily records there, not monthly. But I see you understand the distinction between all time records and period specific records.
If we want to think local, my regional weather for this past month set both record highs and lows for weather (as opposed to climate...considering that important difference) in the same month.
Yes. ENSO is important (and somewhat mysterious as far as when it occurs). Not sure what your point is though. Are you thinking it has something to do with warming or the lack thereof?
Almost as important to note in relation to what we're seeing and not seeing.......
Our regional GIA and GRACE mass balance estimates clearly show that more than half of current Antarctic sealevel contribution (positive or negative) arises from 6% of the area of the ice sheet; mass loss along the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the in Amundsen Sea sector amount to -151±7 Gt yr-1. East Antarctica, in contrast, has a slightly positive mass balance (26±12 Gt yr-1), exhibiting a bipolar signature of accelerating mass increase in Dronning Maud Land and Enderby Land (basins 5, 6 and 7: 12±4 Gt yr-2) and accelerating mass loss in Wilkes Land and George V Land (basin 13 and 14: -4±2 Gt yr-2).