Climate Council report: More than 150 weather records broken last summer

reply to post by Phage

Yeah, I figured you'd complain about that source, though it does provide references.
Here's another one I just found: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

I don't accept Wikipedia as a source from my own son on a school report. I'm shocked to see anyone use it, and really, had never expected I'd see you go that route on a citation.

Globally, in the past 365 days there have been 199 all time high maximums as compared to 49 all time low maxiumum. 169 high minumums as compared to 21 low minimums. Add them together and you get 368 all time highs vs. 70 all time lows. That's more than 5 times as many all time highs as lows...in the past year alone.

As you asked me....are we working with numbers of climate or weather? Weather is short term and localized. Climate is long term and global. You're referring to weather patterns which change, frequently. One year a drought, the next a killer winter and trying to explain to us that those weather patterns indicate a climate condition. It's poor thinking, especially as debate points. However, lets look at why. Why is always important.

If one looks at the long term patterns (Drought impact in this example), the patterns are clear, regular and cyclical.



It happens. It's even recorded..time and time and time again with the 1930's and 1950's variations showing in the physical record. That is, naturally, when the data is clean and taken from locations free of localized temperature factors.

Documentation of Uncertainties and Biases Associated with Surface Temperature Measurement Sites for Climate Change Assessment

This next one just took California as the example, but clearly shows it as an example to use in a wider sense of considering the sensors used to form the data sets in general.

Urban bias influences on long-term California air temperature trends

We also must assume (and this one defines the second meaning of that word) that data gaps in the records are found, filled and dealt with in ways which do not impact the overall data being looked at in a bias way.

The Effects of Data Gaps on the Calculated Monthly Mean Maximum and Minimum Temperatures in the Continental United States: A Spatial and Temporal Study

You have and do keep up all of this in considering the nature of the numbers being looked at, correct? I absolutely am...and it's why you can show me a page of numbers dating way back...and I absolutely will not, automatically, accept it as valid, much less what someone wants to draw from it...NO MATTER the source. Not until I know more about what sensors were used, where, by which records for long term history. It all matters....but doesn't seem to interest many people. The Devil is in the details...as the ABOVE papers cite, and the more I come to read and learn details of this? The more ugly it becomes in many ways.

Regarding the artic temperature chart. It seems you are falling into the common fallacy of thinking that global warming means that every place on the planet should be warming at the same rate and that localized temperature variability reflects global variability.

My arctic chart stands in sharp contrast to Al Gore's own prediction of arctic sea ice simply gone by 2013. It stands as some contrast to those who would suggest the end of life as we know it has nearly arrived, starting with signs of imminent peril in the arctic, as specifically used. Now, specifically, NASA's chart doesn't show truth in those Chicken Little cries of doom. It shows an issue....yes. It doesn't show doom...by ANY means of the imagination and its why I chose that one to use as my example for the point being made there. Sorry if that purpose wasn't more obvious.

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.

Yes... It absolutely has, Phage. A lot of work....Let me share a bit more, since we want to get date specific on science papers.......as if science expires with dates like a gallon of milk.

Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate (Nature Magazine - 2003)

Impacts of Land Use/Land Cover Change on Climate and Future Research Priorities (American Meteorological Society - 2010)

Observed surface warming induced by urbanization in east China (Journal of Geophysical Research - 2011)

There is a great deal of science and serious work going on to this day (a citation in my last post was 2013 on this same topic....not just that older reference you noted). The question of concrete jungles and reflective issues, as well as other factors brought directly by the buildup of urban life are issues concerning science right now, and the above are just a few from a much longer list of the papers I have for citation on work related to this, at this point.

My last citation wasn't the clearest on Sea Level change issues or why, frankly, I don't take some of the chatter on this seriously. I dug up something from a past project which cites it a whole lot better and in plainer terms for us all to consider here.

In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10±10 cm (or +5±15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.

Source: Estimating future sea level changes from past records

The entire passage matters to check, and the report it's an abstract FROM is important to read for a solid look at this topic, but that's a personal choice on the time invested to get through this stuff.

Barrow Alaska:
And yet, the snow melt trend occurs away from the village. We know about heat islands. We know their effects. We know that warming is occuring beyond heat islands.

Have I once, anywhere...noted that climate change doesn't include warming as well as cooling examples in the weather becoming generally unstable? It noted a dramatic difference in impact between areas of man (In this case, a village...not a concrete sea of city). That was the point to take...not the suggestion that *NO* melting ever happens outside an occupied area. Sorry you misunderstood the reference and point of using it here.

Arctic sea ice extent was below the 1981-2010 average, the fifth lowest extent since 1979.
Antarctic sea ice extent was up but there is more than sea ice in the Antarctic:

In terms of Arctic and Antarctic ice, there are really two issues here and they are both important. First, IS the net showing a loss of ice with both caps of our planet taken together? The data seems to indicate that is happening to some degree across the last 10 years.

At the same time, ice is thickening in other areas of the Antarctic. A mixed bag, although, true, with a net loss. So the other question.....What is causing it? Is it natural to correct or advance regardless of our opinions and actions or is man directly causing it, thereby implying, we can also solve it? That...I don't take as anything remotely like settled science outside those who are NOT scientists on TV.

ATMOSPHERIC general circulation models predict enhanced greenhouse warming at high latitudes1 owing to positive feedbacks between air temperature, ice extent and surface albedo2–4. Previous analyses of Arctic temperature trends have been restricted to land-based measurements on the periphery of the Arctic Ocean5,6. Here we present temperatures measured in the lower troposphere over the Arctic Ocean during the period 1950–90. We have analysed more than 27,000 temperature profiles, measured by radiosonde at Russian drifting ice stations and by dropsonde from US ‘Ptarmigan’ weather reconnaissance aircraft, for trends as a function of season and altitude. Most of the trends are not statistically significant. In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.

Source: Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years

The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

Source: Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability

Finally, one last paper on the arctic, in the general point to show...

THIS IS NOT SETTLED SCIENCE BY ANY STRETCH OF OVERACTIVE IMAGINATIONS.

The Scientists are still working pretty hard on this, in fact....when politicians aren't trying to set outcomes for them, of course.

Arctic atmospheric variability during the industrial era (1875–2000) is assessed using spatially averaged surface air temperature (SAT) and sea level pressure (SLP) records. Air temperature and pressure display strong multidecadal variability on timescales of 50–80 yr [termed low-frequency oscillation (LFO)]. Associated with this variability, the Arctic SAT record shows two maxima: in the 1930s–40s and in recent decades, with two colder periods in between. In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s.

Source: Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000

It's an interesting debate and certainly more so when we are using data based sources and not the usual MSM links that work for basic debate and chat. It is a very complex topic when one gets below the surface we see daily in media messaging and general propaganda to make us feel horrible about ourselves and most aspects of Western life. The more I've come to dig into the science of it over time here...the more I'm seeing the "Global Warming Crowd" isn't necessarily wrong, but they are focused too exclusively on pre-set goals, within pre-made parameters for pre-determined outcomes. It's causing us to miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion, and that of a good number of those in the hard sciences around the world.

I rarely get in-depth like this outside a college classroom, but this seemed a debate example worthy of that effort.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I don't accept Wikipedia as a source from my own son on a school report.

Like I said, the source references are available.

You're referring to weather patterns which change, frequently.

Actually, I'm referring to all time temperature records. The highest highs and the lowest lows, that would fall under the category of climate. There are more of the former and fewer of the latter. I did say this does not indicate a trend but it is an indication of overall warming and is something that is to be expected with a warming trend.

If one looks at the long term patterns (Drought impact in this example), the patterns are clear, regular and cyclical.

. I'm not clear on your point but precipitation in North America is affected greatly by ENSO (which is not related to warming). Yes, there have been severe droughts in the past and will be in the future.

You have and do keep up all of this in considering the nature of the numbers being looked at, correct? I absolutely am...and it's why you can show me a page of numbers dating way back...and I absolutely will not, automatically, accept it as valid, much less what someone wants to draw from it...NO MATTER the source. Not until I know more about what sensors were used, where, by which records for long term history.

Reasonable. Here you go. But you don't get it on a platter.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

My arctic chart stands in sharp contrast to Al Gore's own prediction of arctic sea ice simply gone by 2013.

Not really, because arctic sea ice is affected by more than air temperatures. But I'm having trouble finding where Al Gore made that prediction. The closest thing I can find is his speech from 2007:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

www.nobelprize.org...

He does cite a study which says that the arctic could be ice free as soon as 2014 (unless my math is wrong) and another that says it could happen before 2029. Can you help me with his prediction that the arctic would be ice free by 2013?

At the same time, ice is thickening in other areas of the Antarctic. A mixed bag, although, true, with a net loss. So the other question.....What is causing it?

Hmm. What causes ice to melt? I wonder. But were did you extract information that ice is thickening anywhere in the Antarctic?

The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

OK, how about the continued reduction in thickness since the 1990's. In any case data about sea ice thickness is quite limited while data on its extent is a bit more robust.

Source: Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000

Yes, it's variable. Didn't we go over that? Other regions are also variable. That doesn't mean there isn't a warming trend. That doesn't negate other evidence.

reply to post by Phage

Reasonable. Here you go. But you don't get it on a platter.

I don't ask for anything on a platter. I ask you to back your points, like anyone else.

But I'm having trouble finding where Al Gore made that prediction. The closest thing I can find is his speech from 2007:

Third google result when I typed it in.....

Five years ago, Al Gore predicted the North Pole’s ice cap would become a fond memory, a casualty of the raging inferno of global warming. The “entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years,” he solemnly told a German TV audience.

Mr. Gore’s deadline has passed, and neither Santa Claus, Rudolph and the other reindeer, nor the polar bears are looking for a life raft. There were 7.3 million square miles of Arctic ice on Dec. 7, 2008. Fast-forward five years, and there are still 7.3 million square miles of Arctic ice, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This figure does go up and down with a natural cycle of melting and freezing, but the total today is within 5 percent of what it has been for the past 30 years.

Source


Now as far as Antarctica.... It's a hobby of mine and a serious pet project, if you call giving speeches, writing papers and threads here a serious thing. I'd tried recreating the sub-glacial structure in a 3-D environment over the summer, but ArcGIS is a tad tougher to learn than it first appears. I'll get that at the University formally, anyway. Here are some articles to ponder on the status of Ice in Antarctica though.

We present results from a new medium depth (136 metres) ice core drilled in a high accumulation site (73.59°S, 70.36°W) on the south-western Antarctic Peninsula during 2007. The Gomez record reveals a doubling of accumulation since the 1850s, from a decadal average of 0.49 mweq y−1 in 1855–1864 to 1.10 mweq y−1 in 1997–2006, with acceleration in recent decades. Comparison with published accumulation records indicates that this rapid increase is the largest observed across the region.

Source

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

Source: Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

In terms of causes of melting, which seems counter-intuitive to the stories above? Well.... There may just be a reason for the confusion. Most people look UP and at the air when thinking melt reasons. Not so much...looking down and from beneath.

Seismic detection of an active subglacial magmatic complex in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica

Part of that discusses a historic condition of volcanic eruption and part of it...isn't historic but suggesting something in progress or recently so. There are multiple papers suggesting very strongly now that there are active volcanoes beneath the ice and that even large eruptions may not break through the 1-2+ kilometers of solid ice above. It would, as one I read over noted, increase the ice melt flow from beneath and into the sub-glacial lake system which Lake Vostok brought to the world's attention.

As I generally note on this topic. It's a mixed thing the science isn't settled with, but desperately in need of objective investigation. I've tried to share some links which show some of that research going on and not necessarily featuring in media or high profile places to normally see.

* All Emphasis above added.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Third google result when I typed it in.....

That's not a lot of context there. Is that his entire statement? Or was it more like this? Which is similar to his 2007 speech?
www.youtube.com...

The Gomez record reveals a doubling of accumulation since the 1850s,

The study says later:

Thus it seems that there has been a steady increase in accumulation in the central-southern ice core sites relative to sites both to the north and south-west, as also indicated by the analysis of Miles et al. [2008]. High resolution regional climate model data indicate that during 1980–1993 the very strong increase in annual accumulation observed in the ice core is limited to the Gomez region itself and the Peninsula immediately south of it (N. van Lipzig, personal communication, 2007).

So it seems to be a localized phenomenon. Attributable to what, I wonder?

it seems likely that we can attribute much of the inter-annual variability seen in Figure 1 to natural internal regional climate variability.

Finally, we note that the change from a negative to positive relationship between Gomez accumulation and the SOI is centred on 1985, slightly earlier than when the sign of the relationship between ENSO and accumulation in Marie Byrd Land, West Antarctica abruptly reversed in 1990 [Cullather et al., 1996]. Fogt and Bromwich [2006] suggested that this shift was due to a change from an out-of-phase relationship between ENSO and the SAM during the austral spring in the 1980s to an in-phase relationship in the 1990s.

So it seems that a localized region may be experiencing increased accumulation due to phasing of two other internal systems. Meanwhile net ice loss continues.
ruby.fgcu.edu...

Expanding sea ice "baffles scientists". Don't you just love that term? Especially when in the same article the reason for the increase is given? The reason for the increase in sea ice isn't a mystery, it's because of a change in wind patterns.

There are multiple papers suggesting very strongly now that there are active volcanoes beneath the ice and that even large eruptions may not break through the 1-2+ kilometers of solid ice above. It would, as one I read over noted, increase the ice melt flow from beneath and into the sub-glacial lake system which Lake Vostok brought to the world's attention.

Yes, if there is an eruption that could occur and it could accelerate the loss of ice. Seismic eruption precursors were seen in 2010-2011, hasn't the ice loss been going on longer than that? Any sign of an eruption as yet?

We do not believe subglacial volcanic eruptions accompanied the two swarms of increased DLP activity in 20102011. Only DLP activity was increased during these swarms and an eruption should produce detectable shallow volcanic seismicity.

seismic

I've tried to share some links which show some of that research going on and not necessarily featuring in media or high profile places to normally see.

Except, of course, Washington Times articles and editorials.

reply to post by Phage

This winter the lowest temperature in North America (exclude Alaska, which was actually quite "warm" as far as Alaska goes) was in Minnesota (-35ºF), the lowest all time recorded temperature in Minnesota was -60ºF in 1996. That's quite a difference.

However, slightly to the east, from Green Bay, WI. through Chicago, cold records were set.
Seems the cold just shifted a few hundred miles to the east this year.
WIKI

ETA.
NOAA thinks differently, on a worldwide basis.
NOAA

My humble opinion is this is coldest winter I can remember, people twice my age feel the same.
80-90 year olds can't remember this cold, however they are 80-90 years old. Memory might not be what it was.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Five years ago, Al Gore predicted the North Pole’s ice cap would become a fond memory, a casualty of the raging inferno of global warming. The “entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years,” he solemnly told a German TV audience.

Mr. Gore’s deadline has passed, and neither Santa Claus, Rudolph and the other reindeer, nor the polar bears are looking for a life raft. There were 7.3 million square miles of Arctic ice on Dec. 7, 2008. Fast-forward five years, and there are still 7.3 million square miles of Arctic ice, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This figure does go up and down with a natural cycle of melting and freezing, but the total today is within 5 percent of what it has been for the past 30 years.

Source

reply to post by Phage

That's not a lot of context there. Is that his entire statement? Or was it more like this? Which is similar to his 2007 speech?
www.youtube.com...

That is an excellent example of checking the facts. Well I guess I could be wrong but I couldn't find anywhere else that Gore made a speech saying the polar ice cap could be gone ( yes what I heard him say was it could be gone within 5 to 7 years) of course he was referencing a study/paper he read and went on to say the other studies said 30 years.



I know for some it is a small matter between the words "could" and "will" but to me there is a significant difference. I believe he also said such a scenario had a 75% chance of happening from the report he referenced. If there is a different speech where he said "it will be gone in five years" can someone link it here. Like I said I couldn't find it. Anyway links to the speech in question would be great.

reply to post by Oaktree

Those are daily records, not all time records. There seems to be (that's for the wabbit) an increase in all time record highs and a decrease in all time record lows.

i.e.

On January 5, 2014, Green Bay, Wisconsin was −18 °F (−28 °C). The previous record low for this day was set in 1979

i.e.

The low temperature at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago was −16 °F (−27 °C) on January 6. The previous record low for this day was −14 °F (−26 °C), set in 1884 and tied in 1988.

The all time low for Green Bay is -36º, set in 1888.
The all time low for Chicago is -27º, set in 1985.

reply to post by Phage

That's not a lot of context there. Is that his entire statement? Or was it more like this? Which is similar to his 2007 speech?

You asked that the quote be sourced. It was, indeed, sourced. I'm not going to fight with you over it and I really don't understand your approach here. At all.

Expanding sea ice "baffles scientists". Don't you just love that term? Especially when in the same article the reason for the increase is given? The reason for the increase in sea ice isn't a mystery, it's because of a change in wind patterns.

I'm glad it's amusing. You asked for the sourcing, and again, you have it.

It's been good chatting with you Phage. Far from what I'm used to with you...but have a good evening.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You asked that the quote be sourced. It was, indeed, sourced.

If you're satisfied with a phrase with no context, in an obviously biased op-ed. So be it. I thought you said you wanted to avoid that sort of thing.

reply to post by Grimpachi


For general reference and since a casual reference to a quote has become the focus in a climate thread..I found another link (a dozen or so really.. if people googled, it's not hard to find...)

In this it refers to two different speaches. One in 2007 and one in 2008.

Al Gore: "North Pole Will Disappear in 5 Years" (Video)

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY… Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years

Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013

The last one there talks about the original source he came to ..ahem..quote... Gore and his declarations. He's an interesting guy.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

First link: No video but kind of funny: "North pole will disappear."
Second link: same video I posted.
Third link: 2007 speech which I linked.

In neither valid link does Gore say, " the entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years”

You have have hitched your wagon to the wrong horse with this one.

I don't have a lot of aloha for Gore but misquoting him (or anyone) is not really a good approach. Don't you think?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks for the links. Just FYI the first one in that list the video does not work.

The second one is the one I had seen, but had not seen the third.

In both videos that worked I did not hear him say the caps "will" be ice free. In both instances he said those were possible out comes. Words like may or could where he actually said "could" does make a difference. Like in the Washington Times article they quoted him as saying it "will" happen. Unfortunately, I have not seen evidence showing that they quoted him correctly.

I think we can agree that the difference in what he has been reported to have said and what was actually said in his speeches ( the ones seen so far) is substantial.

reply to post by Dianec


We definitely don't need to help it along!
I don't deny that we're in for a hell of a ride.
The many ways we have, and continue to, pollute the planet are unforgivable.

A great by-product of paying attention to the climate is the amount of people opening their eyes to the fragility of our planet.

I see it like this; if you can think of humanity as currently in a stage of adolescence, trying out that first cigarette, which turns into a box and after 20 years realizes the benefits of quitting... I think we are right there.

We've been a naughty species but, as the world gets smaller and smarter, I have faith we'll change our ways (as we are) and do as much to correct our past.

So, as I see it;
- we're nearing the end of an inter-glacial period, and whichever way AGW swings, we WILL enter into an Ice-age over the next 10,000 years (I'd like to see the AGW flame outweigh 100,000 years of the coming glacial period! -hmm I should research this- Mental note. Sorry.)
- we're quickly learning about how we affect the planet, what we shouldn't be doing and what we should be doing
- over 100 years of debaucherous behaviour may seem alarming, it is, but to use another analogy of adolescence, it's really just a couple pimples, they'll pop, scab and heal. Goes without saying we need to face-scrub the # out of our planet
- as long as we curb our pollution and general negative effects, and live closer with the natural cycles, we will heal the Earth
- big business holds the most blame and the most responsibility for positive action.

These are my opinions, but gosh, darn-it!
With the whole world in tow
I don't think it'd be too long before we succeed
and fold away the era of greed,
for that is all that has placed us so..

(Dianec, hope it doesn't seem like I'm side-stepping just conversing )

Well well well, it's great to see a debate where instead of opinions we are seeing resources and links being posted.

I've got to say, I'm with Phage in that Wikipedia is a totally legitimate source of information. I use it as a starting point and often follow up on reading the sources linked in the articles. To me Wikipedia is like the entrance to the rabbit hole (sorry wrabbit, no pun intended )

I have to say that when negotiating the minefield of information out there, it is easy to put a case together both for and against climate change. I personally know as many doubters as I do believers and I hear what both sides have to say.

However, when I see hard data like the pic in the OP (which is backed up by data recorded by the Australian Bureau of meteorology I do start to ask qeustions. Not because this is a once off 'wow' event either. It's because it's on the back of trends like this one; a report from back in 2009 Two years, three record heat waves in southeastern Australia

It's hard to believe that the climate is the same as ever when we keep hearing the word 'record' associated with weather.

one new trick in the US is that they are adding about 150 new or moved weather stations a year.

Will the first records be record colds and highs just because there are no older records

reply to post by ANNED

Will the first records be record colds and highs just because there are no older records

That's one of the problems here and why I don't give any more weight to "all time" highs and lows than any other single factor in the whole mix. "All time" in properly fixed record keeping as we know it today is very recent. Written records with enough geographic spread to be helpful only go back centuries as a general rule. That gets heavy into accuracy issues in it's own right for equipment, conditions, skill and consistency.

'All time' on a 4 billion year old (or so) planet is a very relative term I think. Changing all the time, in fact. As you note in the constantly added, adjusted and relocated sensors within the expanding network today.

Dianec
reply to post by deadcalm

 

Not by 2013 (obviously) but within the next few decades.

The new sea ice record was set on August 26, 2012, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com. www.wunderground.com...

Al Gore was trying to get a point across. I don't recall him saying it would all be gone by 2013. I recall him saying "this is how it could be". He was working from scientific models and giving a voice to concerned scientists. I for one commend him for doing that.

Activists have a bad name only because they are generalized (a few are extreme so they are all ridiculous). If it weren't for people who actually pay attention and study our ecosystems where would we be? No gorillas, no redwoods, out of control whale killing, etc. With climate - it will impact everything - not just a single species or system - so it should be taken even more seriously. Climate change is happening - it is what it is, and we should stop arguing about it and figure out how/if we can slow it down and how the planet might look in the next several decades.

The trouble is that Al Gore is a scam artist who has made a LOT of money pitching his snake oil. Of course he used over-dramatization with his movie, that's how he sold his line of crap.

ANNED
one new trick in the US is that they are adding about 150 new or moved weather stations a year.

Will the first records be record colds and highs just because there are no older records

No.

For a station to be considered for any parameter, it must have a minimum of 30 years of data with more than 182 days complete each year.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

The IPCC uses a number of models.

reply to post by Phage


Indeed. Like the model we were discussing earlier making predictions out to 2030. They use the amalgam of those various climate models from institutions and climate scientists all over the world and predict future climate based on this data and the scientists interpretations of that data.

I was wondering which one(s) he was using.

I can see your confusion. He was comparing 1990 IPCC climate predictions vs the actual IPCC data collected over the period encompasing those projections.

I don't know of any which show a linear increase in global temperatures.

Of course not...there are none.

Lets try and think of it this way...global warming, as far as I'm aware is a theory that hinges on the assumption that human CO2 production (greenhouse gas theory) is driving GLOBAL temperature changes...it implies by it's name that we are having a unified effect on climate on a GLOBAL scale which is leading to a runaway warming effect.

Now I'm sure that we can both agree that in the last 100 years...human population, and human CO2 emissions have increased significantly. According to the theory, we should have seen... over the last century....a significant rise in temperature to correspond with our output of CO2. Cause and effect.

However as I pointed out...actual IPCC data...not models or projections...have not shown this to be the case. There has only been a very slight increase in global land and ocean temperatures (average), in spite of the fact that human carbon emissions have vastly increased.

Now on to climate change. There have been changes in local and regional climate patterns...some places have gotten statistically warmer, while some have cooled and others remain unchanged. Variations in short, medium and long range climate are to be expected...and as I've stated...we cannot stop this process....nor do I believe that at this point, it is wise to try.

My point being...we do not have any data, as of now, that backs up the human driven global warming hypothesis.

Other factors are at least as important as CO2, if not more so, and those things are driving the climate patterns we are seeing....meaning we do not need to pay an additional tax for our perceived carbon sins.

Conclusion.

Based on actual data collected over the last 100 years, we cannot say with any level of certainty that human CO2 emissions are responsible for either climate change (although a stronger case exists for that), or GLOBAL warming. Local and regional weather perhaps...but globally....no. GLOBAL warming is a myth at this point.

deadcalm

Based on actual data collected over the last 100 years, we cannot say with any level of certainty that human CO2 emissions are responsible for either climate change (although a stronger case exists for that), or GLOBAL warming. Local and regional weather perhaps...but globally....no. GLOBAL warming is a myth at this point.

Okay, it's a given that CO2 is perhaps not the reason for climate change. You say that there are regional changes happening but that points to nothing over the whole globe.

So why then, does this global mean temperature graph tell me otherwise?



I distinctly remember hearing Mr Gore saying that for the temperature at the equator to rise 1/2 degree, the temperature at the poles has to rise something like 2 degrees. So I'm sorry, I don'y buy the because the temps are not rising the same everywhere it's not happening argument.

Look at the infographic below of 2013 weather. Do you see the two distinct bands near the north and south poles? It's happening just like Mr Gore said it would - nearer the poles and not so much at the equator.