It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
I love that the AGW apologists don't even know what AGW is. Global warming is a rise in the average temperature of the earth. This means local weather events don't matter much. But record cold summers across an area as vast as the USA requires the rest of the world to be a little warmer than average or another, similarly sized area to be enduring a record hot summer.
Further more, tornadoes have been on the decline (fewer every year) just like most extreme weather events. Warmer weather is better for the human race than cooler weather.
But don't let that get in the way of wishing we caused the earth to warm by burning fossil fuels. Now roll down your windows and blast the AC, gotta do your part
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: pikestaff
originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
originally posted by: lonweld
The OP sounds a lot like Al Gore telling us the ice caps in the arctic will be melted by 2014......
The funny thing is, the ice caps ARE melting. Deny what's in front of your own eyes?
What Al Gore said or predicted is irrelevant. Look at FACTS, and do yourself a favor and at least try to see the climate change debate without a bias. The climate doesn't care about political parties. LOOK AT FACTS.
I am reminded of a news story earlier this year of a guy in a sail boat trying to sail through the north west passage had to be rescued as his boat got stuck fast in the ice!
According to reports in climate depot, Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent since records began, and its been growing year on year.
There has been temperature change for the last sixteen years, so ice melt mystifies me.
I'm sorry, but no. The temperature has not been stuck for the past 16 years, it's rising. The oceans are getting hotter and hotter and it's having an impact on the poles. The glaciers of Antarctica are moving faster and it's actually snowing again in some parts. I know that last part sounds bleeding obvious but it's not - parts of the South Pole actually classify as being desert due to the minimal amount of precipitation that falls on those parts, as it's literally too cold to snow there. That's now changing - it's warming.
The major observational obstacle to understanding the role of the ocean in climate is the extreme brevity of the instrumental record in a system having some memory exceeding several thousands of years. Data sets depicting the global interior ocean state begin with high accuracy altimetry only in 1992.
The Argo array became quasi-global in the mid-2000s. Assuming that these technologies continue to be supported (by no means clear), the community will ultimately have comparatively long records at least of the phenomena visible in upper-ocean hydro-graphic profiles and sea surface elevation.
The globally integrated heat content changes involve small differences of the much larger regional changes. As existing estimates of the anthropogenic forcing are now about 0.5W/m2, the equivalent global ocean average temperature changes over 20 years are mostly slight compared to the shorter term temporal variations from numerous physical sources. Detailed attention must be paid to what might otherwise appear to be small errors in data calibration, and space-time sampling and model biases.
Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing, but the uncertainties remain too large to rationalize e.g., the apparent “pause” in warming.
ocean.mit.edu...
Global climate models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should increase in a warming climate and mitigate rises in the sea level. Several processes affect surface mass balance (SMB), introducing large uncertainties in past, present and future ice sheet mass balance. To provide an extended perspective on the past SMB of Antarctica, we used 67 firn/ice core records to reconstruct the temporal variability in the SMB over the past 800 yr and, in greater detail, over the last 200 years.
The temporal and spatial variability of the SMB over the previous 800 yr indicates that SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and do not exhibit an overall clear trend.
This result is in accordance with the results presented by Monaghan et al. (2006), which demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB over the past 50 yr. However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10 % (> 300 kg m−2 yr−1) has occurred in high-SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.
The decadal records of previous centuries show that the observed increase in accumulation is not anomalous at the continental scale, that high-accumulation periods also occurred during the 1370s and 1610s, and that the current SMB is not significantly different from that over the last 800 yr.
www.the-cryosphere.net...
originally posted by: Millers
There was little change in GMST in the last 16 years and GMST trends are practically flat since the turn of the century.
For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming.
www.see.ed.ac.uk...
originally posted by: Millers
Really.
...
If the trend is below 0.1 °C, it's not statistically significant. You'd have to go back almost 20 years for that.
...
I made no statement as to why the trends are flat, but Leif and quit a few climate scientists would disagree with you that TSI is to blame here.
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Millers
Really.
...
If the trend is below 0.1 °C, it's not statistically significant. You'd have to go back almost 20 years for that.
...
I made no statement as to why the trends are flat, but Leif and quit a few climate scientists would disagree with you that TSI is to blame here.
Read the paper better:
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models
Please, do explain how a change below 0.1 degrees/decade Celsius is statistically insignificant. You are aware that the difference between global temperatures during an ice age and modern global temperatures is approximately 5 degrees Celsius, no?
They can disagree all they want, but it doesn't mean they're right. Nor does it mean I am. However, it seems to me that, based on the historical record and logic, that a decrease in energy output of the Sun would mean less energy is reaching the Earth to warm it. Of course, if the Earth isn't losing heat at a faster rate than it is gaining it, it's going to stay the same or keep warming at a slower rate.
In the context of the post you replied to, i think it would be global mean surface temperature.
originally posted by: Millers
In the context of the post you replied to, i think it would be global mean surface temperature.
en.wikipedia.org...
your link
I want you to explain how 0.1 degree Celsius is insignificant.
This is complete nonsense. Here is TSI since 2003. There is no such drop. If anything TSI is now higher than it were in 2003.
originally posted by: Greven
Even selecting to show a minimal change shows an increase in global mean temperature.
The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.
A common belief in the climate establishment is that El Niño – La Niña sequences will eventually balance out over long periods of time, and warming due to greenhouse gases will be the dominant trend over longer periods of time. However, when one actually examines the data, one finds that the El Niños and La Niñas were not in balance during the 20th century.
judithcurry.com...
Similarly, changes in the combined ocean/air circulation results in more winds which advect heat down the oceans.
The Walker circulation (or Walker cell) which normally – through easterly trade winds – leads to the accumulation of warm tropical waters in the West Pacific (compensated by higher-altitude winds blowing back from West to East) has been weakening in the past 60 years.
www.bitsofscience.org...
The immediate cause of this slowdown, however, continued to puzzle climate scientists. They could not reproduce the weakening consistently in global atmospheric models, questioning the ability of climate models to simulate the observed gradual climate change. At the root of the models’ failure, Tokinaga suspected, was the lack of precise sea surface temperature (SST) data used to drive the models.
iprc.soest.hawaii.edu...
Model experiments with this trend pattern robustly simulate the observed changes, including the Walker circulation slowdown and the eastward shift of atmospheric convection from the Indonesian maritime continent to the central tropical Pacific. Our results cannot establish whether the observed changes are due to natural variability or anthropogenic global warming, but they do show that the observed slowdown in the Walker circulation is presumably driven by oceanic rather than atmospheric processes.
www.nature.com...(paywalled)
And then there's the observational problem in the surface records reconstruction---fix this and the 'pause' goes away.
originally posted by: Millers
You're not making much sense. I never said 0.1 °C is insignificant, i said trends below that - or changes of a few hundredths of a degree per decade - are not statistically significant.
You brought up TSI. You said the sun is in a deep solar minimum, whatever that means, and that's why the trends are so small.
originally posted by: mbkennel
and when you try to fix/understand these problems you find that there is no unexplained paused in global warming.