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.

 

Climate change: 2015 'shattered' global temperature record by wide margin

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The 'pause' only existed in datasets over specific start and end dates - namely, satellites, which aren't beyond critique insomuch as their accuracy is concerned.

There are 8 data sets in this tool: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA, UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT krig v2, Karl.
1979 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
...
1997 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
1998 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2001 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2002 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2003 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2004 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2005 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except BEST (land).
2006 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2007 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2008 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2010 through 2015 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2011 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2013 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.
2014 through 2015 shows warming in every data set.

The 'pause' was merely a trick to get you to believe in the conspiracy against climate change. You no longer have it to rely on.
edit on 20Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:03:52 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: Updated from 1979-2013 numbers




posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Every single graph you quote goes back too far to show the "pause"

Even Jim Hansen, Phil Jones, Micheal Mann have all recognized and acknowledge the "pause" (which really represents an end to the "unprecedented rate of warming that sparked the global warming religion)

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
What?

You are not thinking rationally. What happened was, if you picked a certain range of dates, then you could 'show' a 'pause' to people. That no longer happens with anything except RSS (for a few years only) and BEST (one year).

This is what it looked like two years ago:

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

Is there currently a pause in warming, and if not, why are scientists trying to explain it?


The "pause" is dependent upon certain data sets. Not all data sets show a pause. You can check this yourself using this tool.

There are 8 data sets: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA (land/ocean), NOAA (land), UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 hybrid.
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
...
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.

Some data sets disagree on which year was the hottest - 1998 was the hottest in RSS, while 2010 was the hottest in GISTEMP, as you can see in the previous post.

The 'pause' went away not because graphs went too far back, but because 2015 and 2014 were hotter than other years. Of course, if you were to ask Roy Spencer, he would tell you that 2015 was only the third warmest year. He likes to smooth his data over a period (an odd 13-month moving average) so that he can call 1998 the warmest year. Look at the data he uses (in +°C)

1998 1 0.47
1998 2 0.65
1998 3 0.42
1998 4 0.66
1998 5 0.56
1998 6 0.51
1998 7 0.44
1998 8 0.44
1998 9 0.33
1998 10 0.29
1998 11 0.08
1998 12 0.19
avg: 0.42
2015 1 0.36
2015 2 0.30
2015 3 0.25
2015 4 0.16
2015 5 0.32
2015 6 0.35
2015 7 0.24
2015 8 0.32
2015 9 0.38
2015 10 0.57
2015 11 0.47
2015 12 0.55
avg: 0.36

Rather close, isn't it? Especially if you consider his own reckoning of satellite accuracy being no better than half a degree Celsius. You wouldn't see that from his chart:

originally posted by: Devino
These satellite records show a mean global temperature increase over the last 36 years.
Source

Note that his data says December 2015 hit +0.55°C - nor is there in his data anything above +0.66°C in 1998, yet there looks to be at least one point higher than that on his chart. You also wouldn't see this:

New Reference for annual cycle 1981-2010

Meanwhile, if you look at GISTEMP:

base period: 1951-1980

So, he uses a warmer baseline and smoothing over a 13-month period to fudge his own data.
edit on 22Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:33:38 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Then don't look at his data. Don't use it at all.

Use Nasa's if you like. I myself prefer surface data. You will still find the "pause" when the rate of warming drastically reduces, even in the face of rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

By the way, crow all you like at the rise in warmth in 2015. Its an El Nino year and the rise in warmth is not from CO2 but from the world's oceans giving up their heat to be dissapated in the atmosphere.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Jim Hansen speaking about the "pause"

www.columbia.edu...




Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for
the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed
at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the
century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped".
Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can
drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.
The climate forcing2 most often cited as a likely natural cause of global temperature change



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Oh, silly me! It looks like he uses a new data set based on whatever he pulled out of his thin air. Let's compare his new with his old:

Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6 departure from 1981-2010 baseline in °C
1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42

2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36

Wow, nice adjustment there Dr. Roy Spencer. Great work fiddling with those algorithms to increase the temperature of 1998 by 14% and decrease the temperature of 2015 by 25%.
Guess the numbers were edging too close between the two!
edit on 22Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:54:44 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Then don't look at his data. Don't use it at all.

Use Nasa's if you like. I myself prefer surface data. You will still find the "pause" when the rate of warming drastically reduces, even in the face of rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

By the way, crow all you like at the rise in warmth in 2015. Its an El Nino year and the rise in warmth is not from CO2 but from the world's oceans giving up their heat to be dissapated in the atmosphere.

Tired of Control Freaks

Guess what?
1998 was an El Nino year too.
So was 2010, etc.

Your dismissal of this year because of a near (but not record) El Nino and the embrace of previous El Nino without question is staggeringly indicative of confirmation bias. I'd love to be wrong about climate change. I really would. It would be something less to worry about.

The 'pause' is dead. Prove your claim with up-to-date figures; ending in 2015. Or simply deal with it like an adult and admit it's no more..
edit on 22Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:56:33 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Jim Hansen speaking about the "pause"

www.columbia.edu...




Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for
the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed
at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the
century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped".
Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can
drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.
The climate forcing2 most often cited as a likely natural cause of global temperature change

Why does this matter to anything? It was published 3 years ago. There have been changes since, like the 'pause' going away.
edit on 23Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:05:12 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

FRom the same paper by James Hansen




The largest climate forcing is caused by increasing greenhouse gases, principally CO2 (Fig. 5).
The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the
1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years8
. The decline is primarily a consequence of successful phaseout
of ozone-depleting gases and reduction of the growth rate of methane. Also, the airborne fraction of
fossil fuel CO2 emissions has declined and the forcing per CO2 increment declines slowly as CO2
increases due to partial saturation of absorption bands, so the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady
despite the rapid growth of fossil fuel emissions.
The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aero


The rate of warming declined significantly despite the increase in atospheric CO2

Listen - I am not going to shut up about this. This is a serious fault in the global warming theory along with making the MWP disappear as if it never existed.

Have you heard about the theory of Synchronicty Chaos theory of climate change?

The extreme El Nino we are seeing in 2015 and 2016 will cause global temperatures to serious drop. Take a look at what happened after the last El Nino's.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Uh-huh. There are other factors at play beyond just CO2. This much is obvious to everyone, including climate scientists.

The MWP didn't disappear, it just wasn't quite as hot as it is today. What fault do you refer to, exactly? Looks like GISTEMP is tracking pretty close to the mean of model predictions (although this is rather out of date, ending in 2013).


I'm not familiar with that theory, no.

Global temperatures will drop after this event (only third strongest; 1998 was stronger), but they'll keep on climbing. There is no ice age or cooling scenario in the future. We've overcome that.
edit on 23Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:27:42 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

First of all - that the current warming is unprecedented in history because the MWP was only regional, not global is a plank in the global warming religion.

Now it was always believed that the MWP was global in nature but when Micheal Mann did his hockey stick graph, it was then that it was proposed that the MWP was only regional in nature.

Examination of sediment cores in the Pacific and Antartic Oceans proved that not only was the MWP global in nature, it was hotter than the current warming.

science.sciencemag.org...




Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.


Now pay very close attention to that line about the role of ocean heat.

This goes to prove that the current global warming is not unprecedented and actually is within range of normal variability. Humans not only survived the MWP, it was a time of great properity.

The Little Ice Age followed the MWP. Not surprising, what goes up must come down.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You are the one showing confirmation bias

Jim Hanson himself has stated that the rate of warming dropped drastically and changed the trend line. That has NOTHING to do with El Nino's.

www.columbia.edu...



The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the
1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years8


Are you paying attention at all?

The fact that the MWP had greater warming than current is evidenced all over the world by tree lines that went further north than the current tree lines. This merely serves to prove that the conclusions drawn from the examination of the sediment cores of the Pacific and Antartic Oceans correct as opposed to Micheal Mann's "Hide the Decline" Hockey Stick.

Now that is TWO, count them, TWO planks that support the global warming theory GONE. BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER!

As to your assertion that this year's El Nino is NOT as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino

www.wmo.int...





A mature and strong El Niño is now present in the tropical Pacific Ocean and is likely to strengthen further. This year’s El Niño event is the strongest since 1997-1998 and is potentially among the four strongest events since 1950, according to the latest Update from the World Meteorological Organization.

The peak strength of this El Niño, expected sometime during October 2015 to January 2016. Its impacts are already evident in some regions and will be more apparent for at least the next 4-8 months.


Are you following me so far?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

First of all - that the current warming is unprecedented in history because the MWP was only regional, not global is a plank in the global warming religion.

Now it was always believed that the MWP was global in nature but when Micheal Mann did his hockey stick graph, it was then that it was proposed that the MWP was only regional in nature.

Examination of sediment cores in the Pacific and Antartic Oceans proved that not only was the MWP global in nature, it was hotter than the current warming.

science.sciencemag.org...




Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.


Now pay very close attention to that line about the role of ocean heat.

This goes to prove that the current global warming is not unprecedented and actually is within range of normal variability. Humans not only survived the MWP, it was a time of great properity.

The Little Ice Age followed the MWP. Not surprising, what goes up must come down.

You are deflecting comments and going off on preformed talking points.

I'm paying attention just fine. That is the editor's summary of the paper, not the paper itself. We've gone over this before, and you didn't get it then. The lead author says this:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."

Honestly, I'm not sure that the editor who wrote that summary you used read the paper. The oceans had been cooling over the last 10,000 years. In the North Atlantic, it was 2.1 ± 0.4°C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum between 8,000 and 10,500 years ago. During that same period, the Antarctic waters were1.5 ± 0.4°C warmer. So, they started hot.

They have cooled since. During the Medieval Warm Period from AD950 to AD1250, they were still cooling, and were only ~0.9°C warmer than the minimum recorded during the Little Ice Age from AD1300 to about AD1850. Cooling continued into the LIA (though this may have been three separate cooling periods overlapping) to a minimum, and has now reversed. The waters during the MWP were ~0.65°C warmer than the last few decades. That suggests a minimum during the LIA ~0.25°C cooler than today.

It took thousands of years for water temperatures to cool from (above present water temperatures) 1.5-2.1°C during HTM to ~0.65°C during MWP. You are going by the editor's summary. If you disagree with this assessment, find in the paper where it says otherwise.

One other note, the MWP happened at the same time as the Dark Ages in Europe... "great properity" huh?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You are the one showing confirmation bias

Jim Hanson himself has stated that the rate of warming dropped drastically and changed the trend line. That has NOTHING to do with El Nino's.

www.columbia.edu...



The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the
1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years8


Are you paying attention at all?

The fact that the MWP had greater warming than current is evidenced all over the world by tree lines that went further north than the current tree lines. This merely serves to prove that the conclusions drawn from the examination of the sediment cores of the Pacific and Antartic Oceans correct as opposed to Micheal Mann's "Hide the Decline" Hockey Stick.

Now that is TWO, count them, TWO planks that support the global warming theory GONE. BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER!

As to your assertion that this year's El Nino is NOT as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino

www.wmo.int...





A mature and strong El Niño is now present in the tropical Pacific Ocean and is likely to strengthen further. This year’s El Niño event is the strongest since 1997-1998 and is potentially among the four strongest events since 1950, according to the latest Update from the World Meteorological Organization.

The peak strength of this El Niño, expected sometime during October 2015 to January 2016. Its impacts are already evident in some regions and will be more apparent for at least the next 4-8 months.


Are you following me so far?

Tired of Control Freaks

No, I just don't care to go with your context. CO2 forcing will have less of an impact as the amount of CO2 increases - this is well-known and has been discussed for decades. There's no surprise there. Each additional ppm will have less warming effect than the previous.

You're working on outdated information and clinging to it because it supports your view, aka confirmation bias.

Show me some up-to-date info to change my opinion rather than speculation. Or try to, anyway. Again, can you show me that the 'pause' still exists through 2015?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   


No, I just don't care to go with your context. CO2 forcing will have less of an impact as the amount of CO2 increases - this is well-known and has been discussed for decades. There's no surprise there. Each additional ppm will have less warming effect than the previous.

CO2 may produce diminishing amounts of radiative forcing for every ppmv but you also need to take into account how much the CO2 concentration was increasing by in the 1980s compared to recently. According to the Keeling Curve CO2 increased by 15ppmv (from around 335ppmv to 350ppmv) between 1980 to 1990 (about 1.5ppmv/year) and from 2000 to 2010 that had increased to around 20ppmv (about 2ppmv/year). So the annual radiative forcing from CO2 in the 1980s would have been around 0.023 W/m2 from CO2 alone (without the assumed feedbacks) and that would have increased to around 0.028 W/m2 in the 2000s. So there is not "no surprise" and there is definitely something else going on besides CO2 being subject to diminishing returns.
edit on 23-1-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Something else going on eh?

That's just irradiance. It's only a small change, but it is there. There's also global dimming to consider as well.

CO2 is one part of the puzzle. Almost every record (including UAH) that includes 2015 shows a warming climate. It's happening. People need to get out of the past.

e: recall that scientists measured an increase of 0.2 W/m^2 from CO2 over a decade of outdoor measurement. We're beyond the talking point that CO2 doesn't cause forcing. That's long dead.
edit on 11Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:13:37 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   


The earth has been here for billions of years, how many times was it MUCH warmer than it is now?


When it was hotter was mostly when the continents were all centered around the equator and there were no ice caps. You can't compare climate then to now.

We had two weeks of 100 degrees here in Washington state last summer which was unheard of, and our January is about ten degrees above normal, so I can see climate change happening.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Any Pause is hidden behind the El Nino.

And you are misquoting the study on the sediments from the Pacific and Antartic Oceans.

FROM THE ABSTRACT:




Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.


So if the Pacific and Antartic Oceans were warmer during the MWP then current temperatures, it proves that the MWP was both global in nature AND warmer then current temperatures

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Greven

Oh, silly me! It looks like he uses a new data set based on whatever he pulled out of his thin air. Let's compare his new with his old:

Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6 departure from 1981-2010 baseline in °C
1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42

2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36

Wow, nice adjustment there Dr. Roy Spencer. Great work fiddling with those algorithms to increase the temperature of 1998 by 14% and decrease the temperature of 2015 by 25%.
Guess the numbers were edging too close between the two!


Try as I might, I don't see much difference between him fudging with algorithms and everyone else doing it either.

Have you looked into why he's doing it that way versus others fudging them the opposite direction?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

FROM THE ABSTRACT:
Why rely on the abstract when the article is available?
marine.rutgers.edu...

So if the Pacific and Antartic Oceans were warmer during the MWP then current temperatures, it proves that the MWP was both global in nature AND warmer then current temperatures
That would depend upon what layer you are talking about. Global sea surface temperatures are higher now than they were at any time in the past 10,000 years. It does not seem that the MWP was warmer than the present in the southern hemisphere, based on surface temperatures, however at deeper depths there is a better correlation in both hemispheres.



It is apparent that there was an overall cooling trend through most of the Holocene. This is also apparent in other temperature reconstructions, however something changed a great deal fairly recently.

The comparison suggests that Pacific OHC was substantially higher during most of the Holocene than in the past decade (2000 to 2010), with the exception of the LIA. The difference is statistically significant, even if the OHC changes apply only to the western Pacific (~25% Pacific volume), although there are indications that similar trends extended farther east (15). The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3).





The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time.


In summary. Modern increases in radiative forcing have caused an increase in ocean heat content at a rate much higher than that seen in the past 10,000 years. The oceans are aborbing more heat faster than ever. That heat is coming from the oceans' surface. That heat is caused by increased radiative forcing.

With the current El Nino, we are seeing some of that heat which has been being absorbed released into the atmosphere so we see a spike in temperatures. But the OHC is still increasing. Just like the strong El Nino of 1998, this one is a spike in a trend. As will be the next one.

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join