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.

 

State of the Climate Report 2015

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   
link to downloadable .pdf



State of the Climate An international, peer-reviewed publication released each summer, the State of the Climate is the authoritative annual summary of the global climate published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The report, compiled by NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at the National Centers for Environmental Information is based on contributions from scientists from around the world. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice, and in space.
State of the Climate in 2015 This is the 26th edition of the annual assessment now known as State of the Climate. The year 2015 saw the toppling of several symbolic mileposts: notably, it was 1.0°C warmer than preindustrial times, and the Mauna Loa observatory recorded its first annual mean carbon dioxide concentration greater than 400 ppm. Beyond these more recognizable markers, trends seen in recent decades continued.


Some snips:


The sea surface temperature also toppled existing records. When globally averaged, the values were between 0.33 and 0.39 °C (0.59 and 0.7 °F) above the mean, also surpassing the 2014 record. The global upper ocean heat content was also highest on record, due to continuing heat accumulation in its top layers. A new record was also reported for the global sea level rise, as it increased for about 70 mm (2.75 inches) when compared to levels measured by satellite in 1993.




Tropical cyclones were also more active than on average, according to the report. In total, 101 tropical cyclones were observed across the global oceans, which is significantly above the average 82 such systems reported in the period between 1981 and 2010. 26 named storms were reported in the eastern and central Pacific basin, the highest number since 1992 while in the North Atlantic fewer tropical systems than over the last 20 years were observed.




The Arctic sea extent retained low levels, as the region continued to warm up. The land surface temperature was 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) above the average value recorded in the period between 1981 and 2012, thus tying with the records set in 2007 and 2011. The maximum sea ice extent observed in February 2015 was the lowest in 37 years, and the minimum sea ice extent in September was the fourth lowest ever recorded.


There are just over 8 pages of sources with url's for those who wish to look deeper into any particular area.

As discussed in other threads I think the melting permafrost is one of our biggest potential issues and these are the url's for that particular data.
Active layer
thickness
nsidc.org... 5i
GTN-P gtnpdatabase.org... 2c1
Permafrost
temperature
permafrost.gi.alaska.edu... 5i
Permafrost
temperature at
French sites
edytem.univ-savoie.fr... 2c1
Permafrost
temperature at
Norwegian sites
www.tspnorway.com, www.met.no 2c1
Permafrost
temperature at
Swiss sites
www.permos.ch 2c1




posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: johnb

Well, hell... let's do something. Let's do something that sounds good but really doesn't do anything but make the "right" people rich at the expense of the public.

I know... let's implement the "carbon credit scam" financial scheme that really doesn't do anything but fill the pockets for Carbon Traders, Regulators, and related scam artist.

NOT.

The "Alarmism" is driven by the multi-Trillion dollar annually scam that is relentlessly promoted as a solution necessary for this problem or any other problem that can be used to dupe the public into supporting it. Until I see "real solutions" to this "possible problem" that are not a financial schemes then maybe we can start to care.
edit on 7-8-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Not sure there are any solutions but we could start to take mitigating actions.

Stop or at least cut back massively on all our pollution streams and strengthening infrastructure, raising railways and roads where necessary/possible.

Chicago was jacked up a few feet a 100yrs ago or so to get out of the swamp - perhaps those Chinese ghost cities are their planning for when their coastal cities start to get flooded by rising sea levels.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I get the stinking feeling that Tim Ball's latest over at WUWT speaks volumes as to what we might have to do to mitigate the rhetoric coming from bureaucrat scientist .

Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball I began this article before the resignation of NCEI director Tom Karl was announced. His replacement will, like James Hansen’s replacement at NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, continue the climate adjustment program. They perpetuate themselves and their agenda; it is the nature of bureaucracies. Laurence J. Peter, author, and creator of the Peter principle expressed it well when he wrote, Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost its status. Karl’s resignation makes this article more germane to the wider problem of bureaucracy in general and specifically bureaucratic scientists.
wattsupwiththat.com... like their cousins the politicians their need lies in us needing them to tell us about a climate that is always changing and we should be afraid .Send more money to produce more paper to tell us again how much they are needed ,oh and for us to be afraid .



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

WUWT is a site ran by a known quack, Anthony Watts. He gets paid by big oil to cast doubt on the valid science and observations that tell us we are changing the climate.

Most of us can think for ourselves and see the b.s. and invalid reasoning quacks like Watts pulls, unfortunately some just refuse to actually look at the real world data and simply believe the b.s..



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I suppose you would also put Climate Audit and Steve McIntyre in the same class rather then go and contribute to their discussions . Much easier to use a ad-homin . Anthony provides the site that just happens to be the largest interactive site on climate debate . Its much easier to get away with BS science on this site then it is over there where people get taken to task for what they say . The AGW meme is the oceans are rising ,be afraid . So when did they start rising ?

The ice is melting ! so when did it start melting ? ......the oceans are getting warm ! so when did they start to get warm ? You can go through the whole list of be afraids the MSM and the AGW group shout their chicken littles sky is falling because of man but when you look at it in the grand picture its so small and so insignificant except for the money put into the traughs that feed them . Where I live , I am not affected by what some are crying about but seems to not be a reality on the ground . How many Canadians and Americans have had to flee from the oceans in the past 10 years ? Its all a joke and a sick one at that .



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

It is not an ad hominem when I post accurate information.

But go ahead, remain ignorant, and try persuade others with your ignorance.

I choose not to live with my eyes closed.

The truth is our species is causing a spike in CO2 concentrations among other gases that cause radiative forcing.

Your rant ignores the facts.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Just a general thought for you to ponder. The worlds rivers are emptying over 1 million cubic metres per second into the worlds oceans, way, way more than all the glaciers and ice caps could contribute in decades. So the question is "how come with this much discharge per second the seas haven't risen"?



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You are correct that CO2 is rising but the temps are not following the projected increase the models say will happen . In fact if you look into the pause ,it opens up another can of worms into a window the models failed to predict . In fact both the models and scientist said the Arctic would be ice free . There is still no north west passage that sailors were looking for 300 years ago because they knew there used to be one ...The Arctic hosted plenty of mild climate animals but it changed ....what made it change ? surely it wasn't man made ......Do you think that there may be something else that causes climate and that maybe man only contributes a small very small amount to the whole heat budget ?




It is not an ad hominem when I post accurate information.
you posted nothing more then a opinion and had zero information to back up what you said .
edit on 7-8-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

you posted nothing more then a opinion and had zero information to back up what you said .
You posted zero information to back up what you said.



You are correct that CO2 is rising but the temps are not following the projected increase the models say will happen .
Actually, temperatures are following the models quite well. Well within expectations.
ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com...


In fact both the models and scientist said the Arctic would be ice free .
Citation please.


There is still no north west passage that sailors were looking for 300 years ago because they knew there used to be one
Actually, there is one now. But no, sailors weren't looking for it 300 years ago "because they knew there used to be one." They were looking for one because it would have been much shorter than going around Cape Horn to get to the Pacific.
www.cbc.ca...


The Arctic hosted plenty of mild climate animals but it changed ....what made it change ?
Changes in obliquity and orbital parameters. In other words, things that change how sunlight strikes Earth's surface. Those things say the world should be cooling, as it was until the last century.
www.indiana.edu...




Do you think that there may be something else that causes climate and that maybe man only contributes a small very small amount to the whole heat budget ?
That small amount gets amplified by various feedback effects. For example, a bit of warming means more water vapor. Water vapor is strong greenhouse gas.

edit on 8/7/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



An extensive area of lower than average temperatures in the Central Arctic and the Siberian coast, attended by persistent low pressure systems in the same region, led to slightly slower than average sea ice decline through the month. The stormy pattern contributed to a dispersed and ragged western Arctic ice pack for July, with several polynyas beginning to form late in the month. A new record low September ice extent now appears to be unlikely.

nsidc.org...

Along with Al Gore there have been some who were making the claim of a ice free Arctic by now . And yes it would have been much shorter of a route if there would have been a north west passage . That was back in the day of wooden ships and today we have heavy Ice Breakers and if I am not mistaken its only the Russians getting through . Its got a long way to go but if it ever warms up again up there it will provide lots and lots of land for humans to live .

Warming or the amount it has warmed in my part of the globe is un-noticable with a standard Thermometer .Now things are calculated in thousandths of a degree and if it can be shown after all of the proper adjustments are made and distorted and magnified by climate scientist then they can politicise it and scare the beegeebes out of the kids .

So are you moving soon because of the ocean coming at you ? They say it too late to stop it and it might pick up speed . Get that bug out bag ready and have at least a canoe at the ready . ps ...its 62 degrees here right now :>) its God country :>)

edit on 8-8-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



Here is one of those "experts" that has been saying its collapsing ..3 or 4 years is the time frame on this vid he gives .


edit on 8-8-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)
and here he is using that dreaded word "tipping point" be afraid ,very afraid

edit on 8-8-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)


And for more details on what the expert had to say and what the reality is on the ice


Remember back in September 2012 Professor Peter Wadhams famously said that Arctic sea ice would disappear within four years? He also had another prediction in 2013, saying that due to the “methane emergency”, Arctic Sea ice would disappear within 2 years. Even Gavin Schmidt thought that was bollocks. Of course, he [Wadhams] was wrong. Now, his four year prediction from 2012 is being tested this year, and while sea ice has in fact melted faster than usual in May (partly due to El Niño boosted global temperatures), it is still a long way from disappearing right now [and] is within 2 standard deviations of normal for this time of year:
wattsupwiththat.com... they have the data there to show how the chicken little is wrong .
edit on 8-8-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)


And as far as to why he is wrong this is from the comment section

Donald Kasper July 22, 2016 at 5:08 pm Statistics is for dependent variables. X is the independent variable. Y is the dependent variable, and is dependent on X. The function is then Y = f(X), Y is a function of X. That is the basis of linear regression and correlation coefficient for that line or any other function. So, X is time and Y is ice extent or volume. PIOMASS and others have fit a function to this line. Okay, is ice a function of time? Does time make ice? No. Okay, so the trend has no meaning. This is why these predictions keep failing. They are correlating independent variables. This is also why all X values for these kinds of predictions are time, because if X was something that actually correlated to Y, then they would have discovered a causative agent to study. Also note, if X is CO2, which is supposed to drive climate, the correlations of dependent Y variables such as ice and temperature are very low, indicating random noise. So, we know why the Al Gore, et al. statistical predictions failed–time does not make ice, and CO2 is not strongly correlated to temperature for purposes of public policy. I would put a correlation coefficient minima at 0.7 for causative correlations sufficiently strong for purposes of public policy. In other words, they have no concept of how statistics works. It was not designed to operate on independent variables. It also proves why prediction of this type cannot work. They must fail, and we know why they will.
wattsupwiththat.com...
edit on 8-8-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join