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.
But they are still rising ...
pasiphae
i'm one of the few left on this site that fully believes that humans have pushed normal climate change into hyperdrive. while climate change has always existed it's moving at a rate too fast for us to be able to adapt.
pavil
pasiphae
i'm one of the few left on this site that fully believes that humans have pushed normal climate change into hyperdrive. while climate change has always existed it's moving at a rate too fast for us to be able to adapt.
Really???? Humanity can survive an ICE AGE but we can't "adapt" to a world that is still warming up from said Ice Age? I hate to break this to you, but even with the most dire of predictions of GW, Humanity will continue to grow and thrive on this Planet.
Stop the crazy Chicken Little talk please.
At 3–4°C warming, widespread coral mortality will occur (at this point corals are basically toast), and 40–70% of global species are at risk as we continue on the path toward the Earth's sixth mass extinction. Glacier retreats will threaten water supplies in Central Asia and South America. The possibility of significant releases of CO2 and methane from ocean hydrates and permafrost could amplify global warming even further beyond our control. Sea level rise of 1 meter or more would be expected by 2100, with the possibility of destabilization of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which would cause much more sea level rise and flooding of coastal communities.
talklikeapirat
reply to post by rnaa
But they are still rising ...
No. No surface temperature rise for the last 12-17 years (depending on the dataset used).
If you cannot grasp this fundamental fact, any further discussion is meaningless.
Prof Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at the University of Oxford: Comparing the expected temperature for 2013-2017 with a single exceptionally warm year (1998), as some reports have done, is just daft. 1998 was around 0.2 degrees warmer than the 1996-2000 average, largely thanks to a massive, once-a-century El Nino event. The IPCC predicted a warming of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade due to human influence back in 2000. That means the one-off impact of that El Nino event was equivalent to about 20 years of the expected background warming trend So, unsurprisingly, 20 years later, expected temperatures have risen so that an average year is now as warm as that exceptionally hot year.
That said, a lot of people (not the IPCC) were claiming, in the run-up to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, that ‘warming was accelerating and it is all worse than we thought’. What has happened since then has demonstrated that it is foolish to extrapolate short-term climate trends. We did see unexpectedly fast warming from the mid-1990s to the early-2000s, but the IPCC, quite correctly, did not suggest this was evidence for acceleration.
While every new year brings in welcome new data to help us rule out the more extreme (good and bad) scenarios for the future, it would be equally silly to interpret what has happened since the early-2000s as evidence that the warming has stopped.
Prof Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London: I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’! Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet and the changes that an energy imbalance will drive in the climate system - as well as the consequences for humans.
90% of the energy imbalance enters the ocean and is not visible to the global mean surface temperature value. The continuing rise in sea level demonstrates ongoing energy accumulation in the ocean (as well as a contribution from melting land ice).
Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment.
But that heat is still there, building up. At the same time, the ocean surface has a natural oscillation in temperature, up and down, over timescales of a decade or more. This affects land surface temperatures on short time scales like a few years. We're in a downswing right now, which is another reason temperatures over land have flattened.
But that won't last forever. The ocean surface will warm once again, the heat inside will be released, and temperatures will go up again. It's difficult to say exactly when, but it won’t last forever.
How is the global average temperature calculated?
The data are first converted into 'anomalies'. Anomalies are the difference in temperature from the 'normal' level. For HadCRUT4 the 'normal' level is the long term average for each area over 1961 to 1990.
Global average temperature anomaliesYear HadCRUT4 in°C (95% confidence range) HadCRUT3 in °C (95% confidence range) NCDC in °C GISS in °C
2012 0.45 (0.35 to 0.55) 0.40 (0.30 to 0.49) 0.46 0.47
2011 0.41 (0.31 to 0.50) 0.35 ( 0.25 to 0.44) 0.41 0.46
2010 0.55 (0.46 to 0.64) 0.50 ( 0.40 to 0.59) 0.54 0.58
2009 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.44 ( 0.34 to 0.54) 0.47 0.50
2008 0.39 (0.30 to 0.48) 0.31 ( 0.21 to 0.41) 0.39 0.40
2007 0.48 (0.40 to 0.57) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.47 0.54
2006 0.50 (0.41 to 0.59) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.48 0.50
2005 0.54 (0.45 to 0.63) 0.47 ( 0.37 to 0.58) 0.53 0.57
2004 0.44 (0.35 to 0.54) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.46 0.43
2003 0.50 (0.41 to 0.60) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.56) 0.50 0.51
2002 0.49 (0.40 to 0.59) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.55) 0.49 0.53
2001 0.44 (0.35 to 0.53) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.43 0.44
2000 0.29 (0.20 to 0.38) 0.24 ( 0.14 to 0.33) 0.31 0.31
1999 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39) 0.26 ( 0.17 to 0.36) 0.33 0.31
1998 0.53 (0.44 to 0.62) 0.52 ( 0.42 to 0.61) 0.51 0.52
1997 0.39 (0.31 to 0.48) 0.36 ( 0.26 to 0.45) 0.39 0.37
1996 0.18 (0.09 to 0.27) 0.12 ( 0.03 to 0.22) 0.20 0.24
1995 0.32 (0.23 to 0.41) 0.28 ( 0.18 to 0.37) 0.33 0.34
1994 0.20 (0.12 to 0.29) 0.17 ( 0.07 to 0.26) 0.20 0.20
1993 0.14 (0.05 to 0.23) 0.10 ( 0.01 to 0.19) 0.14 0.12
1992 0.10 (0.01 to 0.19) 0.06 (-0.03 to 0.15) 0.11 0.10
1991 0.25 (0.17 to 0.34) 0.20 ( 0.11 to 0.29) 0.25 0.29
1990 0.29 (0.21 to 0.38) 0.25 ( 0.16 to 0.33) 0.27 0.30
1989 0.12 (0.04 to 0.21) 0.09 ( 0.01 to 0.18) 0.14 0.15
1988 0.20 (0.12 to 0.28) 0.16 ( 0.08 to 0.25) 0.22 0.27
1987 0.19 (0.10 to 0.27) 0.17 ( 0.08 to 0.25) 0.20 0.20
jibajaba
reply to post by rnaa
I provided a couple of links - to what I am saying - would you do the same - ty
BTW - this has been a relatively cool summer in Colorado w/ from say towards the latter part of june to at least mid-july w/ clouds and overcast.
here is a chart for Boulder : History of Boulder weather
Big year-to-year fluctuations in sea ice are becoming commonplace in the Arctic, because recent decades of rising temperatures have thinned the ice, making it much more vulnerable to changes in the weather. Even though a layer of ice regrows each winter, it melts much more easily under the right conditions in the summer.
Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.
Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it makes up most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.
...
* Footnote: Although a thin layer of ice doesn’t tell us much about the overall state of ice loss at the Arctic, it does tell us a great deal about Albedo, the property of ice to reflect heat back into space. When the sea ice diminishes, more heat passes into the oceans. That heat melts the thick ice and speeds up the melting of thinner sea ice, which in turns allows more heat to accumulate in the oceans. This is an example of a positive feedback.
source
It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming.
source
The recent pause in global warming -
Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.
source
Estimates of the observed global warming for the recent 15-year period 1998-2012 vary between0.0037 C/year (NCDC) ,0.0041 C/year (HadCRUT4) and 0.008 C/year (GISS). These values are significantly lower than the average warming of 0.02 C/year observed in the previous thirty years 1970-2000. Can models explain the global warming stagnation?
pavil
reply to post by Blarneystoner
Please, even a 1 M sea level rise won't extinct Mankind. Try your fear mongering on someone else. I live by the Great Lakes, It will be like the Saudi Arabia of Freshwater in the future. You can stand at the shoreline of Florida as the waters cover your head.
It won't be a world ending event for Humanity.
Btw, I have researched both sides of the argument, I know what the worst case scenarios forecast. It's still not an extinction level event for our species. Your bet on me would be one you lose.
PS Btw, Humans ARE ANIMALS. Least last time I checked.
edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)edit on 18-9-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)
pavil
pasiphae
i'm one of the few left on this site that fully believes that humans have pushed normal climate change into hyperdrive. while climate change has always existed it's moving at a rate too fast for us to be able to adapt.
Really???? Humanity can survive an ICE AGE but we can't "adapt" to a world that is still warming up from said Ice Age? I hate to break this to you, but even with the most dire of predictions of GW, Humanity will continue to grow and thrive on this Planet.
Stop the crazy Chicken Little talk please.
Blarneystoner
I'm not fear mongering. Is that your standard label for anyone you disagree with or for information that scares you?
And I seriously doubt you've done much research on the other side of your beliefs. You don't offer much in the way of references supporting your arguments so I can only assume that you don't have any. If you care to prove me wrong then have at it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air out your pie hole.
The extreme worst case scenario for global warming is something called "Venus Syndrome". Look it up.... then tell me it wouldn't be an ELE.
You should choose your words more carefully... makes you sound mis-informed when you don't.
pasiphae
an ice age that developed over a very very long period of time.... and what ice age are you talking about? the climate has changed in the history of the earth many times but NEVER BEFORE has it changed at this extreme rate with so many humans occupying so much space. "stop the crazy chicken little talk please".... sorry but that's how i see it after reviewing all the information out there. i don't feel like chicken little in the least. i think you should stop sticking your head in the sand. telling me how to think isn't going to miraculously make me go "oh.... you're right. doh!" any more than me telling you to get your head out of your rear will make you change your mind.
pavil
You are fear-mongering, you implicitly imply an impending doom, what the heck do you call that?
I don't get into the "I have this Data" argument simply for the fact that no matter what I present, you will ignore it.
I'm sure you have experienced it as well. It's been proven time and time again with Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it discussions here.
I'm surprised you haven't started personal attacks as this is usually the path these discussions take (I'll give you a pass on the mis-informed comment).
The Models used don't even work right with real world observations, let alone the cherry picking of data. And yes, BOTH side cherry pick. I will never convince you that you are wrong and I have yet to see compelling data to prove you are the right one. You keep trying, just don't make me pay more for things because of your beliefs.
You don't Fear Monger yet you bring up a "Venus Syndrome" ???? Really??? While your at it why don't you bring up the "Snowball Earth" scenario too. Jeez.
I stand by my assertion that Humanity will survive any of the IPCC worst case scenarios.
Holdren said global warming is a "dangerous misnomer" for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature. Read more: www.foxnews.com...
Changes to precipitation patterns and sea levels are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone," the report said. Read more: www.foxnews.com...
The calculated values are of course averages based upon the assumption of a homogeneous distribution of protons in space outside of the heliopause. If we assume this equivalence is an intrinsic feature of space and shows a modest range in variability, then the solar system could be moving through space whose intrinsic magnetic equivalence is within the range associated with the increase in geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years.
Quantitative analyses of the increase in global temperature, carbon dioxide levels and geomagnetic activity indicate they share the same source of variance. The energy available from the enhanced geomagnetic activity which has been coupled to the expansion of the solar coronal magnetic field could accommodate the increases in global temperature for both the Earth and Mars. The author speculates, based upon inferences and general calculations as yet untested, there is an intrinsic organization in space through which the solar system moves as it orbits the center of the galaxy. Spatial quasi-periodicities in the characteristics of this submatter space, may be responsible for the coherent changes within the whole system.
In that case, what could be causing this humming in the sky?In our opinion, the source of such powerful and immense manifestation of acoustic-gravity waves must be very large-scale energy processes. These processes include powerful solar flares and huge energy flows generated by them, rushing towards Earth’s surface and destabilizing the magnetosphere, ionosphere and upper atmosphere. Thus, the effects of powerful solar flares: the impact of shock waves in the solar wind, streams of corpuscles and bursts of electromagnetic radiation are the main causes of generation of acoustic-gravitation waves following increased solar activity.Given the surge in solar activity as manifested itself in the higher number and energy of solar flares since mid-2011, we can assume that there is a high probability of impact of the substantial increase in solar activity on the generation of the unusual humming coming from the sky
But you said that the cause of the “sky hum” can lie within Earth’s core as well, what does it mean?There is one more possible cause of these sounds and it may lie at the Earth’s core. The fact is that the acceleration of the drift of the Earth’s north magnetic pole which increased more than fivefold between 1998 and 2003 and is at the same level today points to intensification of energy processes in the Earth’s core, since it is processes in the inner and outer core that form the Earth’s geomagnetic field. Meanwhile, as we have already reported, on November 15, 2011 all ATROPATENA geophysical stations which record three-dimensional variations of the Earth’s gravitational field almost simultaneously registered a powerful gravitational impulse. The stations are deployed in Istanbul, Kiev, Baku, Islamabad and Yogyakarta, with the first and last one being separated by a distance of about 10,000 km. Such a phenomenon is only possible if the source of this emanation is at the Earth’s core level. That huge energy release from the Earth’s core at the end of the last year was some kind of a start signal indicating the transition of the Earth’s internal energy into a new active phase. www.kipnews.org...
In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age: Dear Mr. President: Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research. The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments. Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace. The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others: (1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected. (2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc. With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research … With best regards, George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)
This book presents an overview of what adaptation to climate change might mean for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. It starts with a discussion of emerging best-practice adaptation planning around the world and a review of the latest climate projections. It then discusses possible actions to improve resilience organized around impacts on health, natural resources (water, biodiversity, and the coastal environment), the 'unbuilt' environment (agriculture and forestry), and the built environment (infrastructure and housing). The last chapter concludes with a discussion of two areas in great need of strengthening given the changing climate: disaster preparedness and hydro-meteorological services. This book has four key messages: a) contrary to popular perception, Eastern Europe and Central Asia face significant threats from climate change, with a number of the most serious risks already in evidence; b) vulnerability over the next 10 to 20 years is likely to be dominated by socioeconomic factors and legacy issues; c) even countries and sectors that stand to benefit from climate change are poorly positioned to do so; and d) the next decade offers a window of opportunity for ECA countries to make their development more resilient to climate change while reaping numerous co-benefits.
New York Times science columnist John Tierney noted in 2009: In 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay [titled] “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote: The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.
The American Institute of Physics – the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article – notes: For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with “clean” thermonuclear explosions. *** The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.
The Register reported last year: What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.