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.

 

Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Both sides DO cherry pick, you have to use your own brain to sift through both sets of data and try to arrive at a median point where you can then base future assumptions. I don't mean to claim either side is 100% correct, there are other agendas at play with both sides as well.

I've been through the I have this data, you have that data fight too many times, sorry not going to do it again.

I do have problems when models don't seem to work, to me that tells me something is flawed in the process. When I find that not all the data is taken into consideration and that methods of collecting said data leaves room for error, I have problems with that. When sides cherry pick arbitrary time scales to suit their agendas, I have problems with that as well.

Both sides IMO are trying their best to ram down the throats of all of us, what they are pushing. I contend the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Yes the world is heating up, that is to be expected on the geological scale of time. The variances we see are not so great as to be never seen before, such things have happened before and the Earth has been far warmer in the past. There are cycles within cycles within cycles within even more cycles when it comes to the way weather happens on our Planet. Most of this discussion seems to not take into consideration all of those cycles, which is why probably climate models still fail to accurately work.

Again, Humanity will survive even the direst of the IPCC predictions, do you or do you not agree with this statement?




posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

FarmerGeneral
reply to post by poet1b
 




That is really funny and not in a comical sense. The Ice cap at the North Pole has increased by 60% since 2011. Gotta have those carbon taxes to starve the world.

Check this link out.

Ice Cap Increases by 60%

I'm all for cleaning up our act as far as pollution goes, but this Green Movement is pure BS. Guess what? Everything on the earth is composed of Carbon atoms. I guess from this viewpoint all life and the earth it's self should be destroyed, after all carbon is bad.

This in my opinion is complete drivel. Global warming? Global Cooling? Life is about change, nothing remains static, but in an atheistic world devoid of spirit everything should be controlled, because according to this viewpoint, we are gods and can do what we please. One day the lies will be revealed and all these pushers of misinformation will be brought to account whether alive or dead.



The UK daily mail as a credible source? Come on.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

protruckr
Interesting Subject Global Warming Green House Effect.
Not only was this Best summer Recorded in Western Canada but the Humidity is Alot more noticeable then ever before,People in Area around Sin City have about 3% 5% Dry Air always this is the First ever Report I have personaly received from people I know who are telling me the Humidity they are for first time ever feels more like Tropical Rain Forest humidity. I am starting to Be leave Global Warming is Truly worse then they let on one only has to Look at North Pole !


I'm in Southern California a desert. The weather hasn't been all that hot this year; however, the humidity is has been over 60% for about a month now (it's been increasing every year since I've lived here 30 years). Used to be a dry heat - now it's a muggy heat - a huge difference. And the number of high temp days are increasing as well.

And we have the benefit (
of lots and lots of chemtrails to cool/dim us down.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

protruckr
Interesting Subject Global Warming Green House Effect.
Not only was this Best summer Recorded in Western Canada but the Humidity is Alot more noticeable then ever before,People in Area around Sin City have about 3% 5% Dry Air always this is the First ever Report I have personaly received from people I know who are telling me the Humidity they are for first time ever feels more like Tropical Rain Forest humidity. I am starting to Be leave Global Warming is Truly worse then they let on one only has to Look at North Pole !


I'm in Southern California a desert. The weather hasn't been all that hot this year; however, the humidity is has been over 60% for about a month now (it's been increasing every year since I've lived here 30 years). Used to be a dry heat - now it's a muggy heat - a huge difference. And the number of high temp days are increasing as well.

And we have the benefit (
of lots and lots of chemtrails to cool/dim us down.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Didn't NASA studies show that CO2 actually serves as a planetary coolant by reflecting a large amount of solar heat/radiation?
science.nasa.gov...

I could be wrong, but I thought the large majority of heat the earth receives comes from the sun.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


OK, I obtained the GISS data from NASA (here), inserted it into Excel and added previous 5 year means and previous 10 years means to their surrounding 5 year means (I added my two means are just to provide a different view, they are not 'better', just different).

I then graphed the result.



It is clear from the graph that both version of the 5 year means do indeed show a flattening out over the last few years. This has been explained by the ongoing massive La Nina event and reduced Solar output. However, 5 year means do not show long term trends, and you are not claiming a 5 year date range for no change.

The 10 year mean does not show any such 'flattening'. Nor does the built-in Excel trend line, even when limiting it to your 17 year date line.




edit on 20/9/2013 by rnaa because: forgot the link to NASA



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



source

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). 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 (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming.


What part of - not significantly different from zero - is so difficult to understand?

Please provide the exact values for global mean surface temperature rise for the last 12 and 15 years, using the following surface station data sets:

-NCDC
-GIStemp
-HadCRUT

Plus the last 17 years for:

-RSS satellite data



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Surface temperatures mean nothing, and even then your claims are wrong, and you continue to make false claims, as if no one notices.

The pictures clearly tell the tale.







All the data show acceleration over the last 2 decades, and there is no reason to believe the rate of acceleration will slow down. If the current rate of acceleration does not change, we will probably see an increase of over a meter in ocean rise over the next forty to fifty years.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Surface temperatures mean nothing ...


That's good news. You should tell the IPCC, they still think it's something to worry about.

The OP is about Greenland's and Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise. Your calculation is based on numbers someone else has made up. Why don't you just admit it, find the correct numbers and do the math again.

What false claims and what has Arctic sea ice got to do with rising sea levels?
edit on 20-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: it means nothing



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 




Please provide the exact values for global mean surface temperature rise for the last 12 and 15 years,


Ahh, the 1998 outlier year now becomes your far point threshold. I'm not going to do it for all those datasets, but you can read the answer for the GISS dataset directly from the graph I posted above.

Today (2012)

  • Previous 5 Year Mean: 0.42
  • Previous 10 Year Mean: 0.325
  • Surrounding 5 Year Mean: 0.44


15 years ago (1998)

  • Previous 5 Year Mean: 0.57
  • Previous 10 Year Mean: 0.59
  • Surrounding 5 Year Mean: 0.58 (2010)


15 year difference:

  • Previous 5 Year Mean: 0.15
  • Previous 10 Year Mean: 0.26
  • Surrounding 5 Year Mean: 0.14 (2010)


I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to do the 12 year calc.

The fact that 1998 is an outlier caused by a once in a century El Nino, tricks you into thinking that warming has stopped because todays anomalies are still to a cursory glance, still in the same 'ballpark'. But they aren't. 1998 was a spike, today it is year after year after year. And the surface temperatures are being suppressed by a massive La Nina (and lowered solar output), just as 1998 was spiked by a massive El Nino.

The La Nina is causing the energy buildup to be retained in the deep ocean, when that neutralizes you will see that the surface temperature rise 'slow down' was just a mirage.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




0

Estimates of the observed global warming for the recent 15-year period 1998-2012 vary between
0.0037°C/year (NCDC) , 0.0041°C/year (HadCRUT4) and 0.008 C/year (GISS).


-NCDC 0.05 / 15 years +/- 0.08 sigma

-HadCRUT 0.067 / 15 years "

-GISS 0.096 / 12 years "

-RSS 0.013 / 17 years "


Not significantly different from zero.

If you plot temperature data for periods shorter than 30 years use a 12 months moving average (running mean) as NASA advices you to do, to avoid the mistake you made. (13 months will work too)


NASA

We suggest use of 12-month (and n×12) running mean temperature to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs.


No massive La Nina. The PDO does not drive ENSO and does not store heat in the deep ocean. Not the hottest temperature for several thousand years (not even close).







How does the 2010-12 La Niña event compare against the six previous biggest La Niña events since 1949? This figure includes only strong events (with at least three bimonthly rankings in the top six), after replacing the slightly weaker 2007-09 event with 2010-12 (rankings are listed here). La Niña events have lasted up to and over three years since 1949, in fact, they do tend to last longer on average than El Niño events. The longest two events included here lasted through most of 1954-56 and 1973-75. The longest event NOT included here occurred in 1999-2001 which reached the 'strong' threshold (top six rankings) just once.






How does the 2009-10 El Niño event compare against the seven previous biggest El Niño events since 1950? This figure includes only strong events (with at least three bimonthly rankings in the top six), with the exception of the 2009-10 event that reached the top six ranking twice. Compared to the previous version of this figure, 1997-98 now reaches very similar peak values to the 1982-83 event, just above the +3.0 sigma threshold.


ENSO


Are you new to this?



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




You're right.



The pictures clearly tell the tale,


especially the ones you forgot to post









The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic

The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C.





posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Well. you managed to follow the bread crumb trail, rubbed few brains together, and stumbled into the only real debate on global warming, but with the apples and oranges comparison, it seems you still don't understand what is being said.

Over the last hundred years, from 1915 until the present, there has been a dramatic rise in global temperatures, with a pause in global warming from 1945 until 1975. Many scientists claim that this pause in global warming are an indication of a pattern in global warming, that will repeat, so that anytime now, there will be another pause in global warming, that over the next few decades global warming will again stabilize, and that the current acceleration in global warming will not continue. It is almost wishful thinking, because there is only a moderate chance that this pause in global warming will occur. I addressed this issue a few pages back in the thread.

The problems is that a single event, the pause from 1945 to 1975, does not a pattern make. There is also a moderate chance that this pause will not materialize, and that global warming will continue at the current acceleration.

If the pause does not happen, and global warming continues at the current rate, then there remains the very real possibility that we will see ocean levels rise by 1.5 meters, see the math in the Op, in the next 4 decades.

This chart is from a very excellent article on global warming.

www.aip.org...


Tracking the world's average temperature from the late 19th century, people in the 1930s realized there had been a pronounced warming trend. During the 1960s, weather experts found that over the past couple of decades the trend had shifted to cooling. With a new awareness that climate could change in serious ways, in the early 1970s some scientists predicted a continued gradual cooling, perhaps a phase of a long natural cycle or perhaps caused by human pollution of the atmosphere with smog and dust. Others insisted that the effects of such pollution were temporary, and humanity's emission of greenhouse gases would bring warming over the long run. All of them agreed that their knowledge was primitive and any prediction was guesswork. But understanding of the climate system was advancing swiftly. The view that warming must dominate won out in the late 1970s as it became clear that the cooling spell (mainly a Northern Hemisphere effect) had indeed been a temporary distraction. When the rise continued into the 21st century, penetrating even into the ocean depths, scientists recognized that it signaled a profound change in the climate system. Nothing like it had been seen for centuries, and probably not for millennia. The specific pattern of changes, revealed in objects ranging from ship logs to ice caps to tree rings, closely matched the predicted effects of greenhouse gas emissions.





posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Here is another article on the issue that agrees with the claims made in the Op link and my evaluation.

www.usatoday.com...


The study finds that future temperature rises due to global warming will probably be on the high end of projections, as much as a potentially catastrophic 8 degrees warmer than now by the end of the century.

Most predictions of upcoming temperature rises are roughly 3.6 degrees to 8.1 degrees.


Future predictions will probably be on the high end.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I just wanted to add this source for information (actualy scienifc information):

nsidc.org...

National Snow and Ice Data Center

Yes it is governmentally funded - but scientists (real believers) working for the government do it for the art not the money. I believe them over PR funded pseudo scientists any day. And yes, I did spin the wording in favor of scientific realism.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I forgot that it makes little sense to argue with ideologists. If you still believe you're dead on the money with your 'projections', then i have some beach property to sell, it will be 2.124 meters closer to the shoreline by 2051 but the price has just gone up 216 times.




Nothing like it had been seen for centuries, and probably not for millennia.



PAGES2k


edit on 21-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: Ideology - a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

edit on 21-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: Indoctrination - inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Nothing idealistic about global warming, just the opposite.

It is humorous to debate with someone who embraces ignorance.


Here is an accurate graph of the last two thousand years.

www.motherjones.com...




posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 




If you plot temperature data for periods shorter than 30 years use a 12 months moving average (running mean) as NASA advices you to do, to avoid the mistake you made. (13 months will work too)


The numbers I used already take that into consideration. They came from NASA. Thank you for playing though.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 





No massive La Nina.


Australian Bureau of Meteorology: Record-breaking La Niña events



Some facts about the 2010–11 and 2011–12 La Niña events

The 2010–11 La Niña event was one of the strongest on record, comparable in strength with the La Niña events of 1917–18, 1955–56 and 1975–76.

In October and December 2010, and February and March 2011, the Southern Oscillation Index values (a measure of a La Niña's strength) were the highest recorded for each month since records commenced in 1876.




The PDO does not drive ENSO


I misspoke. Mea Culpa. They influence each other and produce similar effects, but at different latitudes.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation



and does not store heat in the deep ocean.


Oh no?

Despite ENSO on the Cool Side of Neutral, July 2013 was 6th Hottest on Record Globally


The near-record global heat occurred despite ENSO conditions in the Pacific Ocean remaining on the cool side of neutral with near-average sea surface temperatures across the central and east-central equatorial Pacific and below-average sea surface temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific. The cool water upwelling that continues over the eastern equatorial Pacific tends to depress global atmospheric temperatures by transferring heat content from the atmosphere to the sub-surface ocean. Such trends tend to dominate during negative phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). These negative PDO periods are punctuated by numerous La Nina or cooler surface water conditions in the eastern equatorial Pacific. The Earth climate system has been in a negative PDO phase since the early 2000s, a phase which continues to this day. Despite the relative atmospheric cooling effects of this natural ocean circulation and temperature change, the decade of the 2000s was the hottest on record. Natural variability, which in this case would push for atmospheric cooling, had been overwhelmed by human-caused warming.




Not the hottest temperature for several thousand years (not even close).


Major PAGES 2k Network Paper Confirms the Hockey Stick



Their two main results are a confirmation that current global surface temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years (the general 'hockey stick' shape, as shown in Figure 1), and that while the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) are clearly visible events in their reconstruction, they were not globally synchronized events.
...
"Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."
...
Overall, the team concluded that current temperatures are probably warmer than any other 30-year period in the last 1,400 years. Europe appears to have been hotter during the 'Roman Warm Period', but the Arctic is hotter now.

"of the 52 individual records that extend to AD 500, more sites (and a higher proportion) seem warmest during the twentieth century than during any other century. The fraction of individual records that indicates the highest temperatures during 1971–2000 decreases with increasing record length, consistent with an overall cooling trend over the past two millennia"
...
They find that over the past 2,000 years, until 100 years ago, the planet underwent a long-term cooling trend. There was a 'Medieval Warm Period', but different regions warmed at different times, and overall global surface temperatures were warmer at the end of the 20th century than during the MWP peak. The 2,000-year cooling trend has been erased by the warming over the past century. And of course more warming is yet to come from continuing human greenhouse gas emissions.


But hey, temperatures for 1000 years ago are determined from proxies, and that is not direct observation. Dozens of proxies agree, but never the less, absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed. But if today's GLOBAL temperatures are not higher than the European REGIONAL temperatures during the MWP, they are at least close so we should be able to think about the effects on the European economy then and now.

What was the cause 1000 years ago?
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?


the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.


What reversed the MWP?
An end to the causes.

What will reverse the current warm period?
And end to its causes. Since the causes are, unlike the MWP, man made, ending the causes requires human intervention.

What is the difference in the result on the economy?
How many billions of people inhabited the low lying coastal zones during the MWP? Mow much if the vital economic assets were affected sea rise?



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Australian Bureau of Meteorology: Record-breaking La Niña events




Australia yes. Globally no.


The 2010–11 and 2011–12 La Niña events were two of the most significant in Australia’s recorded meteorological history.


For comparison







ENSO

Do you really know what you're doing?

Generally, no links to blogs or articles for climate data. Use source data or peer-reviewed studies.
And stay away form SkepticalScience.

As one of the resident ATS experts for climate info advises us ...



I suggest always reading a paper cited in an article or blog for yourself, don't trust anyone else to interpret it for you... it's rare that they get it right.


We can discuss what the PDO is and what it isn't, how it affects SST, SLP or deep ocean upwelling, its relation to ENSO etc., if you stop linking outdated articles or propaganda sites disguised as science blogs as a source.

I think you would agree that my request is reasonable.

For starters,

PDO 1

PDO 2

PDO Index

______________________________________________________________________

PAGES2k




top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join