http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/f101.asp
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Game Over For The Climate
- Another Ice Age?
- Historic Heatwave
- Historic Heatwave
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
- She Hates Her State
Recent Comments
- Allan Shelton on Another Ice Age?
- Jimmy Haigh on Historic Heatwave
- Richard E Fritz on Game Over For The Climate
- Gamecock on Game Over For The Climate
- Gordon Vigurs on Another Ice Age?
- Gordon Vigurs on Game Over For The Climate
- Bob G on Game Over For The Climate
- Gordon Vigurs on Game Over For The Climate
- Bob G on Game Over For The Climate
- Gordon Vigurs on Game Over For The Climate
The global warming alarmists may be on the right track. I did a little experiment to see if producing more CO2 in my house would warm it up. I exercised for about about an hour to produce more CO2 by exhaling more (as a result of the exercise).
Sure enough, it was warmer after exercising (so much so that I was actually perspiring). That proves that increasing the CO2 levels in the house does make it warmer. What was weird was that our thermometer showed no temperature change in the house. No problem, I just adjusted my temperature record to compensate for those thermometer problems (just like the climate scientists do).
The future will be safe, here is a graphic on “how solar power works”, solar will save us all.
OOps here is the link
http://mitchieville.com/2011/03/06/how-does-solar-power-work/
I like the Photo Of The Day MUCH better! 🙂 yikes!
Is there a reason why you are only showing the last decade? why not show the trends over the entire period of the observational record? Did you compute the statistical significance of your decade trend? Why not compute the anomalies relative to the long-term mean instead if you only want to focus on a decade of the record?
Hmm, why not indeed. I think it would be very interesting to do just that. And to do that with aligned with atmospheric CO2 in relationship with increases and decreased of our temps. We should do that with various decadal trends…….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:1991/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:1991/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1991/to:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/none
Here’s the last 30 years with trend lines…… more to follow…
And UAH satellites showed miniscule warming at all from 1979 to 1997, while before satellites the Hadley temps showed no warming from 1940-1979. The only warming that is definitive is a spike after the 1998 super El Nino and nothing much has happened since.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/to:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1979/trend/plot/wti/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2010/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2010/trend
Here’s the last 30 years of CO2 levels with decadal linear trends..be sure to open this in a different tab!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1981/to:1991/plot/esrl-co2/from:1981/to:1991/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1991/to:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1981/to:1991
Is the overall long term temp trend increasing? Sure, that’s what one expects coming out of a LIA. Is CO2 driving the temp changes? Looking at the last 30 years, it doesn’t seem to be.
James, thanks for the link to this site…I wasn’t aware of it…
btw…I would never expect a 1 to 1 correlation between CO2 and temperature, there is natural variability to consider as well 😉
Thanks, and YW!
A word of caution when using this site, our satellite data sources, UAH and RSS have recently changed data sets and the fellow that runs the site hasn’t caught up, yet, so, the last bit of data from UAH is from Novemeber and Dec. for RSS. I hope he fixes it soon, its a nice and easy way to do simple comparisons without having to run down all sorts of data sources.
I agree, “natural variability” should be consider in most things regarding climate…….and a 1:1 wouldn’t be expected. (even though some of our more excitable friends often infer this to be the case) Still, I wouldn’t expect the trends to be such as we’ve seen if we were to consider CO2 to be a primary driver of the temps.
Honestly, I don’t know where you come down on the issue as to whether CO2 is a small player or primary driver of our climate, or whether you’re withholding judgment. But, it seems obvious to me there are, at the very least, a larger component or two in regards to what is driving our climate. But, it may depend on the perspective……
Julienne Stroeve says:
March 7, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I would never expect a 1 to 1 correlation between CO2 and temperature, there is natural variability to consider as well
CO2 controls climate? I was unaware studies have shown that. Do you have links to these?
Julienne Stroeve
Why don’t you talk about data going back to the Medieval Warm Period? Is there a reason? Why don’t you bring up the Roman Warm Period? Do you know about it? Did you compute the temperature rises in those times compared to the instrumental record? Why do you want to focus only on recent events? And why is the last 30 years so important in everything the NSIDC says when talking about global warming?
Steven Goddard only pointing out the last 10 years is little different than talking about the last 50 years. Can you prove that what has happened in the last 50 years is unprecedented in man’s history on earth? Would you even try to?
Also, is there statistically significant cooling on earth since the Medieval Warm Period? Would the last 50 years be significant when compared to the last 1500 years? Or the last 6000 years?
These are important questions, aren’t they? Or am I way off base and being a ‘denier’?
Amino Acids, first off I think you know that I am not producing the temperature records, nor the proxy records, so I leave it to the experts who are doing that to reconstruct temperatures as far back as we can. I work with satellite data and I report on the observations of that data in my publications. I wish we had sea ice reconstructions that would go back further than about 1953 (which I have reported on in my publications). But we don’t sufficient observations to allow us to do that. I like the work that some of my colleagues are doing where they are trying to link the Inuit records of travel routes, timing of the hunt, etc. with sea ice conditions because that will be helpful in understanding what the ice was like long before we were monitoring it with modern sensors.
Second, Steve’s graph does not show that the last 10 years is little different than talking about the last 50 years. Why is it so hard to believe that we are on a warming trend with interannual variability superimposed on this trend? The data show that pretty clearly. What is causing that trend is I believe what the argument is really about. Of course there are large fluctuations in the Earth’s climate history caused by natural variability, but that does not mean that human activity is not also contributing. Even the most skeptical of folks believe that GHGs lead to warming, they are just not sure how much of the warming is a result of GHGs versus natural variability.
BTW..NSIDC talks about changes in the ice cover. If you look at the data that NSIDC distributes, it is related to the cryosphere. We are not in the business of producing or distributing the temperature records (except borehole temperatures made in permafrost regions).
I wish there was consistency between what I’m told the NSIDC does and what I see it doing. Or should I conclude Mark Surreze, the head of the NSIDC, is a rogue element in the NSIDC when he talks about global warming?
first off I think you know that I am not producing the temperature records, nor the proxy records
Ok, but then why are you talking about recent temperatures? Also, I don’t produce proxy temperature records either. But I have seen some and they show it’s been warmer on earth 3 times in the past 6000 years than now. I don’t want to be found only talking about the instrumental record as proof of global warming, or of something, anything, unprecedented when I can see similar things happening in the past.
I have no reason to believe what is happening now is unprecedented and unnatural when I can see it has happened before and still is not proven to be unnatural.
One last thing, the amount of negative feedback from co2 still has not been quantified. But negative feedback has been detected. It still is possible that the net effect of increasing co2 is cooling. No one anywhere can confidently say manmade co2 is causing warming. Nothing is definitive yet. There may be a net warming, net cooling, or no net effect on temperature from manmade co2. We don’t know with confidence yet what is going on.
Come on Julienne!
It is sufficient to show that there is no accelerating warming trend ongoing.
You can easily use the link Steve posted to add another decade.It still does not show any acceleration of warming trend,as claimed.
No, actually it is not. The article in reference is that the past decade has been the warmest on record. What Steve is showing does not counter that, so if the point is to show that the last decade was not the hottest during the observational record, then he should show the data that supports that assertion.
Furthermore, unless a trend line is statistically significant it should not be shown.
Betsy Weatherhead has written some excellent papers on how to determine if trends are significant in climate data, and to compute how many years you would need for that trend to become significant.
Here’s one of her papers: Weatherhead, E. C., A. J. Stevermer, and B. E. Schwartz, 2002: Detecting environmental changes and trends. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27:399-403.
Julienne,
The article says “experts think the trend is accelerating” and “average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.”
Using trends from this century, neither statement seems believable.
Julienne Stroeve says:
March 7, 2011 at 6:14 pm
the last decade was not the hottest during the observational record
It isn’t significant when compared to past warming periods. There have been three warming periods in the last 6000 years that have been warmer than the current “hottest decade on record” which some (I am not saying you) are calling “the hottest decade ever”.
Richard Lindzen brings reason into the situation…… if you want it. ;o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym_5wmJdwvM
I appreciate your time to answer my comment.
But you failed to realize that the answer was completely unsupported and absurd.
“Q:
Is the earth really getting hotter?
A:
Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.”
“The fastest rate in recorded history”
Suuuure.
The hottest decade on record claim is so misleading,that only AGW believers fall for it.Steve clearly showed that over all it was a COOLING trend for the decade.
Meanwhile there is good evidence of warmer periods in this interglacial.The Holocene Optimism,The Minoan,The Roman and the Medieval warm periods.They were ALL warmer than the “Modern Warming” we so enjoy today.
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3123.html#pid3123
How can you overlook the obvious?
On a totally unrelated note, from Anthony’s blog,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=271753
All should read.
Also the claim that the last 50 yrs had the highest rate on record is misleading. The 1900 to 1950 had a suspiciously similar rate when CO2 is not supposed to have been a factor. Furthermore, at the present concentration of CO2 we’re approaching the ‘long flat part’ of the logarithmic curve for the expected insulating effect of added CO2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/to:2010/trend
As steve has been so good to point out, we’re well below hansen’s predictions from the 80’s for scenarios in which CO2 emissions were considered more or less halted. That’s even though our emissions are rocketing past his ‘tipping point’ and we’ve had 13 years of cooling despite the recent El Nino.
Steve, ok if that’s the point you are trying to make, then you could similarly argue that over the last decade the summer sea ice has declined and then extrapolate out into the future as to when the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free? I don’t think so, and I don’t think you do either 😉
To see if trends are accelerating it would be good to look at the trends for different time-periods. For example if you look at the Arctic sea ice extent in September, say from 1979 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010 you find the slopes are -0.032 + 0.017 million km2 yr-1 and -0.154 ± 0.038 million km2 yr-1, respectively, and are statistically different from each other at a 95% confidence level.
I’m sure you could do a similar thing from the temperature record you are looking at.
Julienne,
I’m not trying to make an argument that we are on a cooling trend. My point is that there is no evidence to support the NRDC claim that global warming is accelerating.
ok, I can agree with that if that’s your point. While I know the sea ice is accelerating in its decline this past decade compared to the two earlier ones, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will continue without interruptions. I’m sure there can be some natural variability events that will slow the ice loss or reverse it for a time-being. But I do believe that if the earth continues to warm, that eventually most of the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in summer (i.e. less than 1 million sq-km).
Regardless of what’s going on over the last 50 years in temperature we’re talking about 1/100ths and/or 1/10ths of a degree.
I like this short video where Richard Lindzen points out how a mountain of uncontrollable disaster is being made out of an ant hill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsMV5-NRp2Y
Amino, please point me to the temperature data that supports your assertion that global temperatures were warmer during three warming periods in the last 6000 years than the current “hottest decade on record”. And tell me which proxy data you are using for this and why you believe this proxy data is accurate.
You must be kidding.
No, I’m not. Please show me your data and why you believe this proxy is the most accurate.
I don’t want to take the time to list all of them Julienne. I have not kept them in a folder or bookmarked. You must have seen these studies also.
I will just link this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/
&
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
BTW, it was not just because I saw data from one ice core from Greenland.
some more:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php
&
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/littlemwp.php
Julienne
I posted some links. But since there is more than one link in them they are still waiting to be moderated. They are not visible to the public yet. I see it still says
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Yeh, I hate it when I forget and post more than one. Sometimes one can split them into two posts, but other times it dilutes the message.
Medieval Warm Period in left column
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php
Roman Warm Period in right column
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/subject_r.php
Holocene Warming in right column
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/subject_h.php
I could take the time to post more. But there’s no point. This is enough evidence to show these periods of warming existed.
It’s funny that things like the Medieval Warm Period had not been called into question so much as they are now until the Mann Hockey Stick was accepted by some as valid work for determining temperature over the last 2000 years.
Why isn’t the Hockey Stick graph also being inspected under a microscope, facing as much criticism, as these other works?
Julienne Stroeve
You are aware that because of the work done by Anthony Watts surface station project that proof for UHI has caused there to be no statistically significant warming since the middle 1800’s? That calls into question the reliability of the instrumental record which you rely on for the hottest decade on record.
Amino writes: Ok, but then why are you talking about recent temperatures?
The only reason I commented on it was because this posting was trying to suggest we are in a cooling phase based on a decade of temperature observations. I
believe that is misleading. It took a little bit of discussion to get to what Steve’s point really is, and that he stated above: My point is that there is no evidence to support the NRDC claim that global warming is accelerating.
It would have been helpful to show the actual time-period the NRDC report was referring to and not just the last decade, as well as engage in a discussion of interannual variability in the overall warming trend (which you now stated above you don’t believe is happening – so I guess the point is moot now anyway).
Julienne,
I made a new post with the 100 year HadCRUT graph. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/is-global-warming-accelerating-as-nrdc-claims/
“My point is that there is no evidence to support the NRDC claim that global warming is accelerating.”
True enough if you deny the obvious impact of warmcold.
But are NRDC claims “that global warming is accelerating” accelerating?
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
– Joseph Goebbels
So yes, its accelerating, its accelerating, its accelerating, its accelerating, its accelerating, its accelerating, its accelerating, its accelerating, its accelerating,
its accelerating, its accelerating… now do you believe it?
Julienne Stroeve says:
March 7, 2011 at 7:59 pm
(which you now stated above you don’t believe is happening – so I guess the point is moot now anyway)
Warming has happened. But one of the issues that comes up in global warming is time frames. We could pick several time frames and find warming. And we could pick several time frames and find cooling.
So which time frame are you talking about when you say I don’t think warming is happening?
you said that there was no warming since the middle 1800s in your earlier post, so that’s what I was referring to.
Now, be fair, there were some caveats in his statements. I’m assuming you are referring to this statement,
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/nrdc-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-42188
Given the revelations of the field study, it is difficult to argue the validity of such readings. But worse, it is the validity of individual temp adjustments which comprise the entirety. We know what? My answer would be, given the knowledge gained, less than anything of value. And more, less than anything to make judgments upon.
In my estimation, attempting to fix man’s or nature’s destination is always met with results varying from the objective.
Julienne Stroeve says:
March 8, 2011 at 4:51 am
you said that there was no warming since the middle 1800s
Actually I didn’t. Are you sure you want to say that?
I was referring to this peer reviewed work:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/
The graph at link shows warming since 1880:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/frank2010_giss_uncertainty.png
but you can see it’s all within the margin of error. Nothing statistically significant had happened.
I was referring to this peer reviewed work:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/
The graph at link shows warming since 1880:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/frank2010_giss_uncertainty.png
but you can see it’s all within the margin of error. Nothing statistically significant had happened.
suyts says:
March 8, 2011 at 5:19 am
Now, be fair,
Thanks James.
You can see from this graph of 18 non-tree ring proxies (Loehle)
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9035/16448248045459434372740.jpg
there appears to be statistically significant cooling since the Medieval Warm Period.
everyone interested should read The Little Ice Age and The Great Warming by Fagan, available for a few pennies on Amz.
Even though Fagan writes like he believes in AGW, what you see a super detailed historical look at climate change. All well before CO2 could have been a factor. What caused the glaciers to grow “a musket shot” a DAY!!! If something caused them to grow 200 yrs ago at such a rate, couldn’t an opposite effect cause them to recede? This whole thing is completely INSANE!!!
Fagan is smart. He knows for his work to be accepted and recognized he has to go along with the consensus, otherwise he would be completely ignored and worse. He has an indepth knowledge of Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation and its’ effect upon past climate, yet he blames current “weather” on an increase of CO2 from 3.5 to 3.9 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere, less than 1/2 a molecule per 10,000. He goes along with the crowd to protect his career. But anyway, his historical review of climate is revealing of constant dramatic climate change throughout history. And with some stories of man even years ago blaming such changes on the super natural.
As far as climate change. We haven’t seen nothing. The El Nino books are good too!
It does tend to get warmer as ice ages end.
“ABSTRACT
A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them.”
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstract
Of course it is hard to argue with the truth that Climate Change causes “more sex”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxicwiBQ7Q
Please stop emailing articles and comments. Go ahead and send me an insulting final statement and get it out if you want. please take me off your list.
The entire Holocene in a chart.Based on Greenland Ice cores:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/copenhagencop15-nonsense-they-believe-they-can-control-the-climate-but-earths-climate-wont-listen-to.html
Notice that over 95% of the time it was warmer than it is today.
Expanding on my reply to Julienne at post,March 8, 2011 at 1:34 am:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html
dear sunsettommy…of course it all depends on what records you look at, you show a plot of Greenland ice core, the Dome C ice core tells a different story. I wouldn’t expect either to be representative of the entire planet, but even the GISP2 ice core shows the MWP cooler than today. I don’t know of a definitive proxy record that is representative of the entire Earth, but I know folks are working on combining the information they get from ice cores from different regions around the globe, and records from corals, lake and ocean sediments, tree rings, etc. to get a better global picture. This area of research seems to be in constant flux as more knowledge is gained as to how well these proxies represent temperatures. To me it seems like a great challenge to pull all those records together, but so very important so that we can better understand the current climate changes we’re experiencing.
left column
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php
???
I SHOWED you the chart and the link to the actual data.It clearly shows a much warmer MWP and several other warm periods as being even warmer,than it is today.
Why even 1934 is slightly warmer than now.A time long before the significant increase in CO2 levels.Then it cooled for a few decades soon afterwards.
I never claimed that the ice cores represents the planets temperature levels.But it does show the existence of specific warmer periods,that is also seen in many areas of the world in similar time periods.
So far I am the one who presents actual data.Showing the existence of a warmer MWP than now.In many nations,plants grew much further north than now.History itself shows it was clearly warmer during the MWP than now.Heck ,people used to live in areas of Greenland,that is today inhabitable.
Julienne has a point. Greenland is just one part of the world. It’s right for what it is. But you need proxies from around the globe to make statements about the globe. The more data the better. And if you go to the links I posted you’ll see proxy data from around the globe. They show there was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than now.
Julliene S said: “of course it all depends on what records you look at”.
You got that right.