Over the past decade scientists thought they had figured out how to protect humanity from the worst dangers of climate change.
Now it appears that the assessment was too optimistic. The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected.
Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected?: Scientific American
Cooling temperatures over the past decade, are rock solid proof that the planet is warming faster than was expected ten years ago.
The present cooling is happening at a much faster rate than any climate scientist had predicted. Also alarmist predictions, such as rising sea levels, worse hurricanes, doomed ski industries and lack of snow for UK children have all failed miserably. The whole scam has now degererated into nut cases like McKibben using his miroscope to locate somewhere in the world where the weather is not precisely “normal”.
I think that warming oceans, 336 straight months of warmer than normal temperatures (compared to the 20th century average) and a disappearing ice cap was included in their calculations.
Any ocean warming is, scratch that, was occuring at 1/3rd the rate predicted by the models, but has been flat for some time. Currently global sea ice is about 400,000 sq K above normal. The C in CAGW has always been missing, now the W is missing as well. All that is left is AG anything some hysterica AG anything fool wants to scream about.
The rise in land and atmosphere temperatures since about 1996 reflects a combination of greenhouse radiative forcing from 360 to 395ppm CO2 at rates of up to 2.54ppm/year (unprecedented since 55 million years ago), the ENSO cycle and 11-years sunspot cycle. Peak temperatures at around 2006 exceed any measured in the instrumental record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Data from the National Oceanographic Data Center, comparing ocean heat in the 0–700 meter layer and the 0-2,000 meter layers:show that there is no sign that the warming of the 0-2,000 meter oceans has slowed. In fact, they have accumulated more heat in the past 15 years than during the previous 15 years. Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Sea ice is a poor measure of overall ice (any area with 15% or more ice is measured). Ice volume (the measure of total ice) is a different story and, in that regard, both poles and 90% of the world’s glacier’s are shrinking.
And regarding “C” and “W” – another record or near record Arctic ice melt will put those letters back into everyone’s vocabulary.
Hi Laz,
How come Hadcrut temperatures are falling? They should be rising along with CO2 increase, if the CAGW hypothesis is valid, but they are falling for the last decade (or more). And Leeds University Climate head agrees they are falling.
Hmmm, perhaps you are not so familiar with Hansen’s scenario’s “A”, “B” and “C” ? If were are warming faster than expected, why are temperatures trending below Hansen’s scenario “C” ? Are you telling us that we really didn’t even expect to reach scenario “C” (or A, or B) ?
Give me a break. You are FOS.
Polar sea ice area is above normal. It is your brain that is disappearing.
Andy,
Who told you that climate change was linear or even that all the warming takes place on the hard ground?
If you look at the last 50 years of surface temperature, the trend looks more like a staircase — many periods of flat temperature but you still keep going up. And there are other measures of a warming planet such as the ratio of record highs to record lows (high to lows have increased steadily from parity in the 60s to 2.5 to 1 today). Also there is an even clearer trend in the warming of overnight minimum temperatures (in both city and rural settings) over the past 50 years. I have already referenced ocean heat content and there has been a dramatic loss in the quantity of ice over the last few decades. All these things are compelling on their own, but the thing that really convinces me is the fact that on of the main components of greenhouse gas, CO2, has increased by 40% and basic physics will tell you that it will have a warming effect.
That is called the Urban Heat island effect.
Steve,
As I just finished saying, sea ice is a relatively poor method of measuring the health of the total ice. You only need 15% ice in an area to be measured as sea ice. What if I took a 3 lb block of ice, broke it up and scattered it on a local pond and then say that the whole pond is covered in sea ice? That is an accurate statement, but does it tell the whole story?
So I take it from your comment, Laz, that falling Hadcrut temperatures is either a signifier of CO2 effecting the climate or are inconsequential?
Steve,
Apparently you missed this part of my post in your comment on UHI: “(in both city AND rural settings)”.
There is really no point in talking to obsessive compulsive neurotics.
I have a feeling “Lazarus” has no idea what UHI is.
Squid,
Hansen may be a brilliant scientist, but he is only one scientist and refuting his prediction based upon a short time frame isn’t going to make the work of hundreds of scientists disappear or become irrelevant. It won’t stop the inexorable loss of glacier or Arctic ice loss either.
It all comes down to physics — add head trapping gas to the atmosphere and you will add heat — what other possible result could there be?
“There is really no point in talking to obsessive compulsive neurotics”
Says the man who posts 10 blogs a day on the evils of Obama and the world’s climate science community.
You are an unusual guy Steve.
ROFL, I have an incredibly full, busy and happy life. Picking off left wing stupidity is just another form of entertainment for me.
“ROFL, I have an incredibly full, busy and happy life. Picking off left wing stupidity is just another form of entertainment for me.”
Of course Steve. Railing against climate scientists and Obama 3 or 4 thousand times a year is, in no way, compulsive or obsessive.
If you attempt to make this discussion about me, I will spam you in an instant.
Lazarus, the cyberstalking chaterbot says:
“Of course Steve. Railing against climate scientists and Obama 3 or 4 thousand times a year is, in no way, compulsive or obsessive.”
This from a guy who started reallysciency blog because he is obsessed with this one.
I have no connection to reallyscience — whatever that is. If he uses my moniker, then that is purely coincidental.
“Lazarus, the cyberstalking chaterbot says:
“Of course Steve. Railing against climate scientists and Obama 3 or 4 thousand times a year is, in no way, compulsive or obsessive.”
This from a guy who started reallysciency blog because he is obsessed with this one.”
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Gator69,
I do not write a blog and never have. You just parroted a falsehood even after being set straight.
Must be a different Lazarus
Steve,
Just as I said.
Odd that the “other guy” is equally obsessed with Steven, uses the same name and even the same avatar.
I’m still laughing at you. You remain a joke.
Gator69,
You are like a doll with a pull string — pull it down and out comes a mindless comment or a goofy laugh.
So laugh all you like.
Oh, so there are two Lazarus’s obsessed with Steven Goddard. I see.
“Gator69, You are like a doll with a pull string — pull it down and out comes a mindless comment or a goofy laugh.”
Rock solid science there Doc! At least I don’t fall for obvious big brother scams, and then project ignorance all over the web like a lock step red parrott.
And thanks! I will laugh endlessly at your stupidity. 😆
Gator69,
You have to admit the disappearing Arctic is a great “big brother scam”.
What else have you been programmed to say?
It is -30C in the Arctic, and the ice is near a ten year high. Why don’t you take a camping trip up there and report on the disappearing ice.
“Gator69,
You have to admit the disappearing Arctic is a great “big brother scam”.
What else have you been programmed to say?”
NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (For Laz)
Ice melts Laz. It has nothing to do with any scam, until idiots like you connect it to human activity.
Try it yourself! Take an ice cube out of the fridge, place it where the temperature is above freezing, and BE AMAZED! This happens in nature too, and even if there are no humans to or satellites to witness it.
I sure hope you are getting paid to embarrass yourself here.
gator69
“Try it yourself! Take an ice cube out of the fridge, place it where the temperature is above freezing, and BE AMAZED”
But watch without breathing otherwise your co2 emissions make it melt faster.
I’m just wondering how many ice cubes he has gone through already. 😉
Here’s the problem. The average joe still puts a huge amount of trust into Scientific American. Whatever SciAm says they are going to accept at face value as credible. So we are fighting a losing battle. Unless we figure out how to break that misplaced trust.
How about publishing a factual study that showing no rise in ocean temperature, surface temperature or an increase in ice volume over the past 30 years? That would certainly help.
You mean you can’t post a link? Server problems?
A link to what? Studies that have never been written?
Can you please explain why you believe the earth’s complex systems should remain static?
As I understand “climate change” people … they believe everything (temperature, polar ice etc) should remain flat lined.
Laz
The article clearly states
Over the past decade scientists thought they had figured out how to protect humanity from the worst dangers of climate change….Now it appears that the assessment was too optimistic. The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected
No mention of 30 years ago. No mention of 1996.
So why confuse the issue?
Darwin,
“As I understand “climate change” people … they believe everything (temperature, polar ice etc) should remain flat lined.”
You misunderstood. If, no external forcings took place, then, of course, everything would remain static. However, as this is an impossibility, no scientist would ever say such a thing. Understanding what those climate forcings are and what their amplitude might be is the name of the game.
I don’t misunderstand. “Climate change” people want temperatures, polar ice, glaciers and every other characteristic of a dynamic planet to remain essentially what they were in 1979.
Any deviation is seen as a sure sign of eminent doom. It seems apparent that the term “denier” is more aptly suited to you and your fellow staticists.
Of Course the Sun’s activity has nothing to do with this 0,7ºc warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image6.png
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf
The problem is grant money get wasted making-up crap about the mysterious magic of CO2 with hockey stick graphs.
Currently none of the climate shysters would dare to get off their lazy asses and do the hard stuff of finding new proxies, or dig through all the historical data available so that new indications of the facts of what has happened to ocean temperatures, or surface temperatures, or polar or glacial ice volume for (say)the last 100 years or longer.
No, it much simpler to do confirmatory studies that ensure a steady stream of grants.
There was recently a study, waiting for review, that used over many new proxies from over 70 locations around the world. I find it funny that you say that climate scientists should get off their asses, when, in fact, they are the only ones who do. Has any climate sceptic ever gone to the poles or to the jungles or into the mountains for weeks or months at a time and written a report on it? If they had, then they forgot to write a report about it.
Your belief that scientists will only get grants if they write reports confirming what others have written blares out the point that you have no idea what academia is all about.
Have they come out with a verifiable theory of how climate works? NO!
Explanation of how El Niño, La Niña and ENSO work?
How tropical storms propagate?
How the ozone layer affects climate?
Explained why there was a LIA and thus when and how to predict another?
Why does the atmosphere expand and contract over decadal rates and what effect has this on climate?
Where does all the natural CO2 come from and what causes it to vary?
This and so much more is not investigated because AGW/CC scam is consuming all the money.
tckev,
I have no idea about all those things raised, but what I do know is that man-made global warming theory is only gaining in confidence among scholars even though it is a branch of science more scrutinized than anything that has come before it.
And haven’t you just made the case for more study into those areas where there is uncertainty?
yes I have just made a case for more basic research!
How can anyone say that CO2 drives climate change when a basic understanding of what governs it is missing. What causes El Niño / La Niña, what are the major drivers? Why does the Jet Stream change and what drives it? No we don’t know but these effects incorporated into the IPCC model.
How many papers have been written just to confirm the assumptions of CO2 theory, and how many investigations into the drivers that causes El Niño / La Niña, or the Jet stream, or how tropical storms develop?
What gets the bulk of the research money get the research.
tckev,
Research is carried out by people from dozens of countries and they get their money from dozens of sources all of whom, would have different guidelines. Climate science amalgamates, physics, geology, glaciology, astronomy, chemistry, oceanography, palaeontology and on and on. How can you possibly say that they all study the same thing and that they only confirm what each other reports?
And aren’t you swayed by the fact that all these different scientists who come from so many places who study different things and who get paid by different sources would all come to the same conclusion?
No I think it is wrong that the lions share of money goes to AGW confirmation studies.
I am swayed be the number of scientists outside of the AGW who either skeptical, or agnostic about AGW.
Without the fundamentals being known how can the confirmation be relevant? Who and where is the study on how the AMO/PDO or Jet stream work and its effect on climate? Where is all the other studies from any discipline that looks for the basic science?
There is so little because there is no money there.
It is that simple.
tckev,
Using Google Scholar, I found:
1,2000,000 citations for “Jet Stream”
For “ozone layer and climate” there are 142,000 citations.
For “tropical storm formation” there are 88,100 citations.
For “El Nino, La Nina and ENSO” there are 19,400 citations.
I didn’t go into reading any of these papers, but their titles sure makes it appear as if these things are being studied. I believe you may some answers to your questions there.
Where is your evidence that the bulk of research money for climate is used for confirmation studies? How much money is that BTW and what reasons would there be for this to happen? Please make your responses logical and verifiable.
What I find so remarkable is that historical evidence does not give credence to their theory. Temperatures and CO2 do not track historically.
Using Google Scholar, I found:
Ozone layer = About 886,000 results (0.03 sec)
ozone layer -climate change -CLIMATIC CHANGE -CO2 -AGW = About 120,000 results (0.03 sec)
Jet Stream = About 1,310,000 results (0.56 sec)
Jet Stream -climate change -CLIMATIC CHANGE -CO2 -AGW = About 377,000 results (0.10 sec)
tropical storm formation = About 90,300 results (0.05 sec)
tropical storm formation -climate change -CLIMATIC CHANGE -CO2 -AGW = About 21,200 results (0.07 sec)
El Nino, La Nina and ENSO = About 19,500 results (0.08 sec)
El Nino, La Nina and ENSO -climate change -CLIMATIC CHANGE -CO2 -AGW = About 423 results (0.06 sec)
tckev,
You just complained that “basic science” is being ignored and then just rattled off your list of what that is. You also complained that most of the research money is being funnelled into confirmation studies.
I have shown you that your first complaint is unfounded and now I am asking you for proof of your second complaint.
Can we stay on one subject at a time?
Oh, right you’ve convinced me. Enough basic research has been done so there is a really good computer model of how the climate works. OK?
If this is not true please explain why.
tckev,
Now we are on to models? And you have provided no evidence to support your claim of “confirmation studies”. I can see a conversation with you will be like a game of whack-a-mole.
Have a nice day.
I see a conversation with you is like whack-a-mole. Yes you are. But then when hubris overtakes sense I expect nothing less.
Enjoy the weather while believing science knows how climate works.
@Lazarus are you denying a graph ?
Or are you a well funded warmist PR bot ? As seen in your comments here….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogpaulhudson/posts/met-office-scale-back-global-w?comments_page=12
JANP,
There is very little money in education. I looked at your graph — are you saying that a prediction is proof of something? Did you notice that the graph (and the prediction) are on an upward trend?
@Lazarus.
Can you not read a graph ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
Hadcrut is UEA data.
JANP,
As I pointed out earlier, climate does not act in a linear fashion and surface temperature is only one measure of heat.. The last half century of surface temperature has looked like an upward staircase with periods of flat steps along the way. Ocean temps and the warming increase of minimum temperatures, the ratio of extreme highs to extreme lows and the retreat of ice volume from both poles and 90% of the world’s glaciers are other measures.
But the real kicker for me is physics. If you add heat trapping gasses into the environment, there can only be one result — more heat in the environment.
Try RSS http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend SAT data.
Cooling temperatures over the last decade are you slightly mental ?
“Global warming”…”You keep saying those words. I do not think they mean what you think.”
Lazarus knows about enso and sunspots but forgets about pdo/amo. Convenient…
Carbon tourettes strikes again.
“The rise in land and atmosphere temperatures since about 1996 reflects a combination of greenhouse radiative forcing from 360 to 395ppm CO2 at rates of up to 2.54ppm/year (unprecedented since 55 million years ago), the ENSO cycle and 11-years sunspot cycle. Peak temperatures at around 2006 exceed any measured in the instrumental record.’
But two out of three aint bad! 😆
Thanks, I could win the MVP this year with those numbers.
Most Vapid Poster? 😉
The Scientific American article asks the question “Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected?”, but it doesn’t answer that question, or even attempt to by use of actual temperature data.
Instead it claims that the alleged effects of “global warming”, such as “extreme weather events” are increasing, while ignoring recent actual temperature figures.
The logic seems to be that since the alleged effects of warming are increasing, then temperature MUST be increasing too, even if it isn’t.
There is also the similar logic, that since in theory, increased CO2 = increased temperatures, if CO2 is increasing then temperature MUST be increasing, even if we can’t actually measure it.
In this sort of “looking glass” world, even if temperatures were to fall, that would be seen as evidence of warming and it is probably futile to counter the argument by presenting actual temperature data.
Ray,
The point is temperatures have not fallen even though we have had a quiet sun for much of the past 2 decades. If temperatures did fall for the next 10 years, then I agree, its back to the drawing board for everyone. But, for now, there is just no other viable theory out there that has been able to account for all the observed warming and its effects other than the increase of CO2. I am certain that if someone was to find a better theory, then they would be famous and rich beyond measure,
Temperatures are far below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C. Why are you wasting everyone’s time with you BS?
Hansen Shmansen. There has not been any BS from my posts. I can’t say the same about anyone else.
Time to educate Laz about ocean heat…
“Thermal Property Differences between Land and Water
The oceans warm and cool much slower than land for a number of reasons.
(1) The sun is able to warm only the thin upper surface of the land directly while it may penetrate many meters into the ocean
(2) The ocean like the air but unlike land is subject to vertical mixing and convective movements.
(3) The thermal capacity of the oceans is much higher because the water is considerably denser and has roughly four times the specific heat (the amount of heat required to warm a given volume 1 degree Celsius) as most land surfaces.
This is why land warms more and much faster than the ocean in the spring and cools more and faster in the fall.”
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ENSO,PDO_and_Climate.pdf
Lazarus mentioned the “…336 straight months of warmer than normal temperatures (compared to the 20th century average)…”
Which is, by itself, a rather meaningless metric – especially since we let those who hold the data determine what “normal” is.
First – the metric of “336 straight months” (or 28 years) puts us back to 1985. Are you telling us the last time we were below “normal” was 1985? According to whom?
If you’re using the ever popular NCDC “state of the climate” news releases, they say that their idea of “normal” is as follows:
“…Climate Normals are the latest three-decade averages of climatological variables including temperature and precipitation. This product is produced once every 10 years. The 1981–2010 U.S. Climate Normals dataset is the latest release of NCDC’s Climate Normals…”
1981 to 2010 is hardly the “20th century average”, and if their wording is right, that “normal” changes every 10 years.
If you use the GISS database, they base thier “normal” on a period from 1950 – 1981: a period that ends BEFORE that “336 straight months” started.
From GISS: “…The average temperature in 2012 was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6°Celsius), which is 1.0°F (0.6°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline…” Not the FULL 20th century, but a time period based on 30% of the 20th century.
Now, quick math – they’re saying in that statement that their “mid-20th century baseline” is 57.3F (58.3 – 1).
Remember that value.
Back to NCDC, and just one month, February of 2013.
“…The February average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 34.8°F, which was 0.8°F above the 20th century average…”
So the “normal” they’re using for Feb puts their current “20th century average” at 34F (34.8 – .8) – a full 23.3 degrees BELOW the “normal” used by Hansen at GISS.
So tell us again, how we can believe ANY “climate scientist”, when they try to tell us that their selected 30-year point can possibly tell us what the current “normal” temp is (either global or US).
hjenrythebird,
You are overcomplicating what I said. Take any month for the past 28 years and each and every February, August or whatever month over that time has been warmer than the average of temperatures for that corresponding month between the years 1901 to 2000.
Steve, Lazarus is a troll, I don’t know why you bother to engage him other than for the entertainment value he provides.