Reality of global warming

[sayak83]

Nice second try, but you are playing catch up. We have moved on, the science is not settled because the IPCC modellers can not agree of the amount of human contribution..

They agree. It's 100%.

 

[sayak83]

Oh, I did not realize it has already happened....the pause is back....can I claim prescience?

Global mean temperature 1997 -2017 — source Met Office (HadCrut4)

‘Slowdown’ in ocean heating gives sceptics a warm glow‘

Met Office vs NOAA | Climate Change Dispatch

Please post the source paper name (or data website) for this figure. Thanks. The actual article does not tell the source.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For the same reason US government chose to believe a few experts about the presence of mass destruction over everyone else regardless of truth or merit. Since when has politicians cared about truth.

I am still waiting for the paper (not blog post or unreviewed policy documents) where Judith Curry has refuted the fidelity of climate models...

And temperatures are excellently correlated with the models. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not change the figures.

Also ocean temperature is rising rapidly as well, as predicted. There has been no pause in rising ocean temperatures either.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

Source
Global ocean heat and salt contentheat_content2000m.png

A strawman argument about WMD can't be taken seriously.

Here is a paper from Curry and Nic Lewis re climate sensitivity uncertainty.... The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates

Here is an update from Lewis.... https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/ar5_ebstudy_update_article1b.pdf

Yea yea....the models do a good job....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They agree. It's 100%.

If they all agree on the variables of the global climate energy budget, then there would not be this divergence of 90 model projections.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please post the source paper name (or data website) for this figure. Thanks. The actual article does not tell the source.

I did, it was in the Times article, but unfortunately is behind a paywall....‘Slowdown’ in ocean heating gives sceptics a warm glow

Are you are a pause denier also? Here is a recent paper providing a reason for the pause...

The post‐2002 global surface warming slowdown caused by the subtropical Southern Ocean heating acceleration

The post-2002 global surface warming slowdown caused by the subtropical Southern Ocean heating acceleration
Abstract

The warming rate of global mean surface temperature slowed down during 1998–2012. Previous studies pointed out role of increasing ocean heat uptake during this global warming slowdown, but its mechanism remains under discussion. Our numerical simulations, in which wind stress anomaly in the equatorial Pacific is imposed from reanalysis data, suggest that subsurface warming in the equatorial Pacific took place during initial phase of the global warming slowdown (1998–2002), as previously reported. It is newly clarified that the Ekman transport from tropics to subtropics is enhanced during the later phase of the slowdown (after 2002) and enhanced subtropical Ekman downwelling causes accelerated heat storage below depth of 700 m in the subtropical Southern Ocean, leading to the post-2002 global warming slowdown. Observational data of ocean temperature also support this scenario. This study provides clear evidence that deeper parts of the Southern Ocean play a critical role in the post-2002 warming slowdown.

 

[sayak83]

I did, it was in the Times article, but unfortunately is behind a paywall....‘Slowdown’ in ocean heating gives sceptics a warm glow

Are you are a pause denier also? Here is a recent paper providing a reason for the pause...

The post‐2002 global surface warming slowdown caused by the subtropical Southern Ocean heating acceleration

The post-2002 global surface warming slowdown caused by the subtropical Southern Ocean heating acceleration
Abstract

The warming rate of global mean surface temperature slowed down during 1998–2012. Previous studies pointed out role of increasing ocean heat uptake during this global warming slowdown, but its mechanism remains under discussion. Our numerical simulations, in which wind stress anomaly in the equatorial Pacific is imposed from reanalysis data, suggest that subsurface warming in the equatorial Pacific took place during initial phase of the global warming slowdown (1998–2002), as previously reported. It is newly clarified that the Ekman transport from tropics to subtropics is enhanced during the later phase of the slowdown (after 2002) and enhanced subtropical Ekman downwelling causes accelerated heat storage below depth of 700 m in the subtropical Southern Ocean, leading to the post-2002 global warming slowdown. Observational data of ocean temperature also support this scenario. This study provides clear evidence that deeper parts of the Southern Ocean play a critical role in the post-2002 warming slowdown.

The figure is not from the paper. The paper only looks at temperature data from 2002-2012. The plot that is appended is nowhere in the paper. Where is it from? Warming has continued after that, in line with the step wise increase which I also pointed was the typical response of global temperatures.

The ocean's are running warmer than early 2000 models and are taking up 97% of the heat. I pointed that out in one of my very first posts. This paper details some extra analysis on which Oceanic reservoirs were taking up the heat. Nothing special in the paper. Do not see anything at all about a continuing pause or any of that kind.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The figure is not from the paper. The paper only looks at temperature data from 2002-2012. The plot that is appended is nowhere in the paper. Where is it from? Warming has continued after that, in line with the step wise increase which I also pointed was the typical response of global temperatures.

The ocean's are running warmer than early 2000 models and are taking up 97% of the heat. I pointed that out in one of my very first posts. This paper details some extra analysis on which Oceanic reservoirs were taking up the heat. Nothing special in the paper. Do not see anything at all about a continuing pause or any of that kind.

I never said the graph was from the climate paper, it is the same as the one I said it was from the Time's article.

Global mean temperature 1997 -2017 — source Met Office (HadCrut4)

The AGU paper refers to a pause from 1998 to 2012, and the ocean taking up the heat from 2002 to 2012. The pause actually continued until the heat release into the atmosphere during the 2015-16 El Nino. Presently the temperatures are dropping again and so the pause reappears as an even longer pause.

Now my point is that the IPCC models did not predict the pause due to not knowing all the variables and their interactions that go to make up the climate. Hence the science is not settled, there is much more to learn.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

While Trump tries to wash off all responsibility for global climate change, the reality of the science behind it and it's damaging impact remains true as it ever was.


https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Current rise is already at 1 degree Celsius.

In this thread I will try to show how well validated the scientific case for human caused warming and its impact is.

Those are inherently fudgey land based data,

not the far more reliable and accurate satellite data as below, reality looks a little different doesn't? I wonder why you wouldn't want to show that?

I predict a dramatic before and after north pole pic coming, ignoring the record advancing south pole ice

 

[sayak83]

I never said the graph was from the climate paper, it is the same as the one I said it was from the Time's article.

Global mean temperature 1997 -2017 — source Met Office (HadCrut4)

The AGU paper refers to a pause from 1998 to 2012, and the ocean taking up the heat from 2002 to 2012. The pause actually continued until the heat release into the atmosphere during the 2015-16 El Nino. Presently the temperatures are dropping again and so the pause reappears as an even longer pause.

Now my point is that the IPCC models did not predict the pause due to not knowing all the variables and their interactions that go to make up the climate. Hence the science is not settled, there is much more to learn.

No the temperature is still rising. Your little theory of heat being released now after being stored is completely made up. The ocean is still storing up heat as usual and there is no pause. It's a regular stepwise ratcheting upwards.

The Times article, which I cannot read, has the figure? How do you know? Can you read it. If so, tell me the source from which the Times article gets this figure. It seems to me to be a false or misleading figure added on by the lying climate deniers as temperature data is exactly the opposite of what the chart shows. So tell me what the source is.

 

[sayak83]

Those are inherently fudgey land based data,

not the far more reliable and accurate satellite data as below, reality looks a little different doesn't? I wonder why you wouldn't want to show that?

I predict a dramatic before and after north pole pic coming, ignoring the record advancing south pole ice

Satellite data measures Oxygen isotope spin 20,000 meters above the ground level and uses it as proxy for lower atmosphere temperature. Firstly lower atmosphere is EXPECTED to increase at a different rate. Secondly the oxygen isotope based data is far less reliable as it measures
temperature indirectly and it DIVERGES from direct measurements from balloons. So it's the LEAST TRUSTWORTHY of all our temperature measurements with high uncertainties. I can quote entire books if you want.

How accurate are satellite measured temperatures of the troposphere?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No the temperature is still rising. Your little theory of heat being released now after being stored is completely made up. The ocean is still storing up heat as usual and there is no pause. It's a regular stepwise ratcheting upwards.

The Times article, which I cannot read, has the figure? How do you know? Can you read it. If so, tell me the source from which the Times article gets this figure. It seems to me to be a false or misleading figure added on by the lying climate deniers as temperature data is exactly the opposite of what the chart shows. So tell me what the source is.

Haha...you post about climate and you do not know an El Nino releases stored ocean heat into the atmosphere, you can't be serious? Anyways..." An El Niño pumps up heat from deeper ocean layers to the surface. Then, some of the ocean's resulting surface heat is released to the atmosphere, warming the air." - Brace for Record Heat as El Niño Approaches

The El Nino caused temperature spikes you see in 1998 and 2016 is a result of ocean heat being released into the atmosphere..

Ok, forget the Times article, the source is HADCRUT4 Met Office....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office I can vouch for the authenticity of the graph by using the HadCrut4 data from 1997 to 2017 to independently produce this plot...

 

[sayak83]

Haha...you post about climate and you do not know an El Nino releases stored ocean heat into the atmosphere, you can't be serious? Anyways..." An El Niño pumps up heat from deeper ocean layers to the surface. Then, some of the ocean's resulting surface heat is released to the atmosphere, warming the air." - Brace for Record Heat as El Niño Approaches

The El Nino caused temperature spikes you see in 1998 and 2016 is a result of ocean heat being released into the atmosphere..

Ok, forget the Times article, the source is HADCRUT4 Met Office....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office I can vouch for the authenticity of the graph by using the HadCrut4 data from 1997 to 2017 to independently produce this plot...

No that is not how El Nino works. It does not store one years heat and releases it in the next year

The last plot is that of Satellite data from lower troposphere above the land (not ocean) 20,000 feet above ground. It is the LEAST trustworthy of all temperature measurements, still on its experimental stages. Three different satellites give three divergent readings and the groups themselves say it SHOULD NOT be used for global warming calculations till the measurements become reliable. It is typical of climate deniers to latch onto the most error prone data set, remove all context and present it as gospel. But here is a detailed discussion

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-newspaper-claim-about-global-temperature-is-deeply-misleading

Actual satellite global troposphere temperature is measured over the oceans where the science is reliable. All three datasets match and they show global warming.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1979-to-2016-monthly-trop-1024x744.png

And of course the surface temperature data, which is far well measured and reliable, as well as Oceanic temperature shows the global warming signal unambiguously.


Your last plot shows a very significant warming trend from 1998 to 2017. 0.35 to 0.65 mean trend line. But your monthly data in an Excel chart and draw the trend line. See for yourself. I take it you are not well versed in calculating statistical trends from data?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No that is not how El Nino works. It does not store one years heat and releases it in the next year

The last plot is that of Satellite data from lower troposphere above the land (not ocean) 20,000 feet above ground. It is the LEAST trustworthy of all temperature measurements, still on its experimental stages. Three different satellites give three divergent readings and the groups themselves say it SHOULD NOT be used for global warming calculations till the measurements become reliable. It is typical of climate deniers to latch onto the most error prone data set, remove all context and present it as gospel. But here is a detailed discussion

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-newspaper-claim-about-global-temperature-is-deeply-misleading

Actual satellite global troposphere temperature is measured over the oceans where the science is reliable. All three datasets match and they show global warming.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1979-to-2016-monthly-trop-1024x744.png

And of course the surface temperature data, which is far well measured and reliable, as well as Oceanic temperature shows the global warming signal unambiguously.


Your last plot shows a very significant warming trend from 1998 to 2017. 0.35 to 0.65 mean trend line. But your monthly data in an Excel chart and draw the trend line. See for yourself. I take it you are not well versed in calculating statistical trends from data?

Your dishonesty is there for all to see, i never said or implied that an El Nino occurred every second year, you made it up to misdirect from your not having understood the El Nino/La Nina process.

What three different satellites are you referring to, please tell us what they are?

Satellites have the advantage over thermometers in that they are measuring the whole earth every day with the same instruments, though it is atmospheric and not surface temperature, There are pros and cons of both methods which is why they were both selected by the IPCC to be used for collecting global temperature data.

Two things about the last plot, yes it does show a warming trend, about 0.2 C over the period, which if it were to continue works out at about 1C increase over the century to 2100, which is well below most of the IPCC models, but secondly, the La Nina phase process is not complete and the temperature will go much lower than the present, and with it the trend could drop back to a complete pause as was in place before the 2015/16 El Nino.

 

[shawn001]

The deniers are seriously in the minority here.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

Yale Climate Opinion Maps - U.S. 2016 - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

How Americans Think About Climate Change, in Six Maps

"Most people know climate change is happening, and a majority agrees it is harming people in the United States. But most don't believe it will harm them.

Part of this is the problem of risk perception.

Global warming is precisely the kind of threat humans are awful at dealing with: a problem with enormous consequences over the long term, but little that is sharply visible on a personal level in the short term. Humans are hard-wired for quick fight-or-flight reactions in the face of an imminent threat, but not highly motivated to act against slow-moving and somewhat abstract problems, even if the challenges that they pose are ultimately dire."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nk-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html?_r=0


ESA:
MONITORING CLIMATE CHANGE FROM SPACE

Monitoring climate change from space

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Carbon Isotopes Prove Humans Have Caused Global Warming

"Since 1800, CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has risen 40% and because of the greenhouse effect, warmed the planet. The obvious source of the added carbon is the 330 billion tons of carbon that burning fossil fuels has added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Yet global warming deniers deny this obvious fact. Well then, let’s prove it."

Carbon Isotopes Prove Humans Have Caused Global Warming | OilPrice.com

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

 

[shawn001]

Ravaged By Climate Change, The Great Barrier Reef May Never Be The Same
The decline of the iconic reef is now inevitable, experts say.

Ravaged By Climate Change, The Great Barrier Reef May Never Be The Same | HuffPost

If all the poles melt and Greenland the food chain will completely break down and it will change the Atlantic current!

Potential for Collapse of Key Atlantic Current Rises

Potential for Collapse of Key Atlantic Current Rises

"Some volcanic eruptions released large quantities of CO2 in the distant past. However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports that human activities now emit more than 135 times as much CO2 as volcanoes each year.

Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

Sea Levels Are Rising Even Faster Than Previously Thought

Sea Levels Are Rising Even Faster Than Previously Thought

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here Shawn, this will save you a lot of time embedding those links.....here.. A Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming ... and here... http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hmmmm..... so apparently the planet has been warmer in the not so distant past....

80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

Scientists Increasingly Discarding ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs

“[W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased.” — Büntgen et al., 2017

Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

 

[shawn001]

NASA's institute for space studies

What is really warming the World

What's Really Warming the World?

 

[shawn001]

"Hmmmm..... so apparently the planet has been warmer in the not so distant past...."


This color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures since 1884. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.


https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

 

[shawn001]

Climate change: How do we know?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/