
By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
I recently came across a January 21st, 2012 Peter Gleick article 2011 Climate Change in Pictures and Data: Just the Facts, which appears to mimic the format and approach of my January 1st, 2012 article A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature”.
What I find particularly amusing about Peter’s article is that a week after noting that, “Lost in this verbal debate are often the simple facts and data of climate change and the immense and definitive global observations of the ways in which our climate is actually changing around us.” Peter Gleick was perpetrating Fakegate. Why, if the “simple facts and data” support his viewpoint, would Peter resort to subterfuge and fakery?
If you read through Gleick’s article, you’ll see some of his “immense and definitive global observations”, like “anyone watching or reading the news or looking out the window probably had a sense that 2011 was a weird year with one bad, extreme weather disaster after another”…
Anyway, in honor Peter’s reinstatement as President of the Pacific Institute I figured that an update on the “simple facts and data” was in order.
Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.
Global Surface Temperatures:
Generally, when referring to Earth’s “climate” warming, proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative, refer to Earth’s Surface Temperature, e.g. “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.” NASA Earth Observatory
As such, here’s NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present;

NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) Annual Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Over Land & Sea – 1880 to Present;

Note: The chart above hasn’t been updated with 2011 data for unknown reasons. The chart resides here and the data to update it is here.
It appears that a significant decline in temperatures occurred during the last 17 months:
2010 1 0.6335
2010 2 0.6708
2010 3 0.7815
2010 4 0.7518
2010 5 0.7064
2010 6 0.6764
2010 7 0.6581
2010 8 0.5783
2010 9 0.4975
2010 10 0.5655
2010 11 0.7182
2010 12 0.4226
2011 1 0.3962
2011 2 0.4200
2011 3 0.5226
2011 4 0.5894
2011 5 0.5093
2011 6 0.5882
2011 7 0.5687
2011 8 0.5401
2011 9 0.5264
2011 10 0.5739
2011 11 0.4347
2011 12 0.4800
2012 1 0.3630
2012 2 0.3678
2012 3 0.4477
2012 4 0.6514
(Source: NOAA NCDC)
UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to Present;

and the UK Met Office – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Monthly Global Average Land Temperature – 1850 to Present

Depending on the time frame, it certainly seems that Earth’s Surface Temperature has increased, but it does not appear to be warming rapidly and there is no indication of acceleration. Furthermore, the surface temperature record is burdened with issues of questionable siting, changes in siting, changes in equipment, changes in the number of measurement locations, modeling to fill in gaps in measurement locations, corrections to account for missing, erroneous or biased measurements, and the urban heat island effect. Thus to see the big picture on the temperature “Earth’s Temperature”, it also helps to look up.
Atmospheric Temperatures:
Since 1979 Earth’s “temperature” has also been measured via satellite. “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA
The following are 4 Temperature Anomaly plots from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), each one increases in altitude as is illustrated here:
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT)- Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) -Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present:

According to Remote Sensing Systems, “For Channel (TLT) (Lower Troposphere) and Channel (TMT) (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming. The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest.” RSS
Also, the 2009 – 10 El Niño event is also called out on this RSS Latitudinal Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly from 1979 to Present;

and the 1998 El Niño event, along with the tropospheric cooling attributed to the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinitubo, is called out on this University of Alabama – Hunstville (UAH) Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present:

Note: Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”
The May UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly was 0.29 degrees C above the 30 year average. Keep this mind the next time you see claims that recent weather was caused by Global Warming.
There are also regional variations in Lower Troposphere that contribute nuance to the picture. For example, RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

shows a .337 K/C per decade increase, whereas the The RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

shows a .011 K/C per decade decrease. I am still not aware of a compelling explanation for the significant divergence in the Lower Troposphere temperature trends between the poles.
The satellite record seems to show slow warming of Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events. Lower Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of Earth warming rapidly.
Moving higher in the atmosphere, RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

has been incredibly flat since, with a trend of just -.010 K/C per decade. The 1997-98 and 2009 – 10 El Niño events are still readily apparent in the plot, as is a spike from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Note that the effect of Mt. Pinatubo is the opposite in the Lower and Middle Troposphere versus the Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS), i.e. “Large volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere; the gases convert into submicron particles (aerosol) with an e-folding time scale of about 1 year. The climate response to large eruptions (in historical times) lasts for several (2-3) years. The aerosol cloud causes cooling at the Earth’s surface, warming in stratosphere.”
Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University
It is interesting that, incorporating the impact of three significant surface driven warming events, Troposphere / Stratosphere Temperatures (TTS) have been quite stable, however there is nuance to this as well.
RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

has been increasing by .046 K/C per decade, whereas the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

has been decreasing by -.066 K/C per decade.
Moving higher still in the atmosphere, the RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;

“is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS
The eruptions of El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo are readily apparent in the Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

“The stratosphere” … “in contrast to the troposphere, is heated, as the result of near infrared absorption of solar energy at the top of the aerosol cloud, and increased infra-red absorption of long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface.”
“The stratospheric warming in the region of the stratospheric cloud increases the latitudinal temperature gradient after an eruption at low latitudes, disturbing the stratospheric-troposphere circulation, increasing the difference in height of the troposphere between high and low latitudes, and increasing the strength of the jet stream (polar vortex, especially in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University
The Lower Stratosphere experienced “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS “The long-term, global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere stems from two downward steps in temperature, both of which are coincident with the cessation of transient warming after the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.” … “Here we provide observational analyses that yield new insight into three key aspects of recent stratospheric climate change. First, we provide evidence that the unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures is dependent not only upon the trend but also on the temporal variability in global-mean ozone immediately following volcanic eruptions. Second, we argue that the warming/cooling pattern in global-mean temperatures following major volcanic eruptions is consistent with the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Third, we reveal the contrasting latitudinal structures of recent stratospheric temperature and ozone trends are consistent with large-scale increases in the stratospheric overturning Brewer-Dobson circulation” David W. J. Thompson Colorado State University
Above the Stratosphere we have the Mesosphere and Thermosphere, neither of which have I identified current temperature time series for, but of note is that on “July 15, 2010” “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” occurred when “high above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.”
“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”
The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.” NASA
In summary, Earth’s Lower and Middle Troposphere appear to have warmed slowly, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events, and tempered by the cooling effects of the eruption of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of warming rapidly or warming at an accelerating rate. Tropospheric / Stratospheric temperatures appear to have been influenced by at least three significant surface driven warming events, the 1997-98 El Niño, and the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but to have maintained a stable overall trajectory. Stratospheric temperatures appear to have experienced two “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).”, and “unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures” which has resulted in a significant stratospheric cooling during the last 30 years. Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009” “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”
Ocean Temperatures:
“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Parliamentary Library
As such, changes inOcean Heat Content are important in understanding Earth’s “Temperature”. Here is NOAA’s NODC Global Ocean Heat Content from 0-700 Meters – 1955 to Present;

and here is the same from Ole Humlum’s valuable climate data site Climate4you.com, NODC Global Ocean Heat Content – 0-700 Meters – 1979 to Present:
It seems apparent from the plots above that Global Ocean Heat has increased over the last several decades, however Global Ocean Heat doesn’t appear to be warming rapidly. Furthermore, there is no evidence or indication of an accelerating rate.
Sea Level:
“Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007). Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).” Source NSIDC
Global Mean Sea Level Change – 1993 to Present:
Global Mean Sea Level Change Map with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present:
Snow and Ice:
A proxy often cited when measuring “Earth’s Temperature” is amount of Snow and Ice on Earth. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth’s ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass.” Source USGA
However, there is currently there is no generally accepted measure of ice volume, as Cryosat is still in validation and the accuracy of measurements from Grace are still being challenged. Sea Ice Area and Extent are cited as proxies for “Earth’s Temperature”, however there is significant evidence that the primary influences on Sea Ice Area and Extent are in fact wind and Atmospheric Oscillations. With this said, here are
Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area from 1979 to Present;

Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly – 1979 to Present:

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or Greater

There appears to have been a negative trend in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent and a positive trend in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, thus the resultant Global Sea Ice Area trend appears to be slightly negative.
In terms of land based data, here is 20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR;

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies 1966 – Present from NCEP/NCAR;

Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent – 1967 to Present from Rutgers University;

Northern Hemisphere Spring Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

While none of the Snow plots offers a global perspective, when looking at the Northern Hemisphere, there appears to have been a slight increase in Snowcover and Winter Snow Extent, a decrease in Spring Snow Extent and no change in Fall Snow Extent over the historical record.
Based on the limited Global Ice and Snow measurements available, and noting the questionable value of Sea Ice Area as a proxy for temperature, not much inference can currently be drawn from Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid warming in Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements.
Conclusion:
“Earth’s “Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid or accelerating warming.
Additional information on “Earth’s Temperature” can be found in the WUWT Reference Pages, including the Global Temperature Page and Global Climatic History Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PhD Wesleyan University
This would also confirm what Willis pointed out recently with this “spot the volcano” game, where he demonstrated it was pretty much impossible to identify eruptions by looking at the temperature record if you did not have the dates to guide you.
I managed to get about 2/3 of them right by spotting the pattern of warmer winters
http://oi44.tinypic.com/16k1iiu.jpg
here we can see the cool summer warmer winter patterns after Pinatubo and El Chichon but not notable effect after Mt Agung. The latter was followed by a warmer than normal summer, only a year later was it cooler.
The four years after El Chichon average out at about net zero.
There was a cooler period after Mt Pinatubo but it is no bigger than the other non volcanic variations of the whole period (which was Willis’ basic point).
The idea of a net negative volcanic forcing is a fallacy used to justify “enhancing” the true calculated CO2 forcing with mythical positive feedbacks.
quidsapio says:
June 10, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Was mooching about and found this article from 1994, when it was still possible to use words like “if” and “maybe” about manmade global warming. Some of the things it says about CO2 levels and climate in the distant past are quite interesting – am wondering how they compare to more recent reconstructions
http://discovermagazine.com/1994/dec/locationlocation463
From that link:
“But Crowley and Baum calculated that the net greenhouse effect was still equivalent to what you’d get by quadrupling CO2 levels today. In other words, an ice sheet should have stood little chance of surviving. ”
Little chance that is if climate sensitivity is 4.2K per doubling, if we remove the fallacy of positive feedback and get a value like 1.2K per doubling the paradox disappears.
Just sayin’.
P. Solar says:
Little chance that is if climate sensitivity is 4.2K per doubling, if we remove the fallacy of positive feedback and get a value like 1.2K per doubling the paradox disappears.
The whole CO2 spectrum absorption debate has dropped out of sight. The AGW crowd must have realized they were onto a loser.
Essentially the discussion was about how saturated the spectrum ranges at which CO absorbs were. And in the opinion of many physicists there was almost no additional radiation for increased CO2 to absorb.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is therefore irrelevant, because increasing CO2 levels at current concentrations produces no significant greenhouse effect.
BTW, your graphic needs labelling. I’m interested in volcanic aerosols and would like to understand it.
http://oi44.tinypic.com/16k1iiu.jpg
I came across another article with “simple facts and data”. This one from 1958, from the Nautilus, the first submarine to clear the Arctic ice and reach the North Pole from the Pacific.
The first attempt in early June (right around now) failed, due to excessive ice in the Bering and the Chukchi :
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/usw_summer_09/nautilus.html
Some people claim that because there were few observations before 1978, that we can thus discard the fact that Arctic climste is changing profoundly.
This year, after this harshest winter in satellite-recorded history, how thick is the ice in the Bering and the Chukchi ? 1 meters ? 2 ? 3 at most ? open water in many places ?
How times have changed….
Smokey- you say “The planet is still recovering from the LIA – one of the coldest episodes in the entire 10,000 year Holocene. The recent warming is a natural recovery from the LIA.”
as a new comer to this site can you explain the mechanism? why would there be a recovery and when will it be finished? does this imply that there is a normal temperature that we have yet to reach?
Wan says:
June 11, 2012 at 3:04 am
Smokey- you say “The planet is still recovering from the LIA – one of the coldest episodes in the entire 10,000 year Holocene. The recent warming is a natural recovery from the LIA.”
as a new comer to this site can you explain the mechanism? why would there be a recovery and when will it be finished?
Very good questions. For which there aren’t good answers.
‘Recovery from the LIA’ is used as if were an explanation, which it isn’t. Probably the commonest explanation is solar cycles, but I don’t find this convincing.
The AGW crowd argue its increased CO2 from fossil fuel burning, but I don’t find this persuasive either.
I prefer that the LIA was part of the interglacial progression toward the next glacial phase and something interrupted it. That something was primarily reduced aerosols from the switch from wood to coal/oil as the principal fuel.
Rob Dekker says:
June 11, 2012 at 2:40 am
Some people claim that because there were few observations before 1978, that we can thus discard the fact that Arctic climste is changing profoundly.
The Arctic climate has always been “changing profoundly.” Just because it’s now doing so in your lifetime is inconsequential.
How times have changed….
That’s what times and nature do in Real Life. They change.
Wan says:
June 11, 2012 at 3:04 am
Is there a mechanism – yes, almost certainly! What is it? – Hmm, lets just say its likely a mixture of extraterrestial influences, solar, cosmic rays, gravitational, etc and of course NATURAL changes in the GHG composition (remember water vapour and CO2 varies naturally too!). and then there are circulatory changes in oceans and the atmosphere…
…..the net result of which is that a combination of ‘events’ and ‘cycles’ probably join together to cause a ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ period….and that’s about as accurate a description of ‘the mechanism’ you will ever likely get….the planet and influences are simply too large, complex and interconnected, and far too variable to pull together as a simple identifiable ‘mechanism’…
The planet is ALWAYS in a state of flux between one of the climatic extremes (i.e. an ice age or warm period). It’s always moving from one extreme to the other. I suppose you could say that at some given point during the cycle(s), there are ‘steady state periods’ in the climate – but no-one can say those periods are ‘normal’ or not. Just like our current warm period isn’t necessarily ABNORMAL (see warming in the 30’s). You have to look over a much longer timescale to consider where we are ‘currently’ on the climatic cycle. There is therefore NO normal temperature!! It is not unreasonable to consider the recent temperature (since last ice age) as being more ‘normal’ to human existence – but it is not normal relative to climate history going back a few hundred thousand to few million years….
Perhaps, if you think of a journey across a continent – you start at sea level and go up and down across mountain ranges, etc – and eventually come ‘full cycle’ back top sea level – what is the average height above sea level? is that the ‘normal’ height? Now – try and imagine how you could pick a ‘normal’ temperature from within the earths climate history? It’s not possible….hence, we have some who feel that an ice age is just around the corner (it’s time for the cycle to downturn!) and it’s a reasonable bet we will enter a cold period – but when, is anyone’s guess.
Bill Tuttle says:
June 11, 2012 at 12:09 am
O H Dahlsveen says:
June 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm
So then JohnB, as you are clearly not a “skeptic” I can only assume you are a person known as a “warmist” (AGW or CAGW believer). Please tell me what makes you so certain that CO2 is capable of causing “Global Warming”. – And don’t tell me CO2 is the miracle happening.
What should that “fingerprint” look like?
I don’t believe he’s ever thought about it, otherwise he’d have had some kind of answer for you by now.
Oh, wait. You took the “miracle” option away from him — he *can’t* answer your question.
—————————-
OK, try this:
http://aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
If you haven’t read it, please do so, no matter what your preconceptions.
And to answer the earlier question about my stake in all this, I have none except that I get worked up at intellectual dishonesty and laziness. The last time I got involved in anything like this it was debating creationists. And there are a few of those here, to be sure!
AndyG55 (from down-under) says:
June 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Does the O2 concentration drop by 50ppm (oh no, we are running out of oxygen ;-))
__________________________________
Werner Brozek says:
June 10, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Oxygen gets used up. See
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon-dioxide-rises-t29534.html
“…we are losing nearly three O2 molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air.
“if the oxygen level in such an environment falls below 19.5% it is oxygen deficient, putting occupants of the confined space at risk of losing consciousness and death.”
__________________________________
That sounds like the next “Scare Tactic”
Mervyn says:
June 10, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Just a small observation. Looking at the ocean temperature chart, it is evident that the oceans have been warming. The IPCC’s 2007 AR4 indicated that 97% of Co2 entering the atmosphere each year is from natural sources. As the oceans store so much Co2, I would suggest that most of the rising atmospheric Co2 in the atmosphere is actually Co2 released by the warming oceans….
_____________________________________
Here is the graph of SST and CO2 (there is about a one year lag) http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2-MBL1826-2008-2n-SST-3k.jpg
Philip Bradley says: @ur momisugly June 11, 2012 at 2:13 am
….The whole CO2 spectrum absorption debate has dropped out of sight. The AGW crowd must have realized they were onto a loser….
_________________________________
Lucy Skywalker has a chart of the logrithmic response up at her site: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/CO2/logwarming-CO2.gif
Wan says:
June 11, 2012 at 3:04 am
Smokey- you say “The planet is still recovering from the LIA – one of the coldest episodes in the entire 10,000 year Holocene. The recent warming is a natural recovery from the LIA.”
as a new comer to this site can you explain the mechanism? why would there be a recovery and when will it be finished? does this imply that there is a normal temperature that we have yet to reach?
_______________________________________
Earths climate is cyclical. Lucy’s flick graph shows it the best. She shows the temperature at various time intervals: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
John B says:
June 11, 2012 at 6:08 am
OK, try this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I did, and found this:
“ Also as predicted only sooner, the world was beginning to suffer historically unprecedented heat waves, droughts, floods and storms. The sea level was rising while mountain glaciers, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and Arctic sea ice melted back, all at accelerating rates. Important ecosystems from alpine meadows to coral reefs were showing signs of stress. For the scientists, as one of them remarked, “Seeing their own predictions come true has been a frightening experience.”(62)
Site is filled with the likes of . . . unprecedented, soaring, accelerating, 2 degrees = severe, take serious action, and other CAGW, and UN one-world democratic government stuff.
Sorry, John B., don’t expect many reading here on WUWT to be impressed by such a summary.
John F. Hultquist says:
June 11, 2012 at 7:58 am
I also found this at the very beginning of his opened link:
“A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. ”
Partly? They expect us to abandon the economic engine of the Western world when all they can muster is ‘partly’? Oh, yeah! They really have it all worked out, don’t they?
@Steve mosher
well ho ho ho. Once again, you are trying to defend with no stats. We did this at Lucia’s already and I owned you but here we go again. If its the temperature like you insist, please link or tell me where I can see these massive temperatures changes that must be occuring to melt the otherwise.
Otherwise, Mosher, shove it. If you do not have the temperature records to back up your claim, you’ve got nothing. The fact is there is almost no temperature change and so the ice loss must be attributed to wind patterns.
a whole 20 people think you and Lucia are smart, I am not one of the 20.
here is another question I would love Anthony or somebody smart to answer.
For the past 600 millions years, GAT was 22C. Currently, it is about 15C.
So in realville, earth is 7 degrees Celsius below average temperature. WHY THE HELL DOES NOBODY USE THIS STATISTIC?
furthermore, earth is below avearge atmospheric co2. SAME QUESTION!
John B says:
June 11, 2012 at 6:08 am
And to answer the earlier question about my stake in all this, I have none except that I get worked up at intellectual dishonesty and laziness. The last time I got involved in anything like this it was debating creationists. And there are a few of those here, to be sure!
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, O H Dahlsveen asked you “Please tell me what makes you so certain that CO2 is capable of causing ‘Global Warming’….What should that ‘fingerprint’ look like?
And your reply was a recommendation to visit a website about “The Discovery of Global Warming”?
Allow me to specify what the “fingerprint” of AGW should look like:
1. There should be a tropospheric “hot spot” near the equator. Satellite and radiosonde temperature measurements say it doesn’t exist.
2. There should be a direct and constant correlation between temperature and CO2 — as CO2 increases, the temperature should increase. The data we have shows that a rise in CO2 *follows* changes in temperature (the “800-year lag”), it doesn’t cause them.
3. The altitude of the tropopause over the equator should constantly be increasing due to heating of the lower atmosphere. The altitude of the tropopause continues to behave like waves on the ocean, sometimes rising, sometimes falling.
Three fingerprints — missing any one of them, AGW falls flat. Missing all *three* is Epic Fail.
One of these days I am gonna have to take time to read through all the comments.
😉
Wayne
John B says:
June 11, 2012 at 6:08 am
And to answer the earlier question about my stake in all this, I have none except that I get worked up at intellectual dishonesty and laziness. The last time I got involved in anything like this it was debating creationists. And there are a few of those here, to be sure!
___________________________________________
John B, You seem to think we make decisions without data, so here is some of the data. It is a heck of a lot more data then I have seen from the “CO2 is going to cook us all” side of the debate.
The heat capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times greater than that of the atmosphere. (The specific heat of water is about 4000 J/kg/K, while that of air is 1000 J/kg/K.) Even if you only consider the top of the ocean (50 meters) the oceans are still at least 10X the air. ~ from an oceanographer at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/heating.rates.html
Next take a look at the solar spectra:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png
CO2 spectra included here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png notice how CO2 is a minor bit player compared to water, if that.
Incoming vs outgoing radiation: http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/energy_wavelength.gif
Solar spectra with oceans included: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
Solar radiation at various ocean depths. http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif Notice the high energy wavelengths, visible and UV penetrate the deepest.
This increasing variability from the visible to EUV are the wavelengths that penetrate the oceans. So TSI does not by any means tell the whole story. The total insolation can remain constant while the amount of energy penetrating the oceans increases or decreases. The ocean oscillations have already been linked to changes in weather/climate
Cosmic rays are thought by some to influence cloud cover: http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3779-henrik-svensmark-the-cosmic-raycloud-seeding-hypothesis-is-converging-with-reality.html
Cosmic rays hit space age high
“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant
<a href="http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/05/22&starttime=00:00&enddate=2010/06/22&endtime=15:39&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on"/a>
Solar wind is linked to cosmic ray intensities.
Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low “The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”
NASA: TSI lower during minimum from cycle 23 to 24
The sun seems to be settling down from a more active state.
NOAA:GRAPH From the late 50’s the sun has been at its most active than for more than 11,500 years
Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation? July 2004.
Abstract
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase….
Graph: Solar radio flux, F10.7 is STILL low
Graph of solar TSI variability from above article (scale 1366 to 138W/metersq
I doubt this will penetrate your mind John, but at least those with a more open mind can see who is closest to a “creationist” aka all they really have is their “Faith” and no data.
@ur momisugly Smokey,
The topic of this thread is whether or not the warming has accelerated. It of course depends on the time interval used. You have basically conceded, by trying to change the subject, that over the period 1880-2010 there has been an acceleration. What this acceleration means is a topic for another thread or threads.
@ur momisugly Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
During most of the last 600 million years there were no people around. Likely there were many periods where the climate was incompatible with the development of human civilization. This may happen again in the distant future through natural causes. The issue today is whether we are causing artificial climate change that will be ecologically or economically disruptive and what we should or should not do about this.This thread was initially about whether the warming trend of the last 100 hundred years shows an acceleration. The “skeptics” have basically conceded that it does. The possible implications of this go will beyond the scope of this thread.
@ur momisugly Babsy ,une 11, 2012 at 8:20 am
“They expect us to abandon the economic engine of the Western world when all they can muster is ‘partly’? ”
No serious person is proposing anything like what you suggest. It is a straw-man augment you are making.
Mike says:
“The topic of this thread is whether or not the warming has accelerated. It of course depends on the time interval used. You have basically conceded, by trying to change the subject, that over the period 1880-2010 there has been an acceleration.”
Wrong again. How many times do we have to explain it to you that there is no acceleration in the gradual warming since the LIA? The basic time frame used is from before the LIA to now, with more recent charts showing recent temperature declines. That is not cherry picking, that is empirical evidence showing what is happening. And it isn’t what you believe.
Are you completely dense?? Can you not understand a temperature graph? Or is your religious CAGW belief so strong that White is Black, Down is Up, and Ignorance is Strength?
Real world evidence shows conlusively that the natural warming since the LIA has not accelerated.
In fact, global temperatures have started to decline.
I would prefer a science-based discussion with you and JohnB, but that is impossible because you both express this attitude toward real world facts. Wise up. The planet is falsifying your belief system. Your opinions, like JohnB’s, are flat wrong. Global warming is not accelerating. Deal with it.