August global temperature was 0.19C, September is 0.29C
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade September temperatures (preliminary)
Notes on data released Oct. 6, 2014:
There was some warming in the tropics in September as an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event apparently tries to get its act together, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
During the 1997-1998 El Niño, the September 1997 tropical temperature anomaly was +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms, while in the 2009-2010 El Niño the September 2009 anomaly was +0.56 C, or about 1.01 F warmer than seasonal norms. That could indicate that this El Niño — if it fully develops — might be somewhat modest.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in September was in northern Canada of the northern coast of Prince Charles Island, where temperatures were as much as 2.73 C (about 4.91 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in September was in the western Antarctic, along the eastern edge of the Ross Ice Shelf. Temperatures there were as much as 5.35 C (about 9.63 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
Global composite temp.: +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 C (about 0.34 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.40 C (about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Tropics: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
August temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.20 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.24 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.06 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Is there an error here? At the top it says 0.19°C for September, but below the map, it says 0.29°C. I believe the latter is what is on file.
I corrected the typo. Sorry about the delay.
Bob,
Will you be correcting to reflect the published UAH data for both months (from the link, this is 0.20 for August and 0.30 for September)?
Thanks.
That’s a ‘no’ then.
August global temperature was 0.19C, September is 0.19C ????
anomaly
Its a typo here. At Spencer’s blog its 0.29C
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-sept-2014-0-29-deg-c/
UAH official data says September 2014 was 0.30C for global: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
It is interesting to see that the largest anomaly, up to +4.5 degrees is in the Antarctica. Meanwhile, The Antarctic ice sheet set 9 new absolute records in September and nineteen days in record territory since measurements begun
http://lenbilen.com/2014/10/03/twenty-one-days-in-record-territory-for-antarctic-ice-in-2014-nine-new-absolute-records-set/
Sorry I didn’t see your post.
I’ve got to admit that the pro-AGW side seems to have a good counter-argument on this one: whilst they agree the sea ice extent is a record, they say (backed up by the GRACE record) that the Antarctic land ice sheet is falling, so there is net ice loss.
I can see the argument, and it makes sense; so it seems that we’re in that strange place where both sides are correct in their assertions. That’s usually when the best science is done (think how the wave / particle duality of light led to quantum physics), so maybe – just maybe – interesting science awaits us?
Greenland should have made Arctic Ice increase too. Or does it not work the same way in both Hemispheres?
It is odd. According to UAH, Antarctica (SoPol) has warmed at the fastest rate of any major region on earth over the past 5 years (currently +0.53C/dec). Most of this is over land areas, though warming over the ocean is also clear (0.15 C/dec): http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Paradoxically, it seems the sea ice has expanded in the face of increasing temperatures in the region.
That’s another of the really remarkable things about global warming – there are quite a number of different regions that are the fastest warming on earth.
Makes you wonder if warmer temperatures lead to increased precipitation, seems reasonable that sea ice can grow from the top down as well as the bottom up.
A few degrees above normal can still be well below freezing. IMO Antartica is pretty useless to use in an argument for or against AGW. Antartica does not care what the rest of the globe is doing. As long as it stays an isolated land mass at the pole, it is going to stay very cold and stable no matter what the rest of the globe does.
On the other hand, I hope it melts. Think of the paleontology waiting to be done!
Peter hit the send button by mistake. Those were his notes on how to write his response. 😉
See, his full response was everything he promised. Loud, confident, wrong and offensive.
schitzree: Wonderful!
Mr Grace, why can’t you chat with courtesy? Your usual approach is to respond to other’s comments – not make a comment of your own. It’s always a sniper comment. Why do you feel this is constructive?
You sound abusive, do you have kids? A good father does not get irritated with his kids to the point he considers them fools. At any rate, whether you have kids or not, you are not my father or father to all of the rest of the world. Should we refer to you as God my father as in the prayers? Rhetorical question, let me just add god-complex to the list.
The globe has been disrupted mightliy in the last 100 years and were certainly not fun, This was mostly due to world wars, colds wars, regional wars, and then throw a few plagues in there along with earthquakes and tsunamis. Since you cannot tell the difference between those painfully real disruptions and your illusions of grandeur fantasies, let me add a third description delusional.
So I up your un-supported “Loud, confident, wrong and offensive” with my fully supported “abusive, god-complex, illusions of grandeur, and delusional”.
Peter
The fact that you are a father doesn’t give you special rights. None of us are gleeful about the possibility of ‘end of days’. We have all been fed a line of BS for many years. We don’t believe the lies anymore .18 years of no temperature change (average of course) with an ever increasing CO2 level. Nothing but excuses from all the ‘experts’. I’m not 6 years old.
“If the GRACE measurements are correct there is already a melt underway.”
Correction
“If the GRACE measurements and the isostasy model are correct there is an increasing amount of calving underway”
Ice melting in Antarctica is utterly insignificant. The ice either calves into the sea or sublimates.
Yeah, Peter, you really showed him and his faux psychoanalysis by doing the same with a political twist to it. As some one who doesn’t vote right-wing, is agnostic, can’t stand Glenn Beck, avoids the Religious Right, and doesn’t watch Fox News, I find you sanctimonious, shrill, and arrogant. Therefore, I’m sure you would accept my opinion, no? Clearly, there’s no possible way you could hold strong political sentiments that happen to sit on the other side of the spectrum from many who are skeptical of CAGW science.
peter ,may i suggest these to enable your son to cope with 300mm sea level rise http://www.ardmoor.co.uk/seeland-field-17-boot-32-02-084?utm_source=googleshop&utm_medium=shop&utm_content=google-shop&utm_campaign=03-10-2014&gclid=CI_R4dibm8ECFSXKtAodGCwAOw
Peter
A 300 meter sea level rise by the time your eldest child reaches 40?
You have lost touch with reality. Get a grip on yourself.
Someone help me here.
WHY does the volume of Antarctic ice matter?
Most of it is hundreds of thousands of years old. As it gets fatter, pressure increases and at the bottom this might cause melting. Volcanic activity might be a factor.
But SO THE HADES WHAT? Its climate at the surface that matters.
At the surface Antarctic is showing record cold in the air and record sea ice plus cold anomalies all round the sea ice perimeter. But no matter, we are told – two miles under the ice there is melting.
Just like in the oceans, its the surface temperatures that drive the climate which sustains humans and the biosphere that matters. It is here where warming has stalled. But no matter, we are told – down in the abyssal depth global warming is full steam ahead!
Warming in the unseen deep is not relevant to climate. Its only a fig-leaf for AGW charlatans.
There is evidence that ocean bottom water at least near the Arctic was warmer during ice ages. Does this mean that ice ages are not real? Is this the next big reveal from the CAGW camp? – that they no longer believe in ice ages?
See Peter wringing his hands at one moment and snarling and snapping at the next.
Poor kids.
So according to that globe the Antarctic is much wamer than normal?????????
Why all the trolling?
Nothing very surprising there. Note that the Southern Ocean some distance away from Antarctica is colder than normal. This is where the sea-ice is at record levels. I would guess that the katabatic winds from the very cold high pressure area over Antarctica (a. k. a. “the polar vortex”) has spread a bit further north than usual this winter, thus causing both the slightly warmer temperatures over the continent and the slightly colder ones further north. In short the temperature gradient is a bit flatter than normal. We saw the same effect over the Arctic last winter.
Looks like we had a nice warm September in northern Europe. Let’s have more of it.
And as the beaches have been crowded..
http://www.nrk.no/nordnytt/hvalross-koste-seg-pa-bat-1.11970368
For those looking for the September sea surface temperature update, sorry, I haven’t put together one so far this month. The data source I use, NOAA NOMADS, has been down for more than a week. I sent them an email last evening, asking when it would be back online.
Another contact at NOAA provided me a link to another source of weekly and monthly Reynolds OI.v2 sst data, but I’ve yet to figure out how to use it. It’s not cut and dry. Anyone intimate with using the IRI data library?
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.NOAA/.NCEP/.EMC/.CMB/.GLOBAL/.Reyn_SmithOIv2/.weekly/
Then I want to do some cross checking, make sure there are no differences between the two sources, and if there are, that they’re explainable.
Then again, all depends on when NOMADS will be back.
Enjoy your day.
“August global temperature was 0.19C, September is 0.19C”
correct to:
“August global temperature anomaly was 0.19C. September is 0.19C”
That would be the title using the style rules of The Economist.
I think most of us got it. It is an anomaly report that comes out regularly.
The data would still be wrong. Roy Spencer has it right: The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2014 is +0.29 deg. C, up from the August value of +0.20 deg. C.
Specifies the metric, (it was previously established to be the UAH data), the particular portion of the atmosphere, month, year, and value.
Personally, I would have preferred “+0.29 C deg.” to emphasize it’s not an actual temperature but an amount of change.
That is why it is called an anomaly. The average temperature over 30 years is set as a zero line. Variations from this line , up or down, are referred to as anomalies. It’s just a statistical method
According to the official UAH data, the global anomaly for September is 0.30, up from 0.20 in August: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
We are in an interglacial period, during which it warms and continues warming until it doesn’t. Then we are back in another ice age. Why does warming support the AGW proposiiton?
There is a lot of money involved on that bandwagon.
I misread your statement as Why does warming support the AGW prostitution? I must be biased.
You got it right the first time
Might be interesting to have Lewandowski do a survey to see what Prostitutes, people who are professionaly familair with mankind’s darker, baser side think of AGW and Climatologists; if he could establish enough trust that is.
Actually it has been mostly cooling for the last 8,000 years, like it usually does in every Interglacial. However there is some slight short-term variability in this cooling trend which is for som reason causing a lot of panic just now.
“Why does warming support the AGW proposiiton?” Probably has something to do with natural forcing would have resulted in cooling the past 50 or so years if not for AGW.
Natural *forcing* causes cooling?
“During the 1997-1998 El Niño, the September 1997 tropical temperature anomaly was +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms”
Are the seasonal norms used in 1997-98 directly comparable to the norms used in 2014?
You need a baseline average over a certain period. A stated anomaly value without the baseline is meaningless. You need to know what the +0.34 C was measured from.
Thanks for the answer. The quote is from our host’s post above. My understanding is that a 30 year baseline is used for a lot of climate records, but that the baseline period is updated from time to time as the years progress. Hey, you can’t stop progress! If we’re comparing weather anomalies from 15 years apart it’s worth checking to see whether appropriate adjustments have been made if the baseline has changed. In economics, for comparison, data are routinely adjusted for inflation.
It could be that such adjustments are routine here as well, in which case, sorry for the fuss.
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
So I would guess ‘yes’. But only if you were referring to the graph above.
I don’t know where your quote came from so I don’t know the baseline.
No problem.
When they say warmer, don’t take your shirt off!! Its -21C on the Antarctic Peninsula, the warmest part of the continent that everyone is so worried about. Forecast for tomorrow -26C. So I guess it must have warmed up from 25-30C before!!!! Ice is being melted by innumberable active volcanoes along the entire west side of the continent and under the sea just offshore.
http://www.yr.no/place/Antarctica/Other/Antarctic_Peninsula/
http://www.livescience.com/41262-west-antarctica-new-volcano-discovered.html
How much money is being spent measuring these fractions of a degree (Celsius and Fahrenheit)? And what exactly, is the purpose? I am really being serious when asking these questions, so please don’t dismiss them out of hand.
Billions. All the meteorological organisations of every country.The satellites/ argo floats and the infrastructure associated with processing the data etc. That’s just for temperature measurement. You could add many more billions for all the grants to study the effects of climate change. Every story and every article you read has cost a lot. I wouldn’t even try to work out the costs. Life’s too short.
And the purpose? make money
Additional satellites would not improve resolution since the GRACE concept is based on measuring the distance between pairs of satellites. However the current satellites are reaching the end of their life and their performance is deteriorating.
GRACE doesn’t have even remotely enough resolution to do what they say it does now. Run the numbers and then explain to me how it is finding ice and sea level anomalies in the millimeter range while missing whole mountain ranges. Then explain how they decide what the detected gravity anomaly is caused by. It’s a wonderful concept for gravity and may be able to provide useful data for large scale magma displacements and core convection but 10 milliGal ( or even 1 mGal) level “accuracy” of an anomaly in the entire gravity field acting on those two instruments is not useful for seeing ice or sea level changes unless they are massive… and we wouldn’t need the satellites to see them. Stick with RADAR altimeters, boreholes, buoys, soundings and GPS markers for ice and ocean data ’cause they work. GRACE is an experiment that works for a few things but climate data is not one of them no matter what the propaganda from NASA says.
Peter, for heaven’s sake. You scare easily. You would have quite 10 minutes into the Oregon Trail, tucked your tail between your legs, and run back to the East Coast. It’s a good thing you waited to be born now.
The circumpolar current keeps Antarctica within its normal range in a manner much more consistent than the invading warm currents that head straight into the Arctic (which explains the much more variable Arctic ice). You can sleep tonight just fine. Your children, their children, and their children will be fine.
The warmest spots were in Antarctica, look at that big ball of yellow at the bottom of the globe – yet the south pole there had the greatest ice extent ever measured in September. Another case of warming bringing about cooling?
Not exactly the warmest spots. Just the largest anomalies from the baseline of septembers from 1981 -2010. I still wouldn’t have a pee outside in those conditions. Its just local weather, sometimes warmer , sometimes colder. Don’t stress and remember to wear your warm underwear.
Thanks, Dr. Christy.
I will update your graphic in my Web pages.
I don’t know the exact figures but the rough argument appears to be that when the temperature goes
from -26C to -21C this causes Antarctic ice to melt, possibly even the ice cream in New Jersey to melt.
Ignoring that bit of “lost touch with reality a while ago” argument, and just looking at the graph, from 1978 to
1998 it was cool relative to the norm or zero point on the graph. From 1998 to 2014 it is above the norm. This looks like an oscillation where temperatures could swing down again by 2018 or so. I note this only for the sake of argument, the whole notion of a global temperature is a fantasy. We need about another fifty years to
not only collect better data, but to also to determine the exact definition of global temperature. All sides can always be wrong and all sides can always right when a key piece of evidence, global temperature, is a moving target with willy nilly definitions popping up ad-hoc as needed to win the day.
re: the exact figures
Here is the temperature data from Davis station, the closest weather station to the Ross Ice Shelf
For this time of year the MEAN temperature is around -12C
So even if it is 5 degrees warmer this month, there is little melting occuring!
see all the monthly means from 1957-2014 here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta89571.dat
oops! wrong station Davis is on the other side! McMurdo is on the Ross ice shelf and its closer to Alex’s guess at -25
see station data here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta89664.dat
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2014/EGU2014-6201-1.pdf
A group of scientists from the UK, France, and NASA claim there was no significant Antarctic mass loss or gain in 2003-2009.
Unbelievable! As Pointman often says, warmunists have no sense of humour.
So. slight (natural?) warming for 36 years, but no net warming for 18 years. Significantly increased CO2. Missing heat not found. El Nino weak to moderate when it maybe should have been strong given all the “missing heat.” I’m not feeling all that “sensitive” about CO2 or temporary temp swings.
Join the club
“That could indicate that this El Niño — if it fully develops — might be somewhat modest.”
There’s no way this el nino will be a strong one…weak to perhaps moderate. Bear in mind those living in the eastern u.s. the weaker the el nino, generally the colder the winter…
See “weatherbell”/.
Perhaps I have not been sufficiently propagandized, but when I look at that global map I do NOT think “The Globe has a FEVER!” It looks like a whole lot of average temperatures with local variability.
Actually GRACE gravity measurements are definitely much more exact and reliable than e. g. satellite sea-level, ice area or air and sea-surface temperatures. The problem is interpreting them in the almost complete absence of good isostasy data in Antarctica. The uncertainty is much larger than is ever admitted.
GRACE calibration algorithms can be verified by comparing the GRACE measurements over Greenland, with the GPS measurements of the isostatic rebound currently occurring there.
No they can’t. It would be about as effective as using a chart of Greenland waters to navigate in the Weddell sea. This is simply not a “calibration algorithm”. Why should the isostatic rebound in Antarctica be the same as in Greenland? It depends both on deglaciation history (fairly well known for Greeenland, almost unknown for Antarctica), and the current change in ice-loading (which is what we are trying to measure, so there is not one but two “X” too many in this equation).
Yes they can. They are calibrating the measurement the satellite is making. They can compare the results of the satellite measurements with the measurements made by ground based GPS.
It’s much the same as using a tape measure to verify the yardstick.
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2010/04/13/grace-gps-ice-melt/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.G22B..08F
I’m afraid You don’t understand the problem. The GPS measurement around the edge of the GREENLAND ice-sheet can be used to calibrate the GRACE measurements of the changes in the GREENLAND gravity field and isolate the part of the change due to isostasy from the part due to the change of the GREENLAND ice-cap. The results can even be extended to the center of the GREENLAND ice sheet (it´s not that far after all) though with increasing uncertainty.
However this does not work in Antarctica. You still have the same yardstick, but unfortunately no tape measure. There are very few GPS stations with meaningfully long measurement series in Antarctica. And what is worse, for the most part there never will be any, because in Antarctica there are millions of square kilometers of ice with no no bedrock exposed, so there is simply nowhere to put GPS stations.
You don’t get it do you.?
The calibration is for the satellite which remains constant whether it is flying over Greenland, Antarctica, or the ocean.
tty
I write to offer a warning.
You have stated the facts of GRACE calibration. Those facts are clear and indisputable. beckleybud@gmail.com has denied the facts.
On the basis of his previous behaviour in other threads it can now be expected that beckleybud@gmail.com will pretend to be an idiot as a method to assert the facts are other than they are. And he/she/they/it will persist in that pretense.
I strongly commend that you – and all others – ignore any further response concerning GRACE calibration from beckleybud@gmail.com.
Richard
@tty and @Courtney.
…
Since the two of you are oblivious as to how an instrument is “calibrated” I will give you a down to earth example in simple terms so that the two of you can understand how you can accomplish it.
Suppose you need to measure the length your neighbor’s driveway. You have a trusted yardstick, and a long tape measure. You are not sure of the accuracy of your tape measure, so you use your yardstick to measure YOUR OWN driveway, and you use the tape measure to do the same. When you see the results of the yardstick and the tape measure on YOUR driveway, your CONFIDENCE in the accuracy of the tape measure is enhanced. You then can use the tape measure to measure your neighbors driveway.
…
Now….just subsititue GPS for your yardstick, GRACE for the tape measure, Greenland for your driveway, and Antarctica for your neighbor’s driveway.
..
See how simple it is?
[But your “calibration standard” (the GRACE “yardstick”) is 35 inches long on side. And 37 inches long on the other. .mod]
MOD
…
Please re-read my post..
…
Pay close attention to the part that says “GPS for your yardstick”
..
GRACE is the tape measure…..
…
Reading is fundamental !!!
richardscourtney says:
I guess you´re right: he either is, or pretends to be an idiot.
@tty
…
Nice ad-hom you posted.
tty
His behaviour in other threads demonstrates his stupidity is clearly pretended: it is a ploy he uses to destroy threads. And whatever you do, don’t address has daft accusation of an ad hom. because that will result in his dragging you down Alice’s rabbit hole.
Richard
beckleybud says:
You don’t get it do you.?
Out of the thousands — actually, over a million — commenters at WUWT, the one who does not, and cannot seem to “get it”, is beckleybud.
This thread proves my point:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/#comment-1753492
@Courtney
…
If you are incapable of engaging in a discussion, and must resort to ad-hominem attacks (i.e. “stupidity” ) , I suggest you take your own advice (as posted here…
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/#comment-1755879 )
.
Where you said, ” informing you that I have no interest in further interaction with you”
…
Try and follow your own advice, or as the familiar saying goes, “practice what you preach”
LMAO ———>@dbstealy….
…
CO2 follows T except for the past 18 years
BuddyB says:
@tty and @Courtney.
…
Since the two of you are oblivious as to how an instrument is “calibrated” I will give you a down to earth example…
That is so far away from an example of how real calibration is done that I advise Buddy to start reading ISO 9000 before he looks even more foolish.
I spent my 30+ year career working in a large metrology lab [no, Buddy, not ‘meteorology’]. We calibrated weather-related instruments all day, every day. For an idea of the level of difficulty in metrology [the science of measurement], this site shows what is involved in calibrating a simple stick thermometer. A mercury thermometer is about the simplest possible instrument to calibrate.
Calibration difficulty rises geometrically from there, and I have little confidence in the Grace ice volume measurements.
Buddy also improbably claims that CO2 does not follow temperature, even though there is a mountain of empirical evidence showing exactly that. That relationship: ∆T causes ∆CO2, is seen in ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years [see ‘Note’, in left center of chart].
Some folks are just not cut out to understand science. Beckleybuddy is one of them.
@dbstealey…
…
CO2 follows T?
…
Hasn’t followed it for 18 years.
..
You were the one that has said, “global warming has stopped”
..
@beckleybud
You assume that by calibrating GRACE for isostatic rebound over Greenland you can now measure Antarctica. This is true if and only if the isostatic rebound for both locations is identical. You have not presented any evidence that this is so. And before you fire back that I haven’t presented any evidence that is isn’t so, let me point out that as the party making the affirmative case, the burden of proof falls on you.
Buddy, take an aspirin and lie down. Watch some 3 Stooges, that’s more your speed. Because you are still not able to understand the most basic science.
For other readers: Global temperature (T) is the same as it was 18 years ago, by some satellite records. That is what is meant when people say ‘global warming has stopped’. It does not mean that temperatures are in an unmoving stasis. Rather, people are referring to the temperature trend.
During that 18 years, T has fluctuated by almost 1ºC. Global T always fluctuates. But the trend is flat. Thus, global warming has stopped. Global T is the same now as it was 18 years ago.
CO2 follows those temporary up/down fluctuations. Thus, ∆T causes ∆CO2. Or conversely: CO2 follows T. There are numerous obsevation-based charts available that show that cause and effect relationship. I posted two above. I have at least a half dozen more that show the same thing: T causes CO2. Not vice-versa. At least, there are no such contrary observations.
But there a re no charts that I’ve found [and I have looked, and asked people to post any they can find]. So all empirical observations show conclusively that changes in T are the cause of changes in CO2. That cause and effect can be clearly seen in charts from years, to hundreds of thousands of years.
The alarmist crowd got their causation backward, that’s all. But they cannot admit it, because if they did, their entire “carbon” scare would be debunked. Readers here already know that, but the public is just beginning to find out.
@DJ Hawkins:
buddy doesn’t understand charts, so he will just run back to his alarmist blog and get his talking points. He only has a high school eduucation, so he is not up to your standards. Good luck trying to ‘reason’ with him, as he is not capable of understanding even simple charts. But he is proficient at getting talking points, so get ready for the alarmist spin.
@ur momisugly D.J. Hawkins
…
There are only two types of lithospheres, namely oceanic and continental. Both Greenland and Antarctica are continental, with a density of about 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter. Neither are oceanic at 2.9 grams per centimeter. I would be happy to consider a third type if you can find a way to distinguish or sub-type different types of continental lithosphere areas.
@dbstealey…
…
Over the course of the past 18 years, the ∆T has been ON AVERAGE zero. Yes, the actual T goes up and down, but during the entire span of the interval, the T has been constant….and hence you say, “global warming has stopped.” When you say “global warming has stopped” you are saying ∆T is zero. If global cooling had occurred during the 18 years, you would say ∆T is negative. If global warming had occurred during the 18 years, you would say ∆T is positive.
…
So, according to you, in the past 18 years ∆T is zero.
…
If ∆CO2 followed ∆T, it also would be zero.
…
However, we all know in the past 18 years that ∆CO2 is not zero, it is positive, and NOT following ∆T.
BuddyB says:
When you say “global warming has stopped” you are saying ∆T is zero.
No. That’s where you’re confused. But I’ve tried to explain it so many times, on so many different occasions, that I give up. Richard Courtney has tried to explain, and Phil Jourdan has tried. And no one else agrees with your strange view.
So let’s leave it at that, ‘K? You are either deficient, or you do not want to understand — or you are deliberately obfuscating the issue because if you admit to the obvious fact that CO2 follows temperature, your climate alarmism becomes a false alarm. CO2=cAGW is falsified.
It’s tough, I know, to believe something for years, and to have taught your view to others over the years, and to have your ego entirely wrapped up in an explanation — that turns out to be backward and wrong.
But that is not our fault. I believed in MMGW in the 1990’s, when global T was rising fast. But I learned a lot since then. New facts emerged. I was wrong before. I admit it. My interest, and my goal, is more and better knowledge, not in winning a stupid argument that is all politics, and not science.
Now I see that the CO2=cAGW conjecture is completely unsupportable. CO2 does not cause any measurable rise in T. I have asked for measurements showing that it does ad nauseum. But NO ONE has ever posted such measurements. So I must assume they do not exist. But there are plenty of measurements showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. That is now a given.
Sorry about your world view. It turned out to be wrong. C’est la vie.
@dbstealey
…
I can make this so simple that even you can understand it.
In the past 18 years global warming has STOPPED. You even said so. Now, there are two key words in that statement that you ought to pay attention to…… WARMING HAS STOPPED
…
What does “warming has stopped” mean? It means that the average global temperature is not rising, it’s not falling, it is stable.
..
Pretty simple really. I’m sure you understand that part.
…
Now comes the part you claim. That ∆CO2 follows ∆T. Well, since ∆T is zero (which is another way of saying “warming has stopped” ….it is obvious that ∆CO2 is not following ∆T. Why is that? Because if ∆CO2 was following NO WARMING then ∆CO2 would be zero.
…
Obviously something other than temperature has caused CO2 to rise 36 ppm in the past 18 years.
…
If you think temperature was the cause, please show me the rise in temperature in the past 18 years that caused the CO2 to rise. According to you there has to have been a rise in T in the past 18 years.
Sooner or later it may dawn on you what the cause of the rise in CO2 in the past 18 years was.
…
BuddyB:
Pff-f-f-f-f-ft.
Go away. You’re just trolling.
D.J. Hawkins
You write
Yes, and you were not the first to point that out to him, a Moderator and tty had each attempted to explain the matter to beckleybud before your attempt.
I remind that I then advised tty
and
Subsequent events – including the attempts by dbstealey to obtain rationality from beckleybud@gmail.com – have shown my warning to be prescient.
I write to repeat the warning because any response to beckleybud@gmail.com provides him/her/them/it with additional opportunity to disrupt the thread by use of his/her.their/its pretended stupidity.
Richard
@Courtney
..
It is admirable for you to stand up for your sidekick Mr Dbstealey, but unfortunately in this case, his claims have been falsified. I know it is difficult for you to see one of your cherished positions decimated, but as you can tell from Mr Dbstealey, he cannot respond to defend the claim. If you wish to take up discussion of the relationship between T and CO2 in the past 18 years, give it your best shot.
@Becklybud You’re analogy only works if both driveways are fixed (no variations over time) and they both share the same characteristics (both flat, or both same type of surface curvature, both same bedding, etc).
I think that’s what people are trying to point out to you.
tty says of Buddybeckley:
He either is, or pretends to be an idiot.
He’s not pretending. buddy cannot even understand a simple series of charts. He has been confused so often that it’s clear he is incapable of understanding.
buddyb cannot face the fact that Planet Earth herself is busy debunking the alarmist cult’s pseudo-science. He reacts by falling back on his cognitive dissonance, refusing to face the reality that CAGW has been so thoroughly debunked that only trolls still try to push it.
All other commenters have tried to educate buddy, with no success at all. He has only a high school education, and he is incapapble of understanding simple charts. He can’t grasp the concept of cause and effect. He believes that global T has been completely flat and unchanging by even a hundreth of a degree for the past 18 years. Many commenters have tried sincerely to help buddy, but he is not capable of being educated. I have helpfully suggested that he read the archives, keyword: CO2, so he can try to get up to speed.
Nothing works. He simply trots back to his alarmist blogs for talking points to use in trolling the thread in the hope of sowing confusion. Clearly that doesn’t work. Readers can see that buddy just doesn’t have the mental horsepower to understand simple causation, so he certainly cannot understand that his world view has been falsified: CO2 does not cause measurable warming; CO2 is the result of warming.
If buddy could understand that one point, everything would fall into place for him. The scales would fall from his eyes, and he would see reality. Alas, buddy does not seem capable of basic understanding. Not everyone is up to the high standards of the commentary here. Buddy makes that obvious. Because he can’t understand, he trolls the thread. Really, he should read the archives, and at least make the effort to understand what’s happening.
dbstealey
Sorry, but we now have a consistent pattern of behaviour by beckleybud on three threads.
It is clearly the case that beckleybud is pretending to be stupid as a ploy to disrupt threads.
Since you still doubt this I ask you to consider the troll’s response to my above post addressed to D.J. Hawkins. The troll made a reply that has no relation of any kind to the content of my post. If the troll were as intellectually challenged as it pretends to be then it would have not tried to change the subject as a method for continuing disruption.
Richard
@dbstealey
..
You have a choice.
…
1) Post a chart that shows the ∆T of the past 18 years that caused the 36 ppm rise in CO2 or…
.
2) Admit that something other than ∆T has caused the 36 ppm rise in CO2 these past 18 years.
..
Your choice.
“Warm layer water will not be ‘below’ colder water above it”
It is actually possible if the warmer water is much more saline than the surface water. But then of course salt water will erode ice faster than fresh water irrespective of temperature. Ice-shelves are always slowly melting from the bottom even though the sea-water in Antarctica is usually well below zero. In a dead flat calm (very unusual in itself in Antarctica) I have actually seen snow fall on the sea-surface and not melting for several minutes.
perhaps this tidbit from the yahoo news feed is a bit off topic, I couldn’t help wanting some feed back from all you guys here… check this out: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/06/arctic_sea_ice_melt_truth_and_inevitable_denial.html I hope this link works, George
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/06/arctic_sea_ice_melt_truth_and_inevitable_denial.html
I saw this earlier, the guy that wrote it is an astronomer..and he only talks what has happened in the last 10-30 years, I’m no climate scientist, but i doubt that the short time scale he basis his article on has any relevance at all to any long term climate patterns or trends.
The whole article seems a bit wishy washy and there is a lot of personal opinion in there, which is never a good thing.
The link works. The satellite era of sea ice measurements are as accurate as we can get. They started doing them in the late 70s. That was the when the cold phase of the PDO was wrapping up and the oceans started warming. The PDO cold phase has a lag time between when the PDO changes and when the temperatures do of about 10 years. That is just my SWAG. If you want some in depth knowledge of the PDO / ENSO I’d highly recommend Bob Tisdale’s electronic book “Who Turned on the Heat”. Best $5 I’ve spent in a long time. Very educational about the basics. The PDO and AMO have a huge impact on the sea ice.
In a nutshell the entire satellite record for ice has been during the warm phase of the oceans. The average is the average for the warm phase not the complete cycle.
It will be interesting to look back in 20-25 years and see what a full cycle looks like. Dr Easterbrook called the PDO swing in 2001 so sometime around 2011 I was expecting to see the oceans start to cool. It isn’t exact but then again nothing in climate is. How the PDO & AMO and other ocean events are related is still a great area of study.
Hope that helps.
My query is in reference to the statement in the head or title of the post, how data is used to lie……
I read the article with a chuckle. Perhaps man’s blip-of-time on Earth causes him to consider 40-100 years a long time to use as a start point for their panicked climate reports, when in actuality the time is invisible on a time line (even peering through the Hubble Telescope from 5 feet away). True climate history is not measured in decades:
http://swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/press/77-a-warmer-arctic-ocean-during-ice-age-times