Of course 10 or even 20 years is too short a period to form any meaningful conclusions on surface temperature trends. Natural variability is large enough to overcome the underlying warming trend in that short a period. There's a reason that the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years. Meanwhile the oceans continue to heat up without pause.
We'll see what future temperature trends bring but I doubt that an extremely low solar cycle will be enough to stop rising temperatures.
The composition of the atmosphere does not directly determine the temperature at any location at any particular time.
The composition of the atmosphere, specifically the greenhouse gases in it make the Earth on average about 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be.
No matter any medium-sized volcano can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we do in a century of industrial production...
I stopped reading when I got to that line. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released about 42 million tonnes of CO2. That's less than 0.2% compared to the 23 billion tonnes released by humans that year,
You set an impossibly high standard. Climate models will never be able to predict weather within.01%. It's not physically possible. Besides they predict climate which is the average weather, not weather itself. But what if they're say 75% accurate? Is that enough to pay some heed to them.
You need to get your terminology straight. The article you cite talks about Antarctic sea ice, not the Antarctic ice sheet which is solidly grounded on the continent and continues to lose mass. Antarctic sea ice is about the only ice in the world that is not dropping and the net lose of ice from all sources is pretty massive.
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
In a warming world it is something you'd expect to happen with some regularity. By itself it's not enough to prove/disprove global warming but it is another brick in what is becoming a massive wall of evidence.
Which of course explains why some of the same people who are spouting similar lines to what you just said are paying record prices for real estate in both cities.
Walls won't work for most of southern Florida. The limestone it rests on is too riddled with holes to keep out the sea water. They invited some engineers from Holland to come take a look at their situation and they just shook their heads and the impossibility of dikes working in the area. I'm afraid that in 50 or 100 years much of southern Florida will be abandoned and in 200 years it will be history (like a modern day Atlantis).
The theory of climate doesn't depend on computer models at all. They are merely tools to help us better understand the interactions between the various components of climate. The prediction of warming rests on fundamental physics, the spectrum and power of incoming sunlight, the reflection, absorption and reradiation characteristics of the Earth and the absorption bands of the various greenhouse gases. The rest is details. The projections of climate models are what we expect to happen given the physical characteristics of the components of the climate system and assuming certain scenarios for the things we can't predict (like CO2 levels, changes in insolation, volcanic eruptions, various oceanic cycles and other things) but the prediction of global warming due to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere came long before any computer models, namely Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
That's a pretty big assumption that our complex technological civilization can adapt to climate change without missing a beat. What about all the capital that will be diverted into physical infrastructure just adapting to 30 feet of SLR rather than invested in technological progress? What if there are drastic changes to the agricultural systems that feed us that require more investment to adapt? What if we can't adapt fully enough to feed everyone? That's a recipe for starving people and war over resources. You're betting the farm on the assumption our civilization will have no problem adapting to the effects of global warming. You could win but you could also lose big. I don't like the odds.
During the short term, volcanoes easily outdo any other activity...
Shit man, that argument is getting old. Even the largest volcanic eruption in the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 only emitted around 42 million tonnes of CO2. Sounds like a lot but compare that to the 23 billion tonnes humans emitted in 1991 (It's well over 30 billion tonnes nowadays). Only a supervolcanic eruption could come close human emissions and even that isn't likely to keep going for more than a month or two.
Examples of proxies include ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems. The character of deposition or rate of growth of the proxies' material has been influenced by the climatic conditions of the time in which they were laid down or grew. Chemical traces produced by climatic changes, such as quantities of particular isotopes, can be recovered from proxies. Some proxies, such as gas bubbles trapped in ice, enable traces of the ancient atmosphere to be recovered and measured directly to provide a history of fluctuations in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. To produce the most precise results, systematic cross-verification between proxy indicators is necessary for accuracy in readings and record-keeping.
It's true that the last three months being the hottest ever in the global temperature record is not proof of global warming and could turn out to just be a blip in the record. But on the other hand it's something you would expect to happen with some regularity in a globally warming world. Chances are it's just another brick in the wall of evidence for global warming.
Let's see if the ice trend for Lake Superior continues for another 5 or 10 years before we start getting all excited about it. By the same token this article about the hottest three months ever in the temperature record doesn't prove anything either although it's something you would expect in a globally warming world and it doesn't help the climate science denier argument about cooling since 1998 (or whenever).
Try looking at actual data [woodfortrees.org]. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere. That's a slightly negative trend that's going hard on twenty years...all with CO2 levels worth panicking over according to some.
Ok, what makes the RSS data better than the UAH MSU satellite data? If you're ignoring that you're just cherry picking. The fact is that RSS is using an older satellite for their data and may have some issues with deteriorating orbits and sensors that aren't properly accounted for.
Slashdot Mirror
The hole is about the right size for one of Dune's sandworms.
Citation? My understanding is that RSS and UAH are two independent analyses of the same data.
Dr. Roy Spencer on the divergence between UAH and RSS global temperature records.
Of course 10 or even 20 years is too short a period to form any meaningful conclusions on surface temperature trends. Natural variability is large enough to overcome the underlying warming trend in that short a period. There's a reason that the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years. Meanwhile the oceans continue to heat up without pause.
We'll see what future temperature trends bring but I doubt that an extremely low solar cycle will be enough to stop rising temperatures.
Global Historical Climate Network raw vs. adjusted temperatures.
You need to show that "some of the same people who are spouting similar lines" are buying the property.
The composition of the atmosphere does not directly determine the temperature at any location at any particular time.
The composition of the atmosphere, specifically the greenhouse gases in it make the Earth on average about 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be.
No matter any medium-sized volcano can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we do in a century of industrial production ...
I stopped reading when I got to that line. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released about 42 million tonnes of CO2. That's less than 0.2% compared to the 23 billion tonnes released by humans that year,
You set an impossibly high standard. Climate models will never be able to predict weather within .01%. It's not physically possible. Besides they predict climate which is the average weather, not weather itself. But what if they're say 75% accurate? Is that enough to pay some heed to them.
Also keep in mind that Pennsylvania (or even Pennsylvania and Connecticut taken together) are not representative of the whole globe.
You need to get your terminology straight. The article you cite talks about Antarctic sea ice, not the Antarctic ice sheet which is solidly grounded on the continent and continues to lose mass. Antarctic sea ice is about the only ice in the world that is not dropping and the net lose of ice from all sources is pretty massive.
Wish I could mod you up.
You may have had the snowiest winter on record but I doubt it was the coldest. Maybe the coldest in your lifetime though.
Where's your analysis ?
I think he's still cherry picking his data...
FTFY
Go plot the raw unadjusted temperature readings against the adjusted values. You won't find that much difference. Certainly not a cooling trend.
The raw data has not been lost in any way shape of form. You can Google it here for a number of different sources.
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
In a warming world it is something you'd expect to happen with some regularity. By itself it's not enough to prove/disprove global warming but it is another brick in what is becoming a massive wall of evidence.
Which of course explains why some of the same people who are spouting similar lines to what you just said are paying record prices for real estate in both cities.
[citation needed]
Walls won't work for most of southern Florida. The limestone it rests on is too riddled with holes to keep out the sea water. They invited some engineers from Holland to come take a look at their situation and they just shook their heads and the impossibility of dikes working in the area. I'm afraid that in 50 or 100 years much of southern Florida will be abandoned and in 200 years it will be history (like a modern day Atlantis).
The theory of climate doesn't depend on computer models at all. They are merely tools to help us better understand the interactions between the various components of climate. The prediction of warming rests on fundamental physics, the spectrum and power of incoming sunlight, the reflection, absorption and reradiation characteristics of the Earth and the absorption bands of the various greenhouse gases. The rest is details. The projections of climate models are what we expect to happen given the physical characteristics of the components of the climate system and assuming certain scenarios for the things we can't predict (like CO2 levels, changes in insolation, volcanic eruptions, various oceanic cycles and other things) but the prediction of global warming due to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere came long before any computer models, namely Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
That's a pretty big assumption that our complex technological civilization can adapt to climate change without missing a beat. What about all the capital that will be diverted into physical infrastructure just adapting to 30 feet of SLR rather than invested in technological progress? What if there are drastic changes to the agricultural systems that feed us that require more investment to adapt? What if we can't adapt fully enough to feed everyone? That's a recipe for starving people and war over resources. You're betting the farm on the assumption our civilization will have no problem adapting to the effects of global warming. You could win but you could also lose big. I don't like the odds.
If the right wing would offer some constructive suggestions rather than just denying that a problem exists then maybe we could get somewhere.
During the short term, volcanoes easily outdo any other activity ...
Shit man, that argument is getting old. Even the largest volcanic eruption in the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 only emitted around 42 million tonnes of CO2. Sounds like a lot but compare that to the 23 billion tonnes humans emitted in 1991 (It's well over 30 billion tonnes nowadays). Only a supervolcanic eruption could come close human emissions and even that isn't likely to keep going for more than a month or two.
There are a number proxies for climate in the past.
Examples of proxies include ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems. The character of deposition or rate of growth of the proxies' material has been influenced by the climatic conditions of the time in which they were laid down or grew. Chemical traces produced by climatic changes, such as quantities of particular isotopes, can be recovered from proxies. Some proxies, such as gas bubbles trapped in ice, enable traces of the ancient atmosphere to be recovered and measured directly to provide a history of fluctuations in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. To produce the most precise results, systematic cross-verification between proxy indicators is necessary for accuracy in readings and record-keeping.
It's true that the last three months being the hottest ever in the global temperature record is not proof of global warming and could turn out to just be a blip in the record. But on the other hand it's something you would expect to happen with some regularity in a globally warming world. Chances are it's just another brick in the wall of evidence for global warming.
Let's see if the ice trend for Lake Superior continues for another 5 or 10 years before we start getting all excited about it. By the same token this article about the hottest three months ever in the temperature record doesn't prove anything either although it's something you would expect in a globally warming world and it doesn't help the climate science denier argument about cooling since 1998 (or whenever).
Try looking at actual data [woodfortrees.org]. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere. That's a slightly negative trend that's going hard on twenty years...all with CO2 levels worth panicking over according to some.
Ok, what makes the RSS data better than the UAH MSU satellite data? If you're ignoring that you're just cherry picking. The fact is that RSS is using an older satellite for their data and may have some issues with deteriorating orbits and sensors that aren't properly accounted for.