NASA and NOAA have been putting in unexplained adjustments into their data, by cooling the past and warming the present: https://i1.wp.com/realclimates... [wp.com]
That's comparing two different adjusted datasets. When you compare adjusted data to unadjusted data the adjusted data actually shows a lower warming trend.
Unlike some others I don't get my hair on fire over sea level rise. It's usually a slow process. But I also think 100 years from now the Miami area will be largely abandoned because of the inexorable sea level rise. It will have costly effects on coasts around the world.
Scientists make adjustments for the urban heat island effect. When you compare the stations adjusted for the UHI to the unadjusted well sited stations the stations adjusted for the UHI actually show a slightly lower warming rate than the well sited stations.
Yes, the El Nino itself doesn't cause heating but merely changes the distribution of existing heat. But since the start of "the pause" is generally the last super El Nino in 1997/1998 I think it's ok to use this super El Nino for comparison.
Unlike you I prefer going to what actual scientists say. The history in long starting with Joseph Fourier in the 1820s to John Tyndall in the 1850s and Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s who said the increase in temperature was proportional the the natural log of the increase in CO2. In the 1950s Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change". In the 1960s scientists told President Lyndon Johnson that the increase in CO2 would cause temperature increases. In 1979 the Charney report titled "Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment" stated "We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3C with a probable error of ± 1.5C." I could go on but there is a long line of scientific assessment before any politician took it up.
And that is discounting that CO2 has a "residence" in the atmosphere of about 33 years.
An individual CO2 molecule might have a residence time of about 33 years but the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has more to do with the balance between the various reservoirs of the carbon cycle. Increase the total carbon in the carbon cycle and you increase the level in all those reservoirs, increased CO2 in the atmosphere, ocean acidification as dissolved CO2 increases in the water and yes, some increased plant growth. Even if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere today it would take thousands of years for geologic processes to remove carbon from the active carbon cycle.
If you'd like we can talk about the other planets in our solar system and how it can be shown rather easily that air pressure and distance from the sun are actually the overwhelming drivers of atmospheric temperature and that chemical composition is not especially relevant. I mean... its really easy. Look at any planet in the solar system. and match it with another solar system at equal air pressure. That is... look at the temp data at 1 atmosphere say on Venus and compare to Earth at 1 atmosphere... What you'll find is that Venus while hot is not actually that much hotter than earth. Factor for distance from the sun and the two harmonize. You can do the same thing for Jupiter or Uranius... and if you match at fractions of an atmosphere you can match Mars to earth etc.
Of course the distance from the Sun makes a difference but I'll start taking your air pressure hypothesis more seriously when many scientists do rather than just a handful of cranks.
As far as the limited amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if it makes just a 1% difference that's nearly 3 degrees C of change.
It's true that water vapor is the greenhouse gas that causes the most greenhouse effect but it's also true that water is present in all three phases of normal matter on the Earth and it easily transforms from one to the other. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature and to some extent by the availability of water to evaporate. If there's too much it precipitates out. And while there's a relationship between water vapor and clouds they are two quite different things when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Again the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature. If we could magically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to 200 ppm the cooling would cause the level of water vapor to also drop and pretty quickly we would be starting a new glacial period. Water vapor by itself can not drive climate change but is strictly a feedback of other things that do drive climate.
Ok, the optimum CO2 level from my point of view would be somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm, enough to conteract the slow cooling trend from changes in Milankovitch Cycles but not so much that it causes major warming. But it's still an irrelevant question.
After the sea ice low minimum in 2012 (which was more than 2 standard deviations below the trend line) Arctic sea ice rebounded to slightly above the trend line in 2013. In science this is commonly called regression to the mean. 2014 ASI minimum was lower than 2013 and in 2015 it was the 4th lowest on record. None of the ASI minimums after 2006 are greater than the lowest records before 2006 (back to 1979 when the satellite measurements started).
Baffin Island is really close to Greenland so it doesn't surprise me it shows similar trends. How about some records from Siberia, China, Chile or New Zealand?
Thus, I write not for you, but for other people reading this thread who approach it objectively.
The past gets adjusted up more than it gets adjusted down.
NOAA has a dataset that they and NASA/GISS use (each with their own adjustments) but there are also datasets that are independent of them like HADCRUT, JMA and Berkeley Earth.
Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.
Berleley Earth says "2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence." I can't find percentages for the other two but I imagine they're in the same ballpark.
If there is an anthropogenic driver of the surface temperatures, then why do the monthly maps show no correspondence to human population centers!
That's got to be one of the silliest questions ever. Let me guess, you think global warming is caused by the heat humans create by burning fossil fuels. But that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the incoming solar energy. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slow the rate at which the heat absorbed from that incoming solar radiation is radiated back off the Earth causing warming. That's why even before anthropogenic global warming came on the scene the average Earth temperature was about 58 F instead of around 0 F which is what it would be without any GHGs in the atmosphere.
The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.
The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.
If you're worried about how much you're being asked to pay now (not that much really, less than 5%) you should be really worried about what it's going to cost you when some of the things we know are going to happen like sea level rise really start to kick in. Miami Beach, FL is spending some $400 million to install pumps and build some seawalls to stave off the effects of king tides that are flooding the lower areas. Those areas didn't used to flood as often when sea level was 6 or 7 inches lower than it is now. The pumps might save them for 25-50 years but I won't last because sea level rise is inexorable.
I (and many others) predicted the "No warming since 2015" meme months ago but I'm not sure you can make it official until you see if 2016 is cooler than 2015. Based on past behavior of of large El Ninos it's often the 2nd year that is the warmest (like the 1997/1998 El Nino) so I expect 2016 will be warmer unless there's a major volcanic eruption. So at the end or 2017 you can probably honestly start saying "No warming since 2016".
The site you link provides an excellent example of the cherry-picking the GW denying crowd does. The first article I saw on there links to an article stating that 2015 was the hottest year on record in the US.
Not only that but the contiguous USA only covers about 3% of the Earth's surface, not a particularly good analog for the whole planet.
Deriving satellite temperatures is a very complex task. You have to account for orbital decay and orbital drift of the satellites, sensor deterioration, data contamination from the stratosphere and surface reflection, clouds and high altitude mountains that jut into the area they're trying to measure.
Most of the surface temperature stations have been converted to automatic weather stations that report their measurements remotely. No volunteers involved.
Both the surface measurements and the satellite measurements have their issues but I see no reason to prefer one over the other except that I live on the surface and not the lower troposphere.
There are other names for it but it's kind of like the term "greenhouse effect". It doesn't really work like a real greenhouse (which limits convection) but we're kind of stuck with the name.
That's just the computer code for the ModelE. If you want data you're better off going to NOAA or perhaps the Berkeley Earth web sites. For Berkeley Earth start here. Their raw data is under the "Source Data" heading.
You're making me hungry. 7 or 8 inch brookies pan fried. Mmm mmm. Since I live in Oregon I'm no danger to your secret spot but we have some fine fishing out here too. Ever caught a steelhead?
Check out the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature, and the balloon dataset for correlation.
Radiosonde (balloon) data and satellite data started diverging from each other around 2010 with the radiosondes showing greater temperature rise. Link.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA and NOAA have been putting in unexplained adjustments into their data, by cooling the past and warming the present:
https://i1.wp.com/realclimates... [wp.com]
That's comparing two different adjusted datasets. When you compare adjusted data to unadjusted data the adjusted data actually shows a lower warming trend.
Unlike some others I don't get my hair on fire over sea level rise. It's usually a slow process. But I also think 100 years from now the Miami area will be largely abandoned because of the inexorable sea level rise. It will have costly effects on coasts around the world.
Scientists make adjustments for the urban heat island effect. When you compare the stations adjusted for the UHI to the unadjusted well sited stations the stations adjusted for the UHI actually show a slightly lower warming rate than the well sited stations.
Yes, the El Nino itself doesn't cause heating but merely changes the distribution of existing heat. But since the start of "the pause" is generally the last super El Nino in 1997/1998 I think it's ok to use this super El Nino for comparison.
Unlike you I prefer going to what actual scientists say. The history in long starting with Joseph Fourier in the 1820s to John Tyndall in the 1850s and Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s who said the increase in temperature was proportional the the natural log of the increase in CO2. In the 1950s Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change". In the 1960s scientists told President Lyndon Johnson that the increase in CO2 would cause temperature increases. In 1979 the Charney report titled "Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment" stated "We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3C with a probable error of ± 1.5C." I could go on but there is a long line of scientific assessment before any politician took it up.
Every time they run the adjustment algorithms the start with the unadjusted data.
And that is discounting that CO2 has a "residence" in the atmosphere of about 33 years.
An individual CO2 molecule might have a residence time of about 33 years but the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has more to do with the balance between the various reservoirs of the carbon cycle. Increase the total carbon in the carbon cycle and you increase the level in all those reservoirs, increased CO2 in the atmosphere, ocean acidification as dissolved CO2 increases in the water and yes, some increased plant growth. Even if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere today it would take thousands of years for geologic processes to remove carbon from the active carbon cycle.
If you'd like we can talk about the other planets in our solar system and how it can be shown rather easily that air pressure and distance from the sun are actually the overwhelming drivers of atmospheric temperature and that chemical composition is not especially relevant. I mean... its really easy. Look at any planet in the solar system. and match it with another solar system at equal air pressure. That is... look at the temp data at 1 atmosphere say on Venus and compare to Earth at 1 atmosphere... What you'll find is that Venus while hot is not actually that much hotter than earth. Factor for distance from the sun and the two harmonize. You can do the same thing for Jupiter or Uranius... and if you match at fractions of an atmosphere you can match Mars to earth etc.
Of course the distance from the Sun makes a difference but I'll start taking your air pressure hypothesis more seriously when many scientists do rather than just a handful of cranks.
As far as the limited amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if it makes just a 1% difference that's nearly 3 degrees C of change.
It's true that water vapor is the greenhouse gas that causes the most greenhouse effect but it's also true that water is present in all three phases of normal matter on the Earth and it easily transforms from one to the other. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature and to some extent by the availability of water to evaporate. If there's too much it precipitates out. And while there's a relationship between water vapor and clouds they are two quite different things when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Again the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature. If we could magically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to 200 ppm the cooling would cause the level of water vapor to also drop and pretty quickly we would be starting a new glacial period. Water vapor by itself can not drive climate change but is strictly a feedback of other things that do drive climate.
Ok, the optimum CO2 level from my point of view would be somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm, enough to conteract the slow cooling trend from changes in Milankovitch Cycles but not so much that it causes major warming. But it's still an irrelevant question.
After the sea ice low minimum in 2012 (which was more than 2 standard deviations below the trend line) Arctic sea ice rebounded to slightly above the trend line in 2013. In science this is commonly called regression to the mean. 2014 ASI minimum was lower than 2013 and in 2015 it was the 4th lowest on record. None of the ASI minimums after 2006 are greater than the lowest records before 2006 (back to 1979 when the satellite measurements started).
Baffin Island is really close to Greenland so it doesn't surprise me it shows similar trends. How about some records from Siberia, China, Chile or New Zealand?
Thus, I write not for you, but for other people reading this thread who approach it objectively.
Funny, I do it for the same reason.
About 90 years ago, around the time Miami Beach was founded.
The US is not the world, in fact less than 3% of it.
The past gets adjusted up more than it gets adjusted down.
NOAA has a dataset that they and NASA/GISS use (each with their own adjustments) but there are also datasets that are independent of them like HADCRUT, JMA and Berkeley Earth.
Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.
Berleley Earth says "2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence." I can't find percentages for the other two but I imagine they're in the same ballpark.
If there is an anthropogenic driver of the surface temperatures, then why do the monthly maps show no correspondence to human population centers!
That's got to be one of the silliest questions ever. Let me guess, you think global warming is caused by the heat humans create by burning fossil fuels. But that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the incoming solar energy. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slow the rate at which the heat absorbed from that incoming solar radiation is radiated back off the Earth causing warming. That's why even before anthropogenic global warming came on the scene the average Earth temperature was about 58 F instead of around 0 F which is what it would be without any GHGs in the atmosphere.
The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.
The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.
If you're worried about how much you're being asked to pay now (not that much really, less than 5%) you should be really worried about what it's going to cost you when some of the things we know are going to happen like sea level rise really start to kick in. Miami Beach, FL is spending some $400 million to install pumps and build some seawalls to stave off the effects of king tides that are flooding the lower areas. Those areas didn't used to flood as often when sea level was 6 or 7 inches lower than it is now. The pumps might save them for 25-50 years but I won't last because sea level rise is inexorable.
I (and many others) predicted the "No warming since 2015" meme months ago but I'm not sure you can make it official until you see if 2016 is cooler than 2015. Based on past behavior of of large El Ninos it's often the 2nd year that is the warmest (like the 1997/1998 El Nino) so I expect 2016 will be warmer unless there's a major volcanic eruption. So at the end or 2017 you can probably honestly start saying "No warming since 2016".
What about Berkeley Earth? Their findings are much the same as NOAA and NASA as are all the other major world temperature series.
The site you link provides an excellent example of the cherry-picking the GW denying crowd does. The first article I saw on there links to an article stating that 2015 was the hottest year on record in the US.
Not only that but the contiguous USA only covers about 3% of the Earth's surface, not a particularly good analog for the whole planet.
Deriving satellite temperatures is a very complex task. You have to account for orbital decay and orbital drift of the satellites, sensor deterioration, data contamination from the stratosphere and surface reflection, clouds and high altitude mountains that jut into the area they're trying to measure.
Most of the surface temperature stations have been converted to automatic weather stations that report their measurements remotely. No volunteers involved.
Both the surface measurements and the satellite measurements have their issues but I see no reason to prefer one over the other except that I live on the surface and not the lower troposphere.
There are other names for it but it's kind of like the term "greenhouse effect". It doesn't really work like a real greenhouse (which limits convection) but we're kind of stuck with the name.
Not so much responsible as an aggravating factor.
That's just the computer code for the ModelE. If you want data you're better off going to NOAA or perhaps the Berkeley Earth web sites. For Berkeley Earth start here. Their raw data is under the "Source Data" heading.
You're making me hungry. 7 or 8 inch brookies pan fried. Mmm mmm. Since I live in Oregon I'm no danger to your secret spot but we have some fine fishing out here too. Ever caught a steelhead?
Check out the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature, and the balloon dataset for correlation.
Radiosonde (balloon) data and satellite data started diverging from each other around 2010 with the radiosondes showing greater temperature rise. Link.
Here's a newspaper story on it. I'm not sure the state has the list posted online yet, I haven't been able to find it.
Brook trout are very tasty. I love catching and eating them.
If you're looking for climate model code one of the main climate models, the NASA/GISS ModelE code is freely available here.