# Global temperatures getting a bit hot



## ferrelhadley (Jul 1, 2010)

UAH







RSS







Gisstemp








And HadCrut








RSS and UAH are satellite measurements of what is in effect brightness at 5km above the surface. They have incomplete coverage of the poles and very high mountains. They also tend to exagerate ENSO cycles. Both of these just slightly miss out on the all time record for there datasets, although the Spencer and Christy team amended the UAH record in March that took a about 0.1C of off the first three months of this year which helped keep 2010 below 1998.

NASAs GissTemp has the best coverage of the poles and has set both an absolute record for a month and has the warmest running 12 months ever recorded this year. 

Jones HadCrut has less coverage at the poles and just misses the 12 month running temperature record.
HadCrut and GissTemp are surface record measurements based on thermometer stations around the globe and have to be homogenised for spacial coverage and changes in station enviroment among other things.

Well what can we learn from this.... 

Lets have a quick look at some other data


ENSO






We are coming out of a mid strength el Nino event. Nothing like the brutes of 1982 and 1998. Also weaker than 1992 and 86. So while we can expect a spike from ENSO nothing to break records.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 1, 2010)

The sun......

Over the past 10 years we have had the weakest sunspot cycle since the 30s









We have also had an expceptionaly long run of days without any sunspots






Notably the sun was at its most active in the 50s, so we would expect temperatures to have peaked in the 50s or 60s

 Now the TSI measurement 






Flat for decades and slightly dropping recently.

Finaly are the oceans 'giving up heat'?

Well they are if they work to a different set of the laws of physics than the ones I learnt as a nipper.






The seas are expanding and we know from GRACE that that is thermal expansion, so they cant really be giving up heat to the atmosphere and getting warmer.

Hmmm there is something I have forgotten, what could be causing record or near record global temperatures that is not the sun, sea, or el Nino....


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 1, 2010)

Wood for the trees does a good comparison of the 4 temperature sets on one graphic.








> When playing around with temperature graphs, I always found myself having to choose which of the four global temperature sources - HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS - to use. Since they all have their differences, particularly around short-term responses to extreme events like the 1998 El Nino, I thought it would be nice to have an average of all four...
> 
> Hence I've created the WoodForTrees Temperature Index (WTI). This is created from the mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH, offset by their baseline differences. It covers only the time period where all four series are valid, so begins in 1979 and will only contain the latest month's values when all four sources are in. It is updated from the master sources at 3am GMT/BST each night.



http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti


Also mapped with trends 

Which roughly run from 0.13-0.17C per decade or just below 2C per century although warming is expected to accelerate later in the century.

There has also been alot of work done in terms of replicating the surface temperature mesaurements
(Link is too Lucias blackboard but covers some of the ground)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/replication/


And clear code working on the GissTemp set.


Tamino has also been able to account for the station drop out that has caused such a fuss.
#
So quietly and out of the public eye alot of work is going in to replicating the surface temp results and they are now mathing to a degree the mid troposphere results from the two satellite data sets.


I do seem to recall a storm in a tea cup or two about this issue. Damned if the details escape my mind due to their triviality.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 1, 2010)

Any news on the ice extent atm?


----------



## laptop (Jul 2, 2010)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Any news on the ice extent atm?



This from http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ via Tamino...






This year looking hairy...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 2, 2010)

I hope your username reflects where you work. And I hope a few *cough* johnny cannuck *cough* idiots post on this thread.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 2, 2010)

laptop said:


> This from http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ via Tamino...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



holy shit that is not good news


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 2, 2010)

The ice volume graph certainly looks worrying. 

However the arctic ice surface area shows some recovery following the record lows of 2007.

(from http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/)


----------



## free spirit (Jul 2, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> The ice volume graph certainly looks worrying.
> 
> However the arctic ice surface area shows some recovery following the record lows of 2007.


sort of, but it's currently significantly lower than it was at the same time of year in 2007, and melting at a faster rate, so I'd not place any bets on this recovery continuing beyond the last 2 years.


----------



## laptop (Jul 2, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> The ice volume graph certainly looks worrying.
> 
> However the arctic ice surface area shows some recovery following the record lows of 2007.



Since I'm expecting feedback effects to kick in, I'm much more worried about the ice *volume* than I am reassured by the *area*. If I am reassured by the area at all, that is...


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 2, 2010)

free spirit said:


> sort of, but it's currently significantly lower than it was at the same time of year in 2007, and melting at a faster rate, so I'd not place any bets on this recovery continuing beyond the last 2 years.



Yes just noticed that, it normally bottoms out in September


----------



## Quartz (Jul 2, 2010)

Perhaps a silly question, but is there a particular point to using a running 13 month average? I could understand a running 12 month average, or 24 month, but *13*?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 2, 2010)

laptop;10834863]Since I'm expecting feedback effects to kick in said:


> Yes just noticed that, it normally bottoms out in September


If you had asked me in May 28th I would have said we have a 25% chance of breaking the minimum set by 2007, now I will give that figure at 50% or above and only a change in weather will prevent it. The amount of leads, polyanas and open water in even the central Arctic basin is unpresidented. Hunt out David Babers talk on his over wintering in the Arctic where an ice breaker was able to make 10 knots through what was thought to be thick multi year ice. The sattelite radars where picking it up as multi year thick ice but it was lumps of thick ice  with deep pools of melted water that had frozen over leaving very weak ice that had the same thickness expected off 3-4 meter ice was being run through as if it was a thin crust of first year ice. This was in the heart of the arcrtic basin where they were trying to find ice thick enough that even a Canadian polar rated ice breaker could not get through and to lodge into it and drift with the thick pack through the winter. Baber has 30 years experiance as an Arctic explorer and was utterly shocked at what he saw in mid winter in the Arctic. 

We shall see where the season ends but at the moment we are way ahead of even 2007 having had the biggest melts for  may and june on record. There has been a temporary slow down in the Beaufort gyre that has stopped transport of the ice out of the basin for a few days. Expect all the indicies to show little melting for a couple of days then everything to kick off again at the end of next week. OK Cryosphere Today might break this rule as it measures area not extent.

The other thing to focus on is individual basins. Some of those have had indivual highs of 20C at some stations. They seem to any ready to have real big melts. Kara Sea, Canadian Archapelago and Beaufort Sea among those ready for a rapid melting in the coming weeks.

Whether it is 2030 or 2013 I dont know but the Arctic is fucked. Then we get too see what is really beneath it. See if all that methane really exists.



Quartz said:


> Perhaps a silly question, but is there a particular point to using a running 13 month average? I could understand a running 12 month average, or 24 month, but *13*?


Helps even out any anual glitches in a  temperture data set, like being particularly valnrable to showing highs in February or lows in July. Not my area really, Try Tamino at Open Mind or Lucia at The Blackboard, thats more there cup of tea.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 10, 2010)

Hottest day ever recorded? Not confirmed yet but using the graph provided by Dr Roy Spencer here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

We seem to have beeten the all time warmest day in the mid troposphere on July 6 this year, beating 1998s hold on that record. As of yet unconfirmed. Only 0.02C warmer than the previous record.

We shall see if it is anounced as a record, or if revisions kill it.


----------



## purves grundy (Jul 10, 2010)

we had the hottest hot season in decades in Burma this year. Unbearable heat, it really was.


----------



## spacemonkey (Jul 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Whether it is 2030 or 2013 I dont know but the Arctic is fucked. Then we get too see what is really beneath it. See if all that methane really exists.



Stop the train I want to get off.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 11, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Perhaps a silly question, but is there a particular point to using a running 13 month average? I could understand a running 12 month average, or 24 month, but *13*?


It's a long time since I was taught this, so could be wrong, but I think it's to ensure the graph is seasonally representative rather than just being the average for the last 12 months it's weighted to the month in question - ie it's the average of the month shown on the graph + the previous 12 months... if that makes any sense.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 14, 2010)

Bizzare bizzare day....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/

Seems the bloggosphere is breaking into peace and love over the underlying spacial methedologies to calculate surface temperatures.

The adjustments will still be a big issue but it seems we now have a starting point on the anomalies to work with.

Been in the pipeline for months though especialy since Tamino got his down by march.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/

Weird kind of truce. I wonder........


----------



## free spirit (Jul 14, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Bizzare bizzare day....
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/
> 
> Seems the bloggosphere is breaking into peace and love over the underlying spacial methedologies to calculate surface temperatures.
> ...


interesting article, and interesting reading the comments section.

as far as I can see, what's happening here is that the most clued up / technically savvy of the sceptic bloggers are using todays computer power to enable them to basically replicate in the bloggosphere what was being done academically by Jones, Hansen et al in the late 80's, early 90's to present, and unsurprisingly* have come to pretty much the same conclusions as they did. 

The interesting thing is whether these sceptic bloggers will now be able to carry their sceptic audience along with them on this essentially via the power of their sceptic reputation, or whether they will simply be cast out of the sceptic community, and the more rabid sceptics will simply continue to bleat on as before and potentially turn on these heretic sceptics... my monies on the latter option.


*at least to those of us who were actually bothered enough about this stuff to do a 3 year degree course in it to learn about it rather than thinking that reading a few sceptic blogs, and maybe skimming the odd bit of IPCC stuff is enough to get a full picture of such a complex field as this as to mean that I should feel perfectly entitled to pour scorn publicly on the methodologies (and life's work) of the experts in the field.


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> ...or whether they will simply be cast out of the sceptic community, and the more rabid sceptics will simply continue to bleat on as before and potentially turn on these heretic sceptics... my monies on the latter option.



Is it me, or is the scepticsphere getting madder and madder?

I have in mind particularly the instant accusation of "witch-hunt"/"blacklist" against the researchers who published a list of mainstream and sceptic researchers (except they didn't, they used already-published lists)


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> interesting article, and interesting reading the comments section.
> 
> as far as I can see, what's happening here is that the most clued up / technically savvy of the sceptic bloggers are using todays computer power to enable them to basically replicate in the bloggosphere what was being done academically by Jones, Hansen et al in the late 80's, early 90's to present, and unsurprisingly* have come to pretty much the same conclusions as they did.
> 
> ...


In my view it was the challange being laid down by pro AGW bloggers like Zeke, Tamino, Ron Bonberg who were producing reproductions was an important part in motivating others to get up to speed. There have been a few others. We now kind of have a list of those who can and those who cant. Interestingly Chefio (EM Smith), Watts, D'Aleo and Eschenbach seem to be amoung those who cant. 

Gives a good indication of whose cricisms are worth paying attetion too.



laptop said:


> Is it me, or is the scepticsphere getting madder and madder?
> 
> I have in mind particularly the instant accusation of "witch-hunt"/"blacklist" against the researchers who published a list of mainstream and sceptic researchers (except they didn't, they used already-published lists)



That is barely scratching the surface, they were howling this was one step away from making them where yellow stars on that one. Then about a week later there was a post on one of the blogs claiming that the 'hockey team' (i.e. all the groups who have done temperature reconstructions of the past millenium) were actualy Marxist orginisations.


> This is why this recent essay about modern political correctness being merely a form of social marxism developed during WWI by a group of renegade marxists who sought to use Freudism to spread marxism through society struck a chord with me. It illuminated a lot of what I’d been thinking over the past years, and perfectly explains why the AGW alarmists behave the way they do. The witch hunts, the character assasination, the Alinsky method du jour. The Hockey Team is a Marxist organization, not in the traditional economic sense (though their prescription for “saving the planet” is extensively marxist) but in how they operate toward their opponents. This is not unusual, though. It has become standard practice in academia to engage in persecution of dissidents from orthodoxy.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/07/      <broke>first-they-came-for-the-scientists/

Although you would not know it from the press coverage, they have been having a _really _bad year. Climategate only really showed Jones was wrong over his response to the FOI requests. Temperatures shooting up, sun real low, Ordovician ice age seems to have been sorted, the amateur temperature reconstructions are starting to come in and they do not look good for the anti science lynch mob and 4 assesment report, couple of errors but nothing really critical.

The only hobby horse they have left to ride atm is the PDO.... and that always looked a bit weak to me.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 18, 2010)

Lovely little applet for explaining how the longer a time series you use the more confident you can be in the results.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/keep-out-of-the-kitchen/


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 18, 2010)

Oh and the we can expect big drops in the satellite temperature sets later in the year.







That long thin streak of blue along the equator is a la Nina. La Nina is where the winds that blow from East to West along the Pacific equator stengthen and draw up the cool water from the Humbolt current around Peru and drag them along the Central Pacific bringing cool water with less rain and cooler air temperatures. The two satellite datasets tend to show the ENSO cycle *really *strongly. But it is worth keeping in mind these are not surface temperature datasets but mid troposphere ones that are taken on the brightness at 5kms. Hence the surface datasets are measuring something different to the satellite ones. 

The key feature of el Nino and la Nina (the ENSO cycle) is actualy air pressure and not the water temperature. Darwin and Tahiti tend to be taken as the two places to compare and when Darwin has a lower pressure than Tahiti (the big boys at NOAA, UK met office and the like are a bit more fastidious than just this  ) this will draw air along the centeral pacific (we calls it wind). When there is a big pressure difference you get alot of wind. The cold waters of the Humbolt current get dragged along the central pacific (ekman transport) and the warmest pool of water in the world, the waters around Indonesia, pile up and stay there creating a really hot bit of water and hence loads and loads of rain and stroms which reinforces the whole process for a while.

Anyone with a real hard on for this kind of stuff can start here.

Walker Circulation.

Anyway its not an offical la Nina yet as Dr Jeff Masters explains but the conditions are there now.

And on the topic of scorchio global temperatures.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 19, 2010)

Broke the all time warmest temperature recorded on the satellites using the UAH dataset _again_. -18.75C which is about 0.1C warmer than the record before July went ballistic.

another week or two of these types of temperatures and we may yet set the warmest July on that dataset.


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> they were howling this was one step away from making them where yellow stars on that one



A hint for a search would save me much pain reading through blogs


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 20, 2010)

There is a link in this blog here

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/godwins-law-stasi-esque-yellow-badges/

too the whining piece of shit having a tantrum about having to wear yellow badges.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 28, 2010)

> Global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began more than a century ago, according to two of the world's leading climate research centres.
> 
> Scientists have also released what they described as the "best evidence yet" of rising long-term temperatures. The report is the first to collate 11 different indicators – from air and sea temperatures to melting ice – each one based on between three and seven data sets, dating back to between 1850 and the 1970s.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...0-record?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Hottest day ever recorded on UAH was broken also since the last post. Now 17th of June at -18.71 holds that record.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 29, 2010)




----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 29, 2010)

NOAA now stating that Global Warming is unmistakeable and happening for at least 50 years as shown by 10 markers:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 30, 2010)

Anyone really really uber geeky can have a butchers at this.

Its a relatively technical run through on how the satellite data is measured including the corrections.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 31, 2010)

Fourteen extreme national high temperature records have been set in 2010




> The list of countries (225) includes islands that are not independent countries, such as Puerto Rico and Greenland. One-third (33%) of those heat records were set in the past ten years



Link 2



> In my post yesterday,  I reported that fourteen countries had set their all-time hottest temperature record this year. I neglected to mention that one country has also set its coldest temperature in recorded history mark in 2010. Guinea  had its coldest temperature in its history on January 9, 2010, when the mercury hit 1.4°C (34.5°F) at Mali-ville in the Labe region. Of the 229 countries with extreme coldest temperature records, 14 of these records have occurred in the past ten years (6% of all countries). There have been five times as many (74) extreme hottest temperature records in the past ten years (33% of all countries.) My source for extreme weather records is Chris Burt, author of Extreme Weather.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 2, 2010)

July is over now and the UAH anomaly for then will be released over the next couple of days. I dont think the anomoly will break a record, but might get damn close.... but on that dataset the 19 warmest days ever recorded were recorded over July 2010.

Thats right, the 19 warmest days on earth recorded by UAH satellite data sets were over the past 30 odd days.


----------



## xes (Aug 2, 2010)

Speaking of weather anomolies, the biggest hailstone to be recorded fell in south dakota rather recently. 


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10827538


----------



## laptop (Aug 2, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> July is over now and the UAH anomaly for then will be released over the next couple of days.



That's ice extent, isn't it?

Here is the volume plot - at time of posting up to 17 July. 







(http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png)

Watch this space...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 3, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Fourteen extreme national high temperature records have been set in 2010[/URL
> 
> 
> 
> [URL="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1560"]Link 2





> Cyprus records its hottest temperature in history yesterday
> The island of Cyprus recorded its hottest temperature in its history on August 1, 2010 when the mercury hit 46.6°C (115.9°F) at Lefconica. The old record for Cyprus was 44.4°C (111.9°F) at Lefkosia in August 1956. An older record of 46.6°C from July 1888 was reported from Nicosia, but is of questionable reliability.
> 
> The year 2010 is now tied with 2007 as the year with the most national extreme heat records--fifteen. There has been one country that has recorded its coldest temperature on record in 2010;


Ok one more to the list.


laptop said:


> That's ice extent, isn't it?
> 
> Here is the volume plot - at time of posting up to 17 July.
> 
> ...


UAH is the University of Alabama Huntsville team, they specialise in remote sensing and the acronym UAH is normally used for the Spencer and Christy team who do satellite temperature data. A controversial team for alot of reasons, the RSS company also do a 'shadowing' of them and have the warming trend about 0.1C warmer than the UAH.

The sea ice sepcialists are 
Uni Illinios Cryosphere Today who do total area of sea ice
NSIDC who do extent, IIRC Bolder Colarado?
JAXA who do an extent dataset that is widely used for betting
Bremen who do extent and graphics but I find it pretty flakey

And NASAs MODIS Rapidfire that does a daily visual. Although it is normaly only half built as they doa new one each day and are still taking the images.


Edited to add UAH anomoly


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 4, 2010)

A new model of carbon emissions - I can't see how we'll manage to stay within these limits!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802110827.htm


----------



## Dr Jon (Aug 10, 2010)

Runaway Climate Change Is Here


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2010)

Dr Jon said:


> Runaway Climate Change Is Here


 that's a very odd article, using the words 'runaway climate change' in the headline, but then never explaining how the rest of the article relates to the title.

FWIW, IMO none of the stuff he talks about in the article is indicative of runaway climate change taking place as it's all basically one years worth of anomalies in an El Nino year when such anomalies would be expected to take place around the world under none runaway climate change conditions.

I can't help wondering whether the title was the authors, or countercurrents - either way it's scaremongering and confusing, as nothing in the article supports the titles premise. Runaway climate change is a specific situation where the feedback mechanisms essentially take over from manmade emissions as the prime driver of climate change, it's not just some term that can / should be applied to climate change that's largely attributable to anthropogenic emissions just to make it sound more scary.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 23, 2010)

> Palestine records its hottest temperature in history
> The State of Palestine, the portion of the territories occupied by Israel that declared independence in 1988, recorded its hottest temperature since record keeping began on August 7, 2010, when the temperature hit 51.4°C (124.5°F) at Kibbutz Almog (also called Qalya or Kalya) in the Jordan Valley. The previous record for Palestine was set on June 22, 1942, at the same location.
> 
> Palestine was the 4th nation to set an all-time hottest temperature in history record this month, and the 18th to set such a record this year. There has also been one nation (Guinea) that set an all-time coldest temperature in history record this year. Note that many countries, including the U.S., do not recognize Palestine as a nation, though 110 countries do recognize it. Here's the updated list of nations or semi-independent islands or territories that have set all-time heat or cold records this year:


Wunderground

The Russian heat wave broke late last week so that is good news. The Pakistan floods are still a huge problem though but the crest is in the sea now.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 4, 2010)

RSS data for September shows the wamest September ever recorded on that dataset. It is a satellite dataset that covers the same datasource as the famous skeptics Spencer and Christie that is using microwave emissions from O2 molecules to analyse the temperature at various altitudes. 


La Nina is blindingly clear on the temperature anomalies making the tropospheric temperature more remarkable.


----------



## xes (Oct 6, 2010)

Wonder why the "global elite" are discussing global cooling 
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 6, 2010)

xes said:


> Wonder why the "global elite" are discussing global cooling
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/


 
"We need a “Global Warming” Nuremberg."  Cheers, that's some of the finest satire I've seen for a while.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2010)

xes said:


> Wonder why the "global elite" are discussing global cooling
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/


----------



## free spirit (Oct 7, 2010)

being a bildeberg thing, I'd expect that it is actually a discussion about the techno fixes to global warming that are being touted around by various people, such as pumping vas amounts of SO2 into the upper atmosphere to reflect light back out into space like the impact of a continual manmade volcano, or space mirrors, or other such crap that would enable business as usual to carry on for a bit longer before we actually worked out that reducing the amount of light reaching the earth wasn't actually such a great idea.

but being bildeberg, we'll never know, so the echo chamber will parrot delingpoles version of it around the internet and decide that bildeberg must know something about global cooling, which the bildebergs get a free run at their technofix ideas without anyone picking up that this is what they're up to.


----------



## spacemonkey (Oct 7, 2010)

Is he paid to write that crap?


----------



## laptop (Oct 8, 2010)

spacemonkey said:


> Is he paid to write that crap?


 
I assumed he did. But that latest one has a distinct amateur flavour about it - so maybe not for long. 

He does get paid for writing about his battle with manic depression...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 8, 2011)

RSS and UAH both have now given their official figures for 2010. Both are satellite datasets, that is they measure 'temperature' based on mirowave brightness at various bands where O2 molecules give off energy. It is a pretty complex operation using AMSU sensors on various satellites. I think there are 4 currently working on various satellites atm. They exlude Antartica, the Himalyas and Andes for being too high and the main dataset they offer is the 'mid troposphere', that is about 5km up but the definition of the mid troposphere changes with latitude as the troposphere is significantly lower in colder climates than warmer ones. They also are measuring something slightly different to surface stations, in the mid troposphere a lot of energy is released from water vapor condensing to form droplets that make up clouds, for this reason they are much more sensitive to the temperatures over the equatorial oceans than other datasets. This means that the El Nino Southern Oscillation shows up very prominently compaired to surface datasets. 

Now that all being said here are the results.

Calculation the 12 months of the RSS teams data gives an anomaly of 0.510C from their baseline, 1998 was 0.55C from their baseline so the temperature is second by 0.04C.

The UAH dataset from the University of Alabama Huntsville give 2010 at 0.411 C from their baseline and 1998 at +0.424 so less than 0.01C difference.

2010 was at the bottom of the solar cycle.






And a much weaker el Nino that 1998







So this is again strongly indicative of a rising baseline.

The two most well know surface datasets the UKs Hadley CRU and NASAs GISTemp from the Goddard Space Center will probibly declare later this month, with GISS set for a record and Hadley likely second or third warmest. The main reason for the differnce will be GISS gives much more coverage of the Arcitic than Hadley. Here is a good image of why the arctic is so important...


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 8, 2011)

You can't even spell arctic. Lol.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 9, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> You can't even spell arctic. Lol.


you can' even grasp basic scientific concepts...


----------



## MikeMcc (Jan 14, 2011)

Another map showing the record high temperatures in the Arctic causing the cold snaps in Europe:


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 15, 2011)

NOAA dataset came in at second to 2005 by 0.001C i.e. a dead tie.
GISS set the record at 0.01C ahead of 05
Cant find Hadley CRU yet, the last of the well known ones, but that will not set a record this year.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 22, 2011)

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Funny old ice age we are having


----------



## MikeMcc (Jun 25, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Any news on the ice extent atm?


Tamino has just done an analysis that is quite shocking.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sea-ice-3-d/


----------



## Dr Jon (Jun 26, 2011)

Just noticed this:
Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleaker


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 27, 2011)

Jeff Masters gives a brilliant summary of the recent weather events.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-2011-Earths-most-extreme-weather-since-1816.html

Reproduced on Sketpical Science.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jun 29, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Jeff Masters gives a brilliant summary of the recent weather events.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-2011-Earths-most-extreme-weather-since-1816.html
> 
> Reproduced on Sketpical Science.


That is one of the most shocking articles that I have ever read.  After this was published on SkS an adaption was printed in the Guardian, other than that it's almost completely ignored by the UK media.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 29, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> That is one of the most shocking articles that I have ever read.  After this was published on SkS an adaption was printed in the Guardian, other than that it's almost completely ignored by the UK media.


 
Look at the reaction it gets round here. Why would an editor bother sticking it in. He will only get grief from the antiscience mob and a little bit of interest from the regular readers. 

Take Hudson Bay. 1.2 million square kilometers of what was ice that is opening into water earlier and earlier. Its basically a brand new inland sea in North America. The earlier it is ice free the more time it has to soak up solar shortwave energy and the longwave 'back radiation' from the natural greenhouse effect The later it is open its like a bloody giant storage heater releasing that heat into the atmosphere all through November, December and this year January. So in the N American continent a Notherly wind no longer comes across the dry Arctic and the dry landmass, it can come across the warmish open Hudson Bay and pick up moisture dumping that across the States and Canada as snow. 

You get a shed load more snow than usual over winter and come spring suddenly you have record breaking river floods across the US.

This is a changed climate. 

The arctic vortex took longer to form as the ice took longer to recover, hey presto you have weather conditions that are no longer confined to the high arctic and the UK get plastered with cold in December but by February is back to normal. 

We are just coming out of a la Nina and we are nearly at record high global temperatures for June. Crazy amounts of warm water in the Pacific (not the equatorial ENSO regions). 

Dr Masters is strongly of the opinion that the flick from el Nino to la Nina we seen last year was unusually quick and we will not see a repeat for a while. Funnily enough it was nearly 6 months in la Nina before the satellite data showed the expected fall. I hope to christ he is right because this last year was mental.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 3, 2011)

Looks like full steam ahead for runaway warming:-

Warming world 'adding gases at even faster rate'



> Karl added that the Greenland ice sheet lost more mass last year than any year in the last decade.


----------



## ymu (Jul 3, 2011)

free spirit said:


> It's a long time since I was taught this, so could be wrong, but I think it's to ensure the graph is seasonally representative rather than just being the average for the last 12 months it's weighted to the month in question - ie it's the average of the month shown on the graph + the previous 12 months... if that makes any sense.


 
This is what I was speculating when I read Quartz's post. The only reason to do 13 months would be so that the results still had the normal monthly variation in them, but smoothed out.

There'd be more to it than that - not least why you want to keep seasonal variation in at all (ie you'd need a reason to want this, but it's plausible), but it's the only reason I can think of for choosing that time period. And it's a very short time period for a rolling average, so there probably is an interest in preserving the underlying monthly pattern for that particular analysis. They use longer periods for most of the graphs.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 4, 2011)

The Peak District, later this century...


----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 6, 2011)

Just spotted Global Warming Lull Down To China's Coal Growth


> The lull in global warming from 1998 to 2008 was mainly caused by a sharp rise in China's coal use, a study suggests.
> The absence of a temperature rise over that decade is often used by "climate sceptics" as grounds for denying the existence of man-made global warming.
> But the new study, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that smog from the extra coal acted to mask greenhouse warming.
> 
> China's coal use *doubled* 2002-2007, according to US government figures.



also see:

Australia Ignores 25 Huge Climate Change Realities


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2011)

somewhere in one of the stupidly long climate sceptic type ding dongs there's a post of mine from about 2006 pointing out that the impact of this massive expansion of chinese coal plants without SO2 scrubbers must be having a major impact on the climate just as the same process in the west / russia did in the 60s/70s, and was likely to be a major cause of the slow down in warming since 98.

Important to note that this impact is temporary and only lasts for as long as the coal plants keep operating without scrubbers. Once the unscrubbed coal plants stop operating (as they must, as SO2 also causes acid rain, and health problems), then this impact will rapidly cease, and the underlying warming that the SO2 was masking will reappear within days / weeks as the SO2 is washed out of the atmosphere by rain.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 7, 2011)

The Chinese have been installing scrubbers like crazy for the last five years, gone from about 10% to over 60% fitted now.  They are still using cheap and nasty coal that gives off a shed load of particulates and sulphates though


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> The Chinese have been installing scrubbers like crazy for the last five years, gone from about 10% to over 60% fitted now.  They are still using cheap and nasty coal that gives off a shed load of particulates and sulphates though


fuck me, that's a massive jump. Puts us to shame really with most of our coal stations opting to shut down in 2015, and wind down from 2010-15 rather than fit scrubbers. I guess they would have been much older plants than most of the chinese ones though, so maybe it made some sense.


----------



## xes (Jul 9, 2011)

The Inuit people are noticing a difference in climate. Here's a film they have put out to try and rasie awareness.
http://www.isuma.tv/hi/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 10, 2011)

free spirit said:


> fuck me, that's a massive jump. Puts us to shame really with most of our coal stations opting to shut down in 2015, and wind down from 2010-15 rather than fit scrubbers. I guess they would have been much older plants than most of the chinese ones though, so maybe it made some sense.


Sorry it's E&E

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b901357c


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...ow-points-global-cooling-contrary-un-alarmism

It snow here 2 weeks ago. We finally have temp above 80 deg F this week. People are still skiing [should have ended months ago]. The warm temps usually start the end of march. Snow pack was over 165% of norm. I suggest you go outside and get a life. Of course this is summer I guess and the warmies are out again. Enjoy the summer it may not be here long.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...ow-points-global-cooling-contrary-un-alarmism
> 
> It snow here 2 weeks ago. We finally have temp above 80 deg F this week. People are still skiing [should have ended months ago]. The warm temps usually start the end of march. Snow pack was over 165% of norm. I suggest you go outside and get a life. Of course this is summer I guess and the warmies are out again. Enjoy the summer it may not be here long.


Any journo that uses Don Easterbrook as a source is an idiot.  Easterbrook is a mouthpiece, like Singer he will sprout whatever someone pays him to sprout.

The effects of a potential Grand Minimum of solar activity have already been looked at:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml



> Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. *This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century. *


My bold


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

You can call people names all you want and jump up and down and wave all the charts and say what it should be, but I look out the window feel the temps and know it is not what you are tell us what it should be. The question is do I believe what you are saying or what I actually feel and see? Guess which one I believe? I still love the one where it was stated that it was getting colder because it was getting warmer [I guess they are now trying to prove it now just one more change in direction and name change]. Some more to think about. http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3se.html


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> You can call people names all you want and jump up and down and wave all the charts and say what it should be, but I look out the window feel the temps and know it is not what you are tell us what it should be. The question is do I believe what you are saying or what I actually feel and see? Guess which one I believe? I still love the one where it was stated that it was getting colder because it was getting warmer [I guess they are now trying to prove it now just one more change in direction and name change]. Some more to think about. http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3se.html


 
He's right - go to the Antarctic and IT'S COLD. How can you have global warming when IT'S COLD????? 

You warmie liberal pinko commies just indulge in name calling, you warmie liberal pinko commies you. Look at the Antarctic and believe your senses - IT'S COLD.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> You can call people names all you want and jump up and down and wave all the charts and say what it should be, but I look out the window feel the temps and know it is not what you are tell us what it should be. The question is do I believe what you are saying or what I actually feel and see? Guess which one I believe? I still love the one where it was stated that it was getting colder because it was getting warmer [I guess they are now trying to prove it now just one more change in direction and name change]. Some more to think about. http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3se.html


 
Classic septic thinking, you are the only place in the entire world.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 11, 2011)

xes said:


> The Inuit people are noticing a difference in climate. Here's a film they have put out to try and rasie awareness.
> http://www.isuma.tv/hi/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change


 
Thanks. This is a very informative film.


----------



## xes (Jul 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Thanks. This is a very informative film.


 
I thought so, they watch nature very closely, they notice the differences quicker than we do. Also intesresting about the polar bears not being able to feed from seal breathing holes because of the radio recievers around their necks. And the sun being in the wrong place in the sky!!


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Classic septic thinking, you are the only place in the entire world.



Same tired old response. From what is on the Internet and TV we are not alone with this colder weather. I see the government of the UK is looking to see if they need to have more money for dealing with the colder weather this next year. Your models and predictions are not up to what is going on that's all. I doubt if they got the correct right data they will work. The credibility of GW is really down the latest effort in a conference in Germany has failed and more countries are bailing out of the KT. People and governments around the world are just not buying it anymore and getting out of the KT.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> Same tired old response. From what is on the Internet and TV we are not alone with this colder weather. I see the government of the UK is looking to see if they need to have more money for dealing with the colder weather this next year. Your models and predictions are not up to what is going on that's all. I doubt if they got the correct right data they will work. The credibility of GW is really down the latest effort in a conference in Germany has failed and more countries are bailing out of the KT. *People and governments around the world are just not buying it anymore and getting out of the KT.*


 
Do you think it's all a fuss about nothing; like we've been hoodwinked by the eggheads?


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Do you think it's all a fuss about nothing; like we've been hoodwinked by the eggheads?


 
There appears to be a lot of questions not answered. It does appear to have been way over hyped. And some people exploiting it to the point it was a scam for money and control which did not help it. To try and say it was all man's fault was just total BS. If they would have said it was a combination of natural and man they would have had chance. Then to say it was all CO2 was a old chestnut of the environmentalist and has never paned out in the past but they hung their hat on that again. To then say it was going up and not acknowledge the temp would also go down at times was also a mistake on their parts. When the story got out on what they had done to the data and the attempt to cover up was the start of it's down fall, which took any good they had down with it. The conferences are part of the final straws when in all got down to who gets the money and control. Who is going to take this serious when the countries are squabbling over the money and not the science. If they don't care about the science why should I or anyone else.

There are arguments for both sides once they got both sides out, by that time the scam and name calling was to far along to come to any kind of reasonable agreement. I'm not so sure it was the Eggheads but were criminals looking to make a killing and some did, dear old AL Gore made a lot of money out of this along with his Buddy's [nice place on the beach].


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> Same tired old response. From what is on the Internet and TV we are not alone with this colder weather. I see the government of the UK is looking to see if they need to have more money for dealing with the colder weather this next year. Your models and predictions are not up to what is going on that's all. I doubt if they got the correct right data they will work. The credibility of GW is really down the latest effort in a conference in Germany has failed and more countries are bailing out of the KT. People and governments around the world are just not buying it anymore and getting out of the KT.


Yeah, you're still talking shit septic boy.

"The global land and ocean surface combined temperature for January–May 2011 was the 12th warmest such period on record, with temperatures 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average. "

So when it was really cold, it wasn't. Global not what is on fox news or has a camera rolling.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Rightone, if you're right, you'll be able to provide evidence that you're right. There's been dozens of sceptical scientists working on the global temperature records to correct what the 'boffins' are claiming. Why don't you just post up their findings, and then we can all see how right you are?

Trying to convince us one anecdote at a time seems like an awfully long-winded way of going about it. Link us to something we can actually discuss. Ta.


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> *Yeah, you're still talking shit septic boy.*
> "The global land and ocean surface combined temperature for January–May 2011 was the 12th warmest such period on record, with temperatures 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average. "
> 
> So when it was really cold, it wasn't. Global not what is on fox news or has a camera rolling.
> ...



And the GW's have given everyone reasons to be a septic. You just keep reinforcing those reasons. People have seen data was to be correct but find out it is altered or just fabrications so why should people believe it now. Wolf Wolf once to offend. People have gotten wise to the world is coming to the end if we don't do as you say [and give us money].


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> And the GW's have given everyone reasons to be a septic. You just keep reinforcing those reasons. People have seen data was to be correct but find out it is altered or just fabrications so why should people believe it now. Wolf Wolf once to offend. People have gotten wise to the world is coming to the end if we don't do as you say [and give us money].


Evidence, kiddo, evidence. Show us evidence, not half-baked ideas that apparently come straight out of your brane. If you have a plausible basis for your opinions, you will be able to tell us what it is, no?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jul 11, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Do you think it's all a fuss about nothing; like we've been hoodwinked by the eggheads?



I'm begining to err on the side of the sceptics , largely on the grounds *it simply isn't getting any warmer.*

However there is still the small matter of peak oil, and that is very real.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> And the GW's have given everyone reasons to be a septic. You just keep reinforcing those reasons. People have seen data was to be correct but find out it is altered or just fabrications so why should people believe it now. Wolf Wolf once to offend. People have gotten wise to the world is coming to the end if we don't do as you say [and give us money].


I was wondering what George Bush junior had been upto since leaving office...


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> I'm begining to err on the side of the sceptics , largely on the grounds *it simply isn't getting any warmer.*


 
Can you provide some evidence for that please. Preferably evidence that doesn't mix up the global climate with the local weather. What temperature series show no global warming? You're citing it, so you must know what it is, surely?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 11, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> I'm begining to err on the side of the sceptics , largely on the grounds *it simply isn't getting any warmer.*


shame we've wasted so many billions sticking satellites in the sky and setting up global climate monitoring stations when all we had to do was ask you what the weather had been like recently then extrapolate from there eh... maybe we should just ask doris to read the tea leaves to decide the fate of humanity and be done with it.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jul 11, 2011)

LOL@ Free spirit!


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

free spirit said:


> I was wondering what George Bush junior had been upto since leaving office...


 
Watching Obama screw everything up. And drive the world economy down too.


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

free spirit said:


> shame we've wasted so many billions sticking satellites in the sky and setting up global climate monitoring stations when all we had to do was ask you what the weather had been like recently then extrapolate from there eh... maybe we should just ask doris to read the tea leaves to decide the fate of humanity and be done with it.



If you have not noticed Obama is cutting money to the programs because he thinks they are a waste of money. Another term of Obama and NASA will be gone.


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Evidence, kiddo, evidence. Show us evidence, not half-baked ideas that apparently come straight out of your brane. If you have a plausible basis for your opinions, you will be able to tell us what it is, no?


 
If you arguments are so good then why are countries bailing out of KT. Answer is simple they are not buying it any more like most people now. You really don't have anything new do you. Just a lot of the same old stuff. 

Oh! brain not brane


----------



## free spirit (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> If you arguments are so good then why are countries bailing out of KT. Answer is simple they are not buying it any more like most people now. You really don't have anything new do you. Just a lot of the same old stuff.
> 
> Oh! brain not brane


nothing to do with the USA's fuck the world kyoto position then?

Problem with this entire situation is that while it's possible for the rest of the world to make the situation less bad by ourselves, we can't possibly get to the low levels of greenhouse gas emissions that we actually need without the USA, as the biggest per capita emitter, being part of the solution, and the longer the USA stays out, the more other countries start to wonder why they should bother if the US is just going to continue sticking two fingers up at the rest of the world.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> If you arguments are so good then why are countries bailing out of KT. Answer is simple they are not buying it any more like most people now. You really don't have anything new do you. Just a lot of the same old stuff.
> 
> Oh! brain not brane


You seem to be keen on explaining science through politics. It doesn't work that way.

Dozens of sceptical scientists have been working on their own global temperature record, and several have published. Why are you so reluctant to publish their data?

The misspelling of 'brane' is a reference which appears to have flown right over your head.

Now, if you're not an empty-headed moron, you'll be able to provide us with the evidence and a critique of it. Go ahead, because your analysis of scientific processes through the medium of political decision-making is no more convincing than you glancing out of the window and noting that it's a bit chilly for the time of year.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> The misspelling of 'brane' is a reference which appears to have flown right over your head.
> 
> Now, if you're not an empty-headed moran


 
corrected for you


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> corrected for you


If he fills his head up with internet memes, there might be no more space for well-informed opinions.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 11, 2011)

rightone said:


> And the GW's have given everyone reasons to be a septic. You just keep reinforcing those reasons. People have seen data was to be correct but find out it is altered or just fabrications so why should people believe it now. Wolf Wolf once to offend. People have gotten wise to the world is coming to the end if we don't do as you say [and give us money].


 Septic not sceptic you arrogant overgrown cumstain


----------



## rightone (Jul 11, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Septic not sceptic you arrogant overgrown cumstain



I used the same spelling that they used so they would not get confused. Do you know how to use spell check [if you use google you will find instructions]

It does not help your arguments that states and people who did support you are bailing out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/two_states_bail_out_of_global.html

http://www.cfact.org/a/1782/Environmental-scientist-bails-out-of-global-warming-movement

Googled
scientist bailing out on global warming
About 1,620,000 results (0.14 seconds)

I would say it does not look good for your Fantasy

I would say this term would describe you better floccinaucinihilipilification


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Same spelling as who used? Did I miss you providing a source for your claims?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> I'm begining to err on the side of the sceptics , largely on the grounds *it simply isn't getting any warmer.*


 
I have no idea which grounds (land) you believe isn't getting any warmer, but between 1960 and 2000, the mean air temperature in the Arctic increased by 2.2 °C.


----------



## rightone (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Same spelling as who used? Did I miss you providing a source for your claims?


 
 Originally Posted by Oswaldtwistle  
I'm begining to err on the side of the sceptics , largely on the grounds it simply isn't getting any warmer.
Can you provide some evidence for that please. Preferably evidence that doesn't mix up the global climate with the local weather. What temperature series show no global warming? You're citing it, so you must know what it is, surely? 

Your post by the way 

Found this by the way

sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity
adj
(Philosophy) of or relating to sceptics; sceptical
[from Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider]
scepticism  archaic and US, skepticism n

Adj. 1. septic - containing or resulting from disease-causing organisms; "a septic sore throat"; "a septic environment"; "septic sewage"
infected
unhealthful - detrimental to good health; "unhealthful air pollution"; "unhealthful conditions in old apartments with peeling lead-based paint"
germy - full of germs or pathological microorganisms; "the water in New York harbor is oily and dirty and germy"
antiseptic - thoroughly clean and free of or destructive to disease-causing organisms; "doctors in antiseptic green coats"; "the antiseptic effect of alcohol"; "it is said that marjoram has antiseptic qualities" 
 2. septic - of or relating to or caused by putrefaction; "the septic action occurs at the bottom of the septic tank" 

????????


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Googled
> scientist bailing out on global warming
> About 1,620,000 results (0.14 seconds)
> 
> I would say it does not look good for your Fantasy


I'd say that it means you don't know how to use google properly.

try sticking that search term in quotes and you get the following


> No results found for "scientist bailing out on global warming"


your 1.6 million results will include pretty much all web pages with all of those words individually contained somewhere within the article.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Quite.

@ rightone:

Yes, the words sceptic and septic have two entirely different meanings.

I can't work out if you're copying someone's typo, or misunderstanding some rhyming slang for Americans (yank -> septic tank -> septics or seppoes). Either way, two different words, not alternative spellings,no idea what is confusing you.


----------



## rightone (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Quite.
> 
> @ rightone:
> 
> ...



Talk to Bob.  Septic not sceptic you arrogant overgrown cumstain 
It is his post that started it

Maybe there needs to be a thread on spelling. I understand iphone as a very good program
http://damnyouautocorrect.com/page/2/


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 12, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I have no idea which grounds (land) you believe isn't getting any warmer, but between 1960 and 2000, the mean air temperature in the Arctic increased by 2.2 °C.


And there was me thinking all that arctic ice was disappearing for no good reason...


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> http://www.cfact.org/a/1782/Environmental-scientist-bails-out-of-global-warming-movement


tbh, after reading through his wiki page, it looks more like he's bailed out of mainstream academia entirely.


----------



## rightone (Jul 12, 2011)

free spirit said:


> tbh, after reading through his wiki page, it looks more like he's bailed out of mainstream academia entirely.


 Yep he does seem to switch subjects too. Don't worry after a nice cool one he may come back. I'm not sure either side will want him. But by his record he will show up some where.


----------



## rightone (Jul 12, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> And there was me thinking all that arctic ice was disappearing for no good reason...



Right hand lower corner "new model" what was wrong with the other one.

iNFO http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/28/does-piomass-verify/


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Right hand lower corner "new model" what was wrong with the other one.





> New Version
> 
> This time series of ice volume is generated with an updated version of PIOMAS (June-15,2011).  This updated version improves on prior versions by assimilating sea surface temperatures (SST) for ice-free areas and by using a different parameterization for the strength of the ice. Comparisons of PIOMAS estimates with ice thickness observations show reduced errors over the prior version.  The long term trend is reduced to about -2.8 103 km3/decade from -3.6 km3/decade in the last version. Our comparisons with data and alternate model runs indicate that this new trend is a conservative estimate of the actual trend.  New with this version we provide uncertainty statistics. More details can be found in Schweiger et al. 2011.  Model improvement is an ongoing research activity at PSC and model upgrades may occur at irregular intervals.  When model upgrades occur, the entire time series will be reprocessed and posted.


[source]


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Talk to Bob.  Septic not sceptic you arrogant overgrown cumstain
> It is his post that started it
> 
> Maybe there needs to be a thread on spelling. I understand iphone as a very good program
> http://damnyouautocorrect.com/page/2/


 
Bob was commenting on your spelling. You seem to be a little confused about causality. Do some reading.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Bob was commenting on your spelling. You seem to be a little confused about causality. Do some reading.


 
Thank you.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Right hand lower corner "new model" what was wrong with the other one.
> 
> iNFO http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/28/does-piomass-verify/


 
Since Watts seems to concentrate only on American rather than global temperatures, perhaps he has a revised 'model' explanation for the North Cascades glacial retreats, the increased summer _and_ winter melting, and the decrease in winter snowpack.

Even if he has no explanation for their rapid retreat, perhaps he could come up with one. There is plenty of hard photographic evidence for their retreat. 

Here's another non-instrumental/technical measurement of change: this glacier has been recorded by humans since the late 19th century. Here's the evidence. Have a look: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm

The ocean around Greenland are also warming. Different fish are entering the area. We have archaeological evidence going back hundreds of years based on human consumption which can contribute to an understanding of the changes in migrating sea-creatures @Greenland, and in some areas (Scandinavian coastline) we have data going back to the Mesolithic.

This is an easy article which explains well: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/sep/23/eu-climate-09-greenland-warming-ocean-092309/

I didn't see any hard evidence against the arctic melt presented by Watts. He just stated his conclusion without any data to back it up.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

Bob was actually taking the piss out of you, rightone. 



Bob_the_lost said:


> Classic septic thinking, you are the only place in the entire world.


 


Bob_the_lost said:


> Yeah, you're still talking shit septic boy.



which you clearly didn't realise  



rightone said:


> And the GW's have given everyone reasons to be a septic.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 12, 2011)

free spirit said:


> shame we've wasted so many billions sticking satellites in the sky and setting up global climate monitoring stations when all we had to do was ask you what the weather had been like recently then extrapolate from there eh... maybe we should just ask doris to read the tea leaves to decide the fate of humanity and be done with it.


 
and wasted billions trying to teach science to fuckwits.  It's *not* like art, where the artist can cobble together any old shite and it's up to the public to decide whether they like it.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 12, 2011)

In a way I quite envy those who are so sure in their beliefs that no amount of evidence will convince them to take on any other point of view.  Faced with other whelming evidence they look to conspiracy theories to explain how and why the rest of the world mistaken.  Anyway this thread has been fascinating and I've enjoyed following the links and getting up to date with the science.

Anyway a polite request to rightone and anyone else whose self belief trumps all other evidence.  Unless you have any interesting to add please take your bickering elsewhere and have your voice heard where people are interested in what you say.  I'd really appreciate it if this tread remains focused on the science presented by people who know what they are talking about rather than turning into a place to air recycled and badly informed opinions and conspiracy theories.  Ta.


----------



## rightone (Jul 12, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> In a way I quite envy those who are so sure in their beliefs that no amount of evidence will convince them to take on any other point of view.  Faced with other whelming evidence they look to conspiracy theories to explain how and why the rest of the world mistaken.  Anyway this thread has been fascinating and I've enjoyed following the links and getting up to date with the science.
> 
> Anyway a polite request to rightone and anyone else whose self belief trumps all other evidence.  Unless you have any interesting to add please take your bickering elsewhere and have your voice heard where people are interested in what you say.  I'd really appreciate it if this tread remains focused on the science presented by people who know what they are talking about rather than turning into a place to air recycled and badly informed opinions and conspiracy theories.  Ta.


 
Your right this is the same old junk science it was before. What I have pointed out is that governments and people have wised up to what this is and are dropping it. You want to live in the past when no one was allow to questioned the science and how it was fixed and hyped, so be it you can live in your fantasy-land of once upon a time. Enjoy it, people are not buying now anyway and it oblivious make you happy to live in the past. If you dought this look at how many different people are posting on this as compared to the last time this was a thread.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Your right this is the same old junk science it was before. What I have pointed out is that governments and people have wised up to what this is and are dropping it. You want to live in the past when no one was allow to questioned the science and how it was fixed and hyped, so be it you can live in your fantasy-land of once upon a time. Enjoy it, people are not buying now anyway and it oblivious make you happy to live in the past. If you dought this look at how many different people are posting on this as compared to the last time this was a thread.



Rightone, I understand your scepticism. I also don't like the idea of my world being changed by forces (industrial activities by global corporations; universal changes to the earth's position in the galaxy, and universe) which are beyond my control. But the bottom line is that our climate is changing. 

Part of this change is due to cyclic alterations in our orbit around the sun, the tilt of the axis (through the north and south poles) of our planet towards/away from the sun, and the way our planet wobbles as it rotates on it's axis. 

Another part of the change is directly caused by industrialisation, which includes power plants, production plants, mining activities and so forth, which is anthropogenic -caused by human activity on the planet. 

We humans cannot influence our position in the galaxy/universe. It's undeniable that we have truly changed our planet - the seas, the rivers, the air we breathe. 

Is this human-caused change to our environment something you are happy to continue to deny?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> You want to live in the past when no one was allow to questioned the science


 
Really? Not allowed?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Really? Not allowed?


 
People wondered about climate  change back in the Late Bronze Age too. Some tried to hold back the encroachment of peat onto their farmlands by plunging spears into the boundary in a hostile/ward off to change (Rylatt, TAG 2009). The rituals did not work, and they would no doubt have wondered if they had angered the gods in some way. 

Our early attempts at farming were ruinous to our environment - there are areas of once-farmland from the Neolithic, that are nothing but bare rock today.  First we stripped the trees, then we over-farmed it until all the nutrients and minerals leached from the soil. That created a situation where the soil could no longer support plant life in the way it once did.  And now it is nothing but bare rock. 

The Burren, on the west coast of Ireland is now the largest karst landscape in Europe. It wasn't always like that, and was once populated by trees, and fields and farmed and farmed and farmed from the Neolithic onwards (6,000 years ago), until there was nothing left but bare rock. 

Image of the Burren: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burren_0513.JPG
History of the Burren: http://www.irelandbyways.com/top-irish-peninsulas/the-west/the-burren/

Without the plant-life holding the soil in place, it's washed and blown away by the rains and the winds. One day in the far future, we will look back on these first two-hundred of years of industrialisation, and curse the ignorance of those who made our environment uninhabitable for humanity. 

@Rightone - think  beyond your own lifetime if you can - backwards into the past, and forwards into the future. Think about what humanity is capable of.
I think you are capable of thinking about the human-effect on climate and environment more deeply.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Your right this is the same old junk science it was before. What I have pointed out is that governments and people have wised up to what this is and are dropping it. You want to live in the past when no one was allow to questioned the science and how it was fixed and hyped, so be it you can live in your fantasy-land of once upon a time. Enjoy it, people are not buying now anyway and it oblivious make you happy to live in the past. If you dought this look at how many different people are posting on this as compared to the last time this was a thread.


 
I've been begging you to question the science. You can't do that by waving your hands in the air and saying you don't believe the scientists because the politicians are still doing what is in their own short-term interests.

Evidence. Give us the evidence from the sceptical scientists. There's loads of them. Several have constructed their own temperature records now, having dealt with all those tricksy tricks those other naughty scientists put in there to mislead us all for nefarious reasons. You freer than at any time in history to question the science because almost all the raw data is in the public domain and there are some very well-funded data-crunchers on your side of the fence.

So, post it. Post the evidence that the world is not getting warmer.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Your right this is the same old junk science it was before. What I have pointed out is that governments and people have wised up to what this is and are dropping it. You want to live in the past when no one was allow to questioned the science and how it was fixed and hyped, so be it you can live in your fantasy-land of once upon a time. Enjoy it, people are not buying now anyway and it oblivious make you happy to live in the past. If you dought this look at how many different people are posting on this as compared to the last time this was a thread.


 
Great.  Are we agreed then.  We'll keep this thread on the science?  

From now on my plan is to be a silent observer on this thread as I am far from the levels of understanding of climate science that many posting here have shown.  However my observation is that as of yet is that you have failed to provide any useful additions, except to air your beliefs.  That's fine but maybe consider airing them in a separate thread.  Myself and I'm sure others posting here would be glad for any informed and reasoned posts you can make.  If I want to hear about others belief systems I'll head to a church or the pub.  Lets keep to the science.


----------



## rightone (Jul 12, 2011)

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...Approaching-Grand-Cooling-Assures-New-Ice-Age

Your narrow minded views are possibility missing the big picture. If the main source of heat is cooling down, people will be happy to have all that CO2 in the air to capture the little heat that does get here. That would be the ultimate test would it not to see if your CO2 theory works. Models these days are being made to prove a personal points of views and are slanted. If these great models are so good then we could predict the weather and changes of the climate well beyond the one at best two weeks. Which now is considered a stretch beyond the one week. There is so much that is not considered in the GW claim like the changes in the sun, earths tilt, the earth slowing down, change in the earths surface and the list just goes on. The GW people like to say these is not a real factor in the picture. When people bring these up they are told go away you don't count, what you are really saying we don't know how handle this information or data so we will disallow it. When you disallow or assume the sun as a fix constant and not a major variable it is no wonder your models are screwed up and not working. If you do not include all variables or assume they are constant your arguments are without merit. Your CO2 is in fact a very small factor in the big picture and acknowledge as a very over hyped part. I assume you can google and view the other sites yourself without me have to provide basic information you should already know. Quite frankly it is disappointing how narrow your views and knowledge has been in not considering or wanting too consider the other major factors that are involved.  You are falling into the classic human fault of thinking man can change what nature and the universe is doing. You look around and try to pin it on something you think will make a difference which in fact is meaning-less and futile, it will change no matter what you think or do. It reminds me of when people marched the women up the volcano and pushed them in. It did no good but they thought it was right at the time.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> There is so much that is not considered in the GW claim like the changes in the sun, earths tilt, the earth slowing down, change in the earths surface and the list just goes on. The GW people like to say these is not a real factor in the picture. .


 
They are a factor, and they are all taken account of. This has been a continuously progressing science for decades now. Are you really suggesting that major influences on the earth's climate have been ignored by knowledgeable and methodical scientists for all that time?

The research you linked to was one of many that extrapolated the recent observations of the sunspot cycle into an "ice age coming!". The fact of the matter is, so far, inconclusive.



> You are falling into the classic human fault of thinking man can change what nature and the universe is doing.



"Nature" has been changed many times by human action - on local and global scales - many times already. Nature is powerful, but it is dynamic: Dynamic systems do not require inputs of the same apparent scale as their outputs.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

What are you talking about, rightone? All those geodetic factors are consider in all climate modelling (Axial tilt, perihelion, etc).


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...Approaching-Grand-Cooling-Assures-New-Ice-Age


 
You'll forgive me, I hope, for not wanting to read a website that has 'Psychopaths rule our world' in it's header


----------



## rightone (Jul 12, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> What are you talking about, rightone? All those geodetic factors are consider in all climate modelling (Axial tilt, perihelion, etc).



Everyone has their hill and are not about to concede their hill may not be the bigger hill as someone else's. I'm tired of those who are playing king of the hill and not recognize that the hills may be equal or greater importance. People say they include it but do not give it the weight it should have so as not to lessen the weight they want for their side. Pox on all of of you. If this is such a great problem when why not get together and work on it. So far it has become nothing but a turf war in the press and else where. As it stands now you all are just running in different directions saying only my way is the right way. It is sad to see science fall to such low levels. This is what governments and the people see, and it is not good for any of you. Until you can acknowledge there is real value to what the other sides may have, your wasting time and support for what maybe a problem we can have a effect on. IMO! You can go back to all your science and charts and funny math and say see!!! for all the good it does now.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> it will change no matter what you think or do.


yes you're right, we can't influence the sun. However the sun's not been responsible for the recent warming, and any reduction in the sun's output will almost certainly be temporary, and should be seen as a piece of luck / divine intervention that buys humanity some time to sort our greenhouse gas emissions out before the sun's activity picks back up again.

btw, all the factors you mention have been fully considered within the IPCC process. The influence of the sunspot cycles however is something that can't be accurately predicted beyond the regular short term cycles, as it's either a chaotic system, or works on a cycle that's far longer than our records of such things extend. Unless you're suggesting that this minimum period will last forever though, it's fucking stupid to use it as an excuse to do nothing about our greenhouse gas emissions (and pretty stupid even if that were true, as the impact of the greenhouse gas concentrations are / will be greater than the impact of the reduction in TSI from this solar minimum period).


----------



## free spirit (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Everyone has their hill and are not about to concede their hill may not be the bigger hill as someone else's. I'm tired of those who are playing king of the hill and not recognize that the hills may be equal or greater importance. People say they include it but do not give it the weight it should have so as not to lessen the weight they want for their side. Pox on all of of you. If this is such a great problem when why not get together and work on it. So far it has become nothing but a turf war in the press and else where. As it stands now you all are just running in different directions saying only my way is the right way. It is sad to see science fall to such low levels. This is what governments and the people see, and it is not good for any of you. Until you can acknowledge there is real value to what the other sides may have, your wasting time and support for what maybe a problem we can have a effect on. IMO! You can go back to all your science and charts and funny math and say see!!! for all the good it does now.


show me the value your side is bringing to the table, then we can talk.

btw, just FYI


> The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° (but see below), *with a 41,000 year period*,


so, it causes warming and cooling, but on a timescale measured in thousands of years, not decades.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Everyone has their hill and are not about to concede their hill may not be the bigger hill as someone else's. I'm tired of those who are playing king of the hill and not recognize that the hills may be equal or greater importance. People say they include it but do not give it the weight it should have so as not to lessen the weight they want for their side. Pox on all of of you. If this is such a great problem when why not get together and work on it. So far it has become nothing but a turf war in the press and else where. As it stands now you all are just running in different directions saying only my way is the right way. It is sad to see science fall to such low levels. This is what governments and the people see, and it is not good for any of you. Until you can acknowledge there is real value to what the other sides may have, your wasting time and support for what maybe a problem we can have a effect on. IMO! You can go back to all your science and charts and funny math and say see!!! for all the good it does now.


 
I'm sorry, could you repeat yourself?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 12, 2011)

Wang Liang 2009



> . The decadal variations in global L d under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily L d increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.



A physical measure of the increase in IR that causes changes in temperature


> The bottom panel shows the difference of 1997 minus 1970. In most places the
> difference is small, but in some wavenumber intervals the 1997 brightness temperatures
> are significantly less in 1997. This reflects the increase in the concentrations of gases
> such as CO2, CFC and CH4 between 1970 and 1997. The optical depth depends on the
> ...


Observed changes in the outgoing spectra consitant with an increased loading of human sourced greenhouse gasses

Harries 2001

Wheres the argument? Its physics. 'Reflect' (ok absorb and re-emit) more IR back at the surface, things warm.

Are we next going to sit and argue with clausius clapeyron?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 12, 2011)

Or is this one of those where we all sit and argue about the absorbtion spectra of homonuclear diatomic molecules (plus Argon) vs hetronuclear triatomic (and larger, there is always CH4) molecules and explain why the vibration and rotation of such molecular structures mean they have electron orbits that kinda just lurves the old IR.


Too much science? Should I just stick to Al Gore and how fat he is?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

rightone said:


> Everyone has their hill and are not about to concede their hill may not be the bigger hill as someone else's. I'm tired of those who are playing king of the hill and not recognize that the hills may be equal or greater importance. People say they include it but do not give it the weight it should have so as not to lessen the weight they want for their side. Pox on all of of you. If this is such a great problem when why not get together and work on it. So far it has become nothing but a turf war in the press and else where. As it stands now you all are just running in different directions saying only my way is the right way. It is sad to see science fall to such low levels. This is what governments and the people see, and it is not good for any of you. Until you can acknowledge there is real value to what the other sides may have, your wasting time and support for what maybe a problem we can have a effect on. IMO! You can go back to all your science and charts and funny math and say see!!! for all the good it does now.


 


Crispy said:


> I'm sorry, could you repeat yourself?



Yes and perhaps a little less technical detail and more opinion, my head is just swimming with facts now


----------



## rightone (Jul 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I'm sorry, could you repeat yourself?


 
As you wish. As a Mod it thought you knew how to bring it back up.

 Originally Posted by rightone  
Everyone has their hill and are not about to concede their hill may not be the bigger hill as someone else's. I'm tired of those who are playing king of the hill and not recognize that the hills may be equal or greater importance. People say they include it but do not give it the weight it should have so as not to lessen the weight they want for their side. Pox on all of of you. If this is such a great problem when why not get together and work on it. So far it has become nothing but a turf war in the press and else where. As it stands now you all are just running in different directions saying only my way is the right way. It is sad to see science fall to such low levels. This is what governments and the people see, and it is not good for any of you. Until you can acknowledge there is real value to what the other sides may have, your wasting time and support for what maybe a problem we can have a effect on. IMO! You can go back to all your science and charts and funny math and say see!!! for all the good it does now.

Well back to the real world.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 13, 2011)

He's a badly punctuated troll. Ignore him or we'll just end up waiting for the School term to start again before he goes away.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 13, 2011)

Bob_the_lost said:


> He's a badly punctuated troll. Ignore him or we'll just end up waiting for the School term to start again before he goes away.



Quite.  Someone who has disdain for 'science and charts and funny math' clearly is not capable of adding any useful input into these discussions.  He mentions 'your side' - by that I assume he means reasoned science vs ill-informed opinion.  

The mind boggles as to what he thinks 'the real world' is when he seemingly distrusts scientific method as a way to investigate it.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 15, 2011)

http://www.arctic.io/observations/

You can watch a daily updated view of the arctic as it does not melt this summer.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 18, 2011)

Higher atmospheric CO2 triggers release of potent greenhouse gases




			
				Dr Kees Jan van Groenigen said:
			
		

> previous studies may have overestimated the potential of ecosystems to mitigate the greenhouse effect


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

Plant trees. There is no better ''carbon sink'' than a tree.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 27, 2011)

Extreme weather: the new normal


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 27, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> Extreme weather: the new normal


9 Extreme weather events so far this year have exceeded a billion dollars in cost

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1856


> 2011 to-date now ties the entire year of 2008 for the most billion-dollar weather disasters in one year. Of course, this number could go up if we see some hurricane landfalls this year.


The rapid switch to la Nina and the late opening of Hudson Bay are liable to have had an impact. The tornados though are likely to just be statistical freaks. If Hudson Bay has had an impact on snow pack and moisture content from Nov - Jan then very heavy spring flooding is likely to be a more regular occurence. 

Also the late forming of the polar vortex that produced the extreme cold in the US and UK last winter is plausably a more common feature we could be seeing in coming years, very cold early winters till the polar vortex fully forms. There was a significant drop in Arctic (yes Arctic) ozone this year and there is some discussion about the causes and whather weather conditions that are more likely to form played a part.

Obviously at this point other factors could be in play such as Lockwoods theory of changes in UV during periods of low solar activity modulating the polar jet.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 29, 2011)

Polar bear climate scientist investigated over 'misconduct'
A biologist who claimed polar bears were drowning because of melting ice caps has been placed on administrative leave as officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.

more here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...e-scientist-investigated-over-misconduct.html

I like polar bears and was concerned by the initial reports of them drowning due to the ice caps melting.  Now the original research is in question.  It will be interesting to see how this pans out


----------



## ymu (Jul 29, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Polar bear climate scientist investigated over 'misconduct'
> A biologist who claimed polar bears were drowning because of melting ice caps has been placed on administrative leave as officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
> 
> more here
> ...


It's looking like this may be heavy-handed harrassment from the White House in advance of the bill on drilling for oil in the arctic.



> Some question why Monnett, employed by the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, has been suspended at this moment. The Obama administration has been accused of hounding the scientist so it can open up the fragile region to drilling by Shell and other big oil companies.
> 
> "You have to wonder: this is the guy in charge of all the science in the Arctic and he is being suspended just now as an arm of the interior department is getting ready to make its decision on offshore drilling in the Arctic seas," said Jeff Ruch, president of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "This is a cautionary tale with a deeply chilling message for any federal scientist who dares to publish groundbreaking research on conditions in the Arctic."
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Jul 29, 2011)

Blimey, they're having a revival tent meeting on the Telegraph comments...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 30, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Polar bear climate scientist investigated over 'misconduct'
> A biologist who claimed polar bears were drowning because of melting ice caps has been placed on administrative leave as officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
> 
> more here
> ...


He did not claim but hypothised in a paper. He was doing a survey of bowhead wales and noted several dead polar bears, this was unusual so he published a paper putting the hypothises onto the record as such.

Alaska Dispatch has a report on the controvosy


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 3, 2011)

This is mid troposphere not surface layer





So this temperature data set tends to over emphisise the ENSO cycle. As water vapour condenses into liquid water to form clouds in the mid troposphere it realeases heat (it absorbs heat transforms from water into water vapor and carries it up from the surface when it condesnes back into liquid to form liquid water rain drops it releases the heat) so the very warm tropical pacific surface waters during el Nino tend to show up as a big jump in heat on this dataset and a the much lower amount of a water vapour going into the mid troposphere during la Nina in the central pacific also shows up as a bigger drop than you will see in surface layer datasets.*

That said you can see during neutral conditions we are now experiancing the same mid troposphere warming as we did 14 years ago during record el Ninos. 

But there is more 

Kaufman 2011 strongly suggest low latitude growth in sulphate emissions have hid the full impact of longer lived forcings (aka CO2)

Oh and we have experainced a notable drop in solar output






Warming world? Only if you believe the science


*I may not have explained this well, if anyone has questions please ask I will be happy to try to clarify


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 16, 2011)

**

An over view on the recent US heatwave and drought

July temperature anomalies as visualised by NASA








> Remarkable heat in Asia
> For the second consecutive summer, some of the hottest temperatures in Earth's recorded history have scorched Asia. The six hottest (undisputed) temperatures ever measured in Asia have all occurred in during the past two summers:
> 
> 1) 53.5°C (128.3°F) at Moenjodaro, Pakistan on May 26, 2010
> ...



link to Wunderground

Looking forward the models are all pointing towarrds neuteral ENSO conditions barring one straying into la Nina conditions






So we are liable to have relatively stable conditions in the equatorial pacific meaning stabilish global temperatures, that is other than in the Arctic and sub Arctic where we can expect yet another very warm winter while the ice slowly recovers from another battering. Were I a betting person Id have money on a damn damn cold spell over the UK late autumn early winter as the Arctic vortex takes its time forming and an ice free Hudson Bay plays havock (again) with the Rossby Waves (ie the jet stream). (This is what some people think happened to the UKs weather last winter)

There is also an unusually warm and very large patch of water in the Nothern Pacific, still not sure what is causing this.






Anyone nerdy enough to to have read this so far might be interested in this link

Its an up to date satellite image of a giant algal bloom just north of Scandavia. I think its pretty cool


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 17, 2011)

Seconded.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 10, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Looking forward the models are all pointing towarrds neuteral ENSO conditions barring one straying into la Nina conditions


Well that failed mildly.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110908_lanina.html


> La Niña, which contributed to extreme weather around the globe during the first half of 2011, has re-emerged in the tropical Pacific Ocean and is forecast to gradually strengthen and continue into winter. Today, forecasters with NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center upgraded last month’s La Niña Watch to a La Niña Advisory.


Very mild la Nina re-emerges. But its just inside the values of a la Nina.

That said it has not really had a big impact on the satellite data set






0.33C above the 1980-2010 average. La Nina conditions and still a bigger anomaly than most of the el Nino months of the 2000s.

One theory doing the rounds is that China is shutting a lot of small Mao era power stations as new huge, very efficient coal power stations come on line with all the sulpher scrubbing kit. That Asian sulphate emissions may be leveling off. Hard to tell but its a theory.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 10, 2011)

Bumping your own thread...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Bumping your own thread...


Coutesy of Michael Tobis.

What we say to anti science clowns like JC2


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 10, 2011)

What they hear.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 10, 2011)

What is 'coutesy'?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is 'coutesy'?


An intellectually limited individual finding a "r" missing and making an arse of themself.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Bumping your own thread...


Common for specialist update threads


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is 'coutesy'?



Also common for people wanting to avoid discussing points being made  .


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 10, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Also common for people wanting to avoid discussing points being made  .



How many times can one have the exact same discussion?

What point is served?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How many times can one have the exact same discussion?
> 
> What point is served?


you think that it's pointless to, keep updating a thread with the latest evidence that AGW is happening as we site and argue about it?

there probably is no point in you continuing to argue the toss mind.


----------



## Dr Jon (Oct 7, 2011)

* Climate Change and the End of Australia *


----------



## free spirit (Oct 8, 2011)

free spirit said:


> you think that it's pointless to, keep updating a thread with the latest evidence that AGW is happening as we site and argue about it?


damn, this doesn't even make sense to me.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 8, 2011)

free spirit said:


> damn, this doesn't even make sense to me.



perfectly clear if you sort of unfocus your eyes when reading it.


----------



## Dr Jon (Oct 9, 2011)

Yet another potential positive feedback that we don't understand


> if soils released only 0.3 percent of their carbon stores, it would equal year 2010 fossil fuel emissions


----------



## free spirit (Oct 9, 2011)

definitely an area in need of serious further study. Some actual experimentation with the impact of warming various soil types by a few degrees wouldn't go amiss either (may well have actually been done and just escaped my attention mind).


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 20, 2011)

Video on the Texan drought


----------



## Dr Jon (Nov 24, 2011)

No end in sight for global warming and climate chaos as greenhouse gas levels hit new high


----------



## xes (Nov 25, 2011)

Climategate 2 the emails
http://asiancorrespondent.com/70425/climategate-ii-mainstream-media-fails-again/


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 25, 2011)

xes said:


> Climategate 2 the emails
> http://asiancorrespondent.com/70425/climategate-ii-mainstream-media-fails-again/



Yep, the industry PR slime can't make a dent in the science, so they try to whip up conspiracy theories by misleadingly editing a bunch of hacked e-mails and whining that the 'sheeple' aren't taking any notice.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yep, the industry PR slime can't make a dent in the science, so they try to whip up conspiracy theories by misleadingly editing a bunch of hacked e-mails and whining that the 'sheeple' aren't taking any notice.


Its gossip for people to thick to be able to make a scientific argument, subsituting informed opinion for an imagined personalised narrative from these emails. That is to say instead of talking about what the scientists have published use these emails to talk about what people imagine their motivations are.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 25, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Its gossip for people to thick to be able to make a scientific argument, subsituting informed opinion for an imagined personalised narrative from these emails. That is to say instead of talking about what the scientists have published use these emails to talk about what people imagine their motivations are.



It's interesting though that they're now finding a new constituency among conspiraloons. I mean, I've frequently claimed that the arguments against climate science often resemble conspiracy theory and bigfish, if anyone recalls him screaming at me about various nutty stuff, pioneered the use of angry conspiracy nut diatribes to attack various forms of science on Urban. At the time I considered him a sort of 'lone nut' but actually it turned out he was getting his stuff from mainstream conspiraloon sites.

Lately, it's like the lizard fanciers are more and more obviously the natural constituency for climate change denial arguments though, as all the people who don't have damaged critical faculties back away slowly.


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 26, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's interesting though that they're now finding a new constituency among conspiraloons. I mean, I've frequently claimed that the arguments against climate science often resemble conspiracy theory and bigfish, if anyone recalls him screaming at me about various nutty stuff, pioneered the use of angry conspiracy nut diatribes to attack various forms of science on Urban. At the time I considered him a sort of 'lone nut' but actually it turned out he was getting his stuff from mainstream conspiraloon sites.
> 
> Lately, it's like the lizard fanciers are more and more obviously the natural constituency for climate change denial arguments though, as all the people who don't have damaged critical faculties back away slowly.


Unfortunately all but one of the present Republican presidential candidates are in the lizard fanciers camp, half of them include evolution in their fevered fantasies...


----------



## laptop (Nov 26, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Lately, it's like the lizard fanciers are more and more obviously the natural constituency for climate change denial arguments though, as all the people who don't have damaged critical faculties back away slowly.



I think we're seeing denial undergoing evolution.

Phase 1 was the nit-pickers. They claimed neutrality, but picked away at any chink they could find in the argument.

They started going quiet around the time of the 4th IPCC reports back in '07. Their last gasp was the Berkeley group reporting that they'd "independently" re-analysed the temperature and, er, yes, everything is as IPCC and its contributors say.

Fruitloops started appearing in '07 and now they're all that's left...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 28, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's interesting though that they're now finding a new constituency among conspiraloons. I mean, I've frequently claimed that the arguments against climate science often resemble conspiracy theory and bigfish, if anyone recalls him screaming at me about various nutty stuff, pioneered the use of angry conspiracy nut diatribes to attack various forms of science on Urban. At the time I considered him a sort of 'lone nut' but actually it turned out he was getting his stuff from mainstream conspiraloon sites.


I think that global warming denial has a long history on the extreme fringe of US politics. Things like the Oregon petition were set up by right wing survivalists.

Alex Jones and Lyndon LaRouche have been big on this for years as well.



laptop said:


> I think we're seeing denial undergoing evolution.
> 
> Phase 1 was the nit-pickers. They claimed neutrality, but picked away at any chink they could find in the argument.
> 
> ...


The nitpicking began with the Reagan adminitration trying to find a way to kick the issue into the long grass. By the mid 80s groups like the George Marshall Institute were involved in casting doubt on the science of global warming. The US buckled to pressure to create an international group to report on the latest science and with the WMO set up a panel to review the science. But they tried to spike the process by saying there needed to be a 'consensus'. The assumption was it would take a decade or so to reach that consensus and there would be no political pressure for action for a while. But the first report came back with a strong report.
Through the 90s there was a get out, the satellite data showed cooling. It was the collapse of this line of evidence in the mid 2000s that is where most legitimate scepticism pretty much died out. The other big possible explanation that also died in the 2000s was the sun. The sun went into a very inactive state around 2007 and temperatures remained high, record breaking according to some temperature records in 2010.

I think from the mid 2000s deniers sound crazier because its scientific foundations erroded.

There is no real coherent denier position anymore other than vague conspiracy theories around 'climategate' and the UN.

The only coherent sceptical position left is the Lukewarmers. People who accept that the world will warm but hold on to the idea that climate sensitivity will be around 2C per doubling. The likes of Lucia Liljern tend to dominate that position. They draw a lot of their position from the recent slow down in the rate of warming over the past 10 years. Though once one accounts for a sizable drop in solar energy and increased sulphate pollution in the low lattitudes (southern China, Indonesia and India especially) this position becomes a touch shakier.


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 29, 2011)

I must admit that I was originally in the 'yes it's warming, but is it due to us' camp, then I started looking at the evidence and I can see that I was wrong.  Now I'm worried about the sort of world my grandkids are going to be living in.  The more we delay doing something constructive the worse it will be for them.


----------



## Dr Jon (Dec 1, 2011)

Ticking Greenhouse Gas Time Bomb: Melting Permafrost









> .. scientists predict that over the next three decades a total of about 45 billion metric tons of carbon from methane and carbon dioxide will seep into the atmosphere when permafrost thaws during summers. That's about the same amount of heat-trapping gas the world spews during five years of burning coal, gas and other fossil fuels


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Dec 5, 2011)

We are well and truely fucked. No one is politically capable of cutting back on the long term.



> Global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery.
> 
> Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/s...sions-in-2010-study-finds.html?_r=2&ref=earth


----------



## laptop (Dec 5, 2011)

And I find hardly any UK media covering the Durban IPCC conference in any detail - no news is bad news.

There's loads from Reuters India, from Canada (where is a big local political story)... and the _Wall Street Journal_ (on China shifting its position) ... and the _Scotsman_ has what looks like an activist blog.


----------



## Dr Jon (Dec 5, 2011)

The only thing that will cut emissions will be running out of stuff to burn.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Dec 5, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> The only thing that will cut emissions will be running out of stuff to burn.



Or, people to burn it.


----------



## laptop (Dec 10, 2011)

*WTF?*

_Guardian_ reports a false draft treaty text circulated at the climate change conference in Durban...



> If the text was a forgery, it was a poor one: it was headed with the wrong date (Friday 10 December, instead of Saturday 10 December) and was printed in the wrong typeface (Arial, instead of Times New Roman) for an official document.
> 
> The president of the conference, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, was forced to issue an official denial of the text, but only after the bizarre episode had wasted valuable time.



Edit: link


----------



## Crispy (Dec 11, 2011)

Wrong link, la
Top


----------



## Dr Jon (Dec 14, 2011)

Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas


----------



## laptop (Dec 14, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas



Whoops.

And only a day earlier, Semiletov was urging caution about claims of runaway Arctic feedback...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 15, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas





> Summer hydrographic data (1920–2009) show a dramatic warming of the bottom water layer over the eastern Siberian shelf coastal zone (<10 m depth), since the mid-1980s, by 2.1°C. We attribute this warming to changes in the Arctic atmosphere. The enhanced summer cyclonicity results in warmer air temperatures and a reduction in ice extent, mainly through thermodynamic melting. This leads to a lengthening of the summer open-water season and to more solar heating of the water column. The permafrost modeling indicates, however, that a significant change in the permafrost depth lags behind the imposed changes in surface temperature, and after 25 years of summer seafloor warming (as observed from 1985 to 2009), the upper boundary of permafrost deepens only by ∼1 m. Thus, the observed increase in temperature does not lead to a destabilization of methane-bearing subsea permafrost or to an increase in methane emission. The CH4 supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes. A significant degradation of subsea permafrost is expected to be detectable at the beginning of the next millennium. Until that time, the simulated permafrost table shows a deepening down to ∼70 m below the seafloor that is considered to be important for the stability of the subsea permafrost and the permafrost-related gas hydrate stability zone.


Link


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 24, 2011)

Oops,

Not another oil spill in Nigeria...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nigeria-oil-spill-is-worst-in-a-decade-6280630.html

Hey ho, doesn't happen in the good ole USA, oops again...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/03/yellowstone-river-suffers-oil-spill

Fucking PR reported shit heads. Even when this crap gets cleaned up it's still decades of misery for the locals from cancers and breathing difficulties.

Editted for shit attempt at sarcasm.


----------



## laptop (Dec 24, 2011)

Uh-oh?






E2A: that's from NOAA Research - Carbon Cycle Gases Barrow, Alaska

Though someone on RealClimate says that surge "goes away with analysis" (Post 43 here)


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 24, 2011)

laptop said:


> Uh-oh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Id tried to get in touch with people at NOAA over this over a week ago, still no response.


----------



## Dr Jon (Dec 26, 2011)

Just spotted:
Arctic Methane Emergency Group


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 26, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> Just spotted:
> Arctic Methane Emergency Group





> The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and increased warming of the Arctic seas threaten methane hydrate instability and a massive catastrophic release of methane into the atmosphere, as noted in IPCC AR4.
> 
> • Research published by N. Shakhova* shows that methane is already venting into the atmosphere from seabed methane hydrates on the East Siberian Arctic shelf, or ESAS (the world's largest continental shelf), which, if allowed to escalate, would likely lead to abrupt and catastrophic global warming.
> 
> ...



Fuck ... that sounds extremely worrying.


----------



## laptop (Dec 26, 2011)

laptop said:


> Though someone on RealClimate says that surge "goes away with analysis" (Post 43 here)



I think they've renumbered.




			
				RealClimate conributor said:
			
		

> Each year a few orange dots far outside the rest of the data show up as provisional; each year those disappear when the provisional data have been checked. It’s routine.
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...en-and-physics-today/comment-page-2/#comments post 52


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 26, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Fuck ... that sounds extremely worrying.





> The data indicate the Arctic could be ice free for six months of the year by 2020 (PIOMAS 2011).


Is bull. No paper suggests this. PIOMAS simply shows a rapid change in the thickness of sea ice as summer melting produces cold water than the layers below and its salt free cold water drops to the slightly warmer lower level which reduces the the thickness of the ice. There is an argument that this could produce a relatively ice free Arctic for the end of the melt season in the coming years, but taking this beyond a week or two in the late summer is insane. The arctic is contrained by virtually no solar energy for 6 months of the year. This means even from an ice free state it will have 6 months to lose energy to space and grow ice. That ice will always take time to melt. When it does the sea can gain some energy but once the sun is low in the sky the sea will begin giving more energy back to space than it recieves. Hudson Bay which is much furhter south, recieves much more autumn and spring sunlight but only gets ice free for about 3 months at most.

This group have rapidly gained a repution for wild claims and crazy predictions.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 7, 2012)

laptop said:


> Uh-oh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Updated.

Erroneous data.


----------



## laptop (Jan 7, 2012)

ferrelhadley said:


> Updated.
> 
> Erroneous data.



Phew!


----------



## MikeMcc (Feb 15, 2012)

Oh dear, the denial bus just lost a wheel:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

Proof that the Heartland Institute are a bunch of lobbying fraudsters has been leaked! Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. 

Michael Tobis has gone even further on DeSmogBlog, accusing Singer of perjury and fraud!


----------



## laptop (Feb 15, 2012)

MikeMcc said:


> Oh dear, the denial bus just lost a wheel:
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html
> 
> ...


 
Downloads not starting and DeSmogBlog not answering


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 23, 2012)

Someone at the Arbor Day Foundation pointed out this map to me.  It's the change in hardiness zones in the US since 1990.  It looks like an over all shift of one zone in each area.

http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 8, 2012)

James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 12, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


> James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change


 
Such a nice local boy.  I've heard him speak.


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 16, 2012)

Oh-oh:
Emissions set to surge 50 pct by 2050


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 16, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


> Oh-oh:
> Emissions set to surge 50 pct by 2050


 
If that happens we're toast. We're probably toast already, but we'll be toast on the well-done side if this happens.  We'll blow right past 350 ppm.


----------



## extra dry (Mar 16, 2012)

getting warm and wet all around Asia...Australia floods..


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 16, 2012)

extra dry said:


> getting warm and wet all around Asia...Australia floods..


 
I know you can't base it on invidual temperatures, but it's been a weird year here too. We usually get some Jan/Feb temps around -20F or so. Not only did we not get that, but we only had a few morning that were sub zero F. I've spent most of the winter carrying my coat in my car and walking around in shirtsleeves.  It was 80 degress here on monday and my grass is green already--that usually doesn't happen for another month. 

I'm betting we'll see a record year sometime in the next three years as we move into solar maximum. We might even see that every year of the next three.


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 20, 2012)

The ongoing March heat wave in the Midwest is one of the most extreme heat events in U.S. history

From the comments:


> This is what the dumb arse stupid deniers dont get, once this happens, you cant grow the same crops anymore!!!


----------



## spacemonkey (Mar 20, 2012)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> If that happens we're toast. We're probably toast already, but we'll be toast on the well-done side if this happens.  We'll blow right past 350 ppm.



We've already blown past 350ppm, at the rate we're going we'll be lucky to stablise at 500-600ppm


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 21, 2012)

spacemonkey said:


> We've already blown past 350ppm, at the rate we're going we'll be lucky to stablise at 500-600ppm


 
Can you give me a source for that? The last figure I have is that we're at 290 ppm. I admit it may be a dated figure.


----------



## spacemonkey (Mar 21, 2012)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Can you give me a source for that? The last figure I have is that we're at 290 ppm. I admit it may be a dated figure.



http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

We haven't been at 290 since the 40's.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Mar 21, 2012)

spacemonkey said:


> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
> 
> We haven't been at 290 since the 40's.


 
Ok, thanks. 

 I must have misremembered 390 as 290.


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 21, 2012)




----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 22, 2012)

Here we go...


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 29, 2012)

Planet Near Irreversible Point of Global Warming


----------



## laptop (Apr 1, 2012)

*Arctic sea ice may have passed crucial tipping point *




			
				Fred Pearce in New Scientist said:
			
		

> THE disappearance of Arctic sea ice has crossed a "tipping point" that could soon make ice-free summers a regular feature across most of the Arctic Ocean, says a British climate scientist who is setting up an early warning system for dangerous climate tipping points.
> 
> Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter has carried out a day-by-day assessment of Arctic ice-cover data collected since satellite observation began in 1979. He presented his hotly anticipated findings for the first time at the Planet Under Pressure conference in London on Monday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 2, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


> Here we go...


 
It was in the 90s here yesterday. I've seen 10 inches of snow on the ground the first weekend in April.

(and yes, I know individual temps isn't evidence.)


----------



## Dr Jon (Apr 3, 2012)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It was in the 90s here yesterday. I've seen 10 inches of snow on the ground the first weekend in April.
> 
> (and yes, I know individual temps isn't evidence.)


I can remember it snowing at Easter-time here when I was a kid.
This year I've got a half-reasonable suntan a week before...

er,


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 3, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


> I can remember it snowing at Easter-time here when I was a kid.
> This year I've got a half-reasonable suntan a week before...
> 
> er,


 
Our news said this morning that March was 14 degrees F higher on average than a usual March.


----------



## Dr Jon (Apr 3, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


> I can remember it snowing at Easter-time here when I was a kid...


Should've kept my gob shut...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 9, 2012)

US Shatters Record for Warmest March:







http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...t-march-and-first-three-months-of-a-year?lite


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 20, 2014)

Warmest oceans ever recorded






NASA, Other Data Show Globe Had Warmest October


> Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) show this October was 1.4°F above the 1951-1980 average they use as their baseline. That didn’t set a monthly mark, as did August and September, but rather tied 2005 as the warmest October since 1880. That keeps 2014 on track to be the hottest year on record.
> 
> While individual hot years or months don’t necessarily stand out, it’s notable that all 10 of the warmest years on record have all come since 1998, one of the clearest signs that the climate is warming due in large part to greenhouse gas emissions.










> Global temperature anomalies for the month of October compared to 1981-2010 average.
> Credit: JMA


----------

