Any gradual increase, no matter how small, leads to only one outcome; a gradual increase in world temperatures.
Whom are you explaining this for?
Well, here again is where I show that you don't know what you're talking about. If the anomaly baseline is chosen to correlate to a carbon dioxide concentration of 366 ppm, then the temperature anomaly should be zero in the year that this occurs. Check your graph again.
What is the temperature anomaly when CO2 is 366ppm? Up near 0.6 and 0.8°C. Obviously, the baseline for the anomalies is not correlated to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 366 ppm. That's just plain stupid.
Are you just playing dumb again?
Melting away another denier myth.
NASA
--
As for Coren, the bible thumping science denier......
My first time on this thread, because the title caught my eye. Read thru most of the post, and found that as usual, the posts have nothing to do with the topic.
Moderators, WAKE UP!!
What peeked my interest in the title was that I thought that this thread would be about how socialists (aka Democrats) are beginning to realize that their Messiah, the phony messenger of Hope and Change, has failed to deliver....
If you look at the graph you'll notice that the temp baseline (the one that says 0) is at the same point as the beginning of the CO2 365 ppm.
Instead, it states, "temperature variations in degrees C". So it's measuring the actual amount of temperature increase or decrease. THe baseline is merely a point of reference, in this case a point to correlate with the CO2 concentration of 366 ppm.
Realclimate is your source????
The propaganda arm of the climate fraudsters is a trustworthy source??? LOL
Except with the logarithmic increase in temps from additional CO2, the amount of warming is so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.
Realclimate is your source????
The propaganda arm of the climate fraudsters is a trustworthy source??? LOL
And that myth would be?
Read the opening line in the article.
There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting.
One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming.
Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way.
Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.
Are they wrong?
If so prove it, I'd like to know what they said that isn't true since you already know.
Thanks.
The logarithmic response to increasing carbon dioxide is in the forcing, not the temperature. When the increase in concentration is occurring exponentially, the forcing remains the same; each time the amount added doubles, the forcing is the same, up to a very high concentration, somewhere around 1000ppm. So the temperature increase is linear. Learn some algebra already.
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroNice ad hominem.
As for Coren, the bible thumping science denier......
You're a retard.
They are two axis. The temperature axis has nothing to do with where carbon dioxide begins.
You're a retard. There are three time series on that graph. One is the atmospheric carbon dioxide, one is HadCRUT, the other is UAH. They are all time series, they all start at 1998.
In 1998, the carbon dioxide is 366 ppm, which has F all to do with the axis reporting temperature. It's simply an artifact of the interval chosen with these three time series. If you changed the time series from the period in the graph, to say ten years earlier, then the zero for temperature would be lining up with a different atmospheric concentration.
The temperature anomalies are not zero when carbon dioxide is 366 ppm,
which would be where they were if you were correct about the baseline.
There has to be a zero on that axis, to accompany the anomalies of the two temperature products time series.
The left axis has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
What you said was:
The amount of actual temperature change is different for each temperature time series, obviously they do not share the same baseline, as I said earlier, the different products each have their own baselines. That graph does not have it's own baseline for the two temperature time series.
That graph is not constructed by correlating anything. It's three time series, all starting in 1998, and UAH and HadCRUT have different baselines for the temperature anomalies reported, but they use the same axis because they are related.
Read the opening line in the article.
This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years. To add to their frustration, they couldn’t even lash out at the lead author, Marco Tedesco of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department of City College of New York — the doomsters had praised his previous reports showing high rates of Antarctic melt.
Quote has been trimmed
The latest news from the Arctic — delivered daily via satellite — is no better. Two years ago with the Arctic ice in rapid retreat, the doomsters, convinced of the coming of an ice-free Arctic, could scarcely contain themselves. Now, with the Arctic ice in rapid return, their anticipation of disaster seems more a cruel hoax of Nature. The doomsters now dread to track the satellite data beamed down to us courtesy of the International Arctic Research Center and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency — you can see why they cringe each day by going to the satellite website and following the red line: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm.
Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?
The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.
Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.
Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).
The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.
It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).
But not a peep.
But such is not always the case—or rather, such is not ever the case when ice melt is pushing the other end of the record scale.
For instance, below is a collection of NASA stories highlighting record high amounts of melting (or in most cases, simply higher than normal amounts in some regions) across Greenland in each of the past 3 years, as ascertained by Marco Tedesco (the lead author of the latest report on Antarctica):
NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland
“In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using satellite observations….”
NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places
“A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S…”
Melting on the Greenland Ice Cap, 2008
“The northern fringes of Greenland’s ice sheet experienced extreme melting in 2008, according to NASA scientist Marco Tedesco and his colleagues.”
And lest you think that perhaps NASA hasn’t had any data on ice melt across Antarctica in past years, we give you this one:
NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland
“On the world’s coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves. In a new NASA study, researchers [including Marco Tedesco] using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica’s largest ice shelf.”
But this time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer).
So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?
(These are not meant as rhetorical questions)
