Death knell for AGW

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It never went away. Only if you focus on surface temperatures, and only if you use certain databases of surface temperatures...

Looks like ocean heat content dominates the surface:



And ocean heat content since 2003 shows no stop to global warming:


Just where do you think the heat given off during El Nino phases comes from?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
As long as there is money to be made in hysteria the gloom&doomers will keep wailing. Their #1 problem is that they think that nature has as short an attention span as they do. Soon they will find a new cause de jour to collect donations from the gulible for. The real problem is that they have been crying wolf for so long over so many false issues that some time in the future they are bound to hit one right and nobody will believe them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walter

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
global warming

What I can't get over is, every time a weather record is broken, they say it broke the record set in 1932 or whatever. Well if it was almost as hot back then what are we getting all upset about? This global warming thing is overdone.
Its somewhat like sheering a pig, there is more noise than there is wool if you ask me. We could do a better job of cleaning up after ourselves but the hype is all about money not going green.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
Tuesday, October 13, 2009


When the Lack of Sh*t Hits the Fan [Mark Steyn]

Jonah, re your item on Mark Hertsgaard, the "climate correspondent" of The Nation, and the sad tale of his recurring "Oh, sh*t" moments: In a sense, his job depends on an endless procession of OSMs. The "climate correspondent" is by definition the OSM correspondent: that's the basis on which newspapers and magazines created the position. A "climate correspondent" without OSMs is like a ballet critic in a town with no ballet company.
That's why the piece by Paul Hudson, the BBC's Climate Correspondent, is so striking:
What Happened To Global Warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
This rang a vague bell with me. Back in July, responding to Thomas Friedman's call for a million eco-youths to stage a carbon march on Washington, I wrote:
If you’re 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you’re graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century. None. Admittedly the 21st century is only one century out of the many centuries of planetary existence, but it happens to be the one you’re stuck living in.
Obviously, it sounds better coming from a bigshot BBC climate wallah than from a wackjob denialist like me — although, reading between the lines of this follow-up, evidently poor Mr. Hudson is getting barraged from ecopalyptic types denouncing his apostasy. Yet, as he says, none of the models saw it coming. Including presumably all those German experts Mark Hertsgaard is hot for.
The choice for the "climate change" industry is either to do like the BBC man, step back and take a cool look at things; or, like The Nation's excitable chap, dash ever more frantically from one "Oh, sh*t" moment to the next. Mr. Hertsgaard already seems only one or two Belgian Government advisory-panel briefing papers away from running through the streets pounding on your hood and demanding you rip out your internal combustion engine right now. But, putting him to one side, judging from these latest exercises in "environmentally responsible" child abuse and parental abuse, the OSMers have decided to turn up the heat.
I don't think that, as they would say, it's sustainable. In fact, in the real battle of our times — against ever more regulation, taxation, and big government — the obvious hysteria of the climate crowd may prove one of our best friends.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
Daily Mail joins BBC in writng about climate skepticism

Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are starting to shatter climate change theory.


13th October 2009
In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.
And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap’s repercussions.
The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.
Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.
Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.
But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.
According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998.
If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.
Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man’s abuse of the environment.
Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon – global cooling.
The evidence for both remains inconclusive, which is unlikely to help the legions of world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a new climate change deal.
There is no doubt the amount of man-made carbon dioxide, the gas believed to be responsible for heating up the planet, has increased phenomenally over the last 100 years.
For the final few decades of the 20th century and as the atmosphere’s composition changed, scientists recorded the planet was warming rapidly and made a positive correlation between the two.
But then something went wrong. Rather then continuing to soar, the Earth’s temperature appeared to stabilise, smashing all conventional predictions.
The development seemed to support the view of climate change cynics who claimed global warming was simply a natural cycle and not caused by man.
Some doubters believe that the increase was actually down to the amount of energy from the Sun, which provides 98 per cent of the Earth’s warmth.
Previously, the fluctuating amount of radiation given out by the sun was thought to play a large role in the climate.

But Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, who was part of the team to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, studied solar output – the heat leaving the sun’s surface – and cosmic ray intensity over the last 40 years, and compared those figures with global average surface temperature.
He told the BBC: ‘Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity.’
Scientists have intensified the search for alternative explanations
Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University believes the key to the connumdrum may be the temperature of the world’s seas.
Figures show the Pacific Ocean has been cooling over the last few years, and Easterbrook’s research shows a correlation between this and global temperatures.
He says the oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically, known as Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
And after a 30-year heating cycle in the 1980s and 1990s, pushing temperatures above average, we are now moving into a cooler period.
Professor Easterbrook said: ‘In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
‘The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.’
His figures show that the global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), stressed the impact of the ocean currents in the North Atlantic – a phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.
He believes we may be in a period of cooling – but that it will be temporary before global warming reasserts itself.
He said the NAO may have been responsible for some of the rapid rise in temperatures of the last three decades.
‘But how much? The jury is still out,’ he said.
So is the sun really going down on global warming?
The Met Office is not convinced.
They incorporate solar and oceanic cycles into their models, and they say that – even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Figures show the Pacific Ocean has been cooling over the last few years, and Easterbrook’s research shows a correlation between this and global temperatures.
He says the oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically, known as Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
And after a 30-year heating cycle in the 1980s and 1990s, pushing temperatures above average, we are now moving into a cooler period.

Really? So we just had the warmest ocean temperatures ever recorded this summer, we have oceans continuing to accrue heat (post#281 above), thermal expansion continues. The correlation is to the noise in the system, which nobody really argues...and which part of the 80's and 90's makes for a 30 year cycle???

JUNK
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,736
12,950
113
Low Earth Orbit
Mr T.

Take note of names now, then as winter progresses take note of who complains about rising food costs, foreign aid, higher fuel costs, health care costs all related directly to what these deniers claim is a scientific conspiracy.

Sure we can find articles in "Popular Science" or "Reader's Digest" claiming a return to an ice age.

They also claimed I'd be working on the moon and taking a shuttle to work after driving my aero car to hoovering parking lot where the cancer clinic used to be.

Good for entertainment of course.

Oh there will be an ice again in the very near future and it will happen far faster than the warming which will deliver that devistating blow to mankind I eagerly await.

I'm all for the jackasses who think it's a conspiracy. They will be the first to suffer the consequences.

This will enhance the evolution of the human species to the next level as the genes of the smart and wise will freely prosper in a depopulated world.


To those weaker minded folk of the planet I say this:

I thank you and my great grand children thank you for your sacrifice.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Mr T.

Take note of names now, then as winter progresses take note of who complains about rising food costs, foreign aid, higher fuel costs, health care costs all related directly to what these deniers claim is a scientific conspiracy.

Sure we can find articles in "Popular Science" or "Reader's Digest" claiming a return to an ice age.

They also claimed I'd be working on the moon and taking a shuttle to work after driving my aero car to hoovering parking lot where the cancer clinic used to be.

Good for entertainment of course.

Oh there will be an ice again in the very near future and it will happen far faster than the warming which will deliver that devistating blow to mankind I eagerly await.

I'm all for the jackasses who think it's a conspiracy. They will be the first to suffer the consequences.

This will enhance the evolution of the human species to the next level as the genes of the smart and wise will freely prosper in a depopulated world.


To those weaker minded folk of the planet I say this:

I thank you and my great grand children thank you for your sacrifice.
Hoovering? Your aero car is an ex-vacuum cleaner? lol Cool!
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
What's cooling? The northern hemisphere? Isn't that usually what happens when we approach winter? It should also be getting warmer in the southern hemisphere as it heads into summer.
A few incidences of cold weather or early snow is not indicative of a general trend. I cannot see why people have a hard time understanding that.
As Ton and I posted earlier the AVERAGE YEARLY TEMPERATURE of the oceans has increased.
What's more?
The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade. That means the average temperature (of the entire planet, not just the oceanic temps) rose by 0.13ºC per decade.
June 2009 Global Temperature Anomaly Update: 0.00 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

NCDC: Online Climate Data Directory
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Just a little tidbit of info for some of you. Water has a specific heat capacity about 3200 times higher than the air which is used to measure the surface temperature of the earth.

The definition of specific heat capacity is the amount of energy as heat required to raise the temperature of substance of a known quantity.

Just think about that for a bit...
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
What's cooling? The northern hemisphere? Isn't that usually what happens when we approach winter? It should also be getting warmer in the southern hemisphere as it heads into summer.

Yes indeed but there is a cooling trend. I know I am not supposed to think of anything when I see snow falling outside this morning in New England...October 16. I know I am not supposed to think anything when we had one warm month of summer this year.

A few incidences of cold weather or early snow is not indicative of a general trend. I cannot see why people have a hard time understanding that.

That is not what the article is saying.[/quote]

As Ton and I posted earlier the AVERAGE YEARLY TEMPERATURE of the oceans has increased.
What's more?
June 2009 Global Temperature Anomaly Update: 0.00 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

NCDC: Online Climate Data Directory

This...

The global warming consensus cools

AD: There’s a Chill in the Air by FreeCongressFoundation: E. Ralph Hostetter, 10/15/09
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Results for September 2009. Satelite measurements (UAH's Dr. Roy Spencer, skeptic extraordinaire) of the lower 8 km of the atmosphere show a huge anomaly (+0.42°C) and this is during that grand solar minimum that Walter keeps informing us of.

NOAA data looks like this:


Yup...
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Results for September 2009. Satelite measurements (UAH's Dr. Roy Spencer, skeptic extraordinaire) of the lower 8 km of the atmosphere show a huge anomaly (+0.42°C) and this is during that grand solar minimum that Walter keeps informing us of.

NOAA data looks like this:


Yup...

If I am reading this correctly is it saying that the RED denotes anomalies where it is warmer than average?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
So we are, according to all accounts had a cooler than usual September...why don't we have a blue dot over New England? Even a small one?

Edit... I see a light blue one...but it sure is COLD here. We had snow this morning. I guess I am not supposed to pay any attention though.