Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 46,687
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38256 Aug 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
For someone who claims you can't give predictions much credit, you sure do spend a lot of time on them.
You DO realize that they are educated guesses and rather imprecise by their very nature? The general idea in a prediction is sometimes realized but the details are far less often nailed tight.
Did the scientists say all this WOULD happen, and that it would DEFINITELY warm 150%? Or was it "the article" stating that. i.e., the media? Because the media might say anything, and can, and often does.
Because, like the Republican polls that saw Romney winning by a respectable margin, predictions can be colored by the people making them, or by the people reporting the prediction.
And, as with climate change, just wishing it wasn't true won't make it false.
Tell you what, I will stop spending time on predictions when the AGW scientists stop giving out predictions. Every paper that is written is assumed to be true. It is then put through a climate model and predictions made about the future and then sent to the media and then to us. It would be nice if the scientists would just give us their findings without the editorials and the predictions. Everything you ever post on here has a prediction of some sort. So if you don't want me to focus on predictions, start posting information without predictions.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38257 Aug 21, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What standstill?
As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up. Arctic sea ice melt has accelerated. Disintegration of the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica has sped up. The rate of sea level rise has doubled from last century.
Finally, very recent studies of the ocean, which has absorbed the vast majority of the heat, also show global warming has accelerated in the past 15 years. Sadly, the AR5 appears to have stopped considering new scientific findings before the publication of this research.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/18/2...
Just because a new paper is out doesn't mean it is true. I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, but at least let the paper go through analysis by other scientists before immediately latching onto it. And it is really hard for me to take these guys seriously when a climate scientist says this:

From your article:

“We can confidently say that the risk of drought and heat waves has gone up and the odds of a hot spot somewhere on the planet have increased but the hotspot moves around and the location is not very predictable. This year perhaps it is East Asia: China, or earlier Siberia? It has been much wetter and cooler in the US (except for SW), whereas last year the hot spot was the US. Earlier this year it was Australia (Tasmania etc) in January (southern summer). We can name spots for all summers going back quite a few years: Australia in 2009, the Russian heat wave in 2010, Texas in 2011, etc. Similarly with risk of high rains and floods: They are occurring but the location moves.”
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38258 Aug 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious, did you ever get those numbers? And figure out that 0.3 thing?
The prediction was: 2014 will be 0.3 C warmer than 2004. So that means the year 2014 will be around 0.74 C above 20th century baseline. So came back in 2015 and let me know how it turned out.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38259 Aug 21, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
One for the deniers:
Global warming and climate change are usually thought to mean that world sea levels will rise, perhaps disastrously. But according to US government boffins, in recent times (2010 and 2011, to be precise) phenomena driven by human carbon emissions have actually caused world sea levels to fall.
In short, it's probably human-caused climate change that did it: specifically the Australian flooding of 2010 and 2011, which is generally thought by climate scientists to be at least partly attributable to rising atmospheric carbon levels caused by human fossil-fuel burning.
"It's a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is," says John Fasullo of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
"The smallest continent in the world can affect sea level worldwide."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/20/clima...
Oh lord, is there anything CO2 can't do?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38260 Aug 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our sun has been in very high activity. The last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It was at the highest levels recorded in the last 400 years and in the top 10% of all activity reconstructed with proxy data during the Holocene.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thum...
The above images essentially say the same thing, but the scales are different. The first looks at solar activity from the standpoint of wm2 the second is recording sun spot numbers. One of the most important things to recognize is how solar activity increased at both the upper and lower end of the scale. When it was high it was very high and when it was low, well it didn't get very low. The fact that solar activity didn't get very low in the minimums between cycles is very significant.
When you read that solar activity did not increase or even that it declined, that's right. Since we started mechanically measuring TSI in 1979 solar activity has been high. It had increased to very high levels and in cycle 23 we saw the start of the decline. Cycle 24 continues the decline and it is predicted that cycle 25 will be even lower.
The following chart is from Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...
It shows our current era to have very high activity in comparison to the majority of the Holocene.
There is a lag time between solar activity and climate. Although the sun is our primary source of energy, it's real impact on climate is through the oceans. The oceans absorb the energy and distribute it throughout the system. The lag time is stated in different variables but 10 years is commonly used.
Every ocean has oscillations. When solar activity is high it enhances the positive phases of the ocean oscillations. It was high at the same time the Pacific oscillation was in it's positive phase, starting in 1976/77. When this happens the El Ninos are enhanced and the La Ninas are mitigated. Now solar energy is low and the Pacific oscillation is in a negative phase. La Ninas rule in this senario.
The arctic also has oscillations that are impacted by solar activity and when it is positive it impacts the glacier mass balance in Europe. As the ENSO impacts North American glacier mass balance.
Thanks for the reply. I haven't really been paying too much attention to the science of solar activity until recently when I began hearing about solar cycle 24. What I had been hearing was that solar activity has been low, so temperatures should have been decreasing, but it looks like as you posted, solar activity has really been very high and I have read papers where there is a 10-year lag.

So why do the alarmists keep saying the solar activity diverges from "reality" over the last 35 years? Because it looks like the temperatures are actually following the solar cycles.

Here is what skeptical science said about solar activity:

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite direction.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...

What do you think about them saying the last 2 decades are moving in opposite directions?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38261 Aug 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but it's not my prediction. It is predicted by many solar scientists that our temperatures will decrease in the coming decades with a minima at about 2030.
Cycle 24 is not only of low activity it is predicted to be of very long duration. 17 years on the outside, 14 years seems to be the top of the bell curve of predictions. When a cycle is very long the following cycle is very weak. Cycle 25 is predicted to be very weak and although it will have activity, we won't 'see' many spots. Cycle 26 is expected to be higher activity than 25 but won't be near what we have seen in recent years.
We do have a great opportunity. Since we are mechanically measuring TSI and it has been measured in high activity, then the coming decades of low solar activity will give us a better understanding of how much impacts our climate in what ways.
The sun is more than spots. The solar mag field impacts the earth's mag field and that impacts climate. Solar activity determines the size of the heliosphere, that impacts climate. The speed of the solar wind impacts climate. And the sun has an barycentric orbit, that impacts climate.
We do have a great opportunity in the coming years. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38262 Aug 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi...
The discussion of the paleoclimate record emphasized that the link between solar variability and Earth’s climate is multifaceted and that some components are understood better than others. According to two presenters on paleoclimate, there is a need to study the idiosyncrasies of each key proxy record. Yet they also emphasized that there may be an emerging pattern of paleoclimate change coincident with periods of solar activity and inactivity, but only on long timescales of multiple decades to millennia. Several speakers discussed the effects of particle events and cosmic-ray variability. These are all areas of exciting fundamental research; however, they have not yet led to conclusive evidence for significant related climate effects. The key problem of attribution of climate variability on the timescales of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum were directly addressed in several presentations. Several workshop participants remarked that the combination of solar, paleoclimatic, and climate modeling research has the potential to dramatically improve the credibility of these attribution studies.
But yet the study of AGW is settled and is completely understood.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38263 Aug 21, 2013
The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.

So according to the Washington Post the leaked upcoming climate report states this:

The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.

So I guess the consensus was wrong about the present temperatures being warmer than the MWP.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38264 Aug 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the reply. I haven't really been paying too much attention to the science of solar activity until recently when I began hearing about solar cycle 24. What I had been hearing was that solar activity has been low, so temperatures should have been decreasing, but it looks like as you posted, solar activity has really been very high and I have read papers where there is a 10-year lag.
So why do the alarmists keep saying the solar activity diverges from "reality" over the last 35 years? Because it looks like the temperatures are actually following the solar cycles.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...
What do you think about them saying the last 2 decades are moving in opposite directions?
I think they do not understand how solar activity impacts climate. Most often what you see is analysis of TSI or sunspots. Two very important aspects of solar activity, but no where near the only variables that impact climate. Even then if you move their graphs to illustrate the 10 year lag time, you will get a much closer relationship between the two data sets.

As I said, I like the ice core data. In the ice core data we can see that the Eemian interglacial was warmer than the Holocene. We can also see that CO2 as recorded in the ice did not exceed the 280 ppm so often stated as usual and customary.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs...

Notice that temperatures appear to lead CO2. There is a lag time between temps and CO2 and CO2 will continue to be high even after temps drop. It does decline just with a lag time.

The ice core data is a proxy study and like all proxy studies is dependent on location, location, location. The CO2 values in the ice core do not represent the CO2 at the equator anymore than the temps recorded in Antarctica represent the temps of the equator.

To capture CO2 values in the ice takes time and pressure. Approx 70 years is needed before the ice deposited is able to sequester the CO2. In the time interval between deposit and sequester the CO2 is able to move thru the ice.

What is very helpful in the ice core data is the pattern of activity. We can see how temps impact CO2, we can see how our earth's eccentric cycle impacts climate, we can see our obliquity, tilt. And in the greenland ice core, we can see precession.

We can even see what are called the D-O cycles or the Bond events. These are climate patterns that relate to the sun. The sun has a barycentric orbit. It doesn't move great distances in this orbit, but it does move and since we know that solar energy varies in small amounts, even small movements will change how that energy impacts us. Add in our own eccentric orbit and the relationship of the solar inertial motion becomes apparent.

That's not the reason for 30 years of warming, but a more active sun over a period of 50 years is a viable candidate for the driver of our 30+ years of higher temps.

"Cherry picking" is the favored term of those without the ability to debate whatever was posted. Scientists cherry pick all the time. When you see a smoothed value of solar activity 'averaged' over 11 year periods, that's cherry picked. Few cycles of the 20th century were 11 years in duration. The smoothed value actually shows minimums where maximums existed. Smoothed values are dependent on the date selected to begin the smoothing. It's best to look at actual activity as recorded.

A lot of the movement of temps in an opposite direction is because of the adjustments made to the data sets. My area, the Four Corners, are miserably represented in the data bases. And you guessed it we are shown to have much lower temps in the early years than were actually recorded. We don't have reliable temps for much of the earth before the 1950s, try to find a temp for antarctica in the 1940s. Or even most of the arctic.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38265 Aug 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
But yet the study of AGW is settled and is completely understood.
Try to understand. The changing effects of the sun are found to be over millennium or at least centuries.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38266 Aug 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our sun has been in very high activity. The last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It was at the highest levels recorded in the last 400 years and in the top 10% of all activity reconstructed with proxy data during the Holocene.
It is a small cycle of long duration in the amplitude of the 11/22 year sunspot cycle. It has an amplitude of about 1%(only about 0.2C of warming equivalent) and it is now on the decline. It was clearly defined in the third IPPC report as the 'solar' factor. Scientists know all about it. Only the denialists keep bringing it up as if it were news.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38267 Aug 21, 2013
Oh, and the cycle is about 200 years in duration. Now declining.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38268 Aug 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but it's not my prediction. It is predicted by many solar scientists that our temperatures will decrease in the coming decades with a minima at about 2030.
The 200 year solar cycle will indeed hit a minimum about that time, but it is only 0.2C of warming/cooling and AGW is already about 1C of warming so we will probably not see it in the global temperature anomaly. Too small. But solar scientists are right to point it out as a minor factor.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38269 Aug 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.
Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other emissions have driven up global average temperatures by about 0.6 degrees C (1 degree F) since 1950, the report states.
kristy wrote:
So I guess the consensus was wrong about the present temperatures being warmer than the MWP.
Regional climate change in Western Europe is not comparable with the GLOBAL average surface temperature. They don't compare apples and oranges. And don't bring up your delusional and unsupported (by solid science) claim of a global MWP. If they cannot publish it in the respectable journals, it is not convincing. Both because there is no explanation in the claim as to where such a massive amount of energy would come from, and because there is no definition of just what an MWP would look like. Just picking and choosing ANY warming period with no correlation around the world is not supporting anything.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38270 Aug 21, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It has an amplitude of about 1%(only about 0.2C of warming equivalent)
Sorry. Missed the decimal point. "It has an amplitude of about 0.1%"

I.e. one part in a thousand. That is about as 'antsy' as the sun ever gets.. thought rarely there is a minimum of up to 0.3%(maunder minimum for example)
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38271 Aug 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they do not understand how solar activity impacts climate. Most often what you see is analysis of TSI or sunspots. Two very important aspects of solar activity, but no where near the only variables that impact climate. Even then if you move their graphs to illustrate the 10 year lag time, you will get a much closer relationship between the two data sets.
As I said, I like the ice core data. In the ice core data we can see that the Eemian interglacial was warmer than the Holocene. We can also see that CO2 as recorded in the ice did not exceed the 280 ppm so often stated as usual and customary.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs...
Notice that temperatures appear to lead CO2. There is a lag time between temps and CO2 and CO2 will continue to be high even after temps drop. It does decline just with a lag time.
The ice core data is a proxy study and like all proxy studies is dependent on location, location, location. The CO2 values in the ice core do not represent the CO2 at the equator anymore than the temps recorded in Antarctica represent the temps of the equator.
To capture CO2 values in the ice takes time and pressure. Approx 70 years is needed before the ice deposited is able to sequester the CO2. In the time interval between deposit and sequester the CO2 is able to move thru the ice.
What is very helpful in the ice core data is the pattern of activity. We can see how temps impact CO2, we can see how our earth's eccentric cycle impacts climate, we can see our obliquity, tilt. And in the greenland ice core, we can see precession.
We can even see what are called the D-O cycles or the Bond events. These are climate patterns that relate to the sun. The sun has a barycentric orbit. It doesn't move great distances in this orbit, but it does move and since we know that solar energy varies in small amounts, even small movements will change how that energy impacts us. Add in our own eccentric orbit and the relationship of the solar inertial motion becomes apparent.
That's not the reason for 30 years of warming, but a more active sun over a period of 50 years is a viable candidate for the driver of our 30+ years of higher temps.
"Cherry picking" is the favored term of those without the ability to debate whatever was posted. Scientists cherry pick all the time. When you see a smoothed value of solar activity 'averaged' over 11 year periods, that's cherry picked. Few cycles of the 20th century were 11 years in duration. The smoothed value actually shows minimums where maximums existed. Smoothed values are dependent on the date selected to begin the smoothing. It's best to look at actual activity as recorded.
A lot of the movement of temps in an opposite direction is because of the adjustments made to the data sets. My area, the Four Corners, are miserably represented in the data bases. And you guessed it we are shown to have much lower temps in the early years than were actually recorded. We don't have reliable temps for much of the earth before the 1950s, try to find a temp for antarctica in the 1940s. Or even most of the arctic.
What about the cosmic ray theory? How does that fit in, in your opinion?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38272 Aug 21, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other emissions have driven up global average temperatures by about 0.6 degrees C (1 degree F) since 1950, the report states.
<quoted text>
Regional climate change in Western Europe is not comparable with the GLOBAL average surface temperature. They don't compare apples and oranges. And don't bring up your delusional and unsupported (by solid science) claim of a global MWP. If they cannot publish it in the respectable journals, it is not convincing. Both because there is no explanation in the claim as to where such a massive amount of energy would come from, and because there is no definition of just what an MWP would look like. Just picking and choosing ANY warming period with no correlation around the world is not supporting anything.
I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. The Mann hockey stick and all other reconstructions are based on NH data only, so hasn't the IPCC always been comparing apples to oranges?

Now they went from this: It is likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.

To this: The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38273 Aug 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our sun has been in very high activity. The last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It was at the highest levels recorded in the last 400 years and in the top 10% of all activity reconstructed with proxy data during the Holocene.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thum...
Interesting that you say the last half of the 20th century is being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It reminded me of something I read a few days ago. It was from the 2007 IPCC AR4 and stated this:

"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years."
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38274 Aug 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not really sure what you are talking about here.
I'm sure of it. You never know what is plain to others.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Mann hockey stick and all other reconstructions are based on NH data only, so hasn't the IPCC always been comparing apples to oranges?
Multi-proxy studies for the last 2000 years are indeed based on the NH because they have the most data (the SH has too much ocean) but the main influence here is air movement and teleconnections cannot pass the equator due to the Hadley cell circulation. That means that the NH air temperature is representative of the global picture, or at least the ANOMALY in it is similar between the global and NH.

But no IPCC or science paper has established that the MWP is a global phenomenon. It is clear that it doesn't have the mechanism (thermal energy input) to exist and there is no definition of the MWP that can be applied globally to all the separate regional climates. The MWP is known to have happened in western Europe only and the energy is clearly from the shift in the 'Rossby wave' that supplies much of the extra warmth to the region.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now they went from this: It is likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.
Still true.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
To this: The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.
Also true. They are NOT mutually contradictory. And the newer phrasing is probably more comprehensible to thinking readers. Even you should be able to understand it if you REALLY REALLY concentrate.
not bored

Seattle, WA

#38275 Aug 21, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting that you say the last half of the 20th century is being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It reminded me of something I read a few days ago. It was from the 2007 IPCC AR4 and stated this:
"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years."
oh 'kristy', if only we could figure out what melted all of that ice that used to cover north america over a mile thick we would be rich. after giving our fair share to al gore and all of the other shamsters we would be rolling in it. I love a solar anything, as long as we can make money off of it. just think what we could of made off of the so called noah's flood. thank allaha we don't have to worry about metorites or comets but we can still tell the people it's their fault, hope revenues don't drop. gotta love the weather, better than fish in a barrel. don't tell al but I'm trying a new angle on people being the cause of solar cycles. I love these government grants. oh, and if they mention anything about right to know, and funding, steer them away untill we can come up with another distraction. oh, and 'kristy', that wind and rain you were talking about the other day, dont worry about it. that was only weather, when we can make some money of of it, we will call it man made.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min John Galt 1,110,661
IT Stuff For Free 10 min ITVideosCreater 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 23 min Your Colonoscopy 49,844
Abby 9-19 34 min Sublime1 5
Amy 9-19 38 min Sublime1 9
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 47 min texas pete 1,472
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 49 min loose cannon 178,065
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 54 min edogxxx 98,231
Amy 9-18 1 hr pde 33
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••