Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
While sea ice has increased in the western Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea, it has declined in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen seas.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Republicans think when you say "Global Warming" that means temperatures will go up evenly all over the world. Once, a right wingers on the USMB told me "evaporation" was a "wild liberal theory". Perhaps they meant evolution, but we were talking about weather, so "who knows"?
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/december/dec2013GTR.pdf
2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.
It's not. It's actually accelerating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[2] This rise in sea levels around the world potentially affects human populations in coastal and island regions[3] and natural environments like marine ecosystems.[4]
Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in), 1.46 mm (0.057 in) per year.[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[8]
The 3.2 mm/year is up from 1.7 mm/year. You'll need more than a few tenths to undo that.
I would suspect the slight slowdown (though still climbing rapidly) might have something to do with this
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
Edited: 2011-08-23 Dallas Masters's blog Share
Our colleagues at JPL have also been interested in how the global mean sea level is affected by the ENSO (i.e., El Niño and La Niña). They find that GRACE measurements helped to identify the distribution of abnormally high rainfall over land resulting from the recent strong La Niña. This temporary transfer of large volumes of water from the oceans to the land surfaces also helps explain the large drop in global mean sea level. But they also expect the global mean sea level to begin climbing again.
An Update from NASA's Sea Level Sentinels:
Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world's ocean in response to global warming.
While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.
So what's up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific. [Read more...]
The 3.2 mm/year is up from 1.7 mm/year. You'll need more than a few tenths to undo that.
I would suspect the slight slowdown (though still climbing rapidly) might have something to do with this
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
Edited: 2011-08-23 Dallas Masters's blog Share
Our colleagues at JPL have also been interested in how the global mean sea level is affected by the ENSO (i.e., El Niño and La Niña). They find that GRACE measurements helped to identify the distribution of abnormally high rainfall over land resulting from the recent strong La Niña. This temporary transfer of large volumes of water from the oceans to the land surfaces also helps explain the large drop in global mean sea level. But they also expect the global mean sea level to begin climbing again.
An Update from NASA's Sea Level Sentinels:
Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world's ocean in response to global warming.
While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.
So what's up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific. [Read more...]
Funny deal bro.. That graph fits to a line WITH NO ACCELERATION rather perfectly.. And the big dip is because now satellites can better include transient regional changes. But thats not why the Warmers can claim acceleration. Satellites are the reason... The leap from 1,8 to 3 mm per yr coincided with the shift from tide gauges to sat back a couple decades ago now.. One of the artifacts of not having great middle ocean coverage in the old system... Its been ABUSED as a propaganda point. There is no real evidence of acceleration , just a jump in measurement baselines.
The earth is 4 billion years old or so, it has had some sort of climate for at leat 3 billion of that. The warmers look at the 50 years we've had satellites and act like this isn't normal climate change for the planet.
To be a democrat, is to be a fool.
The earth is 4 billion years old or so, it has had some sort of climate for at leat 3 billion of that. The warmers look at the 50 years we've had satellites and act like this isn't normal climate change for the planet.
To be a democrat, is to be a fool.
1) Human civilization has existed for 10,000 years, not 3 billion. We would like to continue to have the sort of weather that has predominated during that period if you please.
2) Warmers HAVE been looking further back than the last 50 years. You just might recall THIS, which goes back 400 TIMES that far and was one of the keystones in the development of AGW theory:
3) Scientists have been doing paleoclimate reconstructions for decades now and their conclusions are that this is most definitely NOT a normal climate change for this planet. See Shakun et al 2012 and Marcott et al 2013 if you'd like to see the particulars.
While sea ice has increased in the western Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea, it has declined in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen seas.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Republicans think when you say "Global Warming" that means temperatures will go up evenly all over the world. Once, a right wingers on the USMB told me "evaporation" was a "wild liberal theory". Perhaps they meant evolution, but we were talking about weather, so "who knows"?
The earth is 4 billion years old or so, it has had some sort of climate for at leat 3 billion of that. The warmers look at the 50 years we've had satellites and act like this isn't normal climate change for the planet.
To be a democrat, is to be a fool.
The earth is 4 billion years old or so, it has had some sort of climate for at leat 3 billion of that. The warmers look at the 50 years we've had satellites and act like this isn't normal climate change for the planet.
To be a democrat, is to be a fool.
1) Human civilization has existed for 10,000 years, not 3 billion. We would like to continue to have the sort of weather that has predominated during that period if you please.
2) Warmers HAVE been looking further back than the last 50 years. You just might recall THIS, which goes back 400 TIMES that far and was one of the keystones in the development of AGW theory:
3) Scientists have been doing paleoclimate reconstructions for decades now and their conclusions are that this is most definitely NOT a normal climate change for this planet. See Shakun et al 2012 and Marcott et al 2013 if you'd like to see the particulars.
Answers:
1) your desire to maintain a nice constant temperature throughout human existence is an extreme fantasy. It has never happened and never will.
2) 2000 years is still cherry picking. It's less that the blink of an eye geologically.
3) there is a record of climate going back hundreds if thousands of years locked away in glacier ice. It quite clearly shows that this is not the warmest nor is there anything unusual about it.
The earth is 4 billion years old or so, it has had some sort of climate for at leat 3 billion of that. The warmers look at the 50 years we've had satellites and act like this isn't normal climate change for the planet.
To be a democrat, is to be a fool.
"Normal climate change for the planet" doesn't look anything like what we've been doing to the planet for...
The Hockey Stick Lives: Canadian Arctic Warming Unprecedented In 120,000 Years
By Joe Romm
January 27, 2014
<snip>
Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years and because Earths geological record shows it was in a glaciation stage prior to that time, the indications are that Canadian Arctic temperatures today have not been matched or exceeded for roughly 120,000 years, Miller said.
The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is, said Miller . This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
<snip>
"the warming we are seeing is outside any
kind of known natural variability"
.
1) Human civilization has existed for 10,000 years, not 3 billion. We would like to continue to have the sort of weather that has predominated during that period if you please.
2) Warmers HAVE been looking further back than the last 50 years. You just might recall THIS, which goes back 400 TIMES that far and was one of the keystones in the development of AGW theory:
3) Scientists have been doing paleoclimate reconstructions for decades now and their conclusions are that this is most definitely NOT a normal climate change for this planet. See Shakun et al 2012 and Marcott et al 2013 if you'd like to see the particulars.
Answers:
1) your desire to maintain a nice constant temperature throughout human existence is an extreme fantasy. It has never happened and never will.
2) 2000 years is still cherry picking. It's less that the blink of an eye geologically.
3) there is a record of climate going back hundreds if thousands of years locked away in glacier ice. It quite clearly shows that this is not the warmest nor is there anything unusual about it.
1) Temperatures will very soon exceed any values they have reached since the dawn of human civilization and they will do so at a rate that has not been seen for 65 million years. Humanity will have inadequate time to adjust and the suffering and the cost will be greater than anything in human history. The fantasy is that this is "normal" and that it will not harm us.
2) 2,000 years is an eye-blink geologically speaking. Fortunately, neither climate nor human-history are geological processes. Be that as it may, my point was simply to put the lie to your 50 year contention, which by your lack of pertinent response, I assume you accede.
3) For the umpteenth time human civilization has only been around a hundred centuries, not a thousand, not ten thousand. THOSE are the climatic conditions under which humanity throve. Those cores do show two rather critical things: nowhere in the 800,000 years of the Vostok cores do temperatures rise at the rate at which they have risen this last 150 years and nowhere in those cores have CO2 levels EVER attained their CURRENT VALUE.
Answers:
1) your desire to maintain a nice constant temperature throughout human existence is an extreme fantasy. It has never happened and never will.
2) 2000 years is still cherry picking. It's less that the blink of an eye geologically.
3) there is a record of climate going back hundreds if thousands of years locked away in glacier ice. It quite clearly shows that this is not the warmest nor is there anything unusual about it.
1) Temperatures will very soon exceed any values they have reached since the dawn of human civilization and they will do so at a rate that has not been seen for 65 million years. Humanity will have inadequate time to adjust and the suffering and the cost will be greater than anything in human history. The fantasy is that this is "normal" and that it will not harm us.
2) 2,000 years is an eye-blink geologically speaking. Fortunately, neither climate nor human-history are geological processes. Be that as it may, my point was simply to put the lie to your 50 year contention, which by your lack of pertinent response, I assume you accede.
3) For the umpteenth time human civilization has only been around a hundred centuries, not a thousand, not ten thousand. THOSE are the climatic conditions under which humanity throve. Those cores do show two rather critical things: nowhere in the 800,000 years of the Vostok cores do temperatures rise at the rate at which they have risen this last 150 years and nowhere in those cores have CO2 levels EVER attained their CURRENT VALUE.
1) the data proves otherwise
2) perhaps I'm over your head when I say geologically, I refer to the age if the earth when u say that and since climate is almost as old as the earth, it's more accurate to compare the current trend to the longest spam of time we can. The comparison is more accurate than your cherry picking and shows you wrong.
3) your religious fervor has blinded you. Apparently. CO2 is irrelevant, as clearly shown by the cores.
1) Temperatures will very soon exceed any values they have reached since the dawn of human civilization and they will do so at a rate that has not been seen for 65 million years. Humanity will have inadequate time to adjust and the suffering and the cost will be greater than anything in human history. The fantasy is that this is "normal" and that it will not harm us.
2) 2,000 years is an eye-blink geologically speaking. Fortunately, neither climate nor human-history are geological processes. Be that as it may, my point was simply to put the lie to your 50 year contention, which by your lack of pertinent response, I assume you accede.
3) For the umpteenth time human civilization has only been around a hundred centuries, not a thousand, not ten thousand. THOSE are the climatic conditions under which humanity throve. Those cores do show two rather critical things: nowhere in the 800,000 years of the Vostok cores do temperatures rise at the rate at which they have risen this last 150 years and nowhere in those cores have CO2 levels EVER attained their CURRENT VALUE.
1) the data proves otherwise
2) perhaps I'm over your head when I say geologically, I refer to the age if the earth when u say that and since climate is almost as old as the earth, it's more accurate to compare the current trend to the longest spam of time we can. The comparison is more accurate than your cherry picking and shows you wrong.
3) your religious fervor has blinded you. Apparently. CO2 is irrelevant, as clearly shown by the cores.
None of those responses were worth the electrons to get them here. The data supports what I've said - that's why I put it up here.
When folks like you insist on using the entire history of the Earth as the natural climatic range of modern human civilization, I can only conclude that you couldn't care less whether or not the species lasts the next few centuries.
That CO2 comes out of solution when temperatures rise should scare the shit out of you, not make you more comfortable.
Riddle me this: why has the radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere - the direct measurement of energy coming in versus energy going out - been getting consistently larger ever since 2001 when the first satellite began measuring it?
DO ANY OF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT?
I do. Global warming is still underway. It's primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect working on human GHG emissions. We're all gonna cook cause you people are just too stupid to do anything about it.
