Evidence supporting AGW

[Crick]

Although global warming models show that both polar regions should warming with CO2-caused global warming, the various stations maintained in Antarctica show Antarctica to be cooling over the past two decades. One research paper in 2008 allegedly showing Antarctica to be warming is being accepted with skepticism by the scientific community, even by those who still maintain that global warming is caused by human activity. The main criticism centers on the use of highly questionable equations to fill in temperature data between the widely scattered weather stations in Antarctica. It appears to many to be a repeat of the infamous hockey stick curve fiasco of the early 2000s.
The only place Antarctica has shown true warming is along Western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. This is where pictures of massive ice chucks breaking off of Antarctica come from that are shown on the news every couple of years. Research published in 2007-2008 found that this warming is NOT do to global warming, but to volcanic activity under the ocean and ice flows.

I'd like to know where you got this graphic and the source of the badly spelled information contained in your text. As noted in Wikipedia's "Global Warming Controversy", in the "Antarctic Cooling" section, the mass media widely reported that Antarctica had been found to be cooling. Among scientists actually studying the Antarctic, no such opinion existed.

ACCOUNTS IN THE POPULAR PRESS

Davidson, Keay (4 February 2002). "Media goofed on Antarctic data / Global warming interpretation irks scientists". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Peter N. Spotts (18 January 2002). "Guess what? Antarctica's getting colder, not warmer". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Chang, Kenneth (3 May 2002). "Ozone Hole Is Now Seen as a Cause for Antarctic Cooling". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

"America Reacts To Speech Debunking Media Global Warming Alarmism". U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 28 September 2006. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Bijal P. Trivedi (25 January 2002). "Antarctica Gives Mixed Signals on Warming". National Geographic. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Derbyshire, David (14 January 2002). "Antarctic cools in warmer world". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 13 April 2013.

"Scientific winds blow hot and cold in Antarctica". CNN. 25 January 2002. Archived from the original on 9 June 2012. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Chang, Kenneth (2 April 2002). "The Melting (Freezing) of Antarctica; Deciphering Contradictory Climate Patterns Is Largely a Matter of Ice". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Wikipedia / Global Warming Controversy / Antarctica Cooling

In contrast to the popular press, there is no evidence of a corresponding controversy in the scientific community. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed.

A study released in 2009, combined historical weather station data with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend. One of the paper's authors stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases." According to 2011 paper by Ding, et al., "The Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in the past 30 years."

This controversy began with the misinterpretation of the results of a 2002 paper by Doran et al., which found that "Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn." Later the controversy was popularized by Michael Crichton's 2004 fiction novel State of Fear, who advocated skepticism in global warming. This novel has a docudrama plot based upon the idea that there is a deliberately alarmist conspiracy behind global warming activism. One of the characters argues that "data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs... but the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker." As a basis for this plot twist, Crichton cited the peer reviewed scientific article by Doran, et al. Peter Doran, the lead author of the paper cited by Crichton, stated that "... our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'... Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent."

Chapman WL, Walsh JE (2007). "A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures". Journal of Climate 20 (16): 4096–4117. Bibcode:2007JCli...20.4096C. doi:10.1175/JCLI4236.1.

Kenneth Chang (21 January 2009). "Warming in Antarctica Looks Certain". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 24 January 2009. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Ding, Qinghua; Eric J. Steig, David S. Battisti & Marcel Küttel (10 April 2011). "Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming". Nature Geoscience 4 (6): 398–403. Bibcode:2011NatGe...4..398D. doi:10.1038/ngeo1129. Retrieved 12 January 2012.

Doran PT, Priscu JC, Lyons WB et al. (January 2002). "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response". Nature 415 (6871): 517–20. doi:10.1038/nature710. PMID 11793010. Archived from the original on 11 December 2004.

Doran et al. (13 January 2002). "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response". University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved 13 April 2013. PDF version: advance online publication Letters to Science (archived original)

Crichton, Michael (2004). State of Fear. HarperCollins, New York. p. 109. ISBN 0-06-621413-0. First Edition

Michael Crichton (25 January 2005). "The Case for Skepticism in Global Warming". Michael Crichton The official site. Retrieved 13 April 2013. Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (restored from archived copy)

Michael Crichton (28 September 2005). "Statement of Michael Crichton, M.D. – The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making". U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Retrieved 13 April 2013. Testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C.

Peter Doran (27 July 2006). "Cold, Hard Facts". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 August 2013.

 

[Kosh]

Although global warming models show that both polar regions should warming with CO2-caused global warming, the various stations maintained in Antarctica show Antarctica to be cooling over the past two decades. One research paper in 2008 allegedly showing Antarctica to be warming is being accepted with skepticism by the scientific community, even by those who still maintain that global warming is caused by human activity. The main criticism centers on the use of highly questionable equations to fill in temperature data between the widely scattered weather stations in Antarctica. It appears to many to be a repeat of the infamous hockey stick curve fiasco of the early 2000s.
The only place Antarctica has shown true warming is along Western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. This is where pictures of massive ice chucks breaking off of Antarctica come from that are shown on the news every couple of years. Research published in 2007-2008 found that this warming is NOT do to global warming, but to volcanic activity under the ocean and ice flows.

I'd like to know where you got this graphic and the source of the badly spelled information contained in your text. As noted in Wikipedia's "Global Warming Controversy", in the "Antarctic Cooling" section, the mass media widely reported that Antarctica had been found to be cooling. Among scientists actually studying the Antarctic, no such opinion existed.

ACCOUNTS IN THE POPULAR PRESS

Davidson, Keay (4 February 2002). "Media goofed on Antarctic data / Global warming interpretation irks scientists". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Peter N. Spotts (18 January 2002). "Guess what? Antarctica's getting colder, not warmer". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Chang, Kenneth (3 May 2002). "Ozone Hole Is Now Seen as a Cause for Antarctic Cooling". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

"America Reacts To Speech Debunking Media Global Warming Alarmism". U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 28 September 2006. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Bijal P. Trivedi (25 January 2002). "Antarctica Gives Mixed Signals on Warming". National Geographic. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Derbyshire, David (14 January 2002). "Antarctic cools in warmer world". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 13 April 2013.

"Scientific winds blow hot and cold in Antarctica". CNN. 25 January 2002. Archived from the original on 9 June 2012. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Chang, Kenneth (2 April 2002). "The Melting (Freezing) of Antarctica; Deciphering Contradictory Climate Patterns Is Largely a Matter of Ice". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Wikipedia / Global Warming Controversy / Antarctica Cooling

In contrast to the popular press, there is no evidence of a corresponding controversy in the scientific community. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed.

A study released in 2009, combined historical weather station data with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend. One of the paper's authors stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases." According to 2011 paper by Ding, et al., "The Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in the past 30 years."

This controversy began with the misinterpretation of the results of a 2002 paper by Doran et al., which found that "Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn." Later the controversy was popularized by Michael Crichton's 2004 fiction novel State of Fear, who advocated skepticism in global warming. This novel has a docudrama plot based upon the idea that there is a deliberately alarmist conspiracy behind global warming activism. One of the characters argues that "data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs... but the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker." As a basis for this plot twist, Crichton cited the peer reviewed scientific article by Doran, et al. Peter Doran, the lead author of the paper cited by Crichton, stated that "... our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'... Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent."

Chapman WL, Walsh JE (2007). "A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures". Journal of Climate 20 (16): 4096–4117. Bibcode:2007JCli...20.4096C. doi:10.1175/JCLI4236.1.

Kenneth Chang (21 January 2009). "Warming in Antarctica Looks Certain". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 24 January 2009. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Ding, Qinghua; Eric J. Steig, David S. Battisti & Marcel Küttel (10 April 2011). "Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming". Nature Geoscience 4 (6): 398–403. Bibcode:2011NatGe...4..398D. doi:10.1038/ngeo1129. Retrieved 12 January 2012.

Doran PT, Priscu JC, Lyons WB et al. (January 2002). "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response". Nature 415 (6871): 517–20. doi:10.1038/nature710. PMID 11793010. Archived from the original on 11 December 2004.

Doran et al. (13 January 2002). "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response". University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved 13 April 2013. PDF version: advance online publication Letters to Science (archived original)

Crichton, Michael (2004). State of Fear. HarperCollins, New York. p. 109. ISBN 0-06-621413-0. First Edition

Michael Crichton (25 January 2005). "The Case for Skepticism in Global Warming". Michael Crichton The official site. Retrieved 13 April 2013. Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (restored from archived copy)

Michael Crichton (28 September 2005). "Statement of Michael Crichton, M.D. – The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making". U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Retrieved 13 April 2013. Testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C.

Peter Doran (27 July 2006). "Cold, Hard Facts". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 August 2013.

So I get spam from far left/AGW scripture.

More proof that the AGW cult does not care about real and actual science. It is about pushing their religious beliefs on others via government and far left media.

Go figure:

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area | Watts Up With That?

 

[Crick]

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period. The polar bears did just fine during those warmer periods.

The URL at the bottom of your graphic does not work. What is the source of those data?

As I have repeatedly told you, the data presented in that graph are NOT global. They are temperature data from the Vostok station in Antarctica. The author's of that graph, in labeling it "Earth's Temperature", have lied. Global paleo-temperature data for the Holocene look like this:

 

[Crick]

So I get spam from far left/AGW scripture.

More proof that the AGW cult does not care about real and actual science. It is about pushing their religious beliefs on others via government and far left media.

So you fail to address any of the shortcomings pointed out in your material. For one, I asked you what the source of that data might be and you have not answered.

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area

Followed by an attempt to change the subject.

 

[Crick]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore's video Inconvenient Truth both separate earth's long term global CO2 and temperature to give the appearance that there is a high correlation between CO2 and Temperature over the past 450,000 to 650,000 years. By doing so, it leads to the conclusion that CO2 changes have historically caused temperature changes. What is not obvious, however, until the graphs are superimposed is that temperature changes always precedes CO2 changes, indicating that temperature causes CO2 to change.

Your argument is logically specious (crap). The fact that increasing temperatures will bring CO2 out of solution HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared and will cause the Earth to warm. I repeat: HAS NO BEARING.

As the earth warms, the oceans gradually warm. Warm water holds less carbon dioxide, so the carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean diffuses into the atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years for this to happen. That is why there is a lag of 600 to 1200 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide responds to earth's warming. The reverse is true when earth cools. Gradually the oceans cool, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves back into the ocean.

That is correct. So, as the Earth warms from the greenhouse warming caused by the CO2 we've released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, more CO2 will come from the ocean - as well as methane from thawing tundra and perhaps from methane clathrates on the ocean bottom. These are all positive feedback mechanisms that will accelerate the Earth's warming.

 

[Crick]

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Retreats Rapidly

After a greater-than-average snow extent in February, snow extent over the Northern Hemisphere shrank rapidly in March, April and May. The Rutgers University Global Snow Lab measured the lowest April snow extent in Eurasia in the 48-year data record. In May, snow rapidly retreated in the central Canadian Provinces in North America, and Central Asia (Kazakhstan and northwestern China), where extensive areas had above-average snow cover in February.

Snow cover in central Europe and the desert southwest of the United States were persistently below average throughout the winter and spring of 2013 to 2014. In the United States, this underscores the severe drought in the far southwest and Sierra Nevada. The rapid late spring loss in the Northern Hemisphere continues a decade-long trend toward very low snow cover early in the Arctic sea ice melt season. This resulted in warmer air over darker snow-free areas, which leads to warm air advection over the sea ice

in regions where the snow cover is anomalously low, and dry conditions in the northern boreal forests. These conditions cause increased wildfire activity and soot deposition on the sea ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet surface. High concentrations of soot on the Greenland snow pack and sea ice can contribute to ice retreat and melt.

Sorry since this is not "Global" it can not be used as evidence based on the posting from the AGW religious nuts like yourself.

WRONG

My data is LABELED "Northern Hemisphere". That's what they call "honesty". Your Vostok core data were labeled :"Earth's Temperature". That's what they call "a lie".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?

It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid

 

[Crick]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.

It does not.

Attribution of anthropogenic origins of the current climatic changes can be tested from many different directions. On of the most clear examples for those with some familiarity with the Earth’s atmosphere is the issue of stratospheric cooling. If the sun were to suddenly increase its output by 2%, we would rightfully expect the atmosphere as well as the surface to warm up in response. This can be examined, for instance, by looking at the response in a GCM like GISS ModelE:

2% increase in solar forcing (via RealClimate)

Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere.

Doubling of CO2 (via RealClimate)

In the doubled CO2 scenario, there is a pronounced cooling of higher altitudes [the violet stripe across the top of the graph], i.e. the stratosphere, and this feature is entirely absent in the +2% solar scenario.

This stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of increased greenhouse (as opposed to solar) warming. For a more in depth discussion of why the stratosphere cools under enhanced greenhouse warming, see discussions at Skeptical Science and The Science of Doom. In other words, the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a "hot spot" in one and its absence in the other, it's the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), historical forcings were simulated in the Parallel Climate Model, and and the zonal mean temperature responses to each were broken out in separate panels. There was some increase in solar irradiance during the period, which shows up as a modest amount of warming throughout the atmosphere, with some amplification in the upper troposphere (the sort of greenish-yellow and yellow patterns respectively in panel a). As we all know, there was a significant change in GHG forcing during that time, which manifests as surface warming, amplified upper troposphere warming, and stratospheric cooling (panel c), and the net effect of all forcings was shown (panel f).

Fig 9.1: Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km. (IPCC AR4 WG1)

So far so good. Right? Well, this is actually where things went off the rails.

Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.

As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong, claiming:

the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed...
This unequivocally incorrect claim was also made in the NIPCC "skeptic" report (Section 3.4), which was signed off on by such supposedly "serious" contrarians as Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer.

The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.

 

[Kosh]

And yet zero scientific evidence has been provided to prove the AGW religion.

Not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, but the AGW faithful keep trying.

However all they do is show that real science in this area is dead.

 

[mamooth]

Kosh, the grownups are trying to talk. Let me wipe your nose, and here's juicebox. Now run along.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh, the grownups are trying to talk. Let me wipe your nose, and here's juicebox. Now run along.

Says the AGW cult member that denies science every chance they get.

 

[Crick]

How many times are you going to lie about datasets and model code? Don't you think that's a little blatant? Your buddies are likely going "Ooooh, I thought he was an okay guy but I guess I got that wrong".

 

[Crick]

Independent Evidence Confirms Global Warming in Instrument Record

Independent Evidence Confirms Global Warming in Instrument Record | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

A new compilation of temperature records etched into ice cores, old corals, and lake sediment layers reveals a pattern of global warming from 1880 to 1995 comparable to the global warming trend recorded by thermometers. This finding, reported by a team of researchers from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the University of South Carolina, the University of Colorado, and the University of Bern in Switzerland, resolves some of the uncertainty associated with thermometer records, which can be affected by land use changes, shifts in station locations, variations in instrumentation, and more. Remainder of article at link

 

[Crick]

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE INDICATORS

NOAA / NCDC

Global Climate Change Indicators | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

Global annual average temperature measured over land and oceans. Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the 1901-2000 average temperature. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million.


Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.

 

[Crick]

US Surface Temperature is Also Rising

Annual surface temperatures for the contiguous U.S. compared to the 20th Century (1901-2000) average. Calculated from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN version 2). More information:

Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace.

 

[Crick]

Sea Level is Rising

Annual averages of global sea level. Red: sea-level since 1870; Blue: tide gauge data; Black: based on satellite observations. The inset shows global mean sea level rise since 1993 - a period over which sea level rise has accelerated. More information: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise (USGCRP) and Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.

 

[Crick]

Global Upper-Ocean Heat Content is Rising

Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009

While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no tropospheric hot spot

The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.

It does not.

Attribution of anthropogenic origins of the current climatic changes can be tested from many different directions. On of the most clear examples for those with some familiarity with the Earth’s atmosphere is the issue of stratospheric cooling. If the sun were to suddenly increase its output by 2%, we would rightfully expect the atmosphere as well as the surface to warm up in response. This can be examined, for instance, by looking at the response in a GCM like GISS ModelE:

2% increase in solar forcing (via RealClimate)

Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere.

Doubling of CO2 (via RealClimate)

In the doubled CO2 scenario, there is a pronounced cooling of higher altitudes [the violet stripe across the top of the graph], i.e. the stratosphere, and this feature is entirely absent in the +2% solar scenario.

This stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of increased greenhouse (as opposed to solar) warming. For a more in depth discussion of why the stratosphere cools under enhanced greenhouse warming, see discussions at Skeptical Science and The Science of Doom. In other words, the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a "hot spot" in one and its absence in the other, it's the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), historical forcings were simulated in the Parallel Climate Model, and and the zonal mean temperature responses to each were broken out in separate panels. There was some increase in solar irradiance during the period, which shows up as a modest amount of warming throughout the atmosphere, with some amplification in the upper troposphere (the sort of greenish-yellow and yellow patterns respectively in panel a). As we all know, there was a significant change in GHG forcing during that time, which manifests as surface warming, amplified upper troposphere warming, and stratospheric cooling (panel c), and the net effect of all forcings was shown (panel f).

Fig 9.1: Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km. (IPCC AR4 WG1)

So far so good. Right? Well, this is actually where things went off the rails.

Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.

As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong, claiming:

the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed...
This unequivocally incorrect claim was also made in the NIPCC "skeptic" report (Section 3.4), which was signed off on by such supposedly "serious" contrarians as Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer.

The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.

"Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere."


LOL!

Really?!

But you expect the deep Pacific Ocean to eat the Warming?

LOL

You're so gullible!

 

[Crick]

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover is Retreating

Average of monthly snow cover extent anomalies over Northern Hemisphere lands (including Greenland) since Nov 1966. Right: Seasonal snow cover extent over Northern Hemisphere lands since winter 1966-67. Calculated from NOAA snow maps. From BAMS State of the Climate in 2009 report

Northern Hemisphere average annual snow cover has declined in recent decades. This pattern is consistent with warmer global temperatures. Some of the largest declines have been observed in the spring and summer months.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You'd expect at least one laboratory experiment showing the effects of a Doubling of CO2, right?