Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[westwall]

Westwall -

That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far...

Ah ha....and of course you can explain why 2013 Arctic Ice is still - as of Monday August 05 - well below the 1981-2010 average.

"Sea ice extent retreated fairly rapidly through the first two weeks of July as a high pressure cell moved into the central Arctic, bringing warmer temperatures over much of the Arctic Ocean. Ice extent remains below average on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, and is near average to locally above average in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and along much of the Eurasian coast.

While the rate of Arctic sea ice loss is normally fastest during July, the warmest month of the year, ice loss was even faster than usual over the first two weeks of July 2013. As a result, on July 15 extent came within 540,000 square kilometers (208,000 square miles) of that seen in 2012 on the same date. The ice loss is dominated by retreat on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, including the East Greenland, Kara and Laptev seas, and Baffin Bay. In the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and much of the Eurasian coast, the ice cover remains fairly extensive, especially compared to recent summers. Compared to the 1981 to 2010 average, ice extent on July 15, 2013 was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below average."


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

Actually, this is a very good example of what I meant before - you know full well that Arctic Ice is collapsing. You know it as well as I do, or anyone else who reads the news does. And yet here you are arguing against it.

Is it just belligerance or pride, or is there some reason you cannot admit what you know to be true?

You might want to check the other posts there saggy...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet more lies from saggy I see. Never, ever make assumptions for others. It makes you look like an ass. Here is the truth about the Arctic today, so far there have been half the number of days above 0C that is usually seen. That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far....

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

And yet the extent of Arctic sea ice is below normal:

Ahem. I suppose it didn't occur to you that over half of those temperature measurements in your graph are above normal. And I suppose it also didn't occur to you that most of those abnormal temperature measurements occurred during peak Arctic sea ice formation.

Oh, and then there is this:

Figure 3a. This image of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level from July 1 to 10 July 10, 2013 shows higher than average temperatures over the Arctic, especially over the Kara Sea. Air temperature anomalies are relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

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

Maybe. Of course that "normal" was taken when we were emerging from the "are we going into a new ice age" scare of the 1970's era so the ice was at an all time high. We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's, hell almost EVERY decade one of you warmist chicken littles screamed hysterically about the "melting Arctic". Below are just a very few examples. Enjoy the read..... When are you going to get you sandwich boards proclaiming the end is nigh?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Your top article. "6 degrees higher than 40 years ago" must have killed us all.
What with the runaway greenhouse effect, coastal flooding and droughts.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm not a scientist. I'm an engineer. I've told you that several times now. Memory problem?

I posted it. I have no control over what you do and do not read. Post your personal email address and I'll make certain you don't miss anything.



I was responding to a fooking question - posted by IanC, not you - as to whether or not anyone believed the quoted resolution of bathythermograph data. I supported my response with the fact that I have dropped and analyzed BT data for over 30 years. You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one or you'd be commenting on the facts of the matter instead of attacking me personally.

You're a forum trolling sock, and one of low-rep clones we have had a rash of lately..

The world has a rash from the likes of you.

So then you can't point to one post out of "several" where YOU told ME specifically you were an engineer... Oh come now low-rep clone, we know better than that.. YOU forgot who YOU were this time, AGAIN... Dude you do it a lot...

Yes, yes you did socko.. we know, you are an expert in whatever you need to be, to win this debate..

ROFL, BTW.... when you said;

" You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one"

One what socko? A BT data? LOL, where you just stomping your foot and saying "I know you are but what am I"???

You should just call me a doodie-head, and run off, it would have at least looked better than that childish nonsense..

And I am attacking you because you aren't debating honestly. When you got caught bullshitting instead defending it, you tried to claim some position of authority on the matter. A position that you, just like the countless times before, and under various other names, do not have..

You don't learn from your previous mistakes socko.. You pull this everytime you get either too busted, or too lazy to defend a position or claim. You suddenly pull I'm an authority" out of your ass, when you're in a pickle... WHat's worse is you say crap like "I've told you that several times now."when we can all see that under this name you use now, you did nosuch thing with me.. In fact with this name you're using we haven't talked much. I figured why bother, I can talk to one of the other "you"...

How many of you now have the same rep problem? LOL 4? 5? ROFL, it's okay junior, we are really fooled...

I'm going to assume from all this that you wouldn't know a BT if it was up your arse sideways. The contention that Trenberth has drawn conclusions not warranted by his data is a completely unfounded assertion. It's the sort of thing that doesn't make it past peer review.

 

[Abraham3]

I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.

There are a number who 'pretend' to reject the idea, but increasingly I get the idea they are going through the motions out of sheer belligerancy rather than any real interest in science.

It's been a long, long time since SSDD, Westwall et al showed any interest in what is actually happening in the Arctic, for instance.

Certainly some of the less literate posters can maintain denial because they aren't likely to happen upon a newspaper in the average year, but for the average poster on this board - denial is starting to ring might hollow.

Oh stop... YOU haven't done anything here but getbusted time and again lying, editing quotes, when you even quote people, and being a general crybaby.

No one pretends here but you and the clone army...

You don't actually talk much science, do you.

 

[Abraham3]

Most of those don't say that CO2 doesn't promote growth. THey state that the advantage of CO2 will be nullified by lack of water (not in evidence) and increasing temps (debatable).

I didn't say it wouldn't promote growth. Increased CO2 increases growth and improves water use efficiency. But the effects of GHG-induced global warming will harm crops in several ways and the net result will be reduced crop yields.

If you think a lack of water as a result of increased temperatures is "not in evidence" you need to review the world's drought record of the past several decades. And if you think it debatable that temperatures have been increasing, I don't know why I'm wasting my time talking to you. There's a name for people that have lost touch with reality.

No --- you need to present evidence that every drought, every flood, every snowmaggedon, every tornado is ample evidence of Global Warming.. How's that drought in Arizona coming eh?? A mere month ago -- it was proof of Climate change.. Today -- it's raining in the desert...

Get off my cloud..
Aren't you embarrased claiming that weather is climate? Explain the map below to me in terms of a 1degF change in temp. in your lifetime..

How the Holy Hell do you go from 200% of normal to 30% of "normal" in 50 miles or less??? And then --- have the cajones to call that "Climate Change" due to CO2 ?????

I don't credit individual events to global warming. I credit trends. Temperatures are up. Droughts are up. Forgive me but I see a correlation.

 

[Abraham3]

Say, WestWall, why did you highlight the words "ice free Arctic" on the clipping above? Were you under the impression that the article was saying that the Arctic was ice free? Why don't you have another read and see if that's really what you wanted to put out there.

 

[gslack]

I posted it. I have no control over what you do and do not read. Post your personal email address and I'll make certain you don't miss anything.



I was responding to a fooking question - posted by IanC, not you - as to whether or not anyone believed the quoted resolution of bathythermograph data. I supported my response with the fact that I have dropped and analyzed BT data for over 30 years. You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one or you'd be commenting on the facts of the matter instead of attacking me personally.



The world has a rash from the likes of you.

So then you can't point to one post out of "several" where YOU told ME specifically you were an engineer... Oh come now low-rep clone, we know better than that.. YOU forgot who YOU were this time, AGAIN... Dude you do it a lot...

Yes, yes you did socko.. we know, you are an expert in whatever you need to be, to win this debate..

ROFL, BTW.... when you said;

" You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one"

One what socko? A BT data? LOL, where you just stomping your foot and saying "I know you are but what am I"???

You should just call me a doodie-head, and run off, it would have at least looked better than that childish nonsense..

And I am attacking you because you aren't debating honestly. When you got caught bullshitting instead defending it, you tried to claim some position of authority on the matter. A position that you, just like the countless times before, and under various other names, do not have..

You don't learn from your previous mistakes socko.. You pull this everytime you get either too busted, or too lazy to defend a position or claim. You suddenly pull I'm an authority" out of your ass, when you're in a pickle... WHat's worse is you say crap like "I've told you that several times now."when we can all see that under this name you use now, you did nosuch thing with me.. In fact with this name you're using we haven't talked much. I figured why bother, I can talk to one of the other "you"...

How many of you now have the same rep problem? LOL 4? 5? ROFL, it's okay junior, we are really fooled...

I'm going to assume from all this that you wouldn't know a BT if it was up your arse sideways. The contention that Trenberth has drawn conclusions not warranted by his data is a completely unfounded assertion. It's the sort of thing that doesn't make it past peer review.

Thanks for clarifying you were lying when you said you told me you were an engineer several times.. We knew that already...

You're the one who called BT data a "one", as in when you said, " You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one"

So I ask again, one what socko?

ROFL, Trenberth is a tool, paid to create an energy budget to support a failing theory. SO he did.. His budget is a work of fiction using a flat disk sharped earth and 24/7 twilight.. It's about as realistic as you claiming to be an engineer...

 

[gslack]

There are a number who 'pretend' to reject the idea, but increasingly I get the idea they are going through the motions out of sheer belligerancy rather than any real interest in science.

It's been a long, long time since SSDD, Westwall et al showed any interest in what is actually happening in the Arctic, for instance.

Certainly some of the less literate posters can maintain denial because they aren't likely to happen upon a newspaper in the average year, but for the average poster on this board - denial is starting to ring might hollow.

Oh stop... YOU haven't done anything here but getbusted time and again lying, editing quotes, when you even quote people, and being a general crybaby.

No one pretends here but you and the clone army...

You don't actually talk much science, do you.

If you mean the pseudo-science, internet expert nonsense you and clones ramble, then no.. When you actually start refering to real science I may comment scientifically.. Until then there is no point..

 

[gslack]

Say, WestWall, why did you highlight the words "ice free Arctic" on the clipping above? Were you under the impression that the article was saying that the Arctic was ice free? Why don't you have another read and see if that's really what you wanted to put out there.

You responded to toddster,moron...LOL

 

[Abraham3]

I'm truly sorry you don't have the mental flexibility to think for yourself in terms of the IMPLICATIONS of what this OP paper actually infers..

I have enough mental capacity to recognize lies when I see them. You claimed Trenberth had identified the ocean as a holding tank for the thermal energy that would support your contention that warming is due to TSI and not CO2. That was a lie. He said no such thing. He very clearly stated that recent deep ocean warming was a new and different climatic behavior that was due to variability in surface winds. He did NOT say that it was a permanent or historical feature. Trenberth's work does not support your hypothesis.

It exists -- it just hasn't been elaborated yet.. Not "making it up" --- just quicker to grab the importance of this capitulation that the media reports simply as "it really hasn't stopped warming"..

Man, you're a piece of work.

 

[Abraham3]

You are truly worthless.

 

[IanC]

I posted it. I have no control over what you do and do not read. Post your personal email address and I'll make certain you don't miss anything.



I was responding to a fooking question - posted by IanC, not you - as to whether or not anyone believed the quoted resolution of bathythermograph data. I supported my response with the fact that I have dropped and analyzed BT data for over 30 years. You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one or you'd be commenting on the facts of the matter instead of attacking me personally.



The world has a rash from the likes of you.

So then you can't point to one post out of "several" where YOU told ME specifically you were an engineer... Oh come now low-rep clone, we know better than that.. YOU forgot who YOU were this time, AGAIN... Dude you do it a lot...

Yes, yes you did socko.. we know, you are an expert in whatever you need to be, to win this debate..

ROFL, BTW.... when you said;

" You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one"

One what socko? A BT data? LOL, where you just stomping your foot and saying "I know you are but what am I"???

You should just call me a doodie-head, and run off, it would have at least looked better than that childish nonsense..

And I am attacking you because you aren't debating honestly. When you got caught bullshitting instead defending it, you tried to claim some position of authority on the matter. A position that you, just like the countless times before, and under various other names, do not have..

You don't learn from your previous mistakes socko.. You pull this everytime you get either too busted, or too lazy to defend a position or claim. You suddenly pull I'm an authority" out of your ass, when you're in a pickle... WHat's worse is you say crap like "I've told you that several times now."when we can all see that under this name you use now, you did nosuch thing with me.. In fact with this name you're using we haven't talked much. I figured why bother, I can talk to one of the other "you"...

How many of you now have the same rep problem? LOL 4? 5? ROFL, it's okay junior, we are really fooled...

I'm going to assume from all this that you wouldn't know a BT if it was up your arse sideways. The contention that Trenberth has drawn conclusions not warranted by his data is a completely unfounded assertion. It's the sort of thing that doesn't make it past peer review.

Maybe if everyone would just ignore gslack he would away.

You say you worked with XBTs and they give measurrements accurate to one one hundredth of a degree. And the data from the early ones in the 60's is just as accurate as the ones today, and the readings are calibrated exactly the same.

Even if I agree to that, the ocean is a huge place and the XBTs are dropped off ships doing other tasks so the spacial coverage is less than optimal. I am having a really hard time believing that our measurements of deep ocean temps is whithin an order of magnitude of 0.01 degrees. How many XBTs have been launched? A few million? A few tens of millions? What kind of coverage does that work out to? One reading per 100 sq miles per month?per year? Less?

 

[westwall]

And yet the extent of Arctic sea ice is below normal:

Ahem. I suppose it didn't occur to you that over half of those temperature measurements in your graph are above normal. And I suppose it also didn't occur to you that most of those abnormal temperature measurements occurred during peak Arctic sea ice formation.

Oh, and then there is this:

Figure 3a. This image of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level from July 1 to 10 July 10, 2013 shows higher than average temperatures over the Arctic, especially over the Kara Sea. Air temperature anomalies are relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

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

Maybe. Of course that "normal" was taken when we were emerging from the "are we going into a new ice age" scare of the 1970's era so the ice was at an all time high. We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's, hell almost EVERY decade one of you warmist chicken littles screamed hysterically about the "melting Arctic". Below are just a very few examples. Enjoy the read..... When are you going to get you sandwich boards proclaiming the end is nigh?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Your top article. "6 degrees higher than 40 years ago" must have killed us all.
What with the runaway greenhouse effect, coastal flooding and droughts.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Amazing huh..here all along we thought we were alive but in reality we are mere figments of some Gods imagination!

 

[westwall]

Say, WestWall, why did you highlight the words "ice free Arctic" on the clipping above? Were you under the impression that the article was saying that the Arctic was ice free? Why don't you have another read and see if that's really what you wanted to put out there.

Ummmm, 'cause I DIDN'T highlight it would be my guess... That's the way it is on the net.
And yes there have been times that the Arctic HAS been ice free. And in the not too distant past either.

 

[westwall]

I'm truly sorry you don't have the mental flexibility to think for yourself in terms of the IMPLICATIONS of what this OP paper actually infers..

I have enough mental capacity to recognize lies when I see them. You claimed Trenberth had identified the ocean as a holding tank for the thermal energy that would support your contention that warming is due to TSI and not CO2. That was a lie. He said no such thing. He very clearly stated that recent deep ocean warming was a new and different climatic behavior that was due to variability in surface winds. He did NOT say that it was a permanent or historical feature. Trenberth's work does not support your hypothesis.

It exists -- it just hasn't been elaborated yet.. Not "making it up" --- just quicker to grab the importance of this capitulation that the media reports simply as "it really hasn't stopped warming"..

Man, you're a piece of work.

No, you don't. You are every bit the religious fanatic who needs only faith to carry them through!

 

[Oddball]

That's the question I posed to you. And I am still waiting for your answer.

Why don't you address your idiotic assertions that get called for the idiocy that they are?....Let's start with Venus being 28% closer to the sun is "slightly" nearer to the star.

I'm pretty sure someone could whip up an attractive full color chart or graph to debunk your rank foolhardiness.

Do you believe that what happened to Venus cannot happen to Earth? If not, why not? If so, Why?

What happened on Venus is irrelevant.....Any atmosphere will trap solar radiation.....The more dense the atmosphere and the closer to that radiation source, the hotter the planet....A 70%-er student student pilot could tell you that.

Now, tell us all how 28% is "slight", in any context.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Most blame china for the aerosals that are stopping the warming

 

[Oddball]

Most blame china for the aerosals that are stopping the warming

Most are slimy patent medicine hawkers, who will latch onto any excuse they can to try and 'splain away why their lame-assed models are always wrong.

 

[orogenicman]

Yet more lies from saggy I see. Never, ever make assumptions for others. It makes you look like an ass. Here is the truth about the Arctic today, so far there have been half the number of days above 0C that is usually seen. That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far....

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

And yet the extent of Arctic sea ice is below normal:

Ahem. I suppose it didn't occur to you that over half of those temperature measurements in your graph are above normal. And I suppose it also didn't occur to you that most of those abnormal temperature measurements occurred during peak Arctic sea ice formation.

Oh, and then there is this:

Figure 3a. This image of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level from July 1 to 10 July 10, 2013 shows higher than average temperatures over the Arctic, especially over the Kara Sea. Air temperature anomalies are relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

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

Maybe. Of course that "normal" was taken when we were emerging from the "are we going into a new ice age" scare of the 1970's era so the ice was at an all time high. We know through newspaper articles that the ice was much lower in the 1920's and '30's, hell almost EVERY decade one of you warmist chicken littles screamed hysterically about the "melting Arctic". Below are just a very few examples. Enjoy the read..... When are you going to get you sandwich boards proclaiming the end is nigh?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

From YOUR link:

The graph illustrates a decreasing trend in sea ice extent since 1978, with annual variations of occationally more than 1 million square kilometres. The 2012 sea ice minimum extented set a new minimum record. The 2012 September minimum ice extent was only approximately half the mean sea ice extent from the period 1979-2000, - often referred to as a relative stabil period for the sea ice extent. The blue trend line in the figure has a negative slope of approximately 60000 km2 per year. The data are provided by National Snow and Ice Data Center's web site (NSIDC).

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't say it wouldn't promote growth. Increased CO2 increases growth and improves water use efficiency. But the effects of GHG-induced global warming will harm crops in several ways and the net result will be reduced crop yields.

If you think a lack of water as a result of increased temperatures is "not in evidence" you need to review the world's drought record of the past several decades. And if you think it debatable that temperatures have been increasing, I don't know why I'm wasting my time talking to you. There's a name for people that have lost touch with reality.

No --- you need to present evidence that every drought, every flood, every snowmaggedon, every tornado is ample evidence of Global Warming.. How's that drought in Arizona coming eh?? A mere month ago -- it was proof of Climate change.. Today -- it's raining in the desert...

Get off my cloud..
Aren't you embarrased claiming that weather is climate? Explain the map below to me in terms of a 1degF change in temp. in your lifetime..

How the Holy Hell do you go from 200% of normal to 30% of "normal" in 50 miles or less??? And then --- have the cajones to call that "Climate Change" due to CO2 ?????

I don't credit individual events to global warming. I credit trends. Temperatures are up. Droughts are up. Forgive me but I see a correlation.

Imagine that... You accuse ME of playing fast and loose with available evidence.

Are these visions lucent enough to comment on the current Atlantic Hurricane season? How about Middle Tennessee tornado forecast for 2019? How about the wine harvest in Australia for the next decade?

Is this on the level of complete charlatanism that Saigon just posted where some demented political appointee is doing pin-point REGIONAL forecasts for New Zealand in 2100?

Time for a USMB beer summit.. It would be a gas to hear you project weather events on the basis of a 1deg avg GLOBAL temp change..