Where is global warming?

time for a vacation surreal

meh, a good days work is just that, nothing more or less, but it is a measurable and open air performance. unlike the detractors and their empty posts.

if i end up making a few % every few days, that adds up at the end of the year.

Speaking more towards your unbalanced nature as of late. Tearing apart at the seams

me unbalanced? thats impossible!

@Flubbbs: The term "climate change" was actually coined by a conservative think tank because "global warming" sounded too foreboding. "Climate change" was seen as a more benign term and better able to sway people away from accepting it as fact. Turns out, though, that it's a bit more scientifically accurate, or at least better able to express the nuance of the issue to the average citizen, and belief in APGW has actually gone up as a result. Oops.

I can't believe there are still people who fall for the man made Global Warming scam.

they accidentally have the truth but not man made - we are entering one of the natural cycles and appear to in the early stages of Global Cooling just as we were warned about some 40 years ago.

The sun is at an ebb right now - it has been reported that there is a low similar to the last mini ice age with a lack of sun spot activity so there is less solar heat reaching us.

in the 1700's there were Ice festivals on the Thames and Washington didn't need to use a boat to cross the Rappahanock (not the Delaware) because it was frozen due to the mini-ice age and could be crossed on foot. Remember the stories of how he and his men suffered in the the unusually long and cold winter.

we are nearing that again.....the warnings I heard during my uni years in the 70s about the onset of Global Cooling were actually the truth - NOT this Global Warming scare which has only been used to line the pockets of a few politicians and their buddies in certain industries.

It will take a long time but the world does appear to be in the early stages of a mini-Ice Age.

In other words......Global Cooling

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

"If it weren't for the fact that humans had become a force of nature, we would be slipping back into an ice age, according to orbital cycles."

But earth's glacial rhythms are "being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels," McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling "are convenient for people to trot out and wave around," he said, but they miss the point

Derp.

other than the scientific fact that the world has not shown any trend towards warming over the last century.

the man made Global Warming scam has however made guys like Al Gore rich(er) while they use tonnes of electricity - enough in his mansion to keep a small city powered.

but then if you want to listen to scare mongers rather than scientists and use insults rather than arguments that is your choice

No warming huh? Is that why the Petroleum industry, the guys causing the biggest carbon foot print, are on board with the whole 'global warming scam' now?

Surely if it was a scam they wouldn't be admitting to it now would they? And while we're at it lets take a quick look at what the scientists believe. You said it yourself, we should listen to them.

@Jacobistheman: Your math skills are severely lacking. 1/3 is not .28%. 1/3 is 33%. As well the amount of energy retained by CO2 varies by region. It ranges from about 10% to 25%. Water vapour itself only makes up less than 1% of the total atmosphere and all greenhouse gases together make up about the same. This small concentration makes the Earth 33C than it would be otherwise. To understand how the greenhouse effect works and why an increase of CO2 would cause an increase in the overall temperature of the planet you'll need to go a lot deeper into it than making false claims.

CO2 absorbs in a small band centered at a frequency of 667 micrometers per cycle. numerous scientific studies have shown that outbound longwave radiation at these ferequencies show the most change in additional retention of energy regarding possible forcings. These studies include the following:

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries et al; 2001)

Observations of the Infrared Outgoing Spectrum of the Earth from Space: The Effects of Temporal and Spatial Sampling (Brindley & Harries; 2003)

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS (Griggs & Harries; 2006)

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS (Chapman et al, 2013)

And many more. They all show the changes in outbound radiation at specific frequencies and state that CO2, as well as other lesser forcings such as methane and feedbacks such as water vapour increases with the greatest forcing being CO2. As well, it has been measured that the atmospheric concentration is rising at a current rate of 2ppm or 15.6 billion tonnes as per Scripps CO2 data. CDIAC estimates worldwide contribution to CO2 increase via burning fossil fuels is over twice this at 33.5 billion tonnes. More than half of what humans emit is being absorbed by carbon sinks, such as the ocean, and overloading the system. This is why he oceans are currently decreasing in pH during a warming period, something that would not occur naturally.

so many armchair climatologists...

In the grand scheme of things, .28% is pretty close to .33%. The difference is a difference of.0005.

If you are so good at math why don't you actually do some math and figure out how much humans actually contribute to CO2 and Global Warming overall. As I said, humans don't contribute that much. Water contributes much more to global warming than CO2.

The warming of the poles disrupts the jet stream.

The extreme temperature difference is what creates the jet stream in the first place. The ice that was there is now water, which is far better at holding in heat, which results in warmer air above. The warm air front disrupts the existing jet stream, changing weather patterns. Weather is much, much more complicated than it seems.

@Jacobistheman: There isn't a dot before the numbers. It is just 33%, not 0.33%. Water vapour is a feedback and will always be. Check out the water cycle and why it rains and how clouds condense. You want math? Okay.

The Suns effect on Earthly temperatures can be figured out with the following equation: S(1-α)πr^2 Where S is the solar constant and α is the albedo, a number between 0 and 1.

The overall temperature of the first layer of surface can be figured out with the following equation: εσT(a2)^4 + εσT(g)^4 = 2εσT(a1)4 where epsilon is the emissivity, usually about 1, sigma is the stefan boltzman constant (5.67*10^-8), T(a2) is the temperature of the second layer of atmosphere, T(g) is the temperature of the ground and T(a1) is the temperature of the first layer of atmosphere. Without any greenhouse gases the temperature of the surface using this technique is about 255K. With greenhouse gases that temperature increases to 288K, the actual temperature of the planet. As we add a greater amount of greenhouse gases to this mix the temperature increases. You are using the same old nonsense I've seen other people use before in that the concentration of something small can;t possibly effect something big. This is foolish. And to top it off you are off by quite a large margin.

http://sexton.ucdavis.edu/CondMatt/cox/ipccpdfs/ch4atmchemistry.pdf

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf

some of the courses these books deal with I've actually taken including David Archers climate modelling class.

On top of that, I provided you with the statistic last post regarding CO2 atmospheric increase compared to human emissions.

Human emissions = over 33 billion tonnes per year, Atmospheeric increase = 15.6 billion tonnes per year, more than half of what humans emit are being taken up by carbon sinks.

Scripps CO2 data: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv

CDIAC emission data: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

Conversion factors: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.

CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is not a small increase. this is about a 40% increase.

Can the seas rise first then freeze after they reach a couple hundred feet above normal in the coming Ice Age? There's this guy I can't stand who lives around that altitude, I'd like to see his house get frozen in.

Call me a fascist, but I think it's better to collect the massive amount of weather data of the past decades, study the patterns, and identify trends. It works a little better than waiting for cold spells of certain regions of the world to brag about. Pay attention to the theory as a whole, rather than just the holes in the theory.

But if you wanna play that game, here's a picture from the webcam of a my local ski mountain, which is supposed to be covered by Christmas:

Al Gore says it's happening so it must be true

Every scientific organization on the planet, virtually every climatologists that posts in scientific journals, and so on say it's happening as well but you just keep your hatred for Al gore going there and denying the planet is warming or that humans are the cause.

Lawyered

wax, are you a climatologist?

The political bias on both sides of the argument is ridiculous. A leftist Democrat can just as easily say this possibly unprecedented winter drought we're experiencing in California is another sign of the degenerating state of our climate. The debate isn't whether or not it's a hoax. Watch the Weather reports. Things have been strange for a number of years now and the climate is changing. The debate is whether WE are the cause and driving factor.

Personally I'm on the fence since we are still technically coming out of an Ice age. However, the entire industrial world dumping this much Co2 into the atmosphere can't be helpful can it? I'm not a scientist so I can't say. Although, I'm also not Rush Limbaugh so I can't say scientists the world over are involved in a leftist conspiracy to promote green energy and help Al Gore get richer. I can only say my personal experience from my local weather, and what I see across the country which is that the climate is definitely changing. Breaking records every single year is not normal is it?

Except that 1 side is supported by evidence, and the other is not.

@deeliman: No. I have taken several university courses dealing with climatology and related education though including such things as classes pertaining to geology and geography as well as recent classes such as Navigating climate Change Conversations and David Archers class in modelling. Currently I am taking Climate Change in Four Dimensions out of the University of San Diego and Energy, the Environment and Our Future out of Pennsylvania States University with Richard Alley. These are online courses from http://www.coursera.org

I do speak with a few climatologists and people who work in related fields though.

@MystikFollower: We are not coming out of an ice age. Actually we have been heading for the next ice age for the last 6000 years as Milankovitch cycles, or cyclic changes in Earth's orbit, have been heading in that direction for that long. If you are talking specifically about the Little Ice Age that has a known cause. It was caused by what is known as the Maunder Minimum and related ocean cycle feedbacks. As well there was an increase in volcanic activity during this time.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/abstract

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf

Also, you should be aware that climate change due to the forcings mentioned above have definite fingerprints in the system. these fingerprint are not present. what is present are the fingerprints related to temperature change due to increases in greenhouse gases.

That being said, basing global climate change off local weather variations is the wrong way to go about it as some areas have been getting hotter while other have been getting colder due to changes in heat redistribution in a warming system. You have to look at long term trends which is what you basically do when you state that temperatures have been breaking quite a lot of records. Just remember, what is likely the coldest month in the US in recorded history was offset by the warmest year in recorded history in Australia. Heat gets redistributed. We have to look at the overall energy balance of the entire system to find the truth.