Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

Some more on the Arctic sea ice.

 

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Arctic-Volume1.gif

 

Edit: Some more news on Greenland.

[crofter]

Prior to that and for most of the winter it was tracking the lowest year ever. since satellite observations began in 1979.

 

Fixed that for you. Take a look at some arctic temperature records for the 30s, 40s - it was warmer then.

 

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/greenland_pt1_fig2.JPG

[crofter]

Ignore the purple line, look at the increase (blue line) from 1915 to 1940. Presumably not caused by CO2? Now compare it with the increase from 1980 onwards...

 

Not shown on this graph is the past 5 years or so, during which time arctic temperatures have continued to cool.

 

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/dnc49xz_65gg3s7xgj_b.jpg

[ArabiaTerra]

Ignore the purple line signal of global warming, look at the increase (blue line) from 1915 to 1940. Presumably not caused by CO2? Now compare it with the increase from 1980 onwards...

I completely agree. If you ignore global warming then you can say anything you want about temperatures. But the whole point of this thread is not to ignore the global warming trend. The whole point of climate science is that once you have filtered out all the natural variation such as the annual seasonal changes and the decadal cycles such as solar influence and ENSO, you can then see if there are any long term trends. If there is no global warming then the "purple line" should be flat. If it isn't flat, then there is clearly something else going on. There is "something else" and this "something else" is global warming.

Not shown on this graph is the past 5 years or so, during which time arctic temperatures have continued to cool.

Hmmm, the last five years? That'll be (all together now) "Weather not climate".

 

If you don't ignore the signal of global warming then, as the graph below shows, there is a clear and obvious drop in the extent of the sea ice which has been going on for decades.

 

http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/nsidc_sie_trends.png

 

From here.

[crofter]

The whole point of climate science is that once you have filtered out all the natural variation such as the annual seasonal changes and the decadal cycles such as solar influence and ENSO, you can then see if there are any long term trends.

So, 1915-1940? Warmer than present, steeper temperature rise, would you agree just natural variation? Recent temperature rise - (caused by CO2?) not as extreme, and not even rising any more.... There has been less ice in the arctic in the past.

Not shown on this graph is the past 5 years or so, during which time arctic temperatures have continued to cool.

Hmmm, the last five years? That'll be (all together now) "Weather not climate".

 

Well there are 5 years which are not graphed, but the cooling has been happening since the turn of the century. You might argue that it is "weather" but it certainly doesn't support AGW theory.

[ArabiaTerra]

It seems the graph I posted above has disappeared and the edit function is gone so I can't put it back. So here it is again (I hope).

 

[***Mod edit - see graph in post immediately above by same User***]

 

As the graph shows, the Arctic sea ice has been declining steadily for decades. And posting temperature graphs for a couple of isolated weather stations is irrelevant. Global warming is a global phenomenon (the clue is in the name). You could just as easily find a couple of stations that showed the complete opposite if you looked (How many did you look at before you found a couple that supported your argument?). This is cherry picking data again. If that's what you have to do to make your argument then is that not a clue that your argument is deficient?

 

And now the graph is back, along with the edit function. MODs!!!, what's going on?

[Skunnered]

^^It's a conspiracy!!

[Njugle]

AT there is no immediately apparent reason why your graph would disappear, it's nothing we did. At time of writing I can see it fine.

 

As regards the edit button, some time ago, because of a contrived spate of back-editing posts, we limited the editing function to 30minutes after a post is made.

 

I hope that answers both your questions, please contact a moderator if any similar questions arise. Thanks.

[crofter]

(How many did you look at before you found a couple that supported your argument?). This is cherry picking data again. If that's what you have to do to make your argument then is that not a clue that your argument is deficient?

 

 

The first graph is for Nuuk. First one I found, although there are plenty of others which show the same pattern. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find an arctic station which does not. Then I found a graph which shows Latitude Range 70 to 90, Longitude Range - 180 to 180 (From the Jones et al. dataset) so I posted that one as well because I thought the entire arctic data set was more meaningful than just Nuuk. So, what caused the warming in the arctic 1915-1940? AGW theory seems a bit deficient when it comes to explaining that? The present warming (or cooling for the past 10 years) is not "unprecedented".

[Skunnered]

^^Am I reading this graph correctly? A rise of 4% from 1900 to 1940? Now that's a HUGE rise. Surely there must be a scientific explanation for that.

And, incidentally, how does the peak in 1940 compare with today's temperature, as this is not shown on the graph?

[crofter]

^^Am I reading this graph correctly? A rise of 4% from 1900 to 1940? Now that's a HUGE rise.

 

Although those are the lowest and highest points on the graph!

 

And, incidentally, how does the peak in 1940 compare with today's temperature, as this is not shown on the graph?

 

Current anomaly is less than +0.5 degrees

[ArabiaTerra]

Ignore the purple line, look at the increase (blue line) from 1915 to 1940. Presumably not caused by CO2? Now compare it with the increase from 1980 onwards...

 

Not shown on this graph is the past 5 years or so, during which time arctic temperatures have continued to cool.

 

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/dnc49xz_65gg3s7xgj_b.jpg

The thing is, with these graphs the annual temperature line is irrelevant. The important bit is the purple line which shows the underlying trend. Temperatures may vary by a large margin from year to year due to the natural variation in weather cycles, but if global warming wasn't happening then the underlying trend (the purple line) would be flat. For instance, for most of this winter temperatures in Northern Greenland and the Arctic have been as much as 6 degrees above the average, which puts the anomalies in the graph above into perspective.

 

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/NASA-Winter-2010.gif

[euripides]

AT is absolutely right, it's the underlying trend that's relevant. I'm beginning to feel a bit like a voice in the wilderness on this thread. Could somebody please respond to my post, last post on page 60? Thanks

[trout]

I think something important has been overlooked on this thread. I'm IT illiterate and don't know how to put the relevant quotes into my text, so I'll just type in the dates and authors: Malachy and GB-cheese, 3.3.10, hope folk don't mind srolling up the page.

Malachy is quite right to say that weather blibs like this cold winter don't contradict global warming theory. If you read the National GEographical article GB-cheese gives a link to in his post his example of high rainfalls in North Africa are actually a direct result of global warming and not the opposite, but a very interesting one. It seems that global warming hasn't led to the expansion of deserts as was forecast, some deserts are shrinking because the warmer air caused by global warming generates more moisture and produces higher rainfall. That's how I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It looks like this has taken the scientists by surprise. To me this means that nature reacts in ways that can't be predicted or forecast, quite an interesting development.

 

Have you ever come across any building engineers that can actually make air conditioning function as you might expect? Nope? How can man then think he can control undulating planatery environmental changes if he can't even control the temperature in an office floor in one single building!?

[ArabiaTerra]

I think something important has been overlooked on this thread. I'm IT illiterate and don't know how to put the relevant quotes into my text, so I'll just type in the dates and authors: Malachy and GB-cheese, 3.3.10, hope folk don't mind srolling up the page.

Malachy is quite right to say that weather blibs like this cold winter don't contradict global warming theory. If you read the National GEographical article GB-cheese gives a link to in his post his example of high rainfalls in North Africa are actually a direct result of global warming and not the opposite, but a very interesting one. It seems that global warming hasn't led to the expansion of deserts as was forecast, some deserts are shrinking because the warmer air caused by global warming generates more moisture and produces higher rainfall. That's how I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It looks like this has taken the scientists by surprise. To me this means that nature reacts in ways that can't be predicted or forecast, quite an interesting development.

One of the most difficult things to do in climate science is to predict exactly how and when climate change is going to manifest itself in any particular area. If you look at the globe as a whole, you can see that it is divided into climate zones starting with the icecaps at the poles followed by the tundra region then the northern conifer forests, the deciduous forests and great plains then a desert zone and finally, the rainforests circling the equator. This arrangement is mirrored in the Southern hemisphere.

 

One of the central predictions of AGW theory is that these climate zones will shift further north (or south in the southern hemisphere). Of course these shifts will not be uniform as the climate zones are also effected by local conditions such as the configuration of the continents and the position of mountain ranges such as the Himalayas and the Alps etc.

 

In the case of the Sahara, it's expected to move north and that's what we're seeing. The Sahel to the south is getting more rainfall, while Southern Spain and Greece are being hit with serious droughts and forest fires. I haven't heard anything about Italy, but that might be a special case due to being surrounded by the Med and with the Alps to the North which will be distorting the flow of weather systems in the area. The greening of the Sahel is exactly in line with AGW predictions, I think what has surprised the scientists is the speed at which it is happening.

 

Similar things are happening in other parts of the world with serious drought hitting the south in Australia and flooding in the north. In North America there has been drought and forest fires in California and flooding in the NE US. Predictions from computer models indicate that the drought will spread into the Great Plains turning it into a new dust bowl, but this hasn't happened yet. In the far North we're seeing the tundra melting and the ice retreating. As far as Shetland goes, the growing season has apparently lengthened by two months since 1960, though I'd like to hear this confirmed by someone working the land here (Have you noticed this, Crofter?).

 

Now, all this is pretty much what you'd expect to see with a warming planet and it's similar to what happened at the end of the last ice age. But there is one important difference. The changes at the end of the last ice age took 5000 years, climate change so slow compared to a human lifetime that anyone living through it wouldn't even have noticed anything was changing. We are causing these changes in a few hundred years. This means that nature hasn't got time to adapt to these changes. All of the climate change which has happened so far has happened in less than the lifetime of individual trees. To add to that, humans have already taken control of so much of the Earth's surface that nature is unable to spread into new areas due to human control of the landscape.

 

And on top of all that, many of the areas that are changing are important carbon stores. If the rainforests burn due to drought, it will release as much carbon again as humans already have. The tundra, which is already showing signs of melting, holds ten times as much carbon as the rainforests and on top of that there is the methane hydrates in the Arctic ocean which hold ten times as much carbon as the tundra. If they let go, it's game over for human civilisation.

 

At current emissions levels, we will trip the rainforest burn at about 2.5 degrees temperature rise which could happen as soon as 2060. This will release enough carbon on it's own to trip the tundra tipping point, which, in turn will trip the methane hydrates tipping point. So we have to keep the total temperature rise as far below 2.5 degrees as possible. To do this we have to be reducing the amount of carbon emissions by 2020. At the moment emissions are not only rising, they are accelerating. We have much to do and only a few short years to do it.

 

Maybe now you can understand why I get so angry about the lies, distortion and slander spewing forth from the deniers. These people are the enemies of humanity and their bullshit is endangering not only every human being on this planet, but all the unborn generations to come. They are literally playing games with the fate of the human race.

 

This scares me.