Long-term global warming trend sustained in 2013

[macdoc]

in one..

[mistermack]

Yup - Sweden is well on the way to carbon neutral by 2050 with a combination of technologies.

Transport is difficult as yet.

The primary target is closing coal plants as Mass is intending to do and Ontario has done.

This is pathetic stuff. Sweden is blessed. It has loads of Hydro power, a good chunk of nuclear I believe, (I'm not going to check again) and a fairly small population, compared to it's size. It also has huge timber assets, with lots of waste wood.

You can hardly apply the Swedish model to somewhere like the Netherlands, or London. It's stupid to pick out examples like that.
Also, many places in North America have fuel assets coming on stream from fracking. It's not surprising that energy production is switching from coal in some places. Temporarily.

Also, the guy in the video above says that it's irrelevant to facts, what people think.
Tell that to the idiots who keep banging on about the ''scientific consensus''.
Which is nearly everybody, in the alarmist camp.

[mistermack]

Just looking around, found the official NOAA record of ocean surface temperatures going back over a hundred years. Interesting.



Note that the biggest and most dramatic rise was from 1910 to 1945. A period when CO2 levels were virtually unchanged from their historic levels. Something caused a whopping rise in surface temperatures, and it WASN'T CO2 in the air. PROVING that there is no direct link between CO2 levels and ocean surface temperatures.

Then, from 1945 to 1975, there was NO rise in surface temperatures, even though CO2 levels were significantly higher than the previous thirty year period. Again indicating NO link between CO2 levels and surface temperatures.

Then, from 1975 to 1997, there was a steady rise in surface temperatures, while CO2 levels were dramatically rising. Indicating a POSSIBLE link.

Then you have the last seventeen years, of no rise at all in sea surface temperatures, while CO2 levels were historically very high, and shooting up ever faster. Again, no link indicated between the two.

Any rational person should conclude from that that it's idiotic to point to ocean surface temperatures, and conclude that there is a link to CO2 levels. Out of the four periods shown on the graph, only one would fit that conclusion, and three contradict it.

And what's all this bollocks people keep posting, about ocean temperatures rising, when the official NOAA graph says not?
In fact, the last seventeen years on this graph matches the last seventeen years of no warming of the atmosphere to a T.

So there you have it. Global warming HAS stopped, in the ocean and in the Atmosphere.
And it's official. Unless the NOAA are a bunch of AGW deniers :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surfac ... rature.jpg

But no, it's the OFFICIAL FIGURES that are the real AGW deniers.

[macdoc]

What a fucking crock of shite. CO2 traps IR - get over it. You don't understand enough climate science to find your way out of a wet paper bag.

This is the NOAA graph for ocean temps


This is the global change in WInter


This is the global change in temperature

1901 to 1950


accumulated/warming cooling 1901 to 2009


This is the change in ice thickness for glaciers


This is the loss of glacial mass in Greenland and Antarctic


You.....are wrong.

Reality
It's getting warmer
We're responsible....move on

These are some of the consequences...
••••

Britain floats off to the tropics...

UK sees a fortnight's worth of rain in one hour
Parts of the country are deluged with rain, sparking flash floods

1:58PM BST 07 Jun 2014
Thundery downpours sparked flash floods on Saturday, as parts of the UK were hit with a fortnight’s worth of rain in just one hour.
The Environment Agency had seven flood alerts in place across the country at lunchtime on Saturday, after heavy rainfall began on Friday night.
At the Met Office’s weather station in Santon Downham in Suffolk, 18.22mm of rain fell in a single hour between 9 and 10am on Saturday – the equivalent to half a month’s rainfall.
Emma Sharples, a forecaster for the Met Office, said: “Overnight and through Saturday we have seen anything from five to 10mm of rain an hour to 20mm an hour in some places.

“In the South East, the average rainfall for the whole month of June is 40 to 60mm, so that is half a month’s rainfall in one hour.

more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/108834 ... -hour.html

Those are Cairns Australia kinda numbers...it's the intensity numbers that are getting crazy high....commonplace in the tropics....those numbers are insane for temperate climes.

this is a follow up to the drowning of Eastern Europe last month...

Eastern Europe Sees Its Worst Flooding in a Century - NBC ...
http://www.nbcnews.com/.../eastern-euro ... century-n1...
May 17, 2014 - Floodwaters forced tens of thousands of people from their homes when four months' worth of rain fell in one day.

and reminds me of the intensity of what hit central Europe last year with the Danube hitting a 500 year high water mark.

On 30 May to 1 June 2013, 150 to 200 mm of rain (5.9 to 7.9 in of rain) fell, in places reaching around 250 mm (9.8 in), which in just a few days was the equivalent normally seen over two and a half months on average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_European_floods

Climatological context[edit]
Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, stated that a low-pressure system that dumped the rain was locked into place by a disturbance with the global wind pattern. Linking the weather to the concurrent drought conditions in Russia, he said pressure systems stay locked in place, causing a persistent pattern of weather in an area.

He also stated that this planetary wave resonance is not a local effect but spread around the whole (northern) hemisphere. When a “resonance” episode occurs, half a dozen peaks and troughs of high or low pressure form around the hemisphere.

This explains why some parts of the world become unseasonably hot or cold and others unusually dry or rainy.

The resonance theory has become widely discussed among climate scientists since first published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change last year. But it has met resistance among experts who are wary about associating single extreme-weather events with climate change

blocking pattern again...California Ridiculous Resilient Ridge
http://www.weatherwest.com/archives/tag ... ient-ridge
and our fun winter vortex.

We just got brushed by that particular rainfail event in Europe in 2013 and totally insane levels of rain even if we were used to it from tropical Australia. Friends whose house we rented had never seen the river near the house so high

[mistermack]

What a fucking crock of shite. CO2 traps IR - get over it. You don't understand enough climate science to find your way out of a wet paper bag.

As it's all so simple (to you), to help me ''get over it'', as CO2 traps IR, why isn't the whole Earth on fire?
After all, the IR keeps coming, and the CO2 keeps trapping. And has done for billions of years.
And yet, I'm sitting here, and there is a nice cool breeze. And neither the atmosphere, nor the ocean surface, has warmed in the last 17 years.

Explain.

This is the NOAA graph for ocean temps

No it isn't, you silly fucker. You don't even know what you're posting.

[macdoc]

Let's start here fuckehad since you want to get arrogant.

Just exactly what does it say on the Credit....NOAA - or is one of your myriad failings the inability to read as well.


The fact that you don't understand how CO2 and carbon cycle works points out how serious your stupidity is about physical processes.

This is how it works your dithering idiot....



We, you everyone has altered that cycle by digging up fossil carbon or drilling for it and burning it for energy.
That has put carbon from millions of years ago that was sequestered by the cycle above into the current atmosphere which has caused the radiative balance to shift to a warmer regime.

In the school kid language you seem to need to understand the simplest concept.

We've put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel use.
C02 traps IR
So it gets warmer.

Now shut fuck up unless you have some science to back your delusion.

Learn something

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever
Carbon dioxide emissions and their associated warming could linger for millennia, according to some climate scientists. Mason Inman looks at why the fallout from burning fossil fuels could last far longer than expected.

Our continued use of fossil fuels could leave a CO2legacy that lasts millennia, says climatologist David Archer


After our fossil fuel blow-out, how long will the CO2 hangover last? And what about the global fever that comes along with it? These sound like simple questions, but the answers are complex — and not well understood or appreciated outside a small group of climate scientists. Popular books on climate change — even those written by scientists — if they mention the lifetime of CO2 at all, typically say it lasts "a century or more"1 or "more than a hundred years".

"That's complete nonsense," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. It doesn't help that the summaries in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have confused the issue, allege Caldeira and colleagues in an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences2. Now he and a few other climate scientists are trying to spread the word that human-generated CO2, and the warming it brings, will linger far into the future — unless we take heroic measures to pull the gas out of the air.

University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, "The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this"3.

"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge," Archer writes. "Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."

The effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere drop off so slowly that unless we kick our "fossil fuel addiction", to use George W. Bush's phrase, we could force Earth out of its regular pattern of freezes and thaws that has lasted for more than a million years. "If the entire coal reserves were used," Archer writes, "then glaciation could be delayed for half a million years."

Cloudy reports

"The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably the least well understood part of the global warming issue," says paleoclimatologist Peter Fawcett of the University of New Mexico. "And it's not because it isn't well documented in the IPCC report. It is, but it is buried under a lot of other material."

It doesn't help, though, that past reports from the UN panel of climate experts have made misleading statements about the lifetime of CO2, argue Archer, Caldeira and colleagues. The first assessment report, in 1990, said that CO2's lifetime is 50 to 200 years. The reports in 1995 and 2001 revised this down to 5 to 200 years. Because the oceans suck up huge amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere's CO2 levels elevated for millennia. Even as CO2 levels drop, temperatures take longer to fall, according to recent studies.

"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge, longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."

David Archer
Earlier reports from the panel did include caveats such as "No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes." The IPCC's latest assessment, however, avoids the problems of earlier reports by including similar caveats while simply refusing to give a numeric estimate of the lifetime for carbon dioxide. Contributing author Richard Betts of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre says the panel made this change in recognition of the fact that "the lifetime estimates cited in previous reports had been potentially misleading, or at least open to misinterpretation."

Instead of pinning an absolute value on the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, the 2007 report describes its gradual dissipation over time, saying, "About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." But if cumulative emissions are high, the portion remaining in the atmosphere could be higher than this, models suggest. Overall, Caldeira argues, "the whole issue of our long-term commitment to climate change has not really ever been adequately addressed by the IPCC."

The lasting effects of CO2 also have big implications for energy policies, argues James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. "Because of this long CO2 lifetime, we cannot solve the climate problem by slowing down emissions by 20% or 50% or even 80%. It does not matter much whether the CO2 is emitted this year, next year, or several years from now," he wrote in a letter this August. "Instead ... we must identify a portion of the fossil fuels that will be left in the ground, or captured upon emission and put back into the ground."

Slow on the uptake

Unlike other human-generated greenhouse gases, CO2 gets taken up by a variety of different processes, some fast and some slow. This is what makes it so hard to pin a single number, or even a range, on CO2's lifetime. The majority of the CO2 we emit will be soaked up by the ocean over a few hundred years, first being absorbed into the surface waters, and eventually into deeper waters, according to a long-term climate model run by Archer. Though the ocean is vast, the surface waters can absorb only so much CO2, and currents have to bring up fresh water from the deep before the ocean can swallow more. Then, on a much longer timescale of several thousand years, most of the remaining CO2 gets taken up as the gas dissolves into the ocean and reacts with chalk in ocean sediments. But this process would never soak up enough CO2 to return atmospheric levels to what they were before industrialization, shows oceanographer Toby Tyrrell of the UK's National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, in a recent paper4.

Finally, the slowest process of all is rock weathering, during which atmospheric CO2 reacts with water to form a weak acid that dissolves rocks. It's thought that this creates minerals such as magnesium carbonate that lock away the greenhouse gas. But according to simulations by Archer and others, it would take hundreds of thousands of years for these processes to bring CO2 levels back to pre-industrial values (Fig. 1).


Full figure and legend (18 KB)
Model simulation of atmospheric CO2 concentration for 40,000 years following after a large CO2 release from combustion of fossil fuels. Different fractions of the released gas recover on different timescales. Reproduced from The Long Thaw3.

Several long-term climate models, though their details differ, all agree that anthropogenic CO2 takes an enormously long time to dissipate. If all recoverable fossil fuels were burnt up using today's technologies, after 1,000 years the air would still hold around a third to a half of the CO2 emissions. "For practical purposes, 500 to 1000 years is 'forever,'" as Hansen and colleagues put it. In this time, civilizations can rise and fall, and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could melt substantially, raising sea levels enough to transform the face of the planet.

New stable state

The warming from our CO2 emissions would last effectively forever, too. A recent study by Caldeira and Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal found that regardless of how much fossil fuel we burn, once we stop, within a few decades the planet will settle at a new, higher temperature5. As Caldeira explains, "It just increases for a few decades and then stays there" for at least 500 years — the length of time they ran their model. "That was not at all the result I was expecting," he says.

But this was not some peculiarity of their model, as the same behaviour shows up in an extremely simplified model of the climate6 — the only difference between the models being the final temperature of the planet. Archer and Victor Brovkin of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany found much the same result from much longer-term simulations6. Their model shows that whether we emit a lot or a little bit of CO2, temperatures will quickly rise and plateau, dropping by only about 1 °C over 12,000 years.

"The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably the least well understood part of the global warming issue."

Peter Fawcett
Because of changes in the Earth's orbit, ice sheets might start to grow from the poles in a few thousand years — but there's a good chance our greenhouse gas emissions already may prevent that, Archer argues. Even with the amount of CO2 emitted so far, another ice age will almost certainly start in about 50,000 years. But if we burn all remaining fossil fuels, it could be more than half a million years before the Earth has another ice age, Archer says.

The long-term effects of our emissions might seem far removed. But as Tyrrell says, "It is a little bit scary, if you think about all the concerns we have about radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power. The potential impacts from emitting CO2 to the atmosphere are even longer than that." But there's still hope for avoiding these long-term effects if technologies that are now on the drawing board can be scaled up affordably. "If civilization was able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere," Tyrrell says, "it's possible you could reverse this CO2 hangover."

Top of page
References
Flannery, T. The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change 162 (Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2005).
Archer, D. et al. Ann. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc. (in the press).
Archer, D. The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008).
Tyrrell, T., Shepherd, J. G. & Castle, S. Tellus 59, 664–672, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00290.x (2007).
Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388 (2008).
Archer, D. & Brovkin, V. Climatic Change 90, 283–297 (2008).http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105b/images ... petsch.jpg

It's exactly your kind of blind stupidity that slows dealing with the consequences of our actions in building our first world economies on a fossil fuel base.

Bottom line....

You haven't a fucking clue and fortunately the world is ignoring your particular delusion.

Seriously tired of your ignorance of how the world works.

[mistermack]

Let's start here fuckehad since you want to get arrogant.

Just exactly what does it say on the Credit....NOAA - or is one of your myriad failings the inability to read as well.

I can read. And I actually bother, unlike you. That's why I can see that that graph is NOT of ocean temps as you claimed.
You don't even understand the basics, you don't comprehend a simple graph, and yet you think you can talk down to people.

You want to do an awful lot of reading, and preferably get a brain upgrade, if you want to be taken seriously. Even a child would understand more from that graph than you did.
BY READING THE TITLE !!

[Jason]

Just looking around, found the official NOAA record of ocean surface temperatures going back over a hundred years. Interesting.



Note that the biggest and most dramatic rise was from 1910 to 1945. A period when CO2 levels were virtually unchanged from their historic levels. Something caused a whopping rise in surface temperatures, and it WASN'T CO2 in the air. PROVING that there is no direct link between CO2 levels and ocean surface temperatures.

Then, from 1945 to 1975, there was NO rise in surface temperatures, even though CO2 levels were significantly higher than the previous thirty year period. Again indicating NO link between CO2 levels and surface temperatures.

Then, from 1975 to 1997, there was a steady rise in surface temperatures, while CO2 levels were dramatically rising. Indicating a POSSIBLE link.

Then you have the last seventeen years, of no rise at all in sea surface temperatures, while CO2 levels were historically very high, and shooting up ever faster. Again, no link indicated between the two.

Any rational person should conclude from that that it's idiotic to point to ocean surface temperatures, and conclude that there is a link to CO2 levels. Out of the four periods shown on the graph, only one would fit that conclusion, and three contradict it.

And what's all this bollocks people keep posting, about ocean temperatures rising, when the official NOAA graph says not?
In fact, the last seventeen years on this graph matches the last seventeen years of no warming of the atmosphere to a T.

So there you have it. Global warming HAS stopped, in the ocean and in the Atmosphere.
And it's official. Unless the NOAA are a bunch of AGW deniers :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surfac ... rature.jpg

But no, it's the OFFICIAL FIGURES that are the real AGW deniers.

Neat. I like how McDoc's excuse for flatlining atmospheric temperatures for nearly two decades has been ocean absorption of thermal energy. Frankly I've always been amazed that oceans continue to absorb heat but don't radiate it.

[mistermack]

Neat. I like how McDoc's excuse for flatlining atmospheric temperatures for nearly two decades has been ocean absorption of thermal energy. Frankly I've always been amazed that oceans continue to absorb heat but don't radiate it.

Well, forgetting global warming, the heat content of the oceans SHOULD be constantly rising at present.
Even if we hadn't had the half of one degree rise in the atmospheric temperatures over the last seventy years.

The reason is the ice age. We are right in the middle of an ice-age. And actually in what's called an inter-glacial which is a short period of warmth, between periods of extensive glaciation.
That's why the oceans are so cold. It's a hang-over from the previous glaciations.
The atmosphere warms quickly in an inter-glacial. The oceans warm very slowly.

Therefore, you have a situation where the oceans are much colder than they should be, given the current air temperatures. The oceans should continue to accumulate heat, until the Earth goes into the next glaciation. Nothing to do with CO2. It's just the point in the cycle that we are at.

[macdoc]

in one...



stupid denier fucks.