Global Warming Causes Huge Increase in Arctic Ice

[Seth]

The world is heating up. All your bollocks won't change that fact.

Statement of religious faith.

Umm, it's science, troll.

Except it's not...

[Seth]

Global Warmists hoist on their own petard.

The New Consensus: 100 Percent Of Scientists Agree That Global Warming ‘Stopped’ Or ‘Slowed Down’
1:36 PM 11/19/2014



Michael Bastasch
Contributor

See All Articles
Send Email
Subscribe to RSS

The Obama administration and environmental groups have long claimed 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, but there’s a new consensus they may be less willing to acknowledge.

Using the same methodology as the vaunted “97 percent” paper by researcher John Cook, two climate scientists have made a bold discovery: virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming has “stopped” or “slowed down” in recent years.

“We didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years,” wrote scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute.

“This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating, and supports arguments that the amount of warming that will occur over the remainder of the 21st century as a result of human fossil fuel usage will be at the low end of the IPCC projections, or even lower,” the two scientists added. “Low-end warming yields low-end impacts.”

Last year, President Obama claimed that “ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: [climate] change is real, man-made and dangerous.” His claim was based on a paper by Australian researcher John Cook, who looked at scientific papers as the basis for his finding that 97 percent agreed that humans caused global warming.

“Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,” Cook wrote in his study that was published last year.

Cook’s paper, however, has been heavily criticized for “cooking” the numbers on what scientist actually think about global warming. Others, however, say Cook’s paper misses a key scientific question: what is the current state of global warming?

“So while 97% of scientists may agree that global warming is caused by humans, virtually 100% agree that global warming has stopped or slowed considerably during the 21st Century,” wrote Michaels and Knappenberger.

Michaels and Knappenberger searched for papers published between 2009 and 2014 in the Web of Science database, searching for the terms “pause,” “hiatus” or “slowdown” along with the terms “global” and “temperature.” They then read the abstracts, or the whole paper if necessary, to determine what position the authors took on the pause in warming.

Of the 100 papers identified by Michaels and Knappenberger, 65 had nothing to do with recent global temperature trends — which is typical of papers written before 2010. The remaining 35 papers used by the Cato scientists all acknowledged in someway a “hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring.”

“We surely may have missed a few papers that were not cataloged in the database we used, or that weren’t captured by our search terms, but the evidence is overwhelming — virtually all (if not actually all) scientific papers that mention a hiatus or pause agree that it exists,” the Cato scientists noted.

Scientists have been struggling to explain why there has been no significant warming trend during the 21st century. Satellite data shows there has been no warming for the 18 years and surface temperature data points to a lack of warming for the last 15 years or so.

Dozens of explanations have been put forward in an attempt to reconcile why most climate models were unable to predict such a prolonged period with no warming despite rapidly rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A study from earlier this year found that the lack of warming is due to “heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic.”

This oceanic cooling cycle “associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years,” according to Professor Ka-Kit Tung from the University of Washington.

[pErvinalia]

Except it is, as you well know, troll. Although, considering your woeful understanding of science, you may not actually know this.

[mistermack]

And who has ever claimed that the world is constantly warming? Sawtoothing has always been acknowledged. The fact is that the overall trend indicates global warming. How much of that is anthropogenic I don't know, but that's another issue.

Yes, the overall trend indicates global warming DID happen. A very small amount. About half of one degree, in the atmosphere since 1950. Which is the only bit that COULD be due to CO2 levels.

But of course, there was another half of a degree that happened before that, that happened naturally.

If you want to talk about overall trends, why ignore the fact that warming of the atmosphere stopped nearly 20 years ago. That's why it's hardly surprising that the Arctic sea-ice should stop shrinking, after a bit of a lag. But what could make it start to grow so fast?
Cold. That's what grows sea ice.

[Hermit]

If you want to talk about overall trends, why ignore the fact that warming of the atmosphere stopped nearly 20 years ago.

Why ignore the fact that in the past 35 years, oh, you know,


I did not mind when you pointed out all those discrepancies between prediction and actual record, or when you questioned how we know just how much climate change is due to human activity rather than astronomical cycles, but in this thread you have gone like todally Sethy.

[mistermack]

If you want to talk about overall trends, why ignore the fact that warming of the atmosphere stopped nearly 20 years ago.

Why ignore the fact that in the past 35 years, oh, you know,


I did not mind when you pointed out all those discrepancies between prediction and actual record, or when you questioned how we know just how much climate change is due to human activity rather than astronomical cycles, but in this thread you have gone like todally Sethy.

Who's ignoring it? This post is about the trend stopping. A bit like atmospheric warming stopped.
I've never denied that the arctic ice shrank. I'm pointing out that it stopped shrinking, and has substantially grown.
If your point is that it shrank, and therefore will continue shrinking, because the graph is downwards over thirty years, then you are claiming something that needs proving. Ice levels don't respond to graphs. As the last two years proves.
Global temperatures have varied hugely over history. And sea-ice levels will be sure to respond to that.
Your graph just tells you what happened. It doesn't tell you what WILL happen.

[Hermit]

This post is about the trend stopping. A bit like atmospheric warming stopped.
I've never denied that the arctic ice shrank. I'm pointing out that it stopped shrinking, and has substantially grown.
If your point is that it shrank, and therefore will continue shrinking, because the graph is downwards over thirty years, then you are claiming something that needs proving. Ice levels don't respond to graphs. As the last two years proves.

Remember the analogy I made using the battle of the bulge? It describes the mistake you are making.

Now, had you mentioned those ice core samples from the Antarctic through which we have a pretty good record of climatic changes over the past 800,000 years, and also brought up convincing evidence that neither any recent alleged warming or cooling was due to human activity, this thread might have made sense, but starting such an argument on the basis of Arctic ice volumes in the past six years just makes you look either intellectually handicapped - which I don't think you are - or extremely dishonest.

[mistermack]

Only to you.
I'm pointing out the big growth in Arctic sea-ice in the last two years. I made no claims for the future trend. Unlike climate scientists who ALWAYS make dire predictions, every time the Arctic ice shrinks.

You are trying to put words in my mouth that I haven't said. Pretending that I'm claiming some sort of trend is established for the future. That's your own creation.

I pointed out a fact, and posed the question how or why should the ice have grown so much, given the claims of constant warming.

Don't forget, "climate scientists" are bending over backwards to try to convince us that the missing warming, that's supposed to have happened, has mysteriously found a way into the oceans, without heating the air. So there should be seventeen years of heating that has built up in the oceans.

I think it's therefore relevant, that the Antarctic sea-ice is at all time record levels, and that Arctic sea-ice has just grown 50% in a year, and more still this year.
People in the alarmist camp were predicting that the North Pole would be free of ice in the summer by five years ago. That's now looking extremely silly.

[Hermit]

I made no claims for the future trend.

You don't need to predict anything to be wrong. The entirety of your opening post consists of sarcastic remarks poo pooing global warming. It includes the claim that the 50% increase in the volume of Arctic ice over the past six years trumps the 150% decrease during the past three decades. In other threads you have argued against global warming due to human activity that one could argue with without getting the feeling one is having a discussion with someone whose soundbites emanate out of the wrong orifice. Yours are certainly smelling that way in this thread.

[mistermack]

It includes the claim that the 50% increase in the volume of Arctic ice over the past six years trumps the 150% decrease during the past three decades.

Oh right.
It must be my pc cutting bits out. I can't find that.
Or maybe some mod deleted it? I can't remember claiming that.

[macdoc]

Reality

Global Highlights
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—the fifth highest for October on record.
For the ocean, the October global sea surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F) and the highest for October on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–October period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F). The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record.
Year-to-date Temperature Comparisons
Introduction
Temperature anomalies and percentiles are shown on the gridded maps below. The anomaly map on the left is a product of a merged land surface temperature (Global Historical Climatology Network, GHCN) and sea surface temperature (ERSST.v3b) anomaly analysis developed by Smith et al. (2008). Temperature anomalies for land and ocean are analyzed separately and then merged to form the global analysis. For more information, please visit NCDC's Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page. The maps on the right are percentile maps that complement the information provided by the anomaly maps. These provide additional information by placing the temperature anomaly observed for a specific place and time period into historical perspective, showing how the most current month, season, or year compares with the past.
The most current data may be accessed via the Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page.

[ top ]

Temperatures
In the atmosphere, 500-millibar height pressure anomalies correlate well with temperatures at the Earth's surface. The average position of the upper-level ridges of high pressure and troughs of low pressure—depicted by positive and negative 500-millibar height anomalies on the October 2014 and August 2014–October 2014 maps—is generally reflected by areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies at the surface, respectively.

October
October Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius
October 2014 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius October Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Percentiles
October 2014 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest).

The record high October temperature was driven by warmth across the globe over both the land and ocean surfaces and was fairly evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere was record warm overall with a record high land surface temperature for the month. The Northern Hemisphere was third warmest on record for October, with a record high average sea surface temperature.

Globally, the average land surface temperature was the fifth highest on record for October, at 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average. Record warmth in much of southern South America and large parts of southern and western Australia contributed to the record high average land surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Northern Hemisphere, record warmth was also observed in parts of southern Europe, the western coastal regions of the United States, and much of Far East Russia. On the other hand, parts of central Siberia observed temperatures 4–5°C (7–9°F) below average, as indicated by the Land & Ocean Temperature Departure from Average map above.

Select national information is highlighted below. (Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data):

Australia observed its highest nationally-averaged maximum temperature for October since official records began in 1910, at 2.76°C (4.97°F) above the 1961–1990 average. Combined with the eighth highest October minimum temperature on record, the mean October temperature (average of maximum and minimum temperatures) for the country was the second highest on record at 1.91°C (3.44°F) above average, behind only 1988. The warmth was notable for its spread across Australia; New South Wales, South Australia, and Western Australia all had record high mean temperatures for the month while Victoria had its second highest.
Austria had its seventh warmest October since national records began in 1767, with a temperature 2.2°C (4.0°F) higher than the 1981–2010 average. According to ZAMG, even if observed monthly temperatures during November and December are average, 2014 will still be the warmest year in the country's 248-year period of record.
Germany observed its third warmest October since national records began in 1881. The temperature was 2.9°C (5.2°F) higher than the 1961–1990 average and 2.7°C (4.9°F) higher than the more recent 1981–2010 average.
The October temperature for Norway was 1.8°C (3.2°F) higher than the 1981–2010 average. Parts of Rogeland and some areas in Østafjells observed temperatures 3–4°C (5–7°F) above their average.
Denmark had its second warmest October since national records began in 1874, just 0.1°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest October of 2006.
October 2014 in the United Kingdom tied as the 10th warmest October since national records began in 1910, at 1.6°C (2.9°F) above the 1981–2010 average. The October temperature for England was 1.9°C (3.4°F) higher than average, tying as the seventh highest temperature on record for October.
Switzerland had its fourth warmest October in the country's 150-year period of record. Measurement stations in Lugano, Locarno, Sion, and Geneva all reported record high temperatures for October, with Sion and Geneva 3°C (5°F) warmer than average for the month.
With records dating back to 1900, France also had its fourth warmest October, with a temperature 2.4°C (4.3°F) higher than the 1981–2010 average.

Sweden was warmer than average during October, with the southern half of the country experiencing temperatures 2–4°C (4–7°F) above their October averages. On October 28, the daily average temperature in Stockholm was 14.2°C, the highest daily average observed so late in the year since records began in 1756.

The global oceans were the warmest on record for October, with a temperature that averaged 0.62°C (1.12°F) higher than the 20th century average. This marks the sixth month in a row (beginning in May 2014) that the global ocean temperature broke its monthly temperature record. October 2014 also ties with June 2014 for the third highest ocean temperature departure on average for any month on record; the second highest departure from average occurred in August 2014 and the all-time highest occurred just last month.

These record and near-record warm global sea surface temperatures have all occurred in the absence of El Niño, a large-scale warming of the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that generally occurs every five to seven years on average. However, there is close to a 60 percent chance for El Niño to officially develop during the Northern Hemisphere winter, according to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. The potential El Niño is favored to be weak and last into Northern Hemisphere spring 2015. This forecast focuses on the ocean surface temperatures between 5°N and 5°S latitude and 170°W to 120°W longitude.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

as for the ice.....let us know when it trends like this....

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CBsY ... ge_pie.png

care to explain??





have you the faintest clue the amount of energy this anomaly represents...



We are just beginning to see the consequences of that energy.....it's been building for a while and we are sitting on the edge of another El Nino.

A massive storm blew into the north Pacific - fueled by that heat.

It distorted the jet stream, already weakened by the warmth in the Arctic.

Cold flows into the continental US due to the big jet stream loop......record cold air flows across the lakes....lakes that have steadily getting warmer over decades.....

So we have a 50 degree gradient between air and water with a high wind.....= a year of snow in a couple of days.

Meanwhile the same weakened jet stream stalls a high pressure dome off shore of California now for ohh two years....steering super storms that normal water California - far to the north....yeah THAT storm.

( btw the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge was a prediction of AGW some ten years back ).

Hope for an El Nino to fully develop......at least California might get wet and the east coast get a bit more warmth....( oh yeah that's like tomorrow ). And 7' of snow will melt as fast as it arrived....

After 7 feet of snow, Buffalo prepares for flooding from Big Melt
http://www.csmonitor.com/.../After-7-fe ... -for-flood...
15 hours ago - The National Weather Service issued a flood watch for Sunday to Wednesday in Buffalo. A 132-mile stretch of the state Thruway (I-90) that had ...

Sorry you guys in the middle states still get fucked all winter..

Welcome to the Anthropocene. Deniers???....the flat earth society is looking for members..

[Seth]

I made no claims for the future trend.

You don't need to predict anything to be wrong. The entirety of your opening post consists of sarcastic remarks poo pooing global warming. It includes the claim that the 50% increase in the volume of Arctic ice over the past six years trumps the 150% decrease during the past three decades

Um...in a cyclical or variable event (like the climate), there is always a moment where the worm, so to speak, turns and the "trend" begins going the opposite direction, which is what it appears to be doing right now. While a decrease in ice may have occurred during the last 30 years, it is also true that there has been a decrease in ice coverage in the last 25,000 years or so, since the end of the last Ice Age. But earth has been through such variations from cold to hot to cold many, many times, and what the current "pause" in global warming seems to indicate is the distinct possibility that your side is full of crap and the "global warming" has been part of a natural trend that is now reversing and going the other way.

When one year didn't fit the computer predicted trends comporting with the THEORY of AGW, AGW proponents waved it away as an "anomaly." Two years, same thing. And so on.

So how long, exactly, Mr. Scientist, does it take to establish a new trend direction? At some point the global ice melt bottomed out and now it's going the other way. Combined with 17 years of largely static temperature variations, none of which were predicted by ANY of the models, it certainly appears that the "predictions" made about global warming are alarmist and fallacious, which comports with the obvious fact that all the AGW hoopla is all about power and control and not about the climate much at all. The power brokers need to get control of everything using the AGW charade before the facts show that it's all been a huge lie.

Sadly for them, they are failing because it appears that the planet is doing what it always does, it varies in temperature.

[devogue]

Yay.

Let's burn oil and chop down trees.

It's no biggie.

[Hermit]

...your side is full of crap...

While admitting that I only skate through your posts now on account of not having read any utterance for some years that you have not uttered before, it appears to me that you don't read my posts at all. Otherwise you might have noticed that I have repeatedly pointed to the cyclical reappearance of the ice ages, like with, you know, graphs and everything, and remarked on the fact how much larger the average differences in temperatures between highs and lows were in comparison to any predicted warming due to human activity. I've actually done that so often that I've uploaded two of those graphs to my own photobucket account because its more convenient to me to link them from there than to go hunting for them on the innertubes or my burgeoning list of badly organised bookmarks.

To be blunt, once again you are a fact-free zone. No surprise there. You're just being true to form.

[Tero]

I wonder how much global warming guns cause?