Any doubts about Climate Change?

**S Landreth** · 23-01-2015, 07:48 PM

Another nail in the deniers coffin,………

The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

NOAA once again has to rescale its ocean heat chart to capture 2014 ocean warming

Wow, was this a bad year for those who deny the reality and the significance of human-induced climate change. Of course, there were the recent flurry of reports that 2014 surface temperatures had hit their hottest values ever recorded. The 2014 record was first called on this blog in December and the final results were reported as well, here. All of this happened in a year that the denialists told us would not be very hot.

But those denialists are having a tough time now as they look around the planet for ANY evidence that climate change is not happening. The problem is, they’ve been striking out.

And just recently, perhaps the most important bit of information came out about 2014 – how much the Earth actually warmed. What we find is that the warming is so great, NOAA literally has to remake its graphs. Let me explain this a bit.

We tend to focus on the global temperature average which is the average of air temperatures near the ground (or at the sea surface). This past year, global air temperatures were record-breaking. But that isn’t the same as global warming. Global warming is properly viewed as the amount of heat contained within the Earth’s energy system. So, air temperatures may go up and down on any given year as energy moves to or from the air (primarily from the ocean). What we really want to know is, did the Earth’s energy go up or down?

The trick to answering this question is to measure the change in energy of the oceans. A thorough review of ocean heat measurement methods is found here; we paid the requisite fee to make the paper open access. Anyone can download and read it.

So what do the new data show? Well, it turns out that the energy stored within the ocean (which is 90% or more of the total “global warming” heat), increased significantly. A plot from NOAA is shown above. You can see that the last data point (the red curve), is, literally off the chart.

The folks at NOAA do a great job updating this graph every three months or so. We can now say that the 2014 Earth had more heat (thermal energy) than any year ever recorded by humans. We can also say that the folks at NOAA will likely have to rescale their graph to capture the new numbers. The NOAA site is updated by Dr. Tim Boyer and can be found here. Click on slide 2 to view the relevant image.

If people want to read a review of ocean heating that is written for a general audience, I suggest our recent peer-reviewed paper which can be found here.

So when we look back on 2014 and the records that fell, it gives us some pause about the so-called pause (hat-tip to Dr. Greg Laden for that phrase). Some people tried to tell us global warming had “paused”, that it ended in 1998, or that the past 15 years or so had not seen a change in the energy of the Earth. This ocean warming data is the clearest nail in that coffin. There never was a pause to global warming, there never was a halt, and the folks that tried to tell you there was were, well, I’ll let you decide. For me, the facts speak for themselves.

**Black Heart** · 25-01-2015, 10:08 AM

Telling. Very telling.

An Artic's icecaps shockingly rapid slide into the sea

The Washington Post

For years, scientists have documented the rapid retreat of Arctic ice, from melting glaciers in Greenland to shrinking snow cover in far northern Eurasia. Now researchers have discovered one Arctic ice cap that appears to be literally sliding into the sea.

Ice is disappearing at a truly astonishing rate in Austfonna, an expanse of frozen rock far north of the Arctic Circle in Norway’s Svalbard island chain. Just since 2012, the ice cap covering the island has thinned by a whopping 160 feet, according to an analysis of satellite measurements by a team led by researchers at Britain’s University of Leeds.

Put another way, the ice cap’s vertical expanse dropped in two years by a distance equivalent to the height of a 16-story building. As another comparison, consider that scientists were recently alarmed to discover that one of Western Antarctica’s ice sheets was losing vertical height at a rate of 30 feet a year.

“It is a very large signal,” said Mal McMillan, a geophysicist and one of two researchers at Leeds’ Center for Polar Observation and Modelling who worked on the study. “The ice cap has slumped out into the ocean with a substantial loss of ice.”

McMillan and colleague Andrew Shepherd analyzed changes in Austfonna’s ice using data from satellites that measure, among other things, changes in elevation. They found that the gradual melting of the island’s 1,550-cubic-mile ice cap recently shifted into overdrive, for reasons that aren’t fully understood. Small ice caps like the one over Austfonna are believed to be more vulnerable to climate change-related thawing because relatively more surface area is exposed to the air and sea.

In this case, the ice cap lost one-sixth of its original thickness in two years, and the flow of ice from the summit to the sea accelerated by 25 fold, to a rate of several kilometers a year, a fast clip by glacier standards, the study found.

“What we see here is unusual because it … appears to have started when ice began to thin and accelerate at the coast,” Shepherd said.

The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, illustrates how quickly ice caps can evolve, highlighting the challenges associated with predicting future impact of climate change, the scientists said. Arctic experts are closely watching changes in polar ice because of the potentially profound implications for sea-level rise. About a third of the increase in sea level in recent decades is attributed to melting glaciers and ice sheets, and researchers worry that more rapid melting could eventually swamp coastal cities around the world.

Still, researchers say, it’s too early to say definitively if the shrinking of the Austfonna ice cap is due to global warming. Ice caps can shift suddenly for reasons that have nothing to do with climate, McMillan said. But in this case the list of possible culprits would certainly include warmer ocean water and air temperatures, both of which have risen more rapidly in the Arctic compared to the rest of the planet, he said.

“We’ve only seen this for a couple of years,” he said he said of the Austfonna meltdown, “so we really need to monitor it further.”

techno...sea - News - msn

**Seekingasylum** · 25-01-2015, 10:19 AM

So what, my ears are getting bigger. It's fucking natural.

Ebb and flow, mate, ebb and flow. Process is called change. It's dynamic. When it applies to climate we call it weather. You neurotics think it's a religion. You're a bore and quite stupid.

What on earth would you changers do if you couldn't fret about the weather. Asteroids or haemorrhoids? Take your pick.

**Black Heart** · 25-01-2015, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

So what, my ears are getting bigger. It's fucking natural.

Ebb and flow, mate, ebb and flow. Process is called change. It's dynamic. When it applies to climate we call it weather. You neurotics think it's a religion. You're a bore and quite stupid.

What on earth would you changers do if you couldn't fret about the weather. Asteroids or haemorrhoids? Take your pick.

The climate has always been changing. Since the dawn of time.

I am not 100% "pro" or "anti" but it's a fact the Earth is in a warming phase.

What causes it, is the actual debate.

**bsnub** · 25-01-2015, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Ebb and flow, mate, ebb and flow. Process is called change. It's dynamic. When it applies to climate we call it weather.

Can I ask where you received your meteorology degree?

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

You're a bore and quite stupid.

Yes and so is a near unanimous consensus by the worlds scientists.

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Those stupid bores.

**S Landreth** · 25-01-2015, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Black Heart

What causes it, is the actual debate.

there's no debate

**Seekingasylum** · 25-01-2015, 11:02 AM

Indeed, and over 97% of so- called environmental " scientists " derive their income from the industry of global warming. They would be foolish to bite the hand that feeds them. And of course governments fuel the phenomenon since it provides a useful vehicle for taxation as well offering growth in the alternative fuels racket.

But, the truth of the matter is there for all to see and who understand a fundamental: to seek reasons for why our weather changes is ultimately as valid as trying to establish how the universe began. Great fun and occupies many minds but in the final analysis it doesn't really matter.

Attributing current weather patterns to the simplistic and vain notion man can affect and determine global climates is as daft as eviscerating a chicken to divine the future. Using CO2 levels as some indicator in the context of a mere couple of hundred thousand years of data is even dafter.

None of this would be happening if we didn't have computers. All that modelling has to prove something, hasn't it? And with the right parameters they can indeed " prove" anything.

Pitiful waste of time, money and resources. But the thing is, it does make an awful lot of money for the industry and their charlatans. And that's the point.

But it is a terrible bore.

**slackula** · 25-01-2015, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

So what, my ears are getting bigger. It's fucking natural.

When the US Pentagon is expressing concerns about the cause of your ears growing that might become a valid comparison.

**bsnub** · 25-01-2015, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

over 97% of so- called environmental " scientists " derive their income from the industry of global warming.

When did you start spouting broken right wing talking points genticles? Those scientists would have jobs regardless. So that argument is absurd.

The people who have the most to loose are the ones who are fighting the hardest to disprove climate change. The oil and gas industry is the driving force behind the science denial. They are spending tens of millions to fight the science. Why? The answer is simple it is greed.

You like most foolish old men refuse to accept things that you do not understand. Old curmudgeons like yourself reject it and could care less if you are wrong because you will be dead. Leaving your disasters for the rest of us.

**Seekingasylum** · 25-01-2015, 11:45 AM

Oh dear. All depends upon your horizon I suppose.

If you actually think for one moment that the weather is going to materially and cataclysmically affect your own life and those of your immediate children then I would suggest you really ought to head for those bunkers in deepest Oregon and stock up with beans etc like all the other demented septic worldenders.

If on the other hand you are concerned about the next 50,000 years or so, a mere blip in any geological age, then I would recommend a counselling session or two and a course of Valium to help you through your current neuroses.

I'm more concerned about the colour scheme of my new bedroom.

Perspective, dear Bsnub, perspective.

**slackula** · 25-01-2015, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

If you actually think for one moment that the weather is going to materially and cataclysmically affect your own life and those of your immediate children

Are you confusing weather with climate?

An uncharacteristic slip from you SA because the weather materially (and frequently cataclysmically) affects everybody on a daily basis.

**Boon Mee** · 26-01-2015, 06:23 AM

Yup, the Science is real settled...

2014 WAS ONE OF THE 3% COLDEST YEARS IN THE LAST 10,000

Climate alarmists play a number of tricks to try to make their catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory seem plausible. One of the most important is that they focus on a ridiculously short period of time, beginning either in the late 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th. This is, of course, not even the blink of an eye in geologic time. Given that the Earth began emerging from the Little Ice Age in the mid to late 19th Century, it is hardly surprising–and a very good thing–that from then until now, temperatures have tended to rise.

Alarmists shriek that 2014 was the warmest year ever! But that claim is absurd if put in the context of the Earth’s recent history. As Dr. Tim Ball writes:

In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.

This chart shows Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the last 10,000 years, based on ice core data. Dr. Ball explains: “The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years.”

If the Earth continues to be warm, temperatures will be more nearly aligned with what they have generally been over the last 10,000 years.

There are many other problems with global warming alarmism, of course, and Dr. Ball touches on several of them. For one, the quality of the surface temperature record is terrible, nowhere near good enough to support the alarmists’ claims of precision. For another, the surface temperature record has been corrupted. The records are maintained by alarmist organizations, which have repeatedly “adjusted” historical data to make the past look cooler and the present warmer. This is one of many examples; it relates to New Zealand, where historical temperature records have been “adjusted” by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research:

Typically these adjustments are carried out surreptitiously, and only come to light when someone comes across contemporaneous temperature records from, say, the 1930s, and finds that the temperatures reported at the time are different from the ones now claimed by the same agencies. If you are willing to spend many billions of dollars, as the world’s governments are, you can buy a lot of rewriting of history.

So next time one of your liberal friends tells you that 2014 was the hottest year on record, and therefore we must turn what is left of our economy over to the Obama administration, you can tell him that actually, 2014 was one of the 3% coldest years of the last 10,000"

2014 Was One of the 3% Coldest Years in the Last 10,000 | Power Line

The money quote (1 of many from this article) is if you are willing to spend enough money to buy a lot of rewriting of history. Plus, have an agenda-driven purpose to attempt to 'prove' your cockamamie theories...

**koman** · 26-01-2015, 06:53 AM

^
Good stuff Booners. I like your graphs much better than those liberal bullshit graphs. Much more sensible and not given to hysteria.....notice the lack of dazzling colours that the liberals use to distract their audience...

**Neo** · 26-01-2015, 07:00 AM

As Dr. Tim Ball writes:

**S Landreth** · 26-01-2015, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The money quote (1 of many from this article) is if you are willing to spend enough money to buy a lot of rewriting of history. Plus, have an agenda-driven purpose to attempt to 'prove' your cockamamie theories...

You mean like being a lobbyist?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Dr. Tim Ball

Timothy F. Ball

Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS).

Ball is also listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources.

**koman** · 26-01-2015, 07:42 AM

^

So the argument is that Ball (despite the fact that he does in fact hold a Phd in the subject) should not be expressing an opinion? All those most effected by the hysteria over warming should not be allowed a voice? The fact that Ball is "paid" for his work makes his views unworthy of attention?

So, again, we see than anyone who disagrees with the occupants of this climate bandwagon, is immediately attacked as at fraud, unqualified, or in the case of the MIT professor "retired" and therefor no longer having any credibility.....and if they happened to be paid....OMG ....

Like a bunch of religious fanatics, there can only consider one way to look at this situation.....their way. Those in the oil industry (as an example) should not have a say....after all, oil and gas are of little importance to the world when we have windmills and solar panels to run everything....

**slackula** · 26-01-2015, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by koman

So the argument is that Ball (despite the fact that he does in fact hold a Phd in the subject) should not be expressing an opinion? All those most effected by the hysteria over warming should not be allowed a voice? The fact that Ball is "paid" for his work makes his views unworthy of attention?

Tell ya what koman, let's make a deal!

For every 3 climate scientists that write an opinion that you feel is an accurate reflection of the situation those nasty liberals will produce 97 climate scientists that disagree.

Since you think that being paid to work should not be a disqualifier when evaluating an opinion then we'll apply that across the board to all opinions OK? No more harrumphing about all the easy money there is to be made by being a "liberal" climate scientist (although I don't think that science comes to conclusions based upon the definition of left and right according to one country's political scale, but anyway).

Oh, and we'll have all graphs in grey-scale if the colours upset you so much? Mmmmmkay?

Right, now let's make our decisions based upon the preponderance of evidence.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

and therefore we must turn what is left of our economy over to the Obama administration

I love the smell of non sequitur in the morning! Let's gamble on the future of the planet and justify it by ranting about a guy who'll be out of office in under 2 year's time.

**koman** · 26-01-2015, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

For every 3 climate scientists that write an opinion that you feel is an accurate reflection of the situation those nasty liberals will produce 97 climate scientists that disagree.

Of course they will......that's what a bandwagon is. They are hysterically defending their position at any cost. The response to Ball (and anyone else who disputes the "data") is typical. Attack the messenger and try to discredit him, while ignoring the inconvenient message, he and others are sending out.

This entire matter has long since been turned into a political football and it should not be so. For time immemorial it was agreed by "science" that stomach ulcers were the result of stress, lifestyle, poor eating habits etc. You could not have found a medical "expert" anywhere who did not share this wisdom just a few decades ago.

Then a handful of unconventional "scientists" who did not subscribe to the "settled science" discovered that in fact the ulcers were caused by a certain type of bacteria.....oops. This is now the conventional wisdom of the medical profession as far as I know....

So much for the majority opinion always being the right one in the world of science. There are plenty more examples throughout history of conventional wisdom being turned on it's head by a minority of objective thinkers.

Personally, I have never denied that the earth has seen an apparent warming trend in recent decades. Few people actually deny that. What is in serious doubt is (a) the cause of this trend, and (b) has the trend started to change and (c) what are the real prospects long term of very minor incremental increases in temperature if in fact the trend continues.

The projections keep changing as does the apparent direction of the trend. Each time these things are questioned, there is a flurry of new "data" pulled from the hat to support the argument on both sides. Politics and various interest groups drive different agendas so the only thing that is clear is that it's not really very clear what's going on,

What can we do? Well we are doing something about things like air pollution; high carbon emission rates, and other things that may or may not be the cause of the warming trend, but of course we will never be able to do enough, or do it fast enough, for the climate fanatics....

It makes perfect sense to clean up the air; clean up the oceans, increase forestation and generally make the world a healthier and nicer place to live in. What all this would do to change the increasing temperature is simply not known...and there is a body of opinion that it will change again anyway regardless of what we do or don't do.
At least a carbon dioxide laden atmosphere is good for plant growth so everything from your garden veggies to the Boreal forest will do better and the more we plant the more carbon will be extracted from the air. I've personally planted over 200 trees in the last year.....so I'm doing my bit...

I'm actually more concerned about currency exchange rates and the stock market than the weather right now.... another degree Celsius in the 23rd century is not that urgent at the moment.......

**MrG** · 26-01-2015, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by koman

Then a handful of unconventional "scientists" who did not subscribe to the "settled science" discovered that in fact the ulcers were caused by a certain type of bacteria.....oops. This is now the conventional wisdom of the medical profession as far as I know.... So much for the majority opinion always being the right one in the world of science. There are plenty more examples throughout history of conventional wisdom being turned on it's head by a minority
of objective thinkers.

That's the thing about science--it's self correcting based on new information. The data on climate change does not support the hysterical claims of the deniers, creationists, flat-earthers. That's what makes them so hysterical.

**slackula** · 26-01-2015, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by koman

It makes perfect sense to clean up the air; clean up the oceans, increase forestation and generally make the world a healthier and nicer place to live in.

Not according to the links that BM posts. That sort of thinking is heresy to them, why you might as well just "turn what is left of our economy over to the Obama administration" if you are going to say liberalish things like that!

**Neo** · 26-01-2015, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by koman

^

So the argument is that Ball (despite the fact that he does in fact hold a Phd in the subject) should not be expressing an opinion?

His Phd is not in climatology, he got it 30 years ago in geology or something like that, anyway it's easy enough to check the facts on him, if you can be bothered. And besides the article comes from 'Powerline' a Koch front for disinformation. And besides... Boon Mee posted it

**Boon Mee** · 26-01-2015, 05:29 PM

^
Koch front?

Provide supporting evidence for that if you can.

Originally Posted by koman

^

So the argument is that Ball (despite the fact that he does in fact hold a Phd in the subject) should not be expressing an opinion? All those most effected by the hysteria over warming should not be allowed a voice? The fact that Ball is "paid" for his work makes his views unworthy of attention?

So, again, we see than anyone who disagrees with the occupants of this climate bandwagon, is immediately attacked as at fraud, unqualified, or in the case of the MIT professor "retired" and therefor no longer having any credibility.....and if they happened to be paid....OMG ....

Like a bunch of religious fanatics, there can only consider one way to look at this situation.....their way. Those in the oil industry (as an example) should not have a say....after all, oil and gas are of little importance to the world when we have windmills and solar panels to run everything....

Suffice to say the climate alarmists are a cult not unlike Jim Jone's followers.

One wonders when their Guru Al Gore will ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice?

**koman** · 26-01-2015, 05:56 PM

^
These are the same clowns who are always calling people that don't agree with them "sheep" or "sheeple" while at the same time they behave exactly like sheep; following the flock in front of the dog...

Al Gore...what a sore loser.....hypocrite of the first order, and general all round shill for the far left environmental loon movement.

Of course there's really good money to be made from cultism these days....and the great thing about it is that you can harp on and on about how the other side is making so much money out of their destruction of Mother earth, while you bank millions yourself just for spouting bullshit to the mass of losers out there.

Got to hand it to Al.....he travels the world in style, lives in a house that uses more energy than a small town, while he lectures the hoard on "conservation" and greenhouse gas emission....and we must never forget the vanishing Polar bears....

We must not lose sight of the possibilities though.....it does feel a bit warmer today...

**Neo** · 26-01-2015, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Koch front?

Provide supporting evidence for that if you can.

Here's your starter for ten...

PowerlineBlog.com and Hinderaker devote much of their time defending the Koch brothers. Which makes sense, given the seemingly close relationship between Hinderaker and Charles Koch.

Powerline & Hinderaker's Cynical Attack on Tom Steyer Likely a Welcome Diversion for Koch Brothers | DeSmogBlog

Which took about three minutes to find, so just type 'powerline climate blog and koch brothers' into Google where you can do your own homework, surely you're old enough to join the dots and colour inside the line aint ya Boon..?

**Umbuku** · 26-01-2015, 07:14 PM

Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “scientific advisor” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) as well as numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball[1] is a credential-fudging denialist crank.

Tim Ball - RationalWiki

https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/tim-ball/

Gee, I'd trust this guy to clean my toilet.

As for the article, what article? Where is the article? The link off Powerline goes to Whatts Up With That, from there it links to CO2Science as a reference, and reveals that the article is not even by Tim Ball but by Dahl-Jensen in 1998. All three websites are known denialist mouthpieces as well. The article itself is not referenced by title which means that the graph and information could be completely fraudulent or out of context. Come back when you have some real information.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions