Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

I’ve seen this argument from warmmongers plenty of times. They draw trends from El Nino maximums to La Nina minimums and say ‘see models do predict such flat trends.' Its become quite a staple over the last decade to deflect arguments about the failure of their models to predict the past decades flat trend. However, the trend for the last decade is no such trend. The flat trend that we currenlty have exists outside of the natural variability of ENSO cycles.

 

And now for some reality. Somehow the trends don't look that "flat".


Annual and five-year running mean temperature changes with the base period 1951-1980 for the northern (red) and southern (blue) hemispheres. (as of 2009)
source: NASA


NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record
January 12, 2011
(excerpts)

Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.

The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.13°F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.


In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was part of the warmest decade on record. (Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory/Robert Simmon)



NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
January 12, 2011
(excerpts)

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average.



* Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*

* The global land surface temperatures for 2010 were tied for the second warmest on record at 1.73 F (0.96 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the land surface temperature is +/- 0.20 F (+/- 0.11 C).

* Global ocean surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.88 F (0.49 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the ocean surface temperature is +/- 0.11 F (+/- 0.06 C).

* According to the Global Historical Climatology Network, 2010 was the wettest year on record, in terms of global average precipitation. As with any year, precipitation patterns were highly variable from region to region.

* The 2010 Pacific hurricane season had seven named storms and three hurricanes, the fewest on record since the mid-1960s when scientists started using satellite observations. By contrast, the Atlantic season was extremely active, with 19 named storms and 12 hurricanes. The year tied for third- and second-most storms and hurricanes on record, respectively.

* The Arctic sea ice extent had a record long growing season, with the annual maximum occurring at the latest date, March 31, since records began in 1979. Despite the shorter-than-normal melting season, the Arctic still reached its third smallest annual sea ice minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The Antarctic sea ice extent reached its eighth smallest annual maximum extent in March, while in September, the Antarctic sea ice rapidly expanded to its third largest extent on record.


***

 

El Nino's do not a trend make. And NASA and NOAA were the only ones that had 2010 El Nino warmer than 1998 RSS UAH and CRU did not. For modern comparisons the satellites are more accurate than the temperature reconstructions.



Sorry buddy, outside of the ENSO that is flat.

The last decade his been flat, ironically at a time that it should have been growing exponentially, were AGW correct.

 

No, perhaps they don't, but rising temperatures over the last four decades do indeed make a definite trend, as virtually the entire world scientific community recognizes, and as the two NASA graphs I just posted clearly show.

NASA temperature studies include the Arctic regions and the CRU analysis does not. In 2005 that turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. NASA thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not. Independent satellite IR measurements showed that NASA's extrapolations of temperature anomalies into the Arctic were conservative. Even so, this is what the CRU says:
"The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record."

Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH temperature analysis has always been error filled and skewed by his involvement with the fossil fuel industry sponsored AGW denier front groups like the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

Roy Spencer hides the increase

Sorry buddy, that's your denier cult delusion but it is not supported by the either the temperature data or the abundance of other real world observations of the effects of these rising temperatures all around the planet. You're still just grasping at straws and trying to deny the undeniable.

 

So you have no proof

 

I am waiting for proof you can flip when you have nothing

 

Darn that multi-quote function thingy is bloody inconvenient!! It absolutely shows that you have been proven wrong - by your own research no less

 

There is Buckets loads of "proof" on the side of climate science - on the denialist side, well mostly there is only opinion and conjecture - Oh! and a firm belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden causing it

 

Still no warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/global-sst-update-still-no-sign-of-resumed-warming/

 

Already debunked.....like the rest of your denier cult delusions and myths.

Roy Spencer hides the increase

 

wow! troll much? all you climate deniers, how many of you subscribe to the theory of evolution lol? that should at least be a hurdle to pass before you can speak on climate change at all. yeah dinosaurs were just really really big lizards because the current theory agreed on by scientists doesnt fit into the fictious book called the bible?? seriously go to your local university and sit on a few biology/geology/ anthropology / and chemistry lectures. AGW is still building its theory up every day. science is not absolute fact or truth. it is the pursute of truth through experimentation, empirical data collection, checking , and peer review. BAM!

 

You saying it is debunked does not make it so. Usually I find when the left claims it is debunked it just means they do not agree with it yet they prove nothing

 

when someone thinks science is a political issue, left vs right it's very clear they have no understanding of what science is about in the slightest...

 

Actually, I do. You just didn't read it apparently. Its been quoted once already, but I'll quote it again for my own sake and so we can put your argument to rest for good.

 

this is something I have noticed a lot. many of the deniers who post here also think creationism and/or ID is a valid competitor to evolution.

my conclusion is that ... deniers are in general less scientifically literate than the average seven year old.

 

yes ptif i would really love to know your thoughts on evolution as well please do tell? did sean hannity and bill oriely tell you it was ok to believe in natural selection for our current dominence of the planet? or is it just a THEORY

 

You are being too generous - I have met a LOT of seven year olds with better scientific literacy skills than the average denialist

 

GW is not science it is politics. GW scientists are funded by governments

 

Was it used in this study?

 

I do not listen to the people you disrespect because you can not spell their names

 

You gotta be trolling...It has been posted 3 times now and I clearly state the excerpt is from the study you posted.

From the study you posted: "Another explanation for the recent hiatus in warming focuses on the internal variability of the climate system. To quantify the effect of internal variability, simulations generated by climate models are analyzed to determine the probability of ten year periods with zero or negative trends in surface temperature (5). Analysis of a twentieth century simulation indicates that ten year periods with zero or negative temperature trends are likely (p > 0.05). This relatively high probability is partially attributed to natural variability."

 

just because you don't understand science doesn't mean AGW is all about politics.

 

So, every government in all 187 signatories to Kyoto were all "liberal" and paying scientists to fudge data just to rip off American republicans

yeah! Riiiiiiiiiight!

 

No you prove it you brought it up

 

No you brought up 10 years that is your argument not mine so prove your claim as it pertains to this study