Global Warming is still accelerating

Here's a good summary of a scientific report, published earlier this year in the journal Science, that also affirms that anthropogenic global warming is happening very rapidly.

Alarming new study on climate change says Earth's heat is accelerating superfast
The Examiner
March 10, 2013
(excerpts)
The latest report on climate change came out on Friday and the news isn't good. The study was released in Science magazine and it examines climate research done at Oregon State University (OSU). The geological team there combined current computer models with techniques that allowed them to glean information from past weather events by the use of ice core samples from polar regions and tree rings from different areas. They also studied temperature by testing for chemicals in the shells of tiny, fossilized sea creatures known as foraminifera. The researchers from OSU discovered the acceleration of warming is happening faster than anyone anticipated. “Global temperatures are warmer now than about 75 percent of anything we've seen over the last 11,000 years or so," said Shaun Marcott, a geologist at OSU in a NPR report. "It's really the rates of change here that's amazing and atypical." Marcott explained it this way: "Here's what happened. After the end of the ice age, the planet got warmer. Then, 5,000 years ago, it started to get cooler — but really slowly. In all, it cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, up until the last century or so. Then it flipped again — global average temperature shot up. Temperatures now have gone from that cold period to the warm period in just 100 years. So it's taken just 100 years for the average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it took 5,000 years to do that before."

Many scientists agree they are now in new climatic territory. When records are being broken at such accelerated rates, they face a situation unlike any before. “You can start to see a shifting from one climate system to another. So the climate has in one sense actually changed and we are now entering a new series of climatic conditions that we just haven't seen before," said Tim Flannery, head of the Australian government's climate change commission in response to the OSU research. Climate scientists predict that 100-year weather events will continue to increase, because there is currently too much complacency about reducing the vast level of greenhouse gases that already exist in the atmosphere, much less curbing new emissions. "The climate changes to come are going to be larger than anything that human civilization and agriculture has seen in its entire existence," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "And that is quite a sobering thought." Moreover, there is scientific consensus that such rapid warming is a testament to how the burning of fossil fuels is the dominating factor. UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, was quoted as saying the new research indicates, “staggering global temps show urgent need to act. Rapid climate change must be countered with accelerated action." But urgent action in the US Congress is not likely. Too many Republicans in Congress like James Inhofe (R-Ok), Lemar Smith (R-Tx) and Paul Broun (R-GA), believe that global warming is a hoax or that it is a phenomenon created by God that only He can control, so mankind is useless to stop it. Amazingly, these lawmakers hold key positions on science committees and have shown no interest in letting proven facts get in the way of their personal biases. Connections to petroleum industries and anti-science think tanks like the Heritage Foundation are suspected to be the real reason behind such increasingly laughable claims against the existence of global warming.

 

Oooohhhh.. A story from examiner.com and citing Marcott... LOL, anyone else unsurprised Marcott is trying to sell his Alarmist nonsense again?

 

Well, I'm sure nobody is surprised that you are again trying vainly to deny the science produced by, not only this University scientist, but competent professional scientists everywhere. You offer no evidence that would serve as a rebuttal of his results or the facts, you just reiterate your blind brainwashed denial of reality.

 

It's not science, because it's not based on empirical observation. It's just model building and cherry picking.

False. The rebuttal has been made, and is pretty much conclusive: no warming for 15 years, in the face of continued exponential increase in CO2. Moreover, the record shows strong warming during strong solar activity cycles, no warming since solar activity has been in a slump. The evidence is plain and obvious.

It is the alarmist CO2-AGW theory that is blind, brainwashed denial of reality: it's the sun. Edit/Unnecessary comment

 

Global warming is still very much happening and it is still accelerating. The Earth as a whole - land, air and oceans - is still gaining heat energy that has been trapped by the increased CO2. Denier cultists crow about the slowdown in surface temperature rises but scientists (and all of the intelligent, informed people) understand that surface air temperatures are only a small part of the total heat energy being retained by the increased levels of greenhouse gases. The oceans have always been, since AGW got really rolling in the 1950s, taking up 90% or more of the excess thermal energy trapped by the extra CO2. As the rate of air temperature rise has temporarily slowed a bit recently compared to the rapid rises of the 1980s and 90s, the rate of ocean heat uptake has increased slightly, mostly due to multiple prolonged La Nina events and the negative phase of the PDO over the last decade or so, which turn over warmer surface layers of ocean water into the deep ocean and replace them with colder water from the depths.

Hundreds of scientists from four dozen countries put together a report a few years ago that discussed all of the ways that human caused warming has been affecting the planet. The last decade or so, far from being a period of "cooling", as the denier dupes would have it, was in fact the warmest decade on record, as indicated by not just the surface air temperatures but a variety of other climate indicators.

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
July 28, 2010

State of the Climate in 2009

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”


Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at http://www.climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate.

 

And I'm not surprised you cite examiner.com as a scienrific source..

 

And a lot has changed since 2010.. Regardless, the NOAA's personal climate alarm paper does not make me worry... They make a new one every year and each one is an alarmist wishlist.. Nice work.. Can we expect Al gore quotes next?

 

Well, I'm not at all surprised that you apparently can't spell "scientific" (that actually seems very appropriate), or that you would mistakenly identify the newspaper the article appeared in as the "scienrific source" of the information in the article. In the real world, the scientific source of that information is clearly stated:
"The study was released in Science magazine and it examines climate research done at Oregon State University (OSU). The geological team there combined current computer models with techniques that allowed them to glean information from past weather events by the use of ice core samples from polar regions and tree rings from different areas. They also studied temperature by testing for chemicals in the shells of tiny, fossilized sea creatures known as foraminifera.".

 

Oh, really? Why don't you detail for us just exactly what is this "a lot", that you speak of, that "has changed" in the last three years? Please make it something in the real world, not denier cult fantasyland, unless you're just going for laughs.

 

LOL,

You linked to Examiner.com in that post, sparky...Just because you can follow a link they provided in the 2nd attempt, that doesn't make your first one any better..

So any other grammatical errors you wish to address? Edit/Unnecessary comment

 

Well, for one thing, the IPCC has toned down the alarmism so far in the latest AR5 report. That's kind of a big one dude.. Also, the ocean acidification scare has been shown false.. The data and findings for the last decade has been look over more thoroughly and corrections made and any number of other things..

But then you would have to actually read something that isn't bias to know these things..

 

LOLOLOL.....too funny....so you still are trying to maintain that because an article reporting on a climate research study done by research scientists at Oregon State University, appeared in a newspaper, the newspaper itself was the "scienrific source" of the scientific information being reported on in the article? LOLOL. That is just incredibly hilarious and very typical of anti-science AGW deniers.

 

Well what would stand out was that in 2010 the pause was not yet at the greater than 15 year length that warmmonger scientists at NOAA set in 2008 for being outside the bands of the models.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

So any analysis done in 2010 ignored the pause. We have now moved outside the bounds set by the warmmonger scientists so any analysis done today even that by the IPCC has to address the pause and any analysis done before it is outdated.

 

sorry to burst your bubble roy but it's been warming even as the sun is low in activity and the evidence is mostly certainly empirical

double click to enlarge
View attachment 22618

solar activity and temp have been going in opposite directions for 35yrs now roy....it ain't the sun, wanna guess again?

 

What's a "sully man", gslack? Is that a new name you've come up with to call people you disagree with? Or is it that you just can't spell very well? Just asking.

And no, what we are "pointing out" about your fraudulent denier cult sources, like WattsUpMyButt or FauxNews, is that they push pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that are regularly debunked by real climate scientists, plus your sources generally have financial links to the fossil fuel industry, the Koch brothers or rabid rightwing foundations set up by oil barons. Your sources have a political/economic agenda and they are not credible. In stark contrast to the genuine scientific research institutions and universities that I cite.

I quoted and cited an accurate article that is filled with links to the original sources of the information contained in the article. You didn't bother to check the accuracy or challenge the findings of the climate science research discussed in the article. You just, as I said before, "are again trying vainly to deny the science produced by, not only this University scientist, but competent professional scientists everywhere. You offer no evidence that would serve as a rebuttal of his results or the facts, you just reiterate your blind brainwashed denial of reality". I checked the links and saw that the article was a fair report on the original research so I used it. If you had bothered to check the links, you would have seen that there was no "spin". Here's the National Science Foundation press release summarizing the research that was used as the basis for the article I cited.

Earth Is Warmer Today Than During 70 to 80 Percent of the Past 11,300 Years
Reconstruction of Earth history shows significance of temperature rise
National Science Foundation Press Release 13-037
March 7, 2013
(Most text appearing on NSF web pages was either prepared by employees of the United States Government as part of their official duties and therefore not subject to copyright or prepared under contracts that gave the Foundation the right to place the text into the public domain. The same is true of most publications available for downloading from this web site. You may freely copy that material and, at your discretion, credit NSF with a "Courtesy: National Science Foundation" notation.)

With data from 73 ice and sediment core monitoring sites around the world, scientists have reconstructed Earth's temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age.

The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it's been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.

Results of the study, by researchers at Oregon State University (OSU) and Harvard University, are published this week in a paper in the journal Science.

Lead paper author Shaun Marcott of OSU says that previous research on past global temperature change has largely focused on the last 2,000 years.

Extending the reconstruction of global temperatures back to the end of the last Ice Age puts today's climate into a larger context.

"We already knew that on a global scale, Earth is warmer today than it was over much of the past 2,000 years," Marcott says. "Now we know that it is warmer than most of the past 11,300 years."

"The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age," says Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences. The research was funded by the Paleoclimate Program in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences.

"This research shows that we've experienced almost the same range of temperature change since the beginning of the industrial revolution," says Major, "as over the previous 11,000 years of Earth history--but this change happened a lot more quickly."

Of concern are projections of global temperature for the year 2100, when climate models evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that temperatures will exceed the warmest temperatures during the 11,300-year period known as the Holocene under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

Peter Clark, an OSU paleoclimatologist and co-author of the Science paper, says that many previous temperature reconstructions were regional and not placed in a global context.

"When you just look at one part of the world, temperature history can be affected by regional climate processes like El Niño or monsoon variations," says Clark.

"But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth's global temperature history."

What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

The largest changes were in the Northern Hemisphere, where there are more land masses and larger human populations than in the Southern Hemisphere.

Climate models project that global temperature will rise another 2.0 to 11.5 degrees F by the end of this century, largely dependent on the magnitude of carbon emissions.

"What is most troubling," Clark says, "is that this warming will be significantly greater than at any time during the past 11,300 years."

Marcott says that one of the natural factors affecting global temperatures during the last 11,300 years is a gradual change in the distribution of solar insolation linked with Earth's position relative to the sun.

"During the warmest period of the Holocene, the Earth was positioned such that Northern Hemisphere summers warmed more," Marcott says.

"As the Earth's orientation changed, Northern Hemisphere summers became cooler, and we should now be near the bottom of this long-term cooling trend--but obviously, we're not."

The research team, which included Jeremy Shakun of Harvard and Alan Mix of OSU, primarily used fossils from ocean sediment cores and terrestrial archives to reconstruct the temperature history.

The chemical and physical characteristics of the fossils--including the species as well as their chemical composition and isotopic ratios--provide reliable proxy records for past temperatures by calibrating them to modern temperature records.

Analyses of data from the 73 sites allow a global picture of the Earth's history and provide a new context for climate change analysis.

"The Earth's climate is complex and responds to multiple forcings, including carbon dioxide and solar insolation," Marcott says.

"Both changed very slowly over the past 11,000 years. But in the last 100 years, the increase in carbon dioxide through increased emissions from human activities has been significant.

"It's the only variable that can best explain the rapid increase in global temperatures."

 

You post a barrage of insults to anyone who responds to your big font, propaganda posting and you dare talk to me about name calling? ROFL, too ridiculous dude..

And I'm sorry I didn't proof read my post for errors junior. I had no idea you took grammar and spelling so seriously.. LOL

Sorry but like I said before, posting again using one of the sources from the article you originally posted, does not change the original post being from Examiner.com. Which of course was the point I was making. It's no different than when you attack others sources.. You don't like having your source ridiculed, fine, then maybe you should think before you do it to others sources. I gave you what you give everyone else, but did it with a lot less venom-spitting and rage..

Better curb the raging, they frown on that here as well...

 

But cherry-picked:

Odd how that 11-year average ends 11 years ago...

No, of course they haven't, as temperature hasn't risen in 15 years.

It's definitely the sun, as proved by your need to cherry-pick and distort the data to obscure that fact.

 

And yet, you cannot actually point to any of my posts where I actually "insult" anyone. I do, of course denigrate the ridiculous pseudo-science and fallacious propaganda that you AGW deniers post. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between attacks on the material you're posting and insults to you personally. Or perhaps you're just using baseless accusations of 'insults' to distract from your failure to post any actual rational refutation of the scientific information I have presented in various of these debates.

And you still haven't been able to dispute any of the information contained in that original article from Examiner.com. So, what is the big deal with using that article? You just can't seem to be able to handle the facts, no matter what the source.

As usual, your "point" is imaginary and specious.

Perhaps, in your own little fantasy world that's true, but in the real world, there is a huge difference. I have disparaged your fraudulent sources for good and provable reasons having to do with their bias, inaccuracies and lies, while you attempt to attack the science in the article I posted because you, without any actual evidence at all, want to pretend that the website that posted the article tried to "spin" the scientific information in the article.

You never actually addressed or "ridiculed" the real source of the information that I posted, you just baselessly attacked the neutral website it appeared on. Apparently, in denier cult lingo, "raging" equals getting your BS debunked. LOL.

 

Okay here we go again.

Take a pot. It can be any kind of pot meral glass etc. Fill it with water. Put it on a stove. It can be any kind of stove electric, gas, electric glass ceramic. Turn the stove to high.

After 1 minute measure the temperature of the water.

Now turn the stove down to 7.

After 1 minute measure the temperature of the water.

Did the temperature of the water go up dowm or remain the same? If it went down explain how you can turn the heat source down but still see a rise in temperature.

I look forward to all the trolling that will result from this simple experiment. Ive yet to get a warmmonger to anweer it directly and honestly. So far evety last one has made mountains out of non existent mole hills to keep from answering the simple question.

 

Sorry but I'm done letting you draw me into these kind of disputes buddy..

You post propaganda and then bark at anyone who points that fact out.

I pointed out your source was Examiner.com, and you got embarrassed by that and have been hopping mad ever since. You point out others use of what you consider questionable sources all the time, even ridiculing them for daring to post it. Yet we see when you are caught doing the same thing you respond like somebody kicked your dog. Your post that I responded to cited and linked to an article from examiner.com, and you have spent numerous posts after the fact trying to claim your source for that post was actually the sources they used. When it was not, you didn't link to those sources until after that post that I responded to.

If you don't like having your sources pointed out to you, or if you are embarrassed when caught citing such a source as examiner.com, next time, don't use examiner.com, but those other sources. Don't bark at me because you got lazy in your choice to post from examiner.com. Do the work and you won't be embarrassed..

Now please continue your rantings..

 

LOLOL....are you still trying to ride that old broken hobbyhorse of yours?

I've already explained the mistakes in your irrelevant little analogy.

You can turn the heat source down from 8 (high) to 7 (slightly less high) and the still cool water (only been on the stove for a minute) will continue to heat up because the heat source is still much hotter than the water.

It is amusing that you refuse to understand this obvious point.

It is even more amusing that you imagine that your clueless, fallacious analogy has anything to do with the fact that solar irradiance has been declining for the last thirty-some years while, over that same time period, the Earth has continued to warm up.

 

Oh please you flailed widely and went back to your usual copy and past with insults when you realized that you couldn't argue science on your own.

And the sun is still much hotter than the earth. But the reason the pot continues heating isn't because the heat source is hotter than the water. Its because the water isn't at thermal equilibrium because of lags the water doesn't respond instantly to changes in the heat source.

Its a perfect analogy because it is an example of thermal lags. You just choose to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about it because it so simply shows why you are wrong.

 

No, actually I shot down and debunked your very lame and incorrect analogy. You just keep demonstrating that you have a very poor understanding of physics. The way you "argue science on your own" consists of you insisting that you're right and everybody else (including all of the actual scientists) are wrong, without providing any evidence to support your fraudulent claims. No wonder you can't stand the fact that I post scientific evidence to support my position.

And there's a further demonstration that you are clueless about the physics involved in this matter. The sun may be hotter than the Earth but it is 93 million miles away so the only relevant mount of thermal energy from the sun is the extremely tiny portion of the sun's total radiation that hits the Earth. That energy is what has to balance the energy the Earth radiates away into space for there to be "thermal equilibrium". As it is, the Earth is taking in more energy from the sun than it can radiate away because of the heat trapping effect of the increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases, so it is not in "equilibrium". It is instead warming up.

Wrong again and ridiculously so. Of course the water continues to heat up because the heat source is hotter than the water. How could it do otherwise. You deliberately set up your little 'experiment' so the heat source would be hotter than the water. Asserting absurd anti-scientific crap like you're trying to do here just further exposes your basic ignorance about science.

Nonsense. If you boil a pot of water and then turn the heat off, the water immediately begins to cool off as the water vapor carries off the heat and no new thermal energy is added. You set up your 'experiment' so the heat source (the stove burner) would always be hotter than the water. The sad thing is that you seem to be incapable of comprehending just why that initial set up of yours invalidates your fallacious conclusions.

And, again, all of that has nothing to do with the Earth's energy balance and its connection to some extremely minor variations in solar irradiance.

It's not an example of anything except how clueless you are about science and physics.

 

No you didn't. You complained and flailed over things that didn't matter and weren't even specified in the initial conditions, nor did they matter.

Projection much. I'm sorry I dont feel that I need to source wikipedia for everything I post.

Temperature and radiation are two different physical quantities. If you say that the water must continue to warm because the burner is hotter than the water then the earth must continue to warm because the sun is hotter than the earth. You have effectively debunked your own argument because you own made up definitions are contradictory.

I can guarantee you that when the watter reaches 100C it will not get any hotter even though the burner is hotter.

Because it is giving off more energy than it is taking in.

And the sun is hotter than the earth.

No it wont immediately begin to cool. There will be a lag, the pot will continue to warm the water and the warm water at the bottom will continue to convect raising the average temperature of the water.

It has much to do with your ridiculous assertion that the earth has to start cooling the moment solar output drops slightly. I've proven it false with a simple experiment. And you are left trolling hopping that I will flame you.

More trolling.

 

The reason the water does not get hotter than 100 C is because it becomes steam and evaporates away from the heat source.

Pressure cookers that keep the steam in get hotter than 100 C.