Global Warming is still accelerating

It hasn't stopped. That's your denier cult propaganda meme but it's just not true in the real world.

NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend
01.15.13
NASA
(excerpts)
NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis Tuesday that compares temperatures around the globe in 2012 to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. NASA's analysis of Earth's surface temperature found that 2012 ranked as the ninth-warmest year since 1880. NASA scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) compare the average global temperature each year to the average from 1951 to 1980. This 30-year period provides a baseline from which to measure the warming Earth has experienced due to increasing atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. While 2012 was the ninth-warmest year on record, all 10 of the warmest years in the GISS analysis have occurred since 1998, continuing a trend of temperatures well above the mid-20th century average. The record dates back to 1880 because that is when there were enough meteorological stations around the world to provide global temperature data. The average temperature in 2012 was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 Celsius), which is 1.0 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880, according to the new analysis.

Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperature from year to year, but the continued increase in greenhouse gas levels in Earth's atmosphere assures a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but on the current course of greenhouse gas increases, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous decade. "One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. "What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it's warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and largely controls Earth's climate. It occurs naturally and also is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades. While the globe experienced relatively warm temperatures in 2012, the continental U.S. endured its warmest year on record by far, according to NOAA, the official keeper of U.S. weather records. "The U.S. temperatures in the summer of 2012 are an example of a new trend of outlying seasonal extremes that are warmer than the hottest seasonal temperatures of the mid-20th century," GISS director James E. Hansen said. "The climate dice are now loaded. Some seasons still will be cooler than the long-term average, but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. It is the extremes that have the most impact on people and other life on the planet." The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea-surface temperature, and Antarctic research station measurements. A publicly available computer program is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period functions as a baseline for the analysis. The last year that experienced cooler temperatures than the 1951 to 1980 average was 1976. The GISS temperature record is one of several global temperature analyses, along with those produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. These three primary records use slightly different methods, but overall, their trends show close agreement.

 

Ridiculously false and just another indicator of how far out of touch with reality your specious claims truly are.

 

You do realise that GISS is primarily a climate modelling concern (in other words Hansen ) which flushes raw data through models to get it to 'fit' now dont you ? This is why its always at odds with all the other major monitoring agencies which rely on raw data analysis

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/

 

The earth science building at Stanford wasn't paid for by a grant from Exxon? That one grant alone dwarfs any supposed money skeptics have ever gotten. And its just one.

 

Nope it stopped

last decade



That GISS release is just trying to polish a turd.

 

Exxon does not deny global climate change.

Look it up.

 

I've never heard of a single skeptic that does either. Whether we are culpable or not for it though is quite another matter

 

I intentionally chose a graphic that showed many independent studies. I guess you think every one of them are wrong. Those darned scientists and their darned science!

I intentionally chose one that shows a long-term, gradual trend of warming for the last 60+ years.

 

Their 'guesswork' represent faux science which hasnt panned out too well over recent years. Despite that though extremists would still hold our economic future as hostage to fortune based on such guesswork to date

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

The 100% failure record of such model 'studies' over such a short timescale alludes to what a load of 'squat' they so clearly represent

 

9th warmest since 1880 going by computer models? OH MY!!!!!

LOL, perspective.. 9th warmest since 1880..So what?

And more perspective..

From your linked page...

It's based on taking a 30 year period calling it a baseline, and comparing the new temps to that baseline. meaning anything above that baseline is warmer, and anything below that baseline is colder. Why was 1951 to 1980 chosen as baseline? Why a 30 year period? Why assume a 30 year period represents a baseline for time between 1880 and now? And what in the heck does a deviation from a 30 year mean have to do with showing a proclaimed warming trend from 1880 untill now?

ROFL, media science.. Designed to feed the warmer masses. Sure it's probably correct in what it actually shows,or actually represents, but it certainly does nothing in regards to it's headlines claim..

More perspective...

Same article, yours of course.

So its done completely by computer models, using an apparently arbitrary 30 year period and not the actual average temps between 1880 and now.. Wait it get's better... Notice the bold and underlined part?

The last year that experienced cooler temperatures than the 1951 to 1980 average was 1976.

Wait a tick... The last year that was cooler than their 30 year mean was in 1976? Near the end of their baseline period? WHat exactly does that mean in regards to the titles claim? Nothing, NADA, not a single solitary valid bit of anything does it add. It's irrelevant to the titles claim. The only thing for certain their computational nonsense means in reality is that it is warmer now than it was for the 30 year period between 1951 and 1980. And that is IF the computer modeling is accurate, and that their mean is accurate. Both of which are genuine concerns considering the history of BS they have presented in the past..

Brilliant, and a fine example of what is wrong with science today. Millions spent to compare post warmer decades temps to a pre-warmer 30 years period, chosen for no obvious reason.. it means nothing in reality, but given a good spin and it can mean anything they want. It's about media attention, and research money. The reasons, and the relevance are unimportant so long as it leads to more money...

 

Retrospective modelling dont you just love it ? I can predict last weeks lottery numbers too but it still wont make me a millionare !

 

LOL,it's not even retrospective, it's whatever they want it to imply.

And it's just one area that the so-called "science" does this nonsense. Ever wonder why so many alarmist and even less-alarmist, temp graphs and charts use "anomalies"? Because an anomaly can be anything they want it to be. They take a time period, and then go over the temp records and look for temp data that are out of the ordinary or do not fit into the expected norm for that time period. And what anomalies do you think they favor? Warmer ones. What makes them warmer in greater context of their graph or charts claims? Well they do a shuck and jive like with in livefree's linked study, and create a mean or average based on what they expect the temps to be in that point and time. How do they decide what should be expected at that point and time? Well they get that from modeled climate reconstructions, using the same type of models they use for the other reconstructions... Yep...

It's insane and the worst part is most of them do not care. Some don't care because the money, some don't care because they don't think beyond their computer models, some might care but consider the alternatives unappealing, and some are just smart guys with no common sense..

There is a reason engineers build things that work in the real world and scientists think things up. The concept of reality and what a theory or hypothesis means in the real world, often escapes the guys dreaming them up. A scientists can show amazing things are possible mathematically, and with equations and the use of computers he can show a virtual proof of it. But an engineer is the one who has to either build it or show it in reality.. I wouldn't trust a scientist to build me a bridge that is safe and reliable, but maybe he can dream up a new design. However only an engineer will make it a reality.

 

The paranoid conspiracy theories, promoted by the astroturfed cult of AGW denial, that claim that the world's scientists are in a huge conspiracy to fake the data on AGW are hilariously absurd to everyone who hasn't been bamboozled and brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry's fraudulent anti-science propaganda campaign. The denigration of NASA and the top ranked scientists who work there only seems real to creationists and poorly educated, politically motivated rightwingers.

Your own understanding, flogger, of the scientific work that NASA GISS does seems to be entirely based on those conspiracy theories, not reality.

More nonsense without evidence or substantiation.

Instrumental temperature record
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The instrumental temperature record shows fluctuations of the temperature of the global land surface and oceans. This data is collected from several thousand meteorological stations, Antarctic research stations and satellite observations of sea-surface temperature. There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.[21] The scientific consensus is reflected in, for example, reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and US Global Change Research Program.[21]

Although the IPCC AR4 concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” public debate over the evidence for global warming continues.[22] However, it is often confined to a small set of reiterated disputes about Land Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) records, diverting attention from the broader evidence basis.[22]

The methods used to derive the principal estimates of global surface temperature trends — HadCRUT3, NOAA and NASA/GISS — are largely independent.[22] So, the spread of the three estimates indicates the likely degree of uncertainty in the evolution of the global mean surface temperature.[22] Independently derived estimates of tropospheric temperature trends for the whole troposphere channel from satellites differ by an order of magnitude more than do estimated surface temperature trends.[22]

Numerous studies attest to the robustness of the global LSAT records and their non-reliance on individual stations.[22] Evidence from recent re-analyses lends further support.[22]

The IPCC conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” does not rest solely upon LSAT records.[22] These constitute only one line of evidence among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melting of land ice such as glaciers, the associated rise in sea level and increased atmospheric surface humidity (see the figure opposite and effects of global warming).[22] If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups.[22] The observed changes in a broad range of indicators provide a self-consistent story of a warming world.[22]

Other reports and assessments

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in later publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century.[23]

The preliminary results of an assessment carried out by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group and made public in October 2011, found that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the NOAA, the Hadley Centre and NASA's GISS. The study addressed concerns raised by "skeptics"[24][25] including urban heat island effect, "poor"[24] station quality, and the "issue of data selection bias"[24] and found that these effects did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[24][26][27][28]

Yeah, flogger, don't get your information from actual climate scientists at a world renowned scientific organization. Take the unsupported word of an architect, with zero published papers on climate science, writing an opinion piece in a business magazine. That's the ticket. LOLOLOL.

Forbes’ rich list of nonsense
RealClimate
6 January 2011
Guest commentary from Michael Tobis and Scott Mandia with input from Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Kevin Trenberth
(excerpts)
While it is no longer surprising, it remains disheartening to see a blistering attack on climate science in the business press where thoughtful reviews of climate policy ought to be appearing. Of course, the underlying strategy is to pretend that no evidence that the climate is changing exists, so any effort to address climate change is a waste of resources. A recent piece by Larry Bell in Forbes, entitled “Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts”, is a classic example. Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard; this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks.

The approach also works somewhat in print, if the references are sufficiently obscure and numerous. Ideally, someone will take the time to answer such an attack, but there is a fundamental asymmetry of forces at work. It is, in fact, easier to form an allegation than to track down a reasonable explanation of what it means and how it really fits in to the balance of evidence. Also, the skills required to reflect the science are deeper than the ones required to attack it; hence the defenders are outnumbered and outgunned. Still, sometimes an article is prominent enough that it merits a detailed response.
(continued)

 

That's your 'evidence'??? LOLOLOL. Exxon endows a science building at a university and that's supposed to mean that "most all climate scientists take money from the fossil fuel industry"??? ROTFLMAO.

Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
SkepticalScience
13 July 2012
(excerpts)
Rex Tillerson is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ExxonMobil. In 2006 he replaced Lee Raymond, who was its CEO from 1999 through 2005, during which time he denied the reality of climate change and ExxonMobil spent tens of millions of dollars funding climate change denial groups like the Heartland Institute. Raymond's ExxonMobil also paid for expensive, weekly "Opinion Advertorials" on the New York Times opinion pages disputing mainstream climate science. In 2008, under Tillerson's watch, ExxonMobil pledged to cut funding to several climate denial groups. The company does continue to fund some climate contrarians like Willie Soon; however, Tillerson has certainly been an improvement over Raymond in terms of climate realism, and he does acknowledge that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Tillerson seemed to have changed ExxonMobil's stripes on climate change.

However, Tillerson recently gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (video here, transcript here) which not surprisingly, since he's a fossil fuel company CEO, centered around assertions that we have tons and tons of oil and natural gas reserves remaining. During the question and answer session, an audience member asked him this question about the climate implications of burning these immense quantities of fossil fuels: "You know, if we burn all these reserves you've talked about, you can kiss future generations good-bye. And maybe we'll find a solution to take it out of the air. But, as you know, we don't have one. So what are you going to do about this? We need your help to do something about this." As might be expected from a fossil fuel company CEO, Tillerson responded to this question by downplaying the threat posed by climate change, but as we will see in this post, he misrepresented the state of climate science and economics research in the process, and advocated a rather foolhardy approach to risk management.
(continued)

Another denier cult myth and a total lie.

 

2 posts, a link to wkkipedia and to two different warmer blogs.. And you talk about others not using real scientific sources???

ROFL

 

Take it up with the thermometers then because they must be in on it too

Anything involving James Hansen inventor of this panic who is a political activist first and climate scientist second who has pegged his whole career to the promotion of his baby over recent decades is automatically suspect

Wikipedia cites the IPCC ... purleeeez :

.

Quoting people working or who have worked at GISS. If the article is wrong and GISS do not in fact 'modify' raw data through climate models before releasing it into the public domain then please feel free to illustrate that ?

BTW You do realise the IPCC is a political organisation set up by governments for governments . LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (yeah I've got a caps lock button too)

So the leading high priests and inventors of climate change dogma disagree on an activist blog citing 'excerpts' having nothing whatsoever with the article in question . Good job !

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

 

Tell me, what effect has Free Trade policies and mass immigration into the Western countries had on CO2 emissions?

Greens are ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

The Big Oil lovers know more about science than scientists.

 

Yes there is a conspiracy to make everyone think AGW science is a conspiracy.

No the reason everyone says its a conspiracy is because most of the top AGW scientists got caught conspiring with each other in a little secret e-mail network.

 

And why would almost all environment scientists be lying about global warming?

 

There are maybe a couple of dozen, if that, guys around the world who actually do the climate modeling that AGW is based on. The rest are just engaging in the science of the day assuming those couple of dozen that do the modeling are honest and correct.

Of course the rest are almost always environmentalists, thats why they chose to study environmental science, so they dont ask too many questions.

The key to the big con is a few people convincing the the mark that it cant be a con because it cant possibly be that big. Of course it isbt that big. The con artist is playing everyone.

 

When were all environmental scientists ever asked ? I'd doubt many more than a very few support the outlandish catastrophist claims made by the anti human AGW envirofascists.

I'd wager the great bulk would simply say we dont know enough to be making such claims and they would be right too.

 

I wouldn't say that. They are environmental scientists. A lot of them are environmentalists. Thats not to say that they are all dishonest or even most of them. But when some climate modeler like Hansen feeds them a model that confirms their personal bias they arent likely to ask too many questions.

Look at the entire AGW debate when some hack like Trenberth comes out with a crap study like his deep ocean warming many people even scientists take it at face value because they want to believe it. Does that make them part of some grand conspiracy? No it makes them gullible.

 

Or it might be simpler to just follow the money. This crap has cost the global taxpayer hundreds of billions already so why derail the global gravy train with dissent while it still has 'legs'

 

But again not some grand conspiracy just human nature. Go along to get along.

The big con works by fooling people that it can't possibly be that big. The mark thinks that it cant be a con because so many people would have to be in on it. What they dont get is that they don't have to be in on it. They con artist is just playing on human nature.