Re: 2014 was the Hottest Year on Record...

[Lenzabi]

NASA based their dire pronouncement on data taken from only 10 percent of available stations

The NASA analysis is based on readings from only 3,000 measuring stations worldwide. A different analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if - if – 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount than NASA would have us believe.

In other words, NASA based their doomsday pronouncement on data taken from only 10 percent of the available stations. Do I detect some cherry picking going on?

The BEST report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty. (italics added) ‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year…. the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’

Can we have the source for that please?

[Agartha]

Len, it was probably this site...... I don't have time now to read the articles here, let  me know what you think (or anybody else):


http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=aggregator

[Monk (in hiding)]

(UK Daily Mail) The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

[Rockhopper]

Dailymail eh?

The Daily Mail (aka, Hate Mail, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan and so on), is a reactionary tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values," middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse). Its weighty Sunday counterpart is the Mail on Sunday.
The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. The Daily Mail is notable among British tabloids for rejecting the standard red-top banner in order to try to appear more upmarket and respectable, although it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the populist rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities,  and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.

Emphasis mine!



Source.

Always check your sources VM.

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

Daily Mail = a bird cage lining rag.
Like our New York Post!

[Rockhopper]

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.

That's getting serious!

Source

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

notice what is missing in the Arctic Ocean?

[Rockhopper]

All that white stuff?

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

All that white stuff?

Tim.

That is just Greenland, the water where ice ought to be is disturbing

[Lenzabi]

plus this thread seems to have an Malware message that is disguised as some flashp0layer updater, just back out when it pops up and let the admins with the know how get rid of that

[Monk (in hiding)]

Starting with a general physics background and explanation of why our current understanding of climate-change focuses on the "human influence", Helical Universe combines physics with observational and experimental data from reputable universities, research institutions, NASA and more, to lay out a new explanation for earth's changing climate and how it is linked to stellar movement, solar behaviour and our path through the universe.

[Rockhopper]

Yet the author has never published anything in any peer reviewed journal. That should tell you something VM. He has written a book and is selling it, that's all.

His hypothesis may prove to be true but as yet it is not, nor has his hypothesis been reviewed by others in that field.

If you don't believe that the climate is changing, have a talk with the people in Miami where some streets go under water every time there is a spring tide. Or the folks at Tokelau, Maldives and other low lying countries.

As for the statement that the consensus is not 97% who agree that AGW in human in origin, read this:

A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.

The findings are in stark contrast to the public’s position on global warming; a 2012 poll* revealed that more than half of Americans either disagree, or are unaware, that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming because of human activity.

Source.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

The book provides a good theory for why earth reverses its magnetic field, what is the source of heat at the earth’s core and a rational explanation for the observable climate-change and geological phenomena which we are experiencing. In the first part of the book I explain the physics background and the reason why our current understanding of climate-change focuses on the “human influence”. I then explain to the reader how the sun is actually travelling through our galaxy on a helical path, which periodically crosses the galactic plane (above and below). Over thousands of years the strength of the sun’ s magnetic field increases as it moves above the galactic plane because the plasma region is denser. This in turn means an increased number of high energy cosmic particles in the magnetosphere and of course intense solar radiation. This variable behaviour of the sun influences the weaker magnetic field of the earth, which is experiencing a rapid shift in polarity at the present time. Compared to recent history, this polarity change has sped up considerably in the 20th century. Currently the magnetic poles are moving faster than at any other time in human history, changing position at almost 40 miles per year! This suggests that we are approaching the end of a polar chron! The rapid movement of the inner core which only recently has been recognized is the reason behind the “stirring” of molten magma in the earth. This influences the earth’s crust, causing earthquakes, volcanic activity to increase and the release of methane and carbon dioxide greenhouse gases. It is a scientific fact that oceans contain a huge amount of CO2, and when heat escapes from inside the earth and combines with solar radiation from above, they induce heat on the surface and at the inner layers of our planet. That causes the release of vast amounts of methane and carbon dioxide greenhouse gases. Therefore, the main reason for climate change is not “man-made” CO2. No doubt the picture becomes increasingly clear when you follow this logic. There is an abundance of reputable research in the book to support each point and almost daily news of unusually global weather phenomena, beside an amazing increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – often in geographic locations which are not known for these occurrences. At the same time this is a very sensitive topic, especially since there are so many environmental groups who believe that pollution, global warming and climate-change are all the result of “man-made” CO2.Please also see on the website my publications in low temperature nuclear fusion Thank you for your time, Sincerely yours Jamal S. Shrair

New Physics Explaining The Real Reason Behind Climate Change and Global Warming

[Monk (in hiding)]

Sorry, But With Global Warming It's The Sun, Stupid

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/09/20/sorry-but-with-global-warming-its-the-sun-stupid/

[Rockhopper]

Firstly Forbes is a business friendly mag and tends to spout the rhetoric of the core Repblicans.

Secondly we know it's not caused by any changes in the output of the sun. That output is been measured accurately all the time. It's output has not changed in thousands of years.

http://www.nature.com/news/atlantic-ocean-key-to-global-warming-pause-1.15755

The Atlantic is warming and that is causing the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Sea. That in turn moves the Jetstream over Nth America to move further south allowing the Polar Vortex to move with it and causing the Big Freeze in the north-east and the Big Dry in the south-west.

When the seas warm they expand which accounts for the few inches of sea level rise that is causing grief in Miami and New Oeleans.



From here: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/change.shtml

The Keeling Curve



Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2

A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds a disconnect between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2, demonstrating that despite a sharp 25% increase in man-made CO2 emissions since 2003, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 has slowed sharply since 2002/2003. The data shows that while the growth rate of man-made emissions was relatively stable from 1990-2003, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 surged up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998. Conversely, growth in man-made emissions surged ~25% from 2003-2011, but the change in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 has flatlined since 1999 along with global temperatures.

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8 ) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8 ), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8 ), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.





link

NOTE: Not denying climate-change, denying it's caused by manmade Co2.

[Rockhopper]

Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14.  Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in the Industrial Revolution.

Source

And this:

Carbon atoms are constantly cycling through living and nonliving matter. When plants take carbon atoms from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, they absorb a greater number of 12C atoms than 13C atoms because the 13C atoms are slightly heavier in mass and react a little differently in chemical reactions.

Environmental scientists measure the isotope signature of living and nonliving things by comparing 13C to 12C isotopes. This proportion, or ratio, of carbon isotopes (13C/12C) in plants is different from the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. Because most plants prefer the 12C isotope, the ratio of 13C/12C in plants is lower than the ratio of 13C/12C in the atmosphere (where no biological process chooses one isotope over the other).

Burning plant material or fossilized plant material, such as fossil fuels, releases the 12C isotopes that plants absorbed through photosynthesis millions of years ago into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 molecules. The added 12C isotopes in the atmosphere decrease the overall 13C/12C ratio.

Environmental scientists compare the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere today to the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere over the last couple thousand years. (Fortunately, ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have been trapping bubbles of atmospheric gas for thousands of years!)

What scientists have found is that while the total amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased, the ratio of 13C/12C has gotten much lower since 1850 — right around the time when humans began burning fossil fuels for energy during the Industrial Revolution.

From Here.

So VM, this is how we know that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

BUT!!!!

Does an increase in CO2 levels cause global warming.

What is the Evidence?

The evidence must be empirical, meaning that it is independent of theory.


Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

[Rockhopper]

Interesting article VM. 

We know that CO2 does raise the temps. It's been used by Commercial Glasshouse owners for many years. Increase the CO2 inside and the temp goes up. The plants grow faster too which probably explains why hothouse tomatoes taste like flour!

Of course the climate of this planet is not a glasshouse and is much more complex and other influences have an effect.

The other point is that the temp has increased as more CO2 has been released into the air. So there must be a corelation.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Yes, a correlation, but which causes which?

I'm thinking, that is the unknown.

[Sponsored content]