Graph by Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2011.png
NOTE: Click to enlarge, or see the full size graph at the bottom of the blog page.
It seems that global atmospheric temperatures are not the only way that global warming can be measured, as explained in this extract :-
"As a recent 'Skeptical Science' post by Dana Nuccitelli has pointed out global warming hasn't stopped, despite a recent lull in global surface temperatures. The oceans, which are the main heat sink for global warming, have scarcely skipped a beat in soaking up heat. The hiatus in global surface temperatures appears to simply be a reflection of natural variability, principally the exchange of heat between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. But we shouldn't expect this to last much longer. Eventually that ocean heat buried in deeper layers will come back to the surface, and we'll experience the warm phase of this natural cool/warm (La Niña/El Niño-based) cycle."
... "They conclude that the lull is an illusion, and that rapid warming of global surface temperatures is likely to resume in the next few years."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-scientists-expect-more-rapid-global-warming-in-the-very-near-future-part-1.html
Of course, we have yet to see how much heat will be released by future El Nino events. If the 1998 year is anything to go by they could be only relatively brief events that don't much affect the overall trend - about every five years. Another unknown factor is just how long can the oceans continue to absorb heat from the atmosphere. According to this graph the oceans have been absorbing a lot of heat since about 1975, with no indication of when any of it will be released, other than during brief El Nino's. ... The extract above quotes NASA scientists saying: "rapid warming ... is likely to resume in the next few years." What evidence is there that the warming will be rapid? Also, what evidence is there that it will resume in the next few years?
This graph shows the steadily rising levels of atmospheric CO2 :-
http://hypsithermal.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/joedaleotempco2.jpg
(click on the graph for a larger image)
This graph goes back to 1880 when ground-based temperature recordings started, and shows the difference between the slight overall temperature increase and the large increase in CO2 levels :-
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c012876ffd0b9970c-pi
During the 130 years average global temperatures increased by 0.72 deg.C., and atmospheric CO2 increased by 96.7 parts per million. The arrowed lines show the overall trends. The overall trend for temperature is an increase of 0.57 deg.C. per century, and the overall trend for CO2 is an increase of 63.7 ppm per century.
(click on the graph for a larger image)
In this video (Jan 27, 2012 by The Wall Street Journal) some scientists say that there is no compelling argument for drastic action, and they say that there is no evidence of global warming for the past ten years. (The year 1998 had a particularly large El Nino effect, which can be ignored when looking for overall trends.) :-
The 'op-ed' article mentioned in the video is here :-
No Need To Panic About Global Warming
The graphs above show a very small geological time period. When you expand the time period (into tens of thousands of years) you can see that the present climate fluctuations appear to be very natural. In fact global temperatures have been much warmer than today for almost all of the past 10,000 years. The graph below was created by Cuffy and Clow in 1997, and is based on Greenland ice core records :-
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg
NOTE: A full size graph is at the bottom of the blog page.
When you expand the time period even further into millions of years you can see that there is little correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures :-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
(click on the graph for a larger image)
The text explaining the graph is on this page :-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
.
7 comments:
The idea that temperatures have not changed in the last ten years is conflicted by NOAA's report that 2010 ties the warmest year ever. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
Yes, I heard about 2010 too. But it doesn't tie as "the warmest year *ever*". They specify that 2010 tied for the warmest year *on record*. That's since 1880, when global surface temperature recording began.
The year 1998 was a particularly warm year too. It also is shown as a spike in the graph at the top of the blog post (click on it for a larger image). Both years were affected by strong El Nino effects.
However, we need to be careful because spikes in the data often don't much affect the overall trend. The overall trend is shown as a narrow curved line on the graph. Note that the trend line has become more horizontal in the last ten years. If the overall trend is more horizontal it means that no or very little overall *warming* has occurred during that period.
Also, saying that "temperatures have not changed in the last ten years" is misleading. Temperatures and climate as a whole are always changing. They are not constant, and are affected by a 'chaotic' system. That's a system that has a very large number of variables, which is extremely difficult to replicate or model. For example, the climate can be affected by the output of the sun, the orbit of the Earth, the tilt of the Earth, and the large warm and cold currents of the oceans -- to name just a few. Also, it is hard to think of a model that can replicate a relatively thin atmosphere (at least 50 miles) around a planet that has a diameter of 7,926.41 miles at the equator, and 7,901 miles at the poles. (Of course, a model cannot just assume things like the shape of the atmosphere. Eg. It isn't a very large cube!)
Thanks for your comment, and I'm sorry I got carried away and wrote a lot!
.. Peter (aka Que)
I have recently added some new information in the blog post. There are three new paragraphs starting with: "It seems that global atmospheric temperatures are not the only way ...".
Hi Peter,
Just wanted to let you know the world is going to end again. Ronald Weinland's May 27th 2012 is approaching fast. I've always enjoyed your posts and am going to miss them. Good luck, NZ gets it before Canada.
Hi Jack,
Yes, I've been keeping an eye on some of the 'ex. COG' blogs. It looks like RW is going to fail this time (as well!). We hope he loses more of his 'sheep' - especially since the court case is soon.
Anyway, I don't plan on going anywhere! At least until December..lol. I've been concentrating on the 2012 hoax. ... I think there is likely to be other things that need debunking in the future, and I'll keep the older posts on this blog as an archive.
Thanks for the message. Good luck to you too! If I remember I can post a message here to prove that I wasn't affected by RW's non-existant WW3 !!
The best way to measure global warming is to measure the ocean´s heat content. The data wasn´t measured very accurately prior to the early 2000´s (you can reach your own conclusions by looking over the Argo buoy coverage density).
The ocean heat content change over time, as reported in the heat content plots by several authors as well as NOAA can be used to estimate the net forcing in watts per meter squared. This data does show the heat content is increasing.
However, there´s an interesting wrinkle, the forcing is much lower than the forcing the IPCC reports in their 2013 AR5. This seems to have been ignored by both sides?
Gee, you guys have your heads up your nether regions.
We have ALREADY experienced 2 deg-C of warming, year round, as a consequence of
CO2 going from 290ppm in 1880 to 405ppm today (2017). Your goofy interpretions
of data cannot mask the following, which should be as clear as the noses on your
faces:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/20170615/cycle_201705.png
Post a Comment