IPCC - Global Warming/Climate Change: Worst Is Yet to Come

The Dunning-Kruger Effect strikes again, as you try to explain to the world scientific community what evidence REALLY means......LOLOLOL......

 

Perfectly describes the CAGW meme. Science is about skepticism, not certainty. The CAGW meme is about certainty, not science.

 

And again no experiment. Silliness and more silliness. defeated without an ounce of fight. No observed proof, left dangling in a piece of paper.

 

Found out why Bengtsson's paper was rejected. The “error” (according to the publisher) seems to be nothing more than Bengtsson’s expectation that models be consistent with observations. Bet this will be the new excuse.

Can you imagine, CAGW is based on the models but if actual observations do not follow the models, it will make do difference, the sky will still fall. LOL

 

You get an F- on your reading comprehension skills, but an A+ on the blind denial of reality.

The first article I cited was from a major British newspaper, The Guardian, reporting on "a new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society".

The second article was also from The Guardian, talking about "a recent paper published in the journal Nature" and "new research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research".

The third article was by Dr. Jeff Masters, a world renowned meteorologist and climate scientist. Here's a better link to that article: Global warming continues with no slow down

The rest are similar. They are all reporting on published scientific research like this:

"A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)." from New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated

"A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organization says average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average." from UN: Global warming is accelerating, and with disastrous consequences

"Global warming is rapidly driving the Arctic into a volatile state characterized by massive reductions in sea ice and snow cover, more extensive melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and a host of biological changes, according to a comprehensive report published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Wednesday." from Accelerated Warming Driving Arctic Into New Volatile State

"The Earth is warming fast and furious and much of the warming is going into the oceans. You may have heard that global warming had slowed due to slowed warming of global surfaces, but in new research published in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors found that much of the current warming is settling into the deepest depths of the ocean." from New Research Confirms Global Warming/Ocean Acidification Accelerating Faster Than Previously Thought

 

Hmmm, so if the warming has settled in the deep ocean, which by the way is another hypothesis, not something known, how would it ever reach the surface? How do you overcome the second law of thermodynamics?

BTW, the government agencies that have a vested interest in pushing the CAGW meme are hardly to be trusted as unbiased sources.

I notice you still rely on an Advocacy blog, Skeptical Science, for a source. It is a cartoonists communication experiment. Bad move. You should do some other reading than advocacy blogs. John Cook of Skeptical Science is now studying psychology, probably to figure out how to fool more people like you.

 

Dude, really? You just can't stop yourself. First, all of those links are silliness. You know that right? come on you're jobbing us. You know this silliness isn't real right? But if you truly are a believer of all of this nonsense, then ask them to send you the experiment that proved their Hypothesis. Go ask them, any of them and they'll tell you they have none. Zero, zilch.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you seen the photoshopped picture of John Cook in a Nazi uniform? hilarious.

 

[video=youtube_share;O7PIf4jGtq4]http://youtu.be/O7PIf4jGtq4[/video]

http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/17/threats-from-the-university-of-queensland/#more-19229

 

Your post perfectly expresses the denier cult ignorance about science and knowledge, and is itself another manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

science - noun

* a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

* systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

* any of the branches of natural or physical science.

* systematized knowledge in general.

* knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

 

LOL, so you think unproven hypothesis are facts? You really need to do some reading other than left wing outlets and blogs. Might do you some good, you might actually learn something about the science.

 

And yet no experimental proof...tsk, tsk

 

Evidently Cook was the source for the Nazi image of himself. LOL

SKS and Mann’s Doctored Quote

 

I had seen that on another board.

 

LOLOLOLOL.....that's sooooooooooooo silly.....you're even projecting your silliness onto others.....LOL... ..and so typical of the blind denial of reality that denier cultists embrace....

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
AGW Observer
by Ari Jokimäki
September 25, 2009
This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (September 23, 2012): Burch & Gryvnak (1966) added.
UPDATE (February 6, 2011): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898 ) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008 ) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984 ) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation – Burch & Gryvnak (1966) “Extensive measurements of the absorption by H2O and CO2 have been made in the region from 0·6 to 5·5 microm. Two different multiple-pass absorption cells provided path lengths from 2 to 933 m, and sample pressures were varied from a few μHg to 15 atm. Approximately thirty new CO2 bands were observed and identified, and the strengths of the important bands determined. The H2O data provide enough information for the determination of the strengths and widths of several hundred of the more important lines. The wings of CO2absorption lines were found to be sub-Lorentzian, with the shapes depending on temperature, broadening gas, and wavelength in ways which cannot be explained by present theories. The absorption by H2O and CO2 samples at temperatures up to 1800°K has been studied from 1 to 5 microm. The transmission of radiation from hot CO2 through cold CO2 and from hot H2O through cold H2O has been investigated to determine the effect of the coincidence of emission lines with absorption lines.” Darrell E. Burch, David A. Gryvnak, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-4073(66)90072-0.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.”

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (189 “Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881) Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

Closely related

The HITRAN Database – The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.

 

And yet not one experiment that shows that an increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. None, zero. Dude, can't you open your silly eyes just a bit? You keep walking into the same wall.

 

Actually, most of the experimental evidence that has been cited does indeed show that rising CO2 levels drive temperature increases. You keep your eyes firmly shut to that fact so that you can continue to cling to your debunked denier cult myths. You remain in delusional denial about the scientifically determined facts about atmospheric physics and reality, apparently for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with the scientific facts of the matter. You demand experimental evidence, and then when it is shown to you, you deny that it is actually evidence. You are very much like a member of the Flat Earth Society.

 

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor and at this time, how clouds are formed globally, what forces make those changes, and how they interact with global climate are poorly understood and poorly modeled. How snow fall globally affects total warming or cooling, how it affects ENSO, etc., is also poorly understood.

The climate is a wicked system and trying to fit it into a simple model will only cause failure if you expect to predict, then base policy on that prediction. Observed temperatures only correspond to 2% of the models at this time. The current hiatus took the modelers by surprise and pointed out that natural variability has a lot to do with temperature swings. Most of the government funding to the tune of 2.5+ billion has been put into modeling. Less needs to be put into modeling and more into actual field science to try and discover the unknowns and to understand the uncertainties.

Currently the debate is being driven by headline grabbing alarmism (which insures the flow of money from government) but it is not even known if warming would be bad.

 

Clueless drivel!!! Other people, particularly scientists, are neither as ignorant as you seem to be, nor as ignorant as you assume everybody else is.

Of course water vapor is the "biggest" greenhouse gas and the scientifically observed fact is that water vapor levels have risen by about 4% in the last fifty years because the CO2 caused global warming has warmed both the oceans and the air so that more water evaporates from the oceans, lakes, etc., and the atmosphere can also hold more water vapor because it is warmer.

Scientists aren't trying to take the very complex and multifaceted climate of the Earth and "fit it into a simple model" either. That's just more denier cult misinformation and nonsense. Climate scientists have constructed very complex computer models that have to be run on the most advanced supercomputers just to handle all of the variables. These models have proved to be fairly accurate in aggregate, and are being constantly improved and getting better. The models have not only been successful at hindcasting the climate changes over the last century or so, they have also been successful at forecasting the warming and climate changes that have already happened. There are many more examples.

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
The Guardian
Duncan Clark
27 March 2013
(excerpts)
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows. The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change. The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true. Allen said: "I think it's interesting because so many people think that recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were predicting back in the 1990s." He added: "Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures (and even more so in British weather!), but the success of these early forecasts suggests the basic understanding of human-induced climate change on which they were based is supported by subsequent observations."

 

Unfortunately for you, the past 15 years has seen virtually no increase in warming.

 

Unfortunately for your deranged myths, the past 15 years has seen a very significant increase in warming. As the article that I just posted clearly explains. In addition to just the surface air temperatures, there has been an accelerating and deeper penetrating warming of the oceans, and a major melting of the world's ice, especially the Arctic.

Here's a report issued a few years ago that points to the many indicators of a warming planet.

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
NOAA
July 28, 2010
(GOVERNMENT REPORT - free to reproduce)
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.

 

more useless diatribe from you. The IPCC already admitted the fifteen years non warming. Why can't you? You love them don't you? And because the fifteen years didn't follow 98% of the models predictions they are wrong. Now what is next? is to understand why the 98% of the models were wrong. Period!

 

I will believe your diatribes when you provide an actual experiment rather than statistics based off of a theory. Or a correction to modeling based on actual observation. To date, none. So, you are failing at demonstrating the basic line of your argument, that CO2 drives temperature. Thumbs continue down on this one. Next!

 

That perfectly describes all of your worthless posts.

Another denier cult myth. There has been very significant warming of the planet over the last decade and a half. The oceans absorb over 90% of the sun's energy and they have been warming the fastest. There was a period a few years ago when some people were talking about an apparent slowdown in the rate of (just) surface air temperature warming but that was a mistaken impression arising from the lack of adequate temperature recording stations in the Arctic. Later research has shown that there has been no slowdown even in surface air temperature rise.

Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
RealClimate
Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
13 November 2013
(excerpt)
A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

You denier cultists have many crackpot myths about climate models. This is another one of those. The models are actually doing very well in predicting what has been happening, as I just demonstrated in post #43. Since you were apparently too blinded by your brainwashing to read this before, I'll give you another opportunity.

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
The Guardian
Duncan Clark
27 March 2013
(excerpts)
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows. The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change. The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true. Allen said: "I think it's interesting because so many people think that recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were predicting back in the 1990s." He added: "Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures (and even more so in British weather!), but the success of these early forecasts suggests the basic understanding of human-induced climate change on which they were based is supported by subsequent observations."

 

more useless data. Sorry pal, it doesn't work. 98% of the models were wrong and the oceans have not been warming. Even stated in the IPCC report they didn't know where the heat went. So please, the diatribes from useless sites is well, useless.

Post that experiment that actually shows where CO2 drives temperatures. That's the one all deniers want to see. Just give us that one and then we can have a discussion.

Edit:
Storch said the models say the planet should be warming much more than it has.

"According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero," Storch told Der Spiegel. "This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

Edit 2:

 

Only "useless" to people like yourself who can't understand it.

Your denier cult myths that are not supported by any evidence don't magically become true if you keep repeating them. The climate models actually have a very good success rate and scientific research shows that the oceans are indeed warming. I have repeatedly cited and quoted scientific search studies that confirm this. You have posted your own hot air, unsupported by any evidence.

That perfectly describes your clueless rants on this subject.

No matter how many times someone shows you the scientific evidence supporting AGW, you will find some absurd excuse for denying that evidence. That's a prediction.

CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:

* Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.

* Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.

* Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.

* Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.

* Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.

CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:

* R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 109:6, April 2008, 906-921.

* Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.

* Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16 O 12 C 16 O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.

* Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO 2 IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.

* Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.

Earth's upward emission of IR:

* Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).

* Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).

* Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).

* Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.

* Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.

* Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.

Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:

* Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).

* Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.

* Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.

* Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).

* Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.

Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:

* Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).

* Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).

* Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.

* Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).

* Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:

* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.

* Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.

* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.

* Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.

* Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.
[/SIZE