Climate Change Could Happen Slower for the Next Decade, Study Says

could of fooled us. Why mention what you mentioned about being a EE? Who cares? Seems you're jealous you're talking about him and he aint' about you!

 

Present some evidence and then you might actually be able to make a statement like that. But now, Naw. you have no data, zip, nadda, zero. All of your posts are studies of someone's wet dream! So careful, don't wake up!!!!

 

Simply mentioning that you know more about a subject so you wont be swayed by an authors bull(*)(*)(*)(*) isn't jelousey. Personally I would like to see a real expert on power systems like Mike Turbrugen rip this guy appart.

Basic wave theory destroys this guys arguments. A large amount of the source needs to be spatially close to load or voltage will frequently collapse. The idea that you can simply rely on HVDC is sophistic.It assumes that everything is always going to be hunky dory. Which is never the case in a real power systems. Things break all the time.

 

Agree in the electrical power field. Things like lightning have a strange way of finding it's way to the systems and blowing them up! then there are people who don't respect it and increase the potential for accidents. Or age and load will interfere with the flow of the power. Overload is a true issue, no doubt, and why we need more power plants, and coal and natural gas are being held hostage in this country. And you all don't want to go to the clean nuclear way. Not sure I really understand how this has any bearing on climate though.

 

Your post is total bullcrap.

You've been bamboozled by deliberately deceptive denier cult propaganda.

1934 was, until 2012, the hottest year on record but only in the USA, not the world, you poor dupe. The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface and 1934 was not a particularly hot year globally.

Moreover, 2012 beat 1934's record for record high temperatures in the US.

THE WEATHER YEAR IN REVIEW: A SNEAK PREVIEW
U.S. leads the world in unusual heat
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
December 12, 2012
(UCAR Terms of Use - The user is granted the right to use the Site for non-commercial, non-profit research, or educational purposes only, without any fee or cost.) (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Last week NOAA released its monthly set of statistics, which allows us to look at the period from January to November. Some of the signals are so strong that December won’t change the outcome. Looking at the January–November period since records began in 1895, this year is by far the warmest on record for the contiguous U.S. (the “lower 48” states). The average of 57.06°F beats 1934 by a full degree Fahrenheit (see graph at right). More than a dozen runner-up years are less than 1°F behind 1934, which tells you how much of an outlier 2012 is.


Graph of Jan-Sep. average temperatures over the Lower 48 States since 1895 (blue trace). Record-setting 2012 temperature is circled in upper-right corner. Long-term trend shown by sloping red line. For the January–November period in 2012, U.S. temperatures averaged just over 57°F. That's more than 1°F above the January-to-November value for the previous record-warm year (1934) and more than 3°F above the 118-year average. (Graph courtesy NOAA National Climatic Data Center.)

Here’s another clue:
as of December 11, NOAA reports that U.S. weather stations across all 50 U.S. states have broken or tied 33,659 daily record highs and only 6,275 record lows. That’s more than a 5:1 ratio, soaring beyond the 2:1 ratio that prevailed in the last decade. (See our short “weather on steroids” video for more on this trend.)

You can’t pin an entire year of warmth on a single culprit, but the Great Warm Wave of March 2012 looms large. As evident in the NOAA graph below, March pushed this year far above its chief rivals, and the benefit of that head start persisted throughout the year.


Unprecedented March heat pushed the year 2012 far above other warm years for the contiguous U.S., and most of that margin persisted through November. The colored lines show where the final tally is likely to end up, depending on December temperatures, which are now running well above average. (Graph courtesy NOAA National Climatic Data Center.)

As far as global temperature goes, 2012 hasn’t been quite as much of a standout, although it does sustain the string of warmth that made 2001–10 the warmest decade in at least the last century.

With data available through October, the World Meteorological Organization announcedthat 2012 was the planet’s ninth warmest Jan-Oct. period in analyses going back to 1850. The La Niña conditions that have waxed and waned since 2010 have helped tamp down global temperatures, so when the next El Niño arrives, a new global record might well be possible.

It’s apparent on the map of global temperature anomalies at right that the contiguous United States is the world’s leading hot spot for 2012. Note the blob of blue to the northwest, though—a sign that Alaska is strongly bucking the national trend. Through November, Alaska has seen the 13th coolest year in its records, which go back to 1918.


For the period January to October, much of the globe saw temperatures above the 1981–2010 average. The most anomalous warmth was centered near the Great Lakes, with unusually cool readings hovering over western Alaska. Gray areas indicate where data was unavailable. (Map courtesy NOAA National Climatic Data Center.)

A CLIMATE TALKING POINT BITES THE DUST

While this year’s record U.S. heat isn’t a particular milestone for planet Earth, it’s quite significant for climate change politics. Contrarian pundits have long pointed to the persistence of the impressive annual heat record set during the peak of the 1930s Dust Bowl.

That 1934 record was virtually matched in 1998. But a media/blogosphere storm eruptedin 2007 when a minor error emerged in NASA’s comparison of the two years. Most researchers emphasized the fact that the 50 United States cover a mere 2% of Earth’s surface, so U.S. temperature signals are only a tiny piece of the pie. In any case, 2012 puts a decisive end to this tempest in a global-warming teapot.

© 2014 UCAR

 

Can you say mumbo jumbo? Yes I can.regurgitated, it's all you got.

 

More data means more questions.

[video=youtube_share;bvGIE1y3cXA]http://youtu.be/bvGIE1y3cXA[/video]

 

Bob Tisdale is a denier cult propagandist with no education or training in climate science. Your graph is NOT from NASA. It is a fraudulent construct.

Here's the actual sea surface temperature trend.






Notice how the 'trend rate' increases after 1980 to over three times the previous rate of increase.

 

LOLOLOLOL......sound science from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is "mumbo jumbo"? LOLOLOL.

Blind demented denial of science and reality is "all you got"!

 

LOL, you can't even pay attention to the x axis.

 

Meaningless nonsense. Sea surface temperatures show a rising trend that has been verified many times. Blind ignorant denial of science and reality is ALL you've got.

 

Not surprising since they have been rising since the beginning of the Holocene. It got warmer you know.

 

Delusional denier cult nonsense with no basis in reality. Holocene warmth peaked over nine thousand years ago, held steady for a few thousand years and then began cooling about fifty-five thousand years ago, including sea surface temperatures. Your unsupported delusions are pathetic nonsense.

True face of climate's hockey stick graph revealed
NewScientist
by Michael Marshall
07 March 2013
(excerpts)
Earth's temperature is changing faster now than at any time since the last ice age, according to a new analysis of global temperatures spanning the last 11,300 years. The study has produced the first extension of the notorious "hockey stick" temperature graph all the way back to the end of the last ice age. Thermometre measurements only exist back to around 1860, so when climatologists reconstruct historical temperatures, they must use proxies. Tree rings, for instance, are useful because they are thicker during warm years when trees can grow faster. Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in Corvallis and colleagues have compiled 73 such proxies from around the world, all of which reach back to the end of the last glacial period, 11,300 years ago. During this period, known as the Holocene, the climate has been relatively warm – and civilisation has flourished. "Most global temperature reconstructions have only spanned the past 2000 years," says Marcott. Marcott's graph shows temperatures rising slowly after the ice age, until they peaked 9500 years ago. The total rise over that period was about 0.6 °C. They then held steady until around 5500 years ago, when they began slowly falling again until around 1850. The drop was 0.7 °C, roughly reversing the previous rise. Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures shooting up, driven by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of warming in the last 150 years is unlike anything that happened in at least 11,000 years, says Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in Marcott's study. It was Mann who created the original hockey stick graph, which showed the change in global temperatures over the last 1000 years.


The new hockey stick (Image: Shaun A. Marcott et al./Science)

Over the Holocene, temperatures rose and fell less than 1 °C, and they did so over thousands of years, says Marcott. "It took 8000 years to go from warm to cold." Agriculture, communal life and forms of government all arose during this relatively stable period, he adds. Then in 100 years, global temperatures suddenly shot up again to very close to the previous maximum. How fast temperatures change is the real issue of climate change, says Mann. "That's what challenges our adaptive capacity." Rapid change means farming practices must alter quickly, and preparations for extreme weather events must also be rapidly put in place. The gradual changes through the Holocene were driven by changes in Earth's rotation, says Marcott. The planet is tilted about 23° relative to the plane of its orbit, and this tilt increased early in the Holocene before decreasing again. "It sort of wobbles," Marcott says. A greater tilt increases the amount of sunlight at the poles during summer, and this keeps the planet warmer. If humans had not begun warming the planet by releasing greenhouse gases, Earth would eventually return to an ice age. "If we were following the orbital trend we'd still be cooling," Marcott says.

 

The temperature reconstruction does not allow any conclusions to be made about the period after 1900.

Marcott on the paper:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/comment-page-1

Got that?? the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes

What that means is that this paper actually has nothing to do with a "hockey stick" as it does not have the ability to reproduce 20th century temperatures in a manner that is "statistically robust."

You have been had by the media.

 

LOLOLOL....and, of course, scientists don't need any proxie reconstructions for the period after 1900 because they have the even more accurate instrumental temperature records of surface air temperatures for that period. The fact that this seems like a problem to you is just a sad commentary on your ignorance about science.

 

You cannot tack on actual measurements to proxies for very good reasons. The only accurate record would be total proxy or total measurements. There are other proxies besides tree rings, which are fraught with problems.

Marcott Et. Al. has no blade, that is a media fiction. What does that say about your gullibility?

 

Ridiculous anti-science drivel with no connection to reality. Scientists merge various data sets all the time. You are clueless.

 

You really don't understand the uncertainties and problems associated with proxy reconstructions do you.

 

It doesn't matter! Scientists understand all of those issues ten thousand times better than you do. You are clueless and know nothing about science. Your objections are worthless drivel.

 

I guess for you ignorance is bliss then.

 

For you, ignorance = denial of reality.

Reality always wins, in the end.

 

Nice graph. Seen the older ones. Ever consider "what is" we didn't pollute the skies and later clear them again?

It fits nicely with TSI:

 

LOL. You really expect to get away with that kind of crap? That's hilarious.

A quick shuffle with some altered graphs and some nebulous claims that it's probably the sun causing temperature changes, with the implication that it is therefore magically not CO2 doing it and therefore we shouldn't impede the profit flow of your fossil fuel industry puppetmasters. LOLOL. Very slick. But, of course...

...Your whole post is fraudulent.

You're deliberately and deceptively trying to fool people into thinking that some anonymous fraudulent crap, that you probably scrapped the link to off of some astroturfed denier cult blog, has some actual connection to the scientific research results published by the EPA. You took some genuine EPA files titled "Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2014 (pdf)", (which has, in one section titled "Sea Surface Temperatures", the global sea surface temperature graph that I just posted), and you wrapped that url around the image file of some anonymous crap stored on 'photobucket' that features a couple of heavily overwritten and fraudulently altered versions of the actual EPA graph, with a claim, in bold, vaguely attributing the "graph" to the EPA. The first graph is overlaid with some guy's meaningless and unscientific personal artwork. The second graph in that set shows no temperature increase after about 1958, when, in fact, the global temperature increases in the last quarter of the twentieth century were extreme and the fastest increases in many thousands of years, at least. LOL....who are they trying to fool anyway....ignorant country bumpkins maybe? The anonymous source of that pseudo-science BS you posted tries hard to give the impression that it is an official EPA graph to give it an air of legitimacy. Denier cult propaganda, you can tell it by the smell of deceit.

Here's what the EPA actually says...


This figure shows changes in ocean heat content between 1955 and 2013. Ocean heat content is measured in joules, a unit of energy, and compared against the 1971–2000 average, which is set at zero for reference. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The lines were independently calculated using different methods by three agencies: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and Japan Meteorological Agency’s Meteorological Research Institute (MRI/JMA). For reference, an increase of 5 units on this graph (5 x 1022 joules) is equal to approximately 100 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year. 4
Data sources: CSIRO, 2014; 5 MRI/JMA, 2014; 6 NOAA, 2014 7

('Figure 1' is the graph that I posted earlier that got altered in LOP's anonymous propaganda post)

KEY POINTS
* Sea surface temperature increased over the 20th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2013, temperatures rose at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade (see Figure 1).
* Sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began in 1880 (see Figure 1).
* Increases in sea surface temperature have largely occurred over two key periods: between 1910 and 1940, and from about 1970 to the present. Sea surface temperatures appear to have cooled between 1880 and 1910 (see Figure 1).
* Changes in sea surface temperature vary regionally. While most parts of the world’s oceans have seen temperatures rise, a few areas have actually experienced cooling—for example, parts of the North Atlantic (see Figure 2).


This map shows how average sea surface temperatures around the world changed between 1901 and 2012. It is based on a combination of direct measurements and satellite measurements. A black “+” symbol in the middle of a square on the map means the trend shown is statistically significant. White areas did not have enough data to calculate reliable long-term trends.

As for the question that the file you posted asks, the answer is definitely no, even in the absence of any industrial pollution, solar changes alone cannot account for any of the observed changes in ocean temperatures in the previous century or now.

Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests
Institute of Physics
8 November 2013
Source: Environmental Research Letters
(excerpts)
Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found. The findings, made by Professor Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Professor Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, find that neither changes in the activity of the Sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming. The results have been published today, 8 November, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters.
...
Furthermore, the researchers reviewed their own previous studies and surveyed the relevant literature to find other evidence of a link between solar activity and increasing global temperatures existing. Their findings indicated that overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less and cannot have contributed more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century. “We conclude that the level of contribution of changing solar activity is less than 10 per cent of the measured global warming observed in the twentieth century. As a result of this and other work, the IPCC state that no robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified.”

 

Not my problem that you don't understand my point. I see since your mind is made up, that explaining why would be a waste of time.

You deny questions and jump to conclusions and insult.

You are the denier of science. Not I.

Science is all about "why."

You would obviously rather worship at the AGW alter.