Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[Tumbleweed]

I guess I'm apprehensive about future weather events because the Earth has absorbed a percentage of extra solar radiation each year now thanks to out of normal arctic ice melt in the summer since 2005. It's in the system somewhere, and since ocean temps are the warmest ever --- And nearly all the US storm events come off the Pacific, both north and south Are they sure its going to be a weak El Nino?
On another note - upper 90's today in foothills west of Seattle and currently snowing down to around 6000" just west of Denver. Single digits last night in the San Juan Mountains

 

[Tumbleweed]

Another thing about soot on ice. Is not he mechanism that melts it changing from heat transfer from the air to heat transfered from hot black soot? So the atmosphere warms even more because less heat is being taken out to melt the ice. As far as the surface melt of ice goes?

 

[Wangler]

and since ocean temps are the warmest ever ---

Says who?

 

[lomiller]

Says who?

Says NOAA.

Seems to me you want to draw that response and answer HadCRU says differently, but that isn’t the case. A handful of people on the internet have tried to make that claim on HadCRU’s behalf, which isn’t the same thing.

 

[Wangler]

Says NOAA.

Seems to me you want to draw that response and answer HadCRU says differently, but that isn’t the case.

You hit the nail on the head here, with one subtle error. I was going to reiterate the case that HadCRU data says that it is the case.

Looks like were starting at square one again.

 

[McHrozni]

I have to disagree. I think 150 years worth of records is more than enough data to show changes in climate. Did not the "little ice age" occur quite rapidly and not over millennia?

It did, and this shows us that a 'long term average' of 30 years is woefuly inadequate. Small shifts can and do happen rapidly. We don't know the exact causes, and we certainly can't quantify them. We are forced to draw conclusions from inherently poor data.

The Weather Nut Monks could have said the same thing. "Yeah its been kinda nice the last thousand years, but today it snowed in July. But hey it means nothing "long term" even if the crops do fail."

If such extremes regularily happen every 2000 years, it happened like that 1000 years before the monks' records and doesn't happen for 2000 years, then indeed, it doesn't mean anything in the long term.

Supporting data, like the data we sometimes do have on global warming can show more than mere weather extremes.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The problem with the global warming naysayers is that we have to wait 5000 years to prove them wrong. ANYTHING that happens between now and then will just be dismissed as a "quirk" by them. How can you possibly expect to make points in an argument with them given that base

You can't. That doesn't mean we should interprete every unusual event as a sign of a significant global change. It is possible that that's the case. It is also possible it isn't. We should err on the side of caution and attempt to avoid the worst. That doesn't mean giving up all fossile fuels in a 5 year period, with whatever alternatives we can provide in that time being the only replacement, since the effects of that would likely be far worse than any global shift in climate would be for us.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The Holocene has been +/- 2c

That is NOT where we are heading

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

I'm not saying global shift in climate is unlikely or anything, just that finding new extremes as such is inadequate to make that conclusion. I do agree that deeper studies have been made and they do support that conclusion. However, we should put forward that hard data, not arguable indicators.

McHrozni

 

[macdoc]

Climate change is all about excursions.....one 100 year flood in 80 years is noise.......three 100 year floods in 12 years is climate change.

Longer more intense events more often are all indicators of an unstable and changing climate regime.

It only takes one sustained or extreme event to ruin a growing season.
It only takes a few 100 year excursions in a decade to ruin a subsistence region's economy.

THe Holocene was relatively benign.

The Anthropocene will not be.

 

[McHrozni]

Climate change is all about excursions.....one 100 year flood in 80 years is noise.......three 100 year floods in 12 years is climate change.

Or poor sampling of what a 100-year flood is like.

See above as for what I think of this.

McHrozni

 

[Wangler]

Boy, you actually mention data, and it sure gets quiet around here.

 

[macdoc]

Flood water marks are often the easiest to "sample" as towns and cities have tracked it for decades and sometimes ( Paris ) centuries.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E3DA1430E233A25753C2A9659C946196D6CF

You point is meaningless......towns at risk know the highest water marks that have been reached and are very aware when it approaches the danger zone.

Towns in the midwest US had 3 floods in the hundred year range in 12 years....why ? more moisture in the atmosphere = heavier snow packs and earlier/warmer spring = faster melt so the risk of heavier flooding more often rises......along with flood insurance premiums...

The physics keep working....it's just not always temperature.....

 

[macdoc]

.00x data niggling means squat.....hence the silence...

meanwhile in the real world.....

http://www.collegenews.com/index.ph...w_10_some_schools_back_open_0923200923858922/

snip

Over 20 inches of rain in 24 hours caused massive flooding in Georgia leaving at least 10 dead and caused an estimated $250 million in damages,

more
http://www.collegenews.com/index.ph...w_10_some_schools_back_open_0923200923858922/

and video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f7NQJW3f-E

Interesting. Last year, not enough rain, but in a few hours, too much rain!

exactly.......

Did someone mention intensity.....

 

[Wangler]

.00x data niggling means squat.....

Ahh, another post demonstrating complete ignorance of what the data actually holds.

Just another day in an AGW thread.

 

[lomiller]

You hit the nail on the head here, with one subtle error. I was going to reiterate the case that HadCRU data says that it is the case.

Looks like were starting at square one again.

NOAA analysis of their data says one thing

Your analysis of HadCRU’s data says another

You do see the problem right?

 

[Wangler]

NOAA analysis of their data says one thing

Your analysis of HadCRU’s data says another

You do see the problem right?

I guess I don't see why you have a problem with me pointing out that HadCRU's data does not support the blanked statement made by Tumbleweed.

Apparently, NOAA looked at their compiled data, and put out a press release based upon said observation.

I look at HadSST2 compiled data, from the CRU data source, which leads me to dispute a claim made thus:

and since ocean temps are the warmest ever ---

Seriously, what is the issue?

I am not manipulating the HadCRU data in any way, shape or form, I am only posting what their data shows.

What's the problem?

I assume that you agree with the statement that Tumbleweed posted, that ocean temps are the warmest ever?

I have at least one dataset, compiled by experts at HadCRU, that are at odds with that statement.

Do you wish to ignore that data?

Should I contact HadCRU and see if they agree with my conclusion, based upon them looking at the same data that I am looking at?

Give me a valid, scientific reason to discount the HadCRU compiled data, and I will.

 

[DogB]

Give me a valid, scientific reason to discount the HadCRU compiled data, and I will.

Because you're looking at the raw data, not the 'adjusted' data.

 

[DogB]

Removed because I used the wrong link, sorry.

 

[DogB]

According to Bob Tisdale, NOAA’s own sats also disagree with the data they released.

Of course Bob is a crazy AGW denier so they data can be safely ignored.

 

[mhaze]

According to Bob Tisdale, NOAA’s own sats also disagree with the data they released.

Of course Bob is a crazy AGW denier so they data can be safely ignored.

Time to post the R scripts for retrieving and graphing the temperature data?