World is getting warmer, says global climate report (Update)

Jul 17, 2014 by Kerry Sheridan
Spectators cool down in a fountain during the hot weather in Melbourne on January 14, 2014

The world is getting warmer, as greenhouse gases reach historic highs and Arctic sea ice melts, making 2013 one of the hottest years on record, international scientists said Thursday.

The annual State of the Climate report 2013 is a review of scientific data and weather events over the past year, compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries.

The report looks at essential climate variables, much like a doctor checks a person's vital signs at an annual checkup, said Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

While Karl declined to give a diagnosis for the planet, he said the report shows some surprises but an ongoing trend that continues the warming pattern seen in recent decades.

"If we want to do an analogy to human health, if we are looking at our weight gain and we are trying to maintain an ideal weight, we are continuing to see ourselves put on more weight from year to year," Karl told reporters.

"The planet—its state of the climate—is changing more rapidly in today's world than in any time in modern civilization."

Global temperatures were among the warmest on record worldwide, with four major datasets showing 2013 ranked between second and sixth for all-time heat, the report found.

"Australia observed its warmest year on record, while Argentina had its second warmest and New Zealand its third warmest," said the report.

Sea surface temperatures also rose, making last year among the 10 warmest on record.

A firefighter attempts to contain wildfires in the Blue Mountains on October 22, 2013 during Australia's hottest year on record

The Arctic-Antarctic conundrum

The Arctic marked its seventh warmest year since records began in the early 1900s.

Arctic sea ice cover was the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979.

Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing—particularly at the end of winter when it is at its maximum—about one to two percent growth per decade.

"This is a conundrum as to why the Arctic ice cover is behaving differently than the Antarctic," said James Renwick, associate professor in the school of geography at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

"We love questions like this because it creates more important research questions that need to be addressed."

Renwick said the growth relates to sea ice in Antarctica, not the glacial ice mass on the continent, which was the subject of recent studies finding that the loss of ice in the Western Antarctic may be unstoppable.

New records

Meanwhile, methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that come from burning fossils fuels "continued to rise during 2013, once again reaching historic high values," said the report.

For the first time, the daily concentration of C02 in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm), as measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a year after observational sites in the Arctic observed C02 at 400 ppm in spring 2012.

On average, global sea levels also rose, keeping pace with a trend of adding about three millimeters per year over the past two decades, it said.

"In 2013, global average sea level reached a new record high," said Jessica Blunden, climatologist at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

"It was one and a half inches (3.81 centimeters) higher than the 1993 to 2010 average."

The report is published in the peer-reviewed Bulletin of the American Meterological Society.

Explore further: Long-term climate warming trend sunstained in 2013

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Long-term climate warming trend sunstained in 2013

Jan 22, 2014

NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the ...

2013 sixth hottest year, UN says (Update)

Feb 05, 2014

Last year tied for the sixth hottest on record, confirming that Earth's climate system is in the grip of warming that will affect generations to come, the UN's weather agency said Wednesday.

World had fourth warmest January

Feb 20, 2014

The globe cozied up to the fourth warmest January on record this year, essentially leaving just the eastern half of the United States out in the cold.

Mild 2013 cuts Arctic a break, warming woes remain

Dec 12, 2013

The rapid melting in the Arctic eased up this year. But the government says global warming is still dramatically altering the top of the world, reducing the number of reindeer and shrinking snow and ice, while increasing ...

Recommended for you

Dutch unveil big plan to fight rising tides

56 minutes ago

The Netherlands on Tuesday unveiled a multi-billion-euro, multi-decade plan to counter the biggest environmental threat to the low-lying European nation: surging seawater caused by global climate change.

Drought hits Brazil coffee harvest

3 hours ago

Coffee output in Brazil, the world's chief exporter, will slide this year after the worst drought in decades, agricultural agency Conab said Tuesday.

Landmark fracking study finds no water pollution

5 hours ago

The final report from a landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has found no evidence that chemicals or brine water from the gas drilling process moved upward to contaminate drinking water at one site ...

Politics divide coastal residents' views of environment

6 hours ago

From the salmon-rich waters of Southeast Alaska to the white sand beaches of Florida's Gulf Coast to Downeast Maine's lobster, lumber and tourist towns, coastal residents around the U.S. share a common characteristic: ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2014
http://en.wikiped...e_change

This about says it all. If my amateurish look at weather patterns around the North Pole is any indication, that "polar vortex," wind systems roughly circling the poles, are very efficiently moving heat into the Arctic, and cooling outside it. Again like ice in your Pepsi.

We've reached another stage of climate change. I think I'll call this one: Global Warming.
;o(
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2014
Let's put this infamous "melting WAIS" rumor into perspective. They found 2 glaciers out of 100 that are currently receding. Were they expecting all Antarctic glaciers to sit still? Some other study found that there is apparent geological activity in both cases. What will they say when these galiciers started to grow next decade? That is the problem: they took their grant money and made worthless unfalcifiable predictions stretching hundreds of years ahead. A typical fantasy study without accountability. Finally, there is nothing new here: John Mercer raised WAIS alarm almost half a century ago. And what part of of his prediction have materialized? Zero.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2014
Speaking of predictions stretching hundreds years ahead. 200 years ago people didn't even know that there was a continent down south!
strangedays
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2014
Who wants to bet that Tegiri cannot provide a credible link to the allegation that only 2 glaciers out of 100 are currently receding on the WAIS?

Here is a good discussion on what is happening on the WAIS

http://www.carbon...lapsing/
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2014
"Collapse" -- seriously?
http://wattsupwit...om-1999/
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2014
I wonder if Tegeri was responding to my comment - asking for support for the claim that only 2 of the 100 WAIS glaciers are currently receding - and Tegiri provides this link - http://wattsupwit...om-1999/

Pretty amazing right?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2014
"Collapse" -- seriously?
http://wattsupwit...om-1999/


Tegeri: Whatsup? Seriously?
TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2014
http://dotearth.b...amp;_r=0

According to this source the sky will be falling in 200-900 years (with the rate of 4 inches per century!). Of course, none of apocalypse predictors would be around at the time to be blamed for wrong forecast if nothing really happens.

On a similar thought, given current antarctic sea ice expansion, in couple centuries we may see frozen sea around Australia.

Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2014
On a similar thought, given current antarctic sea ice expansion, in couple centuries we may see frozen sea around Australia.


What is so interesting is how the denialist camp wails about the science community - all engaged in a conspiracy - blah blah blah. Now look at how blatant the ignorance, and lack of integrity that is displayed here. Tegiri makes a specious claim that only 2 of the 100 WAIS glaciers are melting (no supporting link). I call tegiri on this blatant falsehood - and I ask for support. Tegiri just changes the subject - and thinks it is fine to spread lies, and then ignore honest calls for support for some source of those lies. You guys are just a joke - you have no credibility.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2014
If you insist
http://www.the-cr...2014.pdf
names exactly 2 glaciers receding: Pine Island and Thwaites.
Here is the list of all the antarctic glaciers:
http://en.wikiped...tic:_A-H
http://en.wikiped...tic:_I-Z
Egleton
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2014
www.the-cryospher...2014.pdf
Blank-nil- nada.
http://en.wikiped...tic:_A-H
A list of glaciers-no information
An so on and so forth.
Bullshit artist TegriNashi
Jontee
5 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2014
If you insist
http://www.the-cr...2014.pdf


Did you actually read that article? If you had you might have realised that it actually describes a new method of accounting for ice deposition on these 2 glaciers. Even accounting for this new addition of ice they still found BOTH glaciers are melting. They simply chose to study these 2 large glaciers only and have not applied the method yet to the others. This does not mean that the other 98 aren't receding.....
perhaps read articles you cite in future
RhoidSlayer
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
earth , the hellacious planet where molten ice falls like rain
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2014
There are more comprehensive surveys
http://rsta.royal...637.full
These two glaciers are anomalies.

Ones more, the Antarctic surface temperature records evidence no warming at all. Given Argo data, Southern ocean temperature increase is dubious as well. It is well known that precipitation changes can have much bigger affect on glacier dynamics than temperatures.

So, what you have here? Two outliers whose recession is probably caused by geologic activity?
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2014
Tegiri continues to add bull shit to bull shit. Tegiri made a very clear, and easily checked claim. That only 2 out of 100 glaciers on the WAIS are receding. Tegiri (of course cannot support this claim - as it is not true). A full read of Tegiri's own reference http://rsta.royal...637.full gives a very full - and interesting look into the dynamics of the Antarctic.

Tegiri et al think it is funny to spread lies - and to be a part of the resistance to the development of the scientific understanding of our world - sickening.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2014
"Collapse" -- seriously?
http://wattsupwit...om-1999/

Tegiri:
Nothing and I mean absolutely NOTHING, that can be found on WUWT is of a credible nature.
I have posted there and read the complete bollocks that passes for scientifically credible discourse .... well unless you include what I posted, before I retreated in order to preserve my sanity.
runrig
5 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2014
On a similar thought, given current antarctic sea ice expansion, in couple centuries we may see frozen sea around Australia.

Another example of denialists' linear thinking.
They expect every forecast to be correct, as in global temps to rise on a straight line, smack between the error bounds. They expect hurricanes/tornados to increase as though surface temps are the only trigger to their formation. They expect the seas to warm at the same rate everywhere, for the Great Lakes levels to continue to fall incrementally, mistaking weather for climate as though this mightily complex system that is the Earth's climate must beat to their drum and damn well keep warming/rising/shrinking everywhere the same, else it's all LIES. The forecasts are wrong. A tip. The world is complicated, climate is complicated and humans are complicated, except in your case where simplistic thinking from a biased mind causes you to fail. Utterly. And what for? My "tax dollars" ? Reds under the beds? FFS
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2014
They expect

Because that has been the AGW message.
Maybe you need to start asking your AGWite friends to tone down their 'sky is falling' rhetoric.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
Because that has been the AGW message.


Correct - the AGW message has been that our planet is warmig - primarily as a result of the increased level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The mechanisms are well documented, and understood. What is less understood is the details of how that increased warming will move around between the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice sheets, and the land masses. They (being the scientists studying the system) expect that if we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere - the warming will continue. This expectation is in line with current observations.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2014
What is less understood is the details

Not according to the AGWites.
They take every opportunity to blame any problem on AGW.
Even claiming AGW will cause 'gingers' to become extinct.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
Arctic sea ice cover was the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979.

Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing—particularly at the end of winter when it is at its maximum—about one to two percent growth per decade.
..and this is why I discourage references to "global warming", and encourage people to use the term "climate change". Most people live in the northern hemisphere, which is most impacted by increasing temerature changes. I maintain that the two greatest single influences on climate change are..
1. the precession cycle or, the ice age cycle, if you prefer. Ice ages occur roughly every 27,000 years, which is the same period for a complete cycle of precession, one complete wobble of the earth's axis. This means that we are in the closing stages of the warming phase, and we can expect warmer temperatures, disappearing north polar ice, and rising sea levels. They've happened before and affected huge coastal populations.
2. jet engine exhaust.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
...AGW message has been that our planet is warmig - primarily as a result of the increased level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The mechanisms are well documented, and understood...


Is this an extract from talk by infamous internet inventor? Because all your adjectives are meaningless. Science requires hard and cold numbers.

Speaking of numbers, they don't work in your favor.
- As soon as microwave satellite observations started, it became evident that average temperature increase is not as bad as land temperature adjusters wanted us to believe. Basically, their claims are now kept in check.
- As soon as sea ice satellite imaging started, it became evident, that old rumors of disappearing polar ice are unfounded. Currently we have total sea ice cover being exactly the same as when the record started in 1979.
- As soon as Argo sensor network started to function it witnessed minuscule world ocean temperature increase, much lower than what was prior"common wisdom"
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
Science requires hard and cold numbers.


Which is exactly what you lacked when you claimed that only 2 of the 100 WAIS glaciers were melting. Even when called on your false information - you doubled down - and provided a series of links that actually contradicted your case.

Why would you continue to try to comment on a science site - after such blatant bullshit - with no support?
strangedays
5 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2014
Not according to the AGWites. [/]

AGWits are fully aware of the limitations of their knowledge. Read this article - there is an interesting discussion of the limitations of our understanding of Antarctica.

http://rsta.royal...637.full
The Alchemist
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
OK, here's your chance to get your free kicks in-I am not understanding this claim the Antarctic is expanding, yet it seems to persist.
Increase in area does not seem to be dramatic, though is IS huge as seasonal variations go.
But the mass loss from underneath is spectacular, and isn't that the biggest issue?

That cold less dense fresh(ish) water is escaping to the fringe of the ice boundary, where with a higher freezing temperature, allows the ice to expand in area.

Isn't that about right?
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
"REDHEADS could become extinct as Scotland gets sunnier, experts have claimed.

The gene that causes red hair is thought to be an evolutionary response to the lack of sun in Scotland.

Redhead colouring allows people to get the maximum vitamin D from what little sun there is.

Only one to two per cent of the world's population has red hair but in Scotland the figure is about 13 per cent, or 650,000 people.

However, the figure could fall dramatically – and even see redheads die out completely in a few centuries – if predictions that the country's climate is set to become much sunnier are true."
http://www.dailyr...-3814089
strangedays
5 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
You don't really expect facts to change his mind, do you?


Oh hell no - I know better than that. Just if I have a second - post a response to bullshit. I know - feeding the trolls if frowned on - I don't know - maybe some good comes of it - gives physorg some extra clicks - hell I love this site.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
err...@toad you're psychotic, have you been licking yourself again?

...and that's best you can do? What's up w/you anyway? I don't recall us exchanging any shots before. And since it usually takes a disgusting kind of lowlife to get me going, I really don't comprehend your vehemence. Are you a reincarnation of VendicarA-E or something?

I say I don't get something, and you can't even be bothered to be specific enough in your mockery to be germane. V disappointing. :)

Cordially...
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
OK, here's your chance to get your free kicks in-I am not understanding this claim the Antarctic is expanding, yet it seems to persist.
Increase in area does not seem to be dramatic, though is IS huge as seasonal variations go.
But the mass loss from underneath is spectacular, and isn't that the biggest issue?

That cold less dense fresh(ish) water is escaping to the fringe of the ice boundary, where with a higher freezing temperature, allows the ice to expand in area.

Isn't that about right?


Alche, I'll bite. First, I need to clarify what you are asking. Let me see if I have it right.

You are asking why people think "the antarctic is expanding."

I think you are citing the idea that fresh water from under the ice sheet is flowing into the area around the antarctic and expanding the sea ice.

Are you saying that the fresher water flowing out from under the ice and should not count toward the new ice (since it came from old ice)?

Please elucidate and we can discuss it.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2014
OK, here's your chance to get your free kicks in-I am not understanding this claim the Antarctic is expanding, yet it seems to persist.
Increase in area does not seem to be dramatic, though is IS huge as seasonal variations go.
But the mass loss from underneath is spectacular, and isn't that the biggest issue?

That cold less dense fresh(ish) water is escaping to the fringe of the ice boundary, where with a higher freezing temperature, allows the ice to expand in area.

Isn't that about right?


Well done Alchy ... indeed, correct.
However the increase of and less convergence off winds into the continent is the dominant effect.
3432682
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2014
Today's temperatures are below the average of the last 12,000 years, since the end of the last ice age.

It was warmer in the medieval warming period, the Roman period, the minoan period, and it was warmer most of the time from there back to the ice age ending.

Looking at just the last 100 years cherry-picking.

We've increased CO2 about 50% since 1850, the end of the little ice age. During that time the average temp has gone up 0.7C, or 1.25F. A doubling of CO2 from now should therefore yield an increase in temp of about 1.1C, or 2F. CO2 increase has a decreasing greenhouse effect.

But probably the stronger effect causing warming is recovery from the little ice age, one of a handful of coldest periods in the last 12,000 years.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2014
@ 3432682
Looking at just the last 100 years cherry-picking.


No it is not - it is very relevant to the whole discussion of our climate. The same recycled arguments just keep coming up over and over.

How do we know what the temperatures were more than 100 years ago? Scientists constructed proxy data - right? Those same scientists are telling us that the current period of warming is unprecedented in its rate of change. Take a look at this proxy reconstruction. Can you answer the question "what is responsible for the uptick in the last 150 years?

http://en.wikiped...ison.png
pandora4real
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
Do you realize how many people see that you're providing a forum for deniers and simply skip the page? Would you tolerate people posting that the earth is flat EVERY ARTICLE you have on space science??? No; you'd skip it.

Entertaining them doesn't change minds, it doesn't increase readership and it is not socially responsible. You all must just be lazy. You've a perfectly good forums policy on the subject; implement that same policy here. Why are the comment rules different than the forum rules?
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
Do you realize how many people see that you're providing a forum for deniers and simply skip the page? Would you tolerate people posting that the earth is flat EVERY ARTICLE you have on space science??? No; you'd skip it.

Entertaining them doesn't change minds, it doesn't increase readership and it is not socially responsible. You all must just be lazy. You've a perfectly good forums policy on the subject; implement that same policy here. Why are the comment rules different than the forum rules?


"Entertaining them doesn't change minds"

If you don't mind me saying so .... but that is stating the obvious.
What will absolutely NOT happen while I know better however ....

Is for ignorance to win.
OK?
DoieaS
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
Nobody doubts the global warming today, what can be doubted easily with "hard and cold" numbers is the (dominant) human contribution on it. We already know, that the concentrations of CO2 advance the global temperatures and the trend of global warming is not so monotonous, as the anthropogenic model would imply. Unfortunately for politicians, just the human contribution is what is most important from the whole climatic research. If we would admit the cosmological origin of global warming, then for socialistic politics and "green" industry lobbyists would have no meaning to invest into "fight with it". This is why the belief in anthropogenic origin of global warming is so important for these people, which indeed affects the groupthink in climatic science, which is living nearly exclusively from this belief. In our country we have a proverb: "Carps never empty their own pond".
DoieaS
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Does it mean, we should f*ck all attempts for fossil fuel replacement? Unfortunately not, as the main problem of human society isn't global warming (which apparently cannot be reversed anyway), but the fossil fuel crisis. Such a crisis can lead into global war very easily as we can observe at many places of the world already (the Middle East crisis is just a beginning: now we have an Ukraine crisis and the forthcoming Arctic sea and Senkaku islands crisis just waits to happen). If we wouldn't react to the shortage of fossil fuels in advance, then the global warming will become least problem for most of us very soon - and the global war will hurt everyone of us.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2014
We'll grow oranges in Alaska.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
We'll grow oranges in Alaska.


Shootist, it is good to see you agreeing with the AGW theory. From most of your old posts I was concerned that you didn't understand science and you didn't think that human emissions were affecting the climate. Now I see you are aboard and realize what a threat AGW actually is. Thank you for letting us know about your change of heart and your support for the concept of AGW.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
@runrig-thanks, I guess the confusion is simply denialist blinders.

I have researched weather patterns around the North Pole; with limited resources, but it looks like there are winds circling the Arctic like vultures. The hold I have on meteorology tells me that this will efficiently transfer away from the Arctic.

But I can only look at snippets, piece-meal. But from a theoretical, since the Artcic is so small (amazing you couldn't see that until recently) that winds could form a continuous cell.

This seems to match weather/macro-weather in the Northern Hemisphere this year. Russia is as unseasonably cold as the Americas. Switzerland, etc..

Of course journals and news say ziltch. Anybody here care to peer review?
Mayday
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
I'm not a denialist by any stretch, but I do wish we could be more intellectually honest regarding rising sea levels. The sea level absolutely is rising, but I believe it has been rising at about 3mm per year, on average, for about the last 9,000 years. And it was rising much faster before that. I have heard anecdotally that it has sped up by about 1/3mm along the eastern US, but I can't confirm it (especially as the eastern half of N America is subsiding by about 1.5mm/yr). IMO, leaning on "a one foot rise in the last century" does not help make the case, but instead feels like we're trying to alarm the uninformed. This is unnecessary and counter-productive. We can do better.
The Alchemist
4 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
@Mayday
It is not complicated. In the last 30 years, the sea has risen 6cm. This is from heat released away from some "near-equilibrium." (True no matter which side of the fence you are on.)

This 6cm, multiplied by the surface area of the ocean, multiplied by the heat it takes to melt ice represent a QUANTIFIABLE change in the state of the Earth.

Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
The world is getting warmer...

...with four major datasets showing 2013 ranked between second and sixth for all-time heat, the report found.

If it ranked between second warmest and sixth warmest in 2013, it didn't get warmer globally. It's still in virtual flatline and statistically insignificant.
Renwick said the growth relates to sea ice in Antarctica, not the glacial ice mass on the continent, which was the subject of recent studies finding that the loss of ice in the Western Antarctic may be unstoppable.

Given that we now know that geothermal processes are also involved in the Western Antarctic, that probably is true.
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
@Skepticus,
Not sure I'm smelling what you're cooking, but if the poles are melting as fast as they might be, like ice in your Coke, the temperature is not a good variable to track.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Oh dear god. We haven't died yet? Maybe next week.
Caliban
5 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
The world is getting warmer...

...with four major datasets showing 2013 ranked between second and sixth for all-time heat, the report found.
If it ranked between second warmest and sixth warmest in 2013, it didn't get warmer globally. It's still in virtual flatline and statistically insignificant.


A display of ZERO understanding of statistics --or even the meaning of terms like "record", "high", "average", "global" and "trend".

What a maroon.

Renwick said the growth relates to sea ice[...]loss of ice in the Western Antarctic may be unstoppable.

Given that we now know that geothermal processes are also involved in the Western Antarctic, that probably is true.


Given that we've known of this WAIS geothermal activity for over a century, and that its contribution is largely invariant, your analysis does nothing to establish the truth. Loss of continental ice mass and Ocean-outlet glaciers is what indicates warming.

Correction: Hopeless Maroon.


Dr_toad
Jul 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Yeah, Caliban, tell it to CRU:

http://woodfortre...14/trend

As to the WAIS, the amount of geothermal activity was not then known as a potentially major driver of ice loss. That's new (although I knew about it for several years before it was published).

http://www.scienc...3425.htm
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
Dr. T,

Seattle is the humble home town.

It's kind of interesting to me that I used the term in reference to Skepticus Rex, as the other commenter here that I most often apply it to is ubavontuba, aka ubvontard, aka ubybooby, aka ubymaroon, aka UBYMORON, who always resorts to his ...Eureka!!!!... woodfortrees cherrypicked(to ignore the trendline) data set to make the claim that there has been no warming for 15-plus years.

The jig's up, UBYMORON.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2014
Caliban, I lived on Queen Anne hill in the late sixties. It was a sweet town then, but I don't think I'd like it so much now.

Uba is well-known to me as well.


Dr T-

Yeah, I'm not a native, but even so, in the decade and a half I've lived here, it has certainly lost a good deal of its charm, which, I'm told, was already seriously compromised from the mid 80s.

Always late to the party, eh?

Where are you now? Maybe an opportunity will arise to sit down together for a few pints of the Dark.

Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

From 1970 to the present, or even from the LIA to 2001, sure it has warmed. But, even those who are still professional climate scientists have acknowledged a pause in warming. You do know what a pause is or what the word 'pause' means, don't you? They are looking for anything in the sky or under a rock to explain it but they have acknowledged a pause. It is plain for all but the most hardcore climate religionists to see. Now, it remains to be seen which way that trend will go over the next 15 years. If Latif is right, it will continue to trend downward for the next up to a decade and a half. Only time will tell for sure. Either that or CRU will figure out a way for HADCRUT 5 to spike the temps upward (like they tried and failed to do with HADCRUT 4) ahead of any real warming that may or may not occur.

By the way, loved the skewed, animated gif. :-)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
SR said:
From 1970 to the present, or even from the LIA to 2001, sure it has warmed. But, even those who are still professional climate scientists have acknowledged a pause in warming. You do know what a pause is or what the word 'pause' means, don't you? They are looking for anything in the sky or under a rock to explain it but they have acknowledged a pause. It is plain for all but the most hardcore climate religionists to see.


Yes, but only if you look at surface temperatures and only slowing of the rise. However, the question has to do with how much the earth is warming - which science understands as a change in enthalpy for the earth including oceans, air, and the solid surface. The enthalpy content continues to increase. Only deniers without any scientific background can deny that.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014


Dr T-

Yeah, I'm not a native, but even so, in the decade and a half I've lived here, it has certainly lost a good deal of its charm, which, I'm told, was already seriously compromised from the mid 80s.

Always late to the party, eh?

Where are you now? Maybe an opportunity will arise to sit down together for a few pints of the Dark.


Austin, where it's too damned hot. I can't drink Guinness or Doppelspaten until the temps go down below 80F, but Shiner Bock works. If that's the Dark you meant. In this hellish summer, I like the lighter Mexican beers. ;)


I can certainly sympathize with you in that regard, after having spent a sizeable portion of my adult life in the Southeast. Ultimately, it was the Fire Ants that drove me away...none of them here, though, and --as you know-- rarely uncomfortably hot, so Guiness is almost always what I think of first.
The Alchemist
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
Enthalpy @thermostumped?
Coming around to the dark side are we? That's right enthalpy. Temperature is a red herring metric.
One that these deniers can use a s spurious proof that there is no change.

But enthalpy can be measured with the increase in the ocean levels. It is quantitative, but hardly all inclusive. Area x height x enthalpy of fusion = change in the Earth's state. This is huge, and temperature is a secondary effect. Since the Sun isn't doing anything extraordinary, the source must be here on Earth.
Unless there are some other globally impacting effects everyone is somehow unaware of, it must be man's effects on the climate. Unless mankind is doing some other actions of global magnitude everyone is unaware of, it must be fossil fuels.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
Enthalpy @thermostumped?
Coming around to the dark side are we? That's right enthalpy. Temperature is a red herring metric.
One that these deniers can use a s spurious proof that there is no change.

But enthalpy can be measured with the increase in the ocean levels. It is quantitative, but hardly all inclusive. Area x height x enthalpy of fusion = change in the Earth's state. This is huge, and temperature is a secondary effect. Since the Sun isn't doing anything extraordinary, the source must be here on Earth.
Unless there are some other globally impacting effects everyone is somehow unaware of, it must be man's effects on the climate. Unless mankind is doing some other actions of global magnitude everyone is unaware of, it must be fossil fuels.


Alche: Old buddy. You still have not shown where you said I plagiarized. Where are the links? What did I copy? You have had multiple opportunities. Where are the links? You weren't lying were you?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
Alche: I had to agree with your observation that temperature is a red herring and enthalpy is the important thermodynamic parameter. Welcome aboard the love boat!!!!
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2014
@thermo
Aww...shucks.
Now we have to convince the other white knights, and lick some sense into the deniers with other demonstable proofs.