Dot shouts that global warming isn't real .... really?

http://news.yahoo.com/un-2013-extreme-events-due-warming-earth-122616476.html


Let's define just who says it isn't real: Shill scientists working on grants funded by oil companies, hard right politicians funded by the same sources, and whacko right wing Christian fundamentalists who can't think for themselves.

As for the broad majority of scientists, they agree entirely with the U.N. report cited above.

And because of oil company greed which presses dangerously hard against real science, we humans continue to belch out gases that increase surface temps and produce the horrific storms we're now experiencing.

I'm sure Mobil-Exxon sends a big thank you to people like Dot.

What surprises me is she claims to work in healthcare ... glad I'm not her patient. I want one who deals with fact ...

Reality.

Let's see the logic...very much like

Saudi Arabians brought down the towers so we must attack Iraq...

There is global warming so we must give Al Gore money....

damn fine reasoning.

AGW is a theory. Models are created to test the theory. The models and raw data must be peer reviewed.

The observations are that there has been negligible warming for the last 17 years... it does not support the hypothesis.

This is where critical thinkers adjust the theory. The limited scale, variables and natural adjustments make it highly difficult.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html

Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability 3, 4, 6, 7 , external cooling influences 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors 12, 13 . Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions 1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/how-the-ocean-reins-in-global-warming.html

In recent years, a hot topic in climate science has arisen over the fact that climate models vary widely in their representation of ocean heat uptake. The oceans in some models absorb more or less heat in high-latitude regions such as the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean; some store heat at different depths. According to two new papers published in Geophysical Research Letters, those details matter a great deal to the predictions of global warming over the coming centuries.

There are other even greater sources for the differences in climate predictions across models, such as cloud responses to greenhouse gases, Kostov notes, “but all aspects of the climate system are important, and we have to take into account the role of the ocean in order to improve our predictions for future warming.”

These results led the MIT group to conclude that models must better represent the AMOC and its future changes, based on real-world measurements that extend over time and geographical location. Unfortunately, there is not a long record of observations in the AMOC, thanks to the enormous technical difficulty of probing the ocean’s deep layers. However, Kostov notes his excitement that a few large-scale oceanographic projects, including U.K. RAPID and U.S. CLIVAR, have started to continuously monitor how the circulation varies with depth in an effort to fill this scientific void.

Ultimately, the study critiques how the field uses observations in estimating the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. "A common way to calculate climate sensitivity simply combines recent observations of global surface temperature changes, heat uptake, and greenhouse gas forcing," says Armour, "which misses the details of how heat is getting into the ocean. One implication is that we can’t actually estimate long-term warming from present-day observations unless we take into account how the pattern of ocean heat uptake might change with time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed. [1]

Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action. [2] Aerosols and other particulates absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. Water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. [3] Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the Earth's surface. In models, these smaller droplets also decrease rainfall. [4]

Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Their effects are complex and vary in time, location, and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect; however, at night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth's heat loss.

PkrBum wrote:AGW is a theory. Models are created to test the theory. The models and raw data must be peer reviewed.

The observations are that there has been negligible warming for the last 17 years... it does not support the hypothesis.

This is where critical thinkers adjust the theory. The limited scale, variables and natural adjustments make it highly difficult.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html

Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability 3, 4, 6, 7 , external cooling influences 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors 12, 13 . Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions 1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/how-the-ocean-reins-in-global-warming.html

In recent years, a hot topic in climate science has arisen over the fact that climate models vary widely in their representation of ocean heat uptake. The oceans in some models absorb more or less heat in high-latitude regions such as the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean; some store heat at different depths. According to two new papers published in Geophysical Research Letters, those details matter a great deal to the predictions of global warming over the coming centuries.

There are other even greater sources for the differences in climate predictions across models, such as cloud responses to greenhouse gases, Kostov notes, “but all aspects of the climate system are important, and we have to take into account the role of the ocean in order to improve our predictions for future warming.”

These results led the MIT group to conclude that models must better represent the AMOC and its future changes, based on real-world measurements that extend over time and geographical location. Unfortunately, there is not a long record of observations in the AMOC, thanks to the enormous technical difficulty of probing the ocean’s deep layers. However, Kostov notes his excitement that a few large-scale oceanographic projects, including U.K. RAPID and U.S. CLIVAR, have started to continuously monitor how the circulation varies with depth in an effort to fill this scientific void.

Ultimately, the study critiques how the field uses observations in estimating the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. "A common way to calculate climate sensitivity simply combines recent observations of global surface temperature changes, heat uptake, and greenhouse gas forcing," says Armour, "which misses the details of how heat is getting into the ocean. One implication is that we can’t actually estimate long-term warming from present-day observations unless we take into account how the pattern of ocean heat uptake might change with time."

Does this data counter the U.N. report findings? Who paid for your sources work?

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:AGW is a theory. Models are created to test the theory. The models and raw data must be peer reviewed.

The observations are that there has been negligible warming for the last 17 years... it does not support the hypothesis.

This is where critical thinkers adjust the theory. The limited scale, variables and natural adjustments make it highly difficult.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html

Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability 3, 4, 6, 7 , external cooling influences 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors 12, 13 . Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions 1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/how-the-ocean-reins-in-global-warming.html

In recent years, a hot topic in climate science has arisen over the fact that climate models vary widely in their representation of ocean heat uptake. The oceans in some models absorb more or less heat in high-latitude regions such as the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean; some store heat at different depths. According to two new papers published in Geophysical Research Letters, those details matter a great deal to the predictions of global warming over the coming centuries.

There are other even greater sources for the differences in climate predictions across models, such as cloud responses to greenhouse gases, Kostov notes, “but all aspects of the climate system are important, and we have to take into account the role of the ocean in order to improve our predictions for future warming.”

These results led the MIT group to conclude that models must better represent the AMOC and its future changes, based on real-world measurements that extend over time and geographical location. Unfortunately, there is not a long record of observations in the AMOC, thanks to the enormous technical difficulty of probing the ocean’s deep layers. However, Kostov notes his excitement that a few large-scale oceanographic projects, including U.K. RAPID and U.S. CLIVAR, have started to continuously monitor how the circulation varies with depth in an effort to fill this scientific void.

Ultimately, the study critiques how the field uses observations in estimating the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. "A common way to calculate climate sensitivity simply combines recent observations of global surface temperature changes, heat uptake, and greenhouse gas forcing," says Armour, "which misses the details of how heat is getting into the ocean. One implication is that we can’t actually estimate long-term warming from present-day observations unless we take into account how the pattern of ocean heat uptake might change with time."

Does this data counter the U.N. report findings?  Who paid for your sources work?

Who pays for the UN's data? oh yeah, the ones that want to spread the wealth around the world with a carbon tax lol

This subject has been debated so many times here with the same result. I do not care to have this debate again. Go learn about ice ages and volcanoes and weather patterns and the sun. Then perhaps we can all have a discussion with some meat in it other than nothing but copy and paste of other paid mouth pieces for an political agenda.

Those articles are from national geographic and MIT... they list the references. It's easier to go read a huffpo opinion.

Wordslinger wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/un-2013-extreme-events-due-warming-earth-122616476.html


Let's define just who says it isn't real:  Shill scientists working on grants funded by oil companies, hard right politicians funded by the same sources, and whacko right wing Christian fundamentalists who can't think for themselves.

As for the broad majority of scientists, they agree entirely with the U.N. report cited above.

And because of oil company greed which presses dangerously hard against real science, we humans continue to belch out gases that increase surface temps and produce the horrific storms we're now experiencing.

I'm sure Mobil-Exxon sends a big thank you to people like Dot.  

What surprises me is she claims to work in healthcare ... glad I'm not her patient.  I want one who deals with fact ...

Reality.

When do you intend to begin?

I think this may be the greatest man made driver of temperature modification. What should we do about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that the short-wave radiation is still within the concrete, asphalt, and buildings that was absorbed during the day, unlike suburban and rural areas. This energy is then slowly released during the night as long-wave radiation, making cooling a slow process. [2] Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration (for example through lack of vegetation) in urban areas. With a decreased amount of vegetation, cities also lose the shade and cooling effect of trees, the low albedo of their leaves, and the removal of carbon dioxide. [7][8] Materials commonly used in urban areas for pavement and roofs, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas. [9]

Other causes of a UHI are due to geometric effects. The tall buildings within many urban areas provide multiple surfaces for the reflection and absorption of sunlight, increasing the efficiency with which urban areas are heated. This is called the "urban canyon effect". Another effect of buildings is the blocking of wind, which also inhibits cooling by convection and pollution from dissipating. Waste heat from automobiles, air conditioning, industry, and other sources also contributes to the UHI. [4][10][11] High levels of pollution in urban areas can also increase the UHI, as many forms of pollution change the radiative properties of the atmosphere. [9] As UHI raises the temperature of cities, it will also increase the concentration of ozone in the air, which is a greenhouse gas. Ozone concentrations will increase because it is a secondary gas, aided by an increase in temperature and sunlight. [12]

Some cities exhibit a heat island effect, largest at night. Seasonally, UHI shows up both in summer and winter. [13][14] The typical temperature difference is several degrees between the center of the city and surrounding fields. The difference in temperature between an inner city and its surrounding suburbs is frequently mentioned in weather reports, as in "68 °F (20 °C) downtown, 64 °F (18 °C) in the suburbs". Black surfaces absorb significantly more electromagnetic radiation, and causes the surfaces of asphalt roads and highways to heat. [15] "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4 °F (1.0–3.0 °C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22 °F (12 °C). [16] "

Nothing a lot of bulldozers and apple seeds couldn't fix..