backtop


Print 117 comment(s) - last by Kurz.. on Aug 21 at 7:34 PM


  (Source: Rensselaer)
New State of the Climate report provides evidence

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its 2009 State of the Climate report, and found that the past nine years (between 2000 and 2009) have seen the warmest temperatures since the beginning of modern temperature records, and concluded that global warming is undeniable

The report included research on 48 countries conducted by more than 300 scientists using 700 weather stations. According to the report, the year's 2000 to 2009 were warmer than the 1990's, and the 1990's were warmer than the 1980's. In addition, each consecutive year from 2000 to 2009 was hotter than the year before.

Since the 1960's, there has been an average surface air temperature rise of 0.6 degrees. While this may seem small, the scientists noticed warming climate effects in the increased sea level and humidity, declining glaciers, snow and sea ice and increased lower atmospheric and land temperatures. Signs of warming has also been found as far as two kilometers down below surface in the oceans, since, according to the report, 90 percent of warming has been absorbed by the Earth's oceans.

"Don't be fooled by anyone telling you that global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect or problems with thermometers - the satellite data don't suffer from these issues," said Neville Nicholls, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Nicholls also noted that since the satellite record began in 1979, the warming trend has been "identical" for thermometer and satellite data. 

Australia, in particular, was hit by three noteworthy heat waves in 2009. These occurred in the months of January, August and November. January's heat wave claimed hundreds of lives due to the heat and brushfires. August's broke heat records, and November's caused the city of Adelaide to witness eight consecutive days above 35 degrees. 

While warming continues to show its presence, cold spells are still expected to arise occasionally, but not often, according to the report. 

"The mid-Atlantic coast of the U.S. was extremely cold and snowy," the report stated. "At the same time, other regions were unusually warm and the globe as a whole had one of the warmest winters on record."

While this new report from the NOAA represents their firm stand on the side of global warming,not all scientists are pro warming. According to a report from the Canada Free Press, 31,486 Americans with science degrees (9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM and 12,714 BS or equivalent) have "signed on" with the Global Warming Petition Project, which sends the message that "the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Explanation please
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 2:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Were CO2 concentrations increasing or not during this period?


Yes, but so were the aerosols.


RE: Explanation please
By andrewdover on 8/5/2010 2:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
And why was 1925 to 1975 particularly different? (Pun intended !)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...


RE: Explanation please
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 4:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And why was 1925 to 1975 particularly different? (Pun intended !)

For the pun :)

Let me first correct the previous statement: temperature has increased during 1925-1975, actually it has increased between 1925 to about 1940. After that it's the (likely) aerosols-induced flattening in the net signal.

During the first period (up to the 40's), the net warming is attributed in large part to natural causes: increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity. The net anthropogenic effect being negligible during this period. After that period of largely natural increase, the flattening results from anthropogenic effects still compensating each other. At that time, sulfate and GHG increase in tandem. After 1975, the increase in sulfate becomes slower than the one of GHG and the impact of the latter shows in the net signal. You can see a figure reporting the attribution to various forcings there:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.gif


RE: Explanation please
By andrewdover on 8/5/2010 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I learned something.


RE: Explanation please
By mememine69 on 8/5/2010 4:06:00 PM , Rating: 1
Since voters are the ones with the consensus, the REAL consensus that counts, it's fair to say that unless the voting public actually starts swimming to the polls through a 1970’s-like smog cloud in a Canadian winter, starving from food shortages and dying of thirst, the entire issue of the environment being doomed, cannot be sustained for another 24 years with this needles fear.
So that leaves us with "all the scientists agree". Ya, and we were told priests wouldn't abuse boys, politicians don't lie and arms of the government such as NASA, UN, IPCC, NOAA, and the EPA are not pawns of politics? The National Academy of Sciences is under the direction of the Senate. What happened to doubting, questioning and challenging authority? Why have we become such obedient Greenzis scaring our kids with threats of death by CO2? And since when did scientists all of a sudden understand climate? Wouldn't THAT be nice eh? So how do the scientists tell the difference between what they don't understand and so-called human climate? Well, you pick a conclusion, a conclusion that nobody can prove or disprove. And there you have it, scientists, media, politicians and PR firms ALL telling the lie of climate change BUT it's not a lie when you can't prove if it's a lie or not a lie. Is this a repeat of an ancient climate? Yes, and saying it isn't is not sustainable with public support. Ask yourself three questions:
-Why are there countless thousands of consensus scientists, compared to the number of protesters? You would think it would be the scientists marching wouldn't you?
-When has anything ever been as bad as anyone has ever said it was going to be and considering that Climate Change is an "end to life as we know it -IPCC" prediction, it makes it laughable to tell our kids that their kids are going to die, correct?
-Why would people so easily, thoughtlessly and so flippantly jump to the gleeful conclusion that the planet "MUST BE SAVED" ? That’s not Green, it’s Mean!
At this moment, the political movement of global warming has entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput, finito, done.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki