New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

• Independent data pulled from a combination of satellites, robotic floats, and ocean buoys has confirmed a 2015 study that disproved the "global warming hiatus."
  
  
• This confirmation bolsters the already sound argument that climate change is not slowing down, emphasizing our need to find clean-energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
  

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

We have had warmer periods over the last few thousand years when there has been lower co2 levels... so...!?

What the fuck are you talking about? The last several years have been the hottest on record!

Now who's flip flopping around...?


You are happy to quote historical estimations of co2 levels... but temperatures only count since 'records began' about 100-150 years ago...!?

The most important of these animals, foraminifera (or forams for short), make their tiny shells from a form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). This carbonate is found in many common geological features, such as the White Cliffs of Dover, which were once at the bottom of the sea.

What makes calcium carbonate important? The carbonate, originally dissolved in the oceans, contains oxygen, whose atoms exist in two naturally-occurring stable isotopes, 18O and 16O. The ratio of these two isotopes tells us about past temperatures. When the carbonate solidifies to form a shell, the isotopic ratio in the oxygen (written as δ18O) varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. The change is only a tiny 0.2 parts per million decrease for each degree of temperature increase. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for us to be able to estimate the temperature of the water in which the forams lived millions of years ago.

Tommy Monk wrote:So you are now admitting that historical estimations of temperature before 'records began' are valid and relevant...?


So you must also admit that there have been warmer periods when co2 levels have been lower...!?

Thorin wrote:

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Abrupt vs slow change.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

Lush life in the Arctic during the Eocene, 50 million years ago (original art - Stephen C. Quinn, The American Museum of Natural History, N.Y.C)

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.
Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.
So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm




Tommy's claim debunked

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I said millions of years... I didn't say a couple of million years... 600 million years is millions of years!!!


You fucking jokers!!!



I make a statement... you laugh at me and say it's wrong... then you admit it's true... while still trying to laugh at me and claim I'm wrong!!!



You complete cretins!!!

TOMMY you brain dead twat, Plants did not exists in the atmosphere to absorb carbon until about 420million years ago
AGAIN get an education!!!

Your Saying in a time period from 600 million year ago to today it was that level, which it was only in the early stages by 400 million years ago it had dropped to 4000 then by 380 million years ago after the emergence of above water plants it dropped to 2000,  600 million years ago NO LIFE COULD BREATH THAT ATMOSPHERE!!! get it through you fucking head back then there was NO LAND LIFE!!! if we return to that state there will be NO LAND LIFE that includes fucking humans
I pointed out things that someone that understands would use like periods that are relevant because the don't go from start of undersea multi-celluar life until today
I used more specific time period Like the emergence of carbon sequestering plants AKA the EXACT Fucking thing the article you posted points out is the MAJOR carbon Store on this planet!!!

Listen you cretin... I never said otherwise!!!


All I said was a statement on past co2 levels!!!


Which is 100% true!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It's been warmer over the last few thousand years with lower levels of co2!!!


Get this through your thick head... co2 is not the cause of warmer temperatures!!!

The Devonian was a relatively warm period, and probably lacked any glaciers. The temperature gradient from the equator to the poles was not as large as it is today. The weather was also very arid, mostly along the equator where it was the driest.[18] Reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperature from conodont apatite implies an average value of 30 °C (86 °F) in the Early Devonian.[18] CO2 levels dropped steeply throughout the Devonian period as the burial of the newly evolved forests drew carbon out of the atmosphere into sediments; this may be reflected by a Mid-Devonian cooling of around 5 °C (9 °F).

The climate in the Permian was quite varied. At the start of the Permian, the Earth was still in an Ice Age, which began in the Carboniferous. Glaciers receded around the mid-Permian period as the climate gradually warmed, drying the continent's interiors.[17] In the late Permian period, the drying continued although the temperature cycled between warm and cool cycles

Thorin wrote:So tommy said we could not measure temp from  the past

No I didn't... don't know where you got that from...!?

I said ice cores and he does a u-turn

No... you asked if I'd heard of ice cores and I posted up 2 graphs of ice core data... both showing plenty of warmer periods in history when there were lower co2 levels... funny thing is you didn't understand either of them...

He still evades to discount Co2 levels from humans and ignores this with still more misdirection

Erm... what!?




No point talking to someone who does understand science and is only trolling this thread to disrupt

That would be you dodge!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Idiots!


It was warmer 1000 years ago when co2 levels were lower...


So...


What do you think might have been the cause of the extra warmth back then...!?


I'll give you a clue... it's a big bright hot yellow thing in the sky during the day time!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Idiots!


It was warmer 1000 years ago when co2 levels were lower...


So...


What do you think might have been the cause of the extra warmth back then...!?


I'll give you a clue... it's a big bright hot yellow thing in the sky during the day time!!!

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate		Advanced
The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

Climate Myth...

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

What the science says...

Climate Myth...

they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.

the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30% higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data.

on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trendinformation. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.

Tropospheric temperature trend disagreements

I consider [surface temperature datasets] to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). 

What makes "the best" the best?

Tommy Monk wrote:Ice cores...?


Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...




(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png



And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...




Link for this pic here...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

Thorin wrote:Notice how Tommy provides no link again


Here is what Naza shows and can people see what Tommy has done lol




http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Where Tommy is getting his one Naza measurement

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate		Advanced
The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

Climate Myth...

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
"Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis - a test that the hypothesis fails." ([url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080719030643/http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC on warming - for Telegraph 05-04 ZZ.pdf]Bob Carter[/url])

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).
When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.
At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.
All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study (pdf) in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.
The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.
Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.

What the science says...

Satellites don't measure temperatures, and the uncertainty in the trend is five times as large as that in the global surface temperature record.

Climate Myth...

Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
"The satellite data are the best data we have."
Ted Cruz

Satellites don't measure temperature.  As Carl Mears of the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset and Ben Santer wrote,

they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.

Scientists process the MSU data, applying a model to make numerous adjustments, in order to come up with a synthetic estimate of the atmospheric temperature.  

As Andrew Dessler describes in the video below by Peter Sinclair, MSUs and advanced MSUs (AMSUs) measure voltages on detectors, which themselves are detecting microwave signals emitted by oxygen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere that change proportionally to temperature changes.  To translate these microwave detections into estimates of the temperature of various layers of the Earth's atmosphere requires a model and a lot of data processing and adjustments.

Satellite Temperature Record Challenges

Converting those MSU microwave detections into a reliable long-term synthetic atmospheric temperature record is a challenging proposition, made all the more difficult by a number of confounding factors.  For example, the satellites themselves have a limited life span.  The overall satellite MSU record is comprised of data from numerous satellites, and each has a different calibration, orbit, etc. that must be accounted for.  During that life span, the satellites also experience friction, which causes their orbits to drift.  If not correctly taken into account, these factors can create a bias in the synthetic temperature record.

Another issue is that the MSU detections can be influenced by factors besides just oxygen microwave signals, for example, cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. (2014) found that the MSUchannel (Channel 3) that focuses on the lowest level of the atmosphere (the lower troposphere) is most influenced by the presence of cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. suggest, 

the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30% higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data.

Roy Spencer who, with John Christy, runs the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) satellite synthetic temperature dataset disagrees, believing that the cloud-caused bias is insignificant.  The magnitude of this bias in the satellite data remains an unresolved question.

Another issue related to changes in the satellites' orbits is called 'diurnal drift'.  The satellites are in 'sun synchronous orbits' and are meant to stay aligned with the sun so that they always cross the equator at the same time.  If they don’t, then the normal daily temperature cycles below will start to add a false bias to the data.  The UAH team tried to get around this bias in version 5 of their dataset by attempting to use these satellites during periods when the diurnal drift is small, while other groups (RSS and NOAA) apply a correction based on the diurnal drift in a global climate model.  Po-Chedley et al. (2015) argue that the UAHmethod creates a cool bias in their dataset.

There are still further challenges, for example the fact that the increased greenhouse effectcools the stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere.  If microwave measurements from the stratosphere bleed into estimates of tropospheric temperatures, that can also cause a cool bias in the trend.  The UAH dataset has required a number of significant adjustments since its inception to correct for these sorts of factors.

The figure below shows all the processing required to get from voltage measurements on an MSU sensor for the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group to an estimate of the temperature in the atmosphere.

Flowchart of the processing algorithm for the RSS satellite data, from Mears et al. (2011)

As a result, the uncertainty in the satellite data is larger than that in the surface temperature record, which is based on direct measurements by thermometers. In particular, estimated satellite trend observational uncertainty is five times greater.

[i]Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers. Created by Kevin Cowtan.[/i]

Kevin Cowtan summarizes,

on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trendinformation. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.

Tropospheric temperature trend disagreements

The UAH and RSS groups aren't the only ones trying to estimate the temperature of the atmosphere.  We also have direct measurements made by temperature sensors on weather balloons, for example.  These are generally in good agreement with the MSU lower atmosphere temperature estimates, until recent years.  Since the turn of the century, the UAH and RSS datasets show little warming of lower tropospheric temperatures, while weather balloons show continued warming.  For example, Sherwood et al. (2015) concluded that the weather balloon data "contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface."

Similarly, a weather balloon dataset from NOAA called RATPAC shows a growing divergence from the satellite lower troposphere temperature estimates over the past several years.

RATPAC vs. RSS lower troposphere temperature estimates.  Figure created by Tamino.

There are also other groups besides UAH and RSS that have used the MSU data to create their own lower and mid-troposphere temperature estimates, and these different estimates show quite a lot of variation.  These groups are all using the same raw MSU and AMSUdata, and arrive at very different final estimates of atmospheric temperatures and trends.

As Carl Mears of RSS has said,

I consider [surface temperature datasets] to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). 

 

Tropical mid-troposphere temperature satellite trend estimates from different groups using different diurnal drift correction approaches. From Po-Chedley et al. (2014).

What makes "the best" the best?

This particular myth deals with the claim that the satellite data are "the best data we have" for measuring global warming.  What's "best" is a subjective judgment call, but if the goal is to have greater certainty about the data and trends, the surface temperature record is "better" than the satellite data.

Additionally, only about 2% of the global energy imbalance goes into warming the atmosphere. Over 90% goes into warming the oceans, so if the goal is to best measure the overall warming of the Earth, ocean heat content data would be "the best" single source.

A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. 

Another consideration is that humans live on the surface, not kilometers up in the atmosphere.  The surface temperature record measures temperature changes where we live, which is arguably the most relevant in terms of effects on human society.  By that standard, the surface temperature record would be "the best."

As Carl Mears of RSS noted toward the end of the video above, what we should really do, rather than trying to decide which piece of data is "best," is to consider all the data.  That includes the temperature of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans, melting ice, rising oceans, shifting ecosystems, and so on.  These paint a clear picture of what's happening with the Earth's climate – it's warming and changing fast.

Global heat content data, from Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

The distinguishing feature of the satellite data is that it shows relatively little warming of the lower atmosphere in recent years.  But given the fact that all other related datasets disagree, and given the large uncertainties in the satellite data, that may be more of a bug than an accurate feature.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm

Does tommy understand science?

One moment

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Ice cores...?


Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...




(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png



And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...




Link for this pic here...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

It's funny how some of you will believe ice core samples... until I post a couple that show warmer periods and lower co2 levels...!!!


Then dog breath pops up saying the sources aren't reputable enough... or some other such shite!!!


Most amusing!!!

What the science says...

Climate Myth...

 

What the science says...

Climate Myth...

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = Emissions - Absorption][/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = NE @plus; HE - NA - HA][/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = 15][/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=HE = 30][/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=15 = NE @plus; 30 - NA - HA][/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=NE - NA - HA = -15][/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=NE - NA = -15][/url]

"It has been erroneously argued that the observed atmospheric CO2 increase since the middle of the 19th century may be due to an ongoing natural perturbation of gross fluxes between the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans. That the increase is in fact a predominantly anthropogenic disturbance, caused by accelerated release of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, has been elegantly demonstrated through 14C analyses of tree rings from the last two centuries (Stuiver and Quay 1981; Suess 1955; Tans et al. 1979)."

Thorin wrote:
Most amusing that again clearly Tommy cannot see his error, which is why he cannot understand science and why humans are responsible for the change in climate change

He still cannot understand CO'2 levels and what causes them

No scientist denies high levels in the past but have easily explained them, but poor Tommy cannot firgure his out

One moment



Priceless

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.

Climate Myth...

nicko wrote:I hardly consider he's"ranting" Wolf,   he's just putting his opinions forward.

nicko wrote:I didn't want a lecture,    I just said,   in my opinion Tommy is not "ranting" as you put it,   if any ones ranting it's yourself and others, if Tommy's wrong, and to be honest, I don't really know, it's no excuse to keep insulting him.   Just put up the opinions of yourself in a calm and reasonable manner.    

Thorin wrote:

Thorin wrote:
Most amusing that again clearly Tommy cannot see his error, which is why he cannot understand science and why humans are responsible for the change in climate change

He still cannot understand CO'2 levels and what causes them

No scientist denies high levels in the past but have easily explained them, but poor Tommy cannot firgure his out

One moment



Priceless

PMSL

What has that period got to do with today's human pollution and cause of global warming Tommy?

I am proving you have no understanding of science

What you have done repeatedly is use misdirection and failed to disprove humans being responsible for today's global warming

One things is clear, you know nothing about science and then use britannica

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.

Climate Myth...

CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2." 

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low? 

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine  biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A  period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

The following (somewhat simplified) diagram may make this easier to understand:

When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong.









https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge... why are you waffling about speculation on a period of time 450 million years ago...!?

You do realise that the theory also includes the idea that the land mass had moved over the South Pole because of shifting tectonuc plates during that time of glaciation too don't you...!?


I showed a graph of I've core data for the last few thousand years... that clearly shows most of the last 8000 years was warmer than today but with lower co2 levels...!!!


Why are you ignoring this much more accurate recent data...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...




(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png



And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...




Link for this pic here...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

Thorin wrote:

nicko wrote:I didn't want a lecture,    I just said,   in my opinion Tommy is not "ranting" as you put it,   if any ones ranting it's yourself and others, if Tommy's wrong, and to be honest, I don't really know, it's no excuse to keep insulting him.   Just put up the opinions of yourself in a calm and reasonable manner.    

There is no need to insult, but its very frustrating, when Tommy is either deliberately ignoring the evidence or simply is being rather ignorant of the science Nicko. He is not countering any of the evidence but again constantly using misdirection. Constantly ignoring the evidence from today of human causing global warming.
All he does is ignore the evidence and spam the same repeated poor mantra in the desperate hope, that by continuing to annoy people, of which he is trying to do. That he will wear them down. Now I am drumming home the evidence refuting him and can play the same tactic of wearing him down

Thorin wrote:Notice how Tommy provides no link again


Here is what Naza shows and can people see what Tommy has done lol




http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Where Tommy is getting his one Naza measurement

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate		Advanced
The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

Climate Myth...

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
"Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis - a test that the hypothesis fails." ([url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080719030643/http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC on warming - for Telegraph 05-04 ZZ.pdf]Bob Carter[/url])

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).
When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.
At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.
All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study (pdf) in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.
The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.
Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.

What the science says...

Satellites don't measure temperatures, and the uncertainty in the trend is five times as large as that in the global surface temperature record.

Climate Myth...

Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
"The satellite data are the best data we have."
Ted Cruz

Satellites don't measure temperature.  As Carl Mears of the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset and Ben Santer wrote,

they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.

Scientists process the MSU data, applying a model to make numerous adjustments, in order to come up with a synthetic estimate of the atmospheric temperature.  

As Andrew Dessler describes in the video below by Peter Sinclair, MSUs and advanced MSUs (AMSUs) measure voltages on detectors, which themselves are detecting microwave signals emitted by oxygen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere that change proportionally to temperature changes.  To translate these microwave detections into estimates of the temperature of various layers of the Earth's atmosphere requires a model and a lot of data processing and adjustments.

Satellite Temperature Record Challenges

Converting those MSU microwave detections into a reliable long-term synthetic atmospheric temperature record is a challenging proposition, made all the more difficult by a number of confounding factors.  For example, the satellites themselves have a limited life span.  The overall satellite MSU record is comprised of data from numerous satellites, and each has a different calibration, orbit, etc. that must be accounted for.  During that life span, the satellites also experience friction, which causes their orbits to drift.  If not correctly taken into account, these factors can create a bias in the synthetic temperature record.

Another issue is that the MSU detections can be influenced by factors besides just oxygen microwave signals, for example, cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. (2014) found that the MSUchannel (Channel 3) that focuses on the lowest level of the atmosphere (the lower troposphere) is most influenced by the presence of cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. suggest, 

the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30% higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data.

Roy Spencer who, with John Christy, runs the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) satellite synthetic temperature dataset disagrees, believing that the cloud-caused bias is insignificant.  The magnitude of this bias in the satellite data remains an unresolved question.

Another issue related to changes in the satellites' orbits is called 'diurnal drift'.  The satellites are in 'sun synchronous orbits' and are meant to stay aligned with the sun so that they always cross the equator at the same time.  If they don’t, then the normal daily temperature cycles below will start to add a false bias to the data.  The UAH team tried to get around this bias in version 5 of their dataset by attempting to use these satellites during periods when the diurnal drift is small, while other groups (RSS and NOAA) apply a correction based on the diurnal drift in a global climate model.  Po-Chedley et al. (2015) argue that the UAHmethod creates a cool bias in their dataset.

There are still further challenges, for example the fact that the increased greenhouse effectcools the stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere.  If microwave measurements from the stratosphere bleed into estimates of tropospheric temperatures, that can also cause a cool bias in the trend.  The UAH dataset has required a number of significant adjustments since its inception to correct for these sorts of factors.

The figure below shows all the processing required to get from voltage measurements on an MSU sensor for the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group to an estimate of the temperature in the atmosphere.

Flowchart of the processing algorithm for the RSS satellite data, from Mears et al. (2011)

As a result, the uncertainty in the satellite data is larger than that in the surface temperature record, which is based on direct measurements by thermometers. In particular, estimated satellite trend observational uncertainty is five times greater.

[i]Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers. Created by Kevin Cowtan.[/i]

Kevin Cowtan summarizes,

on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trendinformation. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.

Tropospheric temperature trend disagreements

The UAH and RSS groups aren't the only ones trying to estimate the temperature of the atmosphere.  We also have direct measurements made by temperature sensors on weather balloons, for example.  These are generally in good agreement with the MSU lower atmosphere temperature estimates, until recent years.  Since the turn of the century, the UAH and RSS datasets show little warming of lower tropospheric temperatures, while weather balloons show continued warming.  For example, Sherwood et al. (2015) concluded that the weather balloon data "contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface."

Similarly, a weather balloon dataset from NOAA called RATPAC shows a growing divergence from the satellite lower troposphere temperature estimates over the past several years.

RATPAC vs. RSS lower troposphere temperature estimates.  Figure created by Tamino.

There are also other groups besides UAH and RSS that have used the MSU data to create their own lower and mid-troposphere temperature estimates, and these different estimates show quite a lot of variation.  These groups are all using the same raw MSU and AMSUdata, and arrive at very different final estimates of atmospheric temperatures and trends.

As Carl Mears of RSS has said,

I consider [surface temperature datasets] to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). 

 

Tropical mid-troposphere temperature satellite trend estimates from different groups using different diurnal drift correction approaches. From Po-Chedley et al. (2014).

What makes "the best" the best?

This particular myth deals with the claim that the satellite data are "the best data we have" for measuring global warming.  What's "best" is a subjective judgment call, but if the goal is to have greater certainty about the data and trends, the surface temperature record is "better" than the satellite data.

Additionally, only about 2% of the global energy imbalance goes into warming the atmosphere. Over 90% goes into warming the oceans, so if the goal is to best measure the overall warming of the Earth, ocean heat content data would be "the best" single source.

A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. 

Another consideration is that humans live on the surface, not kilometers up in the atmosphere.  The surface temperature record measures temperature changes where we live, which is arguably the most relevant in terms of effects on human society.  By that standard, the surface temperature record would be "the best."

As Carl Mears of RSS noted toward the end of the video above, what we should really do, rather than trying to decide which piece of data is "best," is to consider all the data.  That includes the temperature of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans, melting ice, rising oceans, shifting ecosystems, and so on.  These paint a clear picture of what's happening with the Earth's climate – it's warming and changing fast.

Global heat content data, from Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

The distinguishing feature of the satellite data is that it shows relatively little warming of the lower atmosphere in recent years.  But given the fact that all other related datasets disagree, and given the large uncertainties in the satellite data, that may be more of a bug than an accurate feature.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm

Does tommy understand science?

One moment

Tommy Monk wrote:


Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...




(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png



And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...




Link for this pic here...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

Didge wrote:CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Link to this page

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.



Climate Myth...


CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)


Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.



Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
•The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
•This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
•The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

Shakun Fig 2a

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm



Wonder what else unscientific tommy will plagiarize from climate denialist blogs, he refuses to put up links to for his poor claims?


lol

Tommy Monk wrote:


Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...




(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png



And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...




Link for this pic here...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

Climate Myth... wrote:



Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)