Global Warming

[Palehorse]

  Which is a normal thing and occurs periodically.  The level is now rising which it also does.  What do you not understand about cycles?

Do you know what a trend is? Let's look at the Lake Michigan and Huron data, since that is the one most applicable to those of us living in the midwest.

Open up the database timeline to include 1987 through 2015, and look at the trend. Tell me, are the water levels as high today, or have they been at any point in time since 1987?

The peaks and valleys that you see represented within that chart are known as standard deviation. The problem is, that since 1987 that deviation has increasingly fallen toward and beneath the mean; which in the chart Bo posted can be a bit misleading because it takes into account the mean over the entire length of the window of time it is adjusted to. 

Here is the database open it to the entire time period which is represented by the red mean line in all time periods the window can be adjusted to. (1918 - 2015) Look at Lake Michigan Huron data and tell me you cannot see what we are talking about there!

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/

In fact Superior and Erie demonstrate the same trend in the latter timeframe, while Ontario's is a little harder to discern due to the annual runoff levels due to snow melts in the northern regions.

[Palehorse]

Here's an even better representation to help you see where the great lakes levels are.

Open up the map and set the timespan, (click the little blue button on the bottom left hand corner), to 1918 through 2014.

Next go to the right hand box, and click on Average for the recorded period, (it's the red line you probably already see not the charts) and click on the box next to low water (chart) datum.

You should now see two lines on the chart; the red one representing the all time period average, or "median". The black one representing the all time period average, or median low for each body of water.

Now look at lake Michigan/Huron. They have not risen above the median level since 10/1/1998, and have in fact spent the entire time since then between or below the medians (high and low). Twelve years of sustained water levels beneath the all time mean, with regular time spent beneath the all time low the entire time since.

Open it up to include St Claire and you can see distinctly that overall lake levels are down and have remained consistently down at record low levels when compared to all time historic levels.

[Bo D]

This hasn't happened in over 80 years ....

Lake Mead Water Levels Drop to Their Lowest Since the 1930s


The historic drought gripping the southwestern U.S. will push Nevada's Lake Mead this week to its lowest level since the lake was filled for the first time after the construction of the Hoover Dam back in the 1930s, federal water management officials said Tuesday.

Lake Mead is projected to drop this week to about 1,080 feet above sea level, below the previous record low of 1,082 feet in November 2010 and the 1,083-ft. mark, last seen during another sustained drought in April 1956.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/lake-mead-water-level-drops-lowest-point-1930s-20140709

[Bo D]

World Breaks Monthly Heat Record Twice in a Row

WASHINGTON (AP) — The globe is on a hot streak, setting a heat record in June. That's after the world broke a record in May.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced July 21, 2014, that last month's average global temperature was 61.2 degrees, which is 1.3 degrees higher than the 20th century average. It beat 2010's old record by one-twentieth of a degree.

While one-twentieth of a degree doesn't sound like much, in temperature records it's like winning a horse race by several lengths, said NOAA climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt.

And that's only part of it. The world's oceans not only broke a monthly heat record at 62.7 degrees, but it was the hottest the oceans have been on record no matter what the month, Arndt said.

"We are living in the steroid era of the climate system," Arndt said.

Arndt said both the June and May records were driven by unusually hot oceans, especially the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Heat records in June broke on every continent but Antarctica, especially in New Zealand, northern South America, Greenland, central Africa and southern Asia.

The United States had only its 33rd hottest June.

All 12 of the world's monthly heat records have been set after 1997, more than half in the last decade. All the global cold monthly records were set before 1917.

And with a likely El Nino this year — the warming of the tropical Pacific which influences the world's weather and increases global temperatures — it is starting to look like another extra warm year, said University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck.

The first six months of the year are the third warmest first six months on record, coming behind 2010 and 1998, according to NOAA

Global temperature records go back to 1880 and this is the 352nd hotter than average month in a row.

"This is what global warming looks like," Overpeck said in an email. "Not record hot everywhere all the time, but certainly a reflection that the odds of record hot are going up everywhere around the planet."

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2014/07/world-breaks-monthly-heat-record-twice-row?et_cid=4061649&et_rid=54725525&location=top

And they ask me why I drink!

[libby]

Scary stuff. Makes me think of an old sci-fi story about the earth as Gaia: Aside from mythology, here's a current definition of Gaia from my often-used Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

"The hypothesis that the living and non-living components of earth function as a single system in such a way that the living component regulates and maintains conditions (as the temperature of the ocean or composition of the atmosphere) so as to be suitable for life; also: this system regarded as a single organism."

Just imagine: what if we've done too much damage, tipped the balance too far and the beginning of    is already upon us?

I wish I could remember the name of that sci-fi short story.

[The Troll]

Scary stuff. Makes me think of an old sci-fi story about the earth as Gaia: Aside from mythology, here's a current definition of Gaia from my often-used Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

"The hypothesis that the living and non-living components of earth function as a single system in such a way that the living component regulates and maintains conditions (as the temperature of the ocean or composition of the atmosphere) so as to be suitable for life; also: this system regarded as a single organism."

Just imagine: what if we've done too much damage, tipped the balance too far and the beginning of    is already upon us?

I wish I could remember the name of that sci-fi short story.

  Yes Ma'am, scary stuff.  Just like the warm planet is releasing methane in the air.  Like the huge hole in Russia releasing tons of it in to the air.  Bad news for everyone.     But not for me and my wife, for we won't be here to see the end.   

[Henry Hawk]

A new study makes the case that human activity played very little role in the warming of the northeast Pacific Ocean over the past century or so.

[Bo D]

A new study makes the case that human activity played very little role in the warming of the northeast Pacific Ocean over the past century or so.

When, oh when will you ever read the whole story and not just a sensationalist headline?

A quote from your little story ....


The study focused only on trends at the regional level and did not offer conclusions about the influence of naturally occurring winds on warming throughout the world. If anything, the results reinforce what scientists have known for years: that global climate projections fall short in predicting how temperatures are actually changing at the regional scale.

"There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change," Trenberth said. But, he added, "this does not call into question the concept of global warming."

[Henry Hawk]

Why do you have to assume I am sensationalizing anything....I just passed this on.  I saw the headline, and I READ IT.  I thought it would be good to post it on here.  This thread has gone a little dry.

Your quotes from the article is great but don't leave out the part that says "Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term," said study leader James Johnstone, an independent climatologist.

It is hard NOT to conclude that the winds DOES have something to do with the warming effect.

[The Troll]

Why do you have to assume I am sensationalizing anything....I just passed this on.  I saw the headline, and I READ IT.  I thought it would be good to post it on here.  This thread has gone a little dry.

Your quotes from the article is great but don't leave out the part that says "Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term," said study leader James Johnstone, an independent climatologist.

It is hard NOT to conclude that the winds DOES have something to do with the warming effect.

  Let's face it Bunky,  you're a Republican Sheeple and believes all of  bullshit the Republican higher Archy puts out .  You don't believe in global warming just like I don't believe there is a god and just like prayer doesn't work, like you do.    And I'll bet I'm closer to being right than you.   

[Bo D]

Why do you have to assume I am sensationalizing anything....I just passed this on.  I saw the headline, and I READ IT.  I thought it would be good to post it on here.  This thread has gone a little dry.

Your quotes from the article is great but don't leave out the part that says "Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term," said study leader James Johnstone, an independent climatologist.

It is hard NOT to conclude that the winds DOES have something to do with the warming effect.

You passed it on. One has to come to the conclusion that the only reason you did it was because you believed in that bullshit.

What Mr. Johnstone was referring to was change only on the regional level ...

"The study focused only on trends at the regional level and did not offer conclusions about the influence of naturally occurring winds on warming throughout the world."

Try to work your way through that sentence please.

[me]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

[Bo D]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

Another sensstionalist headline... 

"There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself. "

[me]

Another sensstionalist headline... 

"There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself. "

Did you even bother to read the article or see who wrote it? 

[Henry Hawk]

Another sensstionalist headline... 

"There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself. "

and....

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

You pick what YOU want to read, and leave out what you DON'T want to read...just as you claim that "I" do.