2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?
The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.
Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.
How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.
Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.
Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.
Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.
Where is the climate headed?
The 2007 United Nations-sponsored IPCC report predicted that global temperatures between 2007 and 2030 should rise by an average of 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. The observed warming over the past 30 years is 15 - 30% below that (but within the range of uncertainty given by the 2007 IPCC climate models.) Most of the increase in global temperatures during the past 30 years occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2000s have seen relatively flat temperatures, despite increasing CO2 emissions by humans. The lower-than-expected warming may be partially due to a sharp decrease in stratospheric water vapor that began after 2000. The missing heat may also be going into the deep ocean waters below about 1,000 feet (300 meters), as part of a decades-long cycle that will bring extra heat to the surface years from now. Regardless, the laws of physics demand that the huge amount of heat-trapping gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere must be significantly altering the weather and climate, even if we are seeing a lower than predicted warming. As wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood said in a recent post,Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well-known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."
Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927. I appeared on PBS News Hour on December 28 (video here) to argue that watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids--an analogy used in the past by climate scientists Tony Broccoli and Jerry Meehl. We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, and heavier flooding rains. Natural weather patterns could have caused some of the extreme events we witnessed during 2010 - 2011, and these years likely would have been naturally extreme years even without climate change. But it strains the bounds of credulity that all of the extreme weather events--some of them 1-in-1000-year type events--could have occurred without a significant change to the base climate state. Mother Nature is now able to hit the ball out of the park more often, and with much more power, thanks to the extra energy global warming has put into the atmosphere.
Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted by the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
i see contrails an high level clouds
been wunderin' 'bout dat
once you have knowledge about something in the bible, THEN you can try and correct people. So stop feeding in-accurate data here.
Just curious, but how does God approve of all the bad things humans have done since history started? You would think that if he was a benevolent God, he would've stopped some of the most atrocious things in the world, namely the holocaust, colonization and Justin Bieber.
I'm legitimately curious to the church's response to this, so don't ignore me or anything. :P
the Catholic view would be that colonization and the holocaust were the result of God given free will....Justin Bieber is such an unfathomable aberration of evil...he may just have to remain an ugly mystery...
I disagree with both sides of that argument. :)
Storm Relative 1km Geostationary Visible Imagery
Enhanced Infrared (IR) Imagery (4 km Mercator)
The internet has caused a lot of open-mindedness, especially among the younger generation.
The internet is causing a whole bunch of extremism to flourish, including anti-theism. I went onto the internet when I was 11, I was religious and I didn't care about politics. 4 years later, I'm strongly atheist and a (moderate) left extremist, all thanks to the internet.
Tropical Cyclone Advice #18
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY TWO (11U)
6:00 AM WST January 29 2012
=================================
At 5:00 AM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category Two (970 hPa) located at 20.2S 111.1E or 370 km west northwest of Exmouth and 580 km north northwest of Carnarvon 10 minute sustained winds of 55 knots with gusts of 75 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving east southeast at 2 knots towards the coast.
Tropical Cyclone Iggy has been moving slowly east southeast overnight and is expected to continue with that motion then take a more southwesterly track on Monday.
During Sunday Tropical Cyclone Iggy may move close enough to cause gales on the coast between Onslow and Coral Bay. Destructive winds are not expected on the coast. Gales may extend south to Carnarvon during Monday if Iggy tracks close to the coast.
Daily rainfall is likely to be less than 50mm in coastal parts of the warning area. Tides will be higher than expected. There will continue to be large swells along the Pilbara and Kimberley coasts.
FESA State Emergency Service (SES) advises of the following community alerts:
BLUE ALERT: People in or near coastal and island communities between Mardie and Coral Bay including the communities of Onslow, Exmouth and Coral Bay need to prepare for cyclonic weather and organise an emergency kit including first aid kit, torch, portable radio, spare batteries, food and water.
Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
=================================
A Cyclone WARNING is current for coastal areas from Onslow to Coral Bay, including Exmouth.
A Cyclone WATCH is current from Coral Bay to Carnarvon.
The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 1:30 AM UTC..
Yes they do. They have proven (repeatedly) they can't manage our money for crap. Just to name one.
(Latest Discussion - Issued 2006Z Jan 28, 2012)
SHORT RANGE FORECAST DISCUSSION
NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD
306 PM EST SAT JAN 28 2012
VALID 00Z SUN JAN 29 2012 - 00Z TUE JAN 31 2012
...TEMPERATURES WILL BE 15 TO 25 DEGREES ABOVE AVERAGE FOR THE
NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS/NORTHERN/CENTRAL PLAINS...
A FRONT ALONG THE EASTERN SEABOARD WILL MOVE OFF THE COAST BY
SUNDAY MORNING. WITH A VARY MODEST SUPPLE OF MOISTURE ... ONLY
LIGHT SNOW WILL DEVELOP OVER PARTS OF THE INTERIOR NORTHEAST.
BEHIND THIS SYSTEM ... HIGH PRESSURE OVER THE SOUTHERN PLAINS WILL
MOVE EASTWARD TO THE SOUTHEAST BY MONDAY.
ANOTHER WEAK FRONT OVER THE UPPER MIDWEST WILL ROTATE EASTWARD
ACROSS THE GREAT LAKES/OHIO VALLEY TO THE NORTHEAST/MID-ATLANTIC
BY SUNDAY EVENING THEN OFF THE EAST COAST BY MONDAY MORNING.
LIGHT SNOW WILL DEVELOP OVER THE GREAT LAKES AND MOVE INTO THE
NORTHEAST BY SUNDAY NIGHT ... THEN OFF THE COAST BY MONDAY
MORNING. LIKEWISE ... BEHIND THIS FRONT ... HIGH PRESSURE OVER
CENTRAL CANADA WILL MOVE SOUTHEASTWARD INTO THE OHIO VALLEY BY
MONDAY.
ONSHORE FLOW AHEAD OF THE NEXT SYSTEM MOVING ONSHORE OVER THE
NORTHWEST WILL PRODUCE LIGHT TO MODERATE RAIN ALONG THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST COAST ... STARTING OVERNIGHT SATURDAY THROUGH SUNDAY
EVENING. LIGHT SNOW WILL ALSO DEVELOP AT THE HIGHEST ELEVATIONS
OVER THE REGION. IN ADDITION ... LIGHT SNOW WILL DEVELOP OVER
PORTIONS OF THE NORTHERN ROCKIES AND THE NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS. IN
THE WAKE OF THE STORM ... ONSHORE FLOW WILL AID IN PRODUCING LIGHT
RAIN AND HIGHER ELEVATION SNOW OVER THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST ON
MONDAY MORNING.
ELSEWHERE ... AN OLD BOUNDARY NEAR THE SOUTHERN TIP OF FLORIDA
WILL AID IN PRODUCING SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS OVER THE REGION
THROUGH MONDAY.
ZIEGENFELDER
The following charts depict the probability of snowfall reaching or exceeding 4, 8 and 12 inches. Click on a thumbnail to enlarge.
Go to MODIS website and look at the photos carefully. You'll see man made cloud structures all over the place. Look at Satellite photos of bonafied smog published on Earth Observatory. Look at the smog plume from the Big Island.
Smog has an obvious signature. Stagnant air also has a specific look to it. Warm fronts plow stagnant air in front of them as they move across the Pacific from Asia. They also plow ship pollution toward the coast. I look at Satellite Photos every day and you rarely see the type of clouds seen in the photos I posted above outside of the North Pacific. They are smog and they are mostly Manufactured in Asia.
just like santa claus and the easterbunny and the tooth fairy its not real just a nice pretty story
and its more than likly just vistors from another planet that has been taken as being a god or godlike at that time in history cause we did not know what else to call them
LOL!
How many volumes of full Bible commentaries have you read?
How many times have you read the Bible all the way through? How about the New Testament? And actually do research and cross-referencing of passage?
I bet I got you beat by at least a few, not that I'm bragging or anything, but you simply don't know who you're dealing with.
Im 31 years old, and I've forgotten more than most so-called Christians have ever known, and again I'm certainly not exaggerating, because most of the losers don't even know what they claim to believe, but I'm supposed to believe them or their idiot pastor before a particle physicist or chemist that actually makes something that works and is testable.
I'm sick and tired of trying to resolve Science which verifiably works to a two thousand to three thousand year old book,most of which is only hearsay, half of which is self contradictory, and then come away with nothing.
If my very soul hangs in the balance, as the Bible claims, then I deserve something better than the incompetent fools who have been the leaders of the church, and keepers of scripture and traditions for the past 2 thousand years.
I can show you something about the Covenant with Noah that will blow your mind, because it directly contradicts the entire Book of Revelation, and half the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, AND Daniel as well.
Everyone reads the version of the covenant recorded in chapter 9, but read the version in chapter 8 of Genesis.
21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
22While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
You want to know how INSANE that is?
That means that ALL Apocalyptic texts that claim to be Inspired by the same God as Genesis are FALSE PROPHECIES, and that includes half the remaining Old Testament, and many, many books in the New Testament.
Notice, he didn't "only" say that he wouldn't destroy the world with a flood. He flat out said he would never again destroy all living things, AND he would never again curse the ground for man's sake.
Gee, Revelation would make God a liar then, because the entire book is nothing but curses and mayhem from God slaughtering 5/6ths of all humans again, and then doing it a THIRD time 1000 years later! Then destroying the entire universe.
These aren't the same Gods.
It's two completely different religions that are actually diametrically opposed.
If Revelation is the end of the New Covenant, then the covenant with Noah was at least ten times better.
"Never again will I curse the ground..."
or
"Oh wait, 21 plagues kill, kill, kill, wait a thousand years and let Satan out again, then kill everything on earth a third time."
Which would you prefer? It's not the same God, though it claims to be.
This just gives you a small taste of what it is to REALLY study and think about this stuff critically, instead of just taking someone else's word for it.
The best explanation came from George Burns in one of the Oh God movies.
George(God) was sitting down with a little girl that asked "God" why does God allow bad things.
George Burns(God) replied that god made things perfect.
To be perfect there could be no up without a down.
There could be no in without an out.
There could be no pleasure without pain.
There could be no etc etc....
I wish I could find the clip.
But if you think about it;it works perfectly.
Well it works perfectly except the Justin Bieber thing :O)
your screwed man. really really screwed. POOF
Well, why would God want to destroy all the Jews and Native Americans?
Is the perfect world a world where Europeans rule the world with an iron fist, killing all other cultures and torturing "inferiors"? It just doesn't make sense as to why God would kill himself in the execution chambers of Poland, why he would allow his people to suffer at the hands of a higher power?
In the gas chambers of Sobibor, Auschwitz and Treblinka, many of the victims were said to be praying for help. Why did help never come? And when it did come, why did it come in the form of another satan (Stalin)?
Sorry for throwing more flames at the religion debate, I know many more blogs that would be suitable for this kind of debate and I should probably redirect all my eagerness to debate over there. :P
Otherwise, Iggy is loosing her banding structure and returning to a blob of convection...
Link
..the greatest Mystery.
i did give you the correct answer....but some patheitc admin removed the comment, isnt that something.
I have and am ignoring alot of people tonight
Zip, nada, move along, Winter is cancelled
You completely missed the big picture as you trampled through the canvas.
Of course you know, since you brought this up, the pre-tribulation rapture theory has no basis in scripture, and is actually directly rebuked in scripture as a false doctrine?
It is the prevailing eschatological view of mainstream Christianity today, but it is completely unfounded in scripture.
By the way, Tribulation is what happens to BELIEVERS who are tormented by unbelievers. If all the believers were taken away in the magic secret rapture, their would be nobody for the "Beast" or the "Abomination of Desolation" to persecute.
Because the Book of Daniel specifically tells you that the "Elect" are going to be persecuted, and Jesus tells you that the "Elect" are going to be persecuted DURING THE TRIBULATION, during which time most of them will fall away.
The difference between you and me is I sat under some of the supposedly best theologians and evangelists in the country, and then the more I studied their teachings the more I realized how wrong they were, particularly in eschatology.
I used to be a pre-trib believer too, but then when you really read it for yourself with a "blank slate" mentality, you will find it has no basis in the Bible.
NOt that I should put much stock in it, because I certainly hope to God that the "Tribulation" and Plagues as described in Revelation never happens.
Hopefully, the real God is a more skilled at convincing people to do the right thing peacefully, being all powerful and benevolent. And hopefully, he has a better plan for dealing with evil than to just randomly nuke the planet with everything imaginable.
I mean, if you replaced the character names of "God" in the book of Revelation with that of the most evil high fantasy video game villains, or Sauron from the LotR series (better yet the Silmarillion,) change proper names so obvious identifiers aren't there, etc, you would not be able to tell the difference between "God" in Revelation and the "Embodiment of Evil" bad guy from a fantasy epic. At least certainly a person who had somehow never read either of them wouldn't be able to tell which was which.
What do you say to that?
I admit that's what I deal with, because I came to realize this on my own, and of all things, from trying to be "more Christian" or "more Christ-like" and studying the Bible.
It would be nice to find a so-called skilled apologist that didn't make a complete fool of themselves within the first few minutes of a conversation, or go around having to publicly retract statements they made behind the pulpit, Like John Hagee or Pat Roberts. Those guys are a disgrace,and I used to be much like them.
I'm not going to "defend" the Bible any more.
If God has something to say, he's a big fella, I hear, he doesn't need our money or anything else from us, and it'd be a lot easier to say something to people individually and convince them, rather than "hope" people get whatever truth there supposedly is in a 3000 year old book that's riddled with mistakes and contradictions...
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAY 5
I fail to see any big picture when it comes to religion.
NWS Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, Camp Springs, MD
Issued 1 pm EST Saturday, January 28, 2012
High Temperature for Friday, January 27, 2012
(as received by 1 pm EST January 28)
89 at Fort Lauderdale (Executive), FL
Low Temperature for Saturday, January 28, 2012
(as received by 1 pm EST January 28)
-19 at Stanley, ID
Yes, it has eluded me, (COMPLETELY),after graduating with strait A's in grammar and comp.
But one would think that the words still convey the meaning.
You know, the Forrest and tree/head out of the weeds, phraseology.
i think we all agree this is not the venue for debating the our differing types of faith. let's keep the controversial points of contention to the topic of Dr. M's blog shall we ;)
there is plenty enough to argue about the type of faith in AGW science support, or denial. otherwise... flag, ignore, move on.
A structure, possibly another universe beyond the horizon of our own, appears to be pulling at our world.
The universe is not only expanding -- it's being swept along in the direction of constellations Centaurus and Hydra at a steady clip of one million miles per hour, pulled, perhaps, by the gravity of another universe.
Scientists have no idea what's tugging at the known world, except to say that whatever it is likely dates back to the fraction of the second between the universe's explosive birth 13.7 billion years ago and its inflation a split second later.
"At this point we don't have enough information to see what it is, or to constrain it. We can only say with certainty that somewhere very far away the world is very different than what we see locally. Whether it's 'another universe' or a different fabric of space-time we don't know," Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., told Discovery News.
Kashlinsky and colleagues have spent years building up evidence for what they call "the dark flow." They look at how the relic radiation from the Big Bang explosion scatters as it passes through gases in galaxy clusters, a process that is something akin to looking at stars through the bubble of Earth's atmosphere.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming.
It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate
Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures.
The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.
Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.
I see you became a member recently.
Just in case you do not know the history of SPLbeater:
Kid of about 12 years age
Maturity of about 9 years
Apparent education of about 3rd grade (home schooled)
and a serious case of; Spare the rod…………
While your info is interesting (even the religion), you are wasting your time.
If "it" werent so sad/true, and wretchedly scary,I would have laughed out loud at that comment.
Viewing: 251 - 301
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index