In case you were confused, global warming is real! Page below originally from:Â National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
Â


Â
![]()
Global Climate Change Indicators
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.
![]()
How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
![]()
The Global Surface Temperature is Rising
![]()
U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising
![]() Annual surface temperatures for the contiguous U.S. compared to the 20th Century (1901-2000) average. Calculated from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN version 2). More information: U.S. Surface Temperature Data, USHCN v2. | Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace. |
![]()
Sea Level is Rising
![]() Annual averages of global sea level. Red: sea-level since 1870; Blue: tide gauge data; Black: based on satellite observations. The inset shows global mean sea level rise since 1993 - a period over which sea level rise has accelerated. More information: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise (USGCRP) and Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. | Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise. |
![]()
Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising
![]() Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2008. | While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms. |
![]()
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover is Retreating
![]() Left: Average of monthly snow cover extent anomalies over Northern Hemisphere lands (including Greenland) since Nov 1966. Right: Seasonal snow cover extent over Northern Hemisphere lands since winter 1966-67. Calculated from NOAA snow maps. From BAMS State of the Climate in 2008 report. | Northern Hemisphere average annual snow cover has declined in recent decades. This pattern is consistent with warmer global temperatures. Some of the largest declines have been observed in the spring and summer months. |
![]()
Glacier Volume is Shrinking
![]() Cumulative decline (in cubic miles) in glacier ice worldwide. More information: Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. | Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America. |
![]()
U.S. Climate Extremes are Increasing
Annual Climate Extremes Index (CEI) value for the contiguous United States. Larger numbers indicate more acive climate extremes for a year. More information: CEI. | One way climate changes can be assessed is by measuring the frequency of events considered "extreme" (among the most rare of temperature, precipitation and storm intensity values). The Climate Extremes Index (CEI) value for the contiguous United States is an objective way to determine whether extreme events are on the rise. The figure to the left shows the the number of extreme climate events (those which place among the most unusual of the historical record) has been rising over the last four decades. |
![]()
How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?
A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
![]()
Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate
![]()
800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations
![]() Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. | Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years. |
![]()
Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased
![]()
Where can someone find more information about climate change and climate monitoring?
- US Global Change Research Program
- NOAA Climate portal
- Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society State of the Climate report for 2008
![]()
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators
Downloaded Tuesday, 09-Feb-2010 18:21:43 EST
Last Updated Friday, 11-Dec-2009 10:07:06 EST by cmb.contact@noaa.gov
Please see the NCDC Contact Page if you have questions or comments.






























Comments: 23 ( 2 removed by Sam Carana )
Meanwhile, NOAA has launched a portal for climate science and services. On February 8, 2010, NOAA unveiled a new Web site – http://www.climate.gov – that will serve as a single point-of-entry for NOAA’s extensive climate information, data, products and services. Known as the NOAA Climate Portal, the site addresses the needs of five broadly-defined user groups: decision makers and policy leaders, scientists and applications-oriented data users, educators, business users and the public.
Figures released end 2009 show that the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
On December 8, 2009, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued a press release showing that the year 2009 was likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the WMO. The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) was estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year.
The image below shows the UK Met Office figures, combined with figures from the National Climatic Data Center and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies figures.
It may be less clear how long it will take before certain developments will eventuate, such as disappearance of Arctic sea ice, of glaciers and mountain snow cover, or collapse of the Amazon ecosystem. Some media have given a lot of attention to IPCC projections that did overestimate the severity of the impact of global warming. There is no doubt, though, is that we're at risk of catastrophic climate changes.
While it did overestimate the impact of global warming in some projections, the IPCC did underestimate the situation substantially regarding a number of other developments, such as the disappearance of Arctic sea ice extent, as shown on the image below.

The image below is part of a NASA analysis showing global warming from 1900 to 2003, due to increased greenhouse gases.
The image shows that tropical rain forests are warming up faster than average, exposing them even more to the extreme events that come with climate change, such as droughts and heatwaves, with the associated risk of wildfires.As the above image also shows, accelerated warming takes place in the Arctic. In fact, the Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the globe. The danger is that this accelerated Arctic warming will result in huge amounts of emissions from thawing permafrost and from methane stored underneath the sea. There's no doubt that this danger is real.
Methane in the Arctic may persist in the atmosphere for longer than expected, due to OH depletion. The IPCC in AR4 pointed at studies suggesting no significant long-term change in the global abundance of OH.
A more recent study by Drew Shindell, accompanied by the NASA image below, concludes that chemical interactions between emissions cause more global warming than previously estimated by the IPCC. The study shows that increases in global methane emissions have caused a 26% OH decrease.
A Centre for Atmospheric Science study suggests that sea ice loss may amplify permafrost warming, with an ice-free Arctic featuring a decrease in OH of up to 60% and an increase of tropospheric ozone (another greenhouse gas) of up to 60% over the Arctic.

Currently, methane's chemical lifetime in the atmosphere is about 12 years. A longer lifetime would strongly amplify methane's strong initial potency as a greenhouse gas. Before AR4, the figure used by the IPCC for methane's global warming potential (GWP) was 21, indicating that methane is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2) by weight, when calculated over a period of 100 years. The graph below, from a study by Dessus, shows how the impact of methane decreases over the years. Over a 20-year period methane's GWP will be 72, while over a 100-year period its GWP will be 21, and over a 500-year period, its GWP will be 7.6.In AR4, the IPCC did upgrade methane's GWP to 25 over a 100-year period. When looked at over a long period, methane's impact appears less threatening, but over a short period from its release, methane’s impact will be dramatic. In the first five years after its release, methane will have an impact more than 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.
Arctic amplification is largely overlooked by the IPCC, which uses a period of a century to calculate methane's impact. Lack of OH could cause much methane to persist locally with its full GWP for years, causing a dramatic greenhouse effect and thus warming locally, further amplifying local Arctic warming. The danger is that this could cause large-scale thawing and melting over a period of years, rather than centuries.
Since 2007, a wealth of reports has pointed at feedback effects that weren't taken into account in the IPCC's AR4 report. A recent study points out that a rise in ocean temperature of only 2°C causes some algae to stop producing a gas called dimethyl sulphide. As a result, fewer clouds will form, which will further heat up the ocean. I did discuss some further feedback effects like this in Global Warming - Red Alert! and in my comments underneath that post.
My view is that the IPCC should look more closely into some of the technologies that are being proposed in the face of catastrophic climate changes. Even if the risks were small, it makes sense to be better prepared for such eventualities.
I am intrigued. There seem to be 2 versions of the carbon dioxide graphs out there. And they look VERY different. Here is the other version:
Image from geocraft.com
My question is: What accounts fro this appaerent discrepancy? What were the techniques used to come up with each graph? What assumptions is each graph based on?
There is another graph out there: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
It looks very different. My questions:
What techniques were used in each case to get to the graph?
What assumptions are there in each graph?
The graph in the post shows that while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained relatively stable over the past 800,000 years (moving between about 200 and 300 ppm), it has gone up to about 390 in just a few decades, and is projected to reach 550 ppm (lower emissions scenario) by 2100, or even 900 ppm (higher emissions scenario).
The concern is that this sudden (i.e. over decades) rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate changes, including extinction of species at a massive scale and collapse of civilization as we know it.
The graph below shows the atmospheric CO2 measurements taken over the past few decades at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
The temperature graph below shows UK Met Office figures, combined with figures from the National Climatic Data Center and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies figures.
Not to deny things, but to take the point of the devil's advocate, which you can also read here and here with walls of math equations from chemistry and physics:
The line of reasoning goes something like this:
1.) Basic chemistry, physics and thermodynamic equations show that even under the most ideal conditions, the contribution of CO2 is neglible AND the contribution of human derived CO2 is even less.
And if that is not enough:
2.) Back 800 million (not just 800 thousand years ago), we had 7000 ppm, more than 10 as much, and look where we are now. There is no such thing as an irreversible tipping point.
The conclusions they draw are:
a.) AGW as they call it is not real.
b.) I do not need to worry about anything at all and can carry on as usual. Besides CO2 is good for plants right?
All this of course neglects the effects of human activity in general when producing and burning fossil fuels (which really irritates me: CO2 going into water forming HCO3 which increases pH of the water etc., what about Methane, what about all the other pollutants)
To keep this post manageable. Every statement, and calculation made relies on certain assumptions. If you look at his math, the math seems to make sense. He also gets the basic concept of how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas right. Where then is the logical flaw if you assume the simple system that he does? My feeling is that assuming that CO2 makes up only 0.00064 of the air and concluding that the chance that a infrared ray hits a CO2 molecule is that low on its way back into space may be flawed?
Again, I am posting this not as a denialist (more as a general sceptic) but to discuss points which people who choose not to believe in GW or AGW while ignoring the other (more numerous) environmental costs.
It may be inconvenient for some, but global warming is real and we really need to change things, if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change as a result of the huge amounts of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere.
Imagine that you are standing on a road in the dark and two headlights are approaching you rapidly. The lights indicate that a car or truck is approaching, so it makes sense to get off the road. You may argue that there was an alternative hypothesis. There may be a small chance that the headlights belong to two bicycle riders, so there was a chance that you could stay alive if they each pass you each on one side. But, since the chance is small, why take the risk and insist that this first had to be proven beyond any doubt before you were willing to move?
In the case of global warming, nobody has even been able to come up with any alternative hypothesis that made sense in explaining things. The science behind global warming has been worked out long ago, now is the time for politicians to act.
Yes Sam, it is what it is. Not that it will convince certain folks, when they finally put down their copies of "courage and consequences."