(can of worms alert) Globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years 76

[beej67]

Worth a read. One significance of the article to me is the 'skeptic' isn't a loon, she's the head of the EAS department at Georgia Tech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[Brad1979]

I don't really disagree with that, dvd. Any energy generation is negligible compared to the sun, though, when approximating like this. I don't think I ever said they were absolute, though. The temp I gave was an average. The distance from the earth to the sun changes, too, for example and the energy the equator sees is higher than the poles.

 

[lacajun]

Brad1979, I don't have a bone to pick with you but reading your posts gave me the impression you meant absolutes.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[TGS4]

Whether or not there is or is not a "Greenhouse Effect", after reading all these posts, I think too many people missed the point of the OP's article. The doomsday scenarios (the C - catastrophic - in CAGW) predicted warming at rates of 0.1°C-0.3°C (±0.1°C)/decade. What we are really observing is a rate of 0.0°C±0.1°C (there are still some significant error bars in the measurements and the linearization of such non-linear trends) over more than 1.5 decades - the 1997-to-present-day temperature rise was predicted to be 0.15°C-0.45°C (±0.1°C). The question is - how much real data is required to falsify the hypothesis? CO2 concentrations have increased along the worst-case scenario lines (from the latest IPCC reports), meaning that the temperature rise is expected to be at the top of that range. However, the temperature-CO2 concentration relationship, which was assumed to mostly linear (or even exponential, if the hypothesis of net-positive feedbacks is assumed to be true), is not turning out as predicted.

In science (and engineering), the process is:
1) Hypothesize (may include models to predict outcomes)
2) Observe
3) Does observations fit with hypothesis?

Right now we are in Step 3). What divergence between observation and prediction is required before the hypothesis is considered invalid? To me, it doesn't matter whether there is or isn't a greenhouse effect or if CO2 is or is not a greenhouse gas; do the observations match the hypothesis?

 

[Brad1979]

You're right, I did get a little off track. I was just a bit flabbergasted that somebody would deny that there is a greenhouse effect. That's a totally different issue than whether the earth is warming due to humans adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Regarding the article, I would point to this.

 

[rb1957]

personally i think the OP's article is as sensational as "doom and gloom" press. as the Met Office replied, periods of little change are not unusual. expecting a monotonic increase in temp. would be.

 

[zdas04]

That is the same met office that 6 months ago found a one-year trend to be significant?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[rb1957]

the same sensationalising ... should be met with the same cynicism

 

[TGS4]

Brad - nice charts. Where's the one that shows the relationship between CO2 and temperature? All I see is that from 1973 (the first chart on your link), temperatures have been generally increasing. No causal link to CO2, though.

rb1957 - agreed that periods of little change are expected. However, for the hypothesis (man-made CO2 causes catastrophic warming) to be falsifiable (i.e. if it isn't falsifiable it isn't science), what is the maximum increase in CO2 concentrations (or possibly length of time) for such a "pause"?

Here's some interesting data (I know, data, not models...) (references follow after the data):
Year CO2 Concentration......... HadCRUT3 Global Temperature Anomaly (°C)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1973 329.68 PPM (±0.12 PPM) 0.060 (+0.084, -0.084)
1997 363.71 PPM (±0.12 PPM) 0.356 (+0.084, -0.102)
2012 391.57 PPM (±0.12 PPM) 0.346 (+0.094, -0.095)

(CO2 concentrations from ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt)
(HadCRUT3 Global Temperature Anomaly data from

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual)

Go ahead, complain about my cherry-picking. However, the overall trends are generally the same.

To ask my question again - for the hypothesis (man-made CO2 causes catastrophic warming) to be falsifiable (i.e. if it isn't falsifiable it isn't science), what is the maximum increase in CO2 concentrations (or possibly length of time) for such a "pause"?

The problem from the believers in CAGW is that back in 1997, they stated that 15 years (or the equivalent in CO2 concentrations assuming a second derivative w.r.t. time of zero) was that length of time. Now, that such a time has passed, the goal-posts are changing. So, what is that time? Simple question.

 

[rb1957]

TGS ... aren't you making the same assumption as the "doom and gloom" folks ? that climate change is proportional (in some manner) to CO2 level ?

I think the better (though pointless) question would be what climate change would we expect without increased levels in CO2 ? anyone who says "none" clearly isn't living in the real world (the climate is always changing, and will always be changing).

I remember reading that the increased CO2 levels are delaying a naturally expected cooling phase.

 

[TomDOT]

Given the large impact on global temperatures from El Nino/La Nina cycles, you should probably pick years which are all the same cycle point: ie all "ENSO-neutral" or all "El Nino"

 

[cvg]

the only concensus I have seen so far on this thread / topic is that the data is crap and the models are flawed. So I am amazed that there is even discussion of an acceptable theory at this point. Everything is postulated, hypothesized and conjecture. However, with all this debate the amount of hot air is certainly increasing, maybe that should be taxed to prevent rising sea levels...

 

[rconnor]

From the MET office (and the link I posted earlier...which is worth a read):

"The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming."

Not to mention we were in a period of low solar activity. So even with these natural effects working towards cooling the planet during this period, it still warmed slightly.

So your 3 point trend takes the middle point to be at a point where naturally effects are at the high point of causing a warming effect, to your end point where natural effects are at the high point of causing a cooling effect.

Your trend also ignores any ocean heating by assuming (incorrectly) that the only effect of Global Warming lies in the surface temperature.

 

[patprimmer]

While El Nino/La Nina cycles obviously have a significant impact on specific areas of the Pacific, don't they simply move the earths heat around without any generation as such.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[TGS4]

rb1957 - I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of the CO2=temp hypothesis. My understanding is that this planet's climate is a function of so many different input and feedback variables that we are fooling ourselves if we think that we can predict it. What would the climate be without the additional anthropogenic-CO2? Somewhere between no different to somewhat different, I guess... But if additional CO2 prevents cold, then I'm all for it... Cold kills. Cold starves. Cold sucks.

TomDOT and rconnor - at least I admit to the cherry-pick. But, we still don't know what drives ENSO, or if it even an input or a feedback. It just is there, one of the multitude of variables effecting our temperature. That said, I go back to my original question - how do you falsify the CAGW hypothesis?

the climate is always changing, and will always be changing

Right on. So, without there being a) a causal link of CO2=temperature and b) this leading to a catastrophe, there is no CAGW. The hypothesis is falsified and another hypothesis is needed. If we want to apply moltenmetal's approach of wanting to restrict fossil fuels to save them for future use, I'd entertain a discussion about that - but only in the context of actually discussing that premise. But not in the context of some hypothesis that has been (or is rather close to being) falsified.

 

[dvd]

I have found myself wondering if the oceans could warm and cool by some subsurface mechanism, such as volcanism, or the lack thereof. It would certainly be a form of converting stored energy into surface warming of the oceans by convective plumes. The Ring of Fire and El Nino/La Nina activity happens to lie in the Pacific as well as (possible) hotspot volcanic sources deep below the ocean surface. It would be interesting to see if dissolved gases indicative of underwater volcanic activity in the Pacific correlate with the El Nino/La Nina activity.

 

[beej67]

And here's the rub.

Even if there was a solid link between anthropogenic carbon and global warming, which there really isn't, that's still a far cry from the position that United States carbon trading would have an effect on it. Under the carbon trading idea, carbon is still being released into the atmosphere, just under an artificial marketplace that Goldman Sachs can manipulate for artificial profit.

If you believe that global warming is bad, and that its entirely caused by the burning of fossil fuels, the only way to stop it is to cease burning fossil fuels entirely, on a global scale. That can't happen. Impossible.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Lies, dam lies and data. Here's the rub with me. Supose there is warming (I'm not making a comment either way at this point), and there are ways we can reduce the global tempeture. What methods are acceptable? And which are not?

The most suggested way is reduce carbon consumption, by ways of goverment, and/or taxes. Why is that method better than other methods (I and several other people have suggested other methods in other posts)?

I can't tell what direction the earth tempeture is going from the data presented, but I can judge the sillyness of an idea by the lack of innovative solutions.

Personally I am sick of the back and forth of the topic that keeps coming up. If it's that important, then shows some ideas that don't ruin the economy and actually work.

 

[TomDOT]

cranky - some easy ways are already happening to reduce carbon emissions in the USA.

1) Replace coal-fired power plants with combined-cycle natural gas. Cheap, easy, reduces a host of environmental issues, from mercury and acids to mountaintop removal. Roughly* cuts CO2 emissions in half for equivalent power produced. Already happening for economic reasons - natural gas is just so darn cheap, and will stay that way for a long time.

2) Increase fuel efficiency of transportation vehicles. Already happening.

*More efficient power plants, more hydrogen in the molecules being burned instead of nearly straight carbon. Very rough on the "half". Depends on the exact plants.

 

[KENAT]

Oh, but it's such a waste of natural gas to use it for stationary power generation given the alternatives.

Assuming all the fossil fuels are essentially finite resources and that eventually we'll use up whats already deposited/feasibly accessible and will be using it faster than 'nature' is creating it then some effort to conserve all the fossil fuels & use them most efficiently/effectively may be appropriate. (Though predictions of 'peak oil' have always been dodgy since as price goes up reserves thought economically unfeasible start to get interesting etc.)

While it would take some effort, fundamentally it seems that NG could be used for much transportation/mobile fuel without any really big scientific break thorough (unlike say, electricity).

This would then allow liquid fossil fuels to be prioritized for use as chemical feed stock and specific transportation uses where NG isn't such a good fit (like aviation).

Leaving dirty old coal for stationary power generation but doing what we can to clean it up a bit, and making sure the electricity is distributed and used effectively and off setting with other stationary power sources where possible.

Can't the US learn from the UK's 'dash for gas'. Just because it's cheap now and for the next few forseable years doesn't mean it will be in even 10 years time.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[rconnor]

cranky,

You want inexpensive carbon emission reductions? The answer is with you and me. Take public transit, turn down/up your thermostat in the winter/summer (respectively), shut off lights/appliances/equipment when they aren't needed, don't print if an electronic copy will do, buy local where possible, etc. These things are not just inexpensive, they SAVE you money. The problem is getting wide spread adoption of these ideals because we either don't care enough or feel they are too taxing on us to do. (I'm not saying that the people here do or do not do these things but in Western Society, as a whole, our consumption per captia is far beyond what it needs to be)

I work for an industrial energy efficiency program for a utility and we constantly see studies come back saying that the "stick beats the carrot" when it comes to getting people to reduce their consumption. In other words, people will change much more readily when there is a penalty (ex. tax/rate increase) for not doing so than when there is a reward (ex. financial incentive) for doing so. Now I'm not advocating for or against the "stick" approach (in fact my job involves purely working with the carrot) but that is how humans respond to demand side management initiatives.

However, if we could voluntarily make changes in our day-to-day life to reduce our consumption, then we wouldn't need the stick to motivate us. But we don't and then complain about why our energy bill is so high...