electricpete
Electrical
- May 4, 2001
- 16,774
josephv said:17 Jun 08 10:42
what I am looking for is scientific papers that make the conclusion that you stated:
i.e. that "global warming" has stopped for 10 years now
Can you send us scientific papers that concludes this?
GregLocock said:17 Jun 08 21:18
Peer reviewed article in Nature ....
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector
GregLocock said:29 Jun 08 20:55
The recent decade long halt in the rise of global temperatures, despite a continuing rise in CO2 levels, is one example of an inconvenient truth that is causing recalibration of models (aka adjusting fudge factors) around the world.
electricpete said:29 Jun 08 23:06
Naturally this stunning turn of events is documented in some reputable link somewhere in the world? Not to mention peer-reviewed journals?
GregLocock said:30 Jun 08 0:02
No, I meant the current decade long cessation of global warming, which was reported in papers in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18
electricpete said:30 Jun 08 0:53
What I asked about was the claim that global warming (regardless of cause) stopped 10 years ago...Do you have anything resembling a proof or reference for this claim?
GregLocock said:30 Jun 08 2:50
electricpete, the non-warming data was published last year, check the leads I mention in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18
What I see in your post 17 Jun 08 21:18 is reference to the paper Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007; Accepted 14 March 2008; Corrected 8 May 2008 "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" by N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2
with three links:
You may be able to get it here
1 -
More generally readable
2 -
3 -
Link 1 is the actual article. An abstract here;
The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5, 6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
Did you notice, the punchline in the bolded portion concerns prediction about future behavior. Nothing whatsoever about a halt in global warming over the previous decade.
Now, let's take a look at your other link (3) from a journalist for the Toronto Sun:
German climate scientists have just published a study in the respected science journal Nature suggesting global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015.
In other words (my words, not theirs) contrary to the received wisdom of Al Gore's simplistic and propagandistic An Inconvenient Truth, global temperatures aren't moving in lockstep with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the science isn't settled and we don't know everything we need to know.
Based on new, computer-generated climate models that factor in natural ocean currents, the researchers conclude: "Our results suggest that global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said if their calculations are correct, the 0.3 degree Celsius global temperature rise predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change over the next decade won't happen.
"We believe that ocean currents and systems could, in the short term, change global warming patterns, and even mean temperatures," he told National Geographic News.
TWO DECADES
Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998, that means there would be an almost two-decade span where concentrations of GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, continued to intensify in the atmosphere, without global temperatures following suit.
Did you see what the journalist did? He started with an article that predicts no global warming from now until 2015 (as a result of shorter term factors which the scientists believes only temporarily offset the effects of AGW by the way!) and twists it around to make you think that the peer-reviewed article was supporting the urban myth that global warming halted 10 years ago
How did the journalist do it? He didn't lie. He just clevely weaved his words. He started by attributing to the scientests a comment that "global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015." – OK that part is sort of true – the scientists are suggesting the warming is stopping now.... not a big difference between is stopping and has stopped.
Then the journalist makes some comments about "(my words, not theirs) " on another aspect to provide himself licence to subsequently mix his own commentary into the article.
Then he goes to a direct quote from the authors. And then in the next full sentence after the direct quote he jumps right into his own words. "Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998..."
It certainly leaves the impression that the discussion about the previous decade came from the article. But review of the abstract clearly shows it did not.
Was there intent to deceive on the part of the journalist? I would say so. It makes a much more interesting story to say global warming stopped 10 years ago, and then rant for awhile about how the IPCC is covering it up than it does to talk about what some scientists are predicting in the future.
Was the journalist effective and successful in his attempt to deceive? I''ll leave that to you Greg. Did he fool you? Or is there something I missed (entirely possible) which explains how the Nature article link appeared in response to questions about the halt of global warming 10 years ago. (if I have misunderstood your meaning, I will gladly apologize).
As far as I can tell so far, the only person saying that global warming stopped 10 years ago is a journalist. And it seems pretty obvious to me this particular journalist is not trustworthy since he tried to present those facts in a distored manner suggesting they came from a peer reviewed journal. I have no doubt there are 10,000 other equally dubious places on the internet where I can find this rumour repeated.
Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.