'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2 40

[electricpete]

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?

17 Jun 08 21:18

Peer reviewed article in Nature ....

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector

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.

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?

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

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?

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 -

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5876/595

More generally readable

2 -

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

3 -

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/05/04/5466976-sun.php

Link 1 is the actual article. An abstract here;

http://npg.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf

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:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/05/04/5466976-sun.php

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.

 

[davidbeach]

I also find it interesting that those who post here most vigorously against the possibility of AGW are those associated with the automotive and/or petroleum industries. Bias?

 

[LCruiser]

"Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?"

How about a strictly objective source, with none of the secret sleight of surface observations? Satellite only.

Check here:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

and do a linear fit of the temps from 1998 until now. The trend is minus 0.21 deg per century.

Of course you could just do the last 5 years too. The trend there is minus 2.0 degrees per century.

 

[electricpete]

Ok. Data without interpretation. I am no expert to interpret this particular raw data (are you?). I look to those who publish peer-reviewed literature to help interpret this data.

Your data is labeled simply "Lower Troposphere". Interpretation of lower troposphere temperature measurements by satellite are addressed here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...oken=ff16cf7b93d3a28763d423ba3f06b8b56cfe37f7

Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to the surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with to that found in surface temperature and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

It may not be the whole picture, but it suggests there is some understanding that must be applied with the data. When these researchers reviewed and corrected the data based on their understanding, their peer-reviewed paper concluded that it was consistent with surface warming in the tropics. I didn't see other mention of further north or south.

This particular datapoint suggests we don't quite declare an end to global warming just yet. Maybe you have some other peer reviewed article or abstract to help us understand this data further?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[SomptingGuy]

melone,

My comment about "models" based purely on correlation goes deeper than the explanation given by Lcruiser and vc66.

A correlation could be simply coincidence (unlikely) or (more likely) based on an unknown connecting mechanism (e.g. correlations between criminal activity and church attendance, ice cream production and rape).

- Steve

 

[LCruiser]

Electric Pete -

Whoa pardner. You done flipped this whole argument over. I'm not saying global warming has "quit". I'm saying that maybe natural variability is larger than the signal and will remain larger than the signal. Basic physics gives a temperature rise, based on a doubling of CO2, of one degree or so (all other things being equal, which of course they're not). According to the satellite data (whether you chooose to believe it or not), natural variability has caused a decrease of 3/4 of that just in the last 15 months.

 

[electricpete]

16 Jun 08 15:58
.....all other things being constant (which of course they aren't, evidenced by the fact "global warming" has stopped for 10 years now) will warm the planet by from 1 to 2 deg C.

30 Jun 08 21:55
Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?

30 Jun 08 23:05
"Does anyone have a credible source supporting the claim that global warming halted 10 years ago in 1998 ?"

How about a strictly objective source, with none of the secret sleight of surface observations? Satellite only.

Check here:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

and do a linear fit of the temps from 1998 until now. The trend is minus 0.21 deg per century.

Of course you could just do the last 5 years too. The trend there is minus 2.0 degrees per century

1 Jul 08 4:55
Whoa pardner. You done flipped this whole argument over. I'm not saying global warming has "quit".

I'm the one who flipped? It may not have been your intent, but it sure looks like you were supporting the suggestion carried in this thread and in the press that global warming "halted" 10 years ago. Thanks for clarifying your position. I agree the history of the lower tropsphere temperatures recorded by satellite is statistically flat (no change).. It does not match the trends for higher altitudes and for surface temperatures, which do show statistically significant increases. Again the article quoted above explains part of this contradiction. Among all these indications, surface temperatures are widely considered as the most reliable.

What about you Greg? Would you care to respond to my post 30 Jun 08 23:05 ?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

I'm sorry. My last comment should have referenced my post 30 Jun 08 21:55

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

Electric Pete,

You must have missed jmw's post of 30 June at 1300, since you're still talking about surface stations.

The claim that the surface stations are the most reliable is ludicrous.

Also, yes, I apparently was not clear. When you are driving a car and you come on a stop sign, you stop momentarily. That does not mean you quit going wherever you're going. Not that you are necessarily going where you think you are going...

If you're convinced about global warming, here's your chance to make a half million dollars!

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

 

[LCruiser]

P.S. You will notice that all these claims about future GW being on hiatus didn't come about until this last decade.

 

[Ataloss]

Here is an example of why I have trouble believing that man is the reason for global warming (ignoring the argument regarding whether warming is happening or not):

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=8ffa0bd4-2aa3-4c0e-82de-f45972f014cc

Part 1 of the article details how the southern half of Greenland used to be covered by a large forest. "Extensive spruce forests used to cover the southern half of Greenland, according to a Canadian study that gives a remarkable glimpse of the icy island's green past and possible future. The work, by a team at the University of Quebec at Montreal, shows the impact of past climate warming on the massive ice sheet was much greater than previously believed."
They've established that Greenland used to be warm enough to support a large forest, and that there was past climate warming. Why is it so unbelievable that we are not just experiencing another round of natural warming now? We're still much cooler than when there vast forests covering half of Greenland.

Part 2 of the article: "The journal also features a second report showing how North America's climate suddenly flipped from a cold to a warm state at the end of the last ice age, with dramatic changes in atmospheric circulation in as little as a single year. The shifts happened so quickly it is "as if someone had pushed a button," says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of the University of Copenhagen, who led the international team that found the distinct signature of the sudden changes in a Greenland ice core. There were two huge temperature spikes in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of last ice age -- one 14,700 years ago associated with a 10-degree Celsius rise in temperatures over 50 years. Then icy conditions returned before another abrupt warming about 11,700 years ago."

If we've found evidence of large rises in temperature 15,000 years ago when we couldn't have had a large influence on it, why is it so inconceivable that the current rise in temperatures is solely caused by man-made CO2? Why are we so convinced that the only reason the climate could possibly change is because of something we have done?

Bob

 

[ewh]

With all of the uncertainty and disagreement regarding this issue, I think it would be much better to spend money determining the best way to compensate for and live with the changes than to throw it into the egocentric attempt at stopping them. The chances of helping the populace deal with the changes are much better than to gamble on preventing the crisis de jour. Regardless of what happens, someone is going to be wrong.

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[LCruiser]

Ataloss -

You illustrate a good point. Over the last few decades as Earth warmed it was blamed on increasing CO2 - and projected that temperatures would rise faster and faster.

Well, now that we have CO2 concentration *way* beyond what it was and the forcing should be extremely large, global warming has taken a hiatus. Why? We went from certain Armegeddon in, what, another 3 or 4 years, to "well maybe natural cycles will overcome *Global Warming*" for um, well, after they retire.

How Conveeenieent.

 

[DonPhillips]

Perhaps all of this climate change is related to this:

http://www.divulgence.net/

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[cranky108]

So how do we explain global warming on Mars? Is that because of CO2 caused by man?

 

[electricpete]

I think there is an interesting symmetry on both "sides" of the argument.

There are intelligent people who honestly believe both "sides".

People tend to think their "side" is supported by science.

People tend to think the experts on their "side" are credible and those on the other side are not credible and have some ulterior motive.

I put "side" in quotes, because it's not the right word. Both sides do in fact have a very wide spectrum of views contained within them. I think most of us recognize this when we hear a comment "deniers think/say X" or "alarmists think/say Y" uttered by someone on the other "side" in attempt to characterize our "side". We are probably not as concious of these differences when we make/hear generalizations about what the other "side" believes. We tend to focus on the most extreme / absurd comments we have heard from the other side and assume it represents the monolithic view of the other side.

While we are generally very polite and respectful to people who disagree on other topics, we degenerate quickly to sarcasm and name-calling and the like when we talk about global warming on this forum.

What does it all mean? Beats me.

I had a sarcastic rant to post, but I decided not to post it. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe it's time to take a break from global warming and think about the temperature of my pool and my beer.


=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[jmw]

I am nervous about predictions of temperature change which are smaller than the "corrections" made to the source data.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

Hmm

The steps according to the story as I see it are

1) Global temperatures are increasing, as a long term trend

2) Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, as a long term trend

3) Anthropogenic CO2 is a significant contributor to (2)

4) (2) is a dominant contributor to (1)


I have no problem with (2) as a historical trend, if not as a prediction.

I would agree that (1) is correct as a historical trend, if not as a prediction.

But, the AGW story is that 3 and 4 are good 'consensed' science.

My argument is that 3 is duff, anthropogenic CO2 is a small percentage of the natural carbon cycle, which is an enormous feedback cycle (that may or may not include temperature). 4 is duff because they claim that the timescale for CO2 effects on temp are short term, yet recent increases in CO2 are not reflected in increasing temps. We already know that there are far more significant contributors to global warming than CO2.

On top of this is the assumption that increased temp or CO2 is ipso facto a bad thing. IMO they are different, not worse. I agree that rising sea levels are inconvenient or worse, for some people. More food is convenient, or a lifesaver, for many many others. Historically HumBe's numbers are better supported in warm ages than Ice Ages.


Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[jmw]

Er, 20th anniversary of Hansen's original opening of the dilema?

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

There are indeed deniers and alarmists (aka "Believers"). There are not many deniers. However, in the middle, are the skeptics. It's similar to a christian lumping agnostics and atheists together.

Just because I don't believe the science is "settled" doesn't mean I believe it's not happening. I originally started out believing it, but as I got deeper and deeper into the science realized it's simplistic and doesn't hold together. jmw's point is good - the signal is smaller than the "corrections".