The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science 77

[rconnor]

----------Introduction---------
A comparison of recent temperature trends in isolation of earlier data, say 1998-present, to long(er)-term temperature trends, say 1970-present, reveals that more recent temperature trends are lower than long-term temperature trends. This has led many, including many prominent climate scientists, to refer to the recent period as a “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown”. While in isolation of any other context besides two temperature trends, the term “pause” or “hiatus” may be quasi-accurate, much more context is required to determine whether these terms are statistically and, more importantly, physically accurate.

It should be noted that most times when these terms are used by climate scientists, they keep the quotation marks to indicate the mention-form of the word and are not implying an actual physical pause or hiatus in climate change. The subsequent research into the physical mechanism behind the “pause” has continually demonstrated that it is not indicative of a pause in climate change nor does it suggest a drastic reduction in our estimates of climate sensitivity. However, this fact appears to be lost on many who see the “pause” as some kind of death-blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to the relevancy of climate change models.

While this subject has been discussed repeatedly in these forums, it has never been the focus but rather used as a jet-pack style argument to change the conversation from the subject at hand to the “pause” (“Well that can’t be right because the Earth hasn’t warmed in X years!”). Revisiting past threads, I cannot find an example of where someone attempted to defend the “pause” as a valid argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is brought up, debunked and then not defended (and then gets brought up again 5 posts later). The hope is to discuss the scientific literature surrounding the “pause” to help readers understand why the “pause” is simply not a valid argument. While some points have been discussed (usually by me) before, this post does contain new research as well as 2014 and 2015 temperature data, which shed even more light on the topic. The post will be split into three parts: 1) the introduction (and a brief discussion on satellite versus surface station temperature data sets), 2) Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2? and 3) Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are deeply flawed?

------Why I Will Be Using Ground-Based Temperature Data Sets-------
Prior to going into the meat of the discussion, I feel it necessary to discuss why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and not satellite data sets. Perhaps one of the most hypocritical and confused (or purposefully misleading) arguments on many “skeptic” blogs is the disdain for all ground-based temperature data sets and the promotion of satellite temperature data sets. The main contention with ground-based temperature data sets is that they do not include raw data and require homogenization techniques to produce their end result. While I am not here (in this thread) to discuss the validity of such techniques, it is crucial to understand that satellite temperature data sets go through a much more involved and complex set of calculations, adjustments and homogenizations to get from their raw data to their end product. Both what they measure and where they measure it are very important and highlights the deep confusion (or purposeful misdirection) of “skeptic” arguments that ground-based temperatures are rubbish and satellite-based temperatures are “better”.

[ul][li]Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.[/li]
[li]Satellite record is constructed from a series of satellites, meaning the data is not fully homogeneous (Christy et al, 1998). Various homogenization techniques are required to create the record. (RSS information)[/li]
[li]Satellites have to infer the temperature at various altitudes by attempting to mathematically remove the influence of other layers and other interference (RSS information). This is a very difficult thing to do and the methods have gone through multiple challenges and revisions. (Mears and Wentz 2005, Mears et al 2011, Fu et al 2004)[/li]
[li]Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The closest to “surface” temperatures they get are TLT which is an loose combination of the atmosphere centered roughly around 5 km. It is also not even a direct measurement channel (which themselves are not measuring temperature directly) but a mathematically adjustment of other channels. Furthermore, due to the amount of adjustments involved, TLT has constantly required revisions to correct errors and biases (Christy et al 1998, Fu et al 2005).[/li]
[li]See the discussion on Satellite data sets in IPCC Report (section 3.4.1.2)[/li]
[li]Satellite data and the large amount of homogenization and adjustments required to turn the raw data into useful temperature data are still being question to this day. Unlike ground-based adjustments which lead to trivial changes in trends (from the infamous Karl et al 2015), recent research shows that corrections of perhaps 30% are required for satellite data (Weng et al 2013 .[/li][/ul]

None of this is meant to say the satellite temperature data is “wrong” but it very clearly highlights the deep-set confusion in the “skeptic” camp about temperature data sets. If one finds themselves dismissing ground-based temperature data sets because they require homogenization or adjustments while claiming satellite temperature data sets are superior have simply been lead astray by “skeptics” or are trying to lead others astray. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that any attempt to compare satellite data (which measures the troposphere) to the surface temperature output of models is completely misguided (*cough*John Christy *cough*). It is for these reasons that I will use ground-based data in the rest of the post.

Again, I would like to state that I do not wish this to be a focal point of this discussion. I am merely outline why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and my justification for that as, undoubtedly, someone would claim I should be using satellite temperature datasets. In fact, I appear to be in pretty good company; Carl Mears, one of the chief researchers of RSS (and the same Mears from all the papers above), stated:

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

If this is a topic of interest to people, perhaps starting your own thread would be advisable as I will not be responding to comments on temperature data sets on this thread. Now, onto the actual discussion…

 

[Panther140]

That's good. It is good to recognize destructive potential of legislations and think about the motives of those who are pushing for those legislations to be imposed on us.

I would like to ask you; what is the correct climate for our globe to have for the next billion years? What is the correct chemical makeup for our atmosphere to have? Are there any sacrifices that we should NOT make in the pursuit for Obama to control the weather on earth?

 

[rconnor]

GregLocock, I was surprised to not hear from you on the “pause” topic given how many times you’ve tried to use it as an argument to support your position. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially now that we have 2015 data, Cahill et al 2015, Foster and Abraham 2015, etc. Nevertheless, I’ll drop in a comment on some of your statements.

Re: “current changes are unexceptional in rate and amplitude” – Central England does not represent global temperatures. Variability is much higher the more local you get and that’s exactly what you see when you compare global temperature proxies with local temperatures. PAGES2K Consortium is perhaps the most robust set of paleoclimate data available, using multiple proxies and sources, and their paper (and full article) states:

The 20th century ranked as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica. During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in nearly 1400 years. However, some regions experienced 30-year intervals that were warmer than 1971-2000. In Europe, for example, the average temperature between 21 and 80 CE was warmer than during 1971-2000.

But beyond that solar activity has been in decline since ~1960 (not to mention the vast increase in anthropogenic aerosols) which should cause cooling. However, as we know, the planet has been warming (with 2015 surpassing 2014 as the hottest year on record, by a wide margin). So, even if the rate and extent of the warming is unexceptional on a global scale (which is untrue), it would still be exceptional because there’s no natural driver that appears to account for the warming. Those saying “it’s changed before therefore CO2 isn’t important” still need a physical mechanism to explain the current warming as well as explain why “it’s changed before”. Note that CO2 provides a consistent and explanatory narrative for both present and past climate changes.

Re: AMO supercycle – Please explain how ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause the rise in temperature from 1900-present. Note that I’m in full agreement that it was likely partially responsible for some of 1920-1940 warming and 1940-1960 cooling, before a stronger warming single took over, but the long-term trend requires a non-cycling warming signal. Please explain how a ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause a steady increase in ocean heat content from 1960 to present. AMO and PDO impact how heat moves around the system, they don’t contribute to net heat gain or heat loss significantly over long periods of time.

Well, I’m at at it, Panther140,
Re: “it’s changed before” – See 27 Oct 15 18:27, 28 Oct 15 22:03.

Re: “we contribute very small amounts of atmospheric carbon, relative to the major sources of CO2” – see here.

Re: “What the global warming alarmists fail to do sufficiently is define the problem” – see 14 Oct 15 21:24, 15 Dec 15 15:37, 17 Dec 15 17:55.

lacajun, re: geological temperatures - see here at 23 Oct 14 17:19.

Also, here's an exercise for all of you - try to provide of physical explanation of geological, paleo and present temperature variances if the planet is not sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Even if you can hypothesis a forcing that could cause (with the correct timeline and extent) the variations we see (past and present), call it Forcing X, it would almost certainly be due to the same physical mechanism and feedbacks which would make the planet sensitivity to CO2 concentrations (albedo, water vapour, etc.). So, if the planet was sensitive to your Forcing X, it would also be likely that the planet would be sensitive to CO2 (thus failing the exercise).

I dare say it's a near impossible task. However, an ECS of ~3K allows us to provide a consistent and powerful explanation of past and present changes.

 

[rb1957]

"if the planet is not sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations" ... a valid exercise if CO2 is the only active agent. However, I suspect there are several; many I don't think we're aware of yet ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

". a valid exercise if CO2 is the only active agent. However, I suspect there are several; many I don't think we're aware of yet ..."

Based on what? And why is your "suspicion" valid against 60 yrs of modern climate science?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rb1957]

I think it is ...
'cause most new research says this or that was stronger/weaker than we expected,
'cause how many climate models are there ? (different ones emphasise different features)
'cause new climate models are constantly being developed
'cause this is right and proper (as we study something we learn some answers and usually more questions)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

a valid exercise if CO2 is the only active agent

How so? Firstly, CO2 is not the only “active agent” (I’m assuming that means driver/forcing). Solar activity, volcanic activity, orbital tilt and bolide impacts can all be drivers/forcings. So could some new forcing they’ve conceptualized. In fact, the opposite is true, the exercise is only valid if CO2 is NOT a major driver. Given how many believe that CO2 is not a major driver in climate change, this exercise is very valid for them.

The exercise is to describe a physical mechanism that accounts for the proper timeline and extent of geological, paleo and present variances in climate without CO2 being a significant forcing better than the current understanding using an ECS of ~2 to 4.5 K. However, remember that if CO2 sensitivity is low than so too are its positive feedbacks. So, your physical mechanism cannot rely on albedo, gas release or water vapour (which are all positive feedbacks of CO2, making CO2 sensitivity high).

As I said, I don’t think it can be done but this is the corner those that claim “sensitivity is low” have backed themselves into, not me. They are more than happy to say, correctly, “it’s changed before” but that makes it extremely difficult to explain those changes without a high CO2 sensitivity. But hey, “skeptics” are much smarter than the entire field of climate science, apparently, so I guess they should be able to solve this exercise.

 

[Panther140]

"Also, here's an exercise for all of you - try to provide of physical explanation of geological, paleo and present temperature variances if the planet is not sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Even if you can hypothesis a forcing that could cause (with the correct timeline and extent) the variations we see (past and present), call it Forcing X, it would almost certainly be due to the same physical mechanism and feedbacks which would make the planet sensitivity to CO2 concentrations (albedo, water vapour, etc.). So, if the planet was sensitive to your Forcing X, it would also be likely that the planet would be sensitive to CO2 (thus failing the exercise).

I dare say it's a near impossible task" - Rconnor

Are you familiar with the orbital mechanics of the earth relative to the sun and other planets? It actually winds up affecting our distance and axial tilt relative to the sun.

Also, you are relying on some data in which the raw measurements represent a small sample of our globe.

I would ask you to define what the correct eternal global climate is for me. What is the correct atmospheric chemistry to have for eternity? Are there any sacrifices that we should NOT make, as humans, in attempts to have governments control the weather?

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[Panther140]

"Re: AMO supercycle – Please explain how ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause the rise in temperature from 1900-present. Note that I’m in full agreement that it was likely partially responsible for some of 1920-1940 warming and 1940-1960 cooling, before a stronger warming single took over, but the long-term trend requires a non-cycling warming signal. Please explain how a ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause a steady increase in ocean heat content from 1960 to present. AMO and PDO impact how heat moves around the system, they don’t contribute to net heat gain or heat loss significantly over long periods of time." - rconnor

A 100 year sample is sufficient to draw conclusions on global climate trends?
The mini ice age ended just before 1900. Then it got warmer. This surprises you? Please hold while I go smash a less expensive computer screen! haha

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[zdas04]

I hate it when people come to the discussion very late and read the first post and then jump to the end, but for personal reasons I have to be one of those people. I apologize.

RCONNER,
Your basic question is fatuous. This pre-historic data has a time sensitivity of +/-200 years at best (and there are many who find that the assumption of a constant mix of carbon isotopes in the air over geologic time is no better than +/-1000 years). The hypotheses that CO2 changes lag temperature change by up to 200 years is exactly as credible as the hypotheses that CO2 causes temperature changes. As always I have a huge problem with people not honoring the uncertainty in the data. If I have a mercury thermometer with markings every 10C that was only calibrated at one point then reading it to whole degrees is impossible (with repeatable accuracy), reporting it to two or three decimal places is irresponsible. If I have temporal data that I have confidence is +/-200 years, then attributing a cause/effect relationship of 1-2 years is simply creative writing. The data supports an infinite number of cause/effect pairs.

I read the NOAA report and find it interesting that there are 12,000 ground stations in the world, but NOAA only finds 1,237 of them to be "high quality". A person could easily interpret "high quality" to mean "the data fits the narrative" and nothing in the report would refute that. When NOAA justifies ignoring 90% of the weather stations and all of the weather balloon data and all of the satellite data, their justifications sound very high-minded and scientific (they do write purty), but they still flat out ignored 99%+ of the available data to reach their conclusion. Some would call that "cherry picking", but I couldn't possibly. I take the NOAA "hottest ever" claim as politics masquerading as science.

there’s no natural driver that appears to account for the warming

is an interesting statement. I would take that fact as an indication that there could easily be something that I haven't considered. You take the absence of other causes that you accept as validation of your hypotheses. Sorry, but the absence of alternative hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis on the table.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

Are you familiar with the orbital mechanics of the earth relative to the sun and other planets?

Yes, I am. In fact, I discussed Milankovitch cycles in both of the posts that I directed you to read. Please see 27 Oct 15 18:27 and 28 Oct 15 22:03. For a much more detailed review of Milankovitch cycles, see here at 22 Apr 15 21:28.

Milankovitch/orbital cycles require large carbon feedbacks to drive the majority of the extent of interglacial warming. So if your mechanism is orbital cycles, you're agreeing with the current scientific understanding and with high CO2 sensitivity. If CO2 sensitivity is low, there’s no way to explain the extent of the change in temperatures. So, you’re doing a better job proving my point than yours.

Also, you are relying on some data in which the raw measurements represent a small sample of our globe

PAGES 2K is a much better representation of the global than HadCET (central England only). It is the combination of a number of proxies from different sources from different locations. See here. This is why I feel PAGES 2K is the best paleoclimate temperature reconstruction.

But let’s bounce this question back to you. If you want to claim “it’s changed before”, what data set are you relying on?

I would ask you to define what the correct eternal global climate is for me.

Climate has changed and will always change. There will never be an “eternal global climate”. However, the rate of past major climate change is much slower than the current rate of change. For example, the last interglacial period warmed the planet by ~5 deg C over a period of ~15,000 years (Shakun et al 2012). That’s 0.03 deg C per century. Furthermore, the next phase of the orbital cycle will be a cooling phase (we are already at the crest of the warming phase) and isn’t expected to kick in for another 50,000 to 100,000 years (Berger and Loutre 2002, Hollan 2000).

Comparatively, we are hoping to stay below a 2 deg C rise before the end of the century (our current rate is about 1.7 deg C per century) due to anthropogenic climate change. From an adaptive standpoint, that makes anthropogenic climate change much, much more difficult to adapt to than natural climate change.

However, if I had to give an answer for what the “best” climate would be for us, it would be the climate which humans developed there civilizations in (it’s true for all animals – the best climate for them is the climate they developed in). For us, it’s the Holocene which has lasted for ~10,000 years. This stable crest of the last interglacial cycle is where all modern agricultural practice and civilizations developed in. We are destined to depart from the Holocene but the question is when and how rapidly.

As stated, if it weren’t for anthropogenic actions, we’d likely begin to cool at glacial rates (literally not figuratively) starting around the next 50,000 to 100,000 years. However, due to anthropogenic actions, we’ve now entered an climatic era called the Anthropocene, where climate is changing orders of magnitude faster than they would during natural orbital cycle driven change.

A 100 year sample is sufficient to draw conclusions on global climate trends?

Yes. 1 deg C rise in 100 years demands an explanation. Nature doesn’t do shifts like that outside of massive volcanic eruptions or asteroids, neither of which have occured.

The mini ice age ended just before 1900. Then it got warmer. This surprises you?

When nature starts gradually cooling from an (Milankovitch cycle) thermal optimum and then rapidly shots up 1 deg C in 100 years, yes, it surprises me. It surprises anyone that knows the first bit about paleoclimatology. Here’s an image of PAGES 2K (green) compared with another paper Marcott et al 2013 (blue) and instrumental data (red) (note for those with “hockey stick” syndrome: 360 of the 511 records used in PAGES 2K were not used in Mann et al 2008 or 2009 and Mann is not an author of PAGES 2K):
[image

http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott_PAGES2k.png

]

 

[rconnor]

zdas04, no worries. I understand you were taking a break from the discussion.

The hypotheses that CO2 changes lag temperature change by up to 200 years is exactly as credible as the hypotheses that CO2 causes temperature changes.

It’s important to understand that historically, CO2 has never been a driver of climate change. CO2 levels don’t magically change, they require some other forcing to change their concentration. Milankovitch cycles are the most typical driver in glacial-interglacial periods. While insolation changes are a rather weak forcing, they lead to a series of feedbacks which leads to a release of CO2. CO2 then causes the majority of the extent of the change (see here at 22 Apr 15 21:28). So CO2 both (initially) lags and (later) leads temperature rise. I’m sure you’ll recall our discussion on Shakun et al 2012.

But let’s step back for a second to my exercise. Let’s assume that CO2 always lags temperature rise and is in no way responsible for the temperature rise. With low CO2 sensitivity, how do we explain how Milankovitch cycles could cause large temperature variances?

Insolation changes caused by angular tilt melt ice at the poles, decreasing albedo.
Thermohaline circulation is interrupted.
The NH equator to pole heat transport weakens
SH warms as a results, releasing large reservoirs of CO2 (this, for the example, doesn’t matter)
CH4 and albedo feedbacks continue to warm.

So, in the absence of high CO2 sensitivity, Milankovitch cycle-driven climate change must be due, solely, to albedo and CH4 feedbacks and not CO2. So given the same rise in temperature, if we remove the impact of CO2, then albedo and CH4 feedbacks should be greater than expected. However, as albedo and CH4 feedbacks are also feedbacks of increased CO2, then CO2 sensitivity must still be high. Thus, we fail the exercise. Darn!

As I said, those that claim “it’s changed before” and “climate sensitivity is low” have a really hard to explain how that’s the case.

A person could easily interpret "high quality" to mean "the data fits the narrative"

Misinterpreting a statement and failing to do follow up research does not provide a solid foundation to make such wild assertions.

When NOAA justifies ignoring 90% of the weather stations and all of the weather balloon data and all of the satellite data

See the NOAA/NASA joint presentation on 2015 temperature data. Note the discussion on satellite data.

Regarding balloon data, see the comparison between RATPAC and RSS. Balloon data is in disagreement with satellite data and in agreement with surface temperature data.
[image

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/compare_all.jpeg

]

We could listen to the lead scientist from RSS, Carl Mears:

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

You take the absence of other causes that you accept as validation of your hypotheses

Please don’t attribute views to me that I have never held. While I do not believe there is a valid counter-theory (and have open the door, repeatedly, for anyone to provide one), it is not the reason I accept the anthropogenic CO2 theory. The reason I accept the anthropogenic CO2 theory is because of its explanatory power with regards to paleoclimatology and present climate change and the accuracy of the predictions of Arrhenius and Tyndall made at the end of the 19th century. Please see my post at 14 Oct 15 21:24 and/or 15 Dec 15 15:37 for an outline.

 

[rb1957]

what an amazing quote from the lead scientist involved in the project ... forget that our data has tracked extremely well with other data for 30 years, over the recent years we are tracking lower, so our data must have a gremlin in it ?

and why is it referred to as an "anomaly" ? "all" that's being plotted is the temperature difference to a datum (1954? in this case) "anomaly" carries with it a lot of negative baggage ... what is "normal" that this is "exceptional", "peculiar", "deviated from the normal" ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[Panther140]

This thread illustrates the key problems I have with this entire alarmist movement.

I have seen nothing conclusive that indicates abnormal warming. You can pick a climate model that fits ANY pre-conceived conclusion, and then justify it with some theoretical perspective.

I do not see how a scientifically literate person would conclude that our recent climate trends are unnatural.

Despite this, we have people who are adamantly claiming to have figured out the root cause for this "problem" that their favorite climate model depicts.

I'm disappointed that there are engineers who have actually bought into this shit. I'm also shocked at how poorly this data is being analyzed. You are comparing satelite data to ground data that doesn't jive. Then you are comparing it to inferred climate data from fossils. THEN people see a .4C rise in certain climate models, fixate on those, ignore data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and have the nerve to tell US how the world shall be ran.

The fact that this idiocy is being used by our worlds one government to dictate us is a good example of why so many people are getting stocked up on 5 generations worth of tactical firearms and ammunition.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[Panther140]

Our society is being destroyed by 1000 instances of these excuses to undermine the basis for our first-world way of life.

Murder rates have been dropping drastically for 20 years, yet liberals claim we have a problem that we need to solve by removing the most basic human rights from people.

Climate has not changed in 20 years, polar ice is seeing record growth, all predictions by global warming alarmists from the past have failed to become true. BUT they are still using "climate change" as an excuse to destroy as many industries as possible, or at least destroy the smaller competition that collectively takes up market share.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[Panther140]

You have cherry-picked data from an array of non demonstrable data to support your belief. THEN you used a correlation to derive causality of that problem, which has a highly debatable existence in the first place. You have fixated on one variable in a system which has a nearly unintelligible matrix of variables. You have gone out of your way to downplay any and all data that contradicts your conclusion. You then said that skepticism of your belief is non-scientific. After breaking nearly every single fundamental rule of the scientific method, I can't believe you have the nerve to declare that the skeptics are not having a scientific discussion. Being complacent with another person's conclusion is the antithesis of scientific discussion.

This thread was not a scientific discussion. This was a sermon in which you did the exact opposite of science, and accused the opposition of blasphemy.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[rconnor]

I have seen nothing conclusive that indicates abnormal warming.

While I certainly not expect anything that I've said to convince you otherwise, you've seemed to not have even read anything I've said (nor have you addressed any of my questions, despite me addressing all of yours). Here's another example, on top of what I discussed above, the Permian Event:

the Permian event, the one that killed off 96% of all species on the planet, involved an 8 deg C rise in temperatures and CO2 concentrations to rise to 2000 ppm, which occurred over a period of 60,000 years (source). To put this in perspective, RCP8.5 (which is close to the “do nothing” option) projects a temperature rise of 4.31 deg C above pre-industrial (1850-1900 average) or 3.7 deg C above the 1986-2005 average by 2100 and projects CO2 concentrations will reach 2000 ppm by 2250 (source). Now, I’m not saying that every and all of the 96% of lost species during the Permian event were caused by global warming alone, as numerous other factors likely played into some of the extinctions [Note: ocean acidification, which is also a product of anthropogenic climate change, caused many of the extinctions.]. But the repeated relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature and changes in temperature and extinctions demonstrates that rapid changes in climate result in extinctions (1, 2). I'm also not saying the “Anthropocean event” will result in the loss of 96% of all species but it will cause a significant disruption to the biosphere that will result in some level of mass extinction.

...Beyond the fact that past mass extinctions are tied to temperatures and CO2 concentrations (both cooling/lowering and warming/rising), the rate of temperature change during past mass extinction events is orders of magnitude slower than current changes. To claim that “it won’t be bad” (it meaning warming rates >1.5 deg C/century) is completely contradicted by the fact that past periods of geological rapid warming (of <0.05 deg C per century) have lead to massively negative consequences in the biosphere. While “It won’t be bad” and “it’s changed before” are both common “skeptic” arguments against mitigation, the former is completely negated by the latter and the latter negates the argument it was trying to support.

I do not see how a scientifically literate person would conclude that our recent climate trends are unnatural.

Please offer a scientifically literate explanation of how it COULD be natural. This is the point of my exercise. Your attempted answer was "orbital cycles", which supports (and is an integral part of) the CO2 theory. Beyond that, orbital cycles cannot explain the rate nor the extent nor the timing of the current warming.

I'm disappointed that there are engineers who have actually bought into this...

One of us is offering evidence, data and a consistent scientific narrative to explain a physical observation. The other is not. Furthermore, as I've described numerous times, climate change is really a risk assessment exercise. The manner in which some here are conducting this risk assessment exercise is troubling. See 30 Sep 15 23:07, 27 Oct 15 18:27, *29 Oct 15 21:19* (probably the most thorough), 3 Dec 15 21:42, 9 Dec 15 20:52, 15 Dec 15 15:37.

Climate has not changed in 20 years, polar ice is seeing record growth, all predictions by global warming alarmists from the past have failed to become true

I'm sorry but everything in this sentence is wrong. Climate has continued over the last 20 years, see Part 1 (the second post of the thread). Polar ice is shrinking (Antarctic ice is increasing, which is expected, but Arctic ice is reducing (here). Antarctic net land ice is also decreasing. The aggregate is a large reduction.). And nearly every prediction of anthropogenic climate change is in agreement with observations (see here at 5 March 14 18:24 and here for examples).

 

[rconnor]

"You have cherry-picked data from an array of non demonstrable data to support your belief." - Examples of data that I've ignored? Should I list all the data that you've ignored? (OHC, land ice, sea level,...)

"THEN you used a correlation to derive causality of that problem, which has a highly debatable existence in the first place." - Incorrect. The physics behind CO2 greenhouse effect, established in the 19th century, demonstrates the causality. Please read my post at 14 Oct 15 21:24.

"You have fixated on one variable in a system which has a nearly unintelligible matrix of variables." - Incorrect. Climate change science incorporates all the other variables (solar, volcanic, albedo, land use, orbital cycles, clouds,..., AND CO2) to describe current and past changes. Your problem is you want to ignore CO2 but then the explanatory power disappears. Again, you need to address my exercise.

"You have gone out of your way to downplay any and all data that contradicts your conclusion." - I'm assuming you're referring to satellite data. I have explained why arguments that say "satellite data is king, ground based data is trash" are misguided. See my opening post, I say that I don't think satellite data is inherently wrong, it's just not a good metric as we don't live 5 km above the surface and it's not a good metric to discuss 15 year trends, especially given it's sensitivity to ENSO states (i.e. starting your analysis at the strongest El Nino on record might not be wise). Also, have you seen January UAH data? Looks like, as expected, the El Nino is starting to show in satellite data.

"Being complacent with another person's conclusion is the antithesis of scientific discussion." - Do you not see the irony of this statement? While you may feel it applies to me (and it might to an extent), it certainly applies to you. You've read some "skeptic" blog, haven't bothered doing much follow up research and (implicitly, if not explicitly) proclaim the entirety of the climate science community, all scientific journals (that deal with climate science), nearly every national academy of science are wrong (and unscientific). Especially given the absence of supporting evidence you've brought forth to support your assertions (and, even more so, in comparison to the amount of supporting evidence I've brought forth).

"This thread was not a scientific discussion." - Agreed. People keep bringing politics into the discussion and making comparisons to religious belief. While others are trying to discuss scientific evidence. It's too bad.

I'm sure you agree with me, Panther140, you cannot have a scientific discussion without using scientific evidence, papers or data to defend your points. So, please, let's start supporting our points with scientific evidence, papers or data.

And, please, don't make the discussion about me. Make it about the evidence that I bring forward (or don't bring forward) by bringing forward your own counter-evidence (not counter-assertions).

 

[IRstuff]

Panther,

Where is your supporting data? Can you at least point to a peer-reviewed publication of any sort to back up you claims? Your claim that nothing has changed in the last 20 years is simply blatant misrepresentation since 16 of the those 20 years were the hottest years of the last 135. So yeah, nothing changed, other than they being hotter than all the rest:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

So, who's ignoring data that doesn't fit their theory?

And no, it's not random.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2015

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[Panther140]

Why do you only use data that begins where the little ice age ended?

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[IRstuff]

You made claim; I showed data for the period that you made the claim about. So, what's the issue here?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529