Global warming 'pause' since 1998 reflects natural fluctuation, study concludes

Jul 21, 2014
Global warming 'pause' since 1998 reflects natural fluctuation, study concludes

Statistical analysis of average global temperatures between 1998 and 2013 shows that the slowdown in global warming during this period is consistent with natural variations in temperature, according to research by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

In a paper published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, Lovejoy concludes that a natural cooling fluctuation during this period largely masked the warming effects of a continued increase in man-made emissions of and other .

The new study applies a statistical methodology developed by the McGill researcher in a previous paper, published in April in the journal Climate Dynamics. The earlier study—which used pre-industrial temperature proxies to analyze historical climate patterns—ruled out, with more than 99% certainty, the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate.

In his new paper, Lovejoy applies the same approach to the 15-year period after 1998, during which globally averaged temperatures remained high by historical standards, but were somewhat below most predictions generated by the complex computer models used by scientists to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions.

The deceleration in rising temperatures during this 15-year period is sometimes referred to as a "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming, and has raised questions about why the rate of surface warming on Earth has been markedly slower than in previous decades. Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Lovejoy's new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998—a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years, according to the analysis. "We find many examples of these variations in pre-industrial temperature reconstructions" based on proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediment, Lovejoy says. "Being based on climate records, this approach avoids any biases that might affect the sophisticated computer models that are commonly used for understanding ."

What's more, the cooling effect observed between 1998 and 2013 "exactly follows a slightly larger pre-pause warming event, from 1992 to 1998," so that the natural cooling during the "pause" is no more than a return to the longer term natural variability, Lovejoy concludes. "The pause thus has a convincing statistical explanation."

The methodology developed in Lovejoy's two recent papers could also be used by researchers to help analyze precipitation trends and regional climate variability and to develop new stochastic methods of climate forecasting, he adds.

Explore further: Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty

More information: "Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause", Shaun Lovejoy, Geophysical Research Letters, published online July 14, 2014. DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060478

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Ozone pact helped cool the planet, study reports

Nov 10, 2013

A slowdown in global warming that climate sceptics cite in favour of their cause was partly induced by one of the world's most successful environment treaties, a study said on Sunday.

Macroweather is what you expect

Feb 25, 2013

While short-term weather is notoriously volatile, climate is thought to represent a kind of average weather pattern over a long period of time. This dichotomy provides the analytical framework for scientific ...

Volcanoes helped offset man-made warming: study

Feb 23, 2014

Volcanoes spewing Sun-reflecting particles into the atmosphere have partly offset the effects of Man's carbon emissions over a 15-year period that has become a global-warming battleground, researchers said Sunday.

Recommended for you

Sculpting tropical peaks

19 hours ago

Tropical mountain ranges erode quickly, as heavy year-round rains feed raging rivers and trigger huge, fast-moving landslides. Rapid erosion produces rugged terrain, with steep rivers running through deep ...

Volcano expert comments on Japan eruption

20 hours ago

Loÿc Vanderkluysen, PhD, who recently joined Drexel as an assistant professor in Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science in the College of Arts and Sciences, returned Friday from fieldwork ...

User comments : 113

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2014
Any change confirms CAGW. Any non-change does not disprove it.
Its irrefutable settled science.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (23) Jul 21, 2014
Orti said:
Any change confirms CAGW. Any non-change does not disprove it.
Its irrefutable settled science.


Apparently you don't read the articles. Instead you just see AGW and go into word fits.

In the paper they are citing, the author has developed a statistical method of deconvoluting natural and anthropomorphic effects. You could easily join in the discussion of the math involved by showing us how your superior math proves his inferior math wrong... Oh, wait, you don't have any mathematical ability. So, you can't even comment on his method, either positive or negative. Instead, you make a poor joke that has no basis in reality.

Please, prove me wrong. Rise to the occasion and show me where his statistical application is faulty. If you can't (which I am sure of) then you have no basis to judge this article.

Put up or shut up.
sirfiroth
3.4 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2014
Any change confirms CAGW. Any non-change does not disprove it.
Its irrefutable settled science.


LOL, One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called scientific proofs and settled science. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof, there is only empirical evidence supporting scientific knowledge which is always tentative and provisional, in other words, in science nothing is ever settled!
hurricane25
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
The only negative forcing I can think of is the aerosals china is spewing. Volcano's = down!
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (24) Jul 21, 2014
Yes...yes..the cooling is NATURAL, but the warming is MAN MADE.
The "science" is settled.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
AntiEm says:
Yes...yes..the cooling is NATURAL, but the warming is MAN MADE.
The "science" is settled.


You need to keep a physics book close at hand when you read these things. I will try to explain as simply as possible what happens when the oceans switch modes and the atmosphere reacts.

The ocean holds much more heat than the air does. Do you understand that?

The ocean can move the heat around much more easily than the winds can. Do you understand that?

The heat in the ocean/air/ground system on the earth changes heat content very slowly because of the unimaginably large heat capacity. Do you understand that?

So, how does the air temperature change on hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annual, or decade time frames? Mostly because the enthalpy is moved around, not increased or decreased significantly.

Superimposed on these short-term movements of enthalpy is a gradual increase in the total enthalpy of the earth. Continued
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2014
Continued: The overall change in enthalpy over long time scales is what we see as climate change.

The short term changes in enthalpy caused by currents, winds, mixing, and diffusion are the things we can see as weather or oscillations.

Part of the challenge has been the teasing apart of the short-term and long-term signals in the measurements.

AntiEm, do you understand signal theory? If you do you can look at this as a challenge in signal theory where we have multiple signals that we have to pull apart. The short term signals are those we see easily as humans. The longer term changes are those we have to see mathematically or wait longer than a human lifespan to see.

In most cases, the signals are now becoming more clear and we have tools that are doing a better job of pulling them apart. If you don't understand how the earth can be gaining enthalpy while distributing it heterogeneously in the fluids of the earth, you really can't understand modern science.
Miriandandes
2.4 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
Any change confirms CAGW. Any non-change does not disprove it.
Its irrefutable settled science.

There is no such thing as settled science.
There is, however, such a thing as agenda perverting science.

Also, all of these "settled science" studies only account for maybe a few hundred years. That's not nearly enough time to get any kind of result that matters.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2014
Another article on Physorg explains how to handle situations like this.
Yup, Global warming, errrr Climate Change is real. Who care that the data doesn't prove it.
Yup, Global warming, errrr Climate Change is real which is why raw data needs to be manipulated to prove the point.
Yup, Global warming, errr Climate Change is real which is why all the models used are constantly wrong and data needs to be fudged.
Yup sea levels are going to rise. Even Al (Profit) Gore believes this so much he is purchasing sea front property to alleviate suffering of rich people who owned the mansion.
Yup people need to cut down on CO2 emissions, just like all the rich people who fly private planes and take monster vehicles and eat endangered animals at all these global warming summits held at posh resorts.
The science is settled, so everyone (except the progressive elite) need to pay money to the Democrats and the elite Progressives to run our lives.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
Any change confirms CAGW. Any non-change does not disprove it.
Its irrefutable settled science.

There is no such thing as settled science.
There is, however, such a thing as agenda perverting science.

Also, all of these "settled science" studies only account for maybe a few hundred years. That's not nearly enough time to get any kind of result that matters.


This is just "new age/PC speak" for I don't understand science.

There is settled science.

As an example, Newton's laws are settled science for the set of boundary conditions they were defined within. Newton did not say they were for speeds approaching the speed of light, nor for nanometer sizes because he had no reference to understand they could be used there. Instead, he designed them for speeds a planet might move at and distances from the size of a grain of sand to the distance of the stars. Continued
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
Continued: We now know that, sometimes, we need to address relativistic speeds and quantum systems. But, if I want to build a bridge, I use Newton, not Einstein or Planck. There are many settled laws in science.

Can we discover more complex views of reality? Of course we can. We see them every day on PhysOrg. We look at QM and GR all the time.

Do they refute Newton's laws? No. Newton's laws are settled because we know the realm in which we can apply them. If they were not settled we couldn't use them to build a building because they would produce an unpredictable design. But you would go out of business trying to apply QM to the design of a building.

Those who keep coming back with the idea that there is nothing settled in science don't understand science and are sloppy thinkers.
verkle
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2014
You got to love these "scientists" who write (tongue-in-cheek) things like "The deceleration in rising temperatures..." and "rate of surface warming on Earth has been markedly slower..."

Please be honest. There is no deceleration since 1998. The warming has plain stopped.

According to this Forbes article, "scientists" were "90% certain" about CAGW just a few years ago. Last year it was "95% certain". Evidently they found new evidence, so now, according to this article, it is "99% certain".

http://www.forbes...ratures/

What fools.

thermodynamics
4 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
Verkle said:
Please be honest. There is no deceleration since 1998. The warming has plain stopped.

According to this Forbes article, "scientists" were "90% certain" about CAGW just a few years ago. Last year it was "95% certain". Evidently they found new evidence, so now, according to this article, is is "99% certain".

http://www.forbes...ratures/

What fools.


Using Forbes as a technical journal? ROFL

Please show us technical data that shows the warming has stopped.

Oh, wait, you can't. Instead you show us Forbes.
verkle
2.3 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
Dear Thermodynamics,

My reference was the data on the NASA website. It is not from Forbes. Please take a look for that technical data. Thanks!

Geologist
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
Thermo is behaving more like a religious zealot than a scientist. Science is always up for peer review and debate, not like religion or the holocaust. We are 1 degree hotter than 140 years ago, stop acting like a fanatic and let people state their opinions without calling them stupid.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
Thermo is behaving more like a religious zealot than a scientist. Science is always up for peer review and debate, not like religion or the holocaust. We are 1 degree hotter than 140 years ago, stop acting like a fanatic and let people state their opinions without calling them stupid.


How long have you been hanging around here, Geologist?

Evidently not for very long, or you would understand the nature of the polymorhous denialist presence here, and why it doesn't sit well with most of us to have to continually see all of the same tired, old, bogus, and debunked denier arguments constantly being recycled, and largely by the same trolls via their sockpuppets.

You'll see what I mean after just a few short weeks of visiting this site on a regular basis.

This I can unconditionally guarantee.

thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2014
Dear Thermodynamics,

My reference was the data on the NASA website. It is not from Forbes. Please take a look for that technical data. Thanks!


The NASA web site is huge with hundreds of graphs and tables. Can you point me at the one you used?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2014
Geologist said:
Thermo is behaving more like a religious zealot than a scientist. Science is always up for peer review and debate, not like religion or the holocaust. We are 1 degree hotter than 140 years ago, stop acting like a fanatic and let people state their opinions without calling them stupid.


The old saying about there never being a stupid question is wrong around here. You will find that out if you have an open mind.

What happens is that we try to answer any question that might come up. When the same question comes up from the same people time after time you will find out why some of us get a bit short. As an example, Cantdrive85 believes the stars are run by electricity and that the climate is warming as a result of the electric universe. Ryggerson2 believes that everything happens is the result of "socialist plots." The Alchemist believes he has built a model that falsifies AGW but he won't put it up against the present contest to falsify AGW.
Mimath224
3.7 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
@thermodynamics as a layman I can't say I disagree with you much but think I need more than just a book or two in front of me when dealing with climate change. One article implies 'this' another 'that', experts seem split down the middle etc. This is one topic where perhaps too much info to the public has a big 'downside'...it's confusing. I can see the 'natural' side argument and the anthropogenic one too. In addition it's more than likely that people like myself don't appreciate differences of 0.28 to.37 deg and perhaps that's where the problem is. I would like someone to direct me to a data set or other info that allows one to understand these implications. Perhaps you might be able to suggest something? Thanks in advance.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2014
Continued for the Geologist: The idea of "settled science" comes up all the time. Science is not relative. There are certain things that are well known and have been reliably reproduced for hundreds of years. Even relativity has specific rules and it is the results that are relative to our frame of reference. That does not mean that the laws of radiant heat transfer are "relative" in the frame of reference of the earth.

Please tell me what you believe is not settled science in the context of AGW?

Let me tell you what I see as settled:

1) Radiative heat transfer.
2) Convection
3) Conduction
4) Fluid dynamics
5) The influence of GHGs on heat transfer in the earth/sun/space system.
6) The increase of GHGs by human influence.

Let me tell you what I see as not settled

1) The specific distribution of heat within the earth's fluids
2) The temperature trajectory of each fluid over centuries

Your turn
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
So, the first lie from the AGW Cult, that the world was cooling because all the heat was going into the oceans, is now superseded by this new lie. They cannot even keep their lies straight, but they will save the world.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2014
Mimath:
@thermodynamics as a layman I can't say I disagree with you much but think I need more than just a book or two in front of me when dealing with climate change. One article implies 'this' another 'that', experts seem split down the middle etc. This is one topic where perhaps too much info to the public has a big 'downside'...it's confusing. I can see the 'natural' side argument and the anthropogenic one too. In addition it's more than likely that people like myself don't appreciate differences of 0.28 to.37 deg and perhaps that's where the problem is. I would like someone to direct me to a data set or other info that allows one to understand these implications. Perhaps you might be able to suggest something? Thanks in advance.


Let me suggest you look at this representation of the energy balance of the earth.

http://en.wikiped...y_budget

Assume that everything is in "near steady state" and I will try to explain some of this in the next few posts.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2014
Mimath: I used the specific vocabulary of "near steady state" to describe the earth/sun/space system because the system is nearly in balance but changes over both short and long time frames. The earth/sun/space system is never in "equilibrium." That is a mistake that is common. It is also constantly changing but it is not changing quickly (which is near steady state).

Going back to the figure in the wikipedia figure, you can see that the source of energy is the sun and the receiver is the earth and that the earth also radiates back to space (which is how it cools). Over hundreds of thousands of years the balance of gases in the atmosphere fluctuates as does the distance of the earth from the sun as well as the tilt of the earth and the path of ocean currents as well as winds. We know the mechanics of much of this.

http://en.wikiped...h_cycles

So far I have just discussed natural variation. Continued
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2014
Continued:

One of the things the deniers will bring up again-and-again is the idea that "temperature drives CO2." The idea is that in the past, most of the time, when temperature goes up the CO2 content of the atmosphere follows. This becomes a positive feedback mechanism with the CO2 lagging. This is thrown up at anyone who talks about CO2 "causing" global warming. They say that CO2 lags temperature - and they are right for past epochs.

However, we have changed the calculus and we are increasing CO2. That means that the CO2 is now driving (and leading) temperature. This is the anthropogenic contribution that changes the situation.

Now the question becomes: How do we tell what is changing the heat balance?

To do that we have to use a tool that is derided by the deniers. Models. We don't get to run experiments with the earth (although we have one going by our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere). Continued
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2014
Continued: Instead of building a few more earths and changing their parameters to perform an experiment we build models of the earth and change parameters. With the models you can determine how sensitive the system is to changes of the variables. So, using the models you can hold most of the variables constant and change others and watch what happens. In that way they can tell how much each of the variables contributes to the changes in temperature.

At this point, folks like Rygg2 will dive in and make comments about the "garbage in" "garbage out" "faked" models.

The reality is that the models are good and getting better. Understanding what models are built for is important at this point and a number of us have expounded on that in the past. Let me know if this is helping or hurting your understanding of natural versus human caused.
Geologist
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
This is the site I frequent (in the shadows) when a relevant topic is major news. I understand that many of you are in normal unresolved discussion mode, and the high levels make it all the more interesting. I'll sit and "chill" and absorb the flow.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2014
This is the site I frequent (in the shadows) when a relevant topic is major news. I understand that many of you are in normal unresolved discussion mode, and the high levels make it all the more interesting. I'll sit and "chill" and absorb the flow.


Geologist: If you have hung out, you will know that most of us like to hear from others. One of the best ways to learn is to answer questions that others ask. Please don't chill, but instead, jump in and fire away. We could use a geologist on the site helping us understand more about geology as we work on climate change. Thanks for letting us know you are here.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2014
There is, however, such a thing as agenda perverting science.
@Miriandandes
@freefromthought AND ANYONE ELSE who thinks that global warming is false!

So you are of the opinion that all climate science is an "agenda perverting science" or false? If you have the ability to PROVE it, you can make some money! go here: http://dialogueso...nge.html

if you can prove, using the scientific method, that AGW is false and that all climate science is an "agenda perverting science" then you will get the money and WORLDWIDE fame.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
This is one topic where perhaps too much info to the public has a big 'downside'...it's confusing
@mimath224
the reason for this is really because the general public are uninformed, they CHOOSE to allow others to think for them (like in religion) and they are VERY scientifically illiterate! Even the ones who study some of the sciences are this way... take NURSES or MD's for example. They are willing to accept empirical evidence in their field, but not in other sciences. why? because they don't really understand it.

This is the crux of the issue with the idiot posters who claim climate science is false or agenda perverting, etc.

a good example of ignoring empirical data at will would be ED and CD. He can quote some plasma physics, but ONLY THAT WHICH SUPPORTS HIS OWN RELIGION of EU.
Give him empirical data proving him wrong and he will not accept it. He ranges from attacking the poster/author to outright denial based upon debunked data.
verkle
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2014
Dear Thermodynamics,

My reference was the data on the NASA website. It is not from Forbes. Please take a look for that technical data. Thanks!


The NASA web site is huge with hundreds of graphs and tables. Can you point me at the one you used?


I will after your apology for calling me stupid.

Really, it is not hard to find. Data do not lie.

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
Dear Thermodynamics,

My reference was the data on the NASA website. It is not from Forbes. Please take a look for that technical data. Thanks!


The NASA web site is huge with hundreds of graphs and tables. Can you point me at the one you used?


I will after your apology for calling me stupid.

Really, it is not hard to find. Data do not lie.



Verkle: I may have missed where I called you stupid but I did find where you noted:

"What fools."
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
@thermodynamics, Captain Stumpy many thanks for replies, thermodynamics for the links which certainly helped. However, that is not quite my problem because I am not one who denies the issue. I realise enough to make that decision.
I'll explain. Although I don't have a university degree, most of my working life was as Lab Tech in various industries and as such went to tech college, other scientific institutions. Just one example, studied Timber tech at Princes Risborough when working in a Timber lab. Now, through this one relaises the importance of trees and how even today they can help us. Platanus for example, is one of many that could help fight pollution. (although some have irritant properties & way back I know cities like London and New York used Platanus)
Black Body radiation and astronomy implications are also appreciated.
But I don't agree with people like Al Gore, who imho only cite the arguments for their own agenda. Ha, my problem is by how much are the 'the experts' wrong?
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
The case for GW using natural cycles as an excuse, that's rich! Talk about the shoe on the other foot!
You all mock, and fail to examine my approach, but it works, and has worked. The temperature pause is caused by accelerated ice melting, surface area:volume increase. Look at where it is effecting. It may also be being caused by use of ethanol in gas, as there is good correlation. Further, increased use in solar and wind seems to be a hidden revolution that may also be a contributor, again, with good correlation.
I haven't done the math, mind, I just look at the rates of growth.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
Any change confirms CAGW. Any non-change does not disprove it.
Its irrefutable settled science.

There is no such thing as settled science.
There is, however, such a thing as agenda perverting science.

Also, all of these "settled science" studies only account for maybe a few hundred years. That's not nearly enough time to get any kind of result that matters.


Right then what do you propose?
Given the predicted effects of AGW (gained from current state of the art science).
You want to wait until science is 100% sure (never would be to the ideologically challenged).
Fan f***ing tastic.
You do realise that if we could magically switch off all CO2 emission now we are still locked into ~2C rise?
That's the f***ng point - there's no time to play with.
You either go with the science (a product of ~500 years of man's evolution that has taken us into space, and got us talking over this medium).....
Or we sit back and wait for "enough time to get any kind of result"
FFS
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
I'll explain. Although I don't have a university degree, most of my working life was as Lab Tech in various industries and as such went to tech college, other scientific institutions. Just one example, studied Timber tech at Princes Risborough when working in a Timber lab.


Hi Mimath
I noticed the place name.
Back in the 80's I worked on the ridge at RAF Strike Command Headquarters.
And lived in Chinnor for a few years.
I'm a retired meteorologist.
Mimath224
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
@runrig I was at the government's Timber research Princes Risborough somewhere arround 1970. One of the things I do remember is at that time they were trying to restore a Galleon with timber specially treated to keep an authentic look. Apparently to two years or more. Never had much time to go sight seeing and never knew anything about RAF stations. But of course that area has a lot of history. If memory serves there was a magnificent Rosewood (Dalbergia) piece and it was explained to my class how the rings showed the variations in seasons etc. very clearly. Also sections of Seqoia which also, I think but sure, were used in tracing past season/climate changes.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
Please read 'around for 'arround' and 'Apparently took two years' for 'Apparently to two years'
Apologise for that.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
I will after your apology for calling me stupid.

Really, it is not hard to find. Data do not lie.


Verkle: I may have missed where I called you stupid but I did find where you noted:

"What fools."


I wouldn't apologizing to him. As he says: Data do not lie. And the data for his stupidity is all over the comment sections for all to see.
Dug
1.3 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
I can see how the combustion energy and byproducts released from industrial revolution over the past 100+ years would have a climate impact, I'm not at all convinced on climate science as being "settled" or that the basic measurements and modeling are strong enough to make fractional degree annual temperature increases or millimeter increase projections in annual sea level rise. My biggest concerns lie in the accuracy of our older temperature records (recorded by high variability instruments, by different recorders using different recording protocols) and proxy assumptions which are at best indications and our current satellite data that even the experts agree are error prone due to orbit decay and other factors. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Satellite_sea_level_measurement). Additionally read this current article (below on satellite error). Climate science expectations far exceed its reality.
Dug
2 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
The article below that I refd. in my comment is (http://phys.org/n...d.html),
Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
the cooling effect observed between 1998 and 2013 "exactly follows a slightly larger pre-pause warming event, from 1992 to 1998," so that the natural cooling during the "pause" is no more than a return to the longer term natural variability


What I get from this is that all the climate models that try to match the observed temperatures from 1992 to 1998, and pin it down to CO2 are actually getting it wrong because they don't include this natural cycle and instead assume that the whole thing is caused by man-made effects.

Which makes them predict catastrophies, which makes politicians and activists react in a hysterical way that is bound to hurt society in the long run.

And that is the real problem.

Plus, the whole brouhaha at that time turns out on the side of the skeptics, because -that- temperature rise -then- wasn't all due to man-made effects but indeed a natural variation despite the consensus saying that it was.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
What I get from this is that all the climate models that try to match the observed temperatures from 1992 to 1998, and pin it down to CO2 are actually getting it wrong because they don't include this natural cycle and instead assume that the whole thing is caused by man-made effects.


You conclude wrongly.
Look it's quite simple...
The ENSO/PDO is THE biggest climate cycle affecting heat distribution in the Earth's fluids.
Those models that are in PHASE with this cycle have followed the recent slowing of global air temp rise very well (obvious if you know the science).
Those that are out of phase with it or average it out - are not.

In other words it is the ENSO/PDO that has largely "hidden" the heat away from the atmosphere since '98 ... the predominance of La Ninas (cool E Pacific surface waters).. This allows the surface waters to warm and sink in the W Pacific and take the heat to depth. Remember heat is NOT temperature (SH = 4x that of air).
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2014
Dear Thermodynamics,

My reference was the data on the NASA website. It is not from Forbes. Please take a look for that technical data. Thanks!


The NASA web site is huge with hundreds of graphs and tables. Can you point me at the one you used?


I will after your apology for calling me stupid.

Really, it is not hard to find. Data do not lie.



The problem is, you really are stupid. If anyone should apologise, it is you for spreading your stupidity and lies.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Mimath said:
I don't agree with people like Al Gore, who imho only cite the arguments for their own agenda. Ha, my problem is by how much are the 'the experts' wrong?


My view of the people involved really doesn't matter. It is the science that is important, not how reporters or politicians view it. You ask: "how much are the experts wrong?"

That is an important question but can also be broken down into:

1) What does "wrong" mean?
2) What are they "wrong" about?
3) How much are they wrong?

I am not trivializing this at all. Let me try to explain.

All measurements are wrong. There is some uncertainty in any measurement we can take. There is a whole aspect of engineering and science that deals with the precision and accuracy of measurements and we are always trying to improve measurements by minimizing the uncertainty.

Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Continued: Any non-trivial calculation is wrong (by trivial I am including closed form math solutions). For instance, if I am calculating a very precise and important trajectory for a satellite launch, it will be +/- 20 m and +/- 40 m/sec. That is because my starting conditions as well as operating conditions are limited in the precision of my estimate.

There are some who say that ANY uncertainty in a calculation turns it into garbage. That is just incorrect and you will see folks like Rygg2 argue that point to absurdity. Instead, we put error bars on our results and that is the +/- that you see in such results. When you don't see them you should look at the methods being used and they will usually be in there.

Back to what I think you are asking (and you can correct me at any time).

There is physics and there is engineering. Physics has more fundamental processes and can, in some instances, give more precise answers than engineering (which deals with the messy world.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
The world of physics is well defined for mundane issues like the interaction of photons with matter. The world of engineering for fluid motion has greater uncertainties.

In the question of AGW there are specific issues.

1) Are GHGs being increased by human actions?
2) Do increased GHGs cause the earth to heat up?
3) How would extra heat be distributed in the fluids and solids of the earth?
4) What does the distribution of extra heat in the earth system mean for life on earth?

When people say "the science is settled" they mean numbers 1 and 2. These are relatively simple calculations to make.

Items 3 and 4 are much more complicated and will remain uncertain for a while. However, we can attach specific uncertainties to the calculations of 3 above (and to any other calculations).

It is the area of 3 and 4 that we should be having discussions. Instead, the deniers who think they understand science but don't are still arguing about 1 and 2. Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Continued: Folks on both sides get lost at times by assuming they know the answers to 3 and 4 when they don't. However, we do know certain parts of 3 and 4.

For instance.

5) As the heat content of the earth goes up the ice on the earth will melt. Not completely, and not instantly, but it will melt at a faster rate than it was 50 years ago.

6) Rain patterns will change. We aren't sure how, but the changes in energy and moisture distribution will change winds which will change precipitation.

7) Oceans will rise.

As you can see, we know important things and the science is settled on specific aspects of the AGW theory. However, there is exciting research left to be done on other aspects.

As for Al Gore, I really don't care. Some hate him, some love him, I just don't care other than he has raised awareness of the situation. He has also made some mistakes, but not nearly like folks like Mockton or Goddard.

Let me know if that helps.
Canute
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Whilst oceans are rising now, that has not always been the case. At the end of the last ice age sea levels were 400 feet lower. Once melting started they rose, very rapidly at times but after 20,000 years a natural cycle changed the warming cycle to a cooling one for the next 80,000 years. If a natural cycle can overcome the effects of human generated CO2 for the last 20 years to explain the hiatus, then why cannot the natural cycle that has happened many times in the past 800,000 years do the same and we will return to another ice age.
Has anyone tried to computer model the sharp transition from warming to cooling that has happened repeatedly in the past?
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2014
All fluctuations are natural.

http://arstechnic...lowdown/

Climate models that accidentally got El Niño right also show warming slowdown
aksdad
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Lovejoy's new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998—a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years

http://www.ncdc.n...1112.png

If the cooling is natural how do we know the warming isn't? If the pattern occurs every 20 to 50 years, it implies that the earth has been warming then cooling briefly for quite some time--since before human emissions would have had any effect.

A graph of several temperature reconstructions going back 200 years shows warming and cooling happening long before the Industrial Revolution:

http://en.wikiped...ison.png

Since all of the major carbon sinks and emitters and their magnitude have not been identified yet, it's awfully difficult to blame human emissions (~4%) for warming when nature provides the other ~96% of emissions.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Whilst oceans are rising now, that has not always been the case. At the end of the last ice age sea levels were 400 feet lower. Once melting started they rose, very rapidly at times but after 20,000 years a natural cycle changed the warming cycle to a cooling one for the next 80,000 years. If a natural cycle can overcome the effects of human generated CO2 for the last 20 years to explain the hiatus, then why cannot the natural cycle that has happened many times in the past 800,000 years do the same and we will return to another ice age.
Has anyone tried to computer model the sharp transition from warming to cooling that has happened repeatedly in the past?


Yes, and successfully.
aksdad
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Has anyone tried to computer model the sharp transition from warming to cooling that has happened repeatedly in the past?

Yes, and successfully

Wrong. They have not. They don't even know what has caused the pattern of glaciation and warming of the last 500,000 years, though the predominant theory is Milankovitch cycles. No one has successfully modeled this.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Akdad asks...........
If the cooling is entirely natural, how do we know the warming is not? If the pattern occurs every 20 to 50 years, it implies that the earth has been warming then cooling briefly for quite some time--since before human emissions would have had any effect.


This is why....

http://blog.chron...ines.pdf

Conditions are NOT cycling back to the beginning.
ie global temps are rising throughout the ENSO cycle.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Has anyone tried to computer model the sharp transition from warming to cooling that has happened repeatedly in the past?

Yes, and successfully

Wrong. They have not. They don't even know what has caused the pattern of glaciation and warming of the last 500,000 years, though the predominant theory is Milankovitch cycles. No one has successfully modeled this.

Sorry Asksy...

You're right, because the computational complexity is way too large at present.

http://scienceofd...gcm-iii/
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
Correction to the above...
That was for coupled atmosphere-ocean models - however simpler models have been successfull

"Models of different categories of complexity, from conceptual ones to three-dimensional atmospheric general circulation models and two-dimensional time-dependent models of the whole climate system, have now been astronomically forced in order to test the physical reality of the astronomical theory. The output of most recent modeling efforts compares favorably with data of the past 400,000 years."

http://onlinelibr...ed=false
aksdad
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2014
This is why...

Sorry, don't see the connection. If you cannot show a correlation between human activity and/or emissions and temperatures, you have no evidence that humans are having a significant impact on global temperatures. It's clear that humans have a dramatic effect on local temperatures in the form of urban heat islands when they cluster together in cities, but there is no evidence that they are having a global effect. Theoretically a doubling of CO2 saturation (say to from pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm) would produce modest warming of about 1 C, but there is little evidence that humans are the primary cause of increasing CO2 accumulation. And there is absolutely no evidence that there would be more warming than that due to positive "feedbacks" and "forcings" as predicted by the increasingly inaccurate global climate models. In fact, the evidence points to there being a natural negative feedback.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
This is why...

Sorry, don't see the connection. If you cannot show a correlation between human activity and/or emissions and temperatures, you have no evidence that humans are having a significant impact on global temperatures. It's clear that humans have a dramatic effect on local temperatures in the form of urban heat islands when they cluster together in cities, but there is no evidence that they are having a global effect. Theoretically a doubling of CO2 saturation (say to from pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm) would produce modest warming of about 1 C, but there is little evidence that humans are the primary cause of increasing CO2 accumulation. And there is absolutely no evidence that there would be more warming than that due to positive "feedbacks" and "forcings" as predicted by the increasingly inaccurate global climate models. In fact, the evidence points to there being a natural negative feedback.

So much hand-waving there - all moles reappearing.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Sorry, don't see the connection. If you cannot show a correlation between human activity and/or emissions and temperatures, you have no evidence that humans are having a significant impact on global temperatures.

you asked...
If the cooling is natural how do we know the warming isn't? If the pattern occurs every 20 to 50 years....

And I posted a graph that shows global air temps rising throughout the ENSO cycle - which tells the scientifically literate that the warming cycle OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD of the graph is NOT natural. The natural warming parts are the bits where El Nino is occurring. When the cycle switches to La Nina (since '98) it is still on a rising trend.

In other words they have found an internal *hidden* cycle of the ENSO/PDO
aksdad
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
That was for coupled atmosphere-ocean models - however simpler models have been successfull

That was published in 1988. There are several problems with Milankovitch theory that haven't been resolved yet--26 years later--so the claim that the "most recent modeling efforts compares favorably with data of the past 400,000 years" is the author's opinion, which is apparently not widely accepted.

Just for fun I'd like to point out that the end of the abstract states:

"The long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 5,000 years; this first temperature minimum will be followed by an amelioration at around 15 kyr A.P. (after present), by a cold interval centered at 23 kyr A.P., and by a major glaciation at around 60 kyr A.P."

In other words, global cooling is in the future.

Full PDF here:

http://ebme.marin...1988.pdf
aksdad
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2014
And I posted a graph that shows global air temps rising throughout the ENSO cycle - which tells the scientifically literate that the warming cycle OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD of the graph is NOT natural. The natural warming parts are the bits where El Nino is occurring.

Once again, why is the lack of warming "natural" but the warming is man-made?

All the "much hand-waving there" that you casually dismiss as so much blather is actually the crux of the matter which climate alarmists fail to address. I repeat, where is the evidence that humans are the major contributor to global warming? Every graph of measured and proxy temperatures shows the earth warmed and cooled spasmodically over shorter (less than 100,00 year) time spans long before humans could have had an impact. We see no connection to CO2 emissions prehistorically except that warming apparently causes CO2 and methane to increase, not the other way around. And we see nothing unprecedented in the recent rate of warming.
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
@thermodynamics Thanks for your posts. Yes I do understand the points you are making and agree. But another example. Some 3 or 4 years ago I watched Fox News and the meteorologist, can't remember his name, had one particular emphatic view while another on a channel had completely the opposite view so much so that they both couldn't be right. I then assumed that the truth would be somewhere between the 2 and after looking up various details decided that we humans were helping to make any natural climate change have a greater effect on us. My problem was by how much? That is to say as major living organism we are bound to affect the environment in some way no matter what we do so should are we really to blame? On the other side of the coin, have the obviously polluted cities gone too far in their pursuit to raise the standard of living and achieved the opposite?
If we do need to reverse, and I think we do, imo we are running out of time...but how many will use that just to get rich?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
I then assumed that the truth would be somewhere between the 2 and after looking up various details decided that we humans were helping to make any natural climate change have a greater effect on us. My problem was by how much?

That is to say as major living organism we are bound to affect the environment in some way no matter what we do so should are we really to blame? On the other side of the coin, have the obviously polluted cities gone too far in their pursuit to raise the standard of living and achieved the opposite?

If we do need to reverse, and I think we do, imo we are running out of time...but how many will use that just to get rich?


I don't have the problem of wondering "by how much." l have been reading the literature for years now and I work in the area of heat and mass transfer (high-temperature combustion systems) and some of the issues have become clear to me. Those are the points I post on.

Continued
Canute
1.8 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
If we are to have another ice age some time in the future, then presumably the sea levels will fall 400 feet again. That is a lot of water that ends up as ice at the poles. Is there any other way other than clouds that the water will be transported there? Lots of clouds means increased albedo and negative forcing. It will clearly take a while - say 80,000 years but I feel confident that nature will easily compensate for the extravagant behavior of mankind.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Continued: Let's look at the issue of GHGs. You will see postings that say something along the line of: "97% of the GHGs are emitted by nature and man only emits 3%. How can that cause a problem."

Of course you can see the fallacy in comments like this.

The absolute values are meaningless. It is the net change that is taking place that is important. If we were not emitting the extra 3%, the earth would be absorbing all of the GHGs and they would not be increasing. So, we have 100% of the responsibility for the increasing GHGs. If not, they would not be increasing.

Then the question becomes: "How much of the resultant heating is the responsibility of the human emitted GHGs?"

The answer is 100%.

Any natural variability takes place with a bias that is the result of the constant increase in enthalpy due to increased GHGs.

What that means is that there is extra energy being absorbed by the earth and we are responsible for that. Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Continued: Any human contribution is superimposed on the natural signal. That is where it does get complicated. The reason for the complication is that there are feedbacks. If there were not, we could do a good job of separating natural from man made. However, when the feedbacks get involved it is very difficult to sort out which part of the feedback is natural?

So, let's sort out what we do know.

1) Humans are producing the net increase in GHGs
2) The net increase in GHGs are producing the man-made signal in climate change

Back to my earlier posts, we really can't be highly accurate about my numbers 3 and 4. However we do have indications of where things are going.

From that I can say that I (and I am including no one else) do not want this experiment of continuing to add GHGs to the atmosphere of the earth to continue. We have 100% of the responsibility for that and we have 100% of the responsibility for mitigating that. Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Continued: What that means for me (and I do not speak for anyone else) is that I have an obligation to try to make the science clear to those I interact with. I have 4 grandkids that are going to grow up in the world I leave them. The earth is undergoing an unregulated experiment in changing the atmosphere with some known results (others we might still be surprised by). Why would I not want to do my part to mitigate the circumstances?

And just so Rygg2 (the anarchist) understands, I use the term "we" to describe humanity. I am not saying the US is responsible or the UK is responsible or China is responsible. I am saying that humanity is changing its environment as humanity needs to take ownership and solve the problem.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2014
So Thermo, you know all the science. If man made CO2 is responsible for the warming, then explain the identical rate of temperature increase from 1910-1940 and 1970-1998.
http://www.newsci..._808.jpg
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
AntiEm said:
So Thermo, you know all the science. If man made CO2 is responsible for the warming, then explain the identical rate of temperature increase from 1910-1940 and 1970-1998.
http://www.newsci..._808.jpg


Anti, I don't know all the science. Just infinitely more than you.

Please explain to me why you think that 1910-1940 and 1970-1998 are not part of the industrial age?

Do you think there was not an increase in CO2 during those times?

Are you aware of the contribution of land management to CO2 production?

Are you also aware of the ENSO conditions during those times?

As I said, just infinitely more than you...
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Continued: What that means for me (and I do not speak for anyone else) is that I have an obligation to try to make the science clear to those I interact with. I have 4 grandkids that are going to grow up in the world I leave them. The earth is undergoing an unregulated experiment in changing the atmosphere with some known results (others we might still be surprised by). Why would I not want to do my part to mitigate the circumstances?

And just so Rygg2 (the anarchist) understands, I use the term "we" to describe humanity. I am not saying the US is responsible or the UK is responsible or China is responsible. I am saying that humanity is changing its environment as humanity needs to take ownership and solve the problem.


A fifty star comment.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
askdad
except that warming apparently causes CO2 and methane to increase, not the other way around.


That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between temperatures and C02. Numerous people have addressed this issue - and yet you continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Look at this graph.
http://www.ncdc.n...ange.jpg

Notice that warming sometimes lags C02, and sometimes vice versa.

Honestly - if you clearly have such a lack of understanding of something as fundamental as this - why would you think you know better than experts - who have been studying, and living and breathing this stuff their whole lives?
Mimath224
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
@thermodynamics, yes I think you made the point that I was, clumsily, trying to make. To speak in absolute terms is next to useless and whatever figures one uses they must be relative to a particular issue. It must be that all life has an impact upon the global situation but at what point does that impact become dangerous to all? For example, just say that the planet is responsible for climate change, value of y, this value depending the planet's own input plus the Sun etc. and the anthropogenic input is x so from this we get overall proportion. But then x will also be a function of, say, (a,b,c....) different types of input. I assume that the Earth/ Sun effect is fairly constant because it allows life to continue. On that reasoning it would seem that a serious climate change would then depend on x(a,b,c...). But I don't think that is fair. Surely there would be some fraction of x(a,b,c...) which could be tolerated. So my question is what is that fraction & have we exceeded it?
barakn
2 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
As an example, Newton's laws are settled science for the set of boundary conditions they were defined within. Newton did not say they were for speeds approaching the speed of light, nor for nanometer sizes because he had no reference to understand they could be used there. Instead, he designed them for speeds a planet might move at and distances from the size of a grain of sand to the distance of the stars.

Newtonian gravity was the worst possible choice to support "settled science." G, the gravitational constant that appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, is one of the most poorly measured constants with a large relative standard uncertainty of .00012. Two recent studies came up with high precision measurements that were unfortunately outside of each other's error bars, and both teams unable to find the flaws in their own work that might explain the inconsistency.
fidh
2 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
Single outright trollish comment to provoke reactions and all of you stock commenters who consider yourself so far and above the common riff raff have yet again been nothing but pawns of successful sensationalism. Troll 1, physorg 1, all of you -5000.
barakn
2 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
But, if I want to build a bridge, I use Newton, not Einstein or Planck. There are many settled laws in science.

If you want to build a bridge, you are an engineer, not a scientist.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2014
But, if I want to build a bridge, I use Newton, not Einstein or Planck. There are many settled laws in science.

If you want to build a bridge, you are an engineer, not a scientist.

An engineer using empirical science to do his job. FFS

The science came before the engineers ability to do what the science lets him do.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
Once again, why is the lack of warming "natural" but the warming is man-made?

Err sorry - I thought I'd explained in as many one syllable word as was necessary.

The NATURAL cycle is the ENSO/PDO which adds/subtracts ~0.4C twixt El Nino and La Nina and vice versa. Ok? Got that. The unnatural AGW bit is the upward warming slope of the graph I posted up. if the Earth is in an El Nino phase and switches to the La Nina phase then (on the graph) the temp plot would go from the top line across to the bottom line. BUT in a manner skewed by the general warming overlying (AGW) .... and so there would be more of a plateau to temps. The warm of the El Nino is NATURAL and the AGW warming (evident on that graph) is not.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
If we do need to reverse, and I think we do, imo we are running out of time...but how many will use that just to get rich?

Mimath...
That's just the way of the world. Human nature. Snouts in the trough.
AND no reason to stand around and let a civilisation changing/shattering event occur. No one is saying it's easy but plainly we need to change tack on this planet. We are trashing it ... and there's no spare that I'm aware of.
BTW: US TV weathermen I do not consider unbiased meteorologists, especially not any on Fox.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
If we are to have another ice age some time in the future, then presumably the sea levels will fall 400 feet again. That is a lot of water that ends up as ice at the poles. Is there any other way other than clouds that the water will be transported there? Lots of clouds means increased albedo and negative forcing. It will clearly take a while - say 80,000 years but I feel confident that nature will easily compensate for the extravagant behavior of mankind.


Sorry no, you have misplaced confidence. The warming AGW is causing easily swamps the changes that (eventual) orbital characteristics will bring to bear on Earth. There would be no future Ice Age on our current behavioural path.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
AntiEm said:
So Thermo, you know all the science. If man made CO2 is responsible for the warming, then explain the identical rate of temperature increase from 1910-1940 and 1970-1998.
http://www.newsci..._808.jpg


Anti, I don't know all the science. Just infinitely more than you.

Please explain to me why you think that 1910-1940 and 1970-1998 are not part of the industrial age?

Do you think there was not an increase in CO2 during those times?

Are you aware of the contribution of land management to CO2 production?

Are you also aware of the ENSO conditions during those times?

As I said, just infinitely more than you...

Thermo ....
The chief cause of the pause in warming during the two periods was "global dimming".
As discovered by study of evaporation baths, especially in Oz. It is the pause between these two periods that is anomalous. Of course the natural cycles will overlie.

http://en.wikiped..._dimming
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2014
@runrig 'No one is saying it's easy but plainly we need to change tack on this planet....'
My point, thank you! What will you, me and all the rest give up to help? Look at China, in trying to give its people a 'higher standard of living', pay for it in terms of smog & pollution.
'That's just the way of the world. Human nature. Snouts in the trough.'
Again, my point! Human nature! People want what they have and then want more. The demand is there so industry supplies it. Computers, cars, holiday flights etc. all contribute to the problem. Some countries have/had a CO2 tax but if people are able to pay the tax the CO2 doesn't decrease.
So called 'green industries' might help but they are not available in quantities that will give us the time we need to 'change tack' as you say. Everyone needs to 'change tack' to make the impact required; Do you think it will happen?
Eddy Courant
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
Only our CO2 can cause this. Only our CO2 can cause anything. We are so DOOMED!!!

lol
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2014
Do you think it will happen?


Interjecting - sorry. I do think it will happen. I think it is happening as we speak - just being in the middle of it - makes it hard to see. Solar panels are about to make oil and gas obsolete. Same for electric cars and internal combustion engine. The realities of warming are going to become more and more obvious. There is already a great deal of action on the part of governments around the world - this will accelerate - and policy will shift big time in favor of renewables, and sustainable technologies.

Time frame is the big question - and will we hit tipping points that make it all pointless. I think that if we have to - we will go to geo-engineering. We may have to stop fighting stupid wars - and all pull together for this cause. The comments section of Physorg does not represent humanity - thank goodness.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2014
If we do need to reverse, and I think we do, imo we are running out of time...but how many will use that just to get rich?

Survival first. Worry about parasites later. If the parasites are the ones that help us survive I say: let 'em live.

Currently, though the parasites are the ones that milk cash cows (oil, coal, and generally business practices that are harmful to the environment...) and their paid cronies in politics, PR (and even on this board) for those I have a different idea.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 23, 2014
Please explain to me why you think that 1910-1940 and 1970-1998 are not part of the industrial age?

Do you think there was not an increase in CO2 during those times?

Are you aware of the contribution of land management to CO2 production?

Are you also aware of the ENSO conditions during those times?

As I said, just infinitely more than you...
-- thermo
So thermo, in your infinite wisdom (pronounced wisdumb), you are claiming the temperature increase from 1910-1940 was man made.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014
Do you think it will happen?


Interjecting - sorry. I do think it will happen. I think it is happening as we speak - just being in the middle of it - makes it hard to see. Solar panels are about to make oil and gas obsolete. Same for electric cars and internal combustion engine. The realities of warming are going to become more and more obvious. There is already a great deal of action on the part of governments around the world - this will accelerate - and policy will shift big time in favor of renewables, and sustainable technologies.

Time frame is the big question - and will we hit tipping points that make it all pointless. I think that if we have to - we will go to geo-engineering. We may have to stop fighting stupid wars - and all pull together for this cause. The comments section of Physorg does not represent humanity - thank goodness.

Agreed Strange
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014
Please explain to me why you think that 1910-1940 and 1970-1998 are not part of the industrial age?

So thermo, in your infinite wisdom (pronounced wisdumb), you are claiming the temperature increase from 1910-1940 was man made.


Part of it was man-made. How much I will leave for those studying the effects.

Are you saying that it was all natural even though the industrial age was in full swing?
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2014
Ok thermo, no more questions for you. You have just confirmed your infinite stupidity.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2014
Ok thermo, no more questions for you. You have just confirmed your infinite stupidity.


Coming from you I will accept that as a compliment. Here are data covering the years in question.

http://data.giss.....ext.txt

You can read a table can't you?

Probably not.
Geologist
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
Has anyone tried to computer model the sharp transition from warming to cooling that has happened repeatedly in the past?

Yes, and successfully

Wrong. They have not. They don't even know what has caused the pattern of glaciation and warming of the last 500,000 years, though the predominant theory is Milankovitch cycles. No one has successfully modeled this.


Yes the earth's axis and tilt wobble, and it's effect on climate. The studies on the amount of varying Sahara blown dust in the Atlantic is fascinating and shows an abrupt change about 5,000 years ago they may have dried northern Africa in a few centuries.....which could have resulted from just a few degrees increase in temperature and other effects associated with it. It's an eye opener of how quickly things can change with minimal fluctuations.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 23, 2014
Wow thermo, it must have taken you a lot of practice to become so stupid.
Which is easier to read a table of data or the graph I provided you.
http://www.newsci..._808.jpg
This graph shows identical rates of warming after the little ice age and from 1980 to 1998.
During the period 1910 - 1940 man made CO2 was a mere fraction compared to 1989 - 1998, yet in your infinite stupidity you claim both warming was man made.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
Wow thermo, it must have taken you a lot of practice to become so stupid.
Which is easier to read a table of data or the graph I provided you.
http://www.newsci..._808.jpg
This graph shows identical rates of warming after the little ice age and from 1980 to 1998.
During the period 1910 - 1940 man made CO2 was a mere fraction compared to 1989 - 1998, yet in your infinite stupidity you claim both warming was man made.


www.newscientist....8yPldWSo

Also there was a dip in Co2 emmissions during the 2nd WW.

www.skepticalscie...road.gif

Factor in natural climate forcings and, as we know - well those of us that look at/know the science and are not blinkered due ideological bias, that temp does NOT track global ave temp exactly, and never will (vis "pause" just ending).
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
Correction to my last post....

"....that temp does NOT track global ave temp exactly, and never will..."

Should have read "...global ave temp does NOT track CO2 content exactly, and never will..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
"Global warming 'pause' since 1998 reflects natural fluctuation, study concludes
Jul 21, 2014"

-Has anybody wondered if this whole AGW thing is only a natural fluctuation on a slightly longer timescale? If somebody has already thought of this well then never mind.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2014
There you go again runrig, spewing garbage.
Answer the question.
During the period 1910 - 1940 was man made CO2 responsible for the warming?

global ave temp does NOT track CO2 content exactly, and never will

You obviously did not watch your False Profit Al's movie - A Convenient Lie.
https://www.youtu...wg_z5vDY
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
"Global warming 'pause' since 1998 reflects natural fluctuation, study concludes
Jul 21, 2014"

-Has anybody wondered if this whole AGW thing is only a natural fluctuation on a slightly longer timescale? If somebody has already thought of this well then never mind.
actually, yes, it has been talked about and is likely being studied still

some links that point out some longer studies are in works, and some are available, like the one used to write this article: http://www.scienc...3453.htm
the study is paywalled and I cannot access it unless they publish it in Science mag or for free. It would be silly to pay out for every study just to prove a point on a pop-sci site. the abstract is fairly useful though.
then there are also paleoclimate studies going back as far as they can studying all available material. But you likely already know this from Google.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
There you go again runrig, spewing garbage.
Answer the question.
During the period 1910 - 1940 was man made CO2 responsible for the warming?

global ave temp does NOT track CO2 content exactly, and never will

You obviously did not watch your False Profit Al's movie - A Convenient Lie.
https://www.youtu...wg_z5vDY


What is it about the word "exactly" that you cannot comprehend?

And since when has Gore been a scientist"

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2014
There you go again runrig, spewing garbage.
Answer the question.
During the period 1910 - 1940 was man made CO2 responsible for the warming?

global ave temp does NOT track CO2 content exactly, and never will

You obviously did not watch your False Profit Al's movie - A Convenient Lie.
https://www.youtu...wg_z5vDY

And yes, it was responsible for a significant potion of it, overlaid by natural cycles (AMO)..... as the graph of CO2 I posted shows - the dip after caused by global dimming as industry ( much dirty) ramped up after the war. The problem ( in truth finding, logical, and scientific terms) you have is equating things one-dimensionally. Ie more ice = colder, more CO2 = warmer. The latter has retentive heat to be distributed through the Earth's fluids, as the ENSO cycle shows among others. Sorry, ignorance isn't the answer my friend, nor the noisy denial it's glitterati make and which is made overly visible on your media (uniquely in the World).
stealthc
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2014
This is funny. So more statistics, to basically let the plan to use statistics to rule people's lives have more leeway to be off the mark when it comes to making accurate predictions.

Accurate predictions show people that maybe the global warming crowd knows what they are talking about, and yet all we see is more junk science to give them wider margin for being wrong, lol. Pathetic.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
This is funny. So more statistics, to basically let the plan to use statistics to rule people's lives have more leeway to be off the mark when it comes to making accurate predictions.

Accurate predictions show people that maybe the global warming crowd knows what they are talking about, and yet all we see is more junk science to give them wider margin for being wrong, lol. Pathetic.

Correct - you are.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2014
This is funny. So more statistics, to basically let the plan to use statistics to rule people's lives have more leeway to be off the mark when it comes to making accurate predictions.

Accurate predictions show people that maybe the global warming crowd knows what they are talking about, and yet all we see is more junk science to give them wider margin for being wrong, lol. Pathetic.

Correct - you are.

And so, the AGW Cult, shall save the world.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
This is funny. So more statistics, to basically let the plan to use statistics to rule people's lives have more leeway to be off the mark when it comes to making accurate predictions.

Accurate predictions show people that maybe the global warming crowd knows what they are talking about, and yet all we see is more junk science to give them wider margin for being wrong, lol. Pathetic.

Correct - you are.

And so, the AGW Cult, shall save the world.

Let's hope so - some one has to. Left to you lot we'd still be in the middle ages.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
Let's hope so - some one has to. Left to you lot we'd still be in the middle ages.

Actually, left to you lot, we WILL return to the middle ages.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2014
Let's hope so - some one has to. Left to you lot we'd still be in the middle ages.

Actually, left to you lot, we WILL return to the middle ages.

You seem to mistake dogma and ideology for learning.
I don't recall much advancement in science before the days of "The Age of Enlightenment"

http://en.wikiped...htenment

What passes for science commentary from your lips/fingers just, well, isn't..... even remotely.
It is pure science denial.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2014
Thermo and runrig, thank you for keeping up with these trolls, i've been reduced to one comment making fun of the degenerates. Stay diligent
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
Thermo and runrig, thank you for keeping up with these trolls, i've been reduced to one comment making fun of the degenerates. Stay diligent

Steve:
Thanks for the thanks....
I just abhor ignorance, arrogance, bigotry, and willful stupidity.
Comes all in the same package with this lot.
The psychology of the denier and the bullet proof carapace fascinates too.
Just wish I could walk up to them one day when the "UFO lands on the White House lawn" and even they cannot deny the f***ing obvious.
Be nice to see the smug smile off their faces.
Unfortunately many will carry their delusion to ridiculous ends.
Ah, human nature.

antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
I just abhor ignorance, arrogance, bigotry, and willful stupidity.

Be careful there runrig, you just won't be the first one drinking that poisoned Kool-Aid, but also the one mixing it.
As for your continuous boast about climate "science", well, climategate confirmed that it is the furthest thing from science.
http://www.aether...I_3.html
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
I just abhor ignorance, arrogance, bigotry, and willful stupidity.

Be careful there runrig, you just won't be the first one drinking that poisoned Kool-Aid, but also the one mixing it.
As for your continuous boast about climate "science", well, climategate confirmed that it is the furthest thing from science.
http://www.aether...I_3.html


Anti: We have laid out multiple replies to your naive questions and statements. You clearly do not understand first level physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. As such you continue to look foolish to anyone who does understand science. If your response is to withdraw from science and run to lies and subtrufuge, how are we to interpret your input? My interpretation is that I will continue to lay bare the lack of science you portray.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014

For those on here bemused by this poster's obsession with 'climategate' and the bizarre conclusion that this particular version of the so called 'hockey-stick' is faked, and so coincidentally become identical the the dozens of others that different researchers have arrived at. I suppose that means they are all faked. Is it me people, but does that not say more of the conspiracist than it does of the so-called 'conspirators'? Considering the wide-ranging complexity of such an enterprise.

Here are two easily verified videos which includes views of hard-copies of emails where 'quotes' were taken out and 'spun' out of context - in effect lying..

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N8E6Z9t74QY
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
The Alchemist
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2014
Here is a beautiful application of my quaint little theory:

http://prairieeco...so-warm/

and I don't just say that because it agrees with it on sooo many levels...
actually, I do.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
Here is a beautiful application of my quaint little theory:

http://prairieeco...so-warm/

and I don't just say that because it agrees with it on sooo many levels...
actually, I do.


Alche: Please explain how his blog agrees with your view that CO2 does not affect warming?

Also, where is that link showing that I plagiarizer my information on modeling a few months ago? You never did show that. Did you just forget?

Did you win the $30K for falsifying AGW?
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
Here is a beautiful application of my quaint little theory:

http://prairieeco...so-warm/

and I don't just say that because it agrees with it on sooo many levels...
actually, I do.

@The Alchemist that article says nothing about CO2 either one way or the other and, to me, is more about consequences and not root causes. That some parts of the world will get cooler is again a consequence. The UK for example; as the ice melts further north that means cooler sea condirtions could make northern UK cooler. That of course will only last as long as there is ice to melt; if and when all the ice melts UK temps will increase per climate change.
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2014
@thermo, if that is your real name.
Who really cares about CO2? Not I. I think it's a red herring. A sideshow, a secondary effect.

I care about the global change, which, as you seemed to agree is about enthalpy and heat, which is exactly my point, the one I do care about.

[Royal] 'You' have been arguing around CO2 with pundits and scientists on both sides, getting nowhere for 40 years.

You apply heat and weather patterns, suddenly you can not only measure the change for all to see, but predict how we are affecting the climate. Just like that prairie ecologist does so well. I don't thing he presents anything arguable.

How could I win 30k for contradicting AGW? I support the phenomenon, and only believe the "warming" part is a deliberate and debatable mis-nomer.

Can't really track phys.org posts, as well you know, but it was an article from Nov 2012, bleeding into Dec, I know it, you know it, and what more proof do I need? I recognized your summation and your lap-dogs repartee.