Annual CET 2007

[jethro]

Genuine question, so please no one leap on me....

If it has taken twenty or so years to warm to current levels, then why is there any expectation that it will take less to cool to those previous levels? I think in reality, all we can look for, is a levelling off of rises, which is becoming apparent in recent years. Yes there will be exceptions, as there have been in the years of rising temps, El Nino years are a prime example, but I think calls for significant cold are erroneous. A levelling followed by a steady, gradual decline; a mirror image of the warming would IMO be more significant.

Another genuine question; if CO2 levels have risen year on year and temperatures are supposed to be rising because of this, why have the temperatures also not risen year on year? Globally, they have been fairly flat in the last few years, yet emissions have rapidly increased.

[The PIT]

Genuine question, so please no one leap on me....

If it has taken twenty or so years to warm to current levels, then why is there any expectation that it will take less to cool to those previous levels? I think in reality, all we can look for, is a levelling off of rises, which is becoming apparent in recent years. Yes there will be exceptions, as there have been in the years of rising temps, El Nino years are a prime example, but I think calls for significant cold are erroneous. A levelling followed by a steady, gradual decline; a mirror image of the warming would IMO be more significant.

Another genuine question; if CO2 levels have risen year on year and temperatures are supposed to be rising because of this, why have the temperatures also not risen year on year? Globally, they have been fairly flat in the last few years, yet emissions have rapidly increased.

I'm no Scientist but ever so often I read that Co2 effects don't keep on rising and level off. If CO2 was the only player things would level off and we maybe seeing this coming into effect. Problem is a few years isn't enough time to make a decision.

[Stu_London]

I'm no Scientist but ever so often I read that Co2 effects don't keep on rising and level off. If CO2 was the only player things would level off and we maybe seeing this coming into effect. Problem is a few years isn't enough time to make a decision.

Sorry, incorrect - C02 emissions have continued to and will continue to rise for some considerable time, given economic expansion in China and India

Genuine question, so please no one leap on me....

If it has taken twenty or so years to warm to current levels, then why is there any expectation that it will take less to cool to those previous levels? I think in reality, all we can look for, is a levelling off of rises, which is becoming apparent in recent years. Yes there will be exceptions, as there have been in the years of rising temps, El Nino years are a prime example, but I think calls for significant cold are erroneous. A levelling followed by a steady, gradual decline; a mirror image of the warming would IMO be more significant.

Another genuine question; if CO2 levels have risen year on year and temperatures are supposed to be rising because of this, why have the temperatures also not risen year on year? Globally, they have been fairly flat in the last few years, yet emissions have rapidly increased.

Jethro

I almost entirely agree with your post. However the apparent slowing and perhaps stopping (globally) is to most AGW enthusiasts 'an inconceivable truth'. A dramatic cooling event is required before most will even entertain any notion. Perhaps, once one has nailed colours to a mast, it's not easy to backtrack.

Myself, I am completely openminded about GW - it might be happening it might not, but I certainly think that the next 30 years or data are infinitely more important than the last 30.

[The PIT]

Sorry, incorrect - C02 emissions have continued to and will continue to rise for some considerable time, given economic expansion in China and India

That wasn't what I said.

[Stratos Ferric]

Genuine question, so please no one leap on me....

If it has taken twenty or so years to warm to current levels, then why is there any expectation that it will take less to cool to those previous levels? I think in reality, all we can look for, is a levelling off of rises, which is becoming apparent in recent years. Yes there will be exceptions, as there have been in the years of rising temps, El Nino years are a prime example, but I think calls for significant cold are erroneous. A levelling followed by a steady, gradual decline; a mirror image of the warming would IMO be more significant.

Another genuine question; if CO2 levels have risen year on year and temperatures are supposed to be rising because of this, why have the temperatures also not risen year on year? Globally, they have been fairly flat in the last few years, yet emissions have rapidly increased.

Yes and no. In principle I agree and that would seem rational, but the whole point of the analysis we have running in the analysis section is to test the current spike against the only other two similar spikes (albeit peaking at much lower absolute levels) in the CET record, and it is clear that both of those did drop precipitously, as if in genuine correction, and with some exceptionally cold months. So, playing the natural cycles card that you sometimes favour back at you, one reason to expect that it could and would drop suddenly and sharply - IF all of this were natural - is that that is precisely what happened previously.

There are two arguments against this. One is that previous events were highly localised, and that's not easy to judge given the sparseness of the temporal record in spatial terms, however there is some qualitative evidence to suggest that this might have been the case. The second argument is that at least some of the current warming is man-made (CO2), and this effect cannot be turned off suddenly: this scenario is more plausible given your question. The problem with this though, is that for a fall to occur we would need to either reduce CO2 - something that isn't happening any time soon - or experience forced cooling to a level hitherto unknown in the detailed record.

Re the rising, I think we do talk about this repeatedly: to assume increasing CO2 must equal constant increases in temperature assume that there is absolutely no other force at play, yet a perusal of the record pre, say, 1850, shows that our local climate had inter-annual variation to the order of 1.5C or so across any ten year period. The forced warming from CO2 is supposed to be at around 0.03C per year, say, depending on which projection you favour. IN any given year, therefore, the background variable more than offsets the year-to-year change and masks it, but it is for that reason that long run averages are very helpful: they smooth the short-term noise and reveal the true long term pattern.

That wasn't what I said.

PIT, I think your point is that there's an argument that says that the effect of CO2 is a reverse exponential, so that early increases in CO2 concentration leverage more of a rise than later increases do, and as I recall it's to do with the suggestion that the bandwidth of absorption gets saturated. I have seen that argument, though never checked it, nor have I seen it refuted, One would reasonably assume, however, that the scientists behind the extrapolation are not so stupid as to overlook fundamental chemistry and physics - though we should thank our lucky stars that they were educated in a world when sciences were revered and taught (in the UK, at least) individually, rather than being bizarrely homogenised into a combined whole.

[swfc]

Met office release figs Thursday which will show last year was the second wamest ever globaly.Also in the last 15 years ten of the warmest have come in that time.BBC 7-00pm today.Coincedence.

[Stratos Ferric]

...Jethro

I almost entirely agree with your post. However the apparent slowing and perhaps stopping (globally) is to most AGW enthusiasts 'an inconceivable truth'. A dramatic cooling event is required before most will even entertain any notion. Perhaps, once one has nailed colours to a mast, it's not easy to backtrack.

Myself, I am completely openminded about GW - it might be happening it might not, but I certainly think that the next 30 years or data are infinitely more important than the last 30.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Well, looking at the NASA global data I see no sign of a cooldown. Cast your eyes back, if you will, along the curve: there are plenty of instances along the rise of global temperatures where a new peak has been set, only for a short-term fall back: new peaks were set in 1973, 1981, 1990, 1998, and 2005: applying the "we've spiked" logic retrospectively would already have been incorrect on four occasions, and it could also have been applied more legitimately than is the case now, just two years beyond the last global peak. I've said it many times recently, but if the best argument against warming that some on here can do is that we haven't yet passed a peak set three or four years ago (even though in the case of the CET is this is patently not the case) then all that does is betray an ignorance regarding the background volatility around the rising mean. It certainly flies completely in the face of all that has gone before, however open-minded one is being.

Met office release figs Thursday which will show last year was the second wamest ever globaly.Also in the last 15 years ten of the warmest have come in that time.BBC 7-00pm today.Coincedence.

Nope, it's bad luck and p--s poor synoptics, that's all.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Stratos Ferric

[Weather-history]

Put in the wrong thread, now in the right thread! :lol:

Edited January 6, 2008 by Mr_Data

[The Enforcer]

If this works it's an Excel chart showing:

The 10 year mean (in Green)

2007 (in Blue)

May 2006 - April 2007 (in Red)

There is no doubt from this that a cooler trend has been in evidence since May 2007. The key question really is whether it will last? Is it a sign of something? Or is it just a blip in an otherwise upward trend?

Recent_Temperature_Trends1.xls

Whilst the last 6 months have come in very close to the 10 year mean for 1998-2007, the problem here is that the sample period doesn't contain any genuinely cold months. If one was to compare the last 6 months with the mean for the previous 10 year period (1985 - 1996) or more poignantly the one before that (1974 - 1985), I'd expect the former to be anomalously high. In my view, there needs to be a marked increase in both frequency and potency of months registering below the mean (and they need not be consecutive) over a few years in order to suggest that longer term trends are reversing.

To make any more of the current situation would be a bit like Oxford United (after a dismal run of 8 games with 1 goal) beating Altrincham 4-0 at home and on that basis claiming that they will beat Arsenal the following week by the same scoreline.

[Stratos Ferric]

...

To make any more of the current situation would be a bit like Oxford United (after a dismal run of 8 games with 1 goal) beating Altrincham 4-0 at home and on that basis claiming that they will beat Arsenal the following week by the same scoreline.

Fabtastic analogy. Is it the case that Abingdoesn't, as well as never getting snow, doesn't have a remotely top flight football team?

[The Enforcer]

Fabtastic analogy. Is it the case that Abingdoesn't, as well as never getting snow, doesn't have a remotely top flight football team?

1. Abingdon United FC - founded 1946 - Southern League Division One South & West

2. Abingdon Town FC - founded 1870 - Hellenic Premier Division

[Stratos Ferric]

1. Abingdon United FC - founded 1946 - Southern League Division One South & West

2. Abingdon Town FC - founded 1870 - Hellenic Premier Division

Weren't they in the FA Cup proper one year recently? Quite how a town the size of Abingdon supports a Town and a United is beyond me. Takes me back to the Scorcher and "Jimmy of City" and "Bobby of United", or whatever they were called. Creative gap-filling genious of the highest order there.

[The Enforcer]

Weren't they in the FA Cup proper one year recently? Quite how a town the size of Abingdon supports a Town and a United is beyond me. Takes me back to the Scorcher and "Jimmy of City" and "Bobby of United", or whatever they were called. Creative gap-filling genious of the highest order there.

Town got to the last qualifying round, but were knocked out by Merthyr in a replay in 1992. They were traditionally the stronger side and rose from the Hellenic into the Ryman (or equivalent) in the 1980s and 1990s, peaking in Ryman Div1 (effectively one below what is now Conference South).