The Nonsense That is Global Warming

[Hiya]

Yup

Hiya you are right and I apologise for the attitude thing.

Apology accepted.

[Admiral_Bobski]

You are quite correct that the rate of change of warming has reduced over the last ten years. But warming it is, nevertheless. It could well be the case, as you intimate here, that the rate of change will continue to diminish until we start cooling, but that is something that perhaps we can have a beer over in 2017!

I'll pencil you in...

But is it warming? Perhaps Bushy can clarify what those global temperature anomalies are based on - are they deviations from a standard mean (e.g. 1971-1996) or are they deviations from a rolling average (i.e. 1997 is based on the 1971-1996 average, 1998 is based on the 1972-1997 average, 1999 is based on the 1973-1998 average, and so on)?

If the anomolies are all based on the same average then surely the warming has levelled off - if they are based on a rolling average then I concede that it shows continued warming.

:o

CB

[VillagePlank]

If the anomolies are all based on the same average then surely the warming has levelled off - if they are based on a rolling average then I concede that it shows continued warming.

I quite agree that the warming has levelled off, I'm just saying that even with the levelling it is still warming, albeit at a far less rate.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I quite agree that the warming has levelled off, I'm just saying that even with the levelling it is still warming, albeit at a far less rate.

Ah, sorry - went a bit mad there for a moment. (I'm having more senior moments than ever right now! Must be something to do with Christmas...)

CB

[BUSHY]

Your numbers show warming Bushy. See the graph I produced.

If you calculate the mean for that period and then draw a line through you graph it looks a little different. Anyhow this says it better graph

[VillagePlank]

If you calculate the mean for that period and then draw a line through you graph it looks a little different. Anyhow this says it better graph

Trends, even linear ones, are calculated using the least squares method.

In principle we should be able to find the line by drawing straight through the points, as you suggest, but this requires that we eliminate peaks and troughs, which may be sources of random, or erroneous measurement in the data itself.

Of course, I am opening myself up to criticism here, so I would like add that I do make the assumption that peaks and troughs, with all things being equal measure out homoscedastically, so that one might be able to see the trend more clearly.

[jethro]

From John Shotsky:

If you consider a sine wave, otherwise known as a cycle, there are some interesting things to observe.

1. Near the top or the bottom, the rate of change is very small. 8 to 10 years of high temperatures would mean 4-5 years before a peak and 4-5 years after a peak would all be similar in temperature. We have just passed through that phase.

2. Near the half-way point, the rate of change is maximum. The rate of change between the 70’s and now was rapid, as was the rate between the 30’s and the 60’s. There will be an accelerated rate of cooling in our near future, as the cycle reverses.

From existing evidence, it appears that earth may have recently peaked on a warm cycle. That means the years before and the years after would be very similar in temperature, and if you did not look further than those few years, you would think not much was happening.

However, if you expand your few years to include at least one ½ cycle, you will see a large difference. Today, that difference is called global warming, since it is typically an average of 30 years, a particularly bad choice in light of earth’s cycles. However, 35 years ago, when climate was at the other extremity, it was called global cooling. The rate of change from global cooling to global warming is very fast, in comparison. The rate of change from now to the next negative peak will also be very fast. It has already begun, since we know it has ceased to rise.

Looking backwards, we can see that the entire cycle takes about 70 years, from positive peak to positive peak, or, from the 30’s to 2000. (1934 to 1998, possibly, but we don’t know exactly how long the cycles are, or if the positive and negative portions are of the same duration, or of a variable duration (my guess). We do know that around 1900, 1935, 1968, 1998 indicate near peaks. A cycle is present, and we should expect cooling, at an accelerating pace in our future. By 2030, we should all be experiencing a much cooler climate, and a new group of global cooling skeptics – probably us. It will remain cold for 8-10 years, as it turns around again, and back we will come, around 2065-2070, to a climate similar to now.

If you don’t realize there are cycles, and you make the mistake of measuring from the bottom of one cycle to the top of another, you will draw a conclusion that runaway heating is occurring. Regardless of all the hypotheses about how climate works, it seems to follow its own tune. As it begins to cool, then accelerates toward the next negative peak (as predicted by Landscheidt, among others), a hue and cry will go up about human caused global cooling. Again.

At some point in our future, if we are really, really observant, we will recognize the natural cycles of warming and cooling, and not jump to conclusions about rates of change. All climate change reports should cover at least 70 years. If they did, we would see no climate change at all. None. The graphic below should be extended for many years, so we can see where we are on the cycle.

I hope this diagram shows roughly what I am saying:

The 8 years around 1998 show a very low rate of change, indeed we think the negative slope is becoming evident. In a couple more years, that should become even more evident. By 2015, global warming will be a thought of the past, but some may anticipate the high rate of negative climate change is due to HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jethro

[VillagePlank]

If the climate is as simple as a sine wave then why can't we predict it, and why is there room for debate?

Edited December 14, 2007 by VillagePlank

[West is Best]

My father-in-law has pointed out to me that the media are now using the phrase 'climate change' rather than 'global warming'. He reckons the change has, roughly, coincided with the inconvenient global cooldown

Lol.

[HighPressure]

I am not sure this is the right thread for this but as they all end up the same I guess it does not matter

I have to admit to not being completely up to speed on the sea ice situation, but find myself a little confused, the 2007 IPCC flag ship report, states:

Arctic summer sea ice is likely to disappear in second half of century

Yet today US scientists state Arctic summer ice to be gone by 2013?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

If the US report is true as many on here have suggested, how can we trust the IPCC projections at all, if they can be 30 or 40yrs out in a report only published in Feb 07 by Dec 2007?

Basically if sea ice is disappearing at the rate suggested today does it not show that the IPCC have not got a handle on GW fullstop and given their previous inaccuracies that there is no basis for any of their projections be they worse or better. Indeed ice loss at this rate does not even get into their envelope of possibles, is anything they say now credible?

[Chris Knight]

If you calculate the mean for that period and then draw a line through you graph it looks a little different. Anyhow this says it better graph

I am afraid this graph is mistitled, and a travesty of pseudoscientific presentation, as is the dataset, however prestigious the source website may be.

The ascii file, upon which it is based, purports to be "annual global temperature" from 1850 - 2007.

There are no units of measurement given. There are no explanations as to the derivation of the data presented. There are no legends on the plot to explain what the bars and lines actually represent.

The term temperature cannot be used to meaningfully represent over a global situation, where reality presents, over any one annual period, a range and flux of many recorded temperatures at many geographical locations (each with their individual known (and unknown) errors) at various points in time.

If a first year undergraduate at any UK university were to present work such as this, they would be very disappointed in the mark they received in response to this travesty of misinformation.

From John Shotsky:

If you consider a sine wave, otherwise known as a cycle, there are some interesting things to observe.

1. Near the top or the bottom, the rate of change is very small. 8 to 10 years of high temperatures would mean 4-5 years before a peak and 4-5 years after a peak would all be similar in temperature. We have just passed through that phase.

2. Near the half-way point, the rate of change is maximum. The rate of change between the 70’s and now was rapid, as was the rate between the 30’s and the 60’s. There will be an accelerated rate of cooling in our near future, as the cycle reverses.

From existing evidence, it appears that earth may have recently peaked on a warm cycle. That means the years before and the years after would be very similar in temperature, and if you did not look further than those few years, you would think not much was happening.

However, if you expand your few years to include at least one ½ cycle, you will see a large difference. Today, that difference is called global warming, since it is typically an average of 30 years, a particularly bad choice in light of earth’s cycles. However, 35 years ago, when climate was at the other extremity, it was called global cooling. The rate of change from global cooling to global warming is very fast, in comparison. The rate of change from now to the next negative peak will also be very fast. It has already begun, since we know it has ceased to rise.

Looking backwards, we can see that the entire cycle takes about 70 years, from positive peak to positive peak, or, from the 30’s to 2000. (1934 to 1998, possibly, but we don’t know exactly how long the cycles are, or if the positive and negative portions are of the same duration, or of a variable duration (my guess). We do know that around 1900, 1935, 1968, 1998 indicate near peaks. A cycle is present, and we should expect cooling, at an accelerating pace in our future. By 2030, we should all be experiencing a much cooler climate, and a new group of global cooling skeptics – probably us. It will remain cold for 8-10 years, as it turns around again, and back we will come, around 2065-2070, to a climate similar to now.

If you don’t realize there are cycles, and you make the mistake of measuring from the bottom of one cycle to the top of another, you will draw a conclusion that runaway heating is occurring. Regardless of all the hypotheses about how climate works, it seems to follow its own tune. As it begins to cool, then accelerates toward the next negative peak (as predicted by Landscheidt, among others), a hue and cry will go up about human caused global cooling. Again.

At some point in our future, if we are really, really observant, we will recognize the natural cycles of warming and cooling, and not jump to conclusions about rates of change. All climate change reports should cover at least 70 years. If they did, we would see no climate change at all. None. The graphic below should be extended for many years, so we can see where we are on the cycle.

I hope this diagram shows roughly what I am saying:

The 8 years around 1998 show a very low rate of change, indeed we think the negative slope is becoming evident. In a couple more years, that should become even more evident. By 2015, global warming will be a thought of the past, but some may anticipate the high rate of negative climate change is due to HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Yes, it suddenly seems to be very cold. Winter has taken us and shaken us rather hard over the past few weeks, even considering the appallingly cold and wet summer we've experienced... B)

Trends, even linear ones, are calculated using the least squares method.

In principle we should be able to find the line by drawing straight through the points, as you suggest, but this requires that we eliminate peaks and troughs, which may be sources of random, or erroneous measurement in the data itself.

Of course, I am opening myself up to criticism here, so I would like add that I do make the assumption that peaks and troughs, with all things being equal measure out homoscedastically, so that one might be able to see the trend more clearly.

I am the only homoscedastic in the village!

[noggin]

......... homoscedastically....

yer what?

[Chris Knight]

yer what?

I am still the only one in the village!

[noggin]

From John Shotsky:

If you consider a sine wave, otherwise known as a cycle, there are some interesting things to observe.

1. Near the top or the bottom, the rate of change is very small. 8 to 10 years of high temperatures would mean 4-5 years before a peak and 4-5 years after a peak would all be similar in temperature. We have just passed through that phase.

I have not quoted the whole post, Jethro, partly to save space and partly because this is what I have been saying for a couple of years now, viz that temperatures have peaked and that we are on a plateau. Maybe we are even starting a very slow descent. Well, those are my thoughts, as aired many times on here. It's good to know that a growing number of people are beginning to speak out. Gosh, I think I aired that view before too! Well, at least it shows that I am reliable.

[Gray-Wolf]

Our planet has many natural cycles. To find ( in our 20yr 'cold' cycle) that temps 'slow down' is no cause for celebration. Look at the last yr cool down and compare it to this one then you'll have some kind of measure.

[Bobby]

For those predicting that the warming has peaked and we are now plateauing or about to cool down, will you accept that if this doesn't happen that maybe you're wrong about the causes of AGW?

Edited December 15, 2007 by Magpie

[BUSHY]

I do believe that all things considered and the state of the solar output, ssts, cycles etc that we should plateau and then see temp dropping. If not then yes I would reconsider my position -- would you magpie?

Edited December 15, 2007 by BUSHY

[Bobby]

Well, I think we need around 20 years to pick out any long term trends. If the temperature is flat or downin the next 20 years then I would reconsider the future projections. As for would I reconsider the cause, well, a natural explanation would have to be found first, as a cool down could also be due to unforseen negative eedback mechanisms kicking in.

I would expect the next 20 years to be easily the warmest 20 years ever recorded. I'd be wrong if that doesn't come to pass.

[Gray-Wolf]

I suggest the measure is held in the Arctic. If we shed more multiyear this coming summer then the feedback mechanisms may well offset any 'cyclical cooling'. I remember the depression over on the model threads as we entered our '20yr cool' only to be greeted by one of the warmest winters on record......or did we forget that?

We must be close to ,or beyond, a time when our tinkerings blanket many of the 'natural' cycles on our planet.Time alone will tell but my money is firmly on our being beyond the point of no return.

[BUSHY]

There are a plethora of possible natural explanations Magpie, any of which could explain all the recent warming.

1. Milankovitch orbital forcing which indicates that we should now be in a warm cycle.

2. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and perhaps the North Atlantic Oscillation.

3. The proven effect of Solar Forcing.

4. The moons influence on ocean water mixing probably related to point 2.

5. Naturally and regularly occurring cycles that have been identified and are probably related to any or all of the above.

Anyhow we shall see well before your 20 years which way this is going IMHO. Besides if you do discount natural forcings in climate change then you are going to be hard pressed to explain any reasonable period of flat-lining or temperature fall when are still pumping out CO2.

Edited December 15, 2007 by BUSHY

[laserguy]

For those predicting that the warming has peaked and we are now plateauing or about to cool down, will you accept that if this doesn't happen that maybe you're wrong about the causes of AGW?

If temps went up by 5C in 20 years I'd still not blame it on our CO2 emissions! Re the goings-on in Bali. I'll be perfectly honest and say that I've not paid much attention to it because basically I believe it's utter garbage and serves no more purpose than entertainment value. From what I do gather though (correct me if I've heard wrong ),the aim is to cut CO2 emissions by 25-40% by 2030. Presumably this will put us at the position we were at X years ago and hey-presto the world will be saved from climate change! Hilarious.

Looking at it from the other side,what the hell are politicians and climatologists and doom merchants going to do if indeed we start to cool down over the coming years? I can safely say that even in a full on ice-age they'd deny that it was happening until it was undeniable and still tie it to CO2 emissions or caused by us in some arcane way. Anyway,as you know full well,Magpie,our emissions are going to be reduced long before that due again to circumstances equally beyond our control. So long as human population continues to increase, CO2 emissions will rise in tandem until the means of producing them are gone,regardless of any purely speculative effects on climate.

Some quarters are already preparing their defence in anticipation of a cooldown by saying it'll be caused by reduced solar activity (the sun is very quiet now and cycle 24 is late in even showing signs of starting). Hmm,they can therefore readily accept that the sun has the capacity to cause cooling but not warming. How convenient,and that's before considering multiple other factors in the blind pursuit of blaming CO2.

[noggin]

Our planet has many natural cycles. To find ( in our 20yr 'cold' cycle) that temps 'slow down' is no cause for celebration. Look at the last yr cool down and compare it to this one then you'll have some kind of measure.

I believe that there are cycles within cycles within cycles.

[noggin]

For those predicting that the warming has peaked and we are now plateauing or about to cool down, will you accept that if this doesn't happen that maybe you're wrong about the causes of AGW?

Ah, a hypothetical question, Maggers. I try always to keep an open mind and am always ready to admit that I am wrong if it is proved to be the case. However, don't we all have our beliefs because we believe them and also neither "camp" can presently prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that their "cause" is the correct one.

The next few years will be interesting!

[Gray-Wolf]

Classifying sub-species of Butterflies is "Interesting". Watching swathes of humanity die is downright morbid !

Not good, not good.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Classifying sub-species of Butterflies is "Interesting". Watching swathes of humanity die is downright morbid !

Not good, not good.

Classifying sub-species of Butterflies is interesting?

CB