Arctic ice

[biffvernon]

Will the people on real climate be able to explain how during the last ten years while there has been a huge, tremendous increase in CO2 emmissions the Earth has cooled slightly? I don't see how this fits with their theorys.

No, because the Earth has not cooled slightly, as you would know if you followed the science.

[biffvernon]

This is probably the most resent piece on the subject:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this...over/#more-2881

[laserguy]

This is probably the most resent piece on the subject:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this...over/#more-2881

The author of that piece comes across as if he'd be very disappointed indeed if he was proved to be wrong,and taking great pleasure in 'continuance' of warming which is going to kill us all. If it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that warming had stopped or was even in decline,the 'warmers' still wouldn't be happy they'd got what they wanted.

Meanwhile....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg

Don't knock it,rejoice it. The bogeyman's gone away,we can all come back out to play (in the snow,before long if that carries on)!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Meanwhile....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg

Don't knock it,rejoice it. The bogeyman's gone away,we can all come back out to play (in the snow,before long if that carries on)!

I was saying last month regarding the 'warm' March that it was probably an anomaly and lets see what April brings...and that seems to be the case. Now why wasn't this graph shown before now? B)

BFTP

[biffvernon]

The author of that piece comes across as if he'd be very disappointed indeed if he was proved to be wrong,and taking great pleasure in 'continuance' of warming which is going to kill us all. If it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that warming had stopped or was even in decline,the 'warmers' still wouldn't be happy they'd got what they wanted.

Meanwhile....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg

Perhaps it's best to stick to the science rather than to ascribe motives and emotions to writers on the basis of how a piece comes across.

Interesting graph but I wonder how it would look if the dashed lines had not beed added, or more importantly, if the x-axis started before 2002 and thus showed more data.

[jethro]

I thought the single year ice up there was much thicker this year, than in recent years; this coupled with a delayed melt and greater extent must surely be cause for optimism?? Or is that just me...... Recovery's got to start somewhere.

[beng]

Perhaps it's best to stick to the science rather than to ascribe motives and emotions to writers on the basis of how a piece comes across.

Interesting graph but I wonder how it would look if the dashed lines had not beed added, or more importantly, if the x-axis started before 2002 and thus showed more data.

You can always manipulate these short-term graphs by playing with start and end points - however it's s pretty accurate assessment based on Hadley surface data and satellite data to say that for whatever reason, there's been no real warming so far this century - or indeed for the last 10 years in fact. Temperatures are currently plateaued at around the same level that they reached in the late 90s. From here we could go up or down.

[biffvernon]

No real warming where? In the limited temporal and spatial locations of that data set or in the whole ocean-atmosphere system. Remember, most of the thermal energy is deep under the waves, beyond the reach of thermometers. (Did I mention that before?)

Edited May 20, 2008 by biffvernon

[trevw]

Meanwhile....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg

Don't knock it,rejoice it. The bogeyman's gone away,we can all come back out to play (in the snow,before long if that carries on)!

when seen in context (the graph above is the last few entries on this one expanded : http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCRUGNS.html) the trend over the last few years looks very much like the short term plateaus/dips that have occurred every five years or so for the last 50...

On another point these are just near surface temps.. presumeably a large amount of the earths 'energy' is tied up in the oceans, a lot of which is not near the surface hence if there are decadal scale deep overturning currents presumeably the pattern that these add to the surface temps would be a fluctuating one? This would then interfere with other natural variations, sometimes constructively sometimes destructively - perhaps resulting in a curve similar to the one shown while allowing for a steadily increasing 'total energy budget'.

[soft lad]

Will the people on real climate be able to explain how during the last ten years while there has been a huge, tremendous increase in CO2 emmissions the Earth has cooled slightly? I don't see how this fits with their theorys.

first post on the subject on here,however have followed this subject with much interest. Bluecon the way i see it is ..there are a few camps,1)the ones who are so far in denial that they cant accept other options apart from the one they blindly follow...2)the ones who just want to "lets see" how it all pans out whatever the consequence...and the ones who believe that the whole AGW is a sham to allow the massses to fear the what if's

Im undecided what group i belong to to be honestmaybe somewhere between 2) and 3)..im still deciding..however i have never been easily mislead and do beleive some are trying to do this with AGW..there are so many unanswered questions..so much based on beliefs and hypothesis,

every chart or graph that you see out there,there will be one to counter act it or debunk it..not with the overal fact but with carefully edited bits to meet their motives..from what i have found out the globe reached its peak in temperatures many thousands of years ago..and although many ups and downs have occured since then it is gradaully a declining global temp.well before AGW

there are so many factors involved as to what happens with the global temperatures that i will not be so bullish nor arrogant to suggest that I have the answers,and feel it is irresponsible of those in the public eye and the media to push their findings as gospel and usher the growing uncertainty of many under the carpet...

yes lets have a debate in the media and openly discuss the "other side"..not just the one that many gain from..and they (scientists,media/goverments) all do gain from creating a problem that "might" have never needed such attention.Of course that will not happen...i am ready to learn..ready to be convinced....but to be honest i fail to see how anyone can be convicned either way when such conflicting reports exsist from people who are far more clued up than i...one thing i can be sure of is that well before we dominated this plannet and long before we polluted the earth..temperatures were higher than they are right now and we are still here...the earth,and everything around us is so complex..myself personally i would rather put my faith in the guy or gal that put this place together.. all the scientists in the world can hypothesis as much as they like but when money is made off the back of it ..i get dubious.

one of many links that allows me to sleep easily at night in the knowledge that temps have been here before and alot higher without our input..

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg

oh and please dont get me wrong i am not in favour of polluting the earth and believe that the money being spent now in hope of curing AGW could be well better spent on helping us switch to an alternative self effiecent fuel of the future.The air that we breath is precious..yes lets keep the world clean of as much pollution as possible that is just obvious,unlike AGW!!!.....my point is what will happen in say 10 yrs time if we have the situation where the rest of the scientists flip sides and want us to believe that we need all the co2's to combat global cooling?..what then? yes i know as a human race we are all easily lead to a certian point but are we really that stupid to live our lives in fear of something that is not PROVEN!!!!

thanks

Edited May 20, 2008 by soft lad

[bluecon]

So let us stop quibbling about whether there has been a slight warming, cooling and say the temperature has remained steady for the last ten years. At the same time there has been a huge, enormous increase in anthropogenic CO2. Likely at least a doubling of anthropogenic CO2, yet at best for the AGW proponents a slight tiny increase in temperature and it is looking as though the Earth is entering a cooling trend. This does not at all mesh with the theory that a slight rise in CO2 emmissions will lead to huge increases in temperature.

[trevw]

So let us stop quibbling about whether there has been a slight warming, cooling and say the temperature has remained steady for the last ten years. At the same time there has been a huge, enormous increase in anthropogenic CO2. Likely at least a doubling of anthropogenic CO2, yet at best for the AGW proponents a slight tiny increase in temperature and it is looking as though the Earth is entering a cooling trend. This does not at all mesh with the theory that a slight rise in CO2 emmissions will lead to huge increases in temperature.

Am not saying that there is nothing interesting going on but I don't think anyone was saying that CO2 effects would flatten out natural variation, only be superimposed upon it.. that would mean that what would have been a drop in temps without CO2 forcing becomes a shallower drop/plateau/slowing of warming in addition I'm fairly sure there is quite a lag built in. Unfortunately due to the long timescales of the experiment we are forced to analyse and re-analyse datasets for the same timescales repeatedly - this could be a brief hiatus caused by variation or the start of proof that Natural variation in the near future will totally override CO2 forcings.. We'll all know the answer in a decade or so I suppose.

it would be interesting to know the net mass of ice loss over those 10 years (and I do think it would be a loss) and try and work out how much energy this would have absorbed and see if it is large enough to register against some kind of 'total global climate system energy level' or whether it is a mere drop in the ocean (so to speak - apologies). The energy has got to come from somewhere - presumably the oceans.. This would have to have a cooling effect which could then oscillate with the ocean circulations.

[trevw]

first post on the subject on here,however have followed this subject with much interest. Bluecon the way i see it is ..there are a few camps,1)the ones who are so far in denial that they cant accept other options apart from the one they blindly follow...2)the ones who just want to "lets see" how it all pans out whatever the consequence...and the ones who believe that the whole AGW is a sham to allow the massses to fear the what if's

Welcome to the endless circular debate!

I would have guessed you went for 3 from the way you phrased the options, an alternative would be:

1) The ones who are so far in denial that they cant accept other options apart from the one they blindly follow...

2) The ones who just want to "lets see" how it all pans out whatever the consequence and ...

3) the ones who in general accept the majority of mainstream science and are concerned enough to think it worth some level of action

on which scale I would put myself somewhere between 2 and 3 as well I think if we ditch both of our 1)s we end up with a more balance view of the 3 positions

every chart or graph that you see out there,there will be one to counter act it or debunk it..not with the overal fact but with carefully edited bits to meet their motives..from what i have found out the globe reached its peak in temperatures many thousands of years ago..and although many ups and downs have occured since then it is gradaully a declining global temp.well before AGW

In my experience those that attempt to counter the AGW theory are generally the ones that have been edited - however this is a subjective impression. It would be interesting to some statistics - graphs of graph tampering, as if we don't have enough graphs eh?

one of many links that allows me to sleep easily at night in the knowledge that temps have been here before and alot higher without our input..

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg

To prove the point on graphs debunking graphs.. and another example of where the pro AGW one has more info (spot the indication of 2004 temps)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Variations.png

but are we really that stupid to live our lives in fear of something that is not PROVEN!!!!

But to use a perhaps slightly dubious metaphore, a person doesn't have to wait until they have liver failure before being concerned that they might 'on evidence' be drinking too much.. (On the flip side lying in bed all night worrying about it to the exclusion of all else but not doing anything then getting run over by a bus because they weren't watching where they were going is a little on the pointless side too)

Trevw

Edited May 20, 2008 by trevw

[soft lad]

Welcome to the endless circular debate!

I would have guessed you went for 3 from the way you phrased the options, an alternative would be:

1) The ones who are so far in denial that they cant accept other options apart from the one they blindly follow...

2) The ones who just want to "lets see" how it all pans out whatever the consequence and ...

3) the ones who in general accept the majority of mainstream science and are concerned enough to think it worth some level of action

on which scale I would put myself somewhere between 2 and 3 as well I think if we ditch both of our 1)s we end up with a more balance view of the 3 positions

In my experience those that attempt to counter the AGW theory are generally the ones that have been edited - however this is a subjective impression. It would be interesting to some statistics - graphs of graph tampering, as if we don't have enough graphs eh?

To prove the point on graphs debunking graphs.. and another example of where the pro AGW one has more info (spot the indication of 2004 temps)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Variations.png

But to use a perhaps slightly dubious metaphore, a person doesn't have to wait until they have liver failure before being concerned that they might 'on evidence' be drinking too much.. (On the flip side lying in bed all night worrying about it to the exclusion of all else but not doing anything then getting run over by a bus because they weren't watching where they were going is a little on the pointless side too)

Trevw

thanks for your reply..and yes i do agree with many of the things you have said and i guess i am a 3

just believe that there should be a fair debate..not just a one sided one that makes me appear hidious for even contemplating the "other side"..

i find it very interesting to say the least...so much i do not understand..and the conflict in scientisits opinions does not help me feel that maybe there is a conspiracy here...prefer not to be so ..however i dont see proof either way to confirm all the hoo-rah and more conflicting graphs lol...

for me i guess only time will tell as im pretty sure that all the scientists out there will give up..change sides...or hope we forgot what they were talking about and start on climate cooling again lol..

i will read this thread with interest and thks for your reply

[biffvernon]

Where's number 4?

4, Earth System Scientists and those who accept that Earth System Scientists are probably right. AGW is real, serious, and if we don't do something about it pdq we're all off to Hell in a handcart.

And no, Bluecon, when you say "So let us stop quibbling about whether there has been a slight warming, cooling and say the temperature has remained steady for the last ten years." The ocean-atmosphere temperature has not remained steady for the last ten years. It's temperature has risen, largely as a result of man-made greenhouse gasses. It is not something to quibble over. It is fundemental to life as we know it. No amount of denial will make the problem go away.

[BUSHY]

Biff there is so much huzzanga in your last post. Carefull to clean your shoes after you stepped in it.

[biffvernon]

I've checked it carefully but could only find a typo in the spelling of 'fundamental'. Is there a problem with the science, Bushy?

[beng]

The ocean-atmosphere temperature has not remained steady for the last ten years. It's temperature has risen, largely as a result of man-made greenhouse gasses.

Please can you provide some evidence - eg temperature recordings to support this statement that the global temperature has increased in the last 10 years? Everything I have seen says that it's been stable - with even a drop in the last 5 years.

[biffvernon]

Please can you provide some evidence - eg temperature recordings to support this statement that the global temperature has increased in the last 10 years? Everything I have seen says that it's been stable - with even a drop in the last 5 years.

Nope. But what do you mean by your 'it's'? What has been stable? We don't have thermometers in the deep ocean (well, not many) but the overturning currents transfer heat energy about. We know from the physics that increasing greenhouse gasses traps more heat and if it isn't where we can measure it easily, in the atmosphere or sea surface, then it will have gone below. But all the spare heat sure can't keep going down forever.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Nope. But what do you mean by your 'it's'? What has been stable? We don't have thermometers in the deep ocean (well, not many) but the overturning currents transfer heat energy about. We know from the physics that increasing greenhouse gasses traps more heat and if it isn't where we can measure it easily, in the atmosphere or sea surface, then it will have gone below. But all the spare heat sure can't keep going down forever.

You are of course assuming that all this presumed heat has "gone below". As you yourself admit, we don't know what the temperatures of the deep oceans have been doing for the past however-many years. You are assuming that the ocean-atmosphere system is still warming on the basis that you have no other explanation for where all the heat went. Perhaps the ocean-atmosphere system didn't store up all that heat after all...

CB

[biffvernon]

But the physics tell us that's where it should go, especially in La Nina times. If you can find that heat has defied the physics and gone somewhere else then explain how, why and where.

[J10]

Just a reminder for all posters in this section to read the following prior to posting.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=SR&f=8

[bluecon]

The oceans monitored up to more than a mile deep are also showing a slight cooling.

"They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage."

"So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...1d-0a0daa3e1012

Edited May 20, 2008 by bluecon

[Admiral_Bobski]

But the physics tell us that's where it should go, especially in La Nina times. If you can find that heat has defied the physics and gone somewhere else then explain how, why and where.

If the Earth is warming then yes, the oceans must be where that heat is going. However, if the Earth is not actually retaining all the heat that it is supposed to be retaining then that excess heat will be radiated into space. So:

Heat has not defied physics.

How? Radiation.

Why? Because heat is not being trapped within the Earth system as is expected.

Where? Space.

Simple.

CB

[johnholmes]

as to the roundabout argument in this and other similar threads.

nothing changes in the sense that one can listen to one expert and be quite convinced at what they say. Then listen to another from the opposite viewpoint and they will be equally convincing. There will always be two sides to this type of debate and none is right and no one is wrong.

shades of black and white for all?

Edited May 20, 2008 by johnholmes