Global Cooling

[Thundery wintry showers]

The last time I had a thorough check-up on the relevant papers was in the back end of 2008, so it was still the same back then, but it's true that it might have changed during the first three-quarters of 2009. I thus have to admit I'm none the wiser about the most up-to-date info.

[jethro]

Hi J. Does this mean you've forgiven me? P

If I ever object to anything, it's on an individual basis - if you said the moon was made of cheese, I'd disagree and say why, it wouldn't mean I'd then mentally refer to the cheesy moon incident and judge everything else by it. If you follow my drift.....

[VillagePlank]

... these are huge computers with thousands of interdependent variable equations running hundreds of millions of calculations a second

That might have been the case in the 1980's but things have moved on since then ... indeed, in 2002, climate computers were running at 35.6 trillion operations per second, for instance this one. Actually that's measured in gigaflops (35600) and, I think, even that's a bit old hat, now, too, being that supercomputers are now measured in teraflops

STOP PRESS: The fastest computer in the world runs at 1456704 GFlops (1456.70 TFlops) See the 500 supercomputer list. They must have an awfully big spreadsheet to want to use something that powerful ... for interest that's 1,456,704,000,000,000 floating point operations a second (a floating point is a decimal number - that's much harder to process than a whole number (integer)) Planned new computers will be running at 3,000,000,000,000,000 (3 petaflops) which is over twice as fast as the current champion.

Sorry to bore you all ... back to the topic then ...

Edited September 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

.. if you said the moon was made of cheese, I'd disagree ...

Is it not made out of Somerset's finest, then?

[VillagePlank]

3. Extreme views. It doesn't really matter what the subject is, whether it is climate science, or politics, or religion, or art, the range of individual views always contains the extremes as well as the broad middle ground. Personally, I worry about extreme views, because I have a sense that they are by their nature unbalanced, and because their proponents are often polemical, aggressive and violent about them, none of which characteristics appeal to me personally. The history of our world is littered with the corpses of the victims of extremism. We don't need it in climate discussions. But there are people who will differ in their opinion to me, and I respect their right to have these views, but I will spend my time willingly working to try to encourage these people to moderate the extremity of their views, beccause to do so seems to me right.

Extremism is normal.

The press have given it a bad name, and have associated it with terrorism, which, to be fair, and given that most journos are essentially stupid, is to be expected.

Most things fit on the normal distribution. This is always the case, is currently the case, and will always hold to be the case. Arguing with extremist views is essentially a waste of time because it must always exist, otherwise the body of work called statistics, will cease to be - and, given that science is validated on the normal distribution (when we measure that something is significant we find that it falls with 1.96 standard deviations from the mean - or 95% certainty - which incidentally is a measure of consensus, too) the whole of science will collapse - clearly, that's never going to happen, therefore extremism must always exist.

That is not to say that it should be tolerated, and we have prison systems, police systems, and, ahem, moderators, who do that job.

Edited September 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Is it not made out of Somerset's finest, then?

Oh no Sir, that's kept under lock and key, deep within the caves for fear the moonlight will turn it blue.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Well as one can see with the above graphs...well judge for yourselves.

GW, re solar output David Hathaway disagrees, most active sun for 1000 years he reckons

BFTP

Edited September 21, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[VillagePlank]

The interesting thing about that chart is that, since 2000 the temperature shown remains with the the +0.25, and +0.50 range, and that you need to cycle forward to 2005 before any substantial downward line is established.

Food for thought ...

(EDIT: has anyone got a temperature chart that factors out ENSO? Has that work been done, yet?)

Edited September 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[laserguy]

STOP PRESS: The fastest computer in the world runs at 1456704 GFlops (1456.70 TFlops) See the 500 supercomputer list. They must have an awfully big spreadsheet to want to use something that powerful ... for interest that's 1,456,704,000,000,000 floating point operations a second (a floating point is a decimal number - that's much harder to process than a whole number (integer)) Planned new computers will be running at 3,000,000,000,000,000 (3 petaflops) which is over twice as fast as the current champion.

That's...that's... incredible!!! Even more incredible is the fact that even ten,twenty,a million of these babies would be useless for predicting climate years down the line,especially given the totally inadequate diet they are allegedly fed. What a shocking,scandalous waste of money that me,you,and most other good folk have toiled for. I'm as mad as a box of frogs,I am,and sick to death of the whole AGW sham.

Hey BLAST,going down!

[VillagePlank]

... even ten,twenty,a million of these babies would be useless for predicting climate ...

Yup - determinism is the cancer of science, but you have to give credit where credit is due - the use of these computers does produce results that are tangible, and that are not intractable to analysis. And that's why we (human beings) use them.

See here for a good overview of the (possible) end of reductionism.

Edited September 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Thundery wintry showers]

Extremism is normal.

The press have given it a bad name, and have associated it with terrorism, which, to be fair, and given that most journos are essentially stupid, is to be expected.

Most things fit on the normal distribution. This is always the case, is currently the case, and will always hold to be the case. Arguing with extremist views is essentially a waste of time because it must always exist, otherwise the body of work called statistics, will cease to be - and, given that science is validated on the normal distribution (when we measure that something is significant we find that it falls with 1.96 standard deviations from the mean - or 95% certainty - which incidentally is a measure of consensus, too) the whole of science will collapse - clearly, that's never going to happen, therefore extremism must always exist.

That is not to say that it should be tolerated, and we have prison systems, police systems, and, ahem, moderators, who do that job.

VP,

Thanks for that, I never thought of it that way!

I think the problem is the tendency, in debates, for people to end up polarised into two camps, arguing for positions at the opposite ends of the distribution, and often without being very knowledgeable on the subject. In essence, the division of opinion then ends up like a "M" shape rather than a normal distribution. Both camps often refuse to take on board views from each other, and lump anyone whose views fall somewhere in between together with the opposite camp. I see this happen in discussions all over society, not just regarding climate change, and I think it contributes to the poor decisions that our politicians seem to make all too often. Most of the general public would fall into the same traps IMHO.

Re computer models, I have a feeling that if they showed that AGW didn't exist Laserguy would be claiming how wonderful they were. I sometimes have doubts about the returns on investment, but if we're to predict future climate accurately they're the best technological avenue that we currently have.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

That's...that's... incredible!!! Even more incredible is the fact that even ten,twenty,a million of these babies would be useless for predicting climate years down the line,especially given the totally inadequate diet they are allegedly fed. What a shocking,scandalous waste of money that me,you,and most other good folk have toiled for. I'm as mad as a box of frogs,I am,and sick to death of the whole AGW sham.

Hey BLAST,going down!

Putting aside the merits of it and to be fair to you, I am sure you would be saying the same whether we are warming OR cooling.

But as your post suggests, the best investment is dealing with the uncertain positive feedback assumptions that are being fed into these computers as a first priority, so that if such staggering amounts have to be spent on them, at least we know we are all subsidising something that has the best chance of producing accurate results!

[VillagePlank]

Re computer models, I have a feeling that if they showed that AGW didn't exist Laserguy would be claiming how wonderful they were. I sometimes have doubts about the returns on investment, but if we're to predict future climate accurately they're the best technological avenue that we currently have.

Yes, I think that most people, as soon as they type an equation into an excel spreadsheet, don't realise that they are creating a computer model. For sure, the climate models are extensively more complicated than that, but, in essence, it is the same thing - doing mathematics, using a computer, to describe something.

[laserguy]

Putting aside the merits of it and to be fair to you, I am sure you would be saying the same whether we are warming OR cooling.

Absolutely,and TWS has come to the wrong conclusion again in assessing the mindset of a 'denier'. Is there really any need to spend lawd knows how many billions to say that there's a possibilty/risk/whatever that in X many years the global temp might rise (or fall) by so many insignificant degrees? Computers -pah! Only good for NW,youtube,climate change protagonists and chess,which I recently defeated at level 10 after 3 years trying - yeehah!

[VillagePlank]

Computers -pah! Only good for NW, youtube, climate change protagonists and chess,which I recently defeated at level 10 after 3 years trying - yeehah!

... and, of course, Wall Street, which hosts the largest geographical concentration of super-computers in the world. At least they're using them properly .... Perhaps, not, then ....

Actually, computers pervade your life - even your safety in your car is determined by one. And that safety was almost certainly determined by modelling (as well as actual) crash scenarios inside a computer. Same with airplanes, tomorrows weather (I presume you look at the GFS output? Met output? ECMWF output?) and even down to trialing new drugs for human consumption (you have to model the protein folds somehow, and its cheaper to buy time on a super-computer, than it is to pay-off disgruntled relatives because of their dead family member) Drilling for oil (so we can make CO2) is decided by visual analysis (using Neural Networks) of varying frequencies of light.

The list goes on and on and on ...

Did know one tell you that computer programmers are the new lawyers? We're everywhere, and we have our fingers in every pie

[Methuselah]

And, at the end of the day, we are left with a simple question: is the Earth actually cooling to any statistically-significant degree? And, the only factual answer to that is - no! Another question which, so far, has the same answer is: is the Earth still warming? But, as others have already intimated, if only one run on one computer-model predicted Global Cooling, the 'skeptics' would be welcoming-in a New Age of Accurate computer models?? IMO, the problem with politically-motivated polemic, is its need to slay dragons; but first, said dragons need be invented, and computer-models, that don't conform to prejudice, are an ideal target...

If we really do want to discover the truth, than all means at our disposal should be used. And, that includes CMs AND sceptical enquiry, IMO. If it were not for scepticism, Roman Catholicism et. al. would have kept us ALL in the Dark Ages??? That said, a blanket refusal to even ackowledge a possibility is NOT scepticism!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Absolutely,and TWS has come to the wrong conclusion again in assessing the mindset of a 'denier'. Is there really any need to spend lawd knows how many billions to say that there's a possibilty/risk/whatever that in X many years the global temp might rise (or fall) by so many insignificant degrees?

Again, that's assuming that AGW is insignificant and a sham. It also fails to recognise that these computer models can, and to a certain extent do, include simulations of natural processes which in turn can potentially help predictions of climate change based on natural forcings as well as anthropogenic forcings.

The biggest problem with current computer models is that many of the natural forcings and feedback mechanisms are poorly understood and therefore are at risk of being poorly accounted for in the climate models.

Point taken about the useless computer models- I realise this is one area where your stance would be the same regardless of what the models showed (for the stance that computer models were useless even if they showed no AGW would not support AGW).

[VillagePlank]

... welcoming-in a New Age of Accurate computer models?? ...

... and I shall be the shepherd ....

Now how do I turn 50 integers into five hundred ....

The biggest problem with current computer models is that many of the natural forcings and feedback mechanisms are poorly understood and therefore are at risk of being poorly accounted for in the climate models.

I think that that's less of a risk than perhaps I have already intimated. For sure, poorly understood dynamics in a dynamical system (I actually found out what that meant only the other day. It means you run an equation and put the answer into the next run of the same equation) will produce poor results. However you can account for that be running the model many times (changing the starting point for said dynamics to account for statistical uncertainty) to produce an ensemble set, which is what happens.

[SP1986]

You see I don't get the philosophy of what the governments would be getting out of creating a 'scam' on global warming, in fact I can see quite the opposite. Governments and countries appear to be proud things, they want to be the best, so surely it's much easier to say: "We stopped climate change, looks at us", than creating a scam that has no real benefit to anyone whatsoever.

To be fair in my opinion, and no offence to these people, I think that perhaps occassionally some people who deny climate chance as warming, are perhaps just arguing for arguments sake, or perhaps because they like cold, and don't want to see a change to warmer weather. Still that's not everyone of course as I believe there are people with genuine reasons to believe that AGW is not occurring or at least not having as much impact as computer models imply.

The best things I have heard to refute climate warming is "The government is scamming everyone" or "The warming has levelled off so it must be cooling" (along those lines)

Forgive me for not jumping on the cooling brigade bandwagon, but I have no reason to believe government scientists, or otherwise are taking us for a spin

That said - I'd still like to see more data before anyone gets to a conclusion about whether it is warming or cooling... how long do we need? I don't know but it should surely be well after our lifetimes. Searching for an answer to climate change is a long term one, not a one year study or a 5 year study, it needs to transcend generations, and during that time we can sort out framework which can help protect the planet against any potential damage from human activities.

It's only fair that we looks upon protecting the planet as a whole, not just for us, that's survival afterall!

[Fozfoster]

So why was the last below average month back in january?

[Shandiman]

Could I interject with something here.

The graphs that BFTP has shown are very revealing, and a credit to how history can show us many things, but these are slightly flawed .

If the Industrial Revolution had not happened, yes we would not be here with PC's and still be communicating with quills, parchment and pigeons !!! but we would have a much easier task of working out whether GW or GC was more likely to happen. This feat of human thinking was able to not only increase our chances of survival, but well and truly upset Mother Nature's balance. This may be a factor that not very many analysts and computers are thinking about (shoot me now if I am talking out the wrong end of my anatomy ).

No-one has an accurate way of predicting what the worlds' climate is doing, or what it will do in the future (as we have been able to determine). All we can do is look at the most recent data and perhaps use the rolling 30 year average (for example) to help in working out what may come to pass. Perhaps looking at the recent past (last 50 years or so) may help in looking to the future.

[parmenides3]

Question: have we accumulated enough information to confidently state that a trend does or does not exist?

next: if a person is not satisfied with the information that is currently available or used, given its incredible quantity and variety, then said person is not going be satisifed with the addition of further data. It's not the input, it's the result which some people find unpalatable, so, in order to avoid the result, the easiest thing to do is deny the validity of the evidence.

we have several hundred years worth of measurements, and several hundred thousand years worth of proxy-based estimates. But it would make no difference if we had sizteen zillion signed affidavits by Saint Joan; if you want to deny scientific results, you will. This is not the same as refuting scientific hypotheses, or demonstrating errors in research work; these are rational and methodological practices. If you feel uncertain about GW, it should ideally be because you have a reason to doubt the science, not a need to run away from it.

P

[Shandiman]

Answer to Question posed by P3; we can never have enough data to explore the possibilities of what the future may present.

All I am saying is that data that has been gathered from many different sources where the climate fluctuations are recorded up to the start of the Industrial Revolution, show what mother nature has done to keep with the ebb & flow of minor influences over the climate.

The Industrial Revolution threw this into total disarray, and even now we are still trying to work out the long term effects of our 'waste products' having on the climate. Nature is trying to balance out our effects so that we can all live on this lovely inhabitable planet.

Once scientists, and others, are able to work out these effects, we may have a better understanding of how to interpret readings from before this event, to later readings and the increased amount of data that we are now able to gather.

Is it GW or GC? Who knows, however I feel that there is a possibility of several short periods (around 5-10 years) of GC (or should I say lower average temperatures than the static 30 year average) over the next 100 years or so. But there may be a very slight increase of average temperature, say +0.1 to +0.2 degrees C. In other words, fluctuations may start to appear more exagerated over this time period (not that any of us will be here to report this after 100 years ).

[weather eater]

Question: have we accumulated enough information to confidently state that a trend does or does not exist?

next: if a person is not satisfied with the information that is currently available or used, given its incredible quantity and variety, then said person is not going be satisifed with the addition of further data. It's not the input, it's the result which some people find unpalatable, so, in order to avoid the result, the easiest thing to do is deny the validity of the evidence.

we have several hundred years worth of measurements, and several hundred thousand years worth of proxy-based estimates. But it would make no difference if we had sizteen zillion signed affidavits by Saint Joan; if you want to deny scientific results, you will. This is not the same as refuting scientific hypotheses, or demonstrating errors in research work; these are rational and methodological practices. If you feel uncertain about GW, it should ideally be because you have a reason to doubt the science, not a need to run away from it.

P

To put it in a football context (for those who are fans) would Mark Hughes be questioning the time keeping had Man City scored the winning goal yesterday, I doubt it. The model thread during winter is also a guide, when cold is shown in FI its a perfectly plausible evolution, when its not then FI projections should never be trusted and the models are rubbish.

I keep saying this, many supporters of the theory behind AGW are experts in natural climate forcings, why would they deny their own field of expertise when considering whether mans actions are impacting on climate, why would they do that, how likely is it. I also find it rather odd that given the holes in our knowledge about Natural Forcings, nobody on the sceptic side ever says in regards those forcings, the science isn’t settled, they are treated like some sort of faith, no need to question, holes in our knowledge what holes.

[Gray-Wolf]

I found this in the new scientist and though it brings nothing new to those engaged in our dissuasion the 'lurkers' may well benefit from the article;

Climate myths: Any cooling disproves global warming

• 11:00 21 September 2009 by Michael Le Page

In fact, even if the world does cool over the next few years as some predict, it in no way undermines the certainty about long-term warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Let's start with a thought experiment. Suppose you managed to find some children who knew nothing about the oceans, handed them a long measuring stick and sent them off to the seaside find out whether sea level is rising or falling.

As soon they saw the waves crashing on the shore, the children would realise they had been set a tricky task: how do you measure sea level when it is constantly changing?

If they were smart, the kids would try to find a quiet cove or harbour where there were no waves and start measuring. After an hour or so they would come running up to you. "The sea is going down! The sea is going down!" they'd shout in excitement.

"Not so fast," you'd reply. "Keep going." After a day or two, the children would realise the sea rises and falls at least once a day. If they were really dedicated and kept going for several days, they'd soon come running back to you.

"The high water mark is getting lower," they'd declare triumphantly. "That means sea level is falling." And once again you'd have to tell them to keep at it.

The moral of this story is that it is very difficult to detect underlying trends that are small compared with short-term changes.

Short and long term

We know, thanks to measurements taken all over the world over many years, that in the last decade of the 20th century sea level rose about 3 millimetres per year. That's the equivalent of 30 centimetres over a century, which would be more than enough to cause serious problems for many low-lying areas.

But a rise in sea level of less than 0.01 millimetres per day is very hard to detect when the sea rises and falls several metres every day, influenced by the moon, sun and winds. A bunch of children equipped with a ruler would have no chance of detecting the "real" change in sea level even if they kept going for weeks.

People who claim we can stop worrying about global warming on the basis of a cooler year or a cooler decade – or just predictions of cooling – are as naive as a child mistaking a falling tide, or a spring low tide, for a real long-term fall in sea level. Just as the underlying change in sea level is swamped by the daily and monthly changes, so the annual variation in global temperature masks any underlying trends.

The up and down of waves can be compared with the day-night difference in temperature, the coming and going of the tides to summer and winter. Only when one stands back and looks at the changes over decades does the long-term trend become clear.

(This, by the way, is why model predictions for 2050 or 2100 are more reliable than those for 2015 or 2020 – the longer the timescale, the more the "signal" stands out from the noise.)

The confounding sea

Of course, while short-term changes in sea level can be predicted fairly accurately based on the motions of the moon and sun, it is a lot harder predicting the ups and downs of the average global surface temperature – there is a lot of noise, or natural variation, in the system. It's becoming clear that changes in the oceans underlie much of this variation.

For instance, the reason 1998 was so hot (since surpassed by 2005) was because there was a very strong El Niño that year, during which the Pacific pumped huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere.

Predictions of global cooling in the short term are partly based on the idea that sea surface temperatures will fall in the northern Atlantic, due to slow, irregular swings in conditions known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

The bottom line is that, just as a few hot years do not prove global warming is real, neither do a few cool years prove it is not. Models suggest that it is perfectly possible for a decade or two of cooling to occur even when there is a long-term warming trend.

The strongest evidence for global warming comes from physics and chemistry, not from records of past temperatures, which is why scientists were predicting warming long before the rise in temperature over the 20th century was obvious.

Read more: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed