Why Warming Has Halted:

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The future is uncertain but the end is always clear.

But ahhh, is it?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Whaaaaa????

If we look at the title of the thread it screams to suggest that agreement on 'warming' is reached and that now the question is 'why has it halted'.

In 75 thousand years we may see a differing trend emerge and I'll be more likely to pay heed to your criticisms but whilst I see bare earth revealed that has been buried in ice for over 11 thousand years, whilst on the downward slope of a Milankovich, I have to say "Whaaaaa?"

I'm not being drawn by silliness guy's. We are looking at a very short period of time via our concerns of what we ,humanity, have done over that period. You cannot say "foul" because we are within a dynamic system, you cannot say "Foul" because we have to think on our feet.

Do you really think we have the luxury of the time your approach demands????

The "downward slope of a Milankovich" argument is a red herring - you're talking about a slope that takes tens of thousands of years to go from peak to trough, so how big a cooling factor is it over a time scale of ten years, or thirty, or even a hundred?

This is not silliness, GW - the argument you gave is silly, a fact which I am pointing out. There are better arguments you could use: falling back into the habit of using silly arguments does not help your case.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi C-Bob!

OK , I was being childish in my remarks about this years global temps.I merely meant to highlight how daft it is to 'create' a trend by picking an anomalous high spot, in a series of data, as a 'start point' for a trend and that it is as easy to make an upward or downward trend by doing so. Should 2010 come in as a record year it would be wrong to draw a line between 98 and 2010 and call it representative of global temps over the period.

As far as AGW is concerned I still feel it more than happenstance that humanity should have concerns about its impacts upon the global atmosphere, via pollution, (over it's worst period of polluting the atmosphere) at a time when we are witnessing global changes that are unprecedented since the end of the past ice age and seem to confirm our impacts on the planets climate.

I agree we could do with a much longer period in which to study the phenomena but ,should the theories prove correct, we do not have the luxury of that time to 'confirm' our suspicions without pushing things even further into crisis over that time.

If we still have a chance of avoiding climate change by acting now , as we are told we must to halt climate changes human drivers, then surely it is in our best interests to do so?

Are you really of the opinion that a raft of un-measured natural drivers have collaborated to bring about changes we see and that mimic those the impacts we predict would occur via our polluting ways?

I'd ask again what proof you ,personally, would require before you would entertain that humanities disregard for the planet has brought about the changes we are measuring as it would appear that I am quite a lightweight and need only what I have seen thus far to convince me of our culpability.

[laserguy]

If we still have a chance of avoiding climate change by acting now , as we are told we must to halt climate changes human drivers, then surely it is in our best interests to do so?

The only way to 'avoid' climate change is to get out of it's way and ditch this preposterous notion that we can control it,one way or the other. Right now I'm far more concerned with getting that annoying heat tarnish off my exhaust headers,but I think I've sussed it. Tamara - that sounds very much like a line from a Doors song,unless I'm very much mistaken ? Actually,I think the last word is "near",not "clear"!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi C-Bob!

OK , I was being childish in my remarks about this years global temps.I merely meant to highlight how daft it is to 'create' a trend by picking an anomalous high spot, in a series of data, as a 'start point' for a trend and that it is as easy to make an upward or downward trend by doing so. Should 2010 come in as a record year it would be wrong to draw a line between 98 and 2010 and call it representative of global temps over the period.

I absolutely agree - whenever I see an argument based around a 10-year trend or an 8-year trend or a 13.5-year trend it drives me crazy! Annoyingly, it doesn't just happen on internet forums, it also happens a lot in supposedly scientific articles and papers. The bottom line is this: even if a 10-year trend was statistically significant, climate is measured in 30-year increments, therefore any analysis of less than 30 years is going to be rejected. So why bother?

As far as AGW is concerned I still feel it more than happenstance that humanity should have concerns about its impacts upon the global atmosphere, via pollution, (over it's worst period of polluting the atmosphere) at a time when we are witnessing global changes that are unprecedented since the end of the past ice age and seem to confirm our impacts on the planets climate.

I think this is one of the main areas where we differ: I can see a variety of reasons why there should be this coincidence of increasing temperatures and at the same time that we're looking for it. I have posited before the possibility that it was the cold that sparked the industrial revolution, and that maybe we just started to industrialise as the cold was naturally coming to an end. We started to get really concerned about global warming after we realised that the globe was warming, and concluded that it was our fault (like in the analogy I have used before - going into the kitchen to find the oven on and concluding that therefore I must have turned it on). It's not just that coincidences happen - it's that coincidences happen an awful lot of the time.

I agree we could do with a much longer period in which to study the phenomena but ,should the theories prove correct, we do not have the luxury of that time to 'confirm' our suspicions without pushing things even further into crisis over that time.

If we still have a chance of avoiding climate change by acting now , as we are told we must to halt climate changes human drivers, then surely it is in our best interests to do so?

Since it would appear that any attempts to mitigate global warming, even if we caused it, are likely to end in failure, it seems rather silly to pump huge amounts of money into mitigation - much like the Millennium Dome. The human race has survived harsh weather before, and at a time when we were less technologically capable of taking care of ourselves. Since adaptation is what the human race is good at, my thinking is that we should play to our strengths.

Are you really of the opinion that a raft of un-measured natural drivers have collaborated to bring about changes we see and that mimic those the impacts we predict would occur via our polluting ways?

Yes, I think it's a distinct possibility.

I'd ask again what proof you ,personally, would require before you would entertain that humanities disregard for the planet has brought about the changes we are measuring as it would appear that I am quite a lightweight and need only what I have seen thus far to convince me of our culpability.

That's a really tough question. I suspect I'll know it when I see it. I'd like to emphasise the fact that I have entertained the notion that we are causing AGW, but so far I am unconvinced. A good first step would be to conclusively show that natural factors can't have caused the warming by themselves.

CB

[rob48]

The future is uncertain but the end is always clear.

But ahhh, is it?

..........................always near! - Roadhouse Blues I think.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Since it would appear that any attempts to mitigate global warming, even if we caused it, are likely to end in failure, it seems rather silly to pump huge amounts of money into mitigation - much like the Millennium Dome. The human race has survived harsh weather before, and at a time when we were less technologically capable of taking care of ourselves. Since adaptation is what the human race is good at, my thinking is that we should play to our strengths.

CB

I think this is wherein my biggest issue with the emphasis on "tackling climate change" arises, because the bigger picture counsels action a lot more strongly than just the AGW argument on its own. As things currently stand, we're using up finite resources, we're polluting our environment, and we are potentially heading for a World War III scenario with the countries fighting over dwindling oil resources, and shrugging our shoulders and saying, "that's life". Many of the stronger advocates of free market capitalism suggest that the markets will take care of the situation for us and that adaptation on its own is the solution, but the harsh reality is that, like governments, markets tend to focus too much on the short term at the expense of the long term, and while we might be able to adapt, a very painful transition period would be highly probable.

I think we do need to take action, not just to mitigate against AGW but also the impending socio-economic-political disaster. After all, most of the policies that would address those latter issues would also address AGW. The problem with focusing too much on AGW, and especially CO2 emissions, is that we may risk focusing too hard on one aspect of the problem instead of seeing the bigger picture.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

..........................always near! - Roadhouse Blues I think.

Yes, you are right

and LG too

[Thundery wintry showers]

The only way to 'avoid' climate change is to get out of it's way and ditch this preposterous notion that we can control it,one way or the other. Right now I'm far more concerned with getting that annoying heat tarnish off my exhaust headers,but I think I've sussed it. Tamara - that sounds very much like a line from a Doors song,unless I'm very much mistaken ? Actually,I think the last word is "near",not "clear"!

Unfortunately, for as long as I see a minimum of evidence to back up that assertion I'll remain unconvinced by it. Of course humans can influence climate- take the urban heat island effect as a small scale example.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[Gray-Wolf]

Unfortunately, for as long as I see a minimum of evidence to back up that assertion I'll remain unconvinced by it. Of course humans can influence climate- take the urban heat island effect as a small scale example.

I'm with LG on this point, we may well 'influence climate' but 'control it'? I don't think we can know 10% of the variables well enough to say pushing this will cause that. To me this is the point that leads me to believe that all we are able to do for ourselves is to stop messing and let nature right herself , over time.

I do firmly believe that by changing parameters we cause change though. Changing land use, atmospheric mix, oceanic acidity,polar albedo will all have their impacts and the more things we have twiddled with the more complex the end results will prove to be I believe.

We sit here and argue the toss about how 'natural drivers' manifest in climatic terms and there are those who feel that 'natural drivers ' alone can explain all we are seeing/measuring but then what of our little bit of tinkering over the past years (be it neolithic land use changes or Victorian smoke stacks)?

Edited February 23, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

Unfortunately, for as long as I see a minimum of evidence to back up that assertion I'll remain unconvinced by it. Of course humans can influence climate- take the urban heat island effect as a small scale example.

Here you go

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LwfmfMBLZiM

How much more evidence do you need ?

The UHI is real alright,but I'd expect no less from so many people,so much industrial activity,so many paved and tarmac'd areas concentrated into such small spaces. But on a global scale?? No way. Like having a tepid tea bag in a corner of the NEC and expecting it to warm the whole arena up! Aren't those genuine (I'll give them the benefit of any doubt) UHI recordings being used to perpetuate and validate this whole idea of 'global' warming ?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm with LG on this point, we may well 'influence climate' but 'control it'? I don't think we can know 10% of the variables well enough to say pushing this will cause that. To me this is the point that leads me to believe that all we are able to do for ourselves is to stop messing and let nature right herself , over time.

I think my post came from past experience of exchanges with LG, where attempting to mitigate against AGW is likened to "attempting to control the climate". I think if we take the "influence" vs "control" points at face value, though, you are right, and therein lies the problem with geoengineering methods that aim to generate AGC (anthropogenic global cooling) to offset AGW- we can't control the degree of AGC, if any, that those policies would produce.

The problem with the "you can't control the climate with the AGW scam" argument is that mitigating against AGW is attempting to reduce our existing influence on the climate, not to try to "control" it.

The UHI is unrelated to the AGW theory which is based on the increase in atmospheric composition of various gases caused, at least in part, by human activity, which then pushes the radiative balance of the Earth towards a rise in temperature. If we can contribute to the composition of atmospheric gases why can't we then contribute to the global temperature? There have been many scientific experiments that have looked, in particular, at the effects of a small increase in carbon dioxide concentration on temperature using a small scale version of events.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The problem with the "you can't control the climate with the AGW scam" argument is that mitigating against AGW is attempting to reduce our existing influence on the climate, not to try to "control" it.

I probably, almost certainly, haven't stated this before - but there is nothing whatsoever that I could disagree with there.

It is too easy trying to rail against AGW (with what might be reasonable grounds) but it is also too easy to end up sending a message that your own opinion is more progressive and prematurely dismissive than it really is. Whatever present dubious thoughts may be. I will readily admit that I have made this mistake on many occasions. It doesn't mean you change your viewpoint, it just means that you adjust your presentation of it and not blame others for their misrepresentations of your own. It is important for us all to be aware of this(learn from it) - whether we are sceptical of this subject or not.

A lesson worth learning

[Devonian]

...

The problem with the "you can't control the climate with the AGW scam" argument is that mitigating against AGW is attempting to reduce our existing influence on the climate, not to try to "control" it.

...

I've lost count of the number of times and places I've tried to explained this . It seems simple enough? But, oh no, people everywhere keep saying this whole business is about control of the climate when it's not, it's about reduction of effect. I don't think people's ignorance can be that great, I think sometimes it's misinterpretation as a weapon

Edited February 24, 2010 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

I probably, almost certainly, haven't stated this before - but there is nothing whatsoever that I could disagree with there.

...

I certainly don't remember you using that argument before- the point was aimed at Laserguy, so no need to worry about misinterpretations there!

[stewfox]

Whats people take that Jan 2010 was globally the warmest month since May 1998 ?

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/02/rss-warmest-january-ever.html

[The PIT]

Whats people take that Jan 2010 was globally the warmest month since May 1998 ?

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/02/rss-warmest-january-ever.html

You mean this.

[Gray-Wolf]

Again , my poor confused head!

The temp sets that don't include much for the Arctic (due to lack of ground stations) miss all this abnormal polar 'warmth' and yet the anoms there are large enough to impact global 'average temps'

If we ignore the temps do we get a double whammy of '+'s to even out the -'s' and a lower average?

There must be a point, over the oceans , where 'balance is achieved. As much energy 'in' as 'out'.

Can't we measure this point?

If the oceans warm then this 'point' moves towards the poles. It doesn't matter if "darwn Sarrfff" the door to warming is locked around the Antarctic continent as the 'line' will still move south for a while.....

We put a lot of confidence in the 2m temps but what if we did the 0.0 to -200m temps with such vigour? how would we see the energy budget if we had such a measure?

Satellites are already sending such data ,and, with our improving methodologies of interpreting said data, we are becoming ever more fine tuned to the state of our oceans.

Keep it simple. We are mostly water as a planet (should have named us 'Water') and so this is where the majority of energy has to be spent to produce long term ,stable, warming.

We ,somehow, need a heat profile 'baseline' of all our bodies of water so as to enable us to 'measure ' any changes in there 'soak up of heat' ability (even if it is buried 3 km down!!!!).

[sunny starry skies]

Again , my poor confused head!

The temp sets that don't include much for the Arctic (due to lack of ground stations) miss all this abnormal polar 'warmth' and yet the anoms there are large enough to impact global 'average temps'

If we ignore the temps do we get a double whammy of '+'s to even out the -'s' and a lower average?

There must be a point, over the oceans , where 'balance is achieved. As much energy 'in' as 'out'.

Can't we measure this point?

If the oceans warm then this 'point' moves towards the poles. It doesn't matter if "darwn Sarrfff" the door to warming is locked around the Antarctic continent as the 'line' will still move south for a while.....

We put a lot of confidence in the 2m temps but what if we did the 0.0 to -200m temps with such vigour? how would we see the energy budget if we had such a measure?

Satellites are already sending such data ,and, with our improving methodologies of interpreting said data, we are becoming ever more fine tuned to the state of our oceans.

Keep it simple. We are mostly water as a planet (should have named us 'Water') and so this is where the majority of energy has to be spent to produce long term ,stable, warming.

We ,somehow, need a heat profile 'baseline' of all our bodies of water so as to enable us to 'measure ' any changes in there 'soak up of heat' ability (even if it is buried 3 km down!!!!).

I think there are efforts to gather this data, but, to paraphrase the dude from 'Armageddon'... "Mr President, it's a big-ass ocean." Detailed temeprature-depth profiling of the ocean is hard to do at very many localities, and I don't think you can do it remotely (satellites), as you can with atmospheric temperatures.

Back to the 'Warming has halted' fallacy...

November: record November high temperature

December: very nearly record high for December (4th place I think)

January: record high January temperature

February: looks on UAH to be a clear record high February temperature.

Now, where did I put the evidence of 'global cooling'.... :lol:

sss

[PersianPaladin]

I think this is wherein my biggest issue with the emphasis on "tackling climate change" arises, because the bigger picture counsels action a lot more strongly than just the AGW argument on its own. As things currently stand, we're using up finite resources, we're polluting our environment, and we are potentially heading for a World War III scenario with the countries fighting over dwindling oil resources, and shrugging our shoulders and saying, "that's life". Many of the stronger advocates of free market capitalism suggest that the markets will take care of the situation for us and that adaptation on its own is the solution, but the harsh reality is that, like governments, markets tend to focus too much on the short term at the expense of the long term, and while we might be able to adapt, a very painful transition period would be highly probable.

I think we do need to take action, not just to mitigate against AGW but also the impending socio-economic-political disaster. After all, most of the policies that would address those latter issues would also address AGW. The problem with focusing too much on AGW, and especially CO2 emissions, is that we may risk focusing too hard on one aspect of the problem instead of seeing the bigger picture.

Well said.

[Gray-Wolf]

We're Fugged........

[kold weather]

I think there are efforts to gather this data, but, to paraphrase the dude from 'Armageddon'... "Mr President, it's a big-ass ocean." Detailed temeprature-depth profiling of the ocean is hard to do at very many localities, and I don't think you can do it remotely (satellites), as you can with atmospheric temperatures.

Back to the 'Warming has halted' fallacy...

November: record November high temperature

December: very nearly record high for December (4th place I think)

January: record high January temperature

February: looks on UAH to be a clear record high February temperature.

Now, where did I put the evidence of 'global cooling'....

sss

Its very interesting to see how once again these record highs are coming in just as we have a strong El Nino, a spike back up in the PDO and also a VERY warm tropical Atlantic, indeed Feb was the warmest ever suggesting a powerful +ve AMO in place...all very similar to what we saw in 1998...in theory therefore we *should* beat 1998, esp as this year isn't going to get the snapback La Nina...indeed I'd be more interested if it weren't record breaking given so many factors currently support it.

All I'll say is the real proof of Global warming isn't whats happen now...but what happens when we have both a strong -ve PDO and a cold Atlantic with it, I'd guess by 2025 we will know for certain whats going on, if we see decent rises despite the flip in the AMO/PDO then things clearly point to either the sun or AGW...if they drop away then the oceans will hold the key.

By the way, the first half of 2009 (I think it was 2009 anyway!) hinted at globally what should happen when we get a sustained flip, as we had a weak -ve PDO, weak -ve AMO briefly and La Nina, once you can lock that in for a number of years you really should in theory see some dropping.

Finally, just to say I DO believe AGW, its just the Oceanic cycles hold some sway as well, esp for NW Europe being so dominated by the Atlantic...once we eject from the cold cycle again in the future, things could get very toasty indeed and we'll see records broken over and over I think.