In The News

[Methuselah]

Well I wonder if the low solar activity has much to do with it? Also if it continues I wonder how long the temperatures might stabalise or even fall.... Even if it did i'm sure there would be some excuse.

My guess is that, once the sea-ice reaches a new quasi-equilibrium, global temps will start to rise again? And that may take many years...

[4wd]

The Mail is almost egging on Phil Jones and Judith Curry for a punch up, I wonder who'd win?

She does look quite fierce in that pic.

[keithlucky]

I love the way the GW scientists describe it at a "Pause" in global warming , the same scientists that the year after year record ice growth in the Antarctic is result of GW.

Edited October 14, 2012 by keithlucky

[Methuselah]

I love the way the GW scientists describe it at a "Pause" in global warming , the same scientists that the year after year record ice growth is result of GW.

Record ice growth?

[songster]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Spot the record.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Likewise.

[keithlucky]

Antarctic sea ice records broken .

Edited October 14, 2012 by keithlucky

[Methuselah]

Antarctic sea ice records broken .

Aye, but that and 'growth' are two different things...

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's handy that we have other global temperature data sets, that show years since 97/98 as being warmer.

I suspect it's down to the HadCRUT having poor coverage of the Arctic, a region warming faster than anywhere else on the globe...

[jethro]

What puzzles me about the Phil Jones quote in the DM article is the bit about 16 years not being enough time to gauge anything - fair enough, fair point. But....and for me it's a big but....how come the previous 16 years which showed warming were enough to prompt all the speculation and predictions for endless warming?

[keithlucky]

HadCRUT could have poor coverage of the Arctic but the same argument could be used for the Antarctic which has recorded its lowest temperature of all time .(as i have previously released on the Antarctic thread).As the the mail had quoted since 1880 a 0.75c rise is not on the Global Warming scale as we are lead to believe is happening by all the scaremongering newspaper articles over the years.

Edited October 14, 2012 by keithlucky

[BornFromTheVoid]

HadCRUT could have poor coverage of the Arctic but the same argument could be used for the Antarctic which has recorded its lowest temperature of all time .(as i have previously released on the Antarctic thread).

Yep, a lowest record temperature, but is still experiencing slight warming overall as far as I'm aware.

[Methuselah]

What puzzles me about the Phil Jones quote in the DM article is the bit about 16 years not being enough time to gauge anything - fair enough, fair point. But....and for me it's a big but....how come the previous 16 years which showed warming were enough to prompt all the speculation and predictions for endless warming?

I think that that might be psychological, J...The idea of a sudden burst of warming is a little more potentially alarming than the assumed meta-stable Interglacial conditions that were previously assumed, by many, to have persisted (LIA notwithstanding) for the last 11,000 years...

Now, of course, we know far more: Younger Dryas, MWP, and countless 'blips' within older, also often presumed stable climate regimes, throughout the fossil record...

IMO, variability has replaced stability in the human mindset: what we used to see as 'fixed' no longer is. But, if the globe hasn't warmed over the past 16 years - so be it! Time to review and/or tweak the theories to suit the new reality?

[4wd]

This does of course mean that the 'warmists' are now in denial and we can call them deniers.

That should be quite fun.

[SnowObsessor90]

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz29E78OR9H

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

It looks like this fail article has typically taken things way out context, here's the MetO's response to it here on their blog : http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

[4wd]

A weak response IMO, which does not undemine the specific points The Mail reported.

Deciding to talk instead about 0.8C over 140 years is irrelevant and does not contradict the no warming for 16 years data.

We could go back further and find a start point from which we have cooled rather a lot.

[BornFromTheVoid]

This does of course mean that the 'warmists' are now in denial and we can call them deniers.

That should be quite fun.

What are the warmists denying?

Is 1998 no long the warmest year on the new HadCRUT data?

[Cloudman]

Typical of the Fail, if you haven't got a story make one up. Obviously it is continuing to warm at about 0.2 C per decade. I am sure Judith Curry has been misquoted, she has had this problem before with the fail , she should have more sense than to speak to them.

[Methuselah]

We could go back further and find a start point from which we have cooled rather a lot.

Like during the Cretaceous, at around the time the White Cliffs of Dover were being laid down?

It's strange how 1996 is so far down the list!

[jethro]

I think that that might be psychological, J...The idea of a sudden burst of warming is a little more potentially alarming than the assumed meta-stable Interglacial conditions that were previously assumed, by many, to have persisted (LIA notwithstanding) for the last 11,000 years...

Now, of course, we know far more: Younger Dryas, MWP, and countless 'blips' within older, also often presumed stable climate regimes, throughout the fossil record...

IMO, variability has replaced stability in the human mindset: what we used to see as 'fixed' no longer is. But, if the globe hasn't warmed over the past 16 years - so be it! Time to review and/or tweak the theories to suit the new reality?

I think it's far easier than that, all that everyone needs to do is stop proclaiming that they know what's going on - and that goes for all sides of the argument. The bottom line is that we know very little about how the Earth/climate works, we're learning more every year but there's still much we know little or nothing about. IMO the problem lays in certainty being claimed where none can, or does exist. The most that anyone can claim is that CO2 has the potential to warm the climate - other than that, it's all uncertain. Anyone who claims otherwise leaves themselves wide open to criticism, when their predictions fail to materialise on que.

[Cloudman]

I think it's far easier than that, all that everyone needs to do is stop proclaiming that they know what's going on - and that goes for all sides of the argument. The bottom line is that we know very little about how the Earth/climate works, we're learning more every year but there's still much we know little or nothing about. IMO the problem lays in certainty being claimed where none can, or does exist. The most that anyone can claim is that CO2 has the potential to warm the climate - other than that, it's all uncertain. Anyone who claims otherwise leaves themselves wide open to criticism, when their predictions fail to materialise on que.

Well as I said the warming has been between 0.1C and 0.2C per decade for the last 15 years in line with model predictions with 2010 the warmest year on record, so I think we know a lot about what is going on.

[Methuselah]

I think it's far easier than that, all that everyone needs to do is stop proclaiming that they know what's going on - and that goes for all sides of the argument. The bottom line is that we know very little about how the Earth/climate works, we're learning more every year but there's still much we know little or nothing about. IMO the problem lays in certainty being claimed where none can, or does exist. The most that anyone can claim is that CO2 has the potential to warm the climate - other than that, it's all uncertain. Anyone who claims otherwise leaves themselves wide open to criticism, when their predictions fail to materialise on que.

But no-one's talking about certainty, J; it's always been about probability...Provided, of course, one chooses to ignore politicians and the Press?

CO₂ ​does warm the planet, its quantum mechanical/resonance properties (and non one has yet successfully refuted any single quantum-mechanical prediction) ensure that...The questions, regarding anthropogenic emissions are surely: how much? and, how fast?

At least, that's the way I see it...

Edited October 14, 2012 by Rybris Ponce

[keithlucky]

But no-one's talking about certainty, J; it's always been about probability...Provided, of course, one chooses to ignore politicians and the Press?

CO₂ ​does warm the planet, its quantum mechanical/resonance properties (and non one has yet successfully refuted any single quantum-mechanical prediction) ensure that...The questions, regarding anthropogenic emissions are surely: how much? and, how fast?

At least, that's the way I see it...

Really? http://www.agu.org/p...2GL053018.shtml

Edited October 15, 2012 by pottyprof

[4wd]

It's strange how 1996 is so far down the list!

They're been hoisted on their own petard because they stated 15 years was a significant period - then 17 years when 15 didn't show the right result.

[keithlucky]

But no-one's talking about certainty, J; it's always been about probability...Provided, of course, one chooses to ignore politicians and the Press?

CO₂ ​does warm the planet, its quantum mechanical/resonance properties (and non one has yet successfully refuted any single quantum-mechanical prediction) ensure that...The questions, regarding anthropogenic emissions are surely: how much? and, how fast?

At least, that's the way I see it...

Really? funny that considering CO 2 increased during the last ice-age

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L18711, 5 PP., 2012

doi:10.1029/2012GL053018

Abrupt change in atmospheric CO₂ during the last ice ageKey Points

• Half of CO2 increase during a 1500-year cold period occurred in < 200 yrs
  
• Abrupt CO2 rise is synchronous, or slightly later than, a rapid Antarctic warming
  
• C-cycle-climate modeling doesn't capture all of the processes for CO2 variations
  

Jinho Ahn

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

Edward J. Brook

College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Andreas Schmittner

College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Karl Kreutz

Climate Change Institute and Department of Earth Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA

During the last glacial period atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in Antarctica varied in a similar fashion on millennial time scales, but previous work indicates that these changes were gradual. In a detailed analysis of one event we now find that approximately half of the CO₂ increase that occurred during the 1500-year cold period between Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events 8 and 9 happened rapidly, over less than two centuries. This rise in CO₂ was synchronous with, or slightly later than, a rapid increase of Antarctic temperature inferred from stable isotopes.

• 
  
• 
  

Figure 1 of 2

Previous image Enlarge

Received 6 July 2012; accepted 23 August 2012; published 28 September 2012.

Citation: Ahn, J., E. J. Brook, A. Schmittner, and K. Kreutz (2012), Abrupt change in atmospheric CO₂ during the last ice age, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L18711, doi:10.1029/2012GL053018.

[Cloudman]

They're been hoisted on their own petard because they stated 15 years was a significant period - then 17 years when 15 didn't show the right result.

1999 and 2000 are quite well down compared to recent years, the fact is that warming has continued from the late 90s to date.