In The News

[Cloudman]

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

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

Yes and the CO2 rise caused significant global warming as those papers and related studies show.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Cloudman

[Methuselah]

So, if an glacial were to start tomorrow, what would happen to atmospheric CO₂? It would increase of course? Kill off 75% of land-based vegetation and screw-up continental monsoons and of course CO₂would build up...Where else can it all go?

But so what? We are not in a glacial now, are we? It's the old 'apples & oranges' fallacy again...

[jethro]

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...

Ah but that's always the get out clause isn't it? One minute the scientists are predicting warming on a fairly predictable scale, only for those predictions to not happen as foreseen and then somehow, miraculously, those predictions are then stretched/changed/converted into probabilities as though that some how explains the inaccuracies. The bottom line is that the projected changes are not going according to plan, the projections from the IPCC did not foresee nor predict a period of level temps for 16 years and that's got nothing to do with politicians, nor the media.

This doesn't come down to whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of causing warming, that again is a get out clause bandied around all too often when questions are raised. Of course it comes down to how much and how fast. However, that also conveniently skips over the fact that it has been touted as being the major driver of the warming. Clearly this hiatus in temps shows this to be inaccurate. There's also the rather puzzling contradiction in that cooling or static temps for a period of time can be explained away as natural drivers, but yet the same logic is never applied with the same degree of conviction when discussing how natural drivers warm too.

Tomorrow we may launch into another 15 years of warming, we may launch into 15 years of cooling - we simply don't know. What irks me is not the uncertainty, nor the lack of knowledge, but the unfounded level of certainty claimed by leading scientists when they proclaim to be able to predict the future. There's more than a touch of the megalomaniac about much of this, mankind wants to be able to predict the future because it's safer to know what to expect and it's far easier to predict if we assume we're calling the shots. Wanting, wishing and believing never has had an impact on outcome, if it did we'd all be lottery winners. Makes me wonder how many scientists cross their fingers when submitting work for peer review.

[Methuselah]

It's not really a 'get-out clause' at all, it's just the way science works...For the sake of 'correctness' one could just as easily say that the sun is an ordinary g-class star and, as such, is capable of providing planet Earth with all the energy required to sustain life...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/University+Calgary+professor+says+melting+will+lead+extreme+weather/7292810/story.html#ixzz29JmnUAHx

Edited October 15, 2012 by Rybris Ponce

[jethro]

It's not really a 'get-out clause' at all, it's just the way science works...For the sake of 'correctness' one could just as easily say that the sun is an ordinary g-class star and, as such, is capable of providing planet Earth with all the energy required to sustain life...

http://www.calgaryhe...l#ixzz29JmnUAHx

It is used as a get out clause though. Just because CO2 can cause warming doesn't mean it has, nor does it in any way explain the magnitude of the warming thus far. If anyone questions the degree of warming we've seen (or haven't seen, as the case may be) then the basic scientific process of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is trotted out, usually accompanied by the statement of 'show me how CO2 isn't a GHG'. I'm not disputing the basic science so it's kind of meaningless to the discussion.

We're not warming in the way we were expected/predicted/projected to warm - surely discovering and discussing the possible causes of why is more important than quibbling over the basic theory of AGW.

[BornFromTheVoid]

We are warming at the lower end of predictions. It was often mentioned that there could even be periods of around 10-15 years with slight cooling (which isn't even happening now), but it's the long term trend that CO2 is driving, not variability in the the shorter periods in between.

If it wasn't for CO2, we'd very likely be cooling now, and would likely have had a more significant cooling from the 40s-70s.

Causes for the lack of strong warming in the last 15 years? As has been discussed, cherry picked starting points, downward trend in ENSO, PDO, and solar activity. A little trace gas balancing all that out, pretty impressive really!

[Gray-Wolf]

Because science was wrong footed by the Arctic sea ice loss since 07' does that then mean they have no clue and we are just as likely to see sustained recovery as we are continued losses?

I'm sure Sept's "State of the climate" will once again post a top ten result for Sept and I do not think we have seen any 'average' temps posted for quite a long run.

I do believe that , as through the other 'globally dimmed' period the Asian 'brown cloud' has helped ( along with low solar/PDO-ve/back to back Nina's etc) to slow the rate of warming over the recent past but in just the same way folk would point to warm drivers to attempt to explain the likes of 98' (and ignore GHG forcings) they , and we, must accept that GHG forcings are not yet the only game in town.

I cannot see any way, barring massive natural disasters, for temps to go into decline. Asia is becoming ever cleaner in it's emissions (even if their CO2 output is still rising) and we are a good way through the 'cool drivers' periods of influence. The sulphate's have several years before they fall out of the equation but year on year decreases in output will influence how strongly their impact is felt. The natural 'cool drivers' must now be heading toward more 'neutral' state prior to switching positive and the lack of sea ice is helping flood the northern hemisphere with new energy for the climate system. All in all, though only a guess, where do we think we are headed?

I worry that we will suddenly see temps rising faster than we did in the 80's and that is only by the GHG forcings, god only knows how the Arctic will add into this 'spurt' but we've all seen the "30yrs worth of CO2" statements by our own scientists so that does not bode well.

Once again the global dimming we are undergoing (NASA reckons 50% of warming is being taken away) will fall out just as global cool drivers start to fade. Where else are we headed but warmer?

Edited October 15, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

I guess the simplest way of 'proving' (GW seems to be about the only subject for which 100% undeniability is required?) that CO₂ does, in fact, provide a measure of warming, would be to build a perfect replica of Planet Earth - positioned 93 million miles from the sun - but with one important change: its atmosphere would contain no trace of CO_2...

Then we could measure its surface temperature...

PS: the CO₂​ concentration/absorption relation is a logarithmic one...

[Interitus]

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

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly what this paper is describing and its significance?

One quick observation to bear in mind is that there was an increase in CO2 of 10ppm -

In Siple Dome 60% of the 10 ppm increase occurred over at most ∼70 years (9 ppm/century). In Byrd, an ∼8 ppm increase is observed over 50 years (∼15 ppm/century). Considering the data resolution and the smoothing of the gas record by diffusion in the firn [brook et al., 2005] and ice matrix [Ahn et al., 2008], the actual atmospheric CO2 change could have been faster. The exact rate of the abrupt CO2 change is difficult to estimate but it is likely that the entire change took place in less than two centuries.

What made this interesting is the speed of increase -

The 10 ppm increase is about half the amplitude of the multi-millennial variations associated with the major Antarctic warm events and indicates that atmospheric CO2 can change more rapidly than suggested by previous lower-resolution ice core records for the last glacial period

So by geological norms we have an increase considered 'abrupt' as denoted in the title of the paper, 10ppm in less than 200 years and possibly as fast as 15ppm/century.

Now how does that relate to a CO2 release of over 80ppm in little over 50 years, 20ppm in the last 10 years alone - a current rate of >200ppm/century - to CO2 concentrations which are approaching double that of 40,000 years ago as described in that paper?

[laserguy]

I guess the simplest way of 'proving' (GW seems to be about the only subject for which 100% undeniability is required?) that CO₂ does, in fact, provide a measure of warming, would be to build a perfect replica of Planet Earth - positioned 93 million miles from the sun - but with one important change: its atmosphere would contain no trace of CO_2...

Great idea Pete, then we could send all the warmists there and they'd maybe leave us alone with all their whinging and moaning.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Globally, the joint warmest September on record

http://www.ncdc.noaa...c/global/2012/9

Getting closer to the warmest years on record

[keithlucky]

Ok lets concentrate on facts Met Office figures show that the average temperature between 1997 and 2012 did not rise at all and that the previous warming trend has levelled off.

Met Office put this research onto the Internet without publicity - in contrast to the attention it gave to figures released six months ago which reinforced the case for global warming.No need to say any more no apology for their lies World Temperatures haven"t risen that"s a FACT.

[Devonian]

Ok lets concentrate on facts Met Office figures show that the average temperature between 1997 and 2012 did not rise at all and that the previous warming trend has levelled off.

Met Office put this research onto the Internet without publicity - in contrast to the attention it gave to figures released six months ago which reinforced the case for global warming.No need to say any more no apology for their lies World Temperatures haven"t risen that"s a FACT.

No Keith that's a picked cherry and because you've no better 'expertese' than the dubious words of a tabloid hack you further resort to mud slinging accusations of lies.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Devonian

[knocker]

No need to say any more no apology for their lies World Temperatures haven"t risen that"s a FACT.

Can you give me any evidence why they would lie?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ok lets concentrate on facts Met Office figures show that the average temperature between 1997 and 2012 did not rise at all and that the previous warming trend has levelled off.

Met Office put this research onto the Internet without publicity - in contrast to the attention it gave to figures released six months ago which reinforced the case for global warming.No need to say any more no apology for their lies World Temperatures haven"t risen that"s a FACT.

You really should make it clear when you're quoting someone, which you're clearly doing. A source for the quote would be handy too.

[pottyprof]

You really should make it clear when you're quoting someone, which you're clearly doing. A source for the quote would be handy too.

I agree. Keith.... Can you please post a link to the figures/details. You can't just make accusations without support. Providing this information will help to educate and encourage real discussion.

No Keith that's a picked cherry and because you've no better 'expertese' than the dubious words of a tabloid hack you further resort to mud slinging accusations of lies.

So it's ok for one person who is pro AGW to cherry pick details and claim 16 years or so to be scientifically acceptable for climate study but yet claim 30 years when data goes against their views? Which is it?

While I accept the rest of the sentiments, I must say that we really don't want to continue down the line of petty bickering. That applies to everyone. Muddy waters lack the clarity this subject needs.

[Devonian]

I agree. Keith.... Can you please post a link to the figures/details. You can't just make accusations without support. Providing this information will help to educate and encourage real discussion.

So it's ok for one person who is pro AGW to cherry pick details and claim 16 years or so to be scientifically acceptable for climate study but yet claim 30 years when data goes against their views? Which is it?

While I accept the rest of the sentiments, I must say that we really don't want to continue down the line of petty bickering. That applies to everyone. Muddy waters lack the clarity this subject needs.

For me it's about looking at it all. The evidence, the trends, the science. Ok, it's possible to find 15 year periods where temperatures are level. So what??? Kids grow but not in a linear fashion. So, those months they don't grow much in mean they've stopped growing when the rest of the evidence, the science and the trends indicate otherwise?

Beyond that message received.

[Methuselah]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/15/register-to-become-an-expert-reviewer-for-ipcc-wg1/

[Cloudman]

The root of the problem is that all these graphs showing 'no warming' start in the year of the Super El-Nino in 1997. As such they are bound to be accused of cherry picking. With an underlying warming rate due to AGW of about 0.2C per decade then it is very unlikely that you will find statistically significant warming over time periods of 20 years or less due to the internal variability due to ENSO etc.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Cloudman

[Gray-Wolf]

We have been hearing for years (it would seem) that we are in a period of -ve natural forcings, deep within a -ve PDO (as back to back Nina's would go to show?) with a sun powering down from a peak in output under a 'sulphate umbrella' from the booming Asian economies and their thirst for energy.

Still we find the top ten temps being routinely posted for global temps and have watched the Arctic ice pack summer min go into free-fall.

Is the burning question not "What happens when we have a spell of +ve natural drivers and the Asian Brown cloud has been eliminated?

We all know what occurred when we had neutral/+ve natural drivers and the Asian economies were not in full swing so what do we really expect over the next 5 to 10yrs when we see the dimming drop out and the background natural forcings again swing neutral/positive?

On top of that we also need to figure how todays CO2 loadings will impact and also how the extra energy entering the climate system each year via the Arctic will play out? I'm not trying to be a 'doom monger' but showing what I believe awaits us by accepting what I believe I am being told about why temp increases have slowed since the Super Nino of 98'.

Today the current 'food crisis' (and the inflation it drives) is largely due to back to back extreme climate fluctuations that are suspected to have been influenced by changes that the current warming is driving. does it worry only myself as to what the impacts of even fiercer warming will drive in future?

[pottyprof]

For me it's about looking at it all. The evidence, the trends, the science. Ok, it's possible to find 15 year periods where temperatures are level. So what??? Kids grow but not in a linear fashion. So, those months they don't grow much in mean they've stopped growing when the rest of the evidence, the science and the trends indicate otherwise?

Beyond that message received.

I agree with what you are saying Dev. A short range spot can be a useful thing when trying to get a point across in some circumstances, whether it's temperatures or anything else for that matter but it has to be accepted by both sides of the debate. To be honest, it wasn't aimed at yourself but just a general observation in here and on other boards. Cherry picking has to be accepted by both sides if both sides are going to use it. There can't be finger pointing from one side unless we allow hypocrisy to rule.

[Cloudman]

I agree with what you are saying Dev. A short range spot can be a useful thing when trying to get a point across in some circumstances, whether it's temperatures or anything else for that matter but it has to be accepted by both sides of the debate. To be honest, it wasn't aimed at yourself but just a general observation in here and on other boards. Cherry picking has to be accepted by both sides if both sides are going to use it. There can't be finger pointing from one side unless we allow hypocrisy to rule.

I agree the solution with temperature series is to always show the full length of the series and highlight the relevant region.

Another option is to show a subset of a series where the chage is demonstrated to be statistically significant

[4wd]

15 years has been mentioned as statistically significant period:

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.â€

Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

[knocker]

This years ozone hole report.

Situation at 2012 October 12

The 2012 ozone hole has passed its largest, and was smaller than the decadal average.

The winter polar vortex remains established over Antarctica, with ozone values continuing to build around the continent (maximum around 480 DU). Inside the vortex ozone depletion rapidly took place as the sun returned, but has passed its worst, with lowest values over the Weddell Sea now at around 150 DU. NOAA measurements indicate a much smaller ozone hole than normal during August and early September, but it then grew rapidly to around 19 million square kilometres in the second half of September. This is smaller than the mean for the last decade, but comparable to that of 2010. It is shrinking and now covers 8 million square kilometres. In general the zonal minimum ozone layer temperature (between 70 and 30 hPa) was a little cooler than the normal during the winter. The temperature is now rising, but a few small areas between 100 and 50 hPa remain below the Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) formation temperature. By contrast the zonal mean temperature of the ozone layer is already above the PSC formation temperature. This means that the amount of PSC available for ozone depletion is smaller than usual. The fringes of the ozone hole passed over the tip of South America, the Falkland Islands and South Georgia over August 24 to 28 and September 21-24, whilst a spun-off fragment passed over the area between September 4 and 7.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/index.html

[Devonian]

15 years has been mentioned as statistically significant period:

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.â€

Source: http://www1.ncdc.noa...2008-lo-rez.pdf

Which page please?