little ice age ahead

[UV-RAY]

Really?  The Met Office are using a 17 year period when talking about global temps?  News to me .....Still, just as well they arent using a 16 or 18 year period or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Right? And next year ......

16 years and 8 months to be precise for no warming in the  global surface temps datasets. Another 12 years and four months and we have another climatic dataset which by my reckoning means global warming is no more.

[knocker]

Oh there good at moving the goal posts, if it's not decades then it's the heats hidden or the trend is still upwards. The reality is that there has been and continues to be no warming at the surface and until that changes expect lot's of frowning and toys out of prams and more corrupted data and smoothed datasets to show a warming trend.

 

I assume you have good scietific reasons for disputing this then apart from the usual sound bites.

 

Global Temperature Report: August 2012

 

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

 

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville,NOAA and NASA, John Christy, aprofessor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center(ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr.Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gatheredby advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA

 

Satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and

rain forest areas where reliable climate data are nototherwise available.

 

The satellite based instruments measure the temperature ofthe atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about

eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a

"public" computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S.and abroad.

 

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research supportor funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or

organizations, or from any private or special interest groups.All of their climate research funding comes from federal and

state grants or contracts.

 

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2012/august/august2012_GTR.pdf

Edited November 12, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

Oh there good at moving the goal posts, if it's not decades then it's the heats hidden or the trend is still upwards. The reality is that there has been and continues to be no warming at the surface and until that changes expect lot's of frowning and toys out of prams and more corrupted data and smoothed datasets to show a warming trend. I assume you have good scietific reasons for disputing this then apart from the usual sound bites. Global Temperature Report: August 2012 Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade  http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2012/august/august2012_GTR.pdf

Soundbites and fudged data don't alter the fact that global surface temps haven't risen foe 17 years, the met office obviously think that the facts speak volumes, even though they expect catastrophic warming to resume when someone finds the hidden heat content and releases it.

[Styx]

I left the UK a few years ago to return to Oz, it's true that Australia is experiencing record heat for pretty much all of 2013. It's not isolated maxima either, winter minima on average was well above normal and the Sept/ Oct heatwave has led to bushfires of unusual intensity for so early in the season.

 

Bushfires can happen anytime of course, all that is needed is a match and some dry material. But there are bushfires that burn slowly during the cooler months and bushfires that are fanned on hot westerlies in late summer with a roasting continent interior and parched bushland. The latter is very unexpected in October, and hearing of 200 homes being destroyed at this time of year is... well... unheard of previously. The culprit has been a lack of rain at a time that normally sees plenty (especially with IOD and ENSO as they are) - surface groundwater is very low and the bush has the benefit of several years of solid growth and lack of back burning - and a warmer than usual interior that produced westerlies with higher temps than normally found at this time of year.

 

Normally I'd rate it as just a variable weather pattern but, as noted before, ENSO and IOD should be seeing cooler and wetter weather than we have had.

 

Nicely written balanced and factual. Sorry what you wrote was dismissed without a blink of an eye by the anti science types on here.

[knocker]

Soundbites and fudged data don't alter the fact that global surface temps haven't risen foe 17 years, the met office obviously think that the facts speak volumes, even though they expect catastrophic warming to resume when someone finds the hidden heat content and releases it.

 

As the data used above is available through a 'public' computer I can only assume the fudging took place prior to this and then the satellite destroyed, as per the ESA, to ensure this fiendish skullduggery was not exposed at a  later date.

 

Do I spy Anthony Watts?

 

 

Edited November 13, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

As the data used above is available through a 'public' computer I can only assume the fudging took place prior to this and then the satellite destroyed, as per the ESA, to ensure this fiendish skullduggery was not exposed at a  later date.

 

Do I spy Anthony Watts?

All completely irrelevant as global surface temps have not risen for 17 years,when they do come back.

[knocker]

All completely irrelevant as global surface temps have not risen for 17 years,when they do come back.

 

Have you got this sentence on a loop?

[VillagePlank]

Really?  The Met Office are using a 17 year period when talking about global temps?  News to me .....

Still, just as well they arent using a 16 or 18 year period or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Right? And next year ......

 

Well, here's the MetO's take:

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

 

 

 

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.

Of course, we can now descend into semantics, but, really, that's rather a bore.

 

The MetO go on to explain the reasons why they think such a marked slow down has occured - that every 1 in 8 decades the climate flattens out by natural variation alone - but, I think, the jury is out, and the certainty attributed surely can't be much higher than 'we think this is the reason' rather than 'we know this is the reason'

Edited November 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

 

Really?  The Met Office are using a 17 year period when talking about global temps?  News to me .....

Still, just as well they arent using a 16 or 18 year period or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Right? And next year ......

 

Well, here's the MetO's take:

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

 

 

 

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.

Of course, we can now descend into semantics, but, really, that's rather a bore.

 

The MetO go on to explain the reasons why they think such a marked slow down has occured - that every 1 in 8 decades the climate flattens out by natural variation alone - but, I think, the jury is out, and the certainty attributed surely can't be much higher than 'we think this is the reason' rather than 'we know this is the reason'

 

That's my point, no one can really say with any confidence how global temps will respond and for how long. Some of the stuff posted with regards to the pause and the impacts of a grand minimum isn't really scientific, when comments such as "the effects would not be of the same magnitude due global temps as they stand now compared to back then". With all due respect nobody can see what effets such an event would have now, the starting point is irrelevant as December 2010 showed. 

[Methuselah]

Isn't 'little further warming...' still warming?

[Gray-Wolf]

Isn't 'little further warming...' still warming?

 

This seems to be a common 'mistake' Pete? Because warming rates were so above the mark through the 70's and 80's a drop to rates less than expected does appear marked but it is still warming.

 

It can be quite annoying to hear of 'standstill' or 'stall' when you know the figures show continued warming, albeit at a lower rate than we had prior to the impacts of known natural 'cool drivers' ( which never seem to be talked of by the folk talking of 'stall'?).

 

When you look at periods where natural 'cool drivers' were at play, unimpacted by AGW, you do see global temps dip. The fact that we see no such 'dip' during this incarnation of the drivers and in fact see continued temp rises is telling surely?

 

Not only is this cycle of drivers not permanent but we must also expect future periods where nature gives us drivers that enhance warming.

 

All this is set against a global energy imbalance that appears to be growing, a planet with it's polar region shedding it's high albedo ( which helped in keeping us cool) and with global GHG levels still rising.

 

This 'slowdown' could have been our last chance to try and offset our future issues and instead certain parties have focussed on it in such a way as to bring about confusion over what is occurring and help stall attempts to make a difference for our future.

[UV-RAY]

This seems to be a common 'mistake' Pete? Because warming rates were so above the mark through the 70's and 80's a drop to rates less than expected does appear marked but it is still warming. It can be quite annoying to hear of 'standstill' or 'stall' when you know the figures show continued warming, albeit at a lower rate than we had prior to the impacts of known natural 'cool drivers' ( which never seem to be talked of by the folk talking of 'stall'?). When you look at periods where natural 'cool drivers' were at play, unimpacted by AGW, you do see global temps dip. The fact that we see no such 'dip' during this incarnation of the drivers and in fact see continued temp rises is telling surely? Not only is this cycle of drivers not permanent but we must also expect future periods where nature gives us drivers that enhance warming. All this is set against a global energy imbalance that appears to be growing, a planet with it's polar region shedding it's high albedo ( which helped in keeping us cool) and with global GHG levels still rising. This 'slowdown' could have been our last chance to try and offset our future issues and instead certain parties have focussed on it in such a way as to bring about confusion over what is occurring and help stall attempts to make a difference for our future.

It is what it is nothing more nothing less. The future has much more scary things ahead for us all than this nothing to see here minuscule amount of warming, which IMO is more down to natural forcings than manmade ones.

[stewfox]

This seems to be a common 'mistake' Pete? Because warming rates were so above the mark through the 70's and 80's a drop to rates less than expected does appear marked but it is still warming.

 

It can be quite annoying to hear of 'standstill' or 'stall' when you know the figures show continued warming, albeit at a lower rate than we had prior to the impacts of known natural 'cool drivers' ( which never seem to be talked of by the folk talking of 'stall'?).

 

.

 

 

I am not sure what point there is to discussing whether there has been no global warming in the last 17 yrs or there has been a measurable warming but it is not considered significant ?.

 

Surely the point of the thread is could given recent low sunspot activity take us back to a LIA.

 

If we assume (a big assumption) the science is sound re solar activity and colder periods then the answer is a resounding yes.

 

Obviously if we do see global temps rise 1/2 degrees that could have a influence but that could be 100/200yrs away assuming no change in CO2 output and 500 yrs away if there is.

 

Is the recent run of colder winters due to a reduction sun spot activity or just part of a cycle , global warming at present isn’t even on the subs bench. Perhaps we are going into a LIA already.

 

I suppose the ‘next stage’ would be some camps trying to ‘label’ a LIA as ‘man made’.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2013 by stewfox

[knocker]

All completely irrelevant as global surface temps have not risen for 17 years,when they do come back.

 

I would be grateful if you would explain to me why the continued warming of the lower troposphere is not relevant?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi stew!

 

As has been pointed out the periods of low solar were within what we call 'the little ice age' and the reasons for that period are still not clear. Influences range from large eruptions to CO2 draw back from meso American Jungle re-growth/european lands left after plague etc,etc.

 

If this thread is solely about low solar then why use the 'little ice age' title which covers so much more?

 

Unlike the original 'little ice age' we are sat with an atmosphere far richer in CO2 ,CH4 and other ghg's and a warmer planet overall. To recreate L.I.A. conditions surely we need to first match our starting parameters and then see a similar run of events, including a M.M. and D.M. from our sun.

 

To me that seems a long way off really? I am more concerned at the prospect of a renewed warming spurt pushing some elements beyond their 'tipping points' further adding into warming but firmly under Natures dictate. For all I know we may already have crossed those boundaries and are merely now waiting for the impacts to get going?

[VillagePlank]

Isn't 'little further warming...' still warming?

 

As with all things scientific, everything should be questioned. So, the question is - how do you define 'warming'? What is it that demonstrates unequivocally that the climate is warming? I suggest that it's this chart, or something very similar,

 

 

We are using all of the available data (OK, 2013 has been omitted since it's not a full year). Before you continue reading: does this show the climate is warming? I would say yes: absolutely, and without question. The problem occurs when we have a boundary condition change problem. How do we know when the climate is beginning to cool. Most people around would look at the equation on this chart and pretty much say if the sign of the gradient is positive - a plus sign, we're warming. If it's negative we are cooling. Is that how we should define the change from cooling to warming - ie as the gradient passes through zero into negative territory? This seems obvious, fair, and equitable: it is based on well known and understood mathematics - linear regression - that is impartial to human idiosyncracies, bias, etc etc: Of course, it is misused all the time by cherry picking start dates, end dates and goodness knows what else.

 

So, let's take forward a hypothetical scenario where the Earth shifts it's orbit catastrophically out a bit, so that every anomaly posted from here until 2030 takes on the lowest value on the series. Now, would you say that the climate has cooled? I know I would - it would be pretty much a climate cooling disaster with crop failures, ice encroachment and a whole host of other nasties normally reserved for the Hollywood big screen. Think about it: would the lowest temperature ever recorded repeated from now until 2030 constitute cooling? That's exactly what's being asked for: 30 years of records is enough to come to a conclusion - the meteorological/climate norm. Is being nearly a whole degree celsius colder than today enough for people to say, hey look we're cooling?

 

Well, fortunately, we've already discussed a method to determine whether we are cooling or warming, that, hopefully removes bias, human temptation to correct for confirmation bias, as long as we all follow a few simple rules, such as using all the data available and not cherry-picking end points. If the gradient is positive it's warming, if it's negative it's cooling. Here's the chart,

 

 

Well, according to our method the coldest calamity ever to befall mankind is, in fact, still warming: the gradient is still positive, the length of time is above the climate norms, and we've used all our data. That a global catastrophe is underway need not matter. Here's the data, here's the chart: we're warming you idiots, now go and play with someone else.

 

Perhaps there's not enough data, let's extend it out until 2060,

 

 

Aaah, that's better. Most of the third-world and developing countries populations have now died due to crop failure, water shortages, and resource wars. But that's OK, we now have a benign climate since the gradient is more or less zero. But, we can all still say: we are not cooling. There is no evidence of warming - look at the chart! The negative value is so small it is statistically insignificant!

 

Perhaps there's still not enough data, let's extend it out until 2090,

 

 

Finally, we can say we're cooling.

 

Does this all sound ridiculous? It does to me.

 

So, please tell me: how do you define if we are cooling or warming?

Edited November 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[stewfox]

Hi stew!

 

As has been pointed out the periods of low solar were within what we call 'the little ice age' and the reasons for that period are still not clear. Influences range from large eruptions to CO2 draw back from meso American Jungle re-growth/european lands left after plague etc,etc.

 

If this thread is solely about low solar then why use the 'little ice age' title which covers so much more?

 

Unlike the original 'little ice age' we are sat with an atmosphere far richer in CO2 ,CH4 and other ghg's and a warmer planet overall. To recreate L.I.A. conditions surely we need to first match our starting parameters and then see a similar run of events, including a M.M. and D.M. from our sun.

 

To me that seems a long way off really? I am more concerned at the prospect of a renewed warming spurt pushing some elements beyond their 'tipping points' further adding into warming but firmly under Natures dictate. For all I know we may already have crossed those boundaries and are merely now waiting for the impacts to get going?

 

As you say the causes of LIA are not an exact science and some suggest it was a NH phenomenon others it was more local North West Europe, North America episode etc

 

Given we don’t fully know the cause I’m not sure if we can state with confidence that ‘man made influences’ would suggest it couldn’t happen again ?

 

Your saying to get L.I.A. conditions we need to first match our starting parameters. I just don’t see why.

 

Had we not had a sub 3c CET for the last 10 years that may have some weight but clearly we have.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well that's very stark sparks!!! Shows just what you'd need to undo the warming of the past century or so doesn't it? How likely is it that we will see temps fall back to a point before warming commenced I wonder ( without 'ice age now' type scenarios)

[VillagePlank]

Well that's very stark sparks!!! Shows just what you'd need to undo the warming of the past century or so doesn't it? How likely is it that we will see temps fall back to a point before warming commenced I wonder ( without 'ice age now' type scenarios)

 

No it doesn't. It shows that the methods people use to determine whether we are warming or cooling are ultimately flawed.

[Methuselah]

It is what it is nothing more nothing less. The future has much more scary things ahead for us all than this nothing to see here minuscule amount of warming, which IMO is more down to natural forcings than manmade ones.

Except that the 'established' natural forcings clearly point toward cooling?

[BornFromTheVoid]

No it doesn't. It shows that the methods people use to determine whether we are warming or cooling are ultimately flawed.

 

It shows that a linear trend is not suitable when you have a massive discontinuity in the data set, no?

[VillagePlank]

It shows that a linear trend is not suitable when you have a massive discontinuity in the data set, no?

 

More than that. If we were looking for, say, a change to a cooling trend, a linear trend would not - and, crucially, could not - establish the start of it. Besides there is a massive discontinuity in the end of last century's data - ie the hockey stick. Didn't stop too many people slapping a linear trend on it, and using that to establish 'facts'

[Methuselah]

More than that. If we were looking for, say, a change to a cooling trend, a linear trend would not - and, crucially, could not - establish the start of it. Besides there is a massive discontinuity in the end of last century's data - ie the hockey stick. Didn't stop too many people slapping a linear trend on it, and using that to establish 'facts'

That could be simply down to those who shout the loudest: It's cooling! It's warming! - or whatever - not knowing what a 'discontinuity' even is?

Edited November 13, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[VillagePlank]

That could be simply down to those who shout the loudest: 'It's cooling! It's warming! - or whatever - not knowing what a 'discontinuity' even is?

 

Yep. But, also, because of the way the regression is calculated, you wouldn't even need to have massive discontinuity. Even a gentle linear reduction still exposes flaws in the method. Have a look at this artificial gentle trend which is reducing by 0.005 - picked for a reason! - no real discontinuity, a definite reducing trend, but still linear regression shows warming.

 

 

There really is no way out of it. Linear regression does not establish facts by reason of counterexample. ie we can generate a counterexample that shows a reducing trend, whilst linear regression returns the false positive that it's increasing.

 

Edited November 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

More than that. If we were looking for, say, a change to a cooling trend, a linear trend would not - and, crucially, could not - establish the start of it. Besides there is a massive discontinuity in the end of last century's data - ie the hockey stick. Didn't stop too many people slapping a linear trend on it, and using that to establish 'facts'

 

Who's been slapping linear trends on the hockey stick graph?

My thinking is that the linear trend for the 20th/21st century is simply a help see pass the noise. Perhaps some kind of rolling average would be more suitable?