Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[knocker]

 

A natural cycle controling earth's temprature who would have thought it!!!

 

Seeing that this is one of quite a few recent papers on a variation of the same theme why  has this appeared to come as a surprise?

 

I also wasn't aware that AGW theory ruled out the influence of natural cycles. In fact they are an integral part of it. But they 'don't control' the earth's temperature because when the cycle finishes the status quo is restored. Unless of course there is something else as the main controller.

 

An interesting paper all the same but behind a blasted paywall.

Edited August 22, 2014 by knocker

[Devonian]

The missing heat is now in the deep altantic and southern oceans and as a result could lead to at least another 10 years of global warming hiatus!! http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897 A natural cycle controling earth's temprature who would have thought it!!!

But, you've said (your words) that f10.7 and EUV control the climate - can you please make up your mind.Edit: actually you said 'main drivers', so my bad. Edited August 22, 2014 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

But, you've said (your words) that f10.7 and EUV control the climate - can you please make up your mind.

 

Odd how influence and control can become interchangeable.

 

It appears to be another case of ABC.

Seeing that this is one of quite a few recent papers on a variation of the same theme why  has this appeared to come as a surprise?

 

I also wasn't aware that AGW theory ruled out the influence of natural cycles. In fact they are an integral part of it. But they 'don't control' the earth's temperature because when the cycle finishes the status quo is restored. Unless of course there is something else as the main controller.

 

An interesting paper all the same but behind a blasted paywall.

 

I've access to the paper, anything in particular you'd like to know about it?

[knocker]

Odd how influence and control can become interchangeable.

 

It appears to be another case of ABC.

 

I've access to the paper, anything in particular you'd like to know about it?

 

Thanks but no nothing in particular.

[jonboy]

I posted the paper because it highlighted the nature of the natural cycle of ocean heat transport. The paper contends that global tempratures will remain the same ie a hiatus. I personally believe that golbal temperatures will cool significantly over the next 10/20 years at least. I still believe that it is the F10.7 and EUV fluxes that have a very important role in these natural cycles so comments about making my mind up are irrelevant

[knocker]

I posted the paper because it highlighted the nature of the natural cycle of ocean heat transport. The paper contends that global tempratures will remain the same ie a hiatus. I personally believe that golbal temperatures will cool significantly over the next 10/20 years at least. I still believe that it is the F10.7 and EUV fluxes that have a very important role in these natural cycles so comments about making my mind up are irrelevant

 

That's interesting because the paper concludes:

 

 

The next El Niño, when it occurs in a year or so, may temporarily interrupt the hiatus, but, because the planetary heat sinks in the Atlantic and the Southern Oceans remain intact, the hiatus should continue on a decadal time scale. When the internal variability that is responsible for the current hiatus switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue.

 

A “hiatus†in some people’s “skepticism�

[jonboy]

 

 

Here is the nature link with some off the data available

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

[jonboy]

 

 

A “hiatus†in some people’s “skepticism�

 

 

True knocker the hiatus maybe one of the reason's I'm a skeptic

 

As temperatures have not risen further and if anything shown a very small decline over the last 10/15 years whilst CO2 output has continued to rise i have looked for alternative reasons as to why we saw the rise from the late 70's and fluxtuations over the last century. At present what best fits to my mind is solar cycle fluxtuations and especially those involving EUV and F10.7 fluxes. How these impact the various layers of our atmosphere be it helping to generate ozone or even deplete it encouraging cloud formation etc etc will affect our climate on a global scale.

So I make no apology for being a skeptic and will continue to try and show why I believe this is nearer the truth that CO2

[Devonian]

True knocker the hiatus maybe one of the reason's I'm a skeptic

 

As temperatures have not risen further and if anything shown a very small decline over the last 10/15 years whilst CO2 output has continued to rise i have looked for alternative reasons as to why we saw the rise from the late 70's and fluxtuations over the last century. At present what best fits to my mind is solar cycle fluxtuations and especially those involving EUV and F10.7 fluxes. How these impact the various layers of our atmosphere be it helping to generate ozone or even deplete it encouraging cloud formation etc etc will affect our climate on a global scale.

So I make no apology for being a skeptic and will continue to try and show why I believe this is nearer the truth that CO2

 

I have no issues with being sceptical - we all should be.

 

I do have reservations with starting trends from points that give a misleading impression of what is going on. We see people who will do nothing else but tell us the trend since 1998. I'd say, look at the trend from 1996, or 1994 (~20 years) , or 1984, or indeed 2004. Looking at more gives a better picture, what's the problem with that?

 

I also have a reservations about people not wanting to read the evidence about the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gasses. Why not read it? Why not read the IPPC reports? If not them then there are many excellent textbooks out there. The evidence Born has given is, too me, pretty irrefutable - why do you refute it?

Edited August 22, 2014 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

The missing heat is now in the deep altantic and southern oceans and as a result could lead to at least another 10 years of global warming hiatus!!

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897

 

A natural cycle controling earth's temprature who would have thought it!!!

It's also further evidence - if any was really needed - of a warming planet. The oceans are, in fact, part of the planet's surface.

[jonboy]

It's also further evidence - if any was really needed - of a warming planet. The oceans are, in fact, part of the planet's surface.

 

But also evidence of natural cycles this is nothing new so why does everything have to be about CO2. The oceans have always warmed they have always cooled as part of these cycles they take up and give out CO2. I don't deny the planet over a give period has warmed but equally it has been warmer and it has been cooler.

 

There are many things wrong with the arguments involved not least in how they are presented from both sides of the divide it just that at this time I think my thoughts that solar influences are the cause rather than CO2 carry better explanations for this hiatus and for potentially showing the links to past fluctuations.

 

Both sides use links to websites that use rhetoric and language that adds nothing to the debate and as a consequence turns off the general reader who might come on here to learn which is a great shame.

 

My day job is trying to get people and designers in particular to consider and articulate health and safety risk in construction. I am for ever trying to get only significant risks to be highlighted but more often than not these important facts are hidden in a wad of basic generic rubbish which only turns off those that need to be informed.

 

If we forever quote and repeat generic rubbish it is inevitable the true gems will get missed or someone will think their bit of information is to left field and likely to recieve nothing but ridicule that it won't get passed on and this is how some of these climate threads behave which is detremental to discussion and debate

Edited August 22, 2014 by jonboy

[Devonian]

But also evidence of natural cycles this is nothing new so why does everything have to be about CO2.

 

It isn't. But some of us discuss everything and anthropogenic effects (mostly due to anthro ghg emissions) while some of us will only discuss the former and (yes) dismiss the latter - to the detriment of discussions here.

[knocker]

There’s no such thing as natural warming!

[stewfox]

I have no issues with being sceptical - we all should be.

 

I do have reservations with starting trends from points that give a misleading impression of what is going on. We see people who will do nothing else but tell us the trend since 1998. I'd say, look at the trend from 1996, or 1994 (~20 years) , or 1984, or indeed 2004. Looking at more gives a better picture, what's the problem with that?

 

I also have a reservations about people not wanting to read the evidence about the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gasses. Why not read it? Why not read the IPPC reports? If not them then there are many excellent textbooks out there. The evidence Born has given is, too me, pretty irrefutable - why do you refute it?

 

Whats wrong with 1998 ? Its a high point in the last 30 years

 

If your going to have global warming surely you would expect that figure to be beaten if not in 30 years say in a 100 years and being beaten regularly ??

 

Or are you looking to beat consistently a 'average year' in the next 50 years ? That doesn't make sense ie were 0.1c warmer then 1994 etc

 

If we haven't beaten 1998 by 2035 will you concede figures need revising ? and 6c global temp rises by end of century are unlikely to happen as per this 2009 study ?

-------------

Global temperatures are on a path to rise by an average of 6C by the end of the century as CO2 emissions increase and the Earth's natural ability to absorb the gas declines, according to a major new study.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise

 

--------------

 

If we start at the start of the Holocence cira 12,000 yrs ago we have 'run away global warming' 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

Edited August 22, 2014 by stewfox

[Devonian]

Whats wrong with 1998 ? Its a high point in the last 30 years

Precisely. You say it but you don't get it???If you're going to pick the warmest year of the last 30 to make your point why should I not also compare now with the coldest, the low point, to help make my point? That year is 1985. By comparison with that year the global warming rate is absolutely astonishing! No, using either data point, '98 or '85, doesn't make any sense, trends are the answer to teasing out what the data says.You see? Edited August 23, 2014 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821115841.htm?utm_source=feedburner

 

More evidence of what the losss of the last ice sheet meant to the gulf stream via the freshening of the Fram straight. Sadly we lost most of the ice volume through the 80's and this didn't appear to have the same impact? Maybe if the east slope of Greenland slumped into the Fram area that might be enough 'fresh' to impact the sinking of the Gulf stream?(LOL)

[Methuselah]

But also evidence of natural cycles this is nothing new so why does everything have to be about CO2. The oceans have always warmed they have always cooled as part of these cycles they take up and give out CO2. I don't deny the planet over a give period has warmed but equally it has been warmer and it has been cooler.

 

There are many things wrong with the arguments involved not least in how they are presented from both sides of the divide it just that at this time I think my thoughts that solar influences are the cause rather than CO2 carry better explanations for this hiatus and for potentially showing the links to past fluctuations.

 

Both sides use links to websites that use rhetoric and language that adds nothing to the debate and as a consequence turns off the general reader who might come on here to learn which is a great shame.

 

My day job is trying to get people and designers in particular to consider and articulate health and safety risk in construction. I am for ever trying to get only significant risks to be highlighted but more often than not these important facts are hidden in a wad of basic generic rubbish which only turns off those that need to be informed.

 

If we forever quote and repeat generic rubbish it is inevitable the true gems will get missed or someone will think their bit of information is to left field and likely to recieve nothing but ridicule that it won't get passed on and this is how some of these climate threads behave which is detremental to discussion and debate

Indeed, JB - anything prior to the Industrial Revolution was largely down to natural drivers...But, we know that already?

 

Where has 'man-made' CO2 featured in the prehistorical record? Nowhere???

[jonboy]

Indeed, JB - anything prior to the Industrial Revolution was largely down to natural drivers...But, we know that already?

 

Where has 'man-made' CO2 featured in the prehistorical record? Nowhere???

 

So your point is what?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ok, given that:

 

• both the Pacific and Atlantic are absorbing extra heat from the surface and burying it in the deep ocean
• extra aerosols are reducing energy reaching the surface
• we're going through the quietest solar cycle in over a century

 

Why are the surface air temperatures not rapidly falling? Why are both the air and ocean still warming, and setting new warm records?

[Gray-Wolf]

Pete, i have to disagree.

 

What did the new arrivals to Australia do there? What did we do to our Nation when we arrived here? What have we done to the mid-west? WE made difference alright! the die off from the black death/ meso American post contact die off to show us how much Carbon cycle peturbations we were capable of!?

Edited August 23, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

Precisely. You say it but you don't get it???If you're going to pick the warmest year of the last 30 to make your point why should I not also compare now with the coldest, the low point, to help make my point? That year is 1985. By comparison with that year the global warming rate is absolutely astonishing! No, using either data point, '98 or '85, doesn't make any sense, trends are the answer to teasing out what the data says.You see?

 

I don't get it. Either the world is warming or it is not. We have had no global warming since 1998.

 

How can you spend trillions unless we see global warming ?  

 

Are you saying if we see 2027 warmer then 1998 and then 2134 warmer then 2027 that proves man made global warming ?? It might 0.1c per century.

 

Surely in the next 100 years we should be seeing decade on decade increases ? (there will always be the odd year but not 25 yrs with no warming surely ??)

Edited August 24, 2014 by stewfox

[knocker]

No global warming since 1999? Nah, here's the smoking gun.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/no-warming-1999-nah-smokinggun.html

 

And you can do your own to avoid the cherry picking

 

http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

 

It seems to me one can either accept this, along with other indicators, or you don't. Apart from global warming there are other pressing reasons for cutting CO₂ emissions such as the death toll and damage to health from pollution.

 

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon-health-care-savings-0824

Edited August 25, 2014 by knocker

[Devonian]

I don't get it. Either the world is warming or it is not. We have had no global warming since 1998.

Stew, I've tried to explain why starting you analysis from a single data point makes no sense. I can explain, as best I can, that again if you like? But I'll ask you again, if its valid to start with a cherry picked date like 1998 why is my analysis using my cherry picked date 1985 any less valid?Oh, and do, please, look at the trends using the calculator in knockers link.Edit: decade on decade warming is PRECISELY what we do see! Edited August 25, 2014 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

So your point is what?

 

Just a simple question, really: if it wasn't there, what's the point of playing games, and pretending that there's paeleoclimatic evidence that somehow renders man-made CO₂ irrelevant?

 

Obfuscation gets tiresome, over time...

Pete, i have to disagree.

 

What did the new arrivals to Australia do there? What did we do to our Nation when we arrived here? What have we done to the mid-west? WE made difference alright! the die off from the black death/ meso American post contact die off to show us how much Carbon cycle peturbations we were capable of!?

Technically, you're right...But said effect must have been trivial when compared to post recent industrial processes...if only in scale.

[jonboy]

 

 

Obfuscation gets tiresome, over time...

 

 

Well you should know being the master!!