|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 14, 2009 0:57:07 GMT
"What we can say is that warming has stopped for a period of years..."
Well, the data tinkering has NOT stopped, and for some reason, it's always downward for historic data, upwards for recent data.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 14, 2009 10:09:29 GMT
"What we can say is that warming has stopped for a period of years..." Well, the data tinkering has NOT stopped, and for some reason, it's always downward for historic data, upwards for recent data. It lends a whole new meaning to the word, falsification which is not in the Popperian sense.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 14, 2009 16:51:53 GMT
Nautonnier,
I think you're misinterpreting this -100W forcing. What's important is how the clouds change in response to additional warming. This may change the -100 to -98 or -102, say, which is a feedback of + or -2 watts in addition to the initial cause of warming.
Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 14, 2009 22:48:53 GMT
Nautonnier, I think you're misinterpreting this -100W forcing. What's important is how the clouds change in response to additional warming. This may change the -100 to -98 or -102, say, which is a feedback of + or -2 watts in addition to the initial cause of warming. Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made. A 100 W/m² negative forcing for increased cloud cover exceeds that built into the models by a factor of 2 or 3. A putative warming-induced change in cloud forcing of 2 W/m² is thus trivial. Let's not talk about silly, here, Steve. It's bad for your image.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 15, 2009 3:45:05 GMT
Nautonnier, I think you're misinterpreting this -100W forcing. What's important is how the clouds change in response to additional warming. This may change the -100 to -98 or -102, say, which is a feedback of + or -2 watts in addition to the initial cause of warming. Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made. " Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made"I fully agree it is silly – I was quoting a NASA statement that the “ Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution”Nasa News Stories Archive - December 6, 2001 - THE SUN'S CHILLY IMPACT ON EARTH
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 16, 2009 9:23:39 GMT
Nautonnier, I think you're misinterpreting this -100W forcing. What's important is how the clouds change in response to additional warming. This may change the -100 to -98 or -102, say, which is a feedback of + or -2 watts in addition to the initial cause of warming. Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made. A 100 W/m² negative forcing for increased cloud cover exceeds that built into the models by a factor of 2 or 3. A putative warming-induced change in cloud forcing of 2 W/m² is thus trivial. Let's not talk about silly, here, Steve. It's bad for your image. I think the 100W figure is the net effect of clouds - it's not related to increases or decreases. Models don't have figures "built into" them. The cloud feedback is a result of the model. Do I have an image that is worth protecting ? (no need to answer).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 16, 2009 9:31:18 GMT
Nautonnier, I think you're misinterpreting this -100W forcing. What's important is how the clouds change in response to additional warming. This may change the -100 to -98 or -102, say, which is a feedback of + or -2 watts in addition to the initial cause of warming. Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made. " Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made"I fully agree it is silly – I was quoting a NASA statement that the “ Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution”Nasa News Stories Archive - December 6, 2001 - THE SUN'S CHILLY IMPACT ON EARTH The context of your use is the below trend temperature changes of the past few years. ie. the mantra that "how come temperatures are falling when CO2 levels are rising faster than ever". Even in the above quote, changes in the sun's energy is only *one* of the biggest factors, so leaves plenty of space for PDO, AMO, SAM, ENSO etc. which will continue to cause ups and downs in the annual, multiannual and, occasionally decadal temperature record for centuries to come in spite of other longer term forcings on climate.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 16, 2009 13:24:46 GMT
steve writes "Even in the above quote, changes in the sun's energy is only *one* of the biggest factors, so leaves plenty of space for PDO, AMO, SAM, ENSO etc. which will continue to cause ups and downs in the annual, multiannual and, occasionally decadal temperature record for centuries to come in spite of other longer term forcings on climate."
I am not sure that I understand what you are getting at. Neither Smith et al in Science, not Keenleyside et al in Nature predict that global temperatures will fall. They merely forecast a point of inflexion, when temperatures do not rise, as predicted from increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Smith predicts temperatures will start rising again in 2010, and Keenleyside in 2015. So I am not sure what you mean by the "ups and downs". Should global temperatures actually fall, and no-one can find any sort of statistical technique to show that they are not falling, then the proponents of AGW will be in a difficult position. They will need to find some new models that show that falling temperatures are consistent with increasing levels of CO2. However, by this time even the Royal Society will have come to realize that AGW is merely smoke and mirrors.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 16, 2009 14:45:17 GMT
steve writes "Even in the above quote, changes in the sun's energy is only *one* of the biggest factors, so leaves plenty of space for PDO, AMO, SAM, ENSO etc. which will continue to cause ups and downs in the annual, multiannual and, occasionally decadal temperature record for centuries to come in spite of other longer term forcings on climate." I am not sure that I understand what you are getting at. Neither Smith et al in Science, not Keenleyside et al in Nature predict that global temperatures will fall. They merely forecast a point of inflexion, when temperatures do not rise, as predicted from increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Smith predicts temperatures will start rising again in 2010, and Keenleyside in 2015. So I am not sure what you mean by the "ups and downs". Should global temperatures actually fall, and no-one can find any sort of statistical technique to show that they are not falling, then the proponents of AGW will be in a difficult position. They will need to find some new models that show that falling temperatures are consistent with increasing levels of CO2. However, by this time even the Royal Society will have come to realize that AGW is merely smoke and mirrors. Basically, if you look at this plot then you would reasonably expect that the amount of short term variability should not change in response to a long term warming trend. hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.pngIn the past, there have been dips and rises of a few tenths of a degree on periods of years and decades. If you added a 0.1-0.2C per decade trend to the past temperature record you would still get many examples of cooler years following warmer years. Why shouldn't it be the same now.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 16, 2009 15:50:03 GMT
steve writes "In the past, there have been dips and rises of a few tenths of a degree on periods of years and decades. If you added a 0.1-0.2C per decade trend to the past temperature record you would still get many examples of cooler years following warmer years. Why shouldn't it be the same now."
Thanks. Now I realize what you are saying. You are looking at what I call "noise"; variations of temperature over short periods of time. I think in terms of what I call "climate temperature"; the long term trend of termperatures with the noise averaged out.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 16, 2009 16:05:27 GMT
Basically, if you look at this plot then you would reasonably expect that the amount of short term variability should not change in response to a long term warming trend. hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.pngIn the past, there have been dips and rises of a few tenths of a degree on periods of years and decades. If you added a 0.1-0.2C per decade trend to the past temperature record you would still get many examples of cooler years following warmer years. Why shouldn't it be the same now. Indeed, you would reasonably expect it. That's the problem with AGW though, you'd have expected the warming as well. Look at the previous warming trend...almost identical. Sure, the cooling trend that followed wasn't as steep but having another steep warming period certainly shouldn't have been cause for alarm, especially when the previous one involved essentially no increases in greenhouse gasses. Then there's the other problem with AGW. Remember, it's not some warming we'd worry about, it's extreme warming. Since there's an ongoing cycle of warming/cooling we can't just use the ramp-up of the warming period to make projections, we need to use (smoothed) peak to peak warming. A simple cut and past shows you that...oops...we shouldn't expect any substantial warming. (rant follows, please feel free to ignore) On top of that we have the other bit of insanity. Seriously, look at the little ice age...the time when many of the glaciers formed. Look at the rise and fall of human civilization coinciding with the medieval warm period and the little ice age...as well as other warm/cool periods. Alarmists like Gore and Hansen actually imply that all those warm periods when humans prospered in the past are DANGEROUS and will kill billions. Tell me...in all honesty...what kind of idiot can stand there and tell us that returning to the pre-industrial temperatures is a good thing for humans or life in general? What kind of absolute moron stands up boldly stating that BILLIONS could die if it warms up by a couple of degrees because it would cause starvation...and that the IDEAL solution would be to return to a time that was so cold we'd lose most of a growing season? What kind of idiot thinks it's BETTER for earth to ride the knife edge of such low CO2 levels that most plants can't even grow...oh and by the way...would reduce crop yields a further 25%?
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 16, 2009 17:12:21 GMT
I thought that was a great rant...but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 16, 2009 18:08:54 GMT
[ That's just a stupid and baseless denier rant that you've read somewhere in the blogosphere.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 16, 2009 18:27:54 GMT
[ That's just a stupid and baseless denier rant that you've read somewhere in the blogosphere. No, it's just me. SO...you believe that most of the warming of the past century is from CO2 and that the world would be better off if it returned to those pre-industrial levels? So you believe that we should return to substantially colder, more inhospitable times? You feel that the loss of the 25% of crop yields from lower CO2 (which alone would kill hundreds of millions by its self) and the loss of most of a growing season (which would kill billions more) and the horrible costs of dealing with the huge physical masses of snow/ice...AND the horribly high costs in human lives...you believe all that is better? No offense but the belief that such conditions would be BETTER sounds pretty stupid to me. I think it's pretty obvious that IF (note the IF...it's the assertion I have a problem with, not you specifically) you think all these things are better (ignoring if they're under our control), you've never given it any REAL thought...just like Al Gore and James Hansen. But again, there's no significant evidence that CO2 is causing substantial warming. There's only strong (and obvious) evidence that it's warmed.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 16, 2009 19:08:05 GMT
" Also the change in the greenhouse effect is *in addition* to natural variations. It is quite wrong to say it overwhelms them. For it to "overwhelm" natural variations it would have to reduce variability - so it's a bit of a silly mistake to have made"I fully agree it is silly – I was quoting a NASA statement that the “ Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution”Nasa News Stories Archive - December 6, 2001 - THE SUN'S CHILLY IMPACT ON EARTH The context of your use is the below trend temperature changes of the past few years. ie. the mantra that "how come temperatures are falling when CO2 levels are rising faster than ever". Even in the above quote, changes in the sun's energy is only *one* of the biggest factors, so leaves plenty of space for PDO, AMO, SAM, ENSO etc. which will continue to cause ups and downs in the annual, multiannual and, occasionally decadal temperature record for centuries to come in spite of other longer term forcings on climate. Here's your cake now you have eaten it So we could have had a long term cycle starting around 175 years ago that led to increasing temperatures and the slight changes due to a trace gas just happened to occur at the top of that 175 year cycle (or cycle of cycles). Remember that the IPCC case for AGW is that they 'could think of nothing else'. Not that they had empirically proved CO 2 caused 'warming'. You have provided a list of 'something elses' that together have resulted in a reversal of warming in the 1990s into a 3 or 4 year plateau then *cooling* over at least 3 years despite a more rapid increase in GHG than was expected in the IPCC models. If the natural effects are sufficient to do that - then they were also sufficient to cause the warming in the ascent from the Little Ice Age into the Grand Maximum of the 1990s.
|
|