Global warming

[a_unique_person]

Here is a chart and cyclic smoothing that seems to show pretty easily why the temperatures of the last 150 years or so have been what they were.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8342http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446ebe79371e34.png

Hadley says in a few years, the cycle will be upward again, your graph, which I am assuming is based on Singers work says in a few years it will be clearly down. So by 2010 both sides will be able to pretty well agree, AGW is real or not?

 

[mhaze]

1. There has been no cooling trend, at best a levelling off from a steady upward trend. (which your graph describes).

More or less we agree. I'm saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed. You're saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed because the MET said it would.

2. Is not evidence of anything.

Looks pretty simple to me. They agree with us - no warming coming - got to have a quick rationalization for it. Whoever in the MET made that dumb prediction of "warmest year ever" in Jan 2007 does not want to be fired right away does he?

3. The low calculations of climate sensitivity have been demonstrated to seriously underestimate the correct value.

AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.

The recorded temperatures do not show that increase.

So...AUP, mhaze and the MET agree the next couple of years will not show a "exponential temperature rise", etc.

Where is your big hypothesized CO2 effect?

 

[David Rodale]

More or less we agree. I'm saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed. You're saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed because the MET said it would.

Looks pretty simple to me. They agree with us - no warming coming - got to have a quick rationalization for it. Whoever in the MET made that dumb prediction of "warmest year ever" in Jan 2007 does not want to be fired right away does he?

AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.

The recorded temperatures do not show that increase.

So...AUP, mhaze and the MET agree the next couple of years will not show a "exponential temperature rise", etc.

Where is your big hypothesized CO2 effect?

Met O's 'new and improved' global warming:

Writing in Science, Met Office researchers project that at least half of the years between 2009 and 2014 are likely to exceed existing records.

However, the Hadley Centre researchers said that the influence of natural climatic variations were likely to dampen the effects of emissions from human activities between now and 2009.

Translation: "Observations are contrary to AGW predictions; global warming has stopped. Previous climate models were wrong, but our 'new and improved' climate model is accurate....we really mean it this time, just you wait and see".

Met O has essentially conceded warming has stopped, but still insert a disclaimer concerning “ dampen the effects of emissions from human activities” to keep in step with AGW as if to infer we are only experiencing a speed bump due to some unspecified temporary “natural climatic variations” overcoming the untested hypothesis of CO2 driving climate.

Natural variations? What natural variation? We've been told humans are responsible for 20th century warming. IPCC is wrong?

What do you suppose is the “natural cycle” the article is referring to, a temporary decreasing trend in human/moose/livestock flatulation? No, it’s the sun.

Met O knows very well based on the literature there is a tight correlation between temperature and solar activity despite attempts to minimize it. As MHaze has linked to http://www.solarcycle24.com , the sun is currently in a state of relative calm. For a period there will be cooling until SC24 begins at which point will determine a return to warmth or a sustained increased period of cooling.

Some solar researchers predict a strong SC24, others weak. Met O is betting on very strong. What is known is the longer SC23 lingers on, the more likely SC24 will be weak.

One can assume if Met O’s ‘new and improved’ climate model can take natural variations into account, that would mean solar, cosmic rays, precipitation, clouds, ocean decadal oscillations, aerosols, are now suddenly well understood (IPPC Holy Scriptures have a low LOSU) and all are included into their ‘new and improved’ climate model. Is it a coincidence their prediction of increased warming coincides with strong SC24 predictions?


Prediction of strong SC24:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/Dik06GRLMar.pdf

Prediction of weak SC24:
http://www.spacew.com/news/05Mar2005/index.php
http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Session3/piyali_ihy.pdf
Schatten also predicts weak.

General information:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf
http://sidc.oma.be/news/094/SolarCycle24-eng.pdf
http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/con...default&id=default&ID=605&ww=1&view_records=1

Make no mistake. It is the sun that drives climate. Met O is counting on it.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.solarcycle24.com , the sun is currently in a state of relative calm. For a period there will be cooling until SC24 begins at which point will determine a return to warmth or a sustained increased period of cooling.

Make no mistake. It is the sun that drives climate. Met O is counting on it.

Relative calm?????

Look at those pictures.

The sun looks like a placid lake in the morning with not even a ripple.....

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Thanks for make my point. (if you don't understand this, again, take irony 101)

We're not all like you. Scientists very usually will pursue the truth no matter how inconvenient for them; scientists who cheat are an exceptionally small minority and ousted by their peers as soon as unmasked.

I kinda like the chutzpah with how you try defaming an entire scientific discipline merely because it is politically inconvenient for you; but never mind, it's not like your opinion matters in the slightest whatsoever. Will you also attack historians simply because you like to describe Russia as still communist?

 

[mhaze]

That upward trend is still too fast for coming out of the ice age

I'm feeling generous today.

Say the current decadal temperature trend is 0.15 C per decade.

I'll allow you 0.025C for all man's AGW effects, and of that, 0.005C per decade for the effect of CO2.

Deal?

 

[mhaze]

Victoria is on the verge of having to build another base load power station, and it doesn't have the water available to support one. The price is going to be huge. Solar hot water systems are finally becoming a well understood and efficient means of providing hot water, and pay for themselves when the true cost of base load power is factored in.

Looks like Victoria has lots of water.

And from how Warwick Hughes blog, a reader writes in.

Victoria is now going to spend $3.6 billion building de-sal plants and pipelines when all they needed to do is build the Mitchel River dam for $0.5billion, which was planned in 2000 but was cancelled by Bracks for religious reasons.

The Vic government has knowingly and deliberatley created the water crisis. And now they lie about rainfall patterns to cover their buts.
​

What is the name of the foreign corporation that is getting the 10-20 billion dollars in business for those un needed desalt plants?

Local politics, not AGW.

By the way, do the math on those solar hot water heaters. They will make a dent in power consumption so tiny it won't even be noticed.

Again, local politics. No AGW.

 

[a_unique_person]

Looks like Victoria has lots of water.

And from how Warwick Hughes blog, a reader writes in.

Victoria is now going to spend $3.6 billion building de-sal plants and pipelines when all they needed to do is build the Mitchel River dam for $0.5billion, which was planned in 2000 but was cancelled by Bracks for religious reasons.

The Vic government has knowingly and deliberatley created the water crisis. And now they lie about rainfall patterns to cover their buts.
​

What is the name of the foreign corporation that is getting the 10-20 billion dollars in business for those un needed desalt plants?

Local politics, not AGW.

By the way, do the math on those solar hot water heaters. They will make a dent in power consumption so tiny it won't even be noticed.

Again, local politics. No AGW.

The Mitchell river is the last major river that hasn't been damed. It would add 28% capacity to our water system. That is, given the drought we are now in, which appears to be partly due to global warming, we would not be that much better off. Our current status is 39% full, adding in that dam would only get us to about 50% full, still in serious trouble.

And Warwick Hughes is a nong, a serious nutter.

 

[a_unique_person]

The desalination plant will have a capacity of 150 billion litres. That is every year, including drought years. The problem with dams is they don't add any extra capacity to you during a drought, and with our current 10 year dry spell, that is significant. The largest dam that was supposed to drought proof Melbourne, the Thompson dam, has never filled. The La Nina that was supposed to turn up this year appears to have fizzled out. Wheat crops are going to fail over much of Australia. Maybe next year La Nina will arrive, maybe it never will, maybe from now on all we will get are these weak events that only give us what used to be our average rainfall.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hadley says in a few years, the cycle will be upward again, your graph, which I am assuming is based on Singers work says in a few years it will be clearly down. So by 2010 both sides will be able to pretty well agree, AGW is real or not?

mhaze knows of a cycle that has eight years to run, so we're looking at 2015 at a minimum. An absolute minimum, very unlikely.

And what you need, by the way, is not water but nuclear power instead of all that dirty coal and the CO2 it produces which might not be - probably isn't - a problem anyway but why not bring it up? I'm not feeling much love for Aussies at the moment either. For obvious reasons.

It's all your own fault. For some reason. Whatever it is.

 

[mhaze]

The desalination plant will have a capacity of 150 billion litres. That is every year, including drought years. The problem with dams is they don't add any extra capacity to you during a drought, and with our current 10 year dry spell, that is significant. The largest dam that was supposed to drought proof Melbourne, the Thompson dam, has never filled. The La Nina that was supposed to turn up this year appears to have fizzled out. Wheat crops are going to fail over much of Australia. Maybe next year La Nina will arrive, maybe it never will, maybe from now on all we will get are these weak events that only give us what used to be our average rainfall.

AUP, please understand my point of view on this matter.

The numbers say that Australia needs nuclear power. The numbers.

That's not talking ethics, green vs. conservative, etc. Just the numbers. That's what economists and statisticians, businesspeople and engineers look at. It's not what politicians look at.

So if I seem quick to brush off the solar hot water and the windmills, it isn't because of well, an opinion.

It would indeed be unfortunate if the green lobby against nuclear leaned for the coal/with windmills and solar ec. That's sort of....a giant politically correct lie, to put it mildly. If it did turn out that CO2 emissions was a real problem (of course I'll not agree to that but let's imagine here) then there is NO solution possible within the domain of coal/alternative energy.

Repeat that over and over. Politicians won't tell you that.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Antarctic Ice Levels Hit Record High

Highest amount seen since record-keeping began


Researchers at the University of Illinois are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.

http://www.dailytech.com/Antarctic+Ice+Levels+Hit+Record+High/article8871.htm

 

[oponol]

Met O's 'new and improved' global warming:

Translation: "Observations are contrary to AGW predictions; global warming has stopped. Previous climate models were wrong, but our 'new and improved' climate model is accurate....we really mean it this time, just you wait and see".

Uh observations are not contrary to AGW predictions. Climate models give long term projections of climate, not year-to-year noisy variation. Ie if they predict 0.2C warming per decade that could be 0.1C up in the first 3 years, 0.05C down in the next 4 and 0.15C up in the last 3. Or it could be some other distribution that ends in about 0.2C warming.

Met O has essentially conceded warming has stopped

Only in the same way that you could say warming stopped at other periods in the last 30 years. The warming trend is not upwards continuously, it has noise in it. Sometimes multiple successive years will show no increase.

but still insert a disclaimer concerning “ dampen the effects of emissions from human activities” to keep in step with AGW as if to infer we are only experiencing a speed bump due to some unspecified temporary “natural climatic variations” overcoming the untested hypothesis of CO2 driving climate.

I refer you to the global surface temprature records which clearly show these bumps do exist

Natural variations? What natural variation? We've been told humans are responsible for 20th century warming. IPCC is wrong?

Natural variation does exist as noise over the overall upward trend

What do you suppose is the “natural cycle” the article is referring to, a temporary decreasing trend in human/moose/livestock flatulation? No, it’s the sun.

Yes for example take the solar cycle, up and down and up and down in a cycle of about 11 years. That cycle does not explain the last 30 years of warming. It does explain variation over that long term warming though.

Met O knows very well based on the literature there is a tight correlation between temperature and solar activity despite attempts to minimize it.

The literature supports a fall away in correlation between solar activity and global temperature in the last 30 years.

Some solar researchers predict a strong SC24, others weak. Met O is betting on very strong.

No Met will be simply assuming the Sun will follow a similar trend that it has done over the last 50 years - eg virtually flat.

Make no mistake. It is the sun that drives climate. Met O is counting on it.

I suspect rising greenhouse gases are affecting it more in the long term now.

 

[oponol]

Looks pretty simple to me. They agree with us - no warming coming - got to have a quick rationalization for it.

I believe they say no warming in the next 2 years I believe, but that the long term warming trend over the last 30 will continue.

Whoever in the MET made that dumb prediction of "warmest year ever" in Jan 2007 does not want to be fired right away does he?

I believe they gave about 60% probability of that occuring. To date (jan-aug) 2007 is about the 4th warmest year on record (and during a solar minimum too huh)

AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.

This would be ignoring cooling effects over the 20th century (eg aerosols and volcanic erruptions) which dampen the warming from co2, and ignores the lag in temperature response which means total warming from the current rise in co2 hasn't yet been reached.

What matters is that climate models with the IPCC climate sensitivity that take all this into account are able to reproduce 20th century temperature trends:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Met O has essentially conceded warming has stopped

If you observe an exceptionally quiet week in Baghdad, with no IEDs, skirmishes, ambushes, suicide bombings or death threats, can we conclude that terrorism has stopped, disband the Coalition, tear down that Baghdad Wall thingie, and send the brave soldiers home? Or does it just mean it's a quiet week and that the bad guys will be back soon?

It's the same with global warming. We're looking at a trend of warming over the next decades. One or two years means nothing.

 

[mhaze]

I believe they say no warming in the next 2 years I believe, but that the long term warming trend over the last 30 will continue.
I believe they gave about 60% probability of that occuring. To date (jan-aug) 2007 is about the 4th warmest year on record (and during a solar minimum too huh)

Sounds about right, I get 7th warmest year. Doesn't matter, the issue was their bold media splash about their prediction it was going to be the "warmest year ever". Hubris.

Quote:
AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.
​

This would be ignoring cooling effects over the 20th century (eg aerosols and volcanic erruptions) which dampen the warming from co2, and ignores the lag in temperature response which means total warming from the current rise in co2 hasn't yet been reached.

What matters is that climate models with the IPCC climate sensitivity that take all this into account are able to reproduce 20th century temperature trends:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

No. The challenge is for AGW believers to show some correlation or relationship between temperature and CO2. I suggested 1850, then changed it to 1950. Doesn't matter. You pick the time range, exclude some years if you think that volcanoes affected the data in those years.

Just don't go running for the models or the lab measurements.

Just show some actual relationship between temperature and CO2, in the atmosphere. Not unreasonable, right?

Or let's say it differently. I know quite well it is a complex system, but there is alleged this huge CO2 impact, so please show me what the best is you can do regarding actually showing that A + B cause C.

By the way, would Meedl et al's data, methods, model parameters, and models as used for the study befully archived and available for the purposes of someone wishing to replicate or check the work?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There will be a lot more dying due to climate change than that. As I said, it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat. The human body is very capable of surviving temperatures below it's nominal heat, but not very good at surviving temperatures above that. The deaths in Europe from one heat wave was only a taste of what is to come.

What you call a heat wave in Europe is nothing compared to the average summer temp in many parts of the world, where millions of people manage quite well..

And yes, people will die due to climate change - in either direction..

We call it weather...

 

[oponol]

No. The challenge is for AGW believers to show some correlation or relationship between temperature and CO2.

If you want a good correlation then you'll have to look at the last 30 years where the anthropogenic signal has broken through natural variation. Before this period the anthropogenic signal was too weak (eg greenhouse gases hadn't increased enough) to be detectable over natural variation.

By the way, would Meedl et al's data, methods, model parameters, and models as used for the study befully archived and available for the purposes of someone wishing to replicate or check the work?

Their methodology and parameters are laid out in the paper. The data for the last century is available from other groups. Meedl's work has been reproduced successfully by other groups operating their own climate models. Ie it's apparent that climate models are able to reproduce last century global temperature trends.

 

[mhaze]

If you want a good correlation then you'll have to look at the last 30 years where the anthropogenic signal has broken through natural variation. Before this period the anthropogenic signal was too weak (eg greenhouse gases hadn't increased enough) to be detectable over natural variation.

Perhaps.

Perhaps the last 30 years is just the upward rise of the 60-80 year natural climate cycle.

Perhaps there could be some AGW overlaid on top of that natural variation and some fraction of that could be CO2 effects. But how much?

Surely it is possible to put some numbers to this empirically, instead of a bunch of arm waving about the models say so?

Of course one could go back to the ice cores, also. Other historical records of various sorts. Atmospheric CO2 measurements that predate the current monitoring station on the side of the volcano.

I'd just like to see a AGW Believer come up with the best they can based on actual temperatures and CO2 records. That's not even asking for a good relation between the two - just the best that they can do.

If it is a weak relationship that is easily refuted by other comparisons of temperature and CO2 (leaving aside volcano eruptions and the like) that would be quite interesting, wouldn't it?

The Argument to Authority - that we've got to trust the computer model - will not fly.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

What you call a heat wave in Europe is nothing compared to the average summer temp in many parts of the world, where millions of people manage quite well..

Of course they do. They're used to the hot weather. They have air conditioners and fans and know to drink lots of water and not exhaust themselves. Most Europeans don't. Climate change is just that - change. New threats we're not used to.

It's akin to how Houston would grind to a halt whenever snowed even the least bit there. Tiny amounts of snow, barely enough to cover the ground, is no issue in temperate Bergen, Norway, but in sub-tropical Houston it was crippling as the Houstonians were not used to it.

And yes, people will die due to climate change - in either direction..

Yup. Global warming is bad, global cooling is also bad.

We call it weather...

There's a difference between weather and climate.