Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[macdoc]

Without a driver there is no "underlying" warming trend.....period - full stop......

It's not orbital

The sun has been quiet and is in the wrong scale anyways given it's range

There is no reason not to think the same GHG mechanism that makes the planet habitable in the first place is not retaining more radiation now....

The mainstream science community understands this completely......the rest is ...manufactured controversy.......horsepucky in other words. ...

Move on and talk about mitigation, adaption, reversal, timing regionally - ALL of which are open to vigorous discussion......

The denying AGW nonsense is getting into flat earth society fringe territory...pathetic at best....

 

[Pixel42]

I'm curious as to why you persist in thinking GW=AGW. Could it not also be that 25% or 50% of GW = AGW, instead of what you appear to believe, 100%? If in your view no, then why not?

My answer to that would be that we know where we are in the Milankovich cycles, the amount of volcanic activity in the last few centuries doesn't seem exceptionally high or low, solar output variability - although it might account for some of the warming in the 20th century - doesn't seem to account for most of it, and the distribution of continents on the earth's surface hasn't changed significantly recently. So none of the known causes of previous climate change appear to be adequate to explain GW, whilst human activity has known consequences that certainly can explain it. It therefore seems likely that human activity is principally responsible for GW, perhaps not 100% of it but certainly a lot more than 50%

It's like trying to identify the cause of a forest fire. We know that forest fires occurred long before humanity appeared on the scene, and our investigations suggest that lightening was the principle cause. But we cannot then assume that all forest fires today are also caused by lightening. If a fire starts in a forest where no lightening has occurred for months, but where a bunch of kids were known to have been fooling about with matches at the very time it started ...

 

[macdoc]

It's far more fundamental than that.....GHG physics is well established and these guys want to try and deny that

You are attributing a random factor with kids with matches - even implying an unknowable aspect....that plays right into the hands of the denidiots.....

They are effectively claiming that there is no more rapid oxidation - that it stopped or it never was and it's all phlogiston ( aka currently cosmic rays )..

....that is the level of idiocy

 

[mhaze]

My answer to that would be that we know where we are in the Milankovich cycles, the amount of volcanic activity in the last few centuries doesn't seem exceptionally high or low, solar output variability - although it might account for some of the warming in the 20th century - doesn't seem to account for most of it, and the distribution of continents on the earth's surface hasn't changed significantly recently. So none of the known causes of previous climate change appear to be adequate to explain GW, whilst human activity has known consequences that certainly can explain it. It therefore seems likely that human activity is principally responsible for GW, perhaps not 100% of it but certainly a lot more than 50%.....

Oh, I just am not convinced of a high attribution.

You see, if we subtract out the PDO cycle then background temperature increase for the 20th century is about 0.4C. Suppose for the attribution for the 100 ppm increase in the 20th century is....

1. 50% of the 0.4C rise, then 0.2C attribution to AGW
2. 25% of the 0.4C rise, then 0.1C attribution to AGW
3. 100%of the 0.4C rise, then 0.4C attribution to AGW

And that's including all the real world feedbacks and forcings. The log effect of the CO2 makes it even less "Alarming", if we look at sensitivity to say a CO2 doubling.

So paraphrasing, not only do "Recent climate observations disagree with projections" but the whole of 20th century historical evidence on climate disagrees with projections.

Macdoc argues ...

The sun has been quiet and is in the wrong scale anyways given it's range

Huh? The sun has been unusually active in the 20th century. As for wrong scale and range, I have no idea what you may be referring to.

 

[Wangler]

Btw I am not spending much time here as I am locked in a hot project.

Is that supposed to be a pun?

Good luck on the project, we look forward to more contributions from you in the near future.

Don't be too much of a stranger.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, I just am not convinced of a high attribution.

You see, if we subtract out the PDO cycle then background temperature increase for the 20th century is about 0.4C. Suppose for the attribution for the 100 ppm increase in the 20th century is....

1. 50% of the 0.4C rise, then 0.2C attribution to AGW
2. 25% of the 0.4C rise, then 0.1C attribution to AGW
3. 100%of the 0.4C rise, then 0.4C attribution to AGW

And that's including all the real world feedbacks and forcings. The log effect of the CO2 makes it even less "Alarming", if we look at sensitivity to say a CO2 doubling.

So paraphrasing, not only do "Recent climate observations disagree with projections" but the whole of 20th century historical evidence on climate disagrees with projections.

Macdoc argues ...

The sun has been quiet and is in the wrong scale anyways given it's range

Huh? The sun has been unusually active in the 20th century. As for wrong scale and range, I have no idea what you may be referring to.

Oh my. The PDO cycle and all the old favourites. Don't you ever change. mhaze.

The world's going to be cooling now, yes?, with the PDO cycle? And an El Nino is very unlikely and nothing to see here ...

Remember how the PDO cycle, like cycles generally, would go around and come around? And each time coming round higher. The PDO is not a cycle anyway, look at its behaviour recently. It's all over the place. There is no cycle. The cycle was no more than speculation on such a short timescale.

There are two conditions in the Pacific associated with different distributions of heat, but the cooling condition for the US Pacific side is countered by a warming phase in the Western and Northern Pacific. Try to think outside boundaries of the US. This is global warming. And you are sooooo going to miss this decade as things kick off again, despite it being the warmest so far and the remarkable retreat of Arctic sea-ice. (How's that 60-80 year sea-ice cycle coming along? You guys used to be really tight.) And the permafrost melting. And the droughts and the wildfires and the insect-plagued forests and all that. Heck, you had global warming on Mars and Pluto, and "no warming since 1998/2001/55mya" and even the 60-80 year sea-ice cycle. Too late for that now, it's well overdue already.

Of course there'll always be the Antarctic. Greenland's not so comfortable any more, another twinge of nostalgia there. And that's about the only holdover. Except for Al Gore, of course; the guy is suspiciously healthy-looking. I suspect a Dorian Grey explanation.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, I just am not convinced of a high attribution.

And nothing will ever convince you.

You see, if we subtract out the PDO cycle ...

Meaning that sine each putative PDO cycle comes round warmer than the last the warming can be attributed to the cycle. Which is not valid. It also assumes that what is cooler on the US Pacific Coast must necessarily be cooler in the world. Which is also not valid.

I know you have scientists who'll tell you in a sciencey manner that it is valid, but they're very fond of de-trending in all sorts of manners. And you and yours are always going to fall for it.

 

[CapelDodger]

My answer to that would be that we know where we are in the Milankovich cycles, the amount of volcanic activity in the last few centuries doesn't seem exceptionally high or low ...

Quite right, although it's worth noting that the 19thCE was at the active end of normal. Actually from about 1790 to 1908, after which things have been at the quiet end. Tambura and Krakatao are only the best known examples. Taking into account thermal inertia it goes a long way towards explaining the cold 19thCE and the warming post-1908 for a few decades. By that time we were probably around the default state similar to the 11thCE which followed a similarly quiet few decades.

The industrial aerosol influence clouds the issue after that. So to speak .

 

[CapelDodger]

It's not orbital

OMG, they've gone orbital now? The panic is palpable .

 

[Poptech]

Global Cooling

real world ....long data records.....

Here's a few fun weather observations that seem to suggest something's amiss. I have lived in the same location since 1973, and here are some of the out of the ordinary things I have observed since 2003...

But hey you know what the scientists say: My records are anectdotal and don't mean a damned thing

That is what I say...

2005 - Hundreds of Children May Have Died in Afghanistan's Extreme Cold (The New York Times, February 18, 2005)
2005 - Cold, snow, rain, avalanches kill more than 1,000 in Asia (USA Today, February 23, 2005)
2005 - Global warming or global cooling? (The Times of India, February 27, 2005)
.
.
.
2009 - Worry about global cooling, not warming (Kennebec Journal, July 23, 2009)
2009 - Cool summer disappoints tourists, delays crops (Associated Press, July 25, 2009)
2009 - Global cooling hits Al Gore's home (The Daily Telegraph, UK, July 25, 2009)

Edtied for breach of Rule 6; a list of a few links is fine...a list of 370 is not.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[mhaze]

Oh my. The PDO cycle and all the old favourites. Don't you ever change. mhaze.

The world's going to be cooling now, yes?, with the PDO cycle? And an El Nino is very unlikely and nothing to see here ...

Remember how the PDO cycle, like cycles generally, would go around and come around? And each time coming round higher. The PDO is not a cycle anyway, look at its behaviour recently. It's all over the place. There is no cycle. The cycle was no more than speculation on such a short timescale.
....

No, you are wrong on this. The PDO has been around a long time, although it was first recognized in science around 1997. Global temperature has a well known PDO component, which is typically delt with before looking at underlying data. Etc. And I properly handled the matter in the post which you responded to, but did not seem to understand. You can refer to the IPCC and get yourself educatified.



Did your tomatoes prove AGW again this year?

 

[ferd burfle]

That is what I say...

2005 - Hundreds of Children May Have Died in Afghanistan's Extreme Cold (The New York Times, February 18, 2005)
2005 - Cold, snow, rain, avalanches kill more than 1,000 in Asia (USA Today, February 23, 2005)
2005 - Global warming or global cooling? (The Times of India, February 27, 2005)
.
.
.
2009 - Worry about global cooling, not warming (Kennebec Journal, July 23, 2009)
2009 - Cool summer disappoints tourists, delays crops (Associated Press, July 25, 2009)
2009 - Global cooling hits Al Gore's home (The Daily Telegraph, UK, July 25, 2009)

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Quite impressive....

unless you happen to know the difference between weather and climate.

Ferd

 

[macdoc]

Don't recycle the litter....quoting his whole nonsense is a serious waste of screen space as well as time...

••••

He's never heard of Arctic Dipole or excursions or La Nina.....more energy = wider swings....it would require learning about earth's geo-systems....

Answer the questions Poptech.... Is CO2 a driver?? Is methane a driver???
••••

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

 

[Poptech]

Don't recycle the litter....quoting his whole nonsense is a serious waste of screen space as well as time...

Wait Mac... your nonsensical post about 5 warming records is ok but my hundreds about cooling is litter? Fascinating.

Answer the questions Poptech...

Answer the question Socialism or Capitalism. You can do it Mac.

Ten Hottest Years (U.S.):
1. 1934
2. 1998
3. 1921
4. 2006
5. 1931
6. 1999
7. 1953
8. 1990
9. 1938
10. 1939

Interesting....

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That is what I say...{snip plagerized list}

Liar. You didn't say that at all. You copied that without attribution from newsbusters.
Google search results show this thread, newsbusters and someone else who spammed it to a phyzorg story comment section, but at least they attributed it.

 

[ferd burfle]

Don't recycle the litter....quoting his whole nonsense is a serious waste of screen space as well as time...

Yeah, good point, I suppose it was throwing perfectly good electrons after bad. I thought quoting the whole thing made the point better that quantity doesn't overcome fallacy.

Cheers,

Ferd

 

[Poptech]

Liar. You didn't say that at all. You copied that without attribution from newsbusters.
Google search results show this thread, newsbusters and someone else who spammed it to a phyzorg story comment section, but at least they attributed it.

I plagiarized myself? LMAO!!!!!! OMFG!!! You crack me up!!!

FYI I created the list and update it frequently.

I can't help it, I just fell out of my chair and spilt my drink all over my shirt. STOP! I can't take it. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I plagiarized myself? LMAO!!!!!! OMFG!!! You crack me up!!!

FYI I created the list and update it frequently.

I can't help it, I just fell out of my chair and spilt my drink all over my shirt. STOP! I can't take it. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!

Ah well, that's what I get for only checking the phyzorg link. Doesn't change the fact that you still don't grasp the difference between weather and climate...

That said, how about instead of a wall of links, you agregate them somewhere and post one single link?

 

[Wangler]

Pretty funny fail, US.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Pretty funny fail, US.

I've done worse. And are the rolleyes supposed to represent snark for the overall content of your post, an addenda to the text or are you expressing sarcasm about my fail being funny?