Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

Like I said right click on the image.

The clear trend is that the Stratospheric temperature cooling has leveled off.

You don’t establish trends by looking at them, you apply statistical tests.

A hot spot is also expected in the upper Troposphere, but it is nowhere to be seen?

Neither is it not seen. The measurements available are insufficiently accurate to draw any conclusions, so saying you can't see it is a bit like standing in a pitch black room and insisting nothing exists because you can't see anything.

 

[lomiller]

Dr. Roy Spencer is the keeper of the UAH record.

UAH has been the most error prone dataset by far. After Spencer and Christie were forced to correct the largest errors it came into rough agreement with all the other datasets in showing that the earth is warming rapidly.

It’s remains the farthest outlier and contains seasonal oddities that suggest it still contains errors. Of you want satellite data use RSS, it starts from the same raw data but contains none of the troubled history of the UAH results. In fact it was the RSS team that discovered the source of the errors in the UAH results.

 

[Trakar]

Yes. Ive read about the time lag business before. Yes. Scary thought. No joke.
And also, i`d imagine because of the time lag factor, that that is one of the things that makes teasing out correct data, so difficult, when trying to show direct correlation between causal and result.
And why i suppise those saying the sun did it, can get their foot in the door.
Its almost like the religious argument(i just posted in another thread moments ago). You have split camps there as well. Same thing where one group says there is all this scientific evidence...yet the other camp doesnt either buy into that or believe other factors are at work, either independently or jointly, with the scientific evidence.

There is statistically insignificant disagreement on any major aspect of climate science, at least with respect to whether or not there is ample and compelling evidence in support of that understanding. There are discussions about timeframes, rates of change, and impact intensity, but, the science and geologic evidences make it pretty clear that these are the things that happen when the climate is subjected to increasing amounts of CO2. It boils down to a variation of the old canard "it isn't a matter of 'if' this is going to happen, it is a matter of 'when' it is going to happen, and how fast it will get bad."

That said, yes, the environmental system is a very complex system. Adding energy to one part of this system takes time to flow through and distribute itself throughout such a system. Environmental reservoirs tend to be reservoirs because they are semi-isolated from the environment. Lags are caused because it takes a significant amount of accumulated energy increases to overcome these isolation factors and stimulate a release of the stored content of those reservoirs.

Greatly simplified analogy: If I stick an ice cube onto a cookie tray in a 400°F oven, it does not instantly flash completely into steam. Lags are represented by how long it takes for the ice to melt from the outside in, and how long it takes the water formed to boil and evaporate into steam.

 

[Corsair 115]

Warmist propaganda, the temperature record is on a 17 year plateau.

So NASA and NOAA are in the business of issuing "warmist propaganda"? Perhaps then you can answer the question I posed in post #2060 and which I repeated in post #2082. I'll repeat once more (the third time's the charm?); perhaps then you or another naysayer can chime in with an answer.


Here is my question for those who wish to assert climate change/global warming is not being driven primarily by humanity's carbon emissions: How do you explain away the great amount of scientific evidence (some of which has been directly cited in this thread)?

Are all the scientists and climatologists from around the world presenting evidence in favour of AGW simply wrong? Or are they deliberately presenting false evidence? If so, for what purpose?

Seems to me AGW naysayers have but two choices: (1) Claim all the decades of published evidence indicating AGW is simply wrong, in which case they have to explain how all those researchers got it wrong and continue to get it wrong; or (2) assert it is some sort of global organized conspiracy to present false or misleading evidence for the purposes of... well, doing something nefarious one presumes.

So which is it going to be?

 

[lomiller]

Not really, no. The temperature graph you yourself posted shows a general rise from 1999 to around 2004. Only after that do we hit a plateau.

These years are still within the error band of the existing trend. Almost all model runs have similar periods where temperature doesn’t rise simply due to random variation above and below the underlying trend.

 

[Arnold Martin]

So the world, on average, was warmer in this November than in any November since records began.

It wasn't. The phrase "since 1880" is used because that's when the record began.
.

OK .... so if records began in 1880 how can scientists know what the temperatures were like previous to that ?

130 years is a very small blip in the age of the earth.

 

[Corsair 115]

Here is my question for those who wish to assert climate change/global warming is not being driven primarily by humanity's carbon emissions: How do you explain away the great amount of scientific evidence (some of which has been directly cited in this thread)?

Are all the scientists and climatologists from around the world presenting evidence in favour of AGW simply wrong? Or are they deliberately presenting false evidence? If so, for what purpose?

Seems to me AGW naysayers have but two choices: (1) Claim all the decades of published evidence indicating AGW is simply wrong, in which case they have to explain how all those researchers got it wrong and continue to get it wrong; or (2) assert it is some sort of global organized conspiracy to present false or misleading evidence for the purposes of... well, doing something nefarious one presumes.

So which is it going to be?

Will none of the resident naysayers tackle the above?

 

[Yerushalmi]

These years are still within the error band of the existing trend. Almost all model runs have similar periods where temperature doesn’t rise simply due to random variation above and below the underlying trend.

But of course. Such short pauses have been seen before, but in each case the slope of the temperature graph rises more sharply before and after said pause in order to compensate for the temporary lack of a rise. I'm just pointing out that the pause in and of itself is only evident for the last eight to ten years (if it really were seventeen years like they're claiming, that's almost longer than the previous warming period, and you'd have to start wondering if there was any warming at all).

 

[Arnold Martin]

no warming yet the warmest November

http://www.livescience.com/42020-november-2013-hottest-on-record.html

First you say it was the warmest November

Then you say it was the warmest November since Records were kept

Then you say records were only kept since 1880

You started it !!!!

 

[macdoc]

Yers

(if it really were seventeen years like they're claiming, that's almost longer than the previous warming period, and you'd have to start wondering if there was any warming at all).

It has been pointed out several times that there is no "pause" in the ocean heat increase over that period and the likely reason for the atmospheric slow down in heat gain is an more active LaNina.
That is in evidence here as the ocean heat gain has accelerated.
WIth permission from RealClimate

Please do not focus on the atmosphere alone as the cryosphere and ocean are critical systems.
Atmosphere is a small factor by comparison.

Don't let the deniers set the agenda....move on.

 

[macdoc]

AM

First you say it was the warmest November

Then you say it was the warmest November since Records were kept

Then you say records were only kept since 1880

You started it !!!!

and you don't seem to comprehend it.

ONLY kept since 1880???!!.....that's a bloody long baseline. Any maximum shifts the bell curve.
Slightly above or below average is normal variation.
Substantial monthly regional numbers consistenly above average ( as the last decade as been globally ) or warmest ever ( including night time records which are very significant ) indicates a climate trend.

 

[DC]

First you say it was the warmest November

Then you say it was the warmest November since Records were kept

Then you say records were only kept since 1880

You started it !!!!

it is the warmest november on record.
anyone halfway informed about this topic knows what is meant with "since 1880", you on the other hand didn't know that, which is pretty ambarrassing. maybe you should spread less lies and myths and actually inform yourself on this topic.

seems like your daughter knows just as little on this topic, how else could she have sold her house because she missunderstood the IPCC projections for her region......

have you explained to her the projections? or did she read them on her own and missread it? tell me, how could that happen?

 

[DC]

But of course. Such short pauses have been seen before, but in each case the slope of the temperature graph rises more sharply before and after said pause in order to compensate for the temporary lack of a rise. I'm just pointing out that the pause in and of itself is only evident for the last eight to ten years (if it really were seventeen years like they're claiming, that's almost longer than the previous warming period, and you'd have to start wondering if there was any warming at all).

not at all. we know there is an energy imbalance, we may not know exactly how the energy spreads inside the system. but we watch the incoming and outgoing radiation.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/Wildetal_IRS2012_GlobalEnergyBalance.pdf

 

[wombatwal]

So NASA and NOAA are in the business of issuing "warmist propaganda"? Perhaps then you can answer the question I posed in post #2060 and which I repeated in post #2082. I'll repeat once more (the third time's the charm?); perhaps then you or another naysayer can chime in with an answer.


Here is my question for those who wish to assert climate change/global warming is not being driven primarily by humanity's carbon emissions: How do you explain away the great amount of scientific evidence (some of which has been directly cited in this thread)?

Are all the scientists and climatologists from around the world presenting evidence in favour of AGW simply wrong? Or are they deliberately presenting false evidence? If so, for what purpose?

Seems to me AGW naysayers have but two choices: (1) Claim all the decades of published evidence indicating AGW is simply wrong, in which case they have to explain how all those researchers got it wrong and continue to get it wrong; or (2) assert it is some sort of global organized conspiracy to present false or misleading evidence for the purposes of... well, doing something nefarious one presumes.

So which is it going to be?

A very good question, something that I would like answered by those that deny man made climate change.

 

[Trakar]

OK .... so if records began in 1880 how can scientists know what the temperatures were like previous to that ?

130 years is a very small blip in the age of the earth.

The "Modern Standardized Instrument Record" over large portions of the planet only goes back to the late nineteenth century. There are historical and geologic evidences which allow us to peer much further back with reasonable precision and established validity.

 

[macdoc]

K .... so if records began in 1880 how can scientists know what the temperatures were like previous to that ?

There are numerous methods in multiple disciplines that reinforce each other ( search on paleoclimatology ) and the temperature we are concerned with is the Holocene after the last ice age as that is where our current biome emerged from and rapidly changing it will do it damage.

And in reality ...it's the change over the last century and the projection to the new century that is policy critical.

 

[Trakar]

But of course. Such short pauses have been seen before, but in each case the slope of the temperature graph rises more sharply before and after said pause in order to compensate for the temporary lack of a rise. I'm just pointing out that the pause in and of itself is only evident for the last eight to ten years (if it really were seventeen years like they're claiming, that's almost longer than the previous warming period, and you'd have to start wondering if there was any warming at all).

This is inaccurate and not in accord with the evidences.

 

[Yerushalmi]

This is inaccurate and not in accord with the evidences.

Which part(s)?

 

[Trakar]

Which part(s)?

The part(s) I quoted.

 

[macdoc]

I'm just pointing out that the pause in and of itself is only evident for the last eight to ten years (if it really were seventeen years like they're claiming, that's almost longer than the previous warming period, and you'd have to start wondering if there was any warming at all).

you're making an assumption of a pause which is patently wrong...the rate of atmospheric temperature may have slowed...but then the ocean kicked up.
Once more why focus on what "they" whoever "they" are are claiming?

Deal with the science and the published records.

As mentioned several times, aerosols and a shift in the ocean heat uptake are factors.

We'll see how it looks when another El Nino spins up.

That there was no "statistical change" does not mean there was no change especially using the 1998 El Nino outlier as a start point.
The atmosphere is a minor player in the heat equilbrium energy storage but it does produce the most visible effects of AGW in a sometimes regrettable "wild weather" format.