Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post
Now hold on there, we all know you is going to post something to try and say Nature is wrong in publishing that. Or try and explain the conclusions of the paper in a different way.

do you think global warming is limited to the atmosphere?? YOUR conclusions that was a hiatus in AGW are wrong.
The atmosphere is a small part of the geophysical system subject to warming from C02 knock on effects. Atmosphere, hydrosphere cryosphere.

WHERE the energy resides is transient. You would know that if you spent more time reading the science instead of asking people to repeat over and over the same basics.

ENSO, PDO, NAO are natural variations on they are not global climate drivers of change...they are very much regional climate influences and have an impact on atmospheric temperatures......the atmosphere is not the sole measurement as has been explained innumerable times.

You may read NATURE...does not mean, as in the case, that you actually understand what it says in the context of global warming and climate change.
Clearly you do not.

 

[Reality Check]

You can say it kept rising until the cows come home. It ain't going to make it true.

Except that it (global warming ) really did keep rising so the cows have come home and it is scientifically true that global warming has not paused .

This letter to Nature (Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling)

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.
...
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

is talking about the hiatus in surface temperatures. This has been picked up by the popular media as a confirmation of a hiatus in global warming which is just wrong.

Anyone who bothers to learn about climate science knows that the world is not just the surface - there also are oceans and their depths. The emphasis on surface temperatures in the literature is mainly because there is a lot more data over a longer period of time than oceanic temperature. Most of the heat is in the oceans and that has been rising. Thus global warming is continuing.

 

[r-j]

I don't read blogs. Nobody seems honest or even a real scientist on most of them. Obvious agendas.

 

[Reality Check]

Here's a way to understand what it sounds like.
...

Actually it sounds like a conversation between two ignorant people who do not know the difference between weather and climate !

It has nothing to do with this thread where posters have displayed the ability to tell the difference and presented the science that global warming has not paused despite the pause in surface temperatures.

 

[r-j]

Of course forums seem almost the same. The only difference is in forums you can at least get a debate going.

 

[Reality Check]

Here's another way to understand what it sounds like.

And another conversation between ignorant people, r-j .
Colder winters are a prediction of climate models!
I would give you a link to Skeptical Science containing the appropriate links to the scientific literature but you do not read blogs (and presumably forums as well )

 

[r-j]

Colder winters are a prediction of climate models!
)

Then provide a link to the evidence for your claim. Linking to a blog with an agenda is lazy and unlike a link to Nature or Science, a waste of time.

Google says your claim doesn't even exist!

 

[macdoc]

RC

Colder winters are a prediction of climate models!

Colder continental winters that should read. the link has been here in this thread numerous times.
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html
Some just can't be bothered to read or are wilfully ignorant....I'm leaning to the latter....seems a vacation did not get the trolling lesson across.

The impact of the dipole far more extreme this year with the stalled high drying California out, freezing the east coast in North America, bringing wild weather and rain to Britain and crazy warm temps in parts of the Arctic.

Arctic thaw significantly worsens global warming risk

12:53 18 February 2014 by Jeff Hecht
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
Melting ice is cooking the planet. Shrinking Arctic sea ice means the ocean is absorbing more energy from the sun, and it's now clear the effect is twice as big as thought – adding significantly to heating from greenhouse gases.

Arctic temperatures have risen 2 °C since the 1970s, leading to a 40 per cent dip in the minimum summer ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean. Open water soaks up more sunlight than ice, so as the ice retreats the ocean absorbs more energy, warming it and causing even more melting.

To measure the effect, Ian Eisenman of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, and colleagues turned to data from NASA's CERES satellite. They found that the Arctic Ocean's albedo – the fraction of sunlight it reflects back into space – dropped from 52 per cent in 1979 to 48 per cent in 2011. That may not seem like much, but it means a big rise in energy absorbed – equal to 25 per cent of that trapped by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the same period.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...worsens-global-warming-risk.html#.UwUXQXnjP3w

and starting to feedback on itself

 

[lomiller]

I don't read blogs.

Riiiight...
That’s why so many of your “ideas” are the same oft recited blog posts we’ve been debunking for a decade.

or even a real scientist on most of them.

http://www.realclimate.org/


Contributors and their publications:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"GA+Schmidt"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"ME+MANN"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"Ammann"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"R+Benestad"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"RS+Bradley"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"Rahmstorf"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"EJ+Steig"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"D+Archer"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+author:"Pierrehumbert"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

 

[Belz...]

Obvious agendas.

You don't spot the irony, there ?

 

[Reality Check]

Linking to a blog with an agenda is lazy and unlike a link to Nature or Science, a waste of time.

I hope that you do not have a delusion that every blog can be dismissed because of imaginary "agendas" r-j .

Not having the ability to look at credible blogs (with the agenda of presenting the scientific evidence !) and read the scientific literature that they cite is lazy, r-j!

An obsession with Nature or Science is also not good because many (most?) climate science papers are not published there.

RealClimate has been mentioned and their agenda is

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/#sthash.stsDTO9H.dpuf

Skeptical Science has been mentioned and their agenda is

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Of course Skeptical Science does have some option pieces with fewer (or no) citations, e.g. Global Warming and Cold Winters

Guest post by D.Salmons

If you were to look out most windows as of this writing, there is a good chance that you would be presented with an image of winter. All around me, winter has sprung, dumping measurable inches of frozen precipitation and snarling the usual habits of work and school as we struggle to cope with its effects on modern life. And more than a few of you might be asking yourself, "What happened to global warming?"
Well, the effects of global warming are all around us. That harsh winter that we are experiencing, it is not proof that global warming is not happening, but rather serves as proof that it is indeed happening, and even a bit faster than we might like to think.

 

[Reality Check]

Google says your claim doesn't even exist!

Is a lie (or hopefully a joke , r-j) since it gives one result on this search for the exact phrase "Colder winters are a prediction of climate models" (this forum). Search again and there will be 2 results!

Searching for 'Colder winters are a prediction of climate models' gives about 13,800,000 results.

 

[Iamme]

r-j, could you provide a brief refresher course on what you believe, regarding global warming, or the lack thereof?...for those popping in and out of this thread, or perhaps someone new to the thread?

 

[macdoc]

Consequences

trying to fit some science in betwixt the COTU crap...

UK must abandon or adapt in face of floods

19 February 2014 by Catherine Brahic
Magazine issue 2957. Subscribe and save

The UK's future is wet. How can Britons learn to live with the water, and who will have to move to higher ground?

MAKE room for the water. Major floods are causing havoc in the UK, and such events will keep happening. The country's future is wet, according to the latest models, and even in typical conditions it is prone to flooding (see map).

Can the UK stand firm against rising waters, or must we sound the retreat? Engineers and hydrologists contacted by New Scientist say it is now time to discuss this openly.

"This discussion isn't taking place with the public," says Tim Fox, head of the environment and energy division of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London. He says people need to know what it would cost to make the UK completely resilient. Then the question is "how much of that the public are willing to bear".

Since December, a strong jet stream has battered the UK with storm after storm, delivering violent ocean surges and record amounts of rain. Entire stretches of coastline have been dragged into the sea, and low-lying regions are waterlogged. Last week, the River Thames burst its banks, spilling water over thousands of properties. It is too soon to say whether climate change made these events more likely (see "Warmer and wetter?"), but such floods will surely recur.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-or-adapt-in-face-of-floods.html#.UwVZlnnjP3x

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped insults....

Which just leaves your quote mining (lie ) of my post:

I would give you a link to Skeptical Science containing the appropriate links to the scientific literature but you do not read blogs (and presumably forums as well )

(my emphasis added)

ETA
Or you could read what you cite, r-j: Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA.

That is a climate model predicting "colder winters", i.e. the winter cooling in northwestern North America. Strictly speaking it is postdiction or hindcasting though.

 

[Mikemcc]

r-j, could you provide a brief refresher course on what you believe, regarding global warming, or the lack thereof?...for those popping in and out of this thread, or perhaps someone new to the thread?

Or those who can't keep pace with the goalposts...

 

[Haig]

It has nothing to do with this thread where posters have displayed the ability to tell the difference and presented the science that global warming has not paused despite the pause in surface temperatures.

If you don't like "pause in surface temperatures" how about "plateau" which it certainly has since 1998. This plateau was NOT predicted by any of the AGW models but then, what predictions HAS been correctly made by these models?

An interesting paper (this year) sets out the facts the Sun may have in climate change. Looking more and more obvious we have misjudged the sun's effect in all this.

An Astronomer’s View of Climate Change

This paper describes some of the astronomical effects that could be important for understanding the ice ages, historic climate changes and the recent temperature increase. These include changes in the sun's luminosity, periodic changes in the earth's orbital parameters, the sun's orbit around our galaxy, the variability of solar activity and the anticorrelation of cosmic ray flux with that activity. Finally recent trends in solar activity and global temperatures are compared with the predictions of climate models.

Regrettably, there is no recognition of the significant decrease in solar activity during the last decade.

(my bold)

This astronomer’s view includes the following thoughts:

1) The present climate models have predicted rising global temperatures that actually have been constant since 1998.

2) Like the astrophysical models described above, climate models can be helpful to test hypotheses and understand physical processes. However, more development is needed before the models are reliable enough for future planning. Without a clear understanding of the temperature plateau it is impossible to decide how much reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gases is needed to limit the temperature rise to 2 °C.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.8235.pdf

 

[Haig]

Re-reading that paper above I think this quote is also worth posting for comments. A natural explanation for the global warming of the 20th century? So the the Sun has been exceptionally active now it's gone into a much less active phase with Solar Cycle 25 predicted to be the weakest for hundreds of years. Mmmm

Solanki et al. (2004) found from 11,400 years of 14C data that the Sun has been exceptionally active over an unusually long duration from 1940 to 2000. The previous comparable activity was more than 8000 years ago.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.8235.pdf

 

[a_unique_person]

If you don't like "pause in surface temperatures" how about "plateau" which it certainly has since 1998. This plateau was NOT predicted by any of the AGW models but then, what predictions HAS been correctly made by these models?

An interesting paper (this year) sets out the facts the Sun may have in climate change. Looking more and more obvious we have misjudged the sun's effect in all this.

An Astronomer’s View of Climate Change


(my bold)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.8235.pdf

I think the Astronomer should find out first what Climate scientists have published, rather make **** up.

 

[r-j]

Oh that's ridiculous. Climate scientists get their knowledge of the sun from astronomers. Not the other way around.