Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[a_unique_person]

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

I never said they didn't. He is making claims about what climate scientists say that are at odds with the facts. I'm also curious about what this single astronomer is claiming compared to the rest of the astronomers.

 

[greybeard]

I wonder how the astronomer accounts for the fact that the upper atmosphere hasn't warmed, which it would do if global warming was caused by an increase in solar radiation.
It's also interesting that so called AGW sceptics seem to view anything that absolves CO2 uncritically but anything that agrees with the majority scientific view must by default be wrong. You see this all the time on wattsupwiththat.

 

[r-j]

The satellite data shows warming of some parts of the stratosphere. The only major cooling trend is over the poles, which indicates ozone depletion.

 

[Mikemcc]

Citation...?

 

[Mikemcc]

You are making the big fuss about it, and everyone else HAS provided links to back up their claims. All you have demonstrated is that you can't accept that your claims are criticised when either your links are to cranks or you chose to mis-interpret what the papers actually say. So please, crack on, and live up to the standards that have set yourself.

 

[OCaptain]

If you don't like "pause in surface temperatures" how about "plateau" which it certainly has since 1998.

No. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/global-temperature-2013/comment-page-2/

To be specific, none of the 4 datasets still shows 1998 as the hottest year, even with its record El Niño. NASA GISS has it 5th. NOAA NCDC and Hadcrut 4 have it 3rd, and Cowtan and Way have it out of the top 5 altogether.

 

[greybeard]

The satellite data shows warming of some parts of the stratosphere. The only major cooling trend is over the poles, which indicates ozone depletion.

Citation...?

You don't need any here.
That much has become obvious.

There a a dozen claims I have asked about so far, and not one shred of evidence still. If you are going to call everything you disagree with lies, and refuse to support your claims with any evidence, don't complain when you see it being done.

No citation so I can assume you just made it up. If you could find a reliable source saying the same thing you would quote them.

 

[r-j]

The source of the stratosphere trends is the satellite data. It's all online and anyone can look at it.

 

[r-j]

You could also read some science articles about it

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/ThompsonEtal.Nature2012.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/mystery-stratospheric-temperature-trends
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html

 

[r-j]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html

(2) The simulated ozone trends may be in error. The observed and
simulated global-mean ozone trends are very similar in both the middle
and upper stratosphere26. We therefore consider it to be unlikely that the
differences between modelled and observed temperature trends in the
middle and upper stratosphere ...

 

[Trakar]

I get my science from Science and Nature where do you get yours?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

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

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them grasp the intricacies of hydrodynamic flow.

Dr.'s Kosaka and Xie's paper from last August does not support your claims with regards to what they found nor what such implies, so without quote-mining misrepresentations please explain exactly where in Science or Nature you find a reflection of the understandings you present on these boards.

In the Aug. 2013 paper these researchers describe their computer modeling experiment, in which Kosaka and Xie artificially alter the flow of heat from the East Pacific ocean to the atmosphere above so that sea surface temperatures in this region are forced to agree with physical observations in this relatively small area of the Pacific ocean. This resulted in the realistic simulation of the recent surface warming slowdown globally. But offers no explanation for why or how such heat flow alterations may have actually occurred.

The recent slowdown in global surface warming is fully explainable by natural fluctuations in the Pacific ocean. And to be clear, when leading climate scientists speak of a "hiatus" or "pause" in warming what they are referring to is the fact that the rate of increase in global average surface temperature since the late 1990s is less than that of previous decades. The average rate of warming was 0.17°C/decade from 1970-1998, and 0.04°C/decade from 1998-2012 (note, a climate relevant period would actually be 1970 - 2000, or 1983 - 2003 from which we can easily calculate a new per decade increase rate if you'd like?

 

[lomiller]

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

False. As per previous discussion “Plateaus” like this occur in all current models as part of the internal variation that results in ups/downs around the rising temperature trend. Furthermore this “plateau” has already been specifically attributed to one of these known internal variations that give rise to this feature in the models.

 

[lomiller]

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


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

Here is what anther astronomer has to say on the issue:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

What the guy in your link seems to be missing is that what he thinks of as “significant” is actually 1-2 orders of magnitude too small to have a meaningful impact on the Earth’s climate.

 

[greybeard]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html

Which isn't relevant. This is:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

Scientists theorize that there may be a multi-decadal trend in solar output, though if one exists, it has not been observed as yet. Even if the Sun were getting brighter, however, the pattern of warming observed on Earth since 1950 does not match the type of warming the Sun alone would cause. When the Sun’s energy is at its peak (solar maxima), temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) become warmer. Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
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

Just how many times does it need to be reiterated that atmospheric and surface temperatures are not the whole picture...they are transient compared to ocean temps where THERE IS NO SLOWDOWN in AGW .....there is an INCREASED UPTICK>

surely even you can connect those dots...

 

[Trakar]

Sorry, just re-read post, that final date range should have been 1983 - 2013 (30 year climate period)

 

[Trakar]

Those who still want to tell you it's still warming, faster than ever, they are science deniers.

Your assertions seem distinctly different than the reality which the science properly reflects.

 

[r-j]

I wonder how the astronomer accounts for the fact that the upper atmosphere hasn't warmed, which it would do if global warming was caused by an increase in solar radiation.

No evidence for either claim.

Nor any explanation for why you say it. See? No source needed. You can just make things up.

 

[Reality Check]

If you don't like "pause in surface temperatures" how about "plateau" which it certainly has since 1998.

Two things wrong with your statement, Haig:
* I do not like the term "pause in global warming" because there has been no such thing !
I do like the term "pause in surface temperatures" because that is exactly what has happened - the trend in surface temperatures has lessened ("paused").
ETA: I would like the term to be more explicit, e.g. "the slope in the rising surface temperatures is less than in other time periods", but that is a bit cumbersome.

* Repeating the cherry picking of 1998 as a starting point for looking at global surface temperatures is rather ignorant, Haig:
Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
‘Global warming stopped in 1998′–Only if you flagrantly cherry pick

But it happens that 15 years is a common length of time for looking at temperature trends and so recent papers have started at 1997 or 1998.
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
Does the global warming 'pause' mean what you think it means?
And soon papers will come out starting at 1999 - which was cooler then 1998 and so the warming trend will increase!

 

[Reality Check]

Re-reading that paper above I think this quote is also worth posting for comments...

Actually re-reading what you highlight from that paper, I see an astronomer (and maybe you, Haig) exposing their ignorance of climate science

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

Regrettably, the ignorance is obvious: climate models include the Sun !
Regrettably, the fact that surface temperatures have not been decreasing during the last decade has escaped both Donald C. Morton and you, Haig.
Regrettably,Donald C. Morton and you, Haig, are ignorant about what climate science states about the Sun undergoing a solar cycle minimum like the 'Maunder Minimum':
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

Regrettably, you have known this climate science 16th February 2011, Haig, and are selecting to deny the actual climate science!