Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Belz...]

I guess when you don't want something to be true...

...though I wonder why they don't want it to be true. I would rather it weren't of course, but aside from not wanting oneself to make any effort towards a solution, I don't see why people would go through such lengths to deny something like this.

 

[Haig]

That may be the stupidest thing you've posted yet, Haig. There's a limit to the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold, then it condenses and precipitates out. This idiot seems to be unaware of the existence of rain and snow. No wonder no-one's bothered to rebut his nonsense.

You say that ... yet Nature (2) confirms this pause while CO2 heads up to 400 ppm. None of the AGW models predicted this

"The climate has a very long time constant because of the huge thermal mass of the oceans, so the CO2 already emitted will cause temperatures to continue to rise for decades. Yet the oceans can reverse all that heating in one El Nino year"

Wonder what heats the oceans ... maybe the big shinning thing in the sky?

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7...ming.jpg_gen/derivatives/lightbox/Warming.jpg

 

[Haig]

They wondered how stupid someone could be when it was first published, then they promptley forgot about him. Except on denialist web sites.

Seems to be a pattern:

1) “Real Science”, in the form of the IPCC, release its first report which basically ignores that big burning thing in the sky

2) Some say, “hey, nice binder, but where is all the good stuff about that big burning thing in the sky and how it relates to our climate?”

3) Others say “you are just a paid corporate shrill and a right-wing blogger, leave the science to scientists. They didn’t include that big burning thing in the sky because, duh, everyone knows it has no relation to our climate”.

4) IPCC can no longer ignore that big burning thing in the sky, and admit that perhaps, maybe, in some instances, we should kinda add it to our kewl models.

5) Some say, “nice catch, don’t worry about crediting us, take all the credit for doing what you should have done in the first place. BTW, ever hear of PDO?”

6) Others say, “you are just a paid corporate shrill and a right-wing blogger, leave the science to scientists. They didn’t include PDO because, duh, everyone knows it has no relation to our climate”.

7) Repeat as needed…

 

[Pixel42]

You say that ... yet Nature (2) confirms this pause while CO2 heads up to 400 ppm.

Once again: nothing in that article contradicts what posters like macdoc have been trying to explain to you. It does, however, contradict the nonsense you've been posting.

 

[a_unique_person]

Seems to be a pattern:

1) “Real Science”, in the form of the IPCC, release its first report which basically ignores that big burning thing in the sky

2) Some say, “hey, nice binder, but where is all the good stuff about that big burning thing in the sky and how it relates to our climate?”

3) Others say “you are just a paid corporate shrill and a right-wing blogger, leave the science to scientists. They didn’t include that big burning thing in the sky because, duh, everyone knows it has no relation to our climate”.

4) IPCC can no longer ignore that big burning thing in the sky, and admit that perhaps, maybe, in some instances, we should kinda add it to our kewl models.

5) Some say, “nice catch, don’t worry about crediting us, take all the credit for doing what you should have done in the first place. BTW, ever hear of PDO?”

6) Others say, “you are just a paid corporate shrill and a right-wing blogger, leave the science to scientists. They didn’t include PDO because, duh, everyone knows it has no relation to our climate”.

7) Repeat as needed…

Read the IPCC report. The also look at solar influences. Have you read it yet, I linked to it before?

 

[Haig]

Once again: nothing in that article contradicts what posters like macdoc have been trying to explain to you. It does, however, contradict the nonsense you've been posting.

So you and macdoc accept what the article in Nature is saying... that the pause is real and just Nature?

"It’s becoming increasingly obvious CAGW alarmists got the math WRONG and their absurd (and rapidly falling) ECS projections of: 6C, then 5C, then 4.5C, then 3C, then 2C then, “too complex to really know for certain”, aren’t working out."

NASA revises Earth’s Radiation Budget, diminishing some of Trenberth’s claims in the process

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/nasa_new_energy_budget.png?w=640&h=494

michel says:January 17, 2014 at 1:27 am

But to be serious, reading between the lines, there is clearly considerable back pedalling going on. Another few years of temperatures going no place or even falling, and it will all be over at an academic level. The politics will take a lot longer, and activism longer still because it will have to find another object.

Professor Curry’s latest testimony to Congress is excellent by the way – balanced, judicious, reasonable, evidence based, and above all, skeptical.

 

[Pixel42]

So you and macdoc accept what the article in Nature is saying... that the pause is real and just Nature?

I accept what the article is saying: that the world is still warming, and the likeliest explanation of the relative reduction in the increase in surface temperatures over the last 15 years is a corresponding increase in the absorption of that increasing warmth by the oceans following the exceptionally powerful El Nino of 1998.

 

[a_unique_person]

So you and macdoc accept what the article in Nature is saying... that the pause is real and just Nature?

"It’s becoming increasingly obvious CAGW alarmists got the math WRONG and their absurd (and rapidly falling) ECS projections of: 6C, then 5C, then 4.5C, then 3C, then 2C then, “too complex to really know for certain”, aren’t working out."

NASA revises Earth’s Radiation Budget, diminishing some of Trenberth’s claims in the process

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/nasa_new_energy_budget.png?w=640&h=494

What does the energy balance diagram mean.

scienceofdoom jg:
The important point with this value is that if we set it to zero instead then what is the impact on the values that are of interest in this paper?
In the 1997 paper they used 0. 12 years later they used 0.9.
It has no impact on anything of significance in the paper.
ClimateWatcher:

But I think the same thing of KT09 as KT97 – the measurements are not known precisely (or accurately ) enough to make a conclusion about energy imbalance, in spite of the 0.9 number published.
​

The whole point about KT97 or 09 is they don’t make a claim that this IS known. The paper is about measurements and estimates. One method of “closing” the TOA budget would be to set it to zero, one would be to use the actual instrument values in spite of the error in their known absolute accuracy, another would be to use a model.
If the real value is zero, we now have a 1W/m2 error in a paper where they address much larger errors that cannot be further refined.
If the major query about the paper is whether the TOA net flux should be 0 or 1 then that’s a good result.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/21/whats-the-palaver-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/

 

[aleCcowaN]

Seems to be a pattern:

1) “Real Science”, in the form of the IPCC, release its first report which basically ignores that big burning thing in the sky

2) Some say, “hey, nice binder, but where is all the good stuff about that big burning thing in the sky and how it relates to our climate?”

3) Others say “you are just a paid corporate shrill and a right-wing blogger, leave the science to scientists. They didn’t include that big burning thing in the sky because, duh, everyone knows it has no relation to our climate”.

4) IPCC can no longer ignore that big burning thing in the sky, and admit that perhaps, maybe, in some instances, we should kinda add it to our kewl models.

5) Some say, “nice catch, don’t worry about crediting us, take all the credit for doing what you should have done in the first place. BTW, ever hear of PDO?”

6) Others say, “you are just a paid corporate shrill and a right-wing blogger, leave the science to scientists. They didn’t include PDO because, duh, everyone knows it has no relation to our climate”.

7) Repeat as needed…

Nice caricaturization . But you may care to teach us the right way to do it, so, for instance, what pattern did you follow with Project Astrometria, the Electric Comet and Santilli's IsoRedShift? Please, do tell.

 

[Belz...]

Once again: nothing in that article contradicts what posters like macdoc have been trying to explain to you. It does, however, contradict the nonsense you've been posting.

So you and macdoc accept what the article in Nature is saying... that the pause is real and just Nature?

Did you even read Pixel's post ?

 

[macdoc]

Haig do you really think anyone sensible here cares what Dear Anthony and crew think.
They get paid by fossil fuel companies to distort the AGW picture.
I hope you are getting paid for attempting to perpetuate the nonsense.

There is no "pause" in the total heat gain due to GHG accumulation inthe atmosphere......it's just in a different spot in the geophysical system.

Only the atmospheric temps globally has it slowed tho good luck telling that to Australia last year.....hottest ever and no El Nino. Does not bode well for when the next El Nino fires up.

Are you repeating yourself because you found something in an actual science journal..?

...even if you fail to understand it.

 

[lomiller]

Reading for comprehension really isn't that difficult, with enough practice.



I noticed the CRUTEMP3 designation but to be honest, I did not connect it when I saw it with the HADCRU datasets and their coverage issues. If they were actually missing much of the arctic temperature data over areas we know are much warmer than the 20th century average, it should call into question the "neutrality" of the overall NH these researchers noted, it may well be that these cooler regions were actually more than offset by warmer than 20th century norm conditions in the rest of the NH regions.

A lot of the authors work is focused on the consequences of the ongoing changes in the arctic and the impact of snow-cover changes. This is work that is both current and important. Certainly not within the range of climate science that is settled.

Weather or not ( ) this was the best data-set to use and if it changes the result will no doubt be resolved in the back and forth in the peer reviewed literature exactly as it's supposed to.

The thing I found truly ironic is that the deniers have an ongoing feud with this particular scientist because he predicts that global warming will cause more/longer extreme cold events in some locals. IOW even if the patten stands up to scrutiny the very fact that this scientist is predicting it completely refuted the notion that global warming doesn't predict regional cold because that's exactly what this paper is predicting.

 

[lomiller]

You completely missed what you quoted. The theory of greenhouse gases, fits the defintion of a theory, it is well understood and predictable. It is not the "theory" of AGW, for several reasons, some of which I have already explained. We haven't done AGW before, for example, we don't have spare planets in the lab to run repeatable tests on. The issue of water vapour and clouds are discussed in the AR4. Have you read it yet? I provided a link.

I'd debate that, actually. There are other uses of the word theory where this may apply but in the sense that he is using it, a scientific theory, it doesn't.

In that context a theory is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon that is subsequently confirmed by inductive process (making and confirming predictions based on the theory)

While there is certainly a lot in climate science that operates this way, greenhouse gasses themselves do not rely on induction to prove their properties. That a given substance will function as a greenhouse gas is a product of deductive logic. Therefor the limitations and restrictions around a scientific theory confirmed by inductive logic do not apply.

More specifically a greenhouse gas is a function of it's observable properties and the deductive application of conservation of energy. The last, is a theory but clearly not one that is doubt.

Both inductive and deductive processes are used in determining where that energy will end up and how much warming there will be so there are still plenty of theories within climate science, but at the most basic level greenhouse gasses are actually a deductive prediction based on conservation of energy and are their existence and function is therefor somewhat stronger than a theory.

 

[lomiller]

You say that ... yet Nature (2) confirms this pause while CO2 heads up to 400 ppm. None of the AGW models predicted this

Wrong. Models regularly predict such "pauses".

 

[r-j]

Not according to the Nature article that is being discussed.

 

[r-j]

the following is from a different thread, but speaks to the trend in the NH winters, as well as why the matter is of importance, and is happening now. Not an imaginary future, it's now.

It's the degree that matters. The mere presence of extra CO2 and a little warming would actually benefit the world, not hurt it.

ahem, NOT! You just sent me a link to a paper explaining how counter-intuitively a "little warming" has caused colder winters.

Let me tell you what "a little warming" along with "colder winters" means to me as a farmer. It means my entire broccoli crop this fall was killed off with the broccoli heads the size of a quarter. It means last spring I was a full 3 weeks late getting my pepper and tomato crop out, and still had to plant my peppers twice, after frost killed 90% of my first planting. It means I still had to deal with 100 degree F + temps through the summer.

It is a miracle I made any profit at all. I did, but only 25% of what I would have expected, and that was primarily due to my own experimental project! A lot of guys had a complete bust. In fact part of the reason I had a profit is because the niche I grow for was basically empty of product for miles around except for me and I was able to command a premium price and still sell out every day.
...
So you can sit there behind your little computer screen and type whatever fantasies you like. But here in the real world

"The mere presence of extra CO2 and a little warming would actually benefit the world"

is about as ridiculous a statement as can be made.

My response to some of it is in the other thread, but the issue of cold is a real and impossible to deny problem. It's no longer the "oh more extreme weather was predicted' or "there will still be the occasional cold winter" story that the alarmists conveniently handwaved the cold away with in the past.

And yes, I found recently where the "no climate change from humans at all, not even a little bit" crowd is trying to make political hay with the 2012 study. Of course they are. They are all together as bad as the deluded alarmists who can't admit anything that goes against the catastrophic and unrelenting global warming.

There is no "pause" in the total heat gain due to GHG accumulation in the atmosphere......it's just in a different spot in the geophysical system.

That is a claim. Now it has to stand up to a challenge before ... no, you provided no evidences. So it is meaningless.

 

[Trakar]

That is a claim. Now it has to stand up to a challenge before ... no, you provided no evidences. So it is meaningless.

No need to look very far, the paper at the focus of this sub-thread provides supportive evidence for MacDoc's statement.

 

[macdoc]

If r-j actually read any of the papers and articles cited he would already know that as it's been covered ad nauseum. Just in case he missed the global ocean heat evidence...for the nth time....

NO PAUSE

_{With permission from RealClimate}

Learn something...

And what about the ocean heat storage ? That is no additional effect, but part of the mechanism by which El Niño years are warm and La Niña years are cold at the Earth’s surface. During El Niño the ocean releases heat, during La Niña it stores more heat. The often-cited data on the heat storage in the ocean are therefore just further evidence that El Niño plays a crucial role for the “pause”.

Leading U.S. climatologist Kevin Trenberth has studied this for twenty years and has just published a detailed explanatory article. Trenberth emphasizes the role of long-term variations of ENSO, called pacific-decadal oscillation (PDO). Put simply: phases with more El Niño and phases with predominant La Niña conditions (as we’ve had recently) may persist for up to two decades in the tropical Pacific. The latter brings a somewhat slower warming at the surface of our planet, because more heat is stored deeper in the ocean. A central point here: even if the surface temperature stagnates our planet continues to take up heat. The increasing greenhouse effect leads to a radiation imbalance: we absorb more heat from the sun than we emit back into space. 90% of this heat ends up in the ocean due to the high heat capacity of water. The fact that the ocean continues to heat up, without pause, demonstrates that the greenhouse effect has not subsided, as we have discussed here.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...obal-temperature-jigsaw/#sthash.IlAzDN4a.dpuf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/

and

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full

An apparent hiatus in global warming?

Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo
Article first published online: 5 DEC 2013

Abstract
Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.

Now go read some climate science and stop the repetitious nonsense

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Wrong. Models regularly predict such "pauses".

Link, please.

 

[macdoc]

That's rich.

•••


http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...terrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

snip

What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I’ll refer to as an “episode,” shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur. I’ll leave the details of these episodes to interested readers (here and here), as things get pretty technical. It’s sufficient to note that we have an objective criteria for what defines an episode; we aren’t just eyeballing curves. The climate system appears to have had three distinct “episodes” during the 20th century (during the 1910′s, 1940′s, and 1970′s), and all three marked shifts in the trend of the global mean temperature, along with changes in the qualitative character of ENSO variability. We have also found similar types of shifts in a number of model simulations (both forced and unforced) that were run in support of the IPCC AR4 report. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...out-natural-variability/#sthash.Nz4mIkbK.dpuf

do you have any climate science to contribute?

What is with this tunnel vision on atmospheric temps....narrow minded would seem.