Global warming discussion III

[lomiller]

Continued from here.

Posted By: LashL

When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

Nothing wrong with the paper it’s your understanding that is lacking.

In fact it says pretty much the opposite of what you seem to think it does. It’s arguing against there being any change in the long term trend.

It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.

Curious statement, since the paper you base this on argues the warming is continuing...

Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.

Again, the issue here is your lack of understanding. Nothing in that paper disagrees with what I posted or supports what you posted.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/new-study-natural-cycles-in-the-pacific-ocean-are-key-to-surface-warming-%E2%80%9Chiatus%E2%80%9D/

Internet pundit spotted!

In any case note how the web page puts “hiatus” in quotes? They do this to indicate that it’s being called a hiatus by others but they are not willing to refer to it as such themselves. The reason is simple. There are known cyclical 10-15 year periods or global temperatures above or below the underlying trend. To arrive at a statistically significant trend you need to pick a long enough period that this doesn’t skew your trend calculation, which means 20-30 years. Less than that, as is the case with the “hiatus” and you are not working with enough data to say the trend has changed.

The paper in Nature you linked to also point the finger at these know natural variation above/below the underlying trend.

 

[aleCcowaN]

When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.

Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...ic-ocean-are-key-to-surface-warming-“hiatus”/

So actual working researchers used science and found that including the effect of the tropical Pacific explains the warming, and then no warming, better than only using changes caused by CO2 and other radiative forcings.

Science, it works better when you don't ignore reality, but study it instead.

You and your jokes, r-j. You're incorrigible. Where were you when we discussed the first paper here (and much of your third link)? Macdoc was the first one in quoting that paper many months ago. Your second link within the quotation doesn't say what is supposedly quoted. In fact that quote is more of what we have already discussed here. So, again, where were you when that happen? I even have figures from that paper in my image albums.

The temperature trend is still upwards r-j, you can't change that with verbosity.

 

[aleCcowaN]

So, summary: again, r-j doesn't know what is he talking about.

A model uses upwelling and ocean heat ditching and emulate the "hiatus" -quotation marks because it pretty restraints a still upward trend- so it's basically a vote on favour of earth-system models, something I've been saying here for -I think- three years.

 

[Reality Check]

Sure, ..

Oh dear, science by public opinion, Haig !
The opinion of climate scientists backed up by science is that global warming is affecting us adversely now.
The opinion of climate scientists backed up by science is that global warming will affect us more adversely in the next couple of decades.

 

[r-j]

It's funny when people try to spin something, that can't actually be spun. Nature publishes a scientific paper, and the global alarmists tell you it means the opposite of what it says.

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations,

It won't matter how you try to spin that, it's clear what they stated. In spite of,

the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2,

The global temperature has not risen. Of course when they realize it's actually impossible to spin that to mean something else, they switch the goalpost. Not move them, completely change them out.

challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.

And there it is, in plain English. What's so amazing, is how the true denial comes out when faced with this.

It's really quite remarkable.

 

[Reality Check]

Just to add to that last post this PDF ..

What a really stupid PDF, Haig.
For example,
* these authors idiotically think that every one of 11,958 papers climate science stated an opinion on AGW .
There were 69 (if I recall correctly) in the Cook et al (2013) paper that took a position on AGW. 64 of these explicitly stated that AGW caused more than 50% of recent warming. That is 97%.
* they mention a pubic opinion poll conducted by PEW!
* they stupidly confuse the IPCC AGW estimate that AGW caused at least 90% of the warming with the opinions of climate scientists that AGW exists.

This is the science, Haig:
97% CONSENSUS? YES! SUPPORTED BY SERVERAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

ETA: What are the Friends of Science, Haig?
Actual climate science deniers who believe that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change" despite the simple fact that it has warmed in the past 35 years while the Sun has been constant in output.
And possibly petroleum industry shills - founded by members of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and "industry donors were passed on to the Science Education Fund set up by Barry Cooper, which in turn supported the activities of the Friends of Science".

 

[DC]

When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.

Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/new-study-natural-cycles-in-the-pacific-ocean-are-key-to-surface-warming-%E2%80%9Chiatus%E2%80%9D/

So actual working researchers used science and found that including the effect of the tropical Pacific explains the warming, and then no warming, better than only using changes caused by CO2 and other radiative forcings.

Science, it works better when you don't ignore reality, but study it instead.

" Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."

 

[r-j]

Why focus on the failed wild claims a very small minority of AGW alarmists have made?

Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point.

Why not focus instead on the successful predictions made by the vast majority in climate science?

Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.

 

[Trakar]

"Below are just a few things caused by man-made Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption Excessive Climate Change Research Funding."

The big self parodying “climate change blame” list

Seems climate alarmists want it all-ways

Not at all, scientific understanding evolves in accordance to the dictates of evidence, it is not graven in stone by the fiery finger of the almighty.

The first posted issue is a perfect example of this: the first reference is to a 2006 paper in which some flawed data was included in the research and the data led the researchers to believe that there was a greening of some regions of the Amazon basin during drought conditions in 2005. The second reference is to a 2010 paper which re-examined the work (peer-review at its finest, in action) of the 2006 paper found the flawed data ("Here, we report that the previous results of large-scale greening of the Amazon, obtained from an earlier version of satellite-derived vegetation greenness data - Collection 4 (C4) Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), are irreproducible, with both this earlier version as well as the improved, current version (C5), owing to inclusion of atmosphere-corrupted data in those results.") and presented findings that represent understandings once the flawed data is removed from consideration. This isn't a contradiction in the science, this is the self-correcting mechanisms of peer-review and research duplication that are integral parts of the scientific methodology.

The rest of the issues listed at the Bozo site page are mere variations of this theme by people who seem more familiar with, and fixated upon, ideological purity issues than any understanding of, or experience in, rigorous science methodology.

 

[Reality Check]

97% Climate Consensus ‘Most Nonsensical, Stupid Number in the World’

The ignorance of thinking that an astronaut is a climate scientist, Haig !
Practically by definition, anyone speaking at a Heartland conference is a climate science denier. Looks like the usual "warmist" propaganda with some really insane highlighting on that web page. A couple of idiotic statements:
* people are not the climate! A level of 4,000 ppm is bad for people in a Apollo capsule. A level of 400 ppm is bad for people in the climate.
* Cannot get it right that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

 

[DC]

Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point.
Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.

oh really? and your evidence is?

 

[Trakar]

I don't think global warming will pose a serious threat in my lifetime (I'm 60). I'm not an AGW denier.

Such seems to be a subjective issue largely related as much to personal interpretation of the terms as it is to the issues of perception of personal climate impacts.

For instance, I'm of a similar, but slightly more advanced age, and I feel that the threat of a dramatically altered climate due to human activities has existed since at least Arrhenius's time. Likewise, I feel that the threat that we will not be able to reverse these human behavior trends before they begin generating harmful and expensive impacts began being realized in the last couple of decades. Climate change impacts are both imminent and emergent problems.

The poll response is easy enough to understand, ask the same question with regards to how threatened people feel by the current state of their health and consumption habits and give the options of "not concerned" "scared for my life" and it would not surprise me to see a lot of technically obese, out of shape, smokers and drinkers who would casually check the "not concerned" option.

 

[Reality Check]

This is the "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong" climate myth. The model predictions were a bit too high because he used the climate sensitivity as known in 1988. Well Duh! What else could he use.
His scenario A can be ignored because the exponential growth of emissions assumed in it did not happen.
What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.
...
As you can see, Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality, but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4, nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming, therefore Hansen was wrong."

I hope that you can see this r-j.

 

[Reality Check]

Such seems to be a subjective issue largely related as much to personal interpretation of the terms as it is to the issues of perception of personal climate impacts.

I agree.
From my subjective point of view (50's, living in a sea-side city, temperate zone) I certainly expect to see AGW effects in my lifetime, e.g. higher sea levels leading to more flooding. We already have a reputation for high winds and I expect a higher frequency of storms as the decades go by. We have relatively hot summers - I expect more frequent hot summers in the next 20 years or so.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's funny when people try to spin something, that can't actually be spun. Nature publishes a scientific paper, and the global alarmists tell you it means the opposite of what it says.

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations,

I think that even a person like you can grasp that our planet has oceans, so there's no reason for this year to be warmer than last year just because CO2 went up 2 ppmv. It's not a linear system, you know. The paper you cited itself is dealing with an strategic upwelling of cold waters that may even overcompensate the increasing forcing of greenhouse gases. The fact is that the upwelling of cold waters implies the downwelling of warm waters, so sooner or later the cold water will cease to be cold. That is what the paper discuss, but as always you didn't read it, you didn't understand it and you felt that some isolated quotations lend weight to your imaginary case of you talking science and giving a lesson of epistemology to the "peasants" here -and of course you addressed as always the same person because you know he is kind and always tries to reason with you, so your fantasy of having a point can stand a little while more-.

 

[Reality Check]

Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.

Ok, r-j: Let us start with every paper cited by the IPCC !
Seriously though let us focus on
Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
and then go through the hundreds? of climate papers with predictions from 1988 on.

 

[Trakar]

Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point...

Which paper did Hansen write in 1986, and what predictions did it make that you are referring to?

The only paper I see from Hansen in 1986 is one he co-authored about the atmospheric science on the Galileo mission.

"Atmospheric Science on the Galileo Mission"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1986/1986_Hunten_etal_1.pdf

 

[lomiller]

Nothing wrong with the paper it’s your understanding that is lacking.

In fact it says pretty much the opposite of what you seem to think it does. It’s arguing against there being any change in the long term trend.

It's funny when people try to spin something, that can't actually be spun.

It really is...


The paper is quite clear about what it is and isn't saying. it clearly does not support your representation of it no matter how you try to spin it.

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.

 

[Trakar]

...Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.

Here's a list to some examples from the last 200 years of successful climate science projections. When we get through them there are hundreds, if not thousands, of others that we can look at: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10036476&postcount=4754

 

[Trakar]

I think that even a person like you can grasp that our planet has oceans, so there's no reason for this year to be warmer than last year just because CO2 went up 2 ppmv. It's not a linear system, you know. The paper you cited itself is dealing with an strategic upwelling of cold waters that may even overcompensate the increasing forcing of greenhouse gases...

A large part of the problem is that he seems stuck only reading abstracts, which can give mistaken impressions about what research was actually done and what the conclusions of that research actually report.

For instance, the following excerpts from within the paper more clearly discuss the research done and the results the authors noted from that research:

...A quantitative method is necessary to evaluate the relative importance of these mechanisms. Adding to the confusion that, amid the
global warming hiatus, record heat waves hit Russia (2010 summer) and US (July 2012), and Arctic sea ice reached record lows (Extended Data Fig. 1). Attributing these regional climate changes requires a dynamic approach. Here we use an advanced climate model that takes radiative forcing and tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) as input. The simulated global-mean temperature is in excellent agreement with observations, showing that the decadal cooling of the tropical Pacific causes the current hiatus. Our dynamic-model based attribution has a distinct advantage over the empirical
approach2,5 by revealing seasonal and regional aspects of the hiatus.

Three sets of experiments were performed based on the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) coupled model version 2.1 (CM2.1) (ref. 8). The
historical (HIST) experiment is forced with observed atmospheric composition changes and the solar cycle. In Pacific Ocean-Global Atmosphere (POGA) experiments, SST anomalies in the equatorial eastern Pacific (8.2% of the Earth surface) follow the observed evolution (see Methods). In POGA-H, the radiative forcing is identical to HIST, while in the POGA control experiment (POGA-C) it is fixed at 1990 value. Outside the equatorial eastern Pacific, the atmosphere and ocean are fully coupled and free to evolve...

...All the climate models project a tropical Pacific warming in response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. We conclude that the recent cooling of the tropical Pacific and hence the current hiatus are likely due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. As such, the hiatus is temporary, and global warming will return when the tropical Pacific swings back to a warm state. Similar hiatus events may occur in the future and are difficult to predict at multi-year leads due to limited predictability of tropical Pacific SST. We showed that when taking place, such events are accompanied by characteristic regional patterns including an intensified Walker circulation, weakened Aleutian low and prolonged droughts in the southern US.

So they ran some modified climate models and found that if they tweaked them just so, and carefully filtered the data they input they could replicate conditions that fit their understanding of the so-called hiatus.