------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Bored Wombat]

Global warming doesn't have to be monotonic.

The Hadley Centre's Decadal Prediction System predicted in 2007 that 2008 and 2009 would not be the warmest years, but that half the years between that and 2014 would be warmer than any year yet.

It is quite possible for warming that is progressing at 0.2°C per decade for natural effects such as ocean currents and solar irradiance to cause a slight cooling.

2008 looks to be about 0.12°C cooler than 2007 so far. Cherry picking January, and exaggerating the effect might look like it quintuples this, but it does not.

It's not an exceptional drop. It's half the big drop from 1998 to 1999, but it's also less than the drops 1995-1996 and 1991-1992.

The reality is that we are at the low point of the sunspot cycle.


And despite continued increase in radiative forcing due to greenhouse gasses, other factors have contributed to this expected and unexceptional temperature drop.

No, it does not indicate cooling. It indicates a colder year.

No it is not incompatible with scientific thought and expectation.

The climate's response to an increase in CO2 takes something in the range 25 to 50 years to reach 60% of the effect.

If you want to see the response to the current increase in CO2, you need to look at the temperatures in about 2030. You should also correct for the sunspot cycle and aerosols.

Oceanic currents are the other very significant player that will affect surface temperatures. The ocean hold about 1000 times the heat of the atmosphere, so if it warms even slightly at depth, then the warming world may well show a surface cooling.

The secret is to notice longer term trends.

The smoothed annual data shows a slight temperature drop that is not significant compared to the standard error:



That is a good description of the current situation.

[Bored Wombat]

Plus, start thinking critically.

Global warming isn't going to just stop. The greenhouse effect isn't going to stop working, and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not going to precipitate out.

[Robert Northup]

In the academic world, where I do environmental chemistry research, there is no "dissent" about global warming. The only debate is about how fast it will happen and how far it will go.

I am amazed at what a different world it is on the Internet. Reading the blogs, etc., you would think half the world's scientists must think global warming is a hoax. The one peer-reviewed article refuting global warming that I see most often referenced by contrarians was published in a SURGERY journal. The article shouldn't have been published for many reasons, not the least of which was that it was totally inappropriate for the journal. The fact that they would go ahead and publish something so far out of their field also says something about the peer-reviewed editorial quality where the contrarians got to have their say.

I remember vividly watching Rush Limbaugh show a chart in 1992, in which he displayed the decreased temperature that resulted for a year from the dimming caused by the volcanic cloud from Mt. Pinatubo. Rush insisted that this was "proof" global warming wasn't happening. Even if you don't believe that humans are the CAUSE of it, we will have to live with it, and we might want to take some actions to make that easier on our children and grandchildren.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Global warming doesn't have to be monotonic.

The Hadley Centre's Decadal Prediction System predicted in 2007 that 2008 and 2009 would not be the warmest years, but that half the years between that and 2014 would be warmer than any year yet.

It is quite possible for warming that is progressing at 0.2°C per decade for natural effects such as ocean currents and solar irradiance to cause a slight cooling.

2008 looks to be about 0.12°C cooler than 2007 so far. Cherry picking January, and exaggerating the effect might look like it quintuples this, but it does not.

It's not an exceptional drop. It's half the big drop from 1998 to 1999, but it's also less than the drops 1995-1996 and 1991-1992.

The reality is that we are at the low point of the sunspot cycle.


And despite continued increase in radiative forcing due to greenhouse gasses, other factors have contributed to this expected and unexceptional temperature drop.

No, it does not indicate cooling. It indicates a colder year.

No it is not incompatible with scientific thought and expectation.

The climate's response to an increase in CO2 takes something in the range 25 to 50 years to reach 60% of the effect.

If you want to see the response to the current increase in CO2, you need to look at the temperatures in about 2030. You should also correct for the sunspot cycle and aerosols.

Oceanic currents are the other very significant player that will affect surface temperatures. The ocean hold about 1000 times the heat of the atmosphere, so if it warms even slightly at depth, then the warming world may well show a surface cooling.

The secret is to notice longer term trends.

The smoothed annual data shows a slight temperature drop that is not significant compared to the standard error:


That is a good description of the current situation.

So, what you are saying is:

When there is evidence of Global Warming it is due to CO2 but when there is evidence of Global Not-Warming it is due to other factors such as Sunspots and Ocean currents.

It is not Global Warming anyway, it is Global 'Warmer years than before'. But its not even that anyway, it is now Climate Change but that is caused by human activity and any climate change (small c) that happened historically is now termed Climate Variability.

The recent temperature drop - not to be confused with cooling - is scientifically irrelevant even though CO2 levels have increased steadily in the same period.

In order to realise this fact, we need to look at long-term trends. Well, I have just looked at a 400,000 year 'window' and can say that the current temperature is not unusual. However, the current CO2 level is extremely unusual and therefore has evidentially no bearing on the temperature. Although it does in theory.
Temperature and CO2 consentration in the atmosphere since 400 000 years - Climate Change

When considering the GW data, we should discount any data plot that is within the smoothed statistical margin for error.
Like this?
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

From your next post:

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Plus, start thinking critically.

Global warming isn't going to just stop. The greenhouse effect isn't going to stop working, and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not going to precipitate out.

I repeat, for the umpteenth time, I have never DENIED that GW has taken place; I have never DENIED that the greenhouse effect exists, and I have never DENIED that the level of CO2 is increasing.

Where do you get the idea that I think that? It is the hype and alarmism that I disagree with. And the lack of evidence.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Okay.

So since we have had 0.44 doublings of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, and since that can be tied to human activity both directly by isotope ratios and indirectly by estimating emissions, that means that you have no argument that:

"Current human CO2 emissions will have increased the mean global surface temperature by 1.3°C, once the climate has finished responding to the change in atmosphere."?

No. I said 'contributed' and 'real argument'. A contribution to AGW is not the whole thing. 'Real argument' because the 3 deg C per doubling is a worst-case figure and I was prepared to accept it for the purpose of the discussion. If you are going to try to profit from my magnanimity then, no, I disagree.

I would word the statement thus:

"Current human CO2 emissions are likely to have contributed to an observed increase in global surface temperature of 0.69 deg C."

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

So, what you are saying is:

When there is evidence of Global Warming it is due to CO2 but when there is evidence of Global Not-Warming it is due to other factors such as Sunspots and Ocean currents.

No, what I am saying is:
The evidence is consistent with Global Warming. It is also inconsistent with natural warming.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

The recent temperature drop - not to be confused with cooling - is scientifically irrelevant even though CO2 levels have increased steadily in the same period.

It is consistent with predictive models. CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate, and the climate's response to an increase is slow. 25-50 years is the time scale. So this "over the same period" you keep referring to is an over trivialisation of the climate system.
The response of the climate to natural and anthropogenic forcing is non-trivial, but well studied:

I seem to have posted this a few times here before. Are you sure you're taking in what you are reading?

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

In order to realise this fact, we need to look at long-term trends. Well, I have just looked at a 400,000 year 'window' and can say that the current temperature is not unusual.

Well this half century has seen a temperature rise of 0.2°C per decade, faster than any heating in the last 400,000 years, except those associated with an extraterrestrial impact.
I would call that unusual. Why don't you?

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

However, the current CO2 level is extremely unusual and therefore has evidentially no bearing on the temperature. Although it does in theory.

There is plenty of evidence that the CO2 has a robust correlation to temperature throughout even the last hundreds of millions of years.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Temperature and CO2 consentration in the atmosphere since 400 000 years - Climate Change

That chart stops in 1950, before the strong anthropogenic warming kicked. Current temperature is now higher than it was during the Holocene peak. No other interglacial in your chart shows anything like that. The temperature peaks rapidly, then begins a slow descent to the next ice age.

So you should be able to see that the temperature is at least unusual.

And note that we have 0.6 or 0.7 °C of warming to come from the current atmospheric composition, without any further emissions from tonight, so once equilibrium is reached (which will be instantaneous on that time scale), we will be about 1.3°C warmer than the end of your graph, and warming at about 20 times the rate of those fast looking melts that end the ice ages.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

When considering the GW data, we should discount any data plot that is within the smoothed statistical margin for error.

Should we? Why?

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

I repeat, for the umpteenth time, I have never DENIED that GW has taken place; I have never DENIED that the greenhouse effect exists, and I have never DENIED that the level of CO2 is increasing.

Then what is your argument with the science?

You post above seems to be based around the claim that increasing greenhouse gasses do not increase the temperature.

This is inconsistent with your claim now that you have never denied that the greenhouse effect exists.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

No. I said 'contributed' and 'real argument'. A contribution to AGW is not the whole thing.

What do you think is the main contributor to the warming since 1950?
The scientific research is unanimous since 1993 at least.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

'Real argument' because the 3 deg C per doubling is a worst-case figure

No, that the dead middle of the road figure. I can quickly point you to about 20 papers on this, if you would like to know how this figure is estimated.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

The and I was prepared to accept it for the purpose of the discussion. If you are going to try to profit from my magnanimity then, no, I disagree.

Rest assured, I gain no profit from your inconsistency.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

I would word the statement thus:

"Current human CO2 emissions are likely to have contributed to an observed increase in global surface temperature of 0.69 deg C."

Lets try to quantify that a bit, so that we can talk about what scientists who have studied this from various lines of reasoning have quantified it as.

What do you think that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is likely to be?

[Paradox]

Where Did Global Warming Go


Brrr! Farmers' Almanac says cold winter ahead

Great Analysis:

2007 warmest year on record? Coldest in this century

see site for sources and analysis:









Another year or two of unthinkable record cold will lay this entire issue to rest. That is my prediction. It has been and remains so. The 'observed' evidence is mounting at an unparalleled rate and will obliterate the global warming movement. Good try chaps but its time to pass the torch. You win some, you lose some...no offense.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

The one peer-reviewed article refuting global warming that I see most often referenced by contrarians was published in a SURGERY journal.

Try this one: Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing

This sums up the peer reviewed paper which has been published for sometime.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Keep a Watch Here for a Revival of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory

It could happen any day now...