A guest post by: Russ Steele from NCWatch
We can only hope the most people in the US are shopping on Black Friday and not watching the Oprah Winfrey Show today. Al Gore has brought his global warming propaganda machine to share with Oprah. You can find the details on Oprah’s web page. Here are some of the topics that Gore is pushing:
Classic Gore:
“Some of the leading scientists are now saying we may have as little as 10 years before we cross a kind of point-of-no-return, beyond which it’s much more difficult to save the habitability of the planet in the future,” Gore says.
Yes, but Al you have been saying that for over ten years and we are still here. And in the last ten years the global temperatures stopped rising and are now in decline.
Click for a larger image
Really Al, show me where the temperatures are beyond natural fluctuations:
Gore agrees that the planet’s temperature has indeed experienced up and down cycles, but he says the current up cycle is too extreme. “It’s way off the charts compared to what those natural fluctuations are,” he says.
Here is look at long term temperatures
One word of caution, these are USHCN numbers, which [have been] adjusted. Past temperatures are going down and the more recent going up.
Going, going Gored:
No place is immune to global warming, Gore says. “Of the thousand largest glaciers on every continent, 997 of them are receding,” he says. “And it’s not seasonal.”
Glaciers have been retreating long before CO2 was problem. (Graphic from Climate Skeptic) Now we learn that the glaciers have stopped retreating and are expanding:
DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada, California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both colder temperatures and increased snowfall.
Al needs to take a second look at the North Pole:
“The North Pole is melting.”
Here is comparison of the ice in November 1980 and 2008. Do you see some major differences, like the “North Pole is melting.” (Note: Earlier photos do not show snow coverage) Details at Cryosphere Today
Katrina again:
“Temperature increases are taking place all over the world, including in the oceans. Gore warns that when the oceans get warmer, storms get stronger. In August 2005, millions of Americans were left homeless by Hurricane Katrina, one of the most powerful hurricanes in recent history. Gore says people should expect more Category 4 and 5 hurricanes if the ocean waters continue to warm.”
Looks like a decline in cyclone energy to me, not an increase.
Please let Oprah know that you expected more from someone of her intelligence and veracity here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony
I don’t know whether any of your bloggers spotted it but there was a ridiculous discussion on the BBC Newsnight programme last night in which George Monbiot and Lord Turner (who has just prepared yet another dire report on global warming) were vying with one another about the extent to which the UK should cut greenhouse gas emissions. The whole thing sounde link Alice in Wonderland with aggravation.
There is no specific link to this discussion but the Newsnight video contains it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight
Jack Simmons, thanks for the link to climate4you.
I noticed in the graphs that global temps during the 1940’s seem to track Beck’s CO2 increase during that time.
I know there are some problems with Beck’s analysis [CO2 readings taken in cities, etc.], but the comparison is still interesting. Both the CO2 and the temp chart from the mid-40’s look almost identical.
Due to the complexity of the climate, with so many factors that science has not yet fully explained every single process, it is difficult for a coherent picture to emerge from which we can firmly conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that there is Human-Induced Global Climate Destabilisation (H-IGCD). If it were the case, we wouldn’t be having this debate. But that is not to say there aren’t any indications.
So let’s tackle this controversy in three different ways.
1) For millions of years, the Earth’s climate has fluctuated, cycling from ice ages to warmer periods. But in the last century, the planet’s temperature has risen unusually fast. Ever since the industrial revolution began, amplifying our demand for energy, we have used carbon-based fossil fuel to satiate that demand. The increasing consumption of carbon-based energy from industrialised and developing nations causes an increase in the burning of fossil fuel; an increase in carbon emissions; an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, trapping more of the sun’s radiated energy as heat; intensifying the natural Greenhouse Effect.
The majority of climate scientists agree upon the concept of GCD primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning, and post-industrialisation emissions of green house gases having an impact on the climate cycle and environment. Science literature universally recognizes anthropogenic warming. All denials come from outside the professional scientific sphere. And the the idea that H-IGCD will continue and worsen if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Just pause for a second and think, if you had a horse race and every major betting agency was saying, put your money on that horse, would you do it (just keep it simplistic)? Well, with every major institute in the first world betting on H-IGCD, ask yourself: “Which seems like the smarter bet on which to wager the world?”
The H-IGCD is the effect of the intensified Greenhouse Effect superimposed upon the normal climate cycle. We have the average increase in temperature (Global Warming), but it is not a uniform Global Warming (hence Climate Change). The Climate Change affects different regions in different ways (H-IGCD). So it’s not the degrees of temperature that matters per se, but the fact that such a quick change in the global average temperature is like throwing a wrench into the climate system. Should it reach a tipping point, the products of the process of H-IGCD will fuel the process; such as increased temperatures melting ice sheets, which increases the size of the ocean, causing more heat to be absorbed into the climate, further melting the ice sheets. The evidence for this is certainly compelling.
So, what are these indications?
-Studies of ice cores show a correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature variations.
-Rate of Warming: The rate of average global temperature increase is particularly evident in three ways I will share.
First off, temperature graphs show the cyclical change – yet H-IGCD is evident, with the cycle of our time being abnormal:
*“Temperature reconstruction – linear trend for from AD 1000 to 1850,” showing the change in trend since industrialisation: http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/fig2-20.htm
*And even more striking, the “Temperatures over the last 1.35 million years” showing the abnormal warmth and warming of our time:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1.35Myr.small.jpg
(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ )
Secondly, the Polar Ice Caps are melting in unprecedented ways. It is now a common theory for the Arctic Ocean to be ice-free in summer by 2040. I have a link which shows how the minimums have dramatically changed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/2007_Arctic_Sea_Ice.jpg
Finally, Coral. Although coral reefs have been around for millions of years, the reefs are formed of the corals themselves, which have life estimates of only a few thousand years. Therefore, as climate has gone through its cycle, coral have been able to evolve to deal with changes in temperature. But now, however, it appears, the climate is changing too rapidly for them to evolve:
Bleaching is where the corals turn white due to a change in the ocean temperature, exceeding that which they can handle. If the temperature returns to normal, they recover. If not, the coral dies. In this way, coral are like a bellwether, sensitive instruments that detect subtle changes of temperature, reflecting both the ocean and overall climate conditions.
The first coral bleaching on record occurred in 1979. Since then, there have been six events, each of which has been progressively more frequent and severe. In the El Niño year of 1998, when tropical sea surface temperatures were the highest yet in recorded history, coral reefs around the world suffered the most severe bleaching on record. 48% of reefs in the Western Indian Ocean suffered bleaching, while 16% of the world’s reefs appeared to have died by the end of 1998. 2002 was even worse: 60 to 95 per cent of individual reefs of the Great Barrier Reef suffered some bleaching, while reefs in Palau, the Seychelles, and Okinawa suffered 70-95% bleaching. One quarter of the world’s coral has already been lost.
-9/11: Yes, I’ll get to it further down.
Global Dimming is basically the antagonist of Global Warming. Both are caused by emissions. Green House Gas Emissions trap heat and result in Global Warming. Other emissions, which are more evident, damage the health of us and the environment, but reflect heat from earth, resulting in Global Dimming. Due to the emissions, Global Warming had the edge, and we detected the GCD as a result.
We detected those emissions affecting our health first, and thus reduced them first. This reduced Global Dimming, and therefore contributed to Global Warming.
Airplane vapor trails are a form of Global Dimming. This is where 9/11 becomes a proof of Global Warming. For three days post-9/11, all flights were grounded. For those three days, no airplane vapor trails were produced. For those three days, the average temperature was 1 degree Celsius warmer than other days. This may not sound like much, but 6 degrees colder is the difference between now and the last ice age, when the Ice Sheets extended as far south as London. It’s a huge amount of warming.
This is just some of the evidence that I find most persuasive. The problem we have is that our knowledge of climactic processes is never 100% complete, but at the same time we’re debating whether or not our actions are significantly affecting the climate, we are at the same time running the experiment. The billions of people in the world and the technology we use to sustain that population might be having an impact on the planet. And it is also conceivable that we might not be able to recover from the consequences of those impacts. No matter the outcome, we have a stake in it.
2) Why not change the focus? No one is perfect, so our choices carry a risk if that choice turns out to be a mistake. Given that, which risk would you rather take for H-IGCD? Listen to the activists and take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about; or listen to the skeptics and don’t take action, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the activists warn us about. The bottom line is which is the more acceptable risk? The risk of taking action, or not taking action?
You might say that the choice is a false one, for the changes in the climate we see are, in fact, not H-IGCD, but part of the climactic cycle (perhaps an extreme part in that cycle, but part of it none-the-less). Are you infallible? No. Could you be wrong? Yes. So the question, which is the more acceptable risk, still applies.
The best way to present it to you is in the form of a box divided into quarters.
*http://www.kheper.net/topics/civilization/four.gif
*Have one of the two rows represent: H-IGCD – True (T), and the other: H-IGCD – False (F).
Here we can acknowledge that we are far from absolutely certain, or rather far from in agreement, about H-IGCD. All reasonable people should be able to admit to the possibility that they might have a mistake in their understanding of reality.
*Have one of the two columns represent: Significant Action Taken – Yes (Y), and the other: Significant Action Taken – No (N).
Obviously, these represent what actions we take.
*So we now have a grid with four boxes, each box representing a different, plausible future.
We can now compare these four basic possible scenarios side-by-side, by considering what each of those futures might look like. To determine this, we consider the consequences of the two factors that we are bearing in mind, on the envisioned future, from the perspective of a realistic pessimist.
Future #1 (F, Y) – Economic cost, no positive benefits: Wasted money in unnecessary investment, opportunity cost of investment, possibly increased taxation, burdensome regulation, inutile bureaucracy, possible costs and problems of replacement technology (from carbon-based technology), retardation of third-world economic development. For the purposes of contrast let’s take it to the extreme, and go so far as to imagine draconian regulation causing massive lay-offs, sparking a recession, spiraling into a global depression which makes the 1930s look like a cakewalk. =(
Future #2 (F, N) – Didn’t take action, but didn’t need to: we made the right decision, no big economic consequences, continued relative prosperity; sure we had some problems but H-IGCD wasn’t one of them. Everyone celebrates – the skeptics because they were right, and the activists because it wasn’t the end of the world after all. =D
Future #3 (T, Y) – We took action, and it was a good thing too: the doomsayers were right, we still have the economic cost, but it was money well spent as it allowed as to counteract H-IGCD; it still happened but we managed it so everyone’s ok with that because we saved our bacon. It’s a different world, but it’s livable. Our actions were insurance for the survival and well-being of the human species. =)
Future #4 (T, N) – We have granted the extreme in every other scenario, and we should here too, and in that case it gets kind of ugly: economic, social, political, and environmental catastrophes on a global scale – a disaster scenario; and the more of these you consider in conjunction, and the greater degree to which we imagine these semi-independently-occurring variables, the more severe the prediction. At the extreme we have an intense situation that makes Al Gore look like a sissy who sugar-coated the bad news, with chain reactions in which problems induce or aggravate other problems:
Crises ranging from sea-level rise affecting mainland coasts, coastal countries, and river banks, rivers drying up as glaciers melt, changes in wind and sea currents affecting regional microclimates and ecosystems, massive seasonal droughts alternating with wide-spread floods, more intense and more frequent hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, lightening storms, blizzards, and forest fires, expansion of desertification, crop failures from climate change, the breadbaskets in Russia, the US, India, and China converted to dustbowls, extinctions and food chain disruption (vegetation can’t adapt to new conditions, animals migrate, keystone species die, habitats drastically alter, predator-prey balance shifts), population displacement (from coasts and river banks, or from areas which can no longer sustain life), south-ward and north-ward migrating of insects (mosquitoes and locusts) as regions’ climates become able to accommodate them, increased forests fires, deforestation, forest burning, forest death (either from climate change beyond what they can tolerate, or insect plagues), spread of famine and epidemics, warfare over scare resources (compounded by, in certain cases, pre-existing tensions), technology failure (particularly energy such as power grids failing due to weather extremes), and economic collapse from consecutive crises, etc. =(
Take your pick, mix it up, consider what could induce or intensify another problem, and consider the problems to differing degrees of severity. I actually find it rather interesting to ponder the possibilities.
Obviously this awfully oversimplifies the complexities. But we can say that the future will fall roughly into one of those four boxes. The debate is about trying to predict which row the future will fall into, which we can’t know for certain until we actually get there. What we can know, because we determine it by taking significant action or not, is which column the future will fall (Y/N) into (or rather which column it won’t). Therefore we can eliminate the risk of one of the columns. It’s like buying one of two lottery tickets. Then we sit back and wait for what the Laws of Physics deal out as a result of our pick.
This grid attempts to isolate the risk to help us decide what the optimal action to take is. One way or the other we are taking a risk, so which risk is more acceptable? As we can only control which column the future land in, the risks associated with the columns are: (F, Y) for column (Y) – acting when we didn’t need to; and (T, N) for column (N) – not acting when we needed to. Interestingly, the risk (T, N) incorporates the general risk of (F, Y), but with some added bonus features. So the risk is the cost of a mistake, either through deliberate choice or by default of inaction (especially if we’re too busy debating the rows).
The flaw to this logic is that the same grid argument can be made for any possible threat, no matter how costly the action or ridiculous the threat – the infinite cost of the last square on his grid. Even giant mutant space hamsters. It’s better to go broke building a bunch of rodent traps than to even risk the possibility of hamster chow right? Not quite. The grid by itself allows us to make a decision based on uncertain knowledge by changing the question from ‘are we humans affecting the climate,’ to the superior question, ‘what’s the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and the risks?’ To make the logic of the grid more applicable to reasonability, we take into consideration the factor of probability. With this risk management, we need a sense of how likely each row is – an estimate of the certainty of occurrence.
Waiting for us to gain an even greater understanding of the climate, on which to base a decision, doesn’t avoid the risk; as it is the same as choosing column (N) – which is where we sit right now. This is where the risk of row (T) is increased, or rather made more tangible. There is, of course, the evidence indicating H-IGCD cited above. On top of which we can take recent or concurrent events: for example, prolonged droughts in Africa and Australia, the seemingly delayed seasonal rains in Africa’s Okavango Delta, the flooding in Venice, heat-deaths in Paris, abandonment of sled-hunting in Greenland due to seas not freezing over, Chinese desertification and sand storms, the frequency and severity of major hurricanes this year – Bertha (July), Gustav (August), Ike (September), Omar (October), Paloma (November) – with the 2008 hurricane season (5) breaking 2005’s record (4) of having the most major hurricanes in the 6 months of hurricane season, the accelerated melting of the Chorabari Glacier which feeds the River Ganges in India, etc. Finally we can add that whilst there will almost always be disagreement by dissenting scientists on some scientific issue, we must regard the stance of professional organizations – the more prestigious, the weightier their statements; as they’re staking their reputations on it (which they want to uphold, not tarnish with inaccuracy); from which we have a consensus.
With organisations like the NAS and the AAAS having both issued statements calling for immediate, significant action in response to H-IGCD, by curbing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, (along with the indicators cited), we can adjust the size of row (T) based on the relative probability. Think of row (T) as, now, larger than row (F) – in other words, push the line dividing the two rows in the direction that makes row (T) larger. Now the probability of (T, N) has increased, and thus the risk of (T, N) is greater than (F, Y) not just in terms of likelihood, but in damage as well. Unfortunately, our default (inaction) carries the greater risk. And with the projected rate at which this is occurring we’re talking about this plausibly occurring within a relatively short span of time – not abstract grandchildren, but you and I.
Instead of guessing at rows, we are faced with choosing between the columns, and the arguments lead to the same inescapable conclusion: when faced with uncertainty about our future, the only responsible choice, the only defensible choice, really the only choice is column (Y), in order to eliminate the risk of (T, N) as a possibility; because the risk of not acting significantly outweighs the risk of acting.
It seems odd that the lack of absolute certainty is holding us back. After all, we buy car insurance over smaller stakes in less probable scenarios. We buy car insurance without being certain we’ll crash or have an accident, because we want to make sure that if it does happen we don’t end up broke. To most, this is enough of a risk (along with the statistics of car crashes) to justify the action of purchasing car insurance. Yet we seem to be insisting that every scientist interviewed agree on H-IGCD, holding out until we understand the physics, and debating the finer points of climate science instead of discussing risk management.
Why should this matter anyway? Well, this isn’t about the planet – it will still be here a century or two from now, and it can always rehabilitate itself; it’ll do fine on its own. Whether we humans will be here, our wellbeing, and the state of the environment that we need to sustain us, is what we are concerned with. Every single other issue (from the Rainforests, to pollution, from toxic waste, to government waste, from immigration, to diplomacy, from human rights, to abortion) pales in comparison to the worst of H-IGCD coming to pass. It trumps everything else because if the worst were to happen, we’ll be so busy dealing with the fallout, that all other human concerns will seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Therefore it needs to be our priority.
The positive thing is that there’s a lot reasons to be believe that we can fix this problem, and palliate the risk, without even reducing our standing of living, if we act quickly.
3) I feel it would be negligent not to mention the arguments that mitigate the risk of column (Y). I.e. taking significant action as if H-IGCD were true is more appealing regardless of weather H-IGCD is true or not.
The American Energy Institute did a detailed study of the likely outcome of offshore drilling for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007 Report, and concluded that the effects of offshore drilling on production and oil prices would not be felt until 2030. Not to mention that rigs and oil pollute. But, and this is probably the biggest thing, the huge cost of drilling investment, could just as easily be put toward a green economy. After all, it will not replace oil in the absolute near future, but, as we need to eventually, we should start now.
The last three global recessions – in 1974, 1980 and 1991 – were all triggered by an oil shock. Even if companies drill more oil or access it more quickly, there wouldn’t be enough, most experts agree, to have a significant effect on prices. We need to move to green energy, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% (close to pre-industrial levels) by 2050.
Government incentives for alternative energy production (subsidies for solar and wind, regulations on emissions) will facilitate the transition. We can’t drill our way to energy independence, the U.S. consumes almost a quarter of the world’s oil but has less than 3% of the world’s known oil reserves. And most of those reserves are in fragile ecosystems where endangered species reside, species that we can’t be sure aren’t keystone species (species on which an ecosystem is particularly dependant); such as Polar bears in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The bigger issue is strategically: The economy of the future can not be relying on oil and coal. We need to reduce our dependence on carbon-energy dramatically. In terms of foreign relations (given most oil reserves are held elsewhere i.e. supply), a green economy, green energy jobs, energy independence. That is why we should invest in Renewable Energy. We don’t want to encourage further oil and coal development when it firstly won’t have any impact for years, and, more importantly, when these are the energy sources that have lead us down the track to H-IGCD and pollution.
Aside from the environmental and human health factors, the opportunity cost of investing oil is not worth it. We could just as easily invest in a green economy. If we invest in green tech, independent organizations have concluded we will create millions of jobs and stand to gain billions which will strengthen the economy, increase energy independence, and fight H-IGCD. Several institutes that I can name which endorse this are the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), Center for American Progress (CAP), World Energy Efficiency Agency (WEEA), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDA), etc.
The comparative economic viability comes from the fact that green is more efficient, thus cheaper in the long term (paying for its investment); the jobs that will be created; that long term oil supplies are diminishing, and short term oil supplies are not secure; that drilling is ineffective as concluded by AEI; that the amount of offshore oil around America is relatively insignificant and accessing it would provide no returns for decades; and that investing in a green economy is not only more cost-effective, it is beneficial to the environment and the health of species including our own.
Cutting CO2 emissions (and maintaining our current lifestyle) is cheaper than, say, building new coal plants – screwing in CFL lightbulbs, ratcheting up appliance standards, boosting car fuel-economy, recycling the heat wasted from power plants – in Craig, Colorado, one plant was losing two-thirds of fuel energy as heat. The United States could cut of its carbon emissions and actually save money, while satisfying our energy needs.
We require government regulations and investment because the changes we can reasonably expect from consumers are not enough. Policy matters when it comes to going green. Given the benefits of going green, we will have better chances of both enacting environmentally friendly, green economic policies, and producing international pressure for similar action IF there is interest and ability to use that potential.
The best way to inspire interest is to inform people of this information. The only way we get into column (Y) is through policy change, and that will come about when enough people demand it. We need nothing less than a change in our culture itself. Using our power to persuade others will generate this change. Understanding these arguments helps increase public demand for column (Y). So I’m asking you, whom I’ve never meet, but who’s fate I’m still tied to, to make it part of our thinking and our conversations. Anything less, intentionally or not, is tantamount to choosing column (N).
Err on the side of caution. If it’s row (F), then the solution to the problem row (T), that I believe is real, is at least a benefit. If the sceptics are wrong, their proposals are jeopardising the well being and survival of all the species on Earth, through pollution and H-IGCD exacting a widening human and financial toll. In other words, I can afford to be wrong. Hopefully this helps ends the debate. How humanity ends up, well, that’s up to you and me. This is likely to be the greatest threat that humanity has so far faced. Think that’s overblown? Maybe; but are you so certain that you’re willing to bet everything? We only get to run this experiment once. Think it won’t happen? That’s the risk you’re taking.
No, CO2 and temperature did NOT track during that period:
CO2 is (claimed by the AGW extremists) to be steady up until the mid-1940’s, then it began to steadily rise towards today’s levels.
But temperautre rose 4/10 of one degree from 1890 through 1940 – during a period when even the AGW extremists claim CO2 was not rising.
Then, from 1940 through 1972, CO2 was steadily rising, while temperatures fell 4/10 of one degree.
Then, from 1972 through 1998, temperatures rose 1/2 of one degree, while CO2 steadily rose. BINGO! AGW is PROVED! (Based on only 27 years of data out of the 120 years of “accurate” thermometer data.)
Then, from 1998 through 2008, temperatures fell slightly, while CO2 steadily rose. (But this ten year trend, like that of the previous 40 year trend, and the previous 32 year trend, means nothing and must be ignored.)
John Philip (06:37:36)
Ah, but according to the CO2=AGW paradigm, it wasn’t supposed to cool at all. See lucia’s BlackBoard for how desperately wrong the ‘projections’ have been. All this ‘not monotonically warming’ business of which you speak was only invented when the world’s climate quit following the expectations of the modelers. If Koutsoyiannis is right, the future may be unpredictable. The bottom line emerging is that CO2 does not have the influence on climate that the alarmists would have us believe. So why cripple the societies of the earth by raising the cost of energy unnecessarily? Foolish, my friend, foolish. However, every day, fewer politicians seem willing to follow the mad scientists over the cliff. Hard and cold times are knocking sense into the policymakers. Let’s make the effort to discover the real sensitivity of climate to CO2. Please. For the sake of all of us.
I believe we’ll have 20-30 years of cooling from the PDO flipped to its cooling phase. If the Sun is entering a Minimum, Grand or Lesser, and if the sun controls the climate(Thanks Leif) the earth may cool for up to a 100 years. Hence:
We are cooling folks, for how long even kim doesn’t know.
===================================
Steven (16:37:20)
The Precautionary Principle is a Paeon to Ignorance. Study up on ‘lost opportunity costs’. Encumbering carbon when we are cooling is going to be awfully hard on the poor of this earth, living on the margin. I’m talking millions dying. Spend your effort on discovering the true sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide. If we actually look at the problem, rather than chasing off after the red herring of carbon demonization, we may find the answer, which will be very useful to know.
==========================
John Philips (06:37:36)
Your sophistry is demonstrated by the timescales you’ve picked. Take a look at the last century and observe the approximately 30 year phase of the PDO alternating. The last few years, this century, show the crest of the latest rise, and the beginning of the latest drop. It’s hard to understand why you, as many of the alarmists do, only want to interpret data to support the CO2=AGW paradigm. C’mon, be a scientist. Wonder at the data instead of manipulating it to seem to prove your preconceptions.
==========================================
Besides, John, we all are beginning to understand that the crux of the problem is the magnitude and sign of the water vapor feedback to CO2 forcing. Let’s figure that out rather than running around crying that the sky is falling, or boiling, or whatever you alarmists howl to stampede us into foolish behaviour. What’s the point of all the hysteria?
===========================================
Join the Community of the Curious, rather than the Flock of the Fearful.
=============================================
Ah, but according to the CO2=AGW paradigm, it wasn’t supposed to cool at all. See lucia’s BlackBoard for how desperately wrong the ‘projections’ have been Sorry, but this is not correct. Most model runs have periods of low or negative growth. Take a look at this graph of the spread of model projections from the 2001 IPCC report. It was posted by Roger Pielke on his blog in May. The black bar graph shows the trend in global temperatures projected by the different climate model runs used by the IPCC for the years 2000-2007, and the number of runs that projected each trend. The spread is centred on about 0.2C/decade and the pale blue lines are meant to show the 95% spread. The purple lines below show the actual observed trends in global temperatures as calculated by the various agencies that provide such indices, along with their uncertainty intervals. This demonstrates that precisely because the models include the short term natural variability some of them did indeed predict a cooling. if the mean of one value falls within the 95% confidence limits of the other, which is the case for the global temps and the modelled projections, then in the normal statistical usage of the word, they are consistent. James Annan has the math. What Lucia has ‘falsified’ is just the mean of the models, ignoring the spread. I am not convinced by her novel methodology, however when Lucia did a similar analysis she came to the same conclusion Using all the above, I find that the best estimate of the underlying trend in GMST based on the average of 38 runs (2.22 C/century ) is not inconsistent to a significance level of 95% with the observed trend of -0.59 C/century. So while the mean trend of the models is a warming, some predicted a cooling and the actual trend was within the 95% range of the projections. However what the large spreads and uncertainties actually demonstrate is that it is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from short-term (less than a decade, preferably longer) trends.
Ooops! Here’s the same post, with tags.
Ah, but according to the CO2=AGW paradigm, it wasn’t supposed to cool at all. See lucia’s BlackBoard for how desperately wrong the ‘projections’ have been
Sorry, but this is not correct. Most model runs have periods of low or negative growth. Take a look at this graph of the spread of model projections from the 2001 IPCC report. It was posted by Roger Pielke on his blog in May. The black bar graph shows the trend in global temperatures projected by the different climate model runs used by the IPCC for the years 2000-2007, and the number of runs that projected each trend. The spread is centred on about 0.2C/decade and the pale blue lines are meant to show the 95% spread. The purple lines below show the actual observed trends in global temperatures as calculated by the various agencies that provide such indices, along with their uncertainty intervals. This demonstrates that precisely because the models include the short term natural variability some of them did indeed predict a cooling.
if the mean of one value falls within the 95% confidence limits of the other, which is the case for the global temps and the modelled projections, then in the normal statistical usage of the word, they are consistent. James Annan has the math. What Lucia has ‘falsified’ is just the mean of the models, ignoring the spread. I am not convinced by her novel methodology, however when Lucia did a similar analysis she came to the same conclusion
Using all the above, I find that the best estimate of the underlying trend in GMST based on the average of 38 runs (2.22 C/century ) is not inconsistent to a significance level of 95% with the observed trend of -0.59 C/century.
So while the mean trend of the models is a warming, some predicted a cooling and the actual trend was within the 95% range of the projections. However what the large spreads and uncertainties actually demonstrate is that it is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from short-term (less than a decade, preferably longer) trends.
Kim the crux of the problem is the magnitude and sign of the water vapor feedback to CO2 forcing. Let’s figure that out
Sure, and
here are the latest observational data, published in GRL…
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satelliteborne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average
surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of lq = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. .The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere
and from the conclusion …
The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
(Sure I posted this already. My bold).
Incidentally a paper last week showed that global methane levels are rising again after a decade of levelling off, and speculates this is due to warming of the permafrosts, another feedback. I can get dig out the ref if you’re interested.
cheers,
JP
Stephen: Wow, quite an impressive AGW/CC diatribe. You certainly seem to have the propaganda down. Yes, completely ignore the MWP and LIA, and voila, you get Mann’s temperature hockey stick. How convenient.
Then, you trot out the consensus fallacy you Warmists are so fond of. Sorry, but it’s all a giant house of cards, and it’s collapsing. Do yourself a favor, and try reading a bit of actual science for a change. The truth, as they say, shall set you free.
Finally, the precautionary nonsense. Really. You might be able to fool school kids with that idiocy. It’s all based on fear and ignorance.
It is a sign of a very precise and worthy model that it can predict warming, cooling, drying, and increased precipitation. No matter what trends occur, you will have some version of your model agree with the data! You know it is good science when any trend will support the theory/model. I have got to stop wasting my time in science fields where they have wildly unrealistic expectations of the scientists: They expect scientists to – get this – design theories or models that can be supported or disproven by experiment and data! Nostradamus had nothing on AGW climate modelers.
John, sure you run 20 models, one is going to be more right than the other 19. Big deal. Re: water vapor feedback, see Spencer.
The globe is cooling, John, for how long even kim doesn’t know. But kim’s pretty sure it will be long enough to bury the CO2=AGW paradigm and generate the curiosity to discover what the real sensitivity of climate to CO2 is. The alarmists don’t know now, and their cries and calls to foolish action are hysterical. Remember, the lives of the poor will be damaged and lost by mistaken action and it is an error to think that the more prosperous will escape the effects of that mistake.
========================================
John Philip (03:56:12) :
I did read the paper, though I am not in a position to evaluate its solidity.
My impression is that there is too much sleight of hand with the numbers.
I do know that the temperatures are in a ten year stasis while the CO2 has merrily risen and also that the specific humidity has been falling not rising, as well as the ocean temperatures. How this input can be cooked into the pie served I do not know but I will wait with interest for somebody with expertise in this to comment.
I suspect it is probably is on par with IPCC graphs claiming standard deviations when they are really standard divinations for the errors of the models.
John Philip
– but non the less, in recent years H2O concentration have been decreasing in most of the atmosphere.
You think you can have positive feedback CO2->Warmth->H20->Warmth when H2O is decreasing?
Most of the positive feedback talk just ends as there is not rising H2O in the atmospehere.
– How is the mechanism in details without H2O increase?
From Robert R. Prudhomme (23:10:25) :
Why a Nobel Peace Prize for Climate?- which is a scientific subject .
[…]
P.S. I am begining to belive that the people that award Nobel Peace Prizes are a pretty stupid lot .
-end quote.
Einstein got it for his paper on the photoelectric effect.
Post Gore I’ve taken to spelling it: The Nobel PeeCe Prize …
From Catherine (06:02:51) :
I just have a different opinion than what appears to be most of you. For that you have referred to me as angry and empty headed. FYI I have degrees with honors and a doctorate degree. I suppose that if anyone disagrees with any of you, that person will be labeled as something. So be it.
=end quote.
Catherine, folks here tend to be reason and facts oriented, not involved in the emotional game more than the occasional half hearted humor over some of the follies of the AGW side. I’ve read this post carefully and nowhere did I find the words “empty headed” nor did my ‘find’ button. I can only presume that either a) you are not very careful in your quoting or b) you are deliberately making things up for some reason. Trolling?
It’s nice that you have degrees. Most of the folks here have degrees. I’ve got a couple myself. So? What matters here is the quality of your posting and the content of your argument. So far I’ve not seen much of merit. I’ll keep an open mind, though, and see what develops.
Also, FWIW, I’ve seen very little ‘labeling’ here, especially by the regulars. Tends to be more of the ‘just the facts, Maam’ style (again, with the odd bit of polite jest from time to time). In fact, your posts have had more labeling and innuendo than most.
For example, the Sarah comment. I don’t see where she is relevant at all. 😉 At least not anymore… Yes, she has an opinion. That adds nothing to the discussion one way or the other. Now if she posted some interesting argument… The only reason to drag in Sarah is some kind of attempt to tie being anti-AGW to being Republican. Frankly, being a registered independent with a certain amount of animosity toward the present farce in D.C. from both parties, I resent that. It shows your bias more than that of any one here.
So please, come to the question of warming, and maybe even the silliness of Al Gore doing Oprah with his shopworn slide show, with a bit more reason and a bit less mud. We’ll all be better for it. And try to leave the chip off the shoulder and at home. Please.
From Catherine
I point out the fallacies in Bush and Palin ideology and actions.
-end quote.
See, now here we have it again. Bush of the the lost wandering against AGW before thinking it was an issue after all and Palin who didn’t particularly champion any position let alone a GW one “doncha know”… They are just not RELEVANT to the debate /issue. The only reason to drag them in is some agenda or emotional tie you are hoping they will bring. Al Gore, however, has built a lifestyle around promoting AGW… quite relevant.
Still smells like trolling to me.
From Catherine (09:43:42) :
KIm and the rest of you,
Thanks for the sexist remarks,
-end quote
Catherine, I have seen no sexist remarks. You seem to persist in seeing persecutions where there are none. It’s either trolling or it’s a disorder of some sort. I’m hoping it’s just a trolling technique.
In any case, it’s not very interesting and I, for one, will not be bothering to participate in being co-dependent or facilitating it.
If you want to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the AGW thesis, fine, if not, well, gotta go…
From John Philip
No again, and of course we all know that warming on longer timescales is unequivocal:-
-end quote
Um, no, we don’t. The temperature behaviour looks to me to be cyclical with a significant fractal component (i.e. random with a semi-repeating pattern buried in it.) There are several time scales that show warming and several that show cooling. The period of most interest, however, is the recent time scale where the AGW thesis predicts warming, but in fact for 10 years it’s been static to slightly down and for the last two it’s gotten quite cooler. Basically, the AGW predictions have ALL failed.
Or if you like you can start from the top of the Medieval Optimum or the Holocene Optimum and still end up with net cooling…
The major reason AGW warming charts look good is the choice of a starting point in the little ice age minimum…
but in fact for 10 years it’s been static to slightly down and for the last two it’s gotten quite cooler.
Not according to the data. The 10 year trend is now clearly positive, showing +0.11C/decade in the case of the UAH data. HADCRUT dropped from +0.473 in Oct 06 to +0.434 in Oct 08, a change lot less than the uncertainty in the measurements. A 2 year cooling trend is meaningless as a falsification of an underlying gradual warming – the last two years were dominated by the cooling effect of the 2007-8 La Nina event and nobody expects such events to stop as a result of AGW. This now sees to be behind us as evidenced by the stongly positive trend since the ENSO event peaked. This kind of uncorrelated stochastic variability (aka weather) is actually well-reproduced by the IPCC models.
Global cooling is just so last year. 😉
The globe is warming, albeit irregularly. How long it will continue, not even JP knows.
Smith,
I actually wandered in here because I genuinely thought it might be interesting because I am certainly no expert on the topic. I was surprised by the nasty tone of the remarks about Al Gore. I thought it was a “fringe” group who were just insecure and jealous of a Nobel Prize winner. Then I posted a comment based on an observation and have been given one label after the other and the insults have been hurled at me.
As for the degrees, I only mentioned it because there were so many smarmy people in this group that I was suffocating from the narcissistic, vile posts I was reading (seemed like many of you think that you are better than nearly everyone else). But you are right, even if I did not have a doctorate degree and other degrees with high honors, that should not matter. Its just that you all seem to be sop focused on who is stupid and who is not. And by the way, if people agree with you, then they are not stupid and if they do not, well they are just amoeba.
As for the sexism, I don’t think you would recognize that if it hit you like a two by four so I won’t bother to explain that one.
As for the nasty remarks like the disorder comment, that’s ok. I can take that because you have to consider who lobs them now, don’t you?
Thanks to the few here who were nice and who have posted some very, very interesting information. I will be happy to pass that along to all who are interested.
My first, last and only point is that those of you who are nice, don’t attack and make good points, you are a LOT more credible and look a lot less “fringe.” That’s all I’m sayin’.
Have a good life Smith! Don’t get too emotional now. Can’t have that!
Let’s see if I can take the 40K foot view, and see what’s worse:
Warming = relocated beach fronts, increased food supply.
Cooling = diminished food supply, mass starvation.
UN, IPCC, idiot governments address non-problem warming by attempting to cripple everyone’s standard of living, forcing poor countries to remain as such, and enriching themselves through investment (i.e. Generation Investment Management). No attempt to research cooling.
What else am I missing?