Reposted in its entirety from Climate Science
By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. University of Colorado
There was an interesting news article in the Guardian on December 6 2008 by James Randerson titled Explainer: Coolest year since 2000
The article reads
“This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists at the Met Office. “Absolutely not,” said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre. “If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.”
Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University, who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure: “You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, it’s not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long. We are used to warm years.”
The Met Office had predicted 2008 would be cooler than recent years due to a La Niña event, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean – the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle.
Allen was presenting the data on this year’s global average temperature at the Appleton Space Conference at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot, yesterday. The 14.3C figure is based on data from January to October. When the Met Office makes its formal announcement next week they will incorporate data from November. “[The figure] will differ from it, but it won’t differ massively,” said Stott.
Assuming the final figure is close to 14.3C then 2008 will be the 10th hottest year on record. Hottest was 1998, followed by 2005, 2003 and 2002.
In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade.”
Lets do a reality check.
The statement that “The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing” mixes up regional and global temperatures changes. Also, there has been no global warming in the last 4 years (at least; e.g. see). Global warming has stopped for the last few years.
The statement that “In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade” is scientifically incorrect. Heating cannot be ”masked”.
As given in the examples below, the news releases provided by the UK Met Office make for interesting reading and show the complexity and difficulty of skillful season climate prediction.
Thus why should there be any confidence in the forecasts regarding climate change in the longer term?
Examples of UK Met Office News releases
1. For example, on April 11 2007, they wrote in a news release “Met Office forecast for Summer 2007″ [to their credit, they do have a readily accessible archive]
“The Met Office forecast of global mean temperature for 2007, issued on 4 January 2007 in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, stated that 2007 is likely to be the warmest ever year on record going back to 1850, beating the current record set in 1998.”
This did not occur.
2. On April 3 2008 they wrote in a news release “A typical British summer”
“The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’, according to long-range forecasts issued today. Summer temperatures across the UK are more likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or above average for the three months of summer.”
On August 29 2008 they published a news release titled “Wet summer could end with a bang” where they write
“The return to unsettled weather will mark the end of the meteorological summer which has been one of the wettest on record across the UK.”
I suppose that rainfall “near or above average” fits what actually occurred but this is hardly a particularly precise or useful forecast.
3. On September 25 2008 they wrote in a news release “Trend of mild winters continues”
“The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.”
They qualified this news release with the article on November 25 2008 titled “A cold start to winter” where they wrote
“The latest update to the Met Office winter forecast suggests that although the coming winter will have temperatures near or above average, it is very likely that December will be colder than normal.”
Now, in addition to a news release on December 9 2008 they published an article ”El Niño gives colder European winters”, which states
Sarah Ineson, climate research scientist at the Met Office says: “We have shown evidence of an active stratospheric role in the transition to cold conditions in northern Europe and mild conditions in southern Europe in late winter during El Niño years”.
The message in th UK Met Office press releases is that, since their is such poor skill with seasonal weather prediction, multi-decadal climate prediction must be a much less precise and accurate science than we have heard promoted by the IPCC and in the climate change press releases given out by the UK Met Office and others.
Steffan 15:37 and 15:40
Thank you for your comments
I agree that the case for AGW or MMGW is not water tight but neither is that case for the opposite In fact I don’t expect complex systems to ever have this level of absoluteness – and its unscientific and naive to assume so . However that doesn’t mean no predictions or estimates are possible.
The predictions is … more CO2 means higher temperatures which means more trouble ( not more benefit)
George E Smith
I really don’t understand your point — or am I suffering from the Pauli Exclustion principle .
PeterM said:
Hmmm, you sound very like another person who made similar claims on this site.
In any event, you are wrong. Humans have proven to be capable of surviving in very wide-ranging conditions across this planet.
Of course, perhaps the people living in London or NY would not be capable of surviving in those conditions, but there are plenty who could …
PeteM,
Try posting a skeptical AGW post at ‘real climate’ or any other of the large number of AGW promotion sites and see watts up with waling into a room where only one opinion is welcome.
AGW skeptics are regularly attacked and vilified personally. I had a client pull his business over my view of AGW. And my business has nothing to do directly with AGW.
AGW shows itself to be a social movement in the way its credibility sustains in the face of its failing predictions. It is really quite hard to shake the faith of a self-regulating group as AGW beleivers have become. Afterall, they are saving the planet.
RW: “…to claim that [global warming] has stopped is ludicrous.”
Aah, there’s that wonderful word again – “ludicrous”. 😉
Anyway – someone mentioned “Kalyfornia” and how they’re about to destroy their economy with all the ecofascist regulating.
Now, IMO they’re doing it on purpose and it’s exactly what the Governator was (s)elected for – that is to terminate the State of “Kalifornia”.
According to http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/12/worlds-8th-biggest-economy-is-in.html California may well be finished already:
“The world’s 8th biggest economy is in trouble:
Governor Schwarzenegger declared an emergency and says that California is near “fiscal Armageddon”
* The state budget gap could reach $41.8 billion by 2010
* Standard & Poors has downgraded California’s bonds again
* Wall Street giants are URGING investors to bet that California will go bankrupt…”
Now, (thanks to LPAC) I’ve been aware that California has been in major trouble at least since December last year – and along with some 40+ other US States – but considering what Maurice Strong has said:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?”
“KALIfornia” would be a “good” place to start this collapse – or destruction – not?
“KALI… a Hindu goddess associated with death and destruction… Despite her negative connotations, she is today considered the goddess of time and change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
PeteM,
“I hope I have been polite/reasonable when making in making my views known .”
You have. Just as much as we have.
“But I ask others to accept that this is not a blind belief – I do have a science background (degree and higher ).”
Likewise.
“What I wish to draw attention to – the vast majority of comments here are self reinforcing of a particular anti-MMGW view .”
Yes, the division is not generally pro- and anti- on any one internet site, but an overall balance is achieved by some sites being pro- and other sites being anti-. This site is, as you correctly identify, populated mainly by the anti-AGW group. It’s a place for sceptics to come where they’re not going to get constantly shouted down. However, it does at the same time try to be reasonable about it, and exercise some quality control, which is why a newspaper might have recommended it. You can hear the pro-AGW side of the debate in many outlets – the BBC, the UN, CNN, governments, environmentalist lobby groups, and so on. If you want to hear the anti-AGW side of the debate too (as any scientist should) then here is one of the better places to do so.
On your additional points.
“but then suspend the same logic that changing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere won’t have any impact .”
The changing CO2 level has a calculable effect, which is about 1C per doubling of CO2. Since the level is going up at a rate of about 40% per century, that’s about half a degree per century. The effect exists, but is not significant compared to background variation. The dispute is not about the effect of CO2, it is about the claim that this rise is tripled or more by various time-delayed feedbacks, which are much more poorly understood, and for which the evidence is very weak.
We constantly get accused of denying this basic science. It is unfortunate that it’s mostly by people who have got their understanding from the media, and who therefore don’t understand what the actual science says, or why it is disputed.
“I’m also fed up of hearing the point about life existing on this planet in a variety of previous conditions . Humans couldn’t have survived in most of those scenarios .”
On the contrary. Humans can survive over one of the widest ranges of climates of any animal on Earth. We survive from desert to pole. If a range of over 50C can’t stop us, why do you think 3C will?
There’s a graph here (part way down) of the climate over the past 600 million years.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
It plots both CO2 level and temperature. During virtually all of that history, life has flourished, including many of the species that survive to this day.
The last interglacial – the Eemian, was warmer than today, and at only 125,000 years ago is well within mankind’s evolutionary history. (The polar bear’s too.)
The IPCC-predicted 3C would make a significant change, but there’s no reason to think it would be a fatal one.
sonicfrog (07:52:45) :
Meanwhile, here in Kalyfornia, the Air Resources Gestapo… I mean board, just passed sweeping new regulations to stop climate change.
[…]
Been tried – Kyoto – failed. Good luck with that.
I don’t think it will hard at all. We will get our electricity from Arizona, and all the industry that has not already moved to Texas and Nevada will move, so we won’t have all the commute traffic. No time flat California will have a zero carbon footprint. We just have to get the money from the Feds to let us continue to build our (no longer working) workers paradise.
It doesn’t take much carbon to sit on the porch and eat magic brownies… (can’t light up since that would release CO2 😉
So common folks, you need to support the cause and call Obama and tell him to send us some money. Now. Or we’re gonna wash your windshield …
(do I really need to add a /sarc ?)
On a somber note: Driving through what used to be the dynamic center of tech growth and innovation and looking at all the empty buildings with ‘for lease at any price’ signs is depressing.
If I were starting another company, I’d put it outside the U.S. if possible and outside California at a minimum. Brazil and China will be the winners here.
I fear that the state will need to finish collapsing before it gets it’s head straight. I only hope that the rest of the nation can avoid the contagion. Quarantine Pelosi if you can…
On a weather note: The impending 3 decade drought will really cut back on farm CO2 production too…
Someone may already have said this but, cooler temperatures are evidence of global cooling, despite what the AGW alarmists may say, but not proof that global warming has stopped. But when the evidence keeps piling up, we will cross that burden of proof sooner or later.
Snow in New Orleans – wow that is some evidence. Not sure what the latitude is but coming from Australia that would be like snow in Brisbane. Never happens.
PeteM,
To hear an AGW beliver calling for ‘balance’ in a site which, unlike basically 100% of pro-AGW sites, does not censor, is laughable.
Perhaps your impression that ‘most’ people agree with you is because it is in fact the AGW promotion industry that is self-selected and self-reinforcing?
As to your rather predictable justification that skeptics need to be silent and let those who really care and understand how GHG’s work, I would submit that the science clearly shows that the understanding claimed by Hansen &co. is a false claim. From the waste of billions in pursuing CO2, instead of cleaning up soot, to the food disruptions caused by food-for-ethanol, to the crazy idea that undependable wind generators can sustain prosperous lifestyles, a huge amount of time ahs been wasted and environmental and economic damage created, by AGW activists and policies.
Off topic … but I heard that there is now evidence that the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere has not actually increased since pre-industrial days. Does anyone have any more information on that?
PeteM (15:41:10) :
I’m not an eco-communist , left-winger , radical-agitator or any other from of extremist. I’m just a normal individual . The difference is that I ( like a lot of other people) am prepared to agree with a view that pumping large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere ( and then the oceans) is a daft idea given we know the greenhouse effect influences the climate on this planet .
Where is the science you base that last sentence on? Don’t just take things for granted or “be prepared to agree”. Check it. Tell us what you found.
In my opinon, this site is so popular because ut is science based and providing real information. There are debates here. It is the scientific method at work.
PeteM:
Where did you get this wild supposition? “I’m also fed up of hearing the point about life existing on this planet in a variety of previous conditions . Humans couldn’t have survived in most of those scenarios.” I don’t recall anyone on this forum posting such a belief.
PeteM wrote: “However that doesn’t mean no predictions or estimates are possible.”
PeteM, thanks for your reply and, I believe, your good natured participation here. Whilst anyone can make predictions, we truly need to know whether those predictions are reliable. There is a small academic field, I believe they are called the Institute of Forecasters. They research the things that tend to lead to good forecasts (all sorts of forecasts), and the things that tend to lead to wrong forecasts, based on experience. One of their somewhat surprising rules of thumb is that one of the things which tends to lead to a forecast being wrong is that the forecast was made by experts.
See, we can make predictions, but we can’t predict very well which predictions will tend to be right. It is the inherent unpredictability of the future. Now if from experience we discover that Mr. X’s secret formula has proven to be right 75% of the time, then we can indeed trust Mr. X’s predictions. But we have to wait until the predictions are borne out, tested in the real world, over and over again, before we know whether they can be trusted.
Now you may have a simple theoretical rule about increasing CO2 driving climate change. But have your actual predictions been borne out in the real world? This is where AGW theory falls down. Remember we’re supposed to wait 30+ years to observe a trend, and the outcome of today’s models. It may indeed turn out to be true in 2050, but we don’t know that it is true before we know that it is true, for practical purposes. AGW scientists are asking the world to take a huge gamble–act now or it will be too late!!–and at this point we have to ask about real world issues, such as the more pressing and here today problems the world is facing, including nuclear proliferation, AIDS, despotic regimes, ethnic cleansing, trade wars, inner city slums, water resources, etc.
H,
A guy called Beck has been saying that for years, I think Tim Ball mentioned it recently. It’s extremely dubious.
It’s based on the history of CO2 measurements which up until the 1950s were widely scattered and generally high. One side says the experimental procedure was faulty and the measurement errors large, the other side says it’s evidence it’s always been variable and the modern readings are censored – readings that don’t fit expectations are assumed to be in error and are thrown away.
On this one, I’m inclined towards the experimental error explanation, but I don’t have enough information about the details of modern CO2 measurement to be certain. A lot of AGW-sceptic scientists dismiss Beck’s claims too.
PeteM (15:41:10)
I don’t believe the argument states unequivocally that CO2 levels have “no” impact. It’s more a case of “insignificant” impact vs. catastrophic (mess-in- your-pants) impact.
What medical info do you have that implies that man couldn’t survive in a climate that was a few degrees warmer with 10X the current CO2 levels? My God, we occupy just about every nook and cranny on the planet from Greenland Ranch in Death Valley to Grise Fjord, Nunavut, Canada. Nothing wrong with keeping our house clean but losing our heads over a cobweb is extreme.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”
–Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover
Magazine, October 1989.
When it can be shown by direct evidence that CO2 plays anything but a minor if not immeasurable role in temperature, I will be more persuaded. Thus far it is largely based on GCM outputs which are little more than numerical expressions of the programmer’s assumptions. And no, GCM’s do not contain all the correct physics by IPCC’s own admission.
It’s amusing to see those that are so readily to accept computer model outputs as evidence and fact. meanwhile, the very “data” they point to in an attempt to prove their point is wrought with manipulation (also known as “homogenization” or “adjustments”) and error as Anthony has so adequately pointed out at surfacestations.org.
PeteM, welcome to one of the best moderated blogs you will ever encounter. As you see your opinion is allowed here unlike many other AGW sites who censor. You will find that there is a broad discussion of many different possibilities for a slight increase in “average global temperaure”. As a member of the so called peanut gallery, those of us without significant scientific training or background, I simply ask these questions of you:
Does “average global temperature” really mean anythng? (Is there even one?)
What should the “average global temperature” be? (what is was 10 years ago? or 20, or 50, or 100 or 1000 or maybe last year?)
Who gets to decide what the “average global temperature” should be? (I vote for 85 degrees year round with SSTs at 84)
Finally, you said:
“The predictions is … more CO2 means higher temperatures which means more trouble ( not more benefit)”
Even I know that is not accurate.
hunter 16:00
Obviously I do not believe people should be penalized for their personnal views – and I don’t wish that you should have been impacted simply for have certain thoughts.
I do understand when one company asks another company supplying products/services to comply with some standard. If the company is not able to meet those standards then it cannot continue to offer business.
hunter 16:09
I am concerned about CO2 in the atmoshpere on many points – immediate global warming , long term effecdt on the oceans , acidification of rivers , unknown impacts on the biosphere . It’s like changing the background level of radiation an not expecting any consequences – it’s not a matter of simply using the word ‘pollution’.
Stevo 16:04
I mainly agree with your comments – although maybe there is a reason why the anti – AGW/MMGW has lost its voice in some media organisations ( its case was not strong .. and the AGW./MMGW is stronger …) .
I don’t want to get into a debate about human adaption … but we’re talking about a planet that currently has 6+ billiom people versus scenarios where the human population was maybe a few hundred thousand . The transition from the former to latter is not something I would want to accept when we could have done something about it . We probably need a certain number of people before civilisation (as opposed to survival) is possible .
H 16:11
CO2 levels not increasing is absurd even for the most keen of anti-MMGW supporters.
Pete M:
Thank you for responding to everyone’s comments. I enjoy reading debate. But seeing tempertures chopped, diced, smothered, cooked and flat out changed to meet their agenda has made me a skeptic. I’m not a scientist, physicist or any other label that qualifies me as a smart person.
But I do have common sense.
Until the AGW gets rid of people like Hansen, most arguements with CO2 and global warming in the same sentence will fall on my deaf ears.
Carsten – Norway 16:14
We know CO2 influences the climate of this planet . Exactly what temperature do you think Earth would be at without some greenhouse effect ? Just do the maths about the incident energy from the sun ….
If you think CO2 doesn’t effect the climate of this planet then I’m not sure how to answer you point about this site being popular becuase of its ‘science content’.
Richard de Souse
There have been several comments ( not articles) on this forum from people happy to suggest people are very adaptable to all sorts of environments .
Read the answers when folks like me post something here .
Humans couldn’t have survived in most of those scenarios.
I’ve lived in Iran, at plus 50 deg C. I’ve worked in the high Arctic, at minus 60 deg C.
that falsifies that statement, of petem’s.
On a personal note, I much preferred plus 50, to minus 60.
PeteM
I did a google search, on scholar.google.com for the terms you specifically outlined “Tundra treeline spruce”. Guess what, the peer reviewed papers do not show treeline advancement. Here is a typical quote:
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=3845783&q=tundra+treeline+spruce&uid=&setcookie=yes
This hardly seems like a ringing endorsement of your position.
Care to comment?
I ( like a lot of other people) am prepared to agree with a view that pumping large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere ( and then the oceans) is a daft idea given we know the greenhouse effect influences the climate on this planet .
Pete, no one says there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. So again, please present your proof of manmade global warming. Remember, we are all in favor of a clean environment, energy efficiency, and energy independence in the U.S..
Start with your proof that C02 is a major climate driver.
RW
Temperature variations are highly predictable on some time scales and highly unpredictable on others
What a lot of bollocks, as an Englishman might say.
Let’s suppose that temperatures are not predictable at 10 years scales, but are at 150 year time scales. I don’t think you would disagree with this supposition. But let’s just call it a supposition; we could employ any two different time periods.
So, I can’t predict global temperatures (for that is what we are talking of) ten years hence. So, why not go back 140 years and make that reliable 150 year prediction?
A similar argument applies to predicting the temperature 160 years in the future. We will know what it will be in 150 years, but, we cannot predict from there to 160 years.
Listen up! You are Keanu Reeves from Real Climate, aren’t you? I understand computer mathematics and the build up of errror over time, Runge-Kutta, etc. I also know that initial conditions are not precisely known, and cannot be represented in a practical number system. I know that thermodynamics is not a precise science. You take us folk here for fools.
I will waste no more time on your casuistry .
RW writes:
“It’s like saying an oak tree has stopped growing because you couldn’t measure a change in its height over the course of a week.
No, saying that that a positive growth rate is immeasurable is much different from pointing out that measurements over a shortened interval show a negative or zero trend. The statement that global warming has stopped over the last four years seems to be accurate on its face. Now if you want to show that, if not for industrial CO2 emissions, the temperature trend over the last four years would have been even more negative, that’s fine, but there’s really no way to prove it, any more than you can prove the statement that “If linebacker X weren’t injured in the first quarter, team Y would have won the game instead of lost it.”
“Over periods of a few years, weather noise completely dominates the forcing due to CO2. You cannot measure global warming over a ‘few years’, so to claim that it has stopped is ludicrous.”
Why can’t global warming be measured over any arbitrary interval? It appears that that you are making assumptions about what the influence of CO2 is, and on that basis, trying to conclude what interval would be needed to reliably discern that warming. But that’s the entire issue, now, isn’t it? I think everyone will agree that over three or four years, chaotic weather fluctuations have an amplitude that dwarfs that of any warming due to CO2. The opinion of a lot of people on this board, however, is that chaotic weather fluctuations (as well as long term, natural climate variability) also dwarf CO2 warming on the longer time scale of several decades, because CO2 warming is insignificant.
How you can possibly determine the time scale at which CO2 warming definitively evidences itself over natural variability without first making a bald assumption of what that CO2 warming rate happens to be? If the assumption is that both CO2 and natural climate variability contribute to temperature trends, how does the bare measurement of the temperature trend help in distinguishing a CO2 signal from a natural signal? Given the presence of some CO2 signal (with an undetermined significance) how do you measurably verify a time period over which there is no expected climate variability so as to infer what the CO2 signal is? Global warming advocates (wrong word, I know, but I can’t think of anything better) try to answer these questions by either looking at temperature reconstructions (which can’t be verified) or by incorporating assumptions into computer models and then “verifying” the computer models using, in part, the same assumptions that went into the model, e.g. assumed CO2 “fingerprints” (how’s that for circular logic), or even more perversely, by comparing model runs of past climate to reconstructed climate records (where the model was constructed in the first place using reconstructed climate trends).
Another way of stating this is that it is pointless for a theory or model of how a system works to be more detailed than the level at which the system can be physically measured. If you can’t use an instrument to measure the contribution of CO2 to today’s temperature, separate from other factors, don’t bother trying to model it because you will never be able to verify the model. Without verifying the model, the theory is nothing more than speculation. It may be educated speculation in the sense that there are rational reasons behind the calculations, but it is still just speculation.
Incidentally, I’m not suggesting that you can’t experimentally determine the contribution of added CO2 to temperature trends by a statistical or mathematical analysis, but there are two important caveats. One is that the time period over which this analysis is conducted would be extremely long. If, as you suggest, a CO2 signal can’t be distinguished from weather in several years, it’s going to take many decades, if not centuries, to establish confidence in any results using such a method. More importantly, you’re going to have to somehow obtain the ability to start controlling the rate of CO2 emissions and varying them up and down at different rates as a precursor to measuring the climate sensitivity to CO2. Engineers will be familiar with this type of “Black Box” analysis where you simply measure the inputs and outputs to determine the relationship between them. But again, because you either don’t know what other variables there are and/or can’t control for them, you have to randomize them out by extending the time period of the measurement interval.