Left to Right: Dr. Gavin Schmidt (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), Dr. Paul Knappenberger (President of the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum), Dr. Wally Broecker (Columbia University), and Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert (University of Chicago) pose for a photo after the first of the Global Climate Change forum. Forum I was held at the Adler Planetarium.
From Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog.
Two Decades of No Warming, Consistent With . . .
Over at Real Climate they are busy giving climate skeptics reason to cheer:
We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.
Imagine, twenty-two or more years (1998 to ~2020) of no new global temperature record. What would that do to the debate?
Real Climate does say something very smart in the piece (emphasis added):
Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.
As I’ve argued many times, uncertainty is a far batter reason for justifying action than overhyped claims to certainty, or worse, claims that any possible behavior of the climate system is somehow “consistent with” expectations. Policy makers and the public can handle uncertainty, its the nonsense they have trouble with.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis Eschenbach (09:35:25) :
It would be easier to do with water, but they would have to make sure they don’t use carbonated water. LOL 😉
I agree with your thermal analysis though. When you have a constant rate of heating (as shown in their climate models) you will NEVER get cooling after a sudden and limited spike of increased heating rate. The only time cooling can be observed is if the heat source is reduced. Of course we assume here that the “container” is not changing its heat capacity constant and certainly it is not a little CO2 ppm change that will affect it that much.
So, they’re saying climate is like a giant beehive, and we are poking that beehive with our GHG “stick”, with “no guarantees” of what will happen. Of course, any child knows what will happen. Sooner or later you’ll get stung. In other words, whatever happens climatically speaking, particularly if it’s bad, will be our fault, for poking at the climate beehive. Whatever happens, their arses are covered then. How convenient.
Jordan (10:33:29) :
“It obviously wasn’t CO2. And we’re told it’s not the sun ”
It was the sun, back in 1989, eight years before:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
CodeTech (10:50:29), thanks for the vote of support. It seems to me that their claim fails just on that most elementary thermodynamic level, regardless of anything to do with climate.
For their claim to work, there would have to be some kind of mysterious “thermal inertia” that would drive a heated CPU below equilibrium temperature … funny that I’ve never heard of that before, but in the world of climate “science”, I guess anything’s possible …
w.
“”” CodeTech (10:50:29) :
Willis Eschenbach:
The block of steel analogy can be replaced with a real-world example: the heat sink on your CPU. Your CPU generates heat even when idle, however a burst of 100% processor will heat it more rapidly. Of course, since it’s heated more, it radiates heat more quickly, but will never drop below the underlying idle heat balance. The concept of “overshooting” dissipation is really quite amusing, and quite against the entire “thermodynamics” thing. “””
I would say the distinction is more specific. Overshoot occurs in systems, where energy is exchanged between two different storage mechanisms; and the other requirement is feedback; or some form of bidirectionality.
A unidirectional system can’t overshoot; and applying an impulse of thermal energy to an inanimate object, would be one example of a unidirectional system. But in feedback systems, the system reacts to its own output, in a way, that alters the equilibrium condition, so the system must seek a new target.
The El Nino of 1998 shows remarkably little if any overshoot. In two years from the onset, there is not a shred of evidence of the event (in the anomaly record).
But the trend before that is influenced by the 1986/87/88 El Nino which caused an upward step change in global temperatures, so we have to discount the period after that as well. And then the trend before that is impacted by the 1972/73 El Nino. It too resulted in a change, one that was counteracted by a volcanic eruption. Blah, blah, blah.
So, 22 years to dissipate one year of el nino?
Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond. And with that he promptly disappeared up his own backside.
Yes minister came straight into my head when I read it.
It’s curious that the 3/09 Copenhagen report attributes the current cool spell in part to low sunspot numbers, yet according to the IPCC4 report, warming has little if anything to do with high sunspot numbers. How can this be? 🙂
Cap and Tax
“Well it’s there now it does insulate the roof and we aren’t building any more”
M White (11:22:01) :
tamino says:
13 July 2009 at 7:31 PM
Re: #91 (Alex)
But much of his [Algore] efforts are negated by the mean-spiritied, dishonest, but effective character assassination aimed at him. Despicable, yes — but also effective propaganda.
And wasn’t it Al who brought the battle to the beacon in the first place? What goes around pal. In the end, isn’t that what’s important? Little propaganda wars?
The important part of this (other than the political part ) is that they have admitted that we are unable to predict the future. Well, DOH! That’s what people have been trying to get across to them for years. As for resuming the “pre-’98” trend, a heck of lot can happen in 10 years.
RealClimate in May 2008:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/
No matter what happens, they just can’t bring themselves to say that dreaded word: “we were wr…..wr….wro….wron….”.
Nope, they can’t say it.
The 1998 temperature increase wasn’t even a 2 sigma event.(+/-0.22C change in one year) There was a 2 sigma temperature drop in 1999 that wiped out all the 1998 increase and part of the 1997 increase.
There are seven 2 sigma temperature changes in the Giss record. Temperature increases in 1957 & 1977. Temperature drops in 1890, 1964, 1974, 1992, and 1999.
Here is a graphic. http://i30.tinypic.com/10o1vz5.gif
I don’t see how they can say there is anything ‘in the pipe-line’.
The 32 year trend lines sure look to me like the PDO cycle enhancing a little natural warming. I’d say the CO2 contribution is negligible.
Boudu (08:34:18) : So what does the hockey stick look like now ?
Turn it upside down, they just had it backwards.
I tried to post this at Real Climate unfortunately it will go the same way as all my earlier posts.
This is great news and to think we heard it first on this great site.
Global Warming is over.
Well done you guys at Real Climate and an especial thank you to Gavin for making the world a safer place
End of salutations
Seriously though, wasn’t this always going to be the case, Global Warming has morphed into the c words of Climate Change.
On a recent post at CIF guardian someone said it will get warmer if not next year then the year after that or the year after that. They should have posted under the screen name Mogadon Man.
For what it’s worth the amount of spiteful and rude comments which are made against posters who do not support AGW does give me some joy as it shows they have lost the argument. Now to persuade the politicians that if they are not careful they will be sending good money after bad money.
So, if the 1998 El Nino caused an overshoot, and the excess is being radiated off ( with the help of a lackadaisacal Sun), and human poking is to be avoided, then the agenda of forcing the climate with further pokings to a cooler state is
a double standard.
i.e. – if the Earth is capable of shedding excess heat from a monster El Nino, what does this say about the Feedback Multipliers? It says that they are bunk.
The goalpost is moved once again.
@Curious George
You know this just had to hurt. I wonder what they will pick as the next catastrophe? Probably over-population. That’s a perennial favorite.
I wonder if they cleared this with Mr. Holdren? And has anyone checked on Gore’s investments lately to see if he’s getting out of the carbon trading business?
Curious George
In answer to your questions it has already been chosen Acidification of the Seas therefore Mr Gore’s investments are safe:-{}
CodeTech (10:50:29) :
The concept of “overshooting” dissipation is really quite amusing, and quite against the entire “thermodynamics” thing.
The overshooting dissipation, the energy (heat) loops, the enhancing tunnels, etc., are imaginary processes invented for explaining an unreal hypothesis which is pseudoscientific if it is examined against real thermodynamic processes. The proponents of AGW idea have dared to change the scientific methodology by reducing it to consensuses and opinions, and have tried to erase science and change the fundamental laws of the Universe. 🙂
I think when they will squeeze all the juice out of this CO2 lemon and run out of arguments, they will switch molecules. You can bet they will define water as a pollutant soon since it is more abundant, has a greater greenhouse effect and basically defines the heat content on earth. Of course, we will be made responsible for its increased concentration in the atmosphere since it is also a by-product of combustion… and be all breath it out.
Of course they will claim that water vapor produced from the burning of fossile fuel is worst. They will conveniently ignore that 97.2% of all water is in the ocean, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. They will find a way to tax it.
Anyway, you see where this is all going.
The debate is settled for the public when policies are pre-defined, but it will never really be settled in their closed community since they always change and manipulate science to support only those policies. What they should really say is; “The policies are settled”.
CodeTech (10:50:29) :
The concept of “overshooting” dissipation is really quite amusing, and quite against the entire “thermodynamics” thing.
Movements of water in the ocean have momentum. Water is heavy stuff. An upwelling of warm water caused by a cooler atmosphere will warm the atmosphere above. There will be a lag time before the newly warmed atmosphere starts to suppress the escape of heat from the ocean. I think this is how modoki el nino works. Like the one starting now.
In the case of the ’98 el nino, the process is different, Bob Tisdale explains it well.
I’m confused.
If CO2 is driving a radiative imbalance that is consistently adding joules to the “system” year after year with positive feedbacks dominant, how can the 1997/98 “overshoot” be radiatively dissipating over the next few years?
Wouldn’t the heat accumulation simply continue on top of the ’98 event rather than dissipating?
Radiative dissipation is another way to describe negative feedback – no?
Are they now admitting that sufficient natural negative feedbacks exist that can overcome both the ’98 event and the continued radiative imbalance?
Can someone explain this to me?
I don’t know if any of you calculated the numbers, guys. But the author is saying that the 1979-1997 trend is probably the true underlying warming trend. If you do the numbers with GISTEMP data, that’s a rather unimpresive 0.113ºC/decade as the “true trend”. If you add to this that the warming would not resume until 2020, meaning that there will be no change in temperatures until then, and then the reduced trend would go on, that gives a forecast of only +0.9ºC by 2100 compared to now.
We can clearly call the author a “denier” by RC standards.
Jordan (10:33:29) :
I hope the climatologists are interacting with mainstream physicists down the corridor
I hope the psychologists will start interacting with the climatologists who are round the bend.
I thought realclimate’s position has been that there is no slow-down in warming – that in fact it has been accelerating?