From the make up your freaking minds department comes this oopsy juxtaposition of alarmist messaging.
In an attempt to explain “the pause”, researchers are now grasping for explanations:
Human actions that were not intended to limit the greenhouse effect have had large effects on slowing climate change. The two world wars, the Great Depression and a 1987 international treaty on ozone-depleting chemicals put a surprising dent in the rate at which the planet warmed, says research published today in Nature Geoscience1.
Francisco Estrada, an ecological economist at the Free University in Amsterdam, and his colleagues analysed annual temperature data collected from 1850 to 2010, as well as trends in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — ozone-depleting substances that also trap heat in the atmosphere — between 1880 and 2010.
http://www.nature.com/news/ozone-hole-treaty-slowed-global-warming-1.14134
Only one problem, two years ago, we were being told cutting back on CFC’s “…helped to shield… from carbon-induced warming over the past two decades” as the CFC driven ozone hole heals:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125192016.htm
The new paper:
Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes
Abstract
The warming of the climate system is unequivocal as evidenced by an increase in global temperatures by 0.8 °C over the past century. However, the attribution of the observed warming to human activities remains less clear, particularly because of the apparent slow-down in warming since the late 1990s. Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations. We show that long-term trends in total radiative forcing and temperatures have largely been determined by atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and modulated by other radiative factors. We identify a pronounced increase in the growth rates of both temperatures and radiative forcing around 1960, which marks the onset of sustained global warming. Our analyses also reveal a contribution of human interventions to two periods when global warming slowed down. Our statistical analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s. Furthermore, we identify a contribution from the two world wars and the Great Depression to the documented cooling in the mid-twentieth century, through lower carbon dioxide emissions. We conclude that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are effective in slowing the rate of warming in the short term.
==========================================================
I don’t think anybody really knows which way it is going.
Gary “If no one wants it, I guess we could call it the Pearse effect!
It seems to name is not taken, but there is in psychology something called the “Pearse-Hall error learning effect”,which is probably quite appropriate for many people here.
But where are the ozon proxies and the accompanying hockey schtick?
Yearh, I want to know how this progressed too? The startling finding was put down to ‘impurities’.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.456.html
However, two years later there were still nagging questions about the rates.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/
Has the variable ozone hole always existed?
You just wait.
When the “pause” turns to cooling phase, and then rapid cooling, the alarmists will still blame the CO2 and humans for it, and demand “urgent action”, and “binding agreements” to give them power.
As their “theory” is impossible to falsify, so is expecting them to admit that they were wrong is foolish.
Everybody on the skeptic side of the climate wars takes aim at the very serious issues with the veracity of so much of the claimed and supposed science or should that be chicken entrails science, that appears from the alarmist advocates of catastrophic climate change.
Nowhere have I seen an examination and an analysis of the funders or the distributors / allocators of that funding for this increasingly crap science and the funders / allocators motives in continuing to fund such disgraceful science.
Continuing to fund such poor so called science will inevitably create a very severe backlash against science of every type and at every level amongst the prime sources of basic science funding, the tax paying man and woman in the street.
And it already starting to happen if my anecdotal sources are on the ball with an increasing level of quite cynical comments on science, scientists and particularly climate science and they money they receive .
The science, particularly climate science funders and allocators of the grants, ie the universities could fix the whole of climate science overnight by ensuring that any so called climate scientists and climate modellers and scientists of every discipline who have previously failed to produce papers of any relevance and / or failed to make ALL of their data, observations and computational methods free and open for all to check and see would automatically be cut from the funding stream.
In other words take a very big axe to climate science in particular and force a drastic raising of quality of science research by simply refusing to fund rubbishy papers or those who cannot and do not produce papers of quality.
Perhaps new papers and research should ONLY be paid for after acceptable science has been demonstrated to have been done to the required scientific standards.
Yes. I know!. A lot of research would never get done and yet mankind’s greatest advances in the past have come from scientists who often had the minimal of resources and backing as in a salary only and not very good one at that.
Good research once done and published would be well paid for and compensated in such a funding scheme.
Bad research and bad or lazy researchers and gold digging academics would likely decide to find another occupation such as selling bridges in such a case.
Of course if those same allocators of science grants fail to fix the mess that they have created and do so very soon, then the next stage is for the politicals, as they cop ever more flack from the tax paying public for allowing the zealots and bullies of a certain interpretation of science to dominate, bully and denigrate any alternative viewpoints, to cut back funding to those centers, the universities, that have so far controlled the flow of science grants to their insiders and fellow travellers or their running dogs in the old communist parlance, in climate alarmist science for many years past.
And that WILL hurt and in the right spot for action to be taken and fast..
It would be a huge blow to the status, the standing, the reputation and the arrogance of academia in showing that they are far from being as untouchable as they have now come to arrogantly believe they are.
it would also bring to heel the universities and grant allocators in that they might be forced to once again realise that they are only there under a long standing unwritten contract with the public in that they are there to produce knowledge and benefits, to enhance and raise the living standards of all citizens and to advance civilisation and do so without fear or favour,
In return, that contract from the tax paying public’s viewpoint is to support and allow reseachers and scientists and the universities the freedom to roam across the whole spectrum of human intelligence, knowledge and endeavor in a barely fettered quest to find and develop new knowledge and endeavours that will benefit us all.
A recognition that is rarely if ever, bestowed on or so generously granted to any other segment or members of our society and populace
The tax paying citizen has more than fulfilled their role in generously, too generously in most cases, in funding science, more so climate science above all others .
The scientists, the researchers and the universities and their steadily enlarging and already huge cabals of drone like academics have failed their part of the contract totally as they continue to skim off untold wealth through promoting and supporting what is clearly now being seen increasingly by the tax paying public as fraudulent science in many disciplines, climate science being the by far most obvious manifestation of this steady onset of the increasing corruption of long accepted basic academic and scientific principles.
All apparently so as to gain further power and influence and wealth and try to ensure that the academic agendas of the social re-structuring of society can be accomplished to fit their own socialistic templates and aims.
The BBC graphs are quite interesting. The upper graph shows a peak approx every 10 years except 1930 and 2010. The missing peak in 1930 is probably due to the Great Depression. The 2010 missing peak must, similarly, be due to the GFC. This implies that if we wish to prevent great heating we must engineer a few more GFCs.
The lower graph has a vertical axis measured in units of 10 to the 22 years – rather a long time. This was apparently reached in about 2003 or 2004. But it has now fallen to close to zero times 10^22 years, and a few years ago was in negative territory, being -0.5 x 10^22 years. Does anyone know what this graph is about? I rather think that 10^22 years is rather longer than the currently accepted age of the universe.
“Human actions that were not intended to limit the greenhouse effect have had large effects on slowing climate change. The two world wars,”
The two world wars where we smelted the metal and powered the factories for thousands of ships , tens of thousands of armoured vehicles and airframes and the engines to run them, millions of firearms and artillery pieces,Trillions of pieces of ammunition,Burnt all the gasoline and diesel to drive them around North Africa, the Atlantic, Europe and the Pacific. All that CO2 release caused a net cooling? Aerosols was it , well say it slowly in a Swedish accent…….
Re the Antarctic Ozone hole and whether it is a normal long standing characteristic of the Antarctic polar region’s atmosphere. I really wish I had kept this comment which is the only such comment i have come across and did so a few years ago.
It ran along the lines that pre-WW2 Japanese radio propagation researchers knew there was something unusual going on in the Antarctic atmosphere.
Prior to WW2 the Imperial Japanese Navy [ IJN ] had been conducting very extensive mapping and radio communications research in preperation for what they anticipated would be a short sharp war in which the Americans after taking a beating would give up and sue for peace leaving the Japanese with most of their gains as an extended Empire.
The Japanese Army wanted to go north into the then USSR but after the major defeat, a full on beating of the Japanese Manchurian Army by the Russians led by Zhukov in the 1939 Nomonhan Incident [ Jap ]- Khalkhin Gol [ Rus ] battles the IJN won the day and Japan went south.
It seems that in their radio communication research for the anticipated wartime communications systems that the Japanese identified something quite unusual in the stratosphere high over the then almost unknown Antarctic continent and Southern Ocean regions which was quite probably what we know as the Ozone Hole.
Particularly as the Ozone Hole extends on occasions as far north as New Zealand which was most definitely on the Japanese agenda as an area to be isolated so as to refuse the Americans the communications routes to the Australian continent and deny them another line of possible counter attack..
As a side line, the Japs had the best maps of Australia’s entire pre-war northern coastlines as they had been given the contract by the Australian governments of the time to map those same coastlines.
And recently a gas pipeline was being laid across Darwin Harbour by a Japanese consortium for exporting natural gas when an unexploded bomb was found deep in the Harbour bed.
The Japanese asked for an immediate bomb demolition team to remove that bomb and were told somewhat pointedly ; Remove it your bloody selves. It’s your bomb!
And don’t mess it up or you will have half of Darwin gone.
The language was more along the very blunt Australian way of speaking than i can post here.
What on Earth is an Ecological Economist?
But the old ones are OK? Uh-oh.
I am reminded of a saying… “They are so full of [it] even their eyes are brown”.
alexwade says: @ur momisugly November 11, 2013 at 5:05 pm
…. we could just as well re-word that saying as “Mother Earth, save us from your followers.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point I think only Mother Earth can although even if the temperature dropped by 5°C for decades and the Arctic sea remain frozen solid all summer, despite the efforts of Russian Icebreakers, the Warmists would still figure out how to blame it all on Anthropogenic Global Warming. WUWT link
Of course that is why the name was changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. That way the Warmists have all the bases covered. It is also an admission it is a HOAX and they darn well know it.
Independent Research may have determined the manner in which Climate Science is communicated and a consensus built…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/12/hyenas_use_smelly_bacteria_as_social_network/
Jimbo says: @ur momisugly November 11, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Did you know there is a Tibet ozone hole?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023496/full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This seems to be the PDF: (I can not open on my computer)
http://www.cmsjournal.net/qxxb_en/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?file_no=20090304&year_id=2009&quarter_id=3&falg=1
…..
Darn I should not have said anything to annoy Mother Nature. ^
Chance of snow tonight and down to 19°F (-7°C) tomorrow night. The record for tomorrow, the 13th, is 23 °F (1976) so it looks like we may beat it. (We usually get snow every five years or so. Isn’t this a wee bit early for snow in North Carolina?)
Washington DC, a couple hundred miles north, is forecast to have temps of 30°F-32°F (at or just below freezing) with rain also forecast…. Why do we get the colder temperatures and SNOW darnit? Time make sure all the stock tanks are full and turn off the pasture water, drain hoses….
More likely an active sun both reduces total stratospheric ozone and cools the stratosphere whilst a less active sun does the opposite.
Note the change in trend from falling to flat (and possibly now warming) in stratosphere temperatures around 2000 when the sun became less active.
There were lots of other changes in climate trends around the same time to which I drew attention in previous threads here and elsewhere.
Who pays for; the Free University in Amsterdam? Neo-coms everywhere don’t seem to understand that there is no free lunch, or Universities.
An interesting paper with some calculations on the magnetic fields necessary to cause O2 to ‘migrate’ for several different purposes the authors have in mind:
Feasibility of Increasing Oxygen
Density through the Application of
Electromagnetic Fields
http://www.pcs.cnu.edu/~David.Gore/Capstone/files/GonzalezJ.pdf
While Ozone and O2 exhibit various (para or dia) magnetic properties, there can be other, over-powering factors (like winds and movement of air-masses by high and low pressure systems et al) which preclude the ‘precipitating’ of O2 at the poles and Ozone at the equator … nonetheless, an interesting perspective.
.
Adapting the old chestnut to the latest flimflam, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and state-of-the art statistical methods.”
Arno Arrak says:
November 11, 2013 at 8:30 pm
“I hate to tell you guys, but the existence of the ozone hole today means that those substances were not the cause of the ozone hole in the first place and were banned for nothing.”
—————-
I agree, CFCs were not and are not the cause of any “Ozone depletion” in the atmosphere over Antarctica. Besides, the touted “fear” that the Ozone Hole would permit more UV through to the surface thus causing skin cancers would have been “self-correcting”. It is the UV radiation that creates the Ozone.
I personally believe that CFCs were banned for a “purpose” but that purpose was not to “save the Ozone”. Said “save the Ozone” was little more than fear mongering to convince the public to quit buying and/or using all of the hundreds of different “aerosol spray cans” …. in which was the Freon that DuPont was producing.
Like the “Tuna Fish scare” when someone first tried to sell white albacore tuna the public wouldn’t buy it because it wasn’t the pink tuna they were use to. After months of really poor sales the manufacturer changed the label on the can to read “GUARANTEED NOT TO TURN PINK IN CAN”. Sales of white albacore tuna immediately skyrocketed.
——
And Arno Arrak, I really enjoyed reading your post of: November 11, 2013 at 8:30 pm
They are “just trying to understand” and yet still 95% certain we’re responsible.
Anybody else find a logic error in this?
Mike Bromley the Kurd said @ur momisugly November 12, 2013 at 3:21 am
The OED defines ecology as “The science of the economy of animals and plants”, so one might suppose that an ecological economist is someone who studies the economy of the economy of animals and plants. Presumably an Ecological Economist would be work in the Department of Redundancy Department. I would suggest that Francisco Estrada’s redundantly redundant redundancy needs more redundancy in order for him to be more redundantly redundant. Or sumfink!
It’s not confusing at all. CFCs warm some latitudes and cool others. (Sort of like that hotspot, that sometimes goes to AUS and the cold spot over North Europe and Asia.) Removal of CFCs cause the backlog of snow to be released (it needs to go SOMEWHERE, obviously!). Hence it buckets down on Rus and UK, as well as the Antarctic – now defined to include the whole ocean up to NZ.
Meanwhile, by adding 70 knots to observations, storms are the worst ever. AUS had a fire. PH had a typhoon. I’m shivering uncontrollable in Sydney in Nov (while sitting under a heater!). It’s Climate Weirding, people! And it’s been caused by the PM announcing a repeal of the carbon tax next year.
If you don’t believe me, just read about it in the next Lewandowski paper.
“p@ur momisugly Dolan says:
November 11, 2013 at 7:15 pm
I’ve yet to hear a proven explanation of how CFCs managed to accumulate in sufficient quantities in the Southern Hemisphere to have such an effect…”
I did some work at IBM in cleanrooms in the early 1980’s and I recall filters were use removed ozone, I recall how ozone had a smell too it too. So I read up about it. I also recall the scare of the ozone hole making headlines in the MSM in the UK in the mid-1980’s. Not only did I know ozone is diamagnetic, the claim back then was CFC’s released in the northern hemisphere were, as if by magic, accumulating over the southern pole, creating the hole. I had a good laugh about that then. Seems its time to laugh again about crazy claims about holes, ozone and climate change.
The Estrada paper is meaningless because it ignores the contribution from HFCs which are the major replacement for CFCs, and are similarly potent greenhouse gases.