Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org
Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts
CAGW refers to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Few people doubt that humans have some influence on climate, however the big debate is whether or not we are causing enough warming to have catastrophic consequences decades from now. The best evidence thus far is that climate goes in numerous different cycles and that whatever influence humans have, is minimal. Certainly, what happened, and what did not happen, in 2013, does not justify any alarm.
The above graph illustrates the change over the past year for the length of the period of no warming for RSS. At the end of 2012, the Pause was for a period of 194 months. By the end of 2013, this Pause had increased by 14 months to 208 months, namely the 12 months in 2013 and an additional 2 months further back in 1996. Of course, Santer’s 17 years was reached when 204 months of no warming was reached in October. For the year 2013, RSS ranks it as the 10th warmest year.
Since warming did not happen in 2013, what about climate change? Let us consider the polar vortex event at the beginning of January that led to the greatest cold in the United States in 20 years. According to RSS, 8 of the Decembers prior to 2013 were warmer than that of 2013. So neither a warm 2013 nor a warm December can be blamed for the polar vortex activity. Extra CO2 could potentially cause some things to happen via the mechanism of an initial warming. But if warming has not been occurring, then there is no way that man-made CO2 can be blamed.
At this time, I would like to address another topic that sometimes comes up. Occasionally, the view is expressed that the anomalies should not be given to more digits than can be justified. So if temperatures are recorded to the nearest 1/10 degree, the anomalies should also be to the nearest 1/10 degree instead of to the nearest 1/1000 degree for example. I do not consider this a big deal and I would like to illustrate it with a sports analogy. Suppose we were to compare three different soccer or hockey teams and decided that the average number of goals per game is one thing to look at. Suppose that over 1000 games, Team A made 520 goals, Team B made 1040 goals and Team C made 1460 goals. The goals per game would be 0.52, 1.04 and 1.46. So Team B scored twice as many as Team A and Team C scored almost three times as many. However a “purist” would say that since we cannot have a hundredth of a goal, but only a whole number of goals, we need to round off all numbers to the nearest whole number. In that case, 0.52 and 1.04 and 1.46 would all get rounded to 1. As a result, the information is useless. In my opinion, the decimal places are certainly something to keep in the backs of our minds, but for me to change all numbers in the table on Section 3 to the nearest 1/10 C would be a waste of time and about as useful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Furthermore, to average 12 numbers after rounding them could give quite different results, depending on whether more numbers were rounded up or down.
Also, I use UAH version 5.5 since that is what WFT uses. Paul Clark might upgrade WTI to version 5.6 and HadCRUT4 if you drop a tip and a note in his Charity Tip Jar. In version 5.5, 2013 is ranked 7th. However version 5.6 has 2013 ranked 4th. In contrast, RSS for 2013 is ranked 10th. Let us assume that the error bars for each data set is +/- 0.1 C. The value of the anomaly for UAH version 5.6 was 0.236. What would be the range of ranks if we assumed the range in the anomaly at the 95% level was from 0.136 to 0.336? The answer is from 3rd to 10th. Now let us do the same for RSS. The RSS average anomaly for 2013 was 0.218. Numbers from 0.118 to 0.318 gives a rank range of 5th to 14th. If we only used UAH version 5.6 and RSS, it would seem that the “real” rank for the satellite data set is 7th or 8th. Do you agree?
In the six data sets I am analyzing, the ranks for 2013 range from 6th to 10th. This really is nothing for the warmists to celebrate. While it varies slightly between different data sets, a rank of about 8 means that the increase in the period of no warming plods along a month at a time. In order to really make a difference in the rankings and significantly shorten the period of no warming, the new rankings need to be 5 or less.
On the table in Section 3, I give the ranks for the six data sets for 2012 in row 1. As it turns out, the average anomaly for each set for 2013 (row 21) was warmer than for 2012 (row 2). So since 2013 was warmer than 2012 and with the year now being over, each 2012 ranking has been updated making it one higher than stated in earlier posts.
It is possible that some rankings in row 22 could still change as adjustments are made to 2013 data in future months. In particular, GISS is in 7th place by only a difference of 0.002.
In Section 2, I give the times for which there has been no statistically significant warming on 5 of the data sets. At this point, I do not want to get into a discussion about NOAA’s statement that starts with “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more…”. But I merely wish to point out that NOAA and climate science in general feel that being 95% confident whether or not warming is occurring over a certain interval has a certain amount of significance. I have used the program by Nick Stokes available on his moyhu.blogspot.com to come up with those time periods. The time periods with no statistically significant warming varies from 16 years to 21 years on the five data sets. These times vary, but they are generally at least four years longer than the period for a slope of 0. In my last post, there were questions about the 95% significance. Nick Stokes has agreed to address all questions related to this aspect of the analysis.
In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1:
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 9 years and 3 months to 17 years and 4 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since July 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since July 1997 or 16 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month. (goes to December)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month. (goes to December)
5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month. (goes to December)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since October 2004 or 9 years, 3 months. (goes to December using version 5.5)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 4 months (goes to December). So RSS has passed Ben Santer’s 17 years.
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since all slopes are essentially zero and the position of each line is merely a reflection of the base period from which anomalies are taken for each set. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 17 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on various data sets.
The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted:
Section 2:
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website moyhu.blogspot.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since January 1996: CI from -0.008 to 2.437
For RSS: Since November 1992: CI from -0.018 to 1.936
For Hadcrut4: Since September 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.316
For Hadsst3: Since June 1993: CI from -0.009 to 1.793
For GISS: Since June 1997: CI from -0.004 to 1.276
Section 3:
This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst3, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:
1. 12ra: This is the final new ranking for 2012 on each data set after the 2013 ranking has been accounted for.
2. 12a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
9. Jan: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
10. Feb: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
21. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I may use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs slightly, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
22. rnk: This is the final rank for each particular data set for 2013. In cases where two numbers are close, future adjustments may change things. For example GISS could easily end up in 6th from 7th. Due to different base periods, the rank is more meaningful than the average anomaly.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. 12ra | 10th | 12th | 10th | 11th | 10th | 10th |
| 2. 12a | 0.161 | 0.192 | 0.448 | 0.403 | 0.346 | 0.58 |
| 3. year | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 |
| 4. ano | 0.419 | 0.55 | 0.547 | 0.548 | 0.416 | 0.67 |
| 5. mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Feb98 | Jul98 | Jan07 |
| 6. ano | 0.662 | 0.857 | 0.829 | 0.756 | 0.526 | 0.94 |
| 7. y/m | 9/3 | 17/4 | 13/1 | 16/6 | 13/1 | 12/6 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 9. Jan | 0.504 | 0.439 | 0.450 | 0.392 | 0.292 | 0.63 |
| 10.Feb | 0.175 | 0.192 | 0.479 | 0.436 | 0.309 | 0.52 |
| 11.Mar | 0.183 | 0.203 | 0.405 | 0.392 | 0.287 | 0.60 |
| 12.Apr | 0.103 | 0.217 | 0.427 | 0.404 | 0.364 | 0.48 |
| 13.May | 0.077 | 0.138 | 0.498 | 0.480 | 0.382 | 0.57 |
| 14.Jun | 0.269 | 0.291 | 0.457 | 0.431 | 0.314 | 0.61 |
| 15.Jul | 0.118 | 0.221 | 0.520 | 0.483 | 0.479 | 0.53 |
| 16.Aug | 0.122 | 0.166 | 0.528 | 0.496 | 0.483 | 0.61 |
| 17.Sep | 0.294 | 0.256 | 0.532 | 0.517 | 0.457 | 0.74 |
| 18.Oct | 0.227 | 0.207 | 0.478 | 0.446 | 0.391 | 0.61 |
| 19.Nov | 0.111 | 0.131 | 0.593 | 0.576 | 0.424 | 0.78 |
| 20.Dec | 0.177 | 0.158 | 0.489 | 0.475 | 0.352 | 0.60 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 21.ave | 0.197 | 0.218 | 0.486 | 0.461 | 0.376 | 0.61 |
| 22.rnk | 7th | 10th | 8th | 6th | 6th | 7th |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.5 was used since that is what WFT used.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.5.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For HadCRUT4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For HadCRUT3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat
For HadSST3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2013 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January.
Appendix:
In this section, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 4 months. (goes to December) So RSS has passed Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since November 1992: CI from -0.018 to 1.936.
The RSS average anomaly for 2013 is 0.218. This would rank it in 10th place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.192 and it is now ranked 12th.
UAH
The slope is flat since October 2004 or 9 years, 3 months. (goes to December using version 5.5)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1996: CI from -0.008 to 2.437.
The UAH average anomaly for 2013 is 0.197. This would rank it 7th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.662. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it is now ranked 10th.
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years and 1 month. (goes to December)
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since September 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.316.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly for 2013 is 0.486. This would rank it 8th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.448 and it is now ranked 10th.
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since July 1997 or 16 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly for 2013 is 0.461. This would rank it 6th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.403 and it is now ranked 11th.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years and 1 month. (goes to December).
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1993: CI from -0.009 to 1.793.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly for 2013 is 0.376. This would rank it 6th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.416. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in July of 1998 when it reached 0.526. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.346 and it is now ranked 10th.
GISS
The slope is flat since July 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1997: CI from -0.004 to 1.276.
The GISS average anomaly for 2013 is 0.61. This would rank it as 7th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.67. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.94. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.58 and it is now ranked 10th.
Conclusion:
Everything seemed to go wrong for the warmists this year. The temperatures did not go up; a ship got stuck in huge ice in the Antarctic during their summer; north polar ice made a big come back; and climate change happenings were not significantly different from what can be expected. Can anyone point to anything for warmists to hang their hat on, so to speak, in 2013?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
wbrozek says: January 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm
EPA – Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
James Abbott says: January 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for your comments. I would like to address the following:
This flat period cannot be extrapolated to try and “prove” that dangerous climate change will not happen many decades from now.
The highest rate of warming for a period of 25 or more years since 1880 was 0.18 C/decade. I do not consider this dangerous. Furthermore, temperatures seem to go in 60 year cycles and we are now in a flat or downward trend. As well, the effect of more CO2 is logarithmic so if the last 16 years have been rather flat, why should the future be dangerous?
Right, Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels and;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels grew rapidly in the last few decades;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
In fact the Economist noted in 2013 that “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'”
Thus, while anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the highest they’ve ever been, and growing rapidly, Earth’s temperature has been in a 9 – 17 year Pause. CO2 does not sit latent until many decades from now. It either has its effect or it doesn’t. In 2007 the IPCC said that “for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}
Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005.” IPCC AR4 2007
If CO2 does not cause rapid warming now, then it will not cause it “many decades from now”. We don’t have to “‘prove’ that dangerous climate change will not happen many decades from now”, the onus is on you to prove that it will.
Just The Facts says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU) says: January 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Very funny, I have images of the neighbors to a newly built reservoir cursing as they shovel out from the Lake Effect snow:
“Lake-effect snows commonly occur across the Great Lakes and other relatively large bodies of water, especially over the northern United States.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I live near the North Saskatchewan River in Alberta and used to live not far from a large power plant on a lake. The lake and open river effect on snow was measured in FEET, not inches. Mind you, when it is 20 to 40 below Celsius, you can watch the snow falling from bluebird skies as you leave the proximity of the lake or river. Interestingly, the deep snow was usually well away from the river and lake as the water vapour rises from the lake, drifts on the wind (even when it is very calm) and falls thousands of feet or miles away from the source.
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Provide evidence of your 60 year cycle please.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
So what is the function you are using that relates CO2 concentration with temperature please ? Presumably you must know that in order to propose that future rises in CO2 will cause no problems in terms of temperature rise ? So you expect us to believe that as we go beyond 400ppm there will be no further significant warming ? Thats quite a claim without the physics to back it up.
See the skeptics handbook on page 8.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
Maybe you don’t care about future generations.
Where my grand kids live, they just had a polar vortex with -31 C. My grandson, who is 8 years old, has never experienced global warming.
James Abbott:
Thankyou for the clarification you provide to me at January 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm.
OK. I now understand that you were being serious. That makes your original post even funnier.
Anyway, in your post I am answering you say to wbrozek
Clearly, you have not understood the NATURE of the relationship of atmospheric CO2 concentration to global temperature which Werner mentioned. Archibald provides a good explanation of it with graphs here .
This effect is why at present levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration each doubling of the concentration has similar effect. Hence, e.g. the IPCC quotes climate sensitivity in degrees C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
It is claimed that atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from ~280 ppmv to its present ~400 ppmv while global temperature has risen ~0.8°C. Assuming this rise is entirely caused by increased atmospheric CO2 then a rise of ~43% in the concentration has caused ~0.8°C. So, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration to 800 ppmv cannot induce a rise of 2°C. And everybody agrees a rise of less than 2°C would not be harmful and would be net beneficial.
Of course, our understanding of the physics may be mistaken so the estimate is wrong. But if so, then your concerns are based on a misunderstanding.
I hope that helps to assuage your groundless fears “about future generations”.
Richard
James Abbott,
Please clarify on your claim that many skeptics are predicting a new mini ice age. Anybody that has had that position for the past 15 years should get hammered just as badly as those using global climate models to predict a catastrophic rate of temperature increase during that same period.
I believe most skeptics are skeptical of the catastrophic temperature increases, with most acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will probably cause some increase in temperature.
My opinion is that the warming so far has been a good thing and anybody that disputes or ignores the key role that CO2 plays in the known law of photosynthesis and tremendous benefits to our biosphere, vegetative health, crop yields and world food production is missing entirely the main effect increasing CO2 is having on our planet.
This huge debate goes on about whether temperatures have flat lined or still increasing slightly, or whether they will start going back up or not and how much they might or might not increase by……while CO2 increases and keeps doing its thing making our world greener and greener, plants growing faster, animals having more food to eat.
Larry Hamlin says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:42 pm
The UAH record looks pretty flat for the inclusive period 2002 through end 2013.
You are right, however the slope is positive at 0.001/year so I do not count it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend
Just The Facts
The response to CO2 forcing is not linear in time because there are many other forcing agents, feedbacks and natural variability. Hopefully you don’t seriously suggest that temperature should follow the rise in CO2 exactly.
We see other flat periods in the temperature record which I have already referred to – its not a linear trend.
The reason why we should be worried is because we know how the climate system has responded previously when large swings in CO2 concentration have taken place – its been many degrees C colder and many degrees C warmer in the past with corresponding shifts in climate and sea level.
The balance of risk is clearly on the side of caution leading to reducing CO2 emissions. If we reduce them, which we can, then if dangerous climate change was going to happen we avoid it. If it was not going to happen we have made some changes which will have benefits anyway (lower air pollution, greater energy efficiency, less reliance on finite fossil fuels, etc). If we carry on as normal and dangerous climate change does happen we (or future generations) are up a creek.
Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely if we carry on as now, then the choice is obvious.
“Suppose we were to compare three different soccer or hockey teams and decided that the average number of goals per game is one thing to look at. Suppose that over 1000 games, Team A made 520 goals, Team B made 1040 goals and Team C made 1460 goals. The goals per game would be 0.52, 1.04 and 1.46. So Team B scored twice as many as Team A and Team C scored almost three times as many. However a “purist” would say that since we cannot have a hundredth of a goal, but only a whole number of goals, we need to round off all numbers to the nearest whole number. In that case, 0.52 and 1.04 and 1.46 would all get rounded to 1…”
This section reveals such a deep ignorance of statistics and scientific measurement and error analysis that the article should be removed from this site. Anthony, please – this just opens the doors for the alarmists to mock your site.
@richard:
And now you’re doing it again. I didn’t address your main point because I didn’t disagree with it. I picked something that I found interesting and used it to make a DIFFERENT point.
Are you always this grumpy?
James Abbott says: January 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Fact is that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Then why isn’t it getting warmer?
James Abbott says: January 25, 2014 at 3:18 pm
The response to CO2 forcing is not linear in time because there are many other forcing agents, feedbacks and natural variability.
What “response”?
Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely if we carry on as now, then the choice is obvious.
Please post links to this “overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely”.
James Abbott:
Your post at January 25, 2014 at 3:18 pm includes these two statements
and
I shall ignore the several factual errors in those two statements.
Instead, I ask you to consider the logical disconnect between them.
CO2 rise causes high and low temperatures but we know CO2 will provide probably “further significant warming” (whatever you mean by “significant”).
It is that sort of self-refutation which made me wonder if you are Brad Keyes.
Richard
Kristian:
re your post at January 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, whatever.
Richard
wbrozek
Thats your evidence ? the Skeptics Handbook ? Is that a new peer reviewed science publication we have not heard of ?
richardscourtney
You say:
“It is claimed that atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from ~280 ppmv to its present ~400 ppmv while global temperature has risen ~0.8°C. Assuming this rise is entirely caused by increased atmospheric CO2 then a rise of ~43% in the concentration has caused ~0.8°C. So, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration to 800 ppmv cannot induce a rise of 2°C. And everybody agrees a rise of less than 2°C would not be harmful and would be net beneficial.
Its not claimed – we know it to be the case because it can be measured.
Then your maths has gone astray. Its a doubling from the pre-industrial levels that is taken as baseline, not from now. Doubling from pre-industrial is expected to result in warming of 2C or a bit more. Going to 800ppm would likely result in catastrophic warming.
Mike Maguire
“Please clarify on your claim that many skeptics are predicting a new mini ice age”.
Try this
http://www.thegwpf.org/sun-gone-sleep-temperatures-plunge/
James Abbott, please provide us with examples of the “overwhelming scientific evidence” referred to in your statement:
“Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely if we carry on as now, then the choice is obvious”.
Climate model output is not data and is not evidence.
richardscourtney
You misunderstand.
Much lower CO2 concentrations (half of the current levels) are associated with the depths of the ice ages of the last few million years when it was as much as 8C colder than now.
Higher CO2 levels are associated with warmer climates of the past.
I would agree that much of the climate debate is about the relationship between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures. It is not nailed down, which is why the IPCC give a range. But to claim there is no link, as some skeptics do, is just daft and amount to attempts to rewrite more than a century of painstaking scientiifc research.
I have no idea who Brad Keyes is, but it aint me.
Nice try James Abbott but your original statement was this:
5. Given that many sceptics have been predicting a new mini-ice age round the corner, where is the cooling trend ?
The source you provided is a very recent prediction, the time frame for his prediction has not come yet. You asked above “where is the cooling trend” so find me the “many skeptics predicting a new mini ice age that was supposed to be happening now defined by your “where is the cooling trend?”
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Thats your evidence ? the Skeptics Handbook ?
That shows it well. But if you want something more official, see:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm
“It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence.”
James Abbott:
In your post at January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm you say to me
Firstly, what the Dickens do you mean by “catastrophic warming”.
Secondly, it is only arithmetic, not maths.
And I did it to maximise the possible warming by doubling from the present ~400 ppmv to ~800 ppmv.
But you want me to lower the estimate. OK.
Double the pre-industrial level of ~280 ppmv takes us to 560 ppmv. Let us exagerate it to 600 ppmv.
We are now at ~400 ppmv. So, the doubling you are considering is an exaggerated rise of 200 ppmv.
But 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv (i.e. a rise of 120 ppmv) caused at most 0.8°C.
Forget that the effect is logarithmic because we are trying to exaggerate the possible future temperature rise as much as possible. So, to increase the exaggeration of future warming even more, let us assume the effect is linear.
The rise of 200 ppmv from present level to the exaggerated 600 ppmv gives an exaggerated linear effect rise in temperature of
(0.8/120) * 200 = 1.3°C
That is much less than 2°C.
There is no reason for concern so cool out.
Richard
And yet the CO2 levels are the highest that they have been in centuries as far as we know. Since the magic date of 1950 or so when the “evil industrial west” gave us accelerating CO2 levels (or so many claim) we have not seen runaway temperatures like we were promised. In fact, I am very disappointed in the lack of temperature increase because I would much prefer warmth to freezing cold. The real danger facing the common people is energy poverty caused by government regulations, laws, and taxes driven by deluded climate alarmists like the fellow who lead the team to check out all the “missing ice” down at the south pole where they promptly got stuck in the missing ice.
By the way, I saw the “Ice Bowl” between the Packers and the Cowboys in the 60s (NFL Championship game) and can tell you it was darn cold that day. We may see a return to just such conditions next week for this year’s Super Bowl but all it means is that weather gets colder and gets warmer and colder again while CO2 just keeps going up. Funny that.
Chuck L
You say
“James Abbott, please provide us with examples of the “overwhelming scientific evidence” referred to in your statement:
The IPCC – which brings together the science on this issue from across the world. I appreciate that large parts of the sceptic community reject the IPCC, but thats largely based on prejudging the issue, not reasonable analysis
and “Climate model output is not data and is not evidence.”
I agree. Thats why good observational evidence is so important. The evidence is that the planet has warmed by about 0.6C in 40 years – which is consistent with rising CO2 concentrations. Without the extra CO2 forcing we would likely be seeing gradual cooling.
@James Baldwin Abbot:
The IPCC produces no science, it only summarizes that which agrees with its preformed conclusion (ignoring that which does not). referencing the IPCC is not providing sourcing, merely parroting a pre-determined conclusion.
James-
How does one gather “overwhelming scientific evidence” of something that hasn’t happened yet?
On the subject of “records in the last decade”, if a value had been increasing and has now reached its peak, is stagnating at that peak prior to dropping in the near future, that’s exactly what you’d expect to see. A pause at the peak will generate “record” values, And that means nothing of significance.
James Abbott:
OK. I am now convinced you are trolling.
At January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm you disputed my simple estimate of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.
Before I had replied to that dispute at January 25, 2014 at 4:00 pm you write to me saying
Say what!?
I was in process of discussing the possible MAGNITUDE of the rise with you and you talk about “no link”. Somebody needs to buy you a clue.
And your entire sentence says
Obviously, James Abbott, this science thing is hard for you to understand so allow me to introduce you to the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
Hey James,
What do you think of this:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094
“In the end, they teased out the carbon dioxide fertilization effect from all other influences and calculated that this could account for an 11 percent increase in global foliage since 1982.”
The debate over how much increasing CO2 contributes towards global temperatures rising is a “hot” one and there is much disagreement with the scientific evidence not clear at all, except that as a greenhouse gas it likely caused at least half of the warming over the last 100 years.
What is settled science however, is the law of photosynthesis. We know that plants use CO2 to make their own food and when you boost the levels of CO2 plants benefit tremendously.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
What doesn’t make sense is to hang our hats on an unproven theory based on global climate models(since the warming thus far has NOT been catastrophic in the real world) and completely ignore a proven law…….photosynthesis.
The more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the bigger our crops and world food production. Plants/vegetation/trees grow faster, animals have more food. The biosphere booms. Don’t you agree?
wbrozek
You say:
“James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Thats your evidence ? the Skeptics Handbook ?
That shows it well. But if you want something more official, see:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm
“It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence.””
Yes we know that – I asked you for the actual function. As you rely on it in your claim that there will be little or no response to further rises in CO2, please produce it – and then we can do the maths and see if you are right or wrong.
richardscourtney
Shame you could not admit you got it wrong first time but in any case its still wrong as you are ignoring feedback, particularly related to the oceans in terms of thermal inertia and the feedback from CO2 release from warming.