After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 17 years 10 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to June 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.
The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.
Yet the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the RSS and UAH monthly satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though numerous more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.
Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero trend (bright blue).
In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.
On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.
The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.
El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.
The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015. Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.
Key facts about global temperature
Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.
Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
Ø In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is exaggerated.
Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
Ø Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 5 months.
Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
Technical note
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months September 1996 to May 2014 – more than half the 426-months satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.
The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.
Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Who did that “peer-review” ?
What were his or her qualifications and methods and decisions and checks and what were their actual calculation results to verify the printed paper was correct?
What were his or her biases and what changes did those “anonymous” so-called “experts” require in the paper before it was accepted for publication five years ago?
What has changed in the last five years?
katatetorihanzo:
Your post at July 8, 2014 at 4:56 pm says in total
Thankyou. I am pleased you and I have found agreement that your posts are bollocks; i.e. they deny physical reality, they ignore all argument and evidence which refutes your daft assertions, and you parrot those daft and untrue assertions again and again and again and …
Richard
Hanzo excuses using old information by posting more old information:
More recent (2011)
He cannot get it through his head that this year Arctic ice has dramatically risen, therefore next year and the year after ice mass will increase. He is simply unteachable. “Lagging” has no meaning for him.
Hanzo also uses extremely emotional language, indicating that he is no scientist:
Keeping the clathrate gun in its permafrost holster is very important.
That is astonishingly unprofessional, something we would expect to see in a comic book. There is ZERO evidence showing that methane calrates are any danger at all. But wild-eyed Chicken Littles like hanzo trot out nonsense like that to support their climate alarmism. He should be ashamed, as he should for posting a ridiculous chart like this.
Hanzo needs to take his silly propaganda where it is appreciated, to one of his thinly-trafficked anti-science blogs. The fact is that global ice is above its 30-year average. Hanzo just cannot admit that fact.
Dbstealey said: “Hanzo also uses extremely emotional language, indicating that he is no scientist:”
Hanzo: Keeping the clathrate gun in its permafrost holster is very important.
My intent is to warn that an anomalously rapid flux of methane into the atmosphere would have severe consequences since methane absorbs much more outgoing long wave radiation than does CO2. Severe is an understatement.
Dbstealey says: “He cannot get it through his head that this year Arctic ice has dramatically risen, therefore next year and the year after ice mass will increase.”
The Arctic sea ice extent continues to trend down and, every summer, more and more dark arctic ocean is absorbing more heat. Whether this heat melts next years ice or ice in the next decade, this situation is not conducive to ice mass increase.
Haven’t we called every short term uptick in arctic sea ice extent after 2007 a recovery only to watch the downward trend continue in 2012? Good luck on the prediction of arctic ice mass increase next year; but a few years is needed to establish an upward trend beyond natural variation.
Hanzo,
You’re scaring yourself. There is no evidence that methane is any kind of problem. It just isn’t.
But some folks like to frighten themselves, thus, vampire movies, etc.
Methane is as much a threat as vampires.
No more, no less.
katatetorihanzo:
Much earlier in this thread (at July 6, 2014 at 10:58 am) you tried to ‘move the goal posts’ by redefining global warming. I rejected that post hoc attempt to escape from the fact that global warming has stopped.
katatetorihanzo:
I sent my post before completing it. Sorry. This is the full post.
I write to ask for an explanation.
Much earlier in this thread (at July 6, 2014 at 10:58 am) you tried to ‘move the goal posts’ by redefining global warming. I rejected that post hoc attempt to escape from the fact that global warming has stopped. My rejection is at July 6, 2014 at 11:10 am and – to save you a need to find it – I copy it to here.
Richard
In light of the failure of your attempt to move the goal posts, all your nonsense about ice has no relevance to the subject at hand which is that
global warming has stopped.
Please explain why you are wasting space in this thread with your irrelevant twaddle about ice.
Richard
“Richardscourtney: In light of the failure of your attempt to move the goal posts, all your nonsense about ice has no relevance to the subject at hand which is that global warming has stopped. Please explain why you are wasting space in this thread with your irrelevant twaddle about ice.”
I expect that when you see inconsistencies or logical gaps in a proposed scientific conclusion, you get skeptical whether that conclusion is true. And you look for additional evidence to corroborate or to disprove.
I get skeptical as well. The accelerating reduction of ice mass at both poles during the relatively stable SURFACE temperatures is such an inconsistency. Any speculation that the effects of heating (ice melting, sea level rising, OHC rising) are lagged (without evidence or magnitude of the lag), is a tacit admission that the declaration of AGW cessation is premature. If I see steam emerging from the tea kettle, I have to check if the burner is still on to be sure the observed steam is the effect of continued heating. However, there has been no pause in the radiative imbalance. So the burner is still on.
Additionally, I get skeptical when there are logical gaps. HADcrut3v from 1900 showed at least thirty-nine 15-year periods where an upward trend was not significant at the 95% confidence interval. Since, 1965 there were eight 15-year periods where global warming had purportedly stopped.
So according to you cessation criterion, global warming keeps on stopping even though temperatures keep on rising. That is a paradox. And it makes me skeptical.
Any projection of 1960-1994 temp data at the 95% prediction interval shows that the 1995-2013 data set is on the upper end of that longer term trend. So it fails that cessation test as well. And it makes me skeptical.
When well documented short-term periodic natural variation like ENSO and aerosols are removed, the upward trend from 1998-2013 is clear. So it fails that cessation test as well. And it makes me skeptical.
When a declaration of AGW cessation is made selectively without OHC trend data (0-2000 m) it makes me skeptical. Heat goes into the oceans and oceans melt ice. Ice melt and thermal expansion cause sea level rise.
Arctic Sea Ice extent declines means less reflective surface means more ocean heating during maximum summer insolation. So you have more heat in the pipeline, making it unlikely that there will be any lagged ice mass increase anytime soon.
Why are we ignoring this feedback in favor of slightly increased reflective surface in Antarctic winter when insolation is at a minimum?
And that make me skeptical that global warming has stopped. You may persuade me otherwise with more specific quantitative data. Saying “arctic ice increase” without magnitude or distinction between extent and mass or even a citation…makes me skeptical.
Hanzo says:
The Arctic sea ice extent continues to trend down…
It now appears that the short term downward trend of the past few years may be broken. Time will tell, and as usual I accept whatever the planet tells me. That is the central difference between us.
I still do not understand your fixation with ice. I think maybe it is because every prediction made by the alarmist crowd has been wrong, so you are desperately hoping that the prediction that Arctic ice will disappear will happen. I doubt it. But if it does, keep in mind that it has happened before, naturally, and it will eventually happen again — naturally. CO2 has nothing to do with it. If it did, the Antarctic would also be losing ice.
Global ice is above its long term average. The polar see-saw provides that as the Arctic loses ice, the Antarctic gains ice. Since the Antarctic has 10x the volume of ice that the Arctic has, global ice is rising. Sorry about your prediction. But look on the bright side: you are still batting a perfect game of 0.000. That kind of perfection is hard to acheive. I’ll bet you couldn’t do it if you tried.
katatetorihanzo says:
July 10, 2014 at 5:58 am
let us address each of these falsehoods one at a time.
Continental ice loss is the only ice loss that can change sea level. 9Sea ice extents change will not change sea level, since the sea ice displaces exactly the weight of water needed to float that new/increased/unchanged/decreased sea ice.) Continental ice (glaciers or ice caps) cannot be “melted by any assumed ocean temperature increase – further, there has been NO measured actual ocean temperature increase to melt the continental ice that is not touching continental ice. There is a theoretical 0.002 degree total ocean temperature change, which cannot not melt additional continental ice not touching the “hotter” ocean water; nor is the permenant Antarctic shelf ice going to be melted by a ocean heat change that small. IF the ocean were heating up due to winds around Antarctica, then the Antarctic actual sea ice would not be freezing at ever-increasing rates. (See below for more details on that issue.)
Not true. Arctic sea ice receives more solar energy than Antarctic sea ice only 5 months of the year. (Arctic sea ice cycles between its maximum at 13 – 14 Mkm^2 at latitude 70-71 north, and is exposed to solar radiation only when the TOA solar insolation is at aits minimum each year. The rest of the year, Antarctic sea ice receives more solar radiation: Antarctic sea ice cycles between a minimum at latitude 68-69 south latitude when the TOA solar insolation is at its maximum (and when the Arctic sea ice is in total blackness), and a maximum up at latitude 58-59 south.
In mid-September, when Arctic sea ice is at its minimum, the Antarctic sea ice edge is exposed to FIVE TIMES as much solar energy per square meter. Even if both arctic losses were to equal antarctic sea ice excesses, the Antarctic sea ice would be reflecting five times more energy to space than could be received by the Arctic ocean waters.
But is even worse than that! The newly-exposed Arctic ocean waters are being hit with that little bit of solar energy in September at a solar elevation angle of 2- 10 degrees. Almost all of what little energy is available is reflected from the water because the ocean’s measured albedo is 0.35 – 0.38 at those angles. At the same time, all those millions of “excess” square kilometers of newly-frozen, very high albedo Antarctic sea ice is being exposed at solar elevation angles of 25 – 40 degrees, and DOES reflect the sun’s energy back into space very ominously. Further cooling the Antarctic ice, land, and ocean very, very well. And the last 30 years, the Antarctic continent HAS BEEN cooling. Up at 80 north, the DMI has measured near-constant decreases in the Arctic air temperatures over the same period of time.
At all seasons of the year, in every month of the year, at every second of every day, the ever-increasing Antarctic sea ice the past 7 years since new record sea ice anomalies were set in 2007, the Antarctic sea ice edge is closer to the equator than the average Arctic sea ice edge. Worse, after mid-August each year, Arctic sea ice losses INCREASE heat loss: due to increased Arctic sea water heat losses when open to the air and wind than if ice-covered. The cherished “myth” of arctic sea ice feedback due to open water heat absorption has been proved wrong after record lows sea ice extents in September 2007 and September 2012. (Now, earlier in the year (in late May, June, July, and early August), more open water does increase heat intake. After mid-August, that simplified truism is no longer true.)
The OPPOSITE happens in the Antarctic ocean waters! The truism (the “myth” of solar energy feedback I alluded to above IS TRUE IN THE ANTARCTIC. More sea ice DOES reflect MORE solar energy because the solar elevation angles ARE HIGHER and the formerly ice-covered ocean’s surface IS NOT capable of absorbing the availble solar energy.
“Slightly greater” ???? The “excess” Antarctic sea ice since May this year has been same size as the entire area of Greenland – and is at latitudes below the middle of Greenland. The “excess” Antarctic sea ice has been 10 – 20% of the total Antarctic sea ice area. you are deluding yourself with statements from NASA propagandists (er, publicists) that are 10 1nad 12 years out of date.
Rather than hypothesize about passages north of Canada and Siberia open for one week each September between the islands up there, worry about Cape Horn at latitude 56 south being closed to all sea traffic for one or two months of the year due to sea ice and ice bergs the size of Manhattan. And that scenario could happen within 8 – 12 years at current rates of Antarctic sea ice increase.
Reflection of solar energy by sea ice is only dependent on area. And that area of Antarctic sea ice increase is setting new record highs in September, new record sea ice anomalies in the months between . You continually confused and conflate assumed ice mass loss (on the continents of Antarctica and the island of Greenland based on GRACE calculations that are old, and that have been rejected as premature by the GRACE team itself, with sea ice AREA measurements that are real and are updated every day. Those continental ice loss assumptions do NOT change the ever-increasing reflected energy from Antarctica, and the increased heat loss in the Arctic between September and march year from the newly-open, newly-exposed Arctic waters.
katatetorihanzo:
Thank you for the answer to my question at July 10, 2014 at 5:58 am. I now understand your problem.
There are no “inconsistencies” between observations of reality and the fact that global warming has stopped.
Of interest are why global warming has stopped and what will follow the existing lack of discernible trend in global temperature.
Your problem is that there is an inconsistency between your belief and reality: you believe human activities will overwhelm nature to cause global warming but in reality global warming has stopped.
Richard
hanzo says:
I get skeptical when there are logical gaps.
No, you don’t. You are [not] the least bit skeptical. You have been shown numerous logical inconsistencies in this thread and elsewhere, but you choose to ignore every one of them that contradicts your belief. You suffer from extreme confirmation bias. You believe there is a black cat under your bed in your dark room. But when you turn on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
No one argues that there has not been global warming. There has been, although it stopped. But unlike you, skeptics take the default position [the Null Hypothesis] that global warming is natural. If you believe that human activity causes global warming, then you must produce at least some scientific data quantifying the fraction of a degree warming due directly to human-emitted greenhouse gases. You cannot just say, “There has been global warming, ergo, human produced CO2 is the cause.” That is illogical.
Despite numerous requests, no one has ever produced any scientific evidence showing human causation. After 30+ years of looking for such evidence, none has been found. Does that not concern you? Or are you such a true believer in your evidence-free CAGW conjecture that you do not require any evidence at all? If so, that is religion, not science — and your god is forsaking you.
In response to dbstealey, I have some questions. I’ll also try to clarify my specific intent on this thread.
Would you direct me or onlookers to a citation showing evidence for any
lagging ice mass response. I’m curious, what is the lag a response to and how long is the lag?
“No one argues that there has not been global warming. There has been, although it stopped.”
What is a plausible explanation for that which stops for 17 years after rising for >75 years?
Most climatologists attribute temporary plateaus in the temp record to the natural short term variations that obscure the greenhouse gas forcing. For example, Any trend that starts with a strong El Niño and ends in La Niña is gonna look flattish. This doesn’t seem unusual in the temperature record.
“But unlike you, skeptics take the default position [the Null Hypothesis] that global warming is natural.”
When climatologists refer to natural forcings, I am persuaded because they are specific and they measure its magnitude (solar, volcanic aerosols, ENSO). The observation that nature alone DOESNT explain global warming is part of the evidence.
Would you suggest an alternative forcing that is not GHG?
Scientists don’t use null hypothesis to justify scientific inaction. Null hypotheses are either ‘rejected’ or ‘not rejected’ based on evidence not rhetoric. They are never “accepted” defacto.
“If you believe that human activity causes global warming, then you must produce at least some scientific data quantifying the fraction of a degree warming due directly to human-emitted greenhouse gases.”
This has been done but there are uncertainties. Let me cut to the chase then explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7so8GRCWA1k (see graph at t= 50 min)
If you doubling CO2 concentration you get a skewed probability distribution showing a ~3 deg C rise, but the spread is 1.5 to 4 deg. Thus there’s a 5% chance that AGW will be mild and adaptable. There’s a 5% chance of a extinction level event. There’s a 90% chance that we will be severely impacted.
In models, in the absence of excessive GHG forcing, they see a mild cooling trend over many thousands of years.
Let me explain the approach for quantifying the effect of any forcing on temperature by suggesting the perfect experiment. Imagine if we had 10,000 identical non-human inhabited Earth’s to study as a control having the same histories.
We know that there are positive and negative feedbacks in climate dynamics and there are always quantities that are very sensitive to small changes (butterfly effect).
According to Chaos theory (nonlinear dynamics) each Earth experiment would naturally evolve differently yet in total give a finite range of climate indicators.
In the absence of identical Earth’s we must use climate models that are based in physics, have empirical input and are validated by the successful retro-dicting of the past.
The data quantifying the effect of an introduced anthropogenic forcing would be inferred by projecting the known natural forcings into the industrial era without the extra GHG forcing and with extra GHG forcing and do this experiment multiple times. Without extra industrial CO2, we’d be in a slow cooling phase.
“You cannot just say, “There has been global warming, ergo, human produced CO2 is the cause.” That is illogical.”
Yes there is supporting evidence based on physics (how radiation interacts with matter), magnitude of industrial emissions, and isotopic evidence. You can see CO2’s signature spectroscopically in space and chemically in the oceans.
“Despite numerous requests, no one has ever produced any scientific evidence showing human causation.”
I can direct you to the multiple lines of evidence and will gladly clarify that which is not intuitive.
“After 30+ years of looking for such evidence, none has been found. Does that not concern you?”
When one hundred authors signed a petition against the theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
It is the same with climate science. We have a self-consistent set of observations that shows that our atmosphere and oceans are anomalously enriched in C-14 depleted CO2. We have direct evidence of human sources for C-14 depleted CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans. Now consider:
The discovery of a new forcing or some natural source of C-14 depleted CO2 would invalidate AGW. In fact any inconsistency would at least weaken AGW.
That’s why I’m asking you, a climate contrarian, to suggest what I may have missed. If you write paragraphs about “burden of proof” or ad hominem speculation about Hanzo or non-critically dismiss the evidence that I cite, I will merely note that evidence was not presented. I’ll just invite others to do what you do not.
Give me an evidenced based counter argument…or do not. Global warming stops when all the effects consistent with warming stop. If global warming had indeed suddenly stopped, there needs to be a reason.
richardscourtney says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:43 am
dbstealey says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:58 am
Please review and critique for inconsistencies or errors my longer reply to hanzo above your comments.
RACookPE1978,
I see no errors in your analysis. You are up to speed regarding polar ice; hanzo is not. But true believers do not need facts, they have all they need: belief.
Still, it is good to write rebuttals. We can’t allow any new readers to be influenced by the nonsense hanzo keeps posting. All they need to remember is that skeptics accept whatever Planet Earth is telling us. That is what science demands.
But alarmists refuse to accept the truth. Instead, they keep digging their hole deeper. That isn’t science; that is pseudo-science, and that is why they have lost the debate.
I offer self consistent evidence based explanations and a suggestion that the climate follows the laws of physics and is predictable to a certain extent. No made up physics, no reference to motives, no vagueness
hanzo says:
… Since, 1965 there were eight 15-year periods where global warming had purportedly stopped.
If it were not for strawman arguments, you wouldn’t have much, would you?
No one has ever argued that global warming doesn’t happen. Of course it does. The planet has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA. Naturally. You don’t think it’s natural, but you have no testable, measurable evidence to the contrary. Therefore, CAGW is only you baseless belief.
The evidence indicates that warming is entirely natural. It has remained within well established parameters, and there has been no acceleration — which would be expected if global warming was caused by human CO2 emissions.
Global warming has occurred in step changes since the LIA. Anyone else but hanzo can see that those warming episodes are essentially the same, a fact that debunks his CAGW nonsense.
hanzo says:
I offer self consistent evidence based explanations and a suggestion that the climate follows the laws of physics and is predictable to a certain extent.
Wrong, as always. You have never posted any ‘evidence’. And if you believe that global T is predictable, why was no multi-million dollar GCE [climate model] able to predict the current 17+ year cessation of global warming? None of them could predict… but you think you can?
Predict global T a year from now. Show us your comments are anything more than confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
Next, hanzo copies the skeptics’ example refuting the so-called ‘consensus’:
When one hundred authors signed a petition against the theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
Not only is there no consensus [and there never was], but that comment is indicative of hanzo’s always moving the goal posts, e.g. when his methane nonsense is refuted, he doesn’t mention it again, he just moves on to something else. Hanzo cannot stick to one issue, because all his issues are based on alarmist predictions, and every prediction made by them has failed. So he takes his shot and runs away. Alarmists are cowards. They are afraid to debate one issue to it’s logical conclusion, because they always lose those debates.
Next, regarding evidence of human effect on global temperature, hanzo asserts:
I can direct you to the multiple lines of evidence…
Then post those “multiple lines of evidence”. Keep in mind that in science, evidence has a specific meaning: raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations. Evidence is not peer reviewed papers, or computer models. Evidence must be quantifiable [measurable] and testable. So have at it. Post your ‘evidence’ showing the fraction of a degree global warming directly attributable to human CO2 emissions. Remember: measurable, and testable.
Finally, hanzo says:
If you write paragraphs about “burden of proof”…
But that is exactly the onus on hanzo’s alarmist conjecture, which claims that rising anthropogenic CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Skeptics are not making that claim; alarmists are. Therefore, hanzo and his pals have the onus of producing evidence to support their claims. So why haven’t they?
They have not produced evidence for the simple reason that there is no such evidence. CAGW is a baseless assertion. It has never been anything else.
Dbstealey said:
“No one has ever argued that global warming doesn’t happen. Of course it does.”
But it gets confusing when some think its cooling. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
“The planet has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA.”
Yes, but before the LIA was a time of relative steady global mean temperatures for thousands of years according to climate proxy data. Something changed post-LIA and it was coincident with a sharp rise in the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, which is now the highest in the past 800,000 years.
Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_temperature_record_for_past_1000_years
‘Fits and starts” are explained easily by short-term natural variations superimposed over a continual GHG forcing trend. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4
“The evidence indicates that warming is entirely natural.”
I would need an explanation for the disparity between the 150 year temperature record (rising) and the climate proxy data (steady). In the reconstructions, have we ever seen such a rapid temperature rise? This rise is suspiciously coincident with a sharp rise of C-14 depleted CO2 in the atmosphere and into the oceans during the last century. Sounds unnatural to me.
“It has remained within well established parameters and there has been no acceleration — which would be expected if global warming was caused by human CO2 emissions.”
The graph shows an overall warming trend (1880- 2010) with acceleration (1950-2010). This graph seems inconsistent with the thread’s thesis (post 1998 GW cessation & no acceleration).
hanzo says:
I offer self consistent evidence based explanations and a suggestion that the climate follows the laws of physics and is predictable to a certain extent.
“Wrong, as always. If you believe that global T is predictable, why was no multi-million dollar GCE [climate model] able to predict the current 17+ year cessation of global warming?”
The multi-million dollar GCE most certainly doesn’t predict cessation of global warming as a long term trend. It’s a climate model parameterized with climate data. It doesnt predict the short term natural variations (weather). But the physics is the same and it works. Check out the predictive capability of some computer models with respect to the anomalous trajectory of Hurricane Sandy.
For example: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy#Forecasts
“None of them could predict… ”
They predicted ice mass declines…and it’s happening faster than predicted.
“Predict global T a year from now. Show us your comments are anything more than babbling confirmation bias.”
There are uncertainties, but they are quantifiable as ranges based on statistically significant trends. We may not predict the exact speed when our train leaves the track. But the speed is increasing and it is under our collective control.
“Next, hanzo copies the skeptics’ example refuting the so-called ‘consensus’:”
“When one hundred authors signed a petition against the theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” Not only is there no consensus [and there never was], but that comment is indicative of hanzo’s always moving the goal posts”
I’m not concerned with consensus, since consensus is not a climate parameter. I’m concerned with evidence, for and against.
“e.g. when his methane nonsense is refuted, he doesn’t mention it again”
Einstein’s quote was meant to illustrate that any inconsistent fact could refute or at least modify AGW. Just offer an alternative explanation that is consistent with observations. One lab could do this.
As for methane, I merely have to show that methane absorbs IR radiation to show that it’s a GHG. If one wished to refute radiative imbalance, one would need data for a data-driven discussion.
For example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Methane-ir.png
“he just moves on to something else.”
There are multiple lines of evidence and many ways to explain them. When Hanzo discusses issues with those who assert that the Earth is a flat disk accelerating ‘upwards’ at 9.8 m/s^2, I was informed that the disk is a null hypothesis to the spherical Earth ‘consensus’ hoax. So, as an intellectual exercise, I asked them to explain certain inconsistencies and it was explained to me that the burden of proof is on me, not them. When I present photographic evidence of sphericity, I am nick-named ’roundist’ and, after all, photos can be manipulated. So Hanzo moves on to something else in the search of a persuasive argument.
” Hanzo cannot stick to one issue because all hanzo’s issues are based on alarmist predictions, and every prediction made by them has failed. So he takes his shot and runs away. Alarmists are cowards. They are afraid to debate one issue to it’s logical conclusion, because they always lose those debates.”
You attribute too much to Hanzo. These are ad hominem arguments are they not? I am irrelevant, but I have some questions:
The prospect of ice mass being lagging indicators and speculation about rock mass movements confounding ice mass declines, and the putative heat insulating effect of surface tension have been the most interesting, but I can’t seem to coax folks to elaborate with evidence. Can you elaborate?
Since there is a full spectrum of AGW contrarian assertions, may I infer from your posts that CO2 (from any source) is incapable to create a radiative imbalance resulting in an increase of climate heat content?
It is accepted that global warming has occurred from 1850 to 1997, but no evidence is offered supporting a natural cause that is consistent with the observed warming rate. Can you provide this?
No explanation from contrarian sources is forthcoming to explain the purported sudden cessation of GW. Any speculation? Anyone?
RMB says:
I cannot heat the water in my bucket using a heat gun have a nice day.
That probably makes sense in your world…
hanzo says:
…before the LIA was a time of relative steady global mean temperatures for thousands of years according to climate proxy data.
Wrong, as usual. No one has ever argued that global warming doesn’t happen. Of course it does. Before the worldwide MWP, there were successive warming episodes, and they were warmer still. CO2 was low. This is just natural variability, like we see now.
…CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, which is now the highest in the past 800,000 years.
CO2 is entirely beneficial. No global harm has ever been identified due to the rise in CO2, therefore it is ‘harmless’. Also, “800,000 years” sounds scary, but in fact the rise has been from 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand.
Next:
…have we ever seen such a rapid temperature rise?
What “rapid rise“?
Next, hanzo improbably claims:
I’m concerned with evidence, for and against.
As I have stated repeatedly and correctly: there is NO scientific evidence showing any “fingerprint of AGW”. No such evidence exists. Only preconceived beliefs supported by confirmation bias make you believe thatanything being observed today is other than natural climate variability. Everything we see now has been seen before, and to greater extremes. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.
And of course we have seen more rapid rises in T, even within the past 15K years. Global T has fluctuated by TENS of whole degrees, within about a decade. Your assumptions are simply incorrect.
Next, enough with “ice mass declines”. All of your links for that assumption are several years old, at least. This year has added an enormous amount of Arctic ice mass. Next year that will be second year ice. The year after, third year ice. The ice mass is rising. You deceptively use old data that does not reflect that. Next:
…no evidence is offered supporting a natural cause that is consistent with the observed warming rate. Can you provide this?
The explanation has been provided repeatedly; you just will not listen:
Your mind has been colonized by the CAGW scare. You are fixated on it, and so you look for ‘evidence’ to confirm your bias. Nothing presented by skeptics will have any effect, because your belief is based on emotion, not on science. I only refute your “carbon” nonsense for the benefit of new readers, who may not be up to speed on the facts. There is no scientific evidence supporting the catastropic AGW false alarm. It is only a religion; nothing more or less.
Dbstealey said
“Before the worldwide MWP, there were successive warming episodes, and they were warmer still.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
When I look at this graph of temperatures for the last 2K years, the global mean rises (MWP) and falls (LIA) and then shoots up during the industrial era. So it appears that the last century was anomalous with respect to the rate of temperature rise. It’s the rate increase, not the magnitude that is anomalous.
To determine whether this contemporary temperature spike is usual or unusual, It would be useful to see if there were an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans. That observation would be inconsistent with AGW and such information would be a powerful refutation. Is such data available to you?
“No global harm has ever been identified due to the rise in CO2, therefore it is harmless.”
Would coral bleaching, due to diminishing ocean pH, constitute a source of concern? We are dealing with a parameter that may impact the base of the oceanic food chain. Furthermore, are all plants equally beneficial to human agriculture including weed species? It is the rate of change outside of our customary ranges that should elicit concern.
“Also, “800,000 years sounds scary, but in fact the rise has been from 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand.”
The % change is a better measure for the magnitude of any anomalous change than the absolute difference. I can express my weight gain in metric tons and give myself an erroneously optimistic impression.
Context matters. The solubility of oxygen in water is about 8 ppm, yet it is enough to support global fish respiration. Considering the proportion of 400 ppm of CO2 dispersed in a massive atmosphere, are we are not talking about Gigatons? Is this is not enough to support global photosynthesis and to drive CO2 into a heating ocean? There’s a lot of forests living off such an apparent infinitesimal measure.
A 25% increase in CO2 is also enough to change the radiative balance, since CO2 is not 100% transparent to a century’s worth of outgoing IR radiation. To help your intuition distinguish between ‘small’ and ‘large’ impacts, I propose a little experiment. Add the equivalent of 400 ppm of dark blue food coloring (large extinction coefficient) to an appropriate volume of water. If you can discern a visual change of darkened tint, then you may imagine the disproportional effect of an apparent small amount of substance on absorbance of electromagnetic radiation.
“As I have stated repeatedly and correctly: there is NO scientific evidence showing any “fingerprint of AGW”.
The following are all scientific evidence of AGW:
1) IR spectra at top and bottom of atmosphere plainly shows the absorbances of GHG causing the radiative imbalance and features CO2 and water vapor.
2) The CO2 isotopic trend (C14-depletion) is consistent with that derived from combustion of fossil fuels.
3) the magnitude of known natural forcings have been measured and found insufficient to account for the magnitude of the temperature rise.
4) The radiative imbalance has been directly measured by satellite (CERES).
5) The increase in OHC mirrors the radiative imbalance.
6) An observed cooling trend in stratosphere and heating trend in troposphere is consistent with effect GHG forcing and rules out solar forcing
7) The magnitude of industrial emissions are more than enough to account for the atmospheric CO2
“And of course we have seen more rapid rises in T, even within the past 15K years.” “Global T has fluctuated by TENS of whole degrees, within about a decade. Your assumptions are simply incorrect.
I would be quite interested in your evidence showing a natural forcing capable of a heat flux that is equivalent to setting off multiple nuclear bombs. That’s what a decadal global mean change of +0.2 deg C would mean. If you take a look at the ‘y and x-axes’ of some long term temperature proxys: Heres 800,000 year EPICA (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg). Here’s 12,000 years of Holocene (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png). You’ll note that the fluctuations do not change so fast over decadal timeframes. Certainly not TENS of degrees.
A powerful refutation of AGW would be to show such a rapid T rise and CO2 going into the oceans. Show me and make me eat my hat.
“Net, enough with “ice mass declines”. All of your links for that assumption are several years old, at least. This year has added an enormous amount of Arctic ice mass. Neext year that will be second year ice. The year after, third year ice. The ice mass is rising. You decptively use old data that does not reflect that.”
I offered 2011 quantitative data showing accelerating rate of loss over the decade using state of the art equipment. This is hardly dated info. it’s now July 2014. It would be so easy to refute this data by showing the purported new “enormous amount of Arctic ice mass” that offset the decadal ice loss in over 3 short years. We can compare the mass loss and gain and you can make me eat my hat.
…no evidence is offered supporting a natural cause that is consistent with the observed warming rate. Can you provide this?
I guess not. But I do look forward to Prof Richard Lindzen’s peer reviewed paper discussing the inconsistences in AGW. Please provide a link when he writes it. The quote provided in your post contains speculation about psychological phenomena such as “world hysterics”, scientific illiteracy and political ideology. The parts of his discourse related to climatology contains qualitative generalizations of magnitude without regard to rate and maximizes doubt while minimizing explanation. I’m sure that a professor would not like to characterize climate dynamics as random or magic or as a phenomenon that is largely polemical. Show me physics. Show me numbers. I prefer to see quantitative data to support the qualitative claims.
[snip . . . you can do better . . mod]
hanzo,
That Wikipedia graph is fabricated nonsense. This chart is based on peer reviewed research, based on actual data. It directly contradicts Wikipedia. But since you thrive on confirmation bias, naturally you would gravitate toward Wikipedia’s alarmist nonsense.
Here is another chart that puts things in perspective. We are currently at the cooler end of the Holocene. The planet has been much warmer in the past, when CO2 was very low. How do you explain that?
You say:
… it appears that the last century was anomalous with respect to the rate of temperature rise. It’s the rate increase, not the magnitude that is anomalous.
Wrong, as always. You say:
Your assumptions are simply incorrect…. You’ll note that the fluctuations do not change so fast over decadal timeframes. Certainly not TENS of degrees.
That is merely an assertion, and I can prove that it is false: Only about 11K years ago, global T fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two. Compare that to our current “Goldilocks” climate. But of course you will not compare the two, because your mind is made up. You only look for things that confirm your True Belief. You say:
A powerful refutation of AGW would be to show such a rapid T rise… Show me and make me eat my hat.
Would you like salt and pepper with that?
Next, you throw out terms as if they are confirmed. They are not. Coral bleaching has been shown to be a cyclical event unrelated to temperature or pH. And the Monerey Bay aquarium’s intake pipe, from far out in the ocean, shows no change in pH levels. The “pH” scare is on a par with the “carbon” scare. Your misdirection about weeds vs agricultural crops fails as well. The red line shows agricultural productivity as a direct result of the addition of harmless, beneficial CO2. Is there nothing you will not misrepresent in your ongoing confirmation bias?
Next, you say:
Considering the proportion of 400 ppm of CO2 dispersed in a massive atmosphere, are we are not talking about Gigatons?
Since “gigatons” sounds scary, naturally that term would appeal to you. In fact, CO2 has risen from only about 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand, over 150 years. That is nothing. CO2 is a tiny trace gas, essential to all life on earth. More CO2 is better. The biosphere is starved of CO2.
Next, you assert:
The following are all scientific evidence of AGW…
In fact, none of those are scientific “evidence”. I keep trying to teach you, but you will not listen: scientific “evidence” consists of raw data, and verifiable empirical observations that show the fraction of a degree of global temperature change directly attributed to human CO2 emissions. None of your examoples shows anything that can be considered a “fingerprint of AGW”. If you could show that, you would be the first to do so, and you would be on the short list for the Nobel prize. Instead, you are simply feeding your confirmation bias with random examples. I cannot penetrate your closed mind, but for the benefit of any others reading: there is NO scientific evidence showing any “fingerprint of AGW”. No such evidence has ever been produced. If it had been, the debate would be over.
Next, you say:
I would be quite interested in your evidence showing a natural forcing capable of a heat flux that is equivalent to setting off multiple nuclear bombs.
Enough with the ‘nuclear bombs’ emotion. This is a science site, it isn’t your “Pseudoskeptical Pseudoscience” blog. A hydrogen bomb analogy is simply an emotional scare tactic, and it is nonsense. Regarding your ice mass claim, you say:
I offered 2011 quantitative data…
You refuse to listen: I explained that this year, 2014, Arctic ice has had a massive recovery. That will become second year ice next year, and the year after it will be 3rd year ice, raising the ice mass. You are fixatted on the natural decline in ice cover for the past few years. Wake up! That was then, and this is now. “you can make me eat my hat. “ I hope you have some extra hats in your closet. [Also, see #9.]
Finally, regarding Prof Richard Lindzen, you say:
Show me physics. Show me numbers.
I will do better than that. Here is the Professor’s CV. He has authored twenty dozen peer reviewed papers. Clearly, Prof Lindzen has forgotten more climatology than you will ever learn. But if you want plenty of numbers and data, have at it. It’s all there. However, I am sure none of it will penetrate your alarmist confirmation bias. CAGW is your religion, which is far stronger than rational thought. As i wrote above:
Your mind has been colonized by the CAGW scare. You are fixated on it, and so you look for ‘evidence’ to confirm your bias. Nothing presented by skeptics will have any effect, because your belief is based on emotion, not on science. I only refute your “carbon” nonsense for the benefit of new readers, who may not be up to speed on the facts. There is no scientific evidence supporting the catastropic AGW false alarm. It is only a religion; nothing more or less.
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
“That Wikipedia graph is fabricated nonsense.”
Dbstealey dismisses the 2000 year temp reconstructions summarized in Wikipedia despite the original references provided in Wikipedia. It shows that the last century was anomalous with respect to rate of temperature rise going back 2000 years and is inconsistent with the assertion that fluctuations have been seen to the extent of “TENS of degrees.” Note that the total variation (y-axis) is < 2 deg C
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
"This chart is based on peer reviewed research, based on actual data. It directly contradicts Wikipedia."
The chart Dbstealey provided attempted to depict the 10000 yr Greenland ice core record by Prof RB Alley http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
But Note that the years (x-axis) are not evenly spaced for some reason. The graph appears to have been inexplicably modified by David Lappi. Note also that the total variation (y-axis) is 4 deg C, not "TENS of degrees."
The authentic version is shown below and starts from 1904 and goes back 10000 years. That's the real version that's been peer reviewed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/7294063@N03/4994240435/
The following version starts from 2000 and goes back 3500 years showing that the human industrial era is anomalous wrt rate of temp increase and magnitude going back 3500 years.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?u=http%3a%2f%2fdiggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com%2f2010%2f12%2f3500years.png&ehk=LEZpnhxIWJCxPpmrdmW3jg&w=320&h=214&c=7&rs=1&p=0&pid=1.7
Recall the two ways to heat the planet. Increase insolation (incoming solar radiation flux) and/or decrease outgoing IR radiation via GHG. Now let's go back 450,000 years to show that any natural rapid heat up was consistent with increased insolation (Milankowich cycles) with CO2/H2O/ methane feedback. The CO2 came from the oceans back then.
The contemporary heat up is due to CO2 forcing and the CO2 is going into the oceans.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
"Here is another chart that puts things in perspective. We are currently at the cooler end of the Holocene. The planet has been much warmer in the past, when CO2 was very low. How do you explain that?"
See above: Milankowich and GHG feedback
In the past other forcings (orbital, solar) or cessation of aerosol forcing initiated global warming, usually magnified with CO2 / H2O feedback. Now it's CO2 forcing and H2O feedback.
"That is merely an assertion, and I can prove that it is false: Only about 11K years ago, global T fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two."
See above to recall that the climate doesn't vary by "TENS of degrees"
"Compare that to our current “Goldilocks” climate."
Dbstealey posts the bar graph below to apparently show that one can adjust the scale of the y-axis from 0 to 130 deg C to give the impression of no temperature variation. Consider that one cannot say that global warming has "stopped" in 1997 if one refuses to admit warming had happened previously 1850-1996 http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
Transparently manipulated graphs, dismissal of evidence without discussion, assertions without citation, ad hominem speculations, a purportedly enormous 2014 arctic mass recovery with no numbers to substantiate this claim and Lindzen's CV and appeal to authority, instead of a simple relevant citation.
This makes me skeptical.
Hanzo says:
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
Which I did. From the citation—> [“Ice core records show in less than a decade there was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celcius (27ºF) of the annual mean temperature.”] Global T went up by tens of degrees within a decade. That makes the current gradual rise routine, and typical of the natural step changes since the LIA.
Next, Beer’s Law states that the ocean absorbed CO2 when T declined. Unless hanzo doesn’t believe in physics, I have shown exactly what I was challenged to show, and I am now looking forward to hanzo eating his hat. That was the deal, unless hanzo is going to reneg — which I fully expect, as no alarmist yet has engaged in honest debate. They are always backing and filling, and moving the goal posts, and prevaricating. But maybe I am wrong about hanzo. We’ll see about that.
Next, no graphs were manipulated as hanzo falsely claims. Their provenance is there to be checked. The graph showing tens of degrees T fluctuation was from the Alley et al. 1993 peer reviewed paper. Hanzo needs to argue with Dr. Alley if he doesn’t like the graphs. But he won’t, because he knows the answer he will get contradicts his wild-eyed religious beliefs.
Hanzo says:
…one cannot say that global warming has “stopped” in 1997…
One certainly can say that global warming has stopped, because that is an indisputable fact. Only someone who is incurably afflicted with cognitive dissonance could deny that fact. Look at the title of this article, and the numerous charts proving that global warming stopped. Hanzo is living in a dream world. He says:
This makes me skeptical.
Very amusing. Hanzo is about as skeptical as one of Mrs. Keech’s Seekers, waiting for the flying saucer to appear. He has no concept of scientific skepticism. He is fixated on the ridiculous notion that runaway global warming is in process, when every climate metric shows that to be false.
I have only one request of hanzo: when he eats his hat, put it on YouTube, OK? Thanx.
Beers law relates the light absorbance of a substance with its concentration. The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
“Which I did. Global T went both up and down by tens of degrees within about a decade. Beer’s Law states that the ocean absorbed CO2 when T declined. Unless hanzo doesn’t believe in physics, I have shown exactly what I was challenged to show, and I am waiting for hanzo to eat his hat.”
My intent was to contrast conditions leading to abrupt warming today with conditions leading to abrupt warming in the past. As far back as 10,000 years BP, of the very few relatively sharp T rises (~ 0.5 deg/century), none occurred when CO2 was simultaneously entering the oceans. But that’s what’s happening now. That is consistent with CO2 forcing, not feedback. Dbstealey found an abrupt cooling event (Younger Dryas), probably due to the disruption of the THC from a prior warming event. I’m not certain what this disproves?
“The planet could descend into another great Ice Age, and glaciers could cover Chicago a mile deep again”
Indeed it can, and for reasons associated with AGW. Any strong short term natural or unnatural perturbation (GHG flux, disruption of ocean circulation due to influx of fresh water from melting ice) will destabilize the climate. These days humans are the culprit because of the large influx of industrial GHG. It causes heating which melts ice. The infusion of fresh water into circulation systems driven by salinity can have severe consequences. Our prudent path away from this climate uncertainty is to transition to existing alternative ways of generating electricity.
“but hanzo would still be parroting his catastrophic AGW, runaway global warming nonsense.”
If we double the CO2 concentration in the 21 century, there’s a 5% chance that initial impacts may be mild, then the impacts will grow in magnitude. There’s a 90% chance that the impact will be a severe economic nuisance. There’s a 5% chance that humans may become extinct.
“No graphs were manipulated, their provenance is there to be checked. That is sheer desperation. The graph showing tens of degrees T fluctuation was from the Alley et al. 1993 peer reviewed paper.”
A temperature graph whose y-axis scale is adjusted from 0 deg to past the boiling point of water shows an apparent straight horizontal line. Its a useless tool to discern T variations. I’m not sure why David Lappin altered the x-axis of the Greenland ice core data. But the y-axis doesn’t show tens of degree fluctuations. It doesn’t take a lot of degrees to make the planet devoid of life. The Younger Dryas was quite an abrupt regional cooling however, but even this event had an explainable cause.
I think Dbstealey’s speculations about religious beliefs and cognitive dissonance is not germane to the paleoclimate data and the lessons we can derive from it. So I can’t comment on them.
hanzo says:
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
The challenge was met. And of course, CO2 goes into the oceans. It also outgases, depending on the partial pressure, so the second part of hanzo’s challenge is a given. At any one time and depending on location, CO2 is either entering or leaving the oceans. I have shown exactly what I was challenged to show, and I am waiting for hanzo to eat his hat. He never will, though, for the reasons given.
Next, hanzo says:
As far back as 10,000 years BP…
Convenient, eh? My link showed 11,000 ybp, so naturally hanzo gives a cutoff of 10,000 ybp.
Next, hanzo preposterously asserts that human acvtivity can cause another Ice Age…
…for reasons associated with AGW.
That is beyond ridiculous. First, the alarmists said “runaway global warming”. Then it was “climate change”. And now, it’s “human emissions can cause an Ice Age”. Got all the bases covered, don’t you? Constantly moving the goal posts lets you do that. But it is not honestl. When your ‘explanation’ covers every possibility, it is a nonsense explanation.
hanzo says:
These days humans are the culprit…
“These days”? hanzo is sounding more and more the fool. The “culprit”?? There is no testable, measurable scientific evidence showing any global harm due to human CO2 emissions. None at all. The only evidence we can measure shows that human emissions are greening the planet. The biosphere is blooming due to the added CO2. Only the deranged mind of a lunatic would label humans the “culprit”. Human activity is greening the planet. There is no measurable harm, therefore the added CO2 is “harmless”.
Next, hanzo asserts:
Any strong short term natural or unnatural perturbation (GHG flux, disruption of ocean circulation due to influx of fresh water from melting ice) will destabilize the climate.
Not “may”; hanzo asserts “will” destabilize the climate. But there is zero evidence of that happening. It is a baseless assertion made by a religious eco-nut, who feeds off the taxpaying public. In order to generate more funding, hanzo [I really doubt that moniker] attempts to scare the public. Too bad for ‘hanzo’: the public is coming around to the view of scientific skeptics. Read the comments under any national publication running a global warming article. Skeptics outnumber alarmists by about 10 – 1.
Next, hanzo says:
There’s a 90% chance that the impact will be a severe economic nuisance. There’s a 5% chance that humans may become extinct.
From a rise in CO2 of one or two parts per 10,000?? As if. That is just another lunatic assertion. The planet has been ≈10º warmer in the past — during times when the biosphere thrived with life and diversity. Warm is life; cold kills.
Finally hanzo says:
I think Dbstealey’s speculations about religious beliefs and cognitive dissonance is not germane…
It is specifically germane to hanzo’s nonsense. How else to explain it? This will show folks what we’re dealing with:
hanzo is a religious global warming fanatic. He uses a thin veneer of easily debunked pseudo-science to cover up his religious beliefs. Nothing he posts survives the mildest scrutiny. Fortunately, the world is marginalizing people like ‘hanzo’. That is entirely a good thing. We certainly do not need crazies influencing policy. They have done too much damage already.
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a FAST TEMP RISE (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?u=http%3a%2f%2fdiggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com%2f2010%2f12%2f3500years.png&ehk=LEZpnhxIWJCxPpmrdmW3jg&w=320&h=214&c=7&rs=1&p=0&pid=1.7
Although Dbstealey posted about an anomalous rapid temperature DECLINE (Younger Dryas stadial), it inspired me to review all the rapid warming events over the last paleo temp and CO2 record over the last 420,000 years (EPICA, Vostok).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
While I didn’t see any fast warming without ocean CO2 out gassing, I did note that fast warming episodes are extremely rare (about 6) going back 420,000 years
This following graph gives a nice long term perspective.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
The take home lesson is that the current rapid temperature rise is anomalous because its 1) very rare and 2) all of the known natural forcings in the past are not occurring now. That’s why it’s anomalous. The CO2 is not coming from the oceans this time. We are artificially recreating an atmospheric GHG composition that was associated with low ice cover and high sea levels. Yes, we are now inadvertently terraforming the planet.
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Announcements/gslprojection
Science has now given us an early warming allowing us time to prepare our coastal infrastructure. Because the climate has not yet reached equilibrium, there is a certain amount of damage done with respect to sea level. Let’s at least adapt to that.
“Hanzo” says:
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a FAST TEMP RISE (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
Which I showed, repeatedly. That indicates that ‘hanzo’ is not only a welcher who will not eat his hat as repeatedly promised. After posting a peer reviewed chart showing that global T has fluctuated by TENS of degrees in a decade, I expected hanzo to ignore like he usually does when set straight, and moveon. Instead, he is digging his hole deeper.
Next, the first two charts posted are far too large a time scale to see decadal fluctuations, so it is meaningless here [“While I didn’t see any fast warming…”]. You cannot see one single decade in either chart.
And: I did note that fast warming episodes are extremely rare…
Therefore, fast warming happens. Sorry about your argument, you just deconstructed it yourself. Fast global warming happens. Naturally. Just like now.
The next chart that ‘hanzo’ posted shows clearly that the planet has usually been warmer than it is now. Another own-goal. The charts I post support my argument. Hanzo’s don’t support his argument, they are just noise.
Next, hanzo wrongly asserts:
…the current rapid temperature rise is anomalous because its 1) very rare…
It is rare but it happens. Naturally. Just like it is happening now — naturally. [See Occam’s Razor and the climate Null Hypothesis.]
2) all of the known natural forcings in the past are not occurring now.
How could you possibly know that? That is just one more of your baseless assertions. It is based on confirmation bias, and as such that argument fails. It is self-serving nonsense.
Finally:
Science has now given us an early warming allowing us time to prepare our coastal infrastructure.
That is no different than Chicken Little clucking about the sky falling.
Because the climate has not yet reached equilibrium, there is a certain amount of damage done with respect to sea level.
1) The climate is never in equilibrium [cf: Lindzen]. And:
2) The sea level is naturally rising at the same rate it has since the LIA. There is no acceleration, as was incessantly predicted by the alarmist cult. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.
Not one argument that ‘hanzo’ has made here holds water. They all fail the common sense test, which is to be expected when one’s belief is based on runaway global warming and climate catastrophe predictions. This sockpuppet’s arguments are based on confirmation bias, not on science. That is why they fail.