Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Warming Then And Now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Warming Then And Now?

    So why would the IPCC blame the increase in temperature between between 1970-2000 on man but not the increase between 1910-1940? What caused the increase between 1910-1940? If not man?



    From Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
    February 25, 2014


    Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

    The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...5-ae3951197d03
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    So why would the IPCC blame the increase in temperature between between 1970-2000 on man but not the increase between 1910-1940? What caused the increase between 1910-1940? If not man?
    The IPCC is summarizing what is available in scientific literature; so the question really is -- why is there is a strong scientific case being made for human causes for the 1970-2000 warming (and to 2014 as well; warming is continuing; albeit the recent short term trends are not as high) -- but not for the 1910-1940?

    The answer is simple. It is because that is what the evidence shows. Scientists are not just making up guesses; they are proposing and testing ideas; and there is a very strong case indeed for human drivers over the latter period, with a fairly good case for the drivers in the earlier period to be a mix of human, volcanic and solar.

    Also, it is worth bearing in mind that we have less confidence about processes at work over 1910-1940 than we do over 1970-2000, simply because the instruments and the global coverage have improved enormously.

    There are many different factors that influence climate and global temperature. We don't just guess at what factors might be involved at different times; we look for the data to SEE what is involved at different time.

    One factor is solar variation. The Sun is remarkably stable (fortunately) but there are some variations in output. Evidence indicates that the Sun increased in output slightly over the early part of the twentieth century; though it decreased a little in the latter part. So solar variation is a positive (warming) influence in 1910-1940 but a slightly negative (cooling) influence in 1970-2000; as best can be measured.

    Another factor is volcanic cooling. Large eruptions emit clouds of dust and ash high into the atmosphere where it works to reflect sunlight and bring about sharp cooling, and then a gradual recovery. The physics is straightforward and the effect is measured. 1910-1940 was in a period of recovery after some large eruptions, and the latter (warmer) part of this time was a notable lull in big eruptions. This is almost certainly a major factor in the 1910-1940 warming; and not at all in the 1970-2000 period.

    The human impact with an enhanced greenhouse effect also contributes warming in both periods, though much more strongly in the latter time.

    Hence; what the data shows is
    • 1910-1940 warming due to a combination of human impact, volcanic lull, and solar increase.
    • 1970-2000 warming due almost entirely to human impact, most likely moderated a bit by solar decrease and some big eruptions in the latter part of this period.


    Another factor likely to play a major role is heat transport in the ocean; but this is not yet well understood of modeled, and (unlike the volcanic and solar impacts) cannot be actually shown from measurement how the impact varies between these two periods.

    For more information, I recommend as a good source Simulation of Early 20th Century Global Warming at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA.

    Cheers -- sylas

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So why would the IPCC blame the increase in temperature between between 1970-2000 on man but not the increase between 1910-1940? What caused the increase between 1910-1940? If not man?



      From Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
      February 25, 2014





      http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...5-ae3951197d03
      The entire thing is a sack of low-grade manure.

      'Human-Caused Global Warming' is part of a very evil agenda by Collectivist Elitists. That agenda seeks to advance the appropriation of money and power by a very few at the expense of everyone else.

      Everyone has heard of the intercepted emails and everyone has seen the historical temperature graphs all proving that the whole thing is nothing more than a scam of world-wide proportions.

      Why are there people still pushing this agenda? Obviously, because they are either (1) ignorant of the facts or because, (2) just as with pushing Evolution, abortion or gay rights, it serves their personal agenda.

      In closing, it is funny-as-all-can-be that in the last several years the world has experienced some of the coldest temperatures (winters) in recent history. Economists and governments are still talking about the last "awful" winter.

      Here's the howler: The "global warming" crowd has actually used this as 'proof' that warming is occurring, i.e., that "the global warming is causing colder temperatures"!

      You see, 'heads' (it's getting warmer) they're right, 'tails' (it's getting colder) you're wrong.
      You may recognize that tactic - it's also used in Materialistic Evolution.

      Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #4
        In this thread, seer asked a reasonable question, and I provided a fairly straightforward answer.

        Some people may dismiss the whole of conventional climate science outright; please let's not side track into just shouting insults at perceived sides. That includes not just trying to justify the standing of climate science to Jorge; it's a different topic. I really hope this thread just doesn't degrade into yet another exchange of content free shouting of Jorge vs everyone else. It's pointless. (If any actual substantive points relating to the OP are made that would be different.)

        The question asked why the IPCC blamed 1970-2000 warming on human factors, but not 1910-1940 warming on human factors. It's a question about the state of conventional science with respect to climate forcings.

        The IPCC is a proxy for what gets published in conventional mainstream journals; so the question really reduces to why conventionally published mainstream climate science attributes warming 1970-2000 on human factors but not 1910-1940. I've answered that, and can elaborate if anyone has more specific questions on the various climate forcings involved.

        But let's not get into a general defense of the whole of climate science, or just shouted insults at two sides.

        If anyone does actually consider the whole of climate science to be dominated by some kind of fraud, then answering the question in the OP is pretty irrelevant. The OP is simply asking why the conventional science differentiates causes in the early and latter parts of the century. Answer has been given; if you choose to dismiss any answer due to general distrust of the field, that's your prerogative; but the question still is asking what the basis of conventional published science on these differences.

        Cheers -- sylas

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sylas View Post
          In this thread, seer asked a reasonable question, and I provided a fairly straightforward answer.

          Some people may dismiss the whole of conventional climate science outright; please let's not side track into just shouting insults at perceived sides. That includes not just trying to justify the standing of climate science to Jorge; it's a different topic. I really hope this thread just doesn't degrade into yet another exchange of content free shouting of Jorge vs everyone else. It's pointless. (If any actual substantive points relating to the OP are made that would be different.)
          You spoke his name. Likely enough, you even read his post.

          I recommend against this.

          The question asked why the IPCC blamed 1970-2000 warming on human factors, but not 1910-1940 warming on human factors. It's a question about the state of conventional science with respect to climate forcings.
          Dear sylas,

          The OP is a re-posting of a question addressed to me yesterday in John Reece's Obama Mocks Skeptics thread. Thank you for your response, as I was not looking forward to the time I would need to answer it with any authority, and actually considered handing it over to you for this, a more detailed response than any I'd be able to offer.

          I'm especially pleased to see that seer moved this discussion out of Civics. Yet another reason why I still read his posts, contra the entrants on my quick-scrolling list, headlined by he-who-should-not-be-named-or-read.

          I'm going to bust myself on something here. The following I knew, and it's where I would have gone in trying to explain the lack of confidence in human causation of warming between 1910 and 1940:
          Also, it is worth bearing in mind that we have less confidence about processes at work over 1910-1940 than we do over 1970-2000, simply because the instruments and the global coverage have improved enormously.

          This in itself would be sufficient to downgrade confidence in human causation of the 1910-1940 warming. Sufficient, but not necessary, and in fact, wrong if used as a primary explanation, as you've shown. I was not aware of any analysis of the climate forcings of the 1910 to 1940 warming. And so, working from deficient information, I was misled into believing the 1910 to 1940 warming could have been principally anthropogenic, but was not being attributed to human activity because there were insufficient data to create suitable confidence.

          What's interesting here is the direction of my mistake. Unaware of the rich body of available research on the warming during this period, I assumed it did not exist, and so I did not go look. I mention this fault specifically because, to the extent that I have chastised John Reece for the same failing, I have been guilty of hypocrisy.

          As ever, Jesse

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
            You spoke his name. Likely enough, you even read his post.

            I recommend against this.

            Jesse

            [sarcasm-impaired, do not read any more ...]


            Okay, and I recommend against reading your nonsense. So there!

            Grow up, will ya!

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by sylas View Post
              In this thread, seer asked a reasonable question, and I provided a fairly straightforward answer.

              Some people may dismiss the whole of conventional climate science outright; please let's not side track into just shouting insults at perceived sides. That includes not just trying to justify the standing of climate science to Jorge; it's a different topic. I really hope this thread just doesn't degrade into yet another exchange of content free shouting of Jorge vs everyone else. It's pointless. (If any actual substantive points relating to the OP are made that would be different.)

              The question asked why the IPCC blamed 1970-2000 warming on human factors, but not 1910-1940 warming on human factors. It's a question about the state of conventional science with respect to climate forcings.

              The IPCC is a proxy for what gets published in conventional mainstream journals; so the question really reduces to why conventionally published mainstream climate science attributes warming 1970-2000 on human factors but not 1910-1940. I've answered that, and can elaborate if anyone has more specific questions on the various climate forcings involved.

              But let's not get into a general defense of the whole of climate science, or just shouted insults at two sides.

              If anyone does actually consider the whole of climate science to be dominated by some kind of fraud, then answering the question in the OP is pretty irrelevant. The OP is simply asking why the conventional science differentiates causes in the early and latter parts of the century. Answer has been given; if you choose to dismiss any answer due to general distrust of the field, that's your prerogative; but the question still is asking what the basis of conventional published science on these differences.

              Cheers -- sylas
              I appreciate what you're saying, Sylas, whether you care to believe me or not. I have no desire to "shout" or "trade insults". I'm always only after the truth in the matter under discussion.

              What many people may not know is that temperatures/weather over most of the planet were fairly accurately recorded for a very long time and certainly throughout the entire 20th century including the present. This was done primarily to serve economic (trade and agriculture), military and political reasons.

              That this 'Human-Caused Global Warming' controversy is what it has become today - and this was my point - is a matter of economic and political agendas that have NOTHING to do with the actual science. IOW, the actual science and measurements have been hijacked to serve those aforementioned agendas.

              The truth is all that matters. Above you say,

              "Answer has been given; if you choose to dismiss any answer due to general distrust of the field, that's your prerogative; but the question still is asking what the basis of conventional published science on these differences."

              My post responded that the basis you seek is politico-economic, not scientific. More explicitly, they have re-worked, re-interpreted, omitted or downplayed certain observations/facts (that do not support their agenda) and accentuated other observations/facts (that do support their agenda).

              They then give it very high visibility status by "awarding" a Nobel Prize to the "inventor-of-the-internet" Al Gore and spend billions pushing the lie all over the world. They then get their servants at the United Nations to push the agenda everywhere and here we are. They've made great strides, you know.

              By the way, this is precisely the same strategy used to promote other agendas, scientific or not.

              No insults or shouting is intended. I'm just saying that if you want to understand what's happening with this 'Human-Caused Global Warming' controversy, do not look towards science - that's just a ruse. The same reasoning applies to address the title of this thread.

              Of course, feel free to ignore this post and continue to seek the "basis" in science. You won't find it there.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sylas View Post
                The IPCC is summarizing what is available in scientific literature; so the question really is -- why is there is a strong scientific case being made for human causes for the 1970-2000 warming (and to 2014 as well; warming is continuing; albeit the recent short term trends are not as high) -- but not for the 1910-1940?

                The answer is simple. It is because that is what the evidence shows. Scientists are not just making up guesses; they are proposing and testing ideas; and there is a very strong case indeed for human drivers over the latter period, with a fairly good case for the drivers in the earlier period to be a mix of human, volcanic and solar.

                Also, it is worth bearing in mind that we have less confidence about processes at work over 1910-1940 than we do over 1970-2000, simply because the instruments and the global coverage have improved enormously.

                There are many different factors that influence climate and global temperature. We don't just guess at what factors might be involved at different times; we look for the data to SEE what is involved at different time.

                One factor is solar variation. The Sun is remarkably stable (fortunately) but there are some variations in output. Evidence indicates that the Sun increased in output slightly over the early part of the twentieth century; though it decreased a little in the latter part. So solar variation is a positive (warming) influence in 1910-1940 but a slightly negative (cooling) influence in 1970-2000; as best can be measured.

                Another factor is volcanic cooling. Large eruptions emit clouds of dust and ash high into the atmosphere where it works to reflect sunlight and bring about sharp cooling, and then a gradual recovery. The physics is straightforward and the effect is measured. 1910-1940 was in a period of recovery after some large eruptions, and the latter (warmer) part of this time was a notable lull in big eruptions. This is almost certainly a major factor in the 1910-1940 warming; and not at all in the 1970-2000 period.

                The human impact with an enhanced greenhouse effect also contributes warming in both periods, though much more strongly in the latter time.

                Hence; what the data shows is
                • 1910-1940 warming due to a combination of human impact, volcanic lull, and solar increase.
                • 1970-2000 warming due almost entirely to human impact, most likely moderated a bit by solar decrease and some big eruptions in the latter part of this period.


                Another factor likely to play a major role is heat transport in the ocean; but this is not yet well understood of modeled, and (unlike the volcanic and solar impacts) cannot be actually shown from measurement how the impact varies between these two periods.

                For more information, I recommend as a good source Simulation of Early 20th Century Global Warming at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA.

                Cheers -- sylas
                This is the problem Sylas, you don't think that Dr. Patrick Moore understands this as well or better than you? That he does not understand these possible variables? Yet, his conclusions are quite different. Never mind the data that was fudged about the 90s being the hottest decade in the US and not the 30s.
                Last edited by seer; 06-28-2014, 03:51 PM.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  I advice everyone to ignore Jorge, and respond to seer instead.

                  Originally posted by seer
                  This is the problem Sylas, you don't think that Dr. Patrick Moore understands this as well or better than you? That he does not understand these possible variables? Yet, his conclusions are quite different. Never mind the data that was fudged about the 90s being the hottest decade in the US and not the 30s.
                  Seer, this is an argument from authority, and if you're going by that then you should go by the IPCC, they represent a wider body of scientists across a larger number of organisations. Dr. Patrick Moore is one opinion that may or may not be right, and simple waving around his phd is no more an argument than waving around Bart Ehrman's phd is an answer to the historical validity of early Christianity. If that's the game, then us lay people should just sit down and shut our traps since its always possible to find at least one phd wielding person with a contrarian opinion.

                  The question is whether he has an interesting argument. Lets start by getting some data on the table. Here's the 5-year annual mean average surface temperature from GISS.



                  Here we can at least see that there is is a growth from between 1910 to 1940, though its somewhat less sharp than the growth from 1970 to 2000. We can also clearly see that there's an extended pause from 1940 to 1970, however its not clear that there's a pause from 2000 because of the uncertainties. The current pause is still somewhat disputed, with some arguing that its a real artefact possible caused by ocean cooling not included into current models, or its a fluke.

                  He makes a claim that current scientists aren't arguing that the growth from 1910 to 1940 is caused by humans. I'm unaware of this being the case, and despite reading the link you gave me I failed to find where they argued that only the growth from the seventies is caused by humans. Without citations its basically an assertion without substance. It might simple be that they only argue from the seventies since its clearest there, where as the earlier part might be a mixture of human and natural causes.

                  The IPCC are not CO2 fanatics, they've catalogued other sources of temperature 'forcings', however none of those can explain the rise since the seventies.

                  The massive growth in CO2 content in the atmosphere during the recent two centuries is indisputably caused by humans, nothing in nature, not even volcanos emit as much carbon-dioxide as we do on an annual basis. Since the eighties we've got good data on the CO2 content which shows a steady growth. This comes along with the current temperature rise from the seventies.

                  There's currently no alternative model for this temperature rise:

                  -The solar forcing is currently negative, the sun for the past thirty years have been colder than usual.
                  -The Svensmark model based on cosmic ray seeded clouds have steadily fallen out of favor since the correlation turned out not to be strong after the seventies, and no one has been able to generate enough ions to seed clouds (they're about nine orders of magnitude off).

                  The CO2 model enjoys evidential support, we know the atmosphere is retaining heat, that heat has either got to go into heating something else (melting the poles, or heating the ocean) or into making the atmosphere hotter. There really is no other way for it to happen, the physics is fairly simple and straightforward and has been known for a century now. What's not simple is the models we have of the climate, the heat might currently be going into the oceans faster than anticipated. This will buy us some time since the oceans act as a giant heat sink, however eventually the temperature increase will resume.

                  So while predicting the exact rise in temperature is going to be hard, it has to go up currently by at least a couple of degrees based on what we've currently thrown out into the atmosphere, and as much as six degrees based on what we might throw into the atmosphere later.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I advice everyone to ignore Jorge, and respond to seer instead.



                    Seer, this is an argument from authority, and if you're going by that then you should go by the IPCC, they represent a wider body of scientists across a larger number of organisations. Dr. Patrick Moore is one opinion that may or may not be right, and simple waving around his phd is no more an argument than waving around Bart Ehrman's phd is an answer to the historical validity of early Christianity. If that's the game, then us lay people should just sit down and shut our traps since its always possible to find at least one phd wielding person with a contrarian opinion.

                    The question is whether he has an interesting argument. Lets start by getting some data on the table. Here's the 5-year annual mean average surface temperature from GISS.



                    Here we can at least see that there is is a growth from between 1910 to 1940, though its somewhat less sharp than the growth from 1970 to 2000. We can also clearly see that there's an extended pause from 1940 to 1970, however its not clear that there's a pause from 2000 because of the uncertainties. The current pause is still somewhat disputed, with some arguing that its a real artefact possible caused by ocean cooling not included into current models, or its a fluke.

                    He makes a claim that current scientists aren't arguing that the growth from 1910 to 1940 is caused by humans. I'm unaware of this being the case, and despite reading the link you gave me I failed to find where they argued that only the growth from the seventies is caused by humans. Without citations its basically an assertion without substance. It might simple be that they only argue from the seventies since its clearest there, where as the earlier part might be a mixture of human and natural causes.

                    The IPCC are not CO2 fanatics, they've catalogued other sources of temperature 'forcings', however none of those can explain the rise since the seventies.

                    The massive growth in CO2 content in the atmosphere during the recent two centuries is indisputably caused by humans, nothing in nature, not even volcanos emit as much carbon-dioxide as we do on an annual basis. Since the eighties we've got good data on the CO2 content which shows a steady growth. This comes along with the current temperature rise from the seventies.

                    There's currently no alternative model for this temperature rise:

                    -The solar forcing is currently negative, the sun for the past thirty years have been colder than usual.
                    -The Svensmark model based on cosmic ray seeded clouds have steadily fallen out of favor since the correlation turned out not to be strong after the seventies, and no one has been able to generate enough ions to seed clouds (they're about nine orders of magnitude off).

                    The CO2 model enjoys evidential support, we know the atmosphere is retaining heat, that heat has either got to go into heating something else (melting the poles, or heating the ocean) or into making the atmosphere hotter. There really is no other way for it to happen, the physics is fairly simple and straightforward and has been known for a century now. What's not simple is the models we have of the climate, the heat might currently be going into the oceans faster than anticipated. This will buy us some time since the oceans act as a giant heat sink, however eventually the temperature increase will resume.

                    So while predicting the exact rise in temperature is going to be hard, it has to go up currently by at least a couple of degrees based on what we've currently thrown out into the atmosphere, and as much as six degrees based on what we might throw into the atmosphere later.
                    First Len, then why have the global temperature been relatively flat the last 17 years, especially in light of the fact of the greater increase of Co2. Saying that is a fluke is saying nothing. Second, we know that they did fudge the numbers for the US, claiming that the 90s was the warmest decade of the last century when it was in fact the 30s. What other numbers are they fudging?

                    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
                    Last edited by seer; 06-28-2014, 04:58 PM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      First Len, then why have the global temperature been relatively flat the last 17 years, especially in light of the fact of the greater increase of Co2. Saying that is a fluke is saying nothing.
                      I agree that just saying its a fluke is saying nothing, however there's quite a big uncertainty margin and so far its still within that. A trend does seem to be forming but its still not really clear that its real and not just a random quirk. So currently I don't grant that the temperature has been flat. It certainly hasn't been going down, you can't argue that without making assumptions about when the supposed pause started.

                      Second, we know that they did fudge the numbers for the US, claiming that the 90s was the warmest decade of the last century when it was in fact the 30s. What other numbers are they fudging?
                      I have no idea what you're talking about, I don't care about local temperatures either, I only talk about global averages. There might have been local weathers were one decade was warmer than another, however the US is only a small portion of the world.

                      Argument by weblink? You're referring to an entire blog here, not even to a specific post, and you're not even referencing whatever you're linking to.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        I agree that just saying its a fluke is saying nothing, however there's quite a big uncertainty margin and so far its still within that. A trend does seem to be forming but its still not really clear that its real and not just a random quirk. So currently I don't grant that the temperature has been flat. It certainly hasn't been going down, you can't argue that without making assumptions about when the supposed pause started.
                        Leonhard, if I'm not mistaken even the ICPP agrees there has been an actual hiatus in warming. But how can this be as Co2 levels rise? And what computer models predicted this hiatus? So it seems to me that there are variables that we just don't understand, or man made Co2 is not as a big driver as we thought.


                        I have no idea what you're talking about, I don't care about local temperatures either, I only talk about global averages. There might have been local weathers were one decade was warmer than another, however the US is only a small portion of the world.
                        Really? This has been big news in the last couple of week. The fact is thy fudged the numbers for US temperatures. And not only for the US but for Iceland and Australia.

                        Global warming specialists inside the scientific community are buzzing about revelations first made Friday, which show how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's official graph of historical U.S. surface temperatures records has been quietly altered for years.

                        Government scientists, it is alleged, have been tweaking some of the world’s most oft-cited climate records by replacing actual temperature readings in the United States, Iceland and Australia with hypothetical numbers derived from computer models.

                        The result has been a distorted view of temperature trends, according to a blogger who first assembled the evidence, changing a steady temperature decline into an ominous-looking warming
                        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz35yKBPxnP
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Leonhard, if I'm not mistaken even the ICPP agrees there has been an actual hiatus in warming.
                          Citation please, as far as I remember there's sort of a disagreement at the moment about whether a missing source of cooling exists, or whether its just a randomness quirk that explains why there's no current warming.

                          But how can this be as Co2 levels rise?
                          Good question. We ought to be seeing temperature rises. CO2 causes a retention of heat, we've known this for more than a century. This heat has to go somewhere, and there's no known way for it to escape back into space. If the pause is real, this means that instead of the heat going into increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere, something else which is colder will be heated. This could either be the poles or the oceans, with the bets currently being on it being the oceans.

                          And what computer models predicted this hiatus?
                          So far it looks like (even by IPCC's own admission) that this the oceans heating up far deeper than they anticipated, acting as a heatsink, is not included in any of the models and that explains the discrepancy.

                          The heat has to go somewhere.

                          So it seems to me that there are variables that we just don't understand,
                          This is likely the case.

                          or man made Co2 is not as a big driver as we thought.
                          This is extremely unlikely to be case unless we've misunderstood both thermodynamics and the dispersion of electromagnetic radiation, both of which we've known for a century now. There's little doubt that we're currently adding more heat to the earth's surface, the question is just where its going.

                          Really? This has been big news in the last couple of week. The fact is thy fudged the numbers for US temperatures. And not only for the US but for Iceland and Australia.

                          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz35yKBPxnP
                          The dailymail is a tabloid magazine seer, I don't respect it as a source of any news. As it was I followed the link provided in that article, which went to that blog you linked to, and it didn't say that the scientists fudged that the data, simple that there's a difference between the initial dataset and the final adjusted dataset.

                          The implication is apparently that the scientists were doing this fraudulently, however there's zero discussion of why it was done which is likely for a number of good reasons. I know plenty of equipment that shows systematic bias that has to be corrected for. It could also be that they were folding multiple datasets together. I know that results from the Planck satellite was adjusted based on datasets from other experiments, nudging the results closer to the real value, basically finding the best value that's consistent with all measurements.

                          The blog discusses none of these possibilities. There's also no sources listed for anything, which makes it even more dubious, I doubt he's pulling those graphs out of thin air, but I don't think he's telling the whole story about them.

                          The discussion there about US temperatures is irrelevant, the US covers only a small percentage of the earths surface. Its the total average which is interesting, and I've posted that.
                          Last edited by Leonhard; 06-28-2014, 05:55 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Citation please, as far as I remember there's sort of a disagreement at the moment about whether a missing source of cooling exists, or whether its just a randomness quirk that explains why there's no current warming.
                            Why do I need a reference, you agree with me. And I did read it.



                            Good question. We ought to be seeing temperature rises. CO2 causes a retention of heat, we've known this for more than a century. This heat has to go somewhere, and there's no known way for it to escape back into space. If the pause is real, this means that instead of the heat going into increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere, something else which is colder will be heated. This could either be the poles or the oceans, with the bets currently being on it being the oceans.


                            So far it looks like (even by IPCC's own admission) that this the oceans heating up far deeper than they anticipated, acting as a heatsink, is not included in any of the models and that explains the discrepancy.

                            The heat has to go somewhere.
                            But isn't that begging the question? It hasn't been heating up the last 17 years. So the heat doesn't have to go any where.



                            This is extremely unlikely to be case unless we've misunderstood both thermodynamics and the dispersion of electromagnetic radiation, both of which we've known for a century now. There's little doubt that we're currently adding more heat to the earth's surface, the question is just where its going.
                            Well obviously we are misunderstanding something quite important and relevant. And Len, why didn't the heat from the 1970-2000 warming trend also find its way into the deep ocean?

                            The dailymail is a tabloid magazine seer, I don't respect it as a source of any news. As it was I followed the link provided in that article, which went to that blog you linked to, and it didn't say that the scientists fudged that the data, simple that there's a difference between the initial dataset and the final adjusted dataset.

                            The implication is apparently that the scientists were doing this fraudulently, however there's zero discussion of why it was done which is likely for a number of good reasons. I know plenty of equipment that shows systematic bias that has to be corrected for. It could also be that they were folding multiple datasets together. I know that results from the Planck satellite was adjusted based on datasets from other experiments, nudging the results closer to the real value, basically finding the best value that's consistent with all measurements.

                            The blog discusses none of these possibilities. There's also no sources listed for anything, which makes it even more dubious, I doubt he's pulling those graphs out of thin air, but I don't think he's telling the whole story about them.

                            The discussion there about US temperatures is irrelevant, the US covers only a small percentage of the earths surface. Its the total average which is interesting, and I've posted that.
                            No Len, they did fudge the numbers. They use computer models instead of actual data. My link also references the archived data.

                            http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...g-the-present/

                            And they finally admitted to the "mistake." But only after they got caught with their pants down.

                            http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/articl...a081607_2.html

                            Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however — and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.

                            The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA measures long-term changes in global surface temperatures using raw data collected at thousands of stations around the world (called the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN). The raw temperature data are then corrected to account for a number of factors, including differences in the time of day of measurements between stations, and differences between rural stations and urban stations (which tend to be hotter, due to the so-called "urban heat island" effect).

                            On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive "hockey stick" temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.
                            Last edited by seer; 06-28-2014, 06:31 PM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              First Len, then why have the global temperature been relatively flat the last 17 years, especially in light of the fact of the greater increase of Co2. Saying that is a fluke is saying nothing. Second, we know that they did fudge the numbers for the US, claiming that the 90s was the warmest decade of the last century when it was in fact the 30s. What other numbers are they fudging?
                              The phenomenon of flat temperatures over the last 17 years is what is known as regression to the mean. That's a mathematical term for when when a long term average experiences short term fluctuations that sometimes cause a short term reversal of the trend. If you look at the data what really happened is that for 1997-2005 the temperature was considerably above the long term average predictions. Then in the last seven years it has experience a 'correction' as is coming back in line with the long term trend.



                              The red line is the long term predicted average. The blue line from 1997 is what we would have seen if the temperatures really were flat the last 17 years. Notice that as of 2014 we are almost exactly on the long term predictions.

                              A full explanation of the phenomenon is here.

                              None of this is particularly unusual or surprising to climatologists but sadly it provided ammo to the climate change denier cranks.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              52 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              40 responses
                              257 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X