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

  • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    After all the years of people patiently explaining to you you still don't get that short term variations don't invalidate long term trends. Amazing.
    An analogy is the Stock Market with its day-to-day and month-to-month and even year-to-year ups and downs, while the 80 year trend is upward.

    K54

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Well I had this debate a while back, and no one from that side actually offered a model that did - therefore I assumed that none did. But if you have one, please link it.
      Happily: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...37810/abstract

      "Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        Happily: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...37810/abstract

        "Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."
        There also could be localized long-term cooling, in particular in Europe if the Greenland glacial ice and Arctic Sea ice melting decrease the halocline which helps drive the warm Gulf Stream.

        K54

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          Happily: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...37810/abstract

          "Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."
          You misunderstand me, I asked for a prediction, not a justification after the fact. Your paper was done in 2009, after, as the authors admit, the temperature had remained flat since 1998. In the face of increasing Co2 input.
          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


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            You misunderstand me, I asked for a prediction, not a justification after the fact. Your paper was done in 2009, after, as the authors admit, the temperature had remained flat since 1998. In the face of increasing Co2 input.
            So, let me see if i've got this straight:
            You want to cherry pick the year 1998, even though picking a year earlier or later would get you a more pronounced warming trend.
            You want a model that was produced before 1998, even though they weren't as sophisticated as they are now.
            You want the model to have been run before 1998, even though computing power was extremely limited then.
            And you want someone to have noticed that there were flat periods in the model output, even though there wasn't really anything in particular to suggest they were interesting.

            I'll admit up front: i doubt this evidence exists in a published paper. And, if it does, it will be extremely difficult to find it.

            But what exactly are you trying to understand by asking for it? It seems to me you're just looking to score cheap rhetorical points. The models reproduce the behavior we see in the natural system. What else really matters?

            EDITED TO ADD: actually, here's one from 1988 that shows a 14-year pause extending to the end of the graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...k-at-his-work/
            Is that close enough?
            Last edited by TheLurch; 07-10-2014, 03:29 PM.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              So, let me see if i've got this straight:
              You want to cherry pick the year 1998, even though picking a year earlier or later would get you a more pronounced warming trend.
              You want a model that was produced before 1998, even though they weren't as sophisticated as they are now.
              You want the model to have been run before 1998, even though computing power was extremely limited then.
              And you want someone to have noticed that there were flat periods in the model output, even though there wasn't really anything in particular to suggest they were interesting.

              I'll admit up front: i doubt this evidence exists in a published paper. And, if it does, it will be extremely difficult to find it.

              But what exactly are you trying to understand by asking for it? It seems to me you're just looking to score cheap rhetorical points. The models reproduce the behavior we see in the natural system. What else really matters?

              EDITED TO ADD: actually, here's one from 1988 that shows a 14-year pause extending to the end of the graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...k-at-his-work/
              Is that close enough?
              Not being argumentative, but simply curious. What happens when we take, say, 1930-1998 climate data and plug them into the current sophisticated models?

              K54

              Comment


              • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                Not being argumentative, but simply curious. What happens when we take, say, 1930-1998 climate data and plug them into the current sophisticated models?
                Do you mean climate forcing data? Because the output of the models should be what we'd typically call climate data (things like troposphere and ocean temperatures).
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Do you mean climate forcing data? Because the output of the models should be what we'd typically call climate data (things like troposphere and ocean temperatures).
                  Yes, forcing data -- at least what are available in the historical climate record. If one inputs these from a 30-year period from 1998 and before, how well do the models predict the troposphere and ocean temperatures (and precipitation distribution? Glacial retreat rate? Sea ice extent?) for the past decade?

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    Yes, forcing data -- at least what are available in the historical climate record. If one inputs these from a 30-year period from 1998 and before, how well do the models predict the troposphere and ocean temperatures (and precipitation distribution? Glacial retreat rate? Sea ice extent?) for the past decade?
                    Mostly, i've seen this discussed in terms of running the models with and without greenhouse forcings, and showing they only produce anything similar to the climate we experienced if those are included.

                    There are some efforts being made to understand what factors have driven the slowdown in warming, and most attention has focused on La Niña and volcanic aerosols. (One example, with links to others: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...ks-to-la-nina/). Those sorts of studies tend to show that the more details you include on forcings, the closer you get.

                    But you'd still not necessarily expect the models to give you a great match. They successfully simulate El Niños, for example, but since that's a somewhat chaotic event, you wouldn't expect them to simulate them at the right times. So, if the model has a baking El Niño but reality doesn't, then you'd end up with a poor match.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Mostly, i've seen this discussed in terms of running the models with and without greenhouse forcings, and showing they only produce anything similar to the climate we experienced if those are included.

                      There are some efforts being made to understand what factors have driven the slowdown in warming, and most attention has focused on La Niña and volcanic aerosols. (One example, with links to others: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...ks-to-la-nina/). Those sorts of studies tend to show that the more details you include on forcings, the closer you get.

                      But you'd still not necessarily expect the models to give you a great match. They successfully simulate El Niños, for example, but since that's a somewhat chaotic event, you wouldn't expect them to simulate them at the right times. So, if the model has a baking El Niño but reality doesn't, then you'd end up with a poor match.
                      OK, thanks for the clarification!

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                        The chart isn't showing up.
                        My bad.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          What trend? If you can not even be certain what the present temperatures are why should we trust past temperature readings?
                          This trend.




                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          But we haven't see more intense hurricanes, just the opposite, like I said we just went through three of the mildest hurricane seasons in recent history. Was that predicted? And is it really does take decades for any trend to be understood how do you know we are on a negative path now?
                          For hurricanes, we don't. For temperature, we do.

                          Comment


                          • This published paper says that as much as 45 - 50% of the 0.4c degree rise from 1900 to 2000 could be directly contributed to increased Solar Activity:

                            Source: [FONT=AdvTT5843c571

                            GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539, 2006, Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surfacewarming, N. Scafetta and B. J. WestReceived 19 December 2005; revised 18 January 2006; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.

                            According to the findings summarized in Table 1 the increase of solar activity during the last century, according to the original Lean et al.’s [1995] TSI proxy reconstruction, could have, on average, contributed approximately 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming: the low and high estimates depend on whether PMOD or ACRIM satellite composite TSI is used for the period 1980–2000, respectively. This contribution is not constant during the century because the increase of solar activity could have, on average, contributed approximately 75% of the 1900–1950 global warming but only 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. By considering a 20 –30% uncertainty of the sensitivity parameters, the sun could have roughly contributed 35–60% and 20–40% of the 1900–2000 and 1980–2000 global warming, respectively. These findings would confirm that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century and, in particular, during the last decades. The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest [Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Eddy, 1976;
                            Crowley and Kim, 1996; Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995], and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            ETA link: http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Fil...%20warming.pdf

                            Last edited by Littlejoe; 07-10-2014, 07:27 PM. Reason: To add link
                            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But we are half way there. Tell me PD, who predicted this hiatus, what model predicted a slow down - in the face of an increasing rise in man made Co2?
                              Models are reasonably good at capturing unforced variations in global temperatures. About 30% of CMIP5 models have 17 year trends of equal or lower regression slopes during the late 20th to 21st centuries.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I really don't know enough about that. I just don't generally like taxes.
                              If Mr. A. buys widgets from Mr. B at a set price, presumably both parties benefit. But if Mr. B is able to set his price lower than his competitors because he's dumping pollution into the river, society as a whole pays for that transaction between A and B. That's called an external cost: it's a real cost to society from making widgets, but that cost isn't included in the price of the widget. So we, collectively, have to deal with it, perhaps because we're using that river water for drinking.

                              So here's our choice: we can tax everyone to clean up the pollution caused by Mr. B; OR, we can REGULATE Mr. B's actions and FORCE him to stop polluting; OR, we can tax Mr. B based on the pollution he emits, and use that money to clean up what he won't.

                              Among those three options, which is the most conservative? And which is the cheapest?

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              First of all, from what I read the sea level has been rising since the last ice age.
                              Then you've been misinformed. Sea level rise stopped at the beginning of the Holocene and was stable for thousands of years, until about 1850. Only recently has it begun to rise again.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And it was never a good idea to build to close to the shore anyway.
                              It's hard to build a seaport that's not near the shore.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And we really have no idea how much more the sea levels will rise. A few inches a few feet over the next hundred years or so? A few inches will make little difference.
                              Current estimates are dependent on how much carbon we continue to emit, but most likely we're looking at about half a meter (20 inches) over the next hundred years. The real problem is that ice sheet loss, once started, is an unstoppable process, so even if we get our act together on climate by the middle of this century, we could still be looking at another several centuries of sea level rise because of the intemperance of our current actions.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But we know from history that flora and fauna, and life in general, flourished when the earth was warmer. I mean the North Pole was once completely green.
                              The world has not seen CO2 levels this high for about 15 million years -- which is before grass evolved, and before anything that eats grass evolved. Nearly every single thing you eat has evolved under a very different climate than the one we're heading toward, at geologically breakneck speeds. Ecosystems are fragile things, and the loss of one critical species can wipe out dozens of others. Forests in temperate regions are dependent on fungus in the soil. Lose the fungus, you lose the trees, and you lose everything that depends on the trees.

                              In 1848, more than forty nations in Europe underwent simultaneous revolutions because of crop failure. In 2010 it happened again: the Russian heat wave caused Putin to stop wheat exports, which caused global food prices to spike, which was a major cause of the so-called "Arab Spring" in 2011: a wave of simultaneous revolutions. So what happens next time? What if the next time the countries involved are India, or Pakistan, or China, all of which have nuclear weapons? Hungry people are desperate people, and a desperate man with a nuclear bomb is a very bad idea.

                              It's no wonder that the Pentagon (that bastion of liberal thinking) considers climate change to be a bigger threat to our national security than terrorism. And they're right. Civilization depends on stability, and we're destabilizing the climate at a record pace.

                              Will life survive human stupidity? Of course. And human life will survive too. The REAL question is, will civilization survive, and if so in what form. And that's a much more difficult question to answer. For a basic overview of what it takes to support human civilization on Earth, see this paper:
                              Garrett, Timothy J. "Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?." Climatic change 104.3-4 (2011): 437-455.
                              This is no chicken-little alarmism, this is just basic thermodynamics. And the outlook is very, very grim. If your grandkids are living in the world of Mad Max, who cares if there are alligators at the north pole.


                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Thankfully there is no political will in the US for a carbon tax, nor will there be in the foreseeable future.
                              That's nothing to be thankful for.
                              Last edited by Poor Debater; 07-10-2014, 07:53 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Hey listen, I have not seen any model that point to a 17 year slowdown, especially in light of the fact that more Co2 has been pumped into the atmosphere.
                                And how many model outputs have you actually examined? (My guess: zero.)

                                Here are a few for you: all of the CMIP5 scenario runs for global temperature can be found at http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal...eone@somewhere

                                Scroll down the list and find the file called global_tas_Amon_GFDL-ESM2G_rcp45_r1i1p1.dat and download it, and open it in Excel. Each record is 1 year, and you will find twelve columns of data, one for each month of the year. Average the months to find annual averages for every year, then find the regression slope (using the Excel SLOPE function) for the years 1997-2013. When I do that, I find that this model run gives a regression slope of .006 degrees C per year over that 17 year period. And the actual regression slope for global temperatures during that period (using the Anthony Watts-approved BEST dataset) is .008461 degrees C -- warming faster than the model.

                                In fact, of all 122 model runs in the RCP4.5 scenario, I find that 119 of them have seventeen year periods where the slope is .008461°C/yr or less, ending in 2013 or later.

                                So no, this just isn't terribly unusual.
                                Last edited by Poor Debater; 07-10-2014, 09:36 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X