Warming Then And Now?

[oxmixmudd]

An absolutely fascinating thread demonstrating the impermeability of a made-up mind to all available evidence. When graphs encompassing enormous amounts of diverse data refute you, cite a single (and contrarian) authority. When that authority's track record is examined, say "he knows more than you do."

Kind of like if Mrs. Smith's little boy did poorly in Mrs. Bickerstaff's third grade class, so Mrs. Smith set out to show that Mrs. Bickerstaff is a poor teacher. So Smith combs through the records of how Bickerstaff's pupils did in the fourth grade. Now, let's say that on average, Bickerstaff's pupils significantly outperformed all other teachers. What to do? Why, it's simple. Simply find some kid who failed in fourth grade and had Bickerstaff for third grade, and ignore all other pupils. Ignore the averages, ignore the trends, ignore the successes, and use that one failure as the sole acceptable meaningful measure of Bickerstaff's ability.

I see this technique used with grinding regularity here. Compounded, of course with the careful implication that if science is imperfect, it is useless. That if predictions are not entirely accurate, they are entirely inaccurate (or entirely worthless). That if we don't know everything, we don't know anything. That anything that can't be proved, can't be trusted. UNLESS even the haziest or wooliest notions support a foregone conclusion carefully denied in the interests of being "objective", don't you know.

Over here, now, we find some more interesting graphs, these about knowledge vs. politics:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....m-not-from-me/

What I found fascinating about this study is that political orientation didn't much influence the ability of those questioned to correctly answer all the factual questions. And that the more one knew about the background information, the more accurate their responses regardless of politics. Conclusion: knowledge and evidence do not matter. I've learned more than I ever knew about AGW in this thread. But my political position hasn't changed at all.

Hi Phank. I know we disagree on many things, but I argree with you here. I also grow very tired of the general approach you outline. It is almost always possible to support ones point of view if one limits oneself to a subset of the data, and only the data which goes ones way. And it requires a good bit of work and time to attempt to survey the full range of data - assuming one is even capable of understanding its implications. And even further, it is very, very hard work to identify ones biases and then find ways of rising above them.

And then, if one manages to do all that and discovers one has likely been wrong, the reward is generally to find oneself in some sort of middle ground where no-one is quite happy with you because in many ways one has become a threat to all the endpoints that represent the loudest and most vocal opinions and whose ostensible legitimacy rests on the demonization of any and all opposing points of view.


Jim

[tabibito]

Still not correct.



There was basically nothing much going on until the invention of the steam engine.

That graph shows reasonably stable, and low, between the mid 1400s and 1700, - I find it hard to believe that the first steam engine (1698) produced an immediate warming trend on a global scale. Climate experts aren't even claiming that the spike in the early 1900s is due to human activity. The rise from 1700 to 1900 does no more than reverse the drop during (roughly) 70 years of the 1400s - nothing unexpected in that. 1960s - 70s saw a return to temperatures that were previously experienced in the early 1400s, just before temperatures began to drop to the lowest temperatures of the current cycle. The year 2000 saw temperatures equal to the highest reached in the previous cycle (maybe), shortly before the year 1000.
It is logical to attribute to human activity, some of the warming that has been experienced. It is not logical to assume that all global warming can be attributed to human activity.

[Poor Debater]

It is logical to attribute to human activity, some of the warming that has been experienced. It is not logical to assume that all global warming can be attributed to human activity.

So it's not logical to follow the evidence where it leads? At what point, then, ARE you willing to accept the evidence? Only when it fits your preconceived beliefs, and not one inch farther?

[tabibito]

So it's not logical to follow the evidence where it leads? At what point, then, ARE you willing to accept the evidence? Only when it fits your preconceived beliefs, and not one inch farther?

The available evidence leads to the conclusion that warming and cooling cycles are in fact natural cycles. It further leads to the conclusion that human activity has contributed to warming, but is not the sole factor. Evidence further suggests that conditions which should have led to a slight cooling over the past two decades didn't result in any cooling at all, which further leads to the conclusion that human activity is a significant factor in global warming.

[phank]

The available evidence leads to the conclusion that warming and cooling cycles are in fact natural cycles. It further leads to the conclusion that human activity has contributed to warming, but is not the sole factor. Evidence further suggests that conditions which should have led to a slight cooling over the past two decades didn't result in any cooling at all, which further leads to the conclusion that human activity is a significant factor in global warming.

The bottom graph at the link I provided illustrates this approach. Whereas knowledge of the facts really couldn't distinguish between liberals and conservatives, interpretation of those same facts was decisive. The most distinguishing question was whether the observed warming is due mostly to human causes, or mostly to natural cycles. And fascinatingly, the more accurate people were on the factual issues, the more they divided on this question. The implication was pretty obvious: the more facts you know, the more facts you can cherry-pick from to rationalize any foregone conclusion.

Of course multilple factors are always at work. The Real World doesn't often isolate factors and provide natural experimental and control realities for comparison. CO2 is not a particularly strong driver of climate, considered alone. Such factors as insolation and water vapor are much more powerful drivers. However, solar output and incidence of clouds can be factored out because they are largely in a steady equilibrium, whereas CO2 has been steadily (and fairly rapidly) increasing, in a cumulative manner unmatched by any other driver. And that steady cumulative increase CAN be attributed solely to human activity.

Or to put it another way, climatological variation can be attributed to multiple factors, all of them simultaneously in play at any given time. But a steady directional change in climate which can be accurately pinned to a given source (in several ways) pretty well calls for an analysis of that source. If it's all due to people, it's not entirely responsible to bring in factors in equilibrium and blame them for part of the trend.

Granted, if solar output undergoes any major change, then CO2 concentrations will be lost in the noise.

[Poor Debater]

The available evidence leads to the conclusion that warming and cooling cycles are in fact natural cycles.

The warming we're seeing now is not part of a cycle of any kind.

It further leads to the conclusion that human activity has contributed to warming, but is not the sole factor.

Since the mid-20th century, human activity is in fact responsible for essentially all of the observed warming. See:
*Tett, Simon FB, et al. "Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 107.D16 (2002): ACL-10.
*Meehl, Gerald A., et al. "Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth-century climate." Journal of Climate 17.19 (2004): 3721-3727.
Stone, DáithíA, et al. "The detection and attribution of climate change using an ensemble of opportunity." Journal of climate 20.3 (2007): 504-516.
*Lean, Judith L., and David H. Rind. "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006." Geophysical Research Letters 35.18 (2008).
*Huber, Markus, and Reto Knutti. "Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth/'s energy balance." Nature Geoscience 5.1 (2012): 31-36.
*Gillett, N. P., et al. "Improved constraints on 21st‐century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations." Geophysical Research Letters 39.1 (2012).
*Wigley, Tom ML, and B. D. Santer. "A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming." Climate dynamics 40.5-6 (2013): 1087-1102.
*Jones, Gareth S., Peter A. Stott, and Nikolaos Christidis. "Attribution of observed historical near‒surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118.10 (2013): 4001-4024.

Evidence further suggests that conditions which should have led to a slight cooling over the past two decades didn't result in any cooling at all, which further leads to the conclusion that human activity is a significant factor in global warming.

Not just over the past two decades.

[tabibito]

The warming we're seeing now is not part of a cycle of any kind.

Oh really - Here's the graph that you provided, with the 1700 - 2000 data flipped and laid against the downward trend of the cycle.
CLIMATE GRAPH.jpg
The final section of the graph, Year 2000 and beyond, is a projection of what was expected. It didn't happen. Figures for the past 19 years have been almost flat, half and less than half of the projected figures.

I haven't denied the reality of global warming - nor have I denied that human activity has made a significant contribution to global warming.
So - What's your beef?

[Leonhard]

Figures for the past 19 years

Originally I heard 12 years, now seer says 17 years and now you say 19 years. Someone is clearly inflating some numbers here.

[tabibito]

Yep - there's a certain amount of variability regarding the exact duration. And just now double checking - some are saying that there has been no hiatus, but that the warming has shifted venue to the deep ocean. Also - 19 years almost flat covers the term where temperature rises were half the projected figure or less, the cited shorter terms may be taking a stricter view of "almost flat".
Whatever the exact state of play - its fairly sure that the next 11 year cycle of the sun will be more robust than the current cycle - which will put an end to any opportunity to deny global warming.
Meanwhile, warming deniers should be required to buy and dwell in beachside properties.

[seer]

Originally I heard 12 years, now seer says 17 years and now you say 19 years. Someone is clearly inflating some numbers here.

Everything I read says it has been flat since 1998.

This is from Nature, last year, so yes we are now close to 16 years:

http://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-desp...o-stay-1.13832

"The IPCC has provided an even more robust scientific basis for action on climate change," says Johan Rockstroem, the director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre. "I am glad that the scientific community is standing very firm on the true scale of the threat we're facing."

A slowdown in the rise of global average temperatures in recent years suggests that global warming is proceeding more intermittently, and less predictably, than it does in some climate models. But the 'hiatus' since the record hot year of 1998 — probably due to increased heat uptake by the oceans — is no sign that global warming has stopped, as some would like to hope.

"Comparing short-term observations with long-term model projections is inappropriate," says Stocker. "We know that there is a lot of natural fluctuation in the climate system. A 15-year hiatus is not so unusual even though the jury is out as to what exactly may have caused the pause."

Some push it back to 1996:

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.

Of course every one hates Christopher Monckton but that does not mean his paper is wrong:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/0...ars-10-months/

[tabibito]

Everything I read says it has been flat since 1998.

This is from Nature, last year, so yes we are now close to 16 years:

http://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-desp...o-stay-1.13832



Some push it back to 1996:

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.

Of course every one hates Christopher Monckton but that does not mean his paper is wrong:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/0...ars-10-months/

Yep - I got the numbers wrong. Not 19 years, 17 years 10 months. No doubting that the graphs are right ... but he's not factoring in enough background in his evaluation.
No-one expected a quiescent solar cycle, no one expected so many volcanoes: and in former years, that combination would have produced a drop in temperature. This time, temperatures have only stabilised. Fewer volcanoes and a more expected solar cycle, and temperatures would have continued to rise.

[shunyadragon]

Everything I read says it has been flat since 1998.

This is from Nature, last year, so yes we are now close to 16 years:

http://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-desp...o-stay-1.13832



Some push it back to 1996:

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.

Of course every one hates Christopher Monckton but that does not mean his paper is wrong:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/0...ars-10-months/

It is a matter good science and math of trends in climate and the many variables involved including fractal patterns in the trends, 16 to 20 year variation is not sufficient to establish trends.

There is no reason and pretty meaningless to hate Monckton, but it is easy to disagree with his emphasis on his tunnel vision tendency to emphasis a short term trend of some factors to judge the long term trend of climate change.

[Poor Debater]

Oh really - Here's the graph that you provided, with the 1700 - 2000 data flipped and laid against the downward trend of the cycle.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1070[/ATTACH]
The final section of the graph, Year 2000 and beyond, is a projection of what was expected. It didn't happen. Figures for the past 19 years have been almost flat, half and less than half of the projected figures.

If this were a cycle, then we would be seeing A LOT of cycles, over and over again. You haven't shown that. All you've shown is that some people are capable of seeing patterns in the noise.

I haven't denied the reality of global warming - nor have I denied that human activity has made a significant contribution to global warming.
So - What's your beef?

And I never said you did. But you're still underestimating the human contribution if you only see it as significant within the last 20 years.

[Poor Debater]

Everything I read says it has been flat since 1998.

This is from Nature, last year, so yes we are now close to 16 years:

http://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-desp...o-stay-1.13832

What Nature called it (correctly) was a "slowdown in the rise." What kind of mental gymnastics does one have to perform in order to turn that into "flat"?

Some push it back to 1996:

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.

Of course every one hates Christopher Monckton but that does not mean his paper is wrong:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/0...ars-10-months/

RSS just happens to be the one global record that is vastly out-of-step with the other five. So if you want an example of cherry-picking, you picked it.

[seer]

What Nature called it (correctly) was a "slowdown in the rise." What kind of mental gymnastics does one have to perform in order to turn that into "flat"?

It is a slowdown in the rise because it hasn't been rising:

"Comparing short-term observations with long-term model projections is inappropriate," says Stocker. "We know that there is a lot of natural fluctuation in the climate system. A 15-year hiatus is not so unusual even though the jury is out as to what exactly may have caused the pause."

Hiatus, pause? So the same Nature article says there is a pause and hiatus...