New data suggests no warming in last 15years

Hooter23

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Im sure if the data had shown a rise in temperature it would have been all over the news :mad:

They now call it climate change instead of gobal warming which is a joke the climate is always changing and always has been and if it ever stops changing then there is something wrong :pac:

cherryghost

*reads post*

*sees link is daily mail*

*ignores*

gothwalk

Tell you what. Let's have a look at that nice chart those fine, ethical journalists in the Daily Mail have given us. It gives a series of average temperatures for the period from 1997 to 2011.

It also has a nasty downward tail at the end for 2012, so clearly they're very good journalists who can tell us the average temperature for this year will be in advance. Let's remove that, and look at the average values for the past instead of the future

They look like this to me:

Year Temperature
1997 14.34
1998 14.52
1999 14.3
2000 14.28
2001 14.41
2002 14.45
2003 14.48
2004 14.44
2005 14.47
2006 14.42
2007 14.4
2008 14.33
2009 14.44
2010 14.46
2011 14.36

Now, let's put those values into Excel, make them into a nice graph like the Daily Mail have, and do a simple trendline to see what the overall trend of temperature is.



What way does that trendline point? Up? Gosh. That's a little at odds with the text of the article, don't you think?

Deep Easterly

To borrow a quote from a book I am currently reading: "Always seek truth from facts - even if you have to make them up".

Hooter23

cherryghost wrote: »

*reads post*

*sees link is daily mail*

*ignores*

Lol I forgot it was from the daily:rolleyes: mail when I was reading it anyway I still think manmade gobal warming is rubbish :pac:

rhonin

Did they get that information from the makers of positive weather solutions?!

Deep Easterly

Hooter23 wrote: »

Lol I forgot it was from the daily:rolleyes: mail when I was reading it anyway I still think manmade gobal warming is rubbish :pac:

Well, whether man-made (anthropogenic) or not, mean temperatures across the globe are rising; even here in Ireland. Graph below shows the annual mean temperature at Malin Head since 1956. Black line represents its own 61-90 mean whilst the red line shows the 10 year running mean.


DATA SOURCE: European Climate Assessement & Database

nilhg

There was a good article on this subject in last Sunday's Sunday Times if someone can dig it out (their site is paid only so I can't link)

Godge

gothwalk wrote: »

Tell you what. Let's have a look at that nice chart those fine, ethical journalists in the Daily Mail have given us. It gives a series of average temperatures for the period from 1997 to 2011.

It also has a nasty downward tail at the end for 2012, so clearly they're very good journalists who can tell us the average temperature for this year will be in advance. Let's remove that, and look at the average values for the past instead of the future

They look like this to me:

Year Temperature
1997 14.34
1998 14.52
1999 14.3
2000 14.28
2001 14.41
2002 14.45
2003 14.48
2004 14.44
2005 14.47
2006 14.42
2007 14.4
2008 14.33
2009 14.44
2010 14.46
2011 14.36

Now, let's put those values into Excel, make them into a nice graph like the Daily Mail have, and do a simple trendline to see what the overall trend of temperature is.



What way does that trendline point? Up? Gosh. That's a little at odds with the text of the article, don't you think?

Statistics can mean what you want them to mean.

If you take 2001 as the base year, you get a different trend line and a different looking graph.

Nabber

Weather is consistant? Weather is the defintion of change, be it fast or slow. Global warming cant be proved or disproved, there is no 'control' to judge one year from the next. High pressure here low pressure there, next thing you know you have a 5degree annual change from last year.

Global warming as a theory is fine. The only thing is, it's the first taxable theory

riffmongous

Godge wrote: »

Statistics can mean what you want them to mean.

If you take 2001 as the base year, you get a different trend line and a different looking graph.

But he was just using the same data as the Daily Fail and yet got a different result to them,well almost the same data.

PseudoFamous

Godge wrote: »

Statistics can mean what you want them to mean.

If you take 2001 as the base year, you get a different trend line and a different looking graph.

Met office releases figures which show no warming in 15 years

That's the subheading. Not "since 2001", "in 15 years". They were factually incorrect. If they said "since 2001", they would have been correct, but they did not, so they were inaccurate. Inaccuracy is bad in a daily newspaper.

pegasus1

gothwalk wrote: »

What way does that trendline point? Up? Gosh

Oh gosh a 20th of a degree mean warming in 15 years...that's too much!:rolleyes:

Godge

riffmongous wrote: »

But he was just using the same data as the Daily Fail and yet got a different result to them,well almost the same data.

PseudoFamous wrote: »

That's the subheading. Not "since 2001", "in 15 years". They were factually incorrect. If they said "since 2001", they would have been correct, but they did not, so they were inaccurate. Inaccuracy is bad in a daily newspaper.

Inaccuracy may be bad in a daily newspaper but it is worse when it is used by policymakers to justify decisions.

If you accept that global warming caused by humans took place during the 20th century, given the flatlining since 2001, is there counter-cooling going on (the sun?) or have the steps taken to date by governments nullified the warming or was it a once-off effect caused by urbanisation or is it a statistical anomaly or a localised event? Or more likely, a combination of all of the above and what is the best policy direction as a result?

MetLuver

riffmongous wrote: »

Daily Fail

haha good one:D

weisses

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

Keep ignoring guys ...

Yahew

riffmongous wrote: »

But he was just using the same data as the Daily Fail and yet got a different result to them,well almost the same data.

pegasus1 wrote: »

Oh gosh a 20th of a degree mean warming in 15 years...that's too much!:rolleyes:

Its not all that statistically significant. There is a tendency to ignore the recent slowing down, or levelling off of the Earth's temperature in the scientific literature. This debate has moved way past science to an idealogical position. Were we talking about measurements for something else and the data was contradicting models, then the models would be in jeopardy.

This debate is not running the way the debate on the Big Bang vs the Steady State universe ran. There, positions were held, the data became insurmountable, and positions were dropped. There was little or no name calling.

The Daily Mail's article for instance, was wrong, but it wasn't very wrong, and there has been a levelling off in the last 10 years, a slight but statistically insignificant rise in the last 15. If this keeps up we will have had two decades of moderate to no increases by 2020.

Prior to that there was clear warming, and it most probably had some human input, so the "deniers" are wrong too.

It's interesting that there is little effort to work out what has happened in the slowing down, or the levelling off, of the rate of growth.

If this were a non-political theory then the models would be examined.

gothwalk

Godge wrote: »

Statistics can mean what you want them to mean.

Sure they can. You can selectively pull data, choosing your segments of years, and present whatever picture you want. But in doing so, you know you're selecting, so whenever someone does that, and you have access to the full data set, you can see which bits they didn't select and look closer. That's a dead giveaway.

But in this case, I'm not taking selective data. I'm taking the same data as the chart in the Daily Mail article, and showing that the text is not supported.

Godge wrote: »

If you take 2001 as the base year, you get a different trend line and a different looking graph.

Of course you do. That's true of any year, and proves very little. Year to year variation swamps long term trends in the short term. And in climate, as far as we know, 15 years is still pretty short term.

mike65

The plateauing of global temperatures over the last 14-15 years in interesting but doesn't really prove much in the grand scheme of things. The more data that is gathered the less certain we can be about various phenomena. Who'd have guessed the glaciers of the Himalaya region would have shown no shrinkage over the last 10 years?

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

gothwalk

pegasus1 wrote: »

Oh gosh a 20th of a degree mean warming in 15 years...that's too much!:rolleyes:

It's not much of a rise. But it immediately proves that the headline, and most of the text is nonsense. It's not "no warming", it's "very slight warming". But that makes a far less effective headline, so in typical Daily Mail fashion, accuracy and truth are discarded in favour of something that supports their "editorial position".

Quotes because, frankly, calling it an editorial position rather than a polemical soapbox is stretching things.

Yahew

gothwalk wrote: »

Of course you do. That's true of any year, and proves very little. Year to year variation swamps long term trends in the short term.

But the argument has moved onto trend.

And in climate, as far as we know, 15 years is still pretty short term.

The 30 years of previous warming is also short term? Will we wait 200 years and see whats up?

The models actually predict a consistent, or rising increase in the Earth's temperature per decade, so this needs to be looked at.

weisses

gothwalk wrote: »

so in typical Daily Mail fashion, accuracy and truth are discarded in favour of something that supports their "editorial position

Same as the scaremongering in Al Gore's Inconvenient truth

gothwalk

Yahew wrote: »

The Daily Mail's article for instance, was wrong, but it wasn't very wrong, and there has been a levelling off in the last 10 years, a slight but statistically insignificant rise in the last 15. If this keeps up we will have had two decades of moderate to no increases by 2020.

Prior to that there was clear warming, and it most probably had some human input, so the "deniers" are wrong too.

I've a vague theory about this at this stage, and I'm not even sure how to go about backing it up with facts and figures, but I'll outline it.

Weather is the chaotic movements of the atmosphere. And I don't mean random, I mean chaotic, in the proper scientific sense - it hews to attractors in phase space, but it's not really predictable in anything more than the immediate short term.

Heat is energy. I think it's pretty clear that humans have been pumping heat into the atmosphere for a while now, in one form or another.

If you introduce more energy to a system, it responds in some way. Reactions speed up, become more extreme, or whatever.

So what we're seeing now in climate behaviour is not simple linear warming, we're seeing an even more chaotic mess of strange behaviours. I suspect that if you look at the number of weather records being broken, you'll see them busted all over the place in unprecedented numbers. Record snow, record rainfall, record drought, rain where there usually isn't, warm winters, cold summers, and so on.

And that extra randomness is making measurements hard. This is the metaphorical thermometer falling off the pot because it's boiling too hard; the effects of the initial warming are making an utter mess of anything we can measure now.

That's the theory.

Separately:

Climate change is indeed a better term than global warming, because it's entirely possible that the things humans have done could lead to another ice age - all we need is for weather to get chaotic enough to reach a particular threshold, and the earth can flip over to its other steady state, which is an iceball. It's spent a lot of its four billion years in that state.

And it's disingenuous to say that climate changes all the time; of course it does, but it does so in response to input. Saying that our input is mysteriously exempt from causing change is plainly rubbish. We're pushing on the atmospheric systems. We can't predict exactly what way they'll push back, but to provide action and expect no reaction isn't just unscientific, it's stupid.

gothwalk

Yahew wrote: »

The 30 years of previous warming is also short term? Will we wait 200 years and see whats up?

The models actually predict a consistent, or rising increase in the Earth's temperature per decade, so this needs to be looked at.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing on that. See my post above about increased chaos. My point with the graph, etc, was that the Daily Mail can't be relied upon to interpret data, and they don't want to handle subtleties. So a (somewhat) more accurate headline like "Climate change models shown to be flawed!" and a discussion of how predictions aren't quite being matched never gets anywhere.

Godge

gothwalk wrote: »

I've a vague theory about this at this stage, and I'm not even sure how to go about backing it up with facts and figures, but I'll outline it.

Weather is the chaotic movements of the atmosphere. And I don't mean random, I mean chaotic, in the proper scientific sense - it hews to attractors in phase space, but it's not really predictable in anything more than the immediate short term.

Heat is energy. I think it's pretty clear that humans have been pumping heat into the atmosphere for a while now, in one form or another.

If you introduce more energy to a system, it responds in some way. Reactions speed up, become more extreme, or whatever.

So what we're seeing now in climate behaviour is not simple linear warming, we're seeing an even more chaotic mess of strange behaviours. I suspect that if you look at the number of weather records being broken, you'll see them busted all over the place in unprecedented numbers. Record snow, record rainfall, record drought, rain where there usually isn't, warm winters, cold summers, and so on.

And that extra randomness is making measurements hard. This is the metaphorical thermometer falling off the pot because it's boiling too hard; the effects of the initial warming are making an utter mess of anything we can measure now.

That's the theory.

Separately:

Climate change is indeed a better term than global warming, because it's entirely possible that the things humans have done could lead to another ice age - all we need is for weather to get chaotic enough to reach a particular threshold, and the earth can flip over to its other steady state, which is an iceball. It's spent a lot of its four billion years in that state.

And it's disingenuous to say that climate changes all the time; of course it does, but it does so in response to input. Saying that our input is mysteriously exempt from causing change is plainly rubbish. We're pushing on the atmospheric systems. We can't predict exactly what way they'll push back, but to provide action and expect no reaction isn't just unscientific, it's stupid.

I don't disagree with any of that. You have some interesting views.

My problem with the global warming theory has never been about cause and effect (I would agree that human activity has been a factor in increasing global temperatures in the 20th century), my problem has been with the lack of clarity over the mechanisms for how it happened. If they are not understood (and it seems to be that they are not) future predictions are unreliable not only because of the lack of understanding of the mechanisms but also because of the lack of understanding of how and why the Earth went through previous cooling and warming periods.

As others have pointed out, the lack of warming over the last ten years was not predicted by the current models, that doesn't mean we will see a continuation of that trend, it also doesn't mean that humans are not contributing to climate change, all it means is that the models are wrong and we can't be certain of what will happen over the coming decade. A bit like the weather I suppose.

The biggest point is that we can't expect humanity to voluntarily decide to cease existing or give up its modern civilisation but we do need to figure out quickly why the models have been wrong and what that means. It is time that the debate left the extremes of "deniers" and "advocates" and headed to the middle ground where most sensible people would accept that humanity affects the climate but we are not really sure of what that means both in terms of long-term effects and potential remedial measures.

Deep Easterly

Godge wrote: »

Statistics can mean what you want them to mean.

If you take 2001 as the base year, you get a different trend line and a different looking graph.

Yep, that is statistics for you. They can be interpreted to suit either agenda really. A satirical take on this.

weisses

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Yep, that is statistics for you. They can be interpreted to suit either agenda really. A satirical take on this.

Do you have another satirical graph for the other "Agenda" ? i mean fair is fair :rolleyes:

MiNdGaM3

weisses wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

Keep ignoring guys ...

Same study, another perspective...

CU-Boulder study shows global glaciers, ice caps, shedding billions of tons of mass annually

Study also shows Greenland, Antarctica and global glaciers and ice caps lost roughly 8 times the volume of Lake Erie from 2003-2010

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uoca-css020612.php

weisses

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Same study, another perspective...



http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uoca-css020612.php

also same study

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

Yahew

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Yep, that is statistics for you. They can be interpreted to suit either agenda really. A satirical take on this.

Not a very good satire. It seems to pick arbitrary dates, and lengths to prove the straw man case it is making. The last trend graph shows warming over 35 years, which can hardly be denied. "Sceptics", ( or people like me with scientific questions on recent trends) are also free to wonder about the last 10 years, or the last 15. Which is clearly not trending higher. Nor is picking the last 15 years in any way a statistical fraud, it is the most relevant for us.

You can use large trend lines to hide recent drop offs in Irish personal income, gap per capita etc, if you like, by starting at 1973. The trend line will smooth over the bust from 2006, we are much richer than we were in 1973 so the trend is up.

But the economy also stopped growing in 2006.

The last ( red) trend line would indicate to the statistically naive both that we are continuing to get hotter, and thet there's been a rise in the last 10 years, just as a trend line for Irish income from 1973-2011 would show a rising trend; however this is false in both cases. Income, and the Earth's temperature are standing still.

Godge

Yahew wrote: »

Not a very good satire. It seems to pick arbitrary dates, and lengths to prove the straw man case it is making. The last trend graph shows warming over 35 years, which can hardly be denied. "Sceptics", ( or people like me with scientific questions on recent trends) are also free to wonder about the last 10 years, or the last 15. Which is clearly not trending higher. Nor is picking the last 15 years in any way a statistical fraud, it is the most relevant for us.

You can use large trend lines to hide recent drop offs in Irish personal income, gap per capita etc, if you like, by starting at 1973. The trend line will smooth over the bust from 2006, we are much richer than we were in 1973 so the trend is up.

But the economy also stopped growing in 2006.

The last ( red) trend line would indicate to the statistically naive both that we are continuing to get hotter, and thet there's been a rise in the last 10 years, just as a trend line for Irish income from 1973-2011 would show a rising trend; however this is false in both cases. Income, and the Earth's temperature are standing still.

I agree and the problem with the current debate is that you have to be in one of two camps. You either have to be a "denier" or you have to be urging governments to take drastic steps. The middle ground would be accepting that global warming happened over the second half of the twentieth century but saying, can we try and figure out what is going on over the last 10-15 years? Is it just a statistical blip? Is it because we missed something? Is the orginal global warming theory still valid with minor adjustment? Do we need something radically different?

Unfortunately, neither of the extremes (and most scientists fall into one extreme or the other) appear able to stop and look. As for the media, no hope there.

MiNdGaM3

weisses wrote: »

also same study

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

Yeh, it balances out the lower altitude Asian loss. But globally the ice losses are still quite impressive.

Yahew wrote: »

Not a very good satire. It seems to pick arbitrary dates, and lengths to prove the straw man case it is making. The last trend graph shows warming over 35 years, which can hardly be denied. "Sceptics", ( or people like me with scientific questions on recent trends) are also free to wonder about the last 10 years, or the last 15. Which is clearly not trending higher. Nor is picking the last 15 years in any way a statistical fraud, it is the most relevant for us.

You can use large trend lines to hide recent drop offs in Irish personal income, gap per capita etc, if you like, by starting at 1973. The trend line will smooth over the bust from 2006, we are much richer than we were in 1973 so the trend is up.

But the economy also stopped growing in 2006.

The last ( red) trend line would indicate to the statistically naive both that we are continuing to get hotter, and thet there's been a rise in the last 10 years, just as a trend line for Irish income from 1973-2011 would show a rising trend; however this is false in both cases. Income, and the Earth's temperature are standing still.

On a climatological scale, we are still getting warmer, 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record globally.
We all know (at least I think we do) that 1998 had a big boost from the big El Nino that year and the year before, and it was coming towards the end of the +ve PDO phase. Since then the PDO has switched to its negative phase and La Ninas have been dominant, with El Nino events being short and week. Top that off with the fact that we've just passed through the longest solar minimum in nearly a century.
Yet we only manage to a slight levelling off in global temperatures if we compare to '98, and '98 alone...

Yahew

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Yeh, it balances out the lower altitude Asian loss. But globally the ice losses are still quite impressive.



On a climatological scale, we are still getting warmer, 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record globally.

Thats the exact use of statistics which makes me doubt the mathematical bone fides of some "warmists". I never said that the last decade was not the warmest just that it didn't continue to trend warmer. I bet the last decade was the best in terms of GDP per capita for Irish people too, 2001-2011 might well be the top 10 in terms of Irish GDP per capita - see what I did there?

We all know (at least I think we do) that 1998 had a big boost from the big El Nino that year and the year before, and it was coming towards the end of the +ve PDO phase. Since then the PDO has switched to its negative phase and La Ninas have been dominant, with El Nino events being short and week. Top that off with the fact that we've just passed through the longest solar minimum in nearly a century.
Yet we only manage to a slight levelling off in global temperatures if we compare to '98, and '98 alone...

Not quite just 1998. The trend line is down from 2001, and slightly up from 15 years ago. Anyway it could well be that the PDO being slighty -ve is an issue, but then the a vigourous PDO being +ve in the 80's to 90's was partly the cause of warming, and I never heard ( or hear) that mentioned. There are sceptics - like Bastardi - who thinks it is all a confluence of +PDO and the Atlantic decadal oscillation the name of which I forget.

I cant say. I can say there was warming, human input is likely, but now there is a stagnation. The important point is the models did not predict the reality, and it is best to ignore models and not reality, than the other way.

MiNdGaM3

Yahew wrote: »

Thats the exact use of statistics which makes me doubt the mathematical bone fides of some "warmists". I never said that the last decade was not the warmest just that it didn't continue to trend warmer. I bet the last decade was the best in terms of GDP per capita for Irish people too, 2001-2011 might well be the top 10 in terms of Irish GDP per capita - see what I did there?

But year on year is weather, long term is the trend. The fact that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record means the trend continues. If we begin to cool for the next decade, then the trend will certainly be put in question.
Same way the long term trend for Irish income is positive. The last few years is the equivalent of weather. Also, there's been an overwhelmingly clear drop in income recently, very much different to the climate debate where we may have levelled of depending on what data set you use. They're not really comparable IMO.

Yahew wrote: »

Not quite just 1998. The trend line is down from 2001, and slightly up from 15 years ago. Anyway it could well be that the PDO being slighty -ve is an issue, but then the a vigourous PDO being +ve in the 80's to 90's was partly the cause of warming, and I never heard ( or hear) that mentioned. There are sceptics - like Bastardi - who thinks it is all a confluence of +PDO and the Atlantic decadal oscillation the name of which I forget.

The PDO exhibits a cycle like pattern switching between warm and cold. The effects it has are temporary. Seen as there is no warming trend in the PDO, if it did cause much of the warming up to now, then we should be cooling, but we're not.
If Joe B's Arctic sea ice rants, conspiracies and predictions are anything to go by, I'd use a better guide:pac: Say some climatology peer reviewed stuff, rather than a meteorologist.
I think you're referring to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), so you almost got it! I'll admit that it is quite a large unknown, with no real idea of when in may switch negative.

Yahew wrote: »

I cant say. I can say there was warming, human input is likely, but now there is a stagnation. The important point is the models did not predict the reality, and it is best to ignore models and not reality, than the other way.

Nobody has ever claimed (at least nobody worth listening to) that we would see a consistent year on year warming. Natural variability will play it's part and may even cause some cooling. Distinguishing the true extent of mankind's contribution to climate change is difficult, but I like to think we're getting closer all the time!

Su Campu

Let's not start into a debate on the poor state of the economy as well as the poor state of the weather!

Climate change is normal, natural and is happening - always has and always will. It includes some periods of warming, as well as some periods of cooling. In recent times (last 100 years) we had a period of warming in the first half of the 20th century which was a mirror image to that which has occured since the 70s. In between we had a few decades of cooling. People seem to lose sight of that. This first warming was put down to solar influence, whereas the second one is being blamed on us, and solar influences are allegedly not to blame. It's a big ask to expect people to just accept that argument, and I think people are coming around to this now.

For me, the main driver of the global temperature curve is the PDO, which is a roughly-thirty year cycle between warming and cooling of the northeastern Pacific. Coupled with this is a contributioin from the AMO, which is the PDO's Atlantic cousin. Both are out of sync with eachother, but there is a clear trend in that when both are positive, the earth is at its warmest, and likewise, when both are negative, the earth is at its coolest.

The oceans are the globe's heat sink, and the longterm changes in ocean heatflux affect the atmosphere, not the other way around. It's as simple as that, and there's really no need for all the rest of the guff that we're being fed.

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

Let's not start into a debate on the poor state of the economy as well as the poor state of the weather!

Climate change is normal, natural and is happening - always has and always will. It includes some periods of warming, as well as some periods of cooling. In recent times (last 100 years) we had a period of warming in the first half of the 20th century which was a mirror image to that which has occured since the 70s. In between we had a few decades of cooling. People seem to lose sight of that. This first warming was put down to solar influence, whereas the second one is being blamed on us, and solar influences are allegedly not to blame. It's a big ask to expect people to just accept that argument, and I think people are coming around to this now.

For me, the main driver of the global temperature curve is the PDO, which is a roughly-thirty year cycle between warming and cooling of the northeastern Pacific. Coupled with this is a contributioin from the AMO, which is the PDO's Atlantic cousin. Both are out of sync with eachother, but there is a clear trend in that when both are positive, the earth is at its warmest, and likewise, when both are negative, the earth is at its coolest.

The oceans are the globe's heat sink, and the longterm changes in ocean heatflux affect the atmosphere, not the other way around. It's as simple as that, and there's really no need for all the rest of the guff that we're being fed.

I agree with your economy comment, as for the rest.
Whilst it is known that the PDO/AMO/ENSO are the largest driver in internal climate variability, it seems to me as though there is something driving an overall trend in the background.
Rather than being a mirror image, I'd say the temperature increase since the 70s is quite a bit steeper than the 1900-1940s one.
If the PDO was the big driver in all of this, then we should have seen a clear temperature drop for the last decade but we have not.
Those graphs don't make a whole lot of sense, the bits where they're supposed to line up to show cooling, it's the beginning of a warming period? I'd say those graphs disprove the correlation more than prove it. I made a few adjustments to it for ya!

Su Campu

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

I agree with your economy comment, as for the rest.
Whilst it is known that the PDO/AMO/ENSO are the largest driver in internal climate variability, it seems to me as though there is something driving an overall trend in the background.
Rather than being a mirror image, I'd say the temperature increase since the 70s is quite a bit steeper than the 1900-1940s one.
If the PDO was the big driver in all of this, then we should have seen a clear temperature drop for the last decade but we have not.
Those graphs don't make a whole lot of sense, the bits where they're supposed to line up to show cooling, it's the beginning of a warming period? I'd say those graphs disprove the correlation more than prove it. I made a few adjustments to it for ya!

Eh, not really - the slope of the early and late 20th century warmings is pretty much the same. I've put in the slopes for the 30-year periods 1910-40 and 1975-2005. Very little in it!






Regarding the PDO and AMO, the effect is most notable when both are at a maximum. I didn't say warming or cooling was greatest at the max or mins, I said the temperatures were at (or near) their warmest or coldest (i.e. the peaks and troughs of the curve). The coldest phases do occur near where they are both minimum. The "Where's the cooling here?" is just after the coolest part, and is only on the start of a warming.

Hoggy501

I agree with Su Campu on the cycles that we go through. Our contribution to this will only have the effect of bring on the so called global warming that little bit quicker it will still come regardless of where we burn fossil fuels or not. We have no control over the earth and it's cooling and warming periods. There are so many other variable to think of that its a pity that human interference is the one that is in the lime light. A large volcanic eruption somewhere can change everything in a matter of weeks and then where would the trend results be.

Su Campu

As to what causes the PDO and AMO? Nobody really knows, but all we do know is that there is a lot about the oceans that we don't know!

Liquids have a certain propensity for storing dissolved gases. Warmer oceans can hold less gas than when they're cooler. Warmer oceans release more of their dissolved CO2, but more importantly, also release more of a greenhouse gas that is way stronger than CO2 - water. The contribution by water vapour many times outweighs the contribution of CO2, but again this is something that people don't hear. Rememer, 70% off our planet surface is water.

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

Eh, not really - the slope of the early and late 20th century warmings is pretty much the same. I've put in the slopes for the 30-year periods 1910-40 and 1975-2005. Very little in it!






Regarding the PDO and AMO, the effect is most notable when both are at a maximum. I didn't say warming or cooling was greatest at the max or mins, I said the temperatures were at (or near) their warmest or coldest (i.e. the peaks and troughs of the curve). The coldest phases do occur near where they are both minimum. The "Where's the cooling here?" is just after the coolest part, and is only on the start of a warming.

The only thing I can really say to that is that if the PDO was driving temperature change, the fact that it's cyclical and shows no overall trend means that global temperatures should also be cyclical and show no overall trend. The AMO is also cyclical and so cannot contribute to an overall global temperature increase.

As for the difference, I'd consider a 33% greater warming quite large.

Hoggy501 wrote: »

I agree with Su Campu on the cycles that we go through. Our contribution to this will only have the effect of bring on the so called global warming that little bit quicker it will still come regardless of where we burn fossil fuels or not. We have no control over the earth and it's cooling and warming periods. There are so many other variable to think of that its a pity that human interference is the one that is in the lime light. A large volcanic eruption somewhere can change everything in a matter of weeks and then where would the trend results be.

Large volcanic eruptions (apart from some supervolcanos) only have temporary effects with the ejection of aerosols, such as Pinatubo in 1991.
The idea that humanity is too insignificant to impact global temperatures with an increase in a relatively minor greenhouse gas is fairly widespread and something I don't agree with. Just take cfc's and the ozone holes as an example of the large effects we can have without even trying.

Su Campu

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The only thing I can really say to that is that if the PDO was driving temperature change, the fact that it's cyclical and shows no overall trend means that global temperatures should also be cyclical and show no overall trend. The AMO is also cyclical and so cannot contribute to an overall global temperature increase.

I'm not saying it's the one and only cause, there are others on longer timescales which affect the wider background curve. You can zoom out on the curve as far as you want and as you do you will stumble upon various strange warming and cooling phases throughout the centuries/millenia/eons, each caused by various factors, but all of them natural. I just believe that the contribution by anthropogenic sources in recent times is one of least significant.

Godge

Su Campu wrote: »

I'm not saying it's the one and only cause, there are others on longer timescales which affect the wider background curve. You can zoom out on the curve as far as you want and as you do you will stumble upon various strange warming and cooling phases throughout the centuries/millenia/eons, each caused by various factors, but all of them natural. I just believe that the contribution by anthropogenic sources in recent times is one of least significant.

You may be right but on the one hand it is hard to believe that humanity has had no effect given the changes we have wreaked on the planet.

However, on the other hand, as you point out there have been coolings and warmings before and until we can understand the mechanisms behind them, we have no chance of understanding what is going on now.

Su Campu

Godge wrote: »

You may be right but on the one hand it is hard to believe that humanity has had no effect given the changes we have wreaked on the planet.

We may have messed up the planet in other ways, such as mining, urbanisation, crime, poverty, war, etc. but please don't bring them into a discussion on climate, which is a different thing. People use this one-size-fits-all argument to suit the climate debate and is part of the reason why some have been swayed into submission.

Yahew

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

But year on year is weather, long term is the trend. The fact that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record means the trend continues. If we begin to cool for the next decade, then the trend will certainly be put in question.
Same way the long term trend for Irish income is positive. The last few years is the equivalent of weather. Also, there's been an overwhelmingly clear drop in income recently, very much different to the climate debate where we may have levelled of depending on what data set you use. They're not really comparable IMO.

The long term trend for Irish income is positive - because modern economies grow per-capita over time but it doesn't negate the fact that the economy is now not growing. Most importantly what we know now about Irish income, is that the income is stagnant or falling, but we long term trend lines show the previous growth. Thats misleading if you are talking about the recent past.

With global warming the models did not predict the slowdown, therefore - my main point, the models should be challenged.

The PDO exhibits a cycle like pattern switching between warm and cold. The effects it has are temporary. Seen as there is no warming trend in the PDO, if it did cause much of the warming up to now, then we should be cooling, but we're not.

There is a warming trend, and now a cooling trend. Thats what an oscillation means.

If Joe B's Arctic sea ice rants, conspiracies and predictions are anything to go by, I'd use a better guide:pac: Say some climatology peer reviewed stuff, rather than a meteorologist.

That form of "peer review" is an argument to authority. Leaving climatologists, and only climatologists, to review their mathematical literature - which is surely well within the mathematical capabilities of meteorologists - is like having Marxists only review Marxism, or Theologians only discourse on the existence of God. Narrowing down "peers" to a small group with skin in the game, particularly in these political debates ( so unlike most science debates) is not really science.

I think you're referring to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), so you almost got it! I'll admit that it is quite a large unknown, with no real idea of when in may switch negative.

And if it has to switch negative, then surely its decades long positive phase must have had some effect. Was it factored into the models?

Nobody has ever claimed (at least nobody worth listening to) that we would see a consistent year on year warming. Natural variability will play it's part and may even cause some cooling. Distinguishing the true extent of mankind's contribution to climate change is difficult, but I like to think we're getting closer all the time!

nobody here is claiming that either, so thats a straw man. My claim is simple and scientific - there has been no statistical warming for 15 years. Explanations are needed, not arguments to authority. Not recourse to yearly fluctuations. If the minimum increase in temperature by the end of the century is an increase of 2C then we should see temperatures trending higher at the end of 2 decades at an average of 0.4C. Trend should swamp fluctuations.

MiNdGaM3

Yahew wrote: »

The long term trend for Irish income is positive - because modern economies grow per-capita over time but it doesn't negate the fact that the economy is now not growing. Most importantly what we know now about Irish income, is that the income is stagnant or falling, but we long term trend lines show the previous growth. Thats misleading if you are talking about the recent past.

With global warming the models did not predict the slowdown, therefore - my main point, the models should be challenged.

I'm not claiming the models are perfect (straw man...), they should be questioned and challenged. And so they are and they're being continually improved because of it.

Yahew wrote: »

There is a warming trend, and now a cooling trend. Thats what an oscillation means.

Yes but the last +ve peak was way ahead of the previous +ve peak, and the one before that and the other +ve PDO and AMO peaks, so there must be other things going on.

Yahew wrote: »

That form of "peer review" is an argument to authority. Leaving climatologists, and only climatologists, to review their mathematical literature - which is surely well within the mathematical capabilities of meteorologists - is like having Marxists only review Marxism, or Theologians only discourse on the existence of God. Narrowing down "peers" to a small group with skin in the game, particularly in these political debates ( so unlike most science debates) is not really science.

No, anybody should be able to challenge the literature, and once again they do. Things often get corrected and changed. Papers are challenged with other papers etc. All it is is a standard scientific work has to pass, not an system designed to halt progress and quash questioning, whatever people may think.

What I was saying was to do with Joe B anyway. I wouldn't go to a vet for my medical issues...

Yahew wrote: »

And if it has to switch negative, then surely its decades long positive phase must have had some effect. Was it factored into the models?

Models use a process called "Hindcasting". They have to be able to replicate the climate from a particular point in the past such as 1900. So I'd say they do include ocean SST oscillations.

Yahew wrote: »

nobody here is claiming that either, so thats a straw man. My claim is simple and scientific - there has been no statistical warming for 15 years. Explanations are needed, not arguments to authority. Not recourse to yearly fluctuations. If the minimum increase in temperature by the end of the century is an increase of 2C then we should see temperatures trending higher at the end of 2 decades at an average of 0.4C. Trend should swamp fluctuations.

I've already given a possible explanation, you'll just have to read back through.

Godge

Su Campu wrote: »

We may have messed up the planet in other ways, such as mining, urbanisation, crime, poverty, war, etc. but please don't bring them into a discussion on climate, which is a different thing. People use this one-size-fits-all argument to suit the climate debate and is part of the reason why some have been swayed into submission.

Even if the effect is only the urban heat effect on weather stations that were previously rural in nature, it is still an effect. I do not disagree with you that the effect of humanity may be miniscule but I do not rule out that it may be many times more than that either.

FWIW, my opinion is that the effect of humanity on the climate is somewhere between 0.01% and 25% which means we may only be undetectable background noise at one extreme or we may be one of a number of factors at the other extreme.

I don't think anyone has the evidence to be more specific than that.

Godge

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Models use a process called "Hindcasting". They have to be able to replicate the climate from a particular point in the past such as 1900. So I'd say they do include ocean SST oscillations.

But the world was once a lot warmer than it is now, how do the models explain that with their "hindcasting"?

MiNdGaM3

Godge wrote: »

But the world was once a lot warmer than it is now, how do the models explain that with their "hindcasting"?

Many of the things that made the world warmer in many in the geological past don't apply now, such as different positions of the continents, different ocean currents, ice cover, snow cover, atmospheric constituents and so on. Much of the long term fluctuations can be explained, but it's incredibly difficult to get temps from millions of years ago down to a resolution of even thousands of years.

Deep Easterly

Not sure if this article has already been posted or referred to it but gives an interesting explanation as why the rise in global temperature has slowed over the last 10 years or so:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

Abstract:

"Thus, although the current global warming graphs are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added. In particular we need to see how high global temperature rises in response to the next El Niño, and we also need to consider the effect of the 10-12 year cycle of solar irradiance. This raises the question of when the next El Niño will occur and the status of the solar cycle".

Hoggy501

Godge wrote: »

But the world was once a lot warmer than it is now, how do the models explain that with their "hindcasting"?

If we were in a mini ice age at the moment then would we be having this conversation or would the experts be telling us to burn more fossil fuels to heat the planet. we are just in this situation now and how we deal with it is based on the accuracy of the data we have to hand. This will give us an idea of how things will develop over the next few decades. we do not know for certain. Remember all this is based on computer models that have humans inputting the data.

Hooter23

Hoggy501 wrote: »

If we were in a mini ice age at the moment then would we be having this conversation or would the experts be telling us to burn more fossil fuels to heat the planet. we are just in this situation now and how we deal with it is based on the accuracy of the data we have to hand. This will give us an idea of how things will develop over the next few decades. we do not know for certain. Remember all this is based on computer models that have humans inputting the data.

Yes your right we dont know for certain manmade gobal warming is happening they dont have nearly enough data yet even in 50 years time we still wont know even 50-100 years of temperature data is not still not enough to be certain whats happening.
Anyway if burning fossil fuels is causing warming or not we should still be cutting or carbon emissions who wants to live in smog filled towns/cites.