Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

I already covered that in an earlier talk with Tim of which you were a party to, I did not feel the need to discuss it again. Care to discuss this 9yr period a bit more or would you rather go back to changing the subject?

 

You are quite right. I usually say 'catastrophic' or 'significant' warming. Thanks for catching this.

 

Sure, let's have it out. Is it your position that the 9 year cooling period we have been experiencing is due to sun spots?

 

You'll continue to link to articles that YOU claim to find interesting, yet are unable to discuss or defend in your own words.

 

It really is laughable. I hate to be sarcastic, but they basically say "Human produced CO2 is the driving force behind AGW. Except when we don't have warming and then it's too complicated to explain."

 

I would like to first state that I do not see a "cooling" period at all. I see a reduction in temperature rise, as compared to the period just prior to 1998) but I do not see a flat spot nor do I see a cooling trend. Are we comparing GISS data to Hadley data? I just want to be clear on what kind of graph we are looking at.

I would not be so naive to assume that our current deep solar minimum or position in the sunspot cycle is the only cause for the reduction in temperature rise. The effect of sunspot activity is still being studied but when we do measure a marked reduction in solar irradiance on Earth I would not be quick to discount it's effects as being negligible. Ultimately I do not see a short trend in slight reduction of global temperatures as a nail in the coffin of AGW. All that matters is whether the trend continues to go up or down in the long term.



Figure 1. Upper panel: Compared are daily averaged values of the Sun’s total irradiance TSI from radiometers on different space platforms since November 1978: HF on Nimbus7, ACRIM I onSMM, ERBE on ERBS, ACRIM II on UARS, VIRGO on SOHO, and ACRIM III on ACRIM-Sat. The data are plotted as published by the corresponding instrument teams. Note that only the results from the three ACRIMs and VIRGO radiometers have inflight corrections for degradation. Lower Panels: The PMOD, ACRIM and IRMB composite TSI as daily values plotted in different colors to indicate where the data are comming from.

 

F8L - "All that matters is whether the trend continues to go up or down in the long term."

Am I correct in assuming this statement refers to an acceptance of CO2 as the major force in the long term warming trend?

If that is the case, there is no empirical evidence to bolster your acceptance of such. The only 'evidence' presented by AGW adherents is a result of computer models. The warming itself, I am sure you will agree, is not in itself evidence of AGW.

 

And the physicochemical properties of CO2.

 

F8L, I know you are a very intelligent person so please don't take what I write as condescending.

You say "I see a reduction in temperature rise." I'm sorry, but if temperature is reducing then it is cooling. The opposite of hot is cold, and the opposite of rising is falling. The opposite of up is down and the opposite of right is wrong. If one temperature is 100.1'F (arbitrary) and the next one is 100.0', that is considered cooling. In fact cooling is defined as "the process of becoming cooler; a falling temperature."

These trend lines are computed using Hadley's global mean data. This is data from a pro-AGW site. The same trend lines form from both their adjusted and unadjusted data. The adjusted (corrected, homogenized, etc) data is shown in these graphics below. The trend lines are put in by the computer. I did not influence them except for picking the start and stop years. You can clearly see the trend lines have a negative slope.

Unequivocally there is cooling/reduction in temperature rise (same thing) from 1934-1980, and from 2001-2010/now.

To be honest, I agree with you - I do not consider this a "nail in the coffin" for the idea that humans may be contributing to global warming. That is completely possible. I do not think that we are on a "crash course to hell" that is going to results in the loss of all of our coastal states, or whatever, in the next 20-40 years.

I do not think the science that humans are causing global warming is even remotely settled. If the science is settled then why can't we account for 46 years of cooling (1934-1980), and 9 current years of cooling (2001-2010)?

I do not believe the sunspots have anything to do with the cooling. Admittedly I know basically nothing about them, but the graphs you posted all appear very regular, and if they caused cooling then why wouldn't we have regular periods of cooling?

Also when I look at the solar irradiance chart you posted, I see a minimum from 1984-1988, despite us experiencing warming in that time frame, I see another minimum from 1993-1998 despite us experiencing warming in that time frame, and I see a maximum from 2000-2003/2004, despite us being in a cooling/temperature decline.

For sure, despite many untestable hypothesis, and as admitted in the hacked emails, we can not account for the cooling. The science is far from settled.

Also, since you are the only semi-pro-AGWer left that I respect, would you mind reviewing my post here? I am indeed interested in learning the most I can about this stuff and would like to read your comments.

 

http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf

A study by forecasters comparing AGW to 26 prior alarmist scares.

No, it is not yet peer-reviewed, but the authors invite it.

Interesting (to me, Fibbber22) reading. You might be surprised by some of the statements made in regard to scares that are still in the belief systems of many.

 

I'm not going to take it that way. I'm not a climatologist so I don't mind being a noob in this field.

When I say a reduction in temperature rise I mean in the long term trend. When you see a dip or a spike in the graphed line I wouldn't call either a upward or downward trend. I would look at the whole line and determine the trend. The trend doesn't appear to be a cooling one IMO and in the opinion os NASA or NOAA. Now we can play with graphs and make all sorts of neat lines that fit our objective and I'll give you that. Though if forced to trust the graphs of scientists or skeptic sites I just had to side with the scientists. I understand that I could be wrong though so no arguments there.

Again the earlier timeframe is well discussed by scientists but is not 100% understood by me. The 2001-2010 timeframe is obviously in dispute with us because you see the opposite trend that I and NOAA see.

"The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F)." - NOAA Global Highlights

We could use these graphs to show how things could look different if we use a 10yr timeframe (value = 120)



For the sake of argument I can take off 1yr worth of data (which includes a spike in temperature from year 2000) and only graph from 2001-2010 like you did and I still show an upward trend in the GISS data. From what I recall the Hadley data exhibited the "Arctic Hole" effect and this could cause some to see a downward trending line.

As I've stated before, I don't subscribe to the bandwagon of doomsday and hell's kitchen alarmists but I am concerned so count me as in the AGW camp but not as an alarmist.

It is an energy source and we know that our climate is ruled by the energy budget. If more is coming in then the same will have to go out or else we will see temperature rise. If less is coming in then we have to reduce output or we will see cooling. Now the effect of sunspots is small but I do not think it can be ruled out completely. They, IMO, are just another factor in the climate regulation system. The other forcings like orbital factors, greenhouse gases, oceanic heat budget etc. are stronger and may mask the effects of sunspots. That doesn't mean it is not a contributor. We will have to wait and see as the science pans out on that though.

I'll look into that further but as you guessed, I'm going to hedge a guess that there are other forcings coming into play here.

I'm not 1005 it is settled either but I lean towards the other side that CO2 is a player in this game. It really helps explain the tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling.

I'll have a look. There are others in here who know more about this than I do though. I'm just another guy trying to learn more about climate science so I can make up my own mind.

 

Wow - I like the tone here. Some good questions, good responses and lots for everyone to think about.

I think we can go back and forth about what the right dataset is, what the right time period to consider is, etc. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts.

Clearly - by most evidence - we are in a relative warming period over the past 150 or so years. And clearly too, some of this warming took place prior to the time at which it became possible for man to significantly alter global climate, and yes, some warming also took place after that time. So we know there are natural factors which have caused climate change in the past and yet it is quite possible that human factors account for some of the current climate change (+ and - temp. change). But since the natural factors cannot be fully identified, it seems obvious to me we cannot rule them out as having an effect at present.

So yes, CO2 can affect climate. The strawman thrown up by so many of the warmers is "how can you argue against CO2 changing climate - the physical mechanism is well established". In my view, the argument is simply about the magnitude of the effect of CO2. F8L, I think we are in agreement here.

As for the observation that the current decade is the warmest in the past 150 years (or whatever period), IMO this is not meaningful. That is, it would be odd if it was not the "warmest decade" given that we have experienced an upward trend over a 150 year period and a deviation from this would likely manifest as a flattening of the curve initially (as appears to be happening at present) followed by a decline over a multi-decadal time period (could be periodic "ups" but the multi-decadal trend would be down).

 

I agree with you. That is why I think the next decade may inform a lot of decisions and opinions on the subject. We are still in the learning phase here and things like CO2 forcing value, ocean heat storage, sun spots, aerosols, climate modeling etc. will only get better. The general prediction is for 2010 and the following years to be much warmer and continue the trend. If it does otherwise, as you stated above, or we see a steep decline then the modelers have some serious problems to contend with and I would be the first to agree we don't know as much as we think we know. Thanks for your input Tim.

 

Allright! Sounds like curbing our CO2 emissions is a no-brainer then.

 

I made a couple of new graphs that may show solar irradiance and global temps from the time period of 1980-2009 a little better. This doesn't give any better explanation for my idea but it is easier to compare than the small graph I posted earlier. Keep in mind though that inputs can take time before you will see an effect. It is like turning on the heater in the house. If the thermostat is on the opposite side of the output duct you will experience lag periods. Sometimes I think of the deep ocean as a wacky thermometer that may give us a suprise just yet. lol

 

Thanks for the informative posts, F8L.

It may be, but it also verifies that you are cherry picking again. Have a look at my plot and trendline which uses all the data available.



Looking at this chart, one can draw the following conclusions:

Your previously chosen periods of 1934-1980 and 2001-2009 were carefully chosen (cherry picked) to start from abnormally warm periods (above the trend line).

It's quite clear that the past 20-30 years have warmed significantly.

 

I was about to post something very similar. Saying "the last decade is the warmest in modern time" is a very, very meaningless statement. It gives the general population a feeling that this is the warmest decade the earth has ever experienced, and it gives them a feeling that we are in an upward trend of temperature rise. Both of those are false.

You are exactly correct why it is meaningless. We had a rise in temperature, and for the last 9 years (the whole decade) the temperatures have been on their way down. So they may be the warmest but they are still in a decline. Year 2009 was on average cooler than year 2001.

The general prediction for 2008 was that 2009 will be much warmer, and the general prediction for 2007 was that 2008 will be much warmer. It seems at best it is a guess if it will be warmer or cooler next year. If it's cooler then those in support of anthropogenic global warming will just attribute it to a variety of natural reasons, and if it is warmer then they will attribute it to human caused global warming. It's literally 50/50.

I hate to be so simple, but I have trouble getting past this logic:

"When there is warming, it’s due to CO2 and human emission of GHGs.
When there is cooling, it’s due to natural factors."

Nature is only the culprit when their is cooling. I can't buy it.

Indeed I cherrypicked data. My point was not to prove that global warming is not occurring, I wanted to generate trend lines for certain periods of time. It unequivocally demonstrates that there has been cooling/reduction in warming (same thing) over the last 9 years, and for the 46 year period of 1934-1980.

These are important to see because it lets us know, for a fact, that the earth has not been on a steady temperature rise. It means that for 46 years and for 9 years the earths average global temperature did not rise, despite record high levels of CO2 production.

(When I originally posted the 9 year graph, in the interest of being fair I also posted 10 and 11 year graphs that showed the slope go form positive, to 0 (or barely positive), to negative.)

In my mind, I can not get past this:

A minimum temperature of the little ice age occurred in 1850. This is the same date I almost always see in graphs that support AGW (look at drees, for example). Obviously we will experience warming when coming out of an ice age. It seems that the entire hypothesis of AGW is cherrypicked to start on a date that just so happens to coincide with a LIA minimum. I will predict that as I try to learn more about the LIA people in support of AGW will try to minimize its importance.

 

That's your strawman. No one expects a steady increase. Look at the graph and tell me what happens everytime there are 10 years or so of a pause in the rise? Does it seem similar to the current situation?

The more you learn about the LIA the more you'll realize we should still be in it.

 

I think the AGW movement is over, when CNN is using the banner 'trick or truth' to tout climategate the end is near.

If AGW was is really as unstoppable and dangerous as has been shouted, why cook the books?

 

I don't think anyone with half a brain for this thinks that we are experiencing the warmest period in Earth's history. That would be silly. The Carboniferous period and part of the Eocene were much warme than now. We know this. The only one's who think otherwise just don't study. lol

The 9yr graph I posted with the GISS data does not agree with you. See my chart again. Again, the short term graphs are irrelevant with regards to the long term trend. See my graph when adding in only 1 more year. They also state:

The years 2001-2008 rank among the ten warmest years of the 130-year (1880-2009) record and 2009 will certainly join them as one of the ten warmest years of the global surface temperature record. Based upon several factors, including the known year-to-date (January through October) temperature anomaly, recent historical values for November and December, and the presence of an El Niño episode in the tropical Pacific, the global January-December temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces is estimated to be about 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average, which would be the fifth warmest since records began in 1880. However, uncertainty associated with the November and December outcome suggests a range of most likely ranks of fourth, fifth or sixth warmest on record.

And 2009 was warmer than 2008 no?

That's not true. We've already discussed the earlier periods where scientists feel that solar minimums contributed to cooling, orbital effects that cause cooling (think Milankovich here), aerosols cause cooling, drops in CO2 cause cooling etc. etc.

That is not very scientific and it just proves that you can make a graph to plead your case. It doesn't show what is really happening over the long term which is reality. Please see my graphs again and compare them to yours. I used both data sets whereas you only used one.

I have to head to work, I'll add more later. Grrr