New NOAA Research Puts Global Warming 'Hiatus' in Doubt

[Iosif]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

So that's a no for you.

You don't have to believe in climate change, but please don't try to parse and criticise scientific research. It's just painful to read.

You're clearly very uneducated on the issue and have even less of a position to argue from.  I'd recommend using the ignore feature.

Haha okay.

The problem for climate skeptics is that it's their position has been thoroughly rejected by virtually everyone with any authority on the issue. The 'movement' is comprised entirely of people who have no idea what they're talking about and have taken their positions purely for political or ideological purposes. So instead of expert scientists making convincing, coherent arguments you have idiots claiming they're right  because they've read a blog written by another idiot and that 7 is a bigger number than 1.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Clearly I am I climate skeptic for political and ideological purposes.  I must work for an oil company.  (Actually you'd find I would like to get off oil asap for environmental and geopolitical reasons).

I get riled up by the "well, you're not a scientist, so" because that's a desperate argument.  If you want to contest my points, please do.  If you just want to trash me and argue i have no right or place to discuss this...then we should report this thread as not being the place to post such information, since climate change (but not other fields like economics or social sciences or political science) is special and not subject to debate...but is instead to be accepted as canon or the skeptics slandered and group shamed.  To me that suggests the foundations of climate science aren't firm...and it's not because of deniers...but in spite of your efforts to shut up people who don't buy it outright.

I've made my views clear:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that, all other things equal, re-reflects infrared longwave radiation back to the surface of the earth or between themselves in the air.

Carbon dioxide has been reasonably proven to increase global air temperatures by n°C per doubling of co2 concentration in the atmosphere.  That number is still up to debate but is narrowing to a range of 0.7°-2.5°C, with a likely range of 1-2°C.

Beyond this things get enormously complex due to positive and negative feedbacks.  The IPCC still assumes climate sensitivity on the high end of the established science and uses dubious, now dated papers to claim a strong overall positive feedback that could lead to big, scary, runaway warming.

And yet even if you accept with this latest paper that 1998-2012 warmed at the same rate as 1950-2012 (itself a cherry picked time period since it includes a period of no global warming from 1950-1975), then you still are faced with the question...why hasnt warming accelerated dramatically since 2000 on account of vastly increased carbon dioxide emissions?

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Yes...thisprobably is painful to read.  Challenging dogma always is.

[Foucaulf]

As someone who still believes in climate change and had to learn a lot on the issue, the last few supportive posts aren't doing any favors. Look, if you want to talk to a skeptic, you should at least know about:

-claims that the urban heat effect may bias estimates of surface temperature taken in modern times;

-claims of insignificant or inaccurate measures by seawater buoys, important due to recent theory that predict a good deal of heat captured by the atmosphere circulates in oceans;

-models that propose self-regulating climate systems which diffuse heat;

-the fact that many estimates of the economic impact of global warming is highly, highly preliminary, due to imperfect data.

Take, for example, Nagas's graph on the last page. It says "Global Temperature" - but "global temperature" from where? That may deceive a regular Monbiot column reader, but it won't pass scrutiny when a global emissions agreement is on the line. Since global emissions regimes are one of the most intractable collective action problems of our time, you sure as hell should hope the data is rock-solid.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy in 1995:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That graph stops in like 2001 which makes it nearly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  But thanks for that entertaining bit of hyperbole and putting words in my mouth.

Notice the temperatures from 1950-1975 in that graph.  Then figure out why they compared 1998-2012 to 1950-2012 and not, say, the 30 years directly prior to 1998 (1968-1998 compared to 1998-2012) or, say, the 14 preceding years (so that the two time periods being compared were subsequent and of equal length) That relative slowdown (1984-1998 compared to 1998-2012) is quite large and would not fit their predetermined attempt to shut out the deniers, who apparently almost dont exist and whose arguments are so easily falsifiable that it's not even worth taking the time to do so!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Clearly I am a vaccine skeptic for political and ideological purposes.  I must work for a homœopathy company.  (Actually you'd find I would like to discourage homœopathy as well for obvious reasons).

I get riled up by the "well, you're not a doctor, so" because that's a desperate argument.  If you want to contest my points, please do.  If you just want to trash me and argue i have no right or place to discuss this...then we should report this thread as not being the place to post such information, since vaccines (but not other fields like economics or social sciences or political science) are special and not subject to debate...but are instead to be accepted as canon or the skeptics slandered and group shamed.  To me that suggests the foundations of vaccination aren't firm...and it's not because of deniers...but in spite of your efforts to shut up people who don't buy it outright.

[…]

♪♫

[Ebsy]

So the crazies are out in force.

[RFayette]

So the crazies are out in force.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus

If we're talking about what the "consensus" is, then we should at least be talking about the relevant consensus to the discussions at hand.  It's not whether or not CO2 has a warming effect or whether the average temperature of the globe increased.......it's far more about how severe climate change is, what proportion is anthropogenic, and most importantly, the cost-benefit analysis of emission reductions and the reliability of climate models in forecasting future events.

Here's some good info:
"In striking contrast to these studies, which try but fail to find a consensus in support of the claim that global warming is man-made and dangerous, many authors and surveys have found disagreement and even a majority of scientists oppose the alleged consensus. Surveys by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have found that most scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models and do not believe key climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are adequately understood to predict future climate changes.

Surveys of meteorologists, including one by the American Meteorological Society of its members conducted in 2012, find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Of the various petitions circulated for signatures by scientists on the global warming issue, the one that has garnered by far the most signatures – more than 31,000 names – says “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

So before we bankrupt the coal industry and put West Virginians out of work, I think it's time to step back and assess whether wrecking Appalachia is worth the marginal temperature benefits.

[jimrtex]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

There has been an absolutely enormous growth in carbon emissions globally from human activity since 2002.


This is the absolute rate of growth in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. 

While co2 emissions ballooned 2003-2012...the rate of change in atmospheric co2 concentrations did not increase.  The relationship has a disconnect.

This would argue increased uptake of co2 by the biosphere or by the oceans. 

In order for the oceans to do this, they would need to cool significantly...since cooler surface waters increase co2 uptake.

But the geniuses at NOAA are arguing that the ocean warming is what was under estimated in the past 15 years and where they adjusted so they could say the pause never happened.  They want their cake and they wanna eat it too.

I wouldn't expect a dogmatist like evergreen to figure this out.  Simple google searches and a working knowledge of climate just isn't feasible...so snarky post edits are all he/she has.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

Thank you for asking the right question.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

There seems to be a considerable lack of understanding about the collection, collation, analysis and presentation of stats.

This seems to be a nicely worded way of dismissing my post above.  But while I could link to the paper in question and the analysis of the stats and adjustments...I'll leave that to you as it might give you some understanding about the collection, collation, analysis, and presentation of stats.

Stop being obscurantist.  This is simple.  The scientists adjusted the trend upward by 0.08°C over 13 years and then obscurantized and jargonized the justification until you would just take them at their word.  Like a 3 cylinder full sized pick up truck...but with all kinds of bells and whistles!

Then they send the dogs out with the denier word to drown out any skepticism.

They say as much in the abstract.  They found a problem (the warming trend wasnt strong enough and a talk of hiatus or pause was taking over the debate)...so after some heavy duty analysis they found just enough hundredths of a degree over a 15 year period to technically say the pause never occurred.

Hey Polnut...have you disclaimed that you have a career related obligation not to be skeptical about global warming?  im afraid people might not know that and believe you're just being neutral on the subject.

I have no obligation to believe anything related to my work. I've never presumed your position is based on personal gain, I believe you have come to your position based on your reading and interpretation, even if I fundamentally disagree with that interpretation. I work across a number of different policy areas, including having to advocate for things I don't personally support.

What personal benefit do I get discussing this issue here? I've never "advocated" for something here that I don't support. Considering this is the second time you've decided to question my integrity on this issue, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't do it again.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You're right polnut, and i apologize. 

[traininthedistance]

Interestingly, it lowers the total amount of warming measured over the past 150 years or so.  I am curious what some climate change skeptics would respond about this. 

NOAA is massaging the data to get the result it wants, similar to what they have done in the past.  Meanwhile, the satellite temperature records have shown zero warming for over 18 years.  Or something like that.

Okay, what about over ten years?  Or twenty?  Or any statistically responsible timeframe?  C'mon, the "b-but 1998!" dodge is transparently disingenuous cherry picking and you should know better than that.

On the policy side of things, what I think we ought to be doing now is trying to figure out how we can increase our nuclear power output. No other alternative to fossil fuels can provide the type of base load that nuclear can right now. We should be lightly subsidizing wind and funding research into the rest.

While you know I don't go in for the knee-jerk anti-nuke attitude of some of my compatriots, you should also be aware that there's good evidence that, perhaps, the whole "baseload" paradigm is outdated and unnecessary. Alternatively, it would do us more good to focus investment in "smart grid" and battery tech, and transition into a distributed grid model instead.  Of course, this is quite the threat to the incumbent utilities, so they're sure to fight it tooth and nail, and double down on the old system.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus

...

So before we bankrupt the coal industry and put West Virginians out of work, I think it's time to step back and assess whether wrecking Appalachia is worth the marginal temperature benefits.

You do know who funds Heartland, no?  I normally hate to have to point this out, but they're so obviously and transparently industry shills that there's really no choice.

And as for bankrupting the coal industry, natural gas would be doing a bang-up job of that even in the absence of (necessary, life-saving) regulation.  Coal (especially dirty, hard-to-mine Appalachian coal) is going the way of the whaling industry, and while we should of course be sympathetic to the people left behind, and give them a hand up, artificially propping up a dirty, destructive, dangerous, increasingly unnecessary harvest such as that does nobody any good in the long run.

[RFayette]

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus

...

So before we bankrupt the coal industry and put West Virginians out of work, I think it's time to step back and assess whether wrecking Appalachia is worth the marginal temperature benefits.

You do know who funds Heartland, no?  I normally hate to have to point this out, but they're so obviously and transparently industry shills that there's really no choice.

And as for bankrupting the coal industry, natural gas would be doing a bang-up job of that even in the absence of (necessary, life-saving) regulation.  Coal (especially dirty, hard-to-mine Appalachian coal) is going the way of the whaling industry, and while we should of course be sympathetic to the people left behind, and give them a hand up, artificially propping up a dirty, destructive, dangerous, increasingly unnecessary harvest such as that does nobody any good in the long run.

While I don't favor artificially pumping up coal, I don't want to tear them down more than what they're facing right now through additional CO2 regulations at this juncture.  Yes, Heartland is biased, but so are Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.  The question is the facts that the source presents, because nearly any source on climate change will have a position/bias. 

My point is, there are many meteorologists (who, while not climate scientists, do have a lot of experience with weather patterns and climate data) and climate scientists who are at least somewhat skeptical of parts of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, namely the catastrophic part.  My position is that draconian emissions restrictions, blocking of coal plant construction, etc. do more harm to the economy than whatever marginal temperature benefit that might be accrued by not constructing them. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Climate scientists, to a fault, know almost nothing of weather.  They scorn meteorologists who can tell you exactly how a hurricane hands off energy from ocean water to the poles where it can radiate into space.

Instead they rely on computer models that tell us we will burn...but cannot model the el niño/southern oscillation or clouds.  Both play an enormous role in both heat transfer but also incoming solar radiation and how much gets radiated into space before it can warm the surface.

Thousands of studies have found proof that global warming will lead to literally any outcome.  So they are ALWAYS right.  Global warming means more and less El Niño events, more and less La Niña events, and stronger and weaker ones at that!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

[MurrayBannerman]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

I think the green industry sees dollar signs in "climate change." I think that's the #1 motivator.

Everyone should. It has the potential to be a major driver for our economy.

[jimrtex]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

There has been an absolutely enormous growth in carbon emissions globally from human activity since 2002.

What was the cause of the jump post 2002?  Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol?

I was looking at the Wikipedia page on the Kyoto Protocol, and it had a chart showing the relationship between pledged changes in CO2 emissions and actual changes, and they were all over the place.  A curiosity was the Baltics, which have had massive drops (50%), presumably due to decommissioning of coal-fired plants.  Meanwhile building of a nuclear power plant in Lithuania and Kalingrad have stalled, and Lithuania's former nuclear power plant was decommissioned in 2009 as part of their EU accession.

So did they switch from using coal imported from Russia, to using electricity imported from Russia or what?

This is the absolute rate of growth in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. 

While co2 emissions ballooned 2003-2012...the rate of change in atmospheric co2 concentrations did not increase.  The relationship has a disconnect.

This would argue increased uptake of co2 by the biosphere or by the oceans. 

In order for the oceans to do this, they would need to cool significantly...since cooler surface waters increase co2 uptake.

But the geniuses at NOAA are arguing that the ocean warming is what was under estimated in the past 15 years and where they adjusted so they could say the pause never happened.  They want their cake and they wanna eat it too.

I wouldn't expect a dogmatist like evergreen to figure this out.  Simple google searches and a working knowledge of climate just isn't feasible...so snarky post edits are all he/she has.

What is the global CO2 concentration?  (ie your charts show the first derivative).

[Boston Bread]

The correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not direct. The majority of warming that is predicted in the long run is through feedback cycles. The climate sensitivity to CO2 alone is about 1 degree Celsius for every doubling of CO2 concentration. That's well in line with the minute amount of warming observed so far, and the rate is small enough that decade long trends in ocean currents and solar output can halt or even reverse warming for moderate periods of time. What is unsettled is the climate sensitivity including the feedback factors I mentioned earlier. 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 is the most commonly cited figure. These factors won't become significant until 1) the warming is significant enough (2 degrees is a commonly referenced tipping point for some) and 2) after enough time for the environment to reach a new equilibrium under the new temperatures.

The point of reducing emissions now is to prevent significant warming to happen in the future, and by that I'm talking closer to the end of the century when these feedback cycles will increase the rate of warming significantly. Snowguy's representations of what climate scientists believe are not at all accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You imply as if the temperature immediately after is somehow evidence against climate models. But the majority of warming expected comes well after the release of emissions. So it doesn't mean anything.

[Boston Bread]

All of those urban heat islands in the Pacific are really something, eh?



Next you'll be telling me the data is falsified.

And the average is compared to 1981-2010 so this also compares against some of the warmest years like 1998 (but also cooler years, which is what an average should be!)

[Ban my account ffs!]

The correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not direct. The majority of warming that is predicted in the long run is through feedback cycles. The climate sensitivity to CO2 alone is about 1 degree Celsius for every doubling of CO2 concentration. That's well in line with the minute amount of warming observed so far, and the rate is small enough that decade long trends in ocean currents and solar output can halt or even reverse warming for moderate periods of time. What is unsettled is the climate sensitivity including the feedback factors I mentioned earlier. 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 is the most commonly cited figure. These factors won't become significant until 1) the warming is significant enough (2 degrees is a commonly referenced tipping point for some) and 2) after enough time for the environment to reach a new equilibrium under the new temperatures.

The point of reducing emissions now is to prevent significant warming to happen in the future, and by that I'm talking closer to the end of the century when these feedback cycles will increase the rate of warming significantly. Snowguy's representations of what climate scientists believe are not at all accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You imply as if the temperature immediately after is somehow evidence against climate models. But the majority of warming expected comes well after the release of emissions. So it doesn't mean anything.

You're using a denier's excuse to try and prove to me that the alarmists are correct.

Do you know how carbon dioxide traps heat?  It doesn't wait a while before it starts.  With climate scientists arguing that solar activity is nearly constant (thus why it is referred to as the solar constant), you don't have big, long delays in warming.

"Deniers" have pointed out for years that natural climate cycles are what caused cooling periods from 1880-1910, 1945-1975, and the pause after ~2000.  Prominent climate scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen have dismissed this and instead argued aerosol emissions have masked the underlying warming and thus reductions in aerosol emissions will cause double time warming.

As for your 1°C vs 3°C argument...you're misunderstanding.

The IPCC said CO2 alone would cause 3°C compared to 1750 with a concentration of 560ppm (a doubling from the pre industrial 280ppm).  Then feedbacks are taken into account which had previously meant model estimates from 2°-6°C warming.

But no papers in recent years have argued for a possible 3°C sensitivity.  You are right when you say it is closer to 1°C...0.7°C-2.5°C being the accepted range now.

The models cant model feedbacks effectively.  They basically just have to plug them in based on their best estimates in a crude, forced fashion...hence forcing the models.

Empirical approaches where you best estimate actual measured global warming since WWII, when co2 emissions began to be significant show that feedbacks are neutral or even slightly negative.  But climate scientists much prefer their models where they can input whatever they want so they cam scare you.

All of your scary press releases about how global warming will turn your toe nails green tend to rely on the high end of projections.  Whoda thunk?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Interestingly...warming in California is positively correlated to county population size!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

Global temp from 1960-2009 (roughly equivalent to the x axis above)

[Flake]

You do realize that it takes many years for the carbon we produce to get up into the atmosphere far enough to act as a greenhouse gas (being so far up in the atmosphere)? What we're going to see is a huge global spike in temperature in the next couple of decades.

[Torie]

You do realize that it takes many years for the carbon we produce to get up into the atmosphere far enough to act as a greenhouse gas (being so far up in the atmosphere)? What we're going to see is a huge global spike in temperature in the next couple of decades.

Why a spike, if the increase in the past decades in CO2 has been rather steady?  You're just positing a lag factor.

[Ebsy]

Someone should sell this guy New Jersey Coastline and force him to live there for the next 70 years.