Twenty Two Years Of No Actual Global Warming
Steven Goddard at Real Science:
The Green Apocalypse is taking its sweet time.
Steven Goddard at Real Science:
RSS shows 17 years of flat temperatures, but it is worse than it seems.
In 1991, Mt Pinatubo erupted -reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface. This masked three years of El Ninos, and depressed global temperatures by about half a degree from 1991 through 1994. Without the eruption’s effects, temperatures would be flat to down for the past 22 years.
The Green Apocalypse is taking its sweet time.
It's just another case of cherry picking the data, picking an arbitrary starting date to rationalise a conclusion already made.ReplyDelete
You need to consider a period of at least 30 years to average out confounding factors. For the RSS data (www.ssmi.com/msu_time_series.html) the trend for global lower atmosphere temperatures since 1980 is a warming of 0.128 K/decade.
It's dishonest to claim that a cooling due to a volcanic eruption disproves AGW. No climatologist claims that greenhouse gases are the only factor affecting global temperature.
Global temperatures are driven by 1. Solar output. 2. Greenhouse gases. 3. Volcanic eruptions. 4. And possibly the solar magnetic field affecting the amount of cosmic radiation striking the atmosphere causing cloud formation.
And atmospheric temperatures is only one of the components of global warming. The oceans have a much larger capacity for heat uptake, and for at least the last 15 years the oceans have continued to warm.
backfield, chill. :-)Delete
Besides, you have some problems in your understanding. The very first sentence of the cited post contains the words "flat temperatures". And there is no doubt they are, or very nearly so. Which is why the apocalyptics are pissing their pants. It is not what their simulations ("model" is the wrong term) predict. The people who said the models are wrong are laughing. The people who advocated spending trillions on the basis of model predictions are gnashing their teeth.
You can't "average out" a confound. A confound is a bias: "a confounding factor is termed a spurious relationship, and the presence of misestimation [sic] for this reason is termed omitted-variable bias" (Wiki: Confounding). Whoever you are parroting is wrong. I think you are talking about noise. But, in your case, who knows?
And there is no statistical magic in 30 years, or any other time frame, The time frame was selected because, i assume, it contains a segment of the entire history whose slope is zero or nearly so. Those are the data, man. Data trumps theory. Theory predicted accelerating positive. Wrong-o. Something's missing or badly mis-estimated.
And nobody I know of claimed a "volcanic eruption disproved AGW". That an AGW apocalypse prediction is based on a misunderstanding of atmospheric physics is not a new argument. Goddard claims that the earlier volcanic effect adds weight to the existing disagreement.
Finally, I would fully expect the oceans to lag the atmosphere. My pool does exactly the same thing in the summer.
Richard Muller, a physicist from Berkeley and the primary investigator of the BEST study, has a pretty good response to claims like this in the New York Times.Delete
A Pause, Not an End, to Warming
"Most of us hope that global warming actually has stopped. (Not everyone; some argue that the warming is good.) Perhaps the negative feedback of cloud cover has kicked in, dampening global warming, or the ocean absorption of atmospheric heat is playing a new and more decisive role.
Alas, I think such optimism is premature. The current pause is consistent with numerous prior pauses. When walking up stairs in a tall building, it is a mistake to interpret a landing as the end of the climb. The slow rate of warming of the recent past is consistent with the kind of variability that some of us predicted nearly a decade ago."
You really need to stop playing with your toy plastic battleships in your delusional navy and get out of the bathtub.
You suspect that the warming of the oceans lags the atmosphere? The oceans make up 70% of the Earth's surface, so 70% of the solar input falls on the oceans. The albedo of oceans is lower than the land too, around 10%, so it absorbs more heat too. And to a greater depth.
Warming of the oceans occurs before the atmosphere, not after.
Anyway, it's dishonest to accept the cooling due to SO2 emissions from a single volcanic eruption in 1991, to claim that it should have been warmer, but then to deny the cooling due to China's and India's rapid industrialisation of the past 15 years with the emission of large amounts of SO2 from the burning of 'dirty' coal.
backfield: "solar input falls on the oceans"Delete
Solar input falls on my pool, too.
backfield: "Warming of the oceans occurs before the atmosphere, not after."
That doesn't explain this:
backfield: "Anyway, it's dishonest to accept blah blah blah"
Pinatubo was a pulse. China's injection has been in a 15 year time frame.
I thought 15 years was cherrypicking.Delete
Anyway, your pet theory that global warming isn't panning out is not the "consensus" but one among many. Scientists really don't know.
Here's what we do know. Global warming stopped fifteen or twenty years ago. Why it stopped or if it will start again are open questions.
Joey, why don't you read Muller's op-ed. Or maybe take a direct look at the data. The warming trend has paused before, only to resume the upward motion.Delete
It's a false statement that "scientists really don't know." We have learned quite a bit about climate. Conservative naysayers would like us to believe that we don't know nuthin', but that is simply a lie.
I have no interest in what you "know". I care about what you predicted. Your models, based on which trillions of dollars were supposed to change hands governance of mankind was to be altered, failed to predict the current absence of warming. Climate scientists knew that the oceans covered 75% of the earth when they ran their models, but they got it wrong in a very big way.
"Trust us no matter how wrong we are" isn't cutting it anymore. Your models failed, your science is a joke, and I see no reason we should listen to you assholes in the future.
You have no interest in science, Egnor. You are interested in repeating the bullshit flying through the conservative echo chamber.Delete
Natural variability can mask the warming on a decades time scale. That has happened before (look at the fucking data). Long-term, the temperatures have been rising. BEST data cover the last 250 years and they show unambiguous warming correlated with the ruse in atmospheric CO2. That's science.
I don't care about your piddling wading pool. Although if you're so delusional that your collection of toy plastic battleships in your bathtub is a real navy, then your pool would seem enormous.
I'm talking about the oceans, which has 300 times the mass and 400 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere. If you're going to compare the oceans and the atmosphere, then you need to compare the heat capacity of each.
And if your tiny mind wants to use your swimming pool as a model, then you need to calculate how much heat your pool is taking up compared to the atmosphere, over the Summer, not just comparing its temperature to the air temperature, which is likely to be biased to daytime temperatures.
I've looked at your link. So what? The.jpg lacks captions as to what it means land? ocean? where? how measured?
L David Roper doesn't appear to be a global warming denier. He seems a realist concerning the mitigation/adaptation that's possible. I'll have to add his webpage to my reading.
A lot has been said and I am once again late for the ball...Delete
However, I will once again add my thoughts for you masochists out there that actually read them ;P
Anyway. Two ideas in the above melee grab me. One is in Hoo's comment.
"When walking up stairs in a tall building, it is a mistake to interpret a landing as the end of the climb. The slow rate of warming of the recent past is consistent with the kind of variability that some of us predicted nearly a decade ago"
Hoo is quoting 'Richard Muller, a physicist from Berkeley and the primary investigator of the BEST study'.
This guy is advising against what he describes as premature optimism. I can completely relate to this sentiment. We should never assume that because the climate is stable (or currently shifting) that this state is continuous or eternal. In fact, we are pretty sure it is cyclical. In other words, It's always going to be moving up or down in general terms of temperatures.
The truly interesting part about this statement is that the optimism is described as premature, not erroneous or misguided. It is rather ambiguous and non committal, but urges caution. The optimism may or may not have merit, but it is best not to assume it does.
This makes sense to me, if it is rather obvious. We should be ready for changes. We should be mentally prepared to adapt as we greet them. This is true of all great societal challenges. If the climate changes drastically, we must adapt and survive.... or we wont and we may not. Seems fairly obvious.
A well crafted word salad. Worthy of high grade PR. Muller is in the wrong business.
This leads me to the second and by far most interesting to my caffeine addled and distracted mind (insanely busy week):
Mike wrote: "[AGW models] based on which trillions of dollars were supposed to change hands governance of mankind was to be altered"
This is true. No denying it. The climate industry / bureaucracy is massive. So what of it?
Were is the caution in this REALITY? I think perhaps the real premature optimism was in the camp of people who felt they could convince the governments of the world to transfer vast amounts of wealth and power into a new global bureaucracy run by a freaking doomsday cult that has all sorts of lunatic Strangelove-esque ideas about 'sustainable human populations' and 'stratospheric geoengineering' . They thought they could pull it off by pushing consensus and fudging the data. They wanted to tax us all for simply being alive.
That was pronoid and they lost their bet.
So what's next? What will be the next pro death, doomsday, guilt trip? When will the moon next eat the sun and the temple priests be required to appease her with (our) blood and (our) gold?
Rocks from space? Pathogens? Little green men?
We can only wait and see what the Scientistic Scifi mill will come up with.
It would be one thing if Egnor argued against policies directed to ameliorate the effects of global warming. I would understand that and respectfully agree to disagree.
But he doesn't do that. Instead, he declares the science that informs these policies to be "bullshit."
I don't care why he does that. Maybe he's that stupid or maybe he is a liar just like that Goddard guy. Either way, it doesn't look good.
I lean toward the idea that Egnor is deliberately lying.Delete
If Egnor seriously subscribed to the "theory" that it's all natural variation, why would he go after the temperature record, over and over again? He would simply accept that the Earth is warming naturally. Instead, he attempts to combat the very notion that the atmosphere is warming.
[But he doesn't do that. Instead, he declares the science that informs these policies to be "bullshit."]
I should have been more specific about my views on climate science, as compared to other endeavors. Homeopathy is bullshit. Climate science is fraud.
There are of course some honest competent climate scientists (Curry and the skeptics fall into that group), but the field is a cesspool of organized crime. Climategate opened it up to the world. These "scientists" lie like rugs, scheme, conspire, all to advance a profoundly dishonest agenda.
Climate science is a crime syndicate, with capos, hit men, dupes, whores (media). It's way beyond bullshit.
Hey, Egnor, why did you cast aspersions on the BEST study? It's all natural variations, isn't it?Delete
Judith Curry was a coauthor of that study, by the way. Oh delicious irony!
[If Egnor seriously subscribed to the "theory" that it's all natural variation, why would he go after the temperature record, over and over again? He would simply accept that the Earth is warming naturally. Instead, he attempts to combat the very notion that the atmosphere is warming.]
I trust nothing climate scientists say, just like I trust nothing eugenic scientists say and nothing overpopulation scientists say and nothing pesticide-hysteria scientists say.
The fact is that we don' t even know if the world is warming or cooling. "Average global temperature" is an artificial construct full of data manipulation, cherry-picking, and outright fraud. Comparisons of temperatures over decades are a joke: the temperature measuring stations have changed radically in location, altitude, proximity to cities, etc, and the data is "adjusted" by warmists. Who the f**k knows what the real "average" temperature is? All I can say with any confidence is that it isn't what the climategaters say it is.
[Hey, Egnor, why did you cast aspersions on the BEST study? It's all natural variations, isn't it? Judith Curry was a coauthor of that study, by the way. Oh delicious irony!]
Muller is a transparent self-promoting fraud. He claimed to be a "skeptic" and then, voila!, he is converted by his own Best Climate Study! How convenient. Press releases and media fame all around!
Ya know Hoo, I am a real skeptic about Intelligent Design. I think I'll get funding for a Best Intelligent Design Study. I'll made some stuff up, and then I'll announce "Hey-- ID really is true, now that I looked at my own study! I'm writing the press releases now.
Egnor: "We have a two century warming trend because we are emerging from a Little Ice Age."Delete
Egnor: "The fact is that we don' t even know if the world is warming or cooling."
Will the real Michael Egnor please stand up?
You're typically clueless. The BEST study took all the data sets of climate and reanalysed them, including and excluding suspect sites affected by the urban heat island effect, and came up with global temperature graphs similar to the ones already published.
Global warming is happening.
You don't have enough nous to do an ID study, particularly after you claimed that ENCODE showed that almost all of the human genome is functional (a lie similar to the one Stephen Meyer makes in 'Darwin's Doubt' in which he claimed that ENCODE showed that 'at least' 80% of the human genome is functional).
Whereas ENCODE showed that between 20 and 80% of the human genome is functional (using a very liberal definition of 'functional'). And it's probably closer to 20%.
Egnor is not clueless. He is a pathological liar. He contradicted himself on a fundamental level within a span of just three hours.Delete
To top it off, Goddard's assertion (who the fuck is this guy?) that there has been no warming in 22 years is false. Fitting the RSS data from 1991 to 2013 give a warming trend of +0.130 °C/decade with a standard deviation of 0.073 °C/decade. The data are consistent with warming more than cooling.ReplyDelete
Use the trends calculator to see for yourselves.
Apparently Steven Goddard has a Bachelor of Science in geology and a Masters in Electrical Engineering. About as qualified as Egnor to cherry pick the data.
There has been no warming for at least 17 years. Even warmists admit it, when pressed.Delete
This stasis was not predicted by your models.
Yet you demanded that trillions of dollars be spent and world governance be altered based on your models.
Your science is utterly discredited. Your tactics are those of frauds and thugs anyway. Another science apocalypse (eugenics, population bomb, DDT) bites the dust.
When will we ever learn not to listen to you guys.
We've heard that before. There was a pause from the 1940s to the 1960s. The warming trend resumed afterward.Delete
Look at the entire 20th-century graph. There is noise and there is a trend. Where is the trend going? Up? Down? Flat?
Warmists made predictions, quite specific, based on their models. They are not arguing that this is "natural variation". They are arguing that the heat went into the deep ocean.Delete
But they knew about oceans when they made the models and the predictions.
Science is about the fit of data to theory. If it doesn't fit, goodbye theory.
Why should we accept post-hoc theories from the same people who botched the predictions so egregiously to begin with?
Let's move on, to better scientists and better theories.
How about this theory: weather and climate change a lot, and CO2 is not a major factor.
Fits the data a lot better than your models.
Egnor: "Science is about the fit of data to theory. If it doesn't fit, goodbye theory."Delete
That's a simplistic view. Newtonian mechanics does not fit the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Does it mean "goodbye Newtonian mechanics?" Hardly. Despite the advent of general relativity, Newtonian mechanics remains with us.
Egnor: "Why should we accept post-hoc theories from the same people who botched the predictions so egregiously to begin with?"
Natural variability is not fully understood. Its presence, however, does not rule out the warming trend. It can do so on a decadal time scale. The warming trend, however, is unmistakable when you look at a century-long period. One doesn't need a theory to discern that trend. It's fucking data.
[That's a simplistic view. Newtonian mechanics does not fit the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Does it mean "goodbye Newtonian mechanics?" Hardly. Despite the advent of general relativity, Newtonian mechanics remains with us.]
So the lack of global warming as predicted by your models is like if gravity stopped happening for 17 years.
No need to doubt the theory! Natural gravity variation!
Magnetism stopped working for 17 years. Natural magnetic variation!
The sun moved out of the center of the solar system for 17 years. Natural heliocentric variation!
Fact it, ace. Your theory is in the garbage. Your hysterical predictions didn't materialize, just like your predictions that mankind would degenerate if we didn't eugenically sterilize people or billions would starve and England would disappear by 2000 if we didn't put sterilants in the water to stop overpopulation or just like birds would all die and we'd all get cancer from DDT.
Your junk science has a history. It's time we stopped taking you science apocalyptics seriously.
It's about time that we stop taking your 'junk medical science' seriously. Physicians were attempting to cure patients by rebalancing the bodily humours (blood, green bile, yellow bile and phlegm) for centuries. Killing many more patients than simple neglect.
Obviously medical science is bunkum, and it's time to toss it out...
But actually science advances. Theories are more often modified than abandoned. Climate science is a relatively new science dating from the early 19th century with the realisation that the moraines across Europe and North America were due to previous glaciations.
And ever since then, climatology has been concerned with the reasons for periods of climate change. Why the Earth goes into ice ages. How the Earth comes out of them.
AGW is just a natural extension of climate science. We are basically just doing what happened at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago, but in a shorter period, centuries instead of 25,000 years.
And the PETM was associated with a mass extinction...
[Natural variability is not fully understood. Its presence, however, does not rule out the warming trend. It can do so on a decadal time scale. The warming trend, however, is unmistakable when you look at a century-long period. One doesn't need a theory to discern that trend. It's fucking data.]
We have a two century warming trend because we are emerging from a Little Ice Age. In fact, "emerging from a Little Ice Age" is merely one kind of warming trend.
The first three quarters of the emergence from the Little Ice Age is obviously caused by natural climate variation, because man-made CO2 only reached levels that could even theoretically influence climate in the last half of the 20th century.
If the two-century warming that characterizes our emergence from the LIA is caused entirely by natural variation for the first 150 years, why not the last 50 years?
I'm saying that your science is bullshit. You and your climate-apocalypse ilk are like the crazy preachers who forecast the end of the world on September 29th, and on September 30 proclaim that they made a little miscalculation and the world will now end on March 5th.
I'm quite serious about the comparison. You guys and the crazy preachers are both dissembling frauds, only you climate loons do it with our money and you try to manipulate global economics and governance.
Global warming is a religion. It has an unusually large number of crazy apocalyptic preachers.
OK, what was the cause of the Little Ice Age? And what caused the Earth to come out of it?
I find your lack of curiosity as to climate science puzzling.
Or perhaps not. You're quite prepared to accept the most obvious bullshit just because Aristotle and Aquinas said it in the long distant past when science was incapable of explaining the Universe. Wasn't aware of it in fact.
It's fun to quiz Egnor about the theory he adheres to. Come on, Egnor, tell us!Delete
What will be the temperature when we finally come out of the Little Ice Age? By what date will that happen?
Don't try to make a parallel with the lack of prediction for the current warming pause. We're talking about degrees, not tens of a degree.
If Global warming is a religion it’s on much firmer ground than Christianity, with prophesies coming true before our very eyes, and prophets that defiantly exist, and who you can even have a conversation with. The closest thing Christianity has for prophets these days are hicks proclaiming God for saved them from the tornado or allowed them to score the winning touchdown.Delete
[OK, what was the cause of the Little Ice Age? And what caused the Earth to come out of it? I find your lack of curiosity as to climate science puzzling.]
Answer as to what caused the LIA and the emergence from it:
not man-made CO2.
That's the point, bach. Climate has varied naturally forever. It still does.
Shorter Egnor: we don't know nuthin'.Delete
[It's fun to quiz Egnor about the theory he adheres to. Come on, Egnor, tell us! What will be the temperature when we finally come out of the Little Ice Age? By what date will that happen?]
You'll have to pay me a hundred billion dollars dollars in research grants, let me set up markets so I can become a billionaire, and let me control world energy and government, and then I'll make up a theory.
It's worked before.
[If Global warming is a religion it’s on much firmer ground than Christianity, with prophesies coming true before our very eyes, and prophets that defiantly exist, and who you can even have a conversation with. The closest thing Christianity has for prophets these days are hicks proclaiming God for saved them from the tornado or allowed them to score the winning touchdown.]
The parallels between global warming apocalyptics and their dime-store Christian doppelgangers is remarkably close.
The difference is that the Christian apocalyptics don't make you pay for their research, and they admit when their batshit predictions don't materialize.
Your research proposal sucks, so you ain't gettin' any grant money.Delete
>>Natural variability is not fully understood. Its presence, however, does not rule out the warming trend. <<Delete
So the science is not settled. More research is needed.
"Science not settled" does not equate with "science knows nothing." We know enough about the temperature record and the underlying mechanisms to worry about future warming.
I worry about future warmists. You guys are dangerous thugs hiding behind lab coats, and you'll just keep inventing fake science end-of-world scenarios until something gains traction.Delete
Aren't those oceans getting a little acidy?
Egnor: "I worry about future warmists."Delete
Of course you are. All your life you've had the us-vs-them mentality, pitiful little man. Conversions to conservatism and to Christianity were only team changes.
We actually don't know whether the Little Ice Age didn't have something to do with human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The retired climatologist, William Ruddiman, has written a book 'Plows, Plagues and Petroleum' which argues for the idea that humans have been affecting climate not just for the past 150 years, since the industrial revolution, but for the past 10,000 years, since the development of agriculture.
In 1347, the Black Death reached Europe and killed off 30-50% of the population over a period of decades. And then returned every few decades, taking off 10% of the population each time.
A lot of cleared farm land was abandoned owing to lack of labour, which went back to forest, sucking up a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere, causing cooling due to reduced greenhouse gases.
And then Christopher Columbus reached the New World in 1492, allowing the introduction of Old World diseases such as smallpox, malaria, measles and whooping cough into the Americas, having a devastating effect on the native population, which caused the abandonment of agriculture (such as it was).
There was also the Dalton and Maunder minima of solar output, and possibly several largish volcanic eruptions, although it's difficult to ascribe prolonged cooling to a single eruption. The eruption of Tambora in 1815, the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history, caused 1 K global cooling and the year without a summer, in which it snowed in New England in June. But didn't cause prolonged cooling.
Anyway. AGW has never received research grants of 100 billion dollars. That's a lie. Climate science might get funding of 2 billion dollars a year, but that's because climate science is fascinating. Even if AGW wasn't true, climate science would still get funded, because it fulfills a need - human curiosity. Much the same as the way the Large Hadron Collider was funded. The confirmation of a candidate particle for the Higgs boson is extremely unlikely to be of any practical use, but it is interesting in that it makes our understanding of particle physics just a tiny bit less unclear.
The fossil fuel companies have an even greater desire to confuse the population regarding global warming. Energy accounts for around 10% of the global economy or about 6 trillion dollars a year. Against which, 2 billion dollars is peanuts.
Irrelevant: previous "pauses" existReplyDelete
Irrelevant: +0.130 °C/decade within +/- 2 sigma re: 0.0
Relevant: simulations wrong
The oceans have a moderating effect on the Earth’s climate, helping prevent extremes of air temperature. This is because water takes much longer than air to heat up and cool down.
--- WiseGEEK for StupidTWERPS
The oceans have an even more fundamental role in climate besides moderating temperature changes. Precipitation from the oceans causes weathering of exposed rocks. When atmospheric CO2 levels are high, the rain is more acidic, weathering is greater and there's more CaCO4 in the runoff to be deposited in the oceans and eventually turned into limestone rocks which are then subducted beneath the crust.
When atmospheric CO2 levels are low, weathering is less, there's less runoff of CaCO4, less limestone sedimentary rock formed and less removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is replenished from volcanic eruptions.
There's a slow feedback cycle tending to increase atmospheric CO2 when it's low and vice versa when it's high. Unlike on Venus, on which most of the carbon is in the atmosphere.
Humans are upsetting the balance by burning huge amounts of fossil fuels in a very short time. A balance will be eventually be reached as the higher global temperatures cause increased precipitation and the higher atmospheric CO2 levels will cause more weathering resulting in more carbon being locked away in rocks.
The Earth will just do fine. In a thousand years everything will be just perfect.
The only problem is that we don't know how we'll get to that balance with the least suffering. We've gone from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion now, due to having abundant cheap energy. All our fertilisers, pesticides and pharmaceuticals are derived from fossil fuels.
We currently use 90 million barrels of oil a day. We need to double that by 2050 on a 'business as usual' plan to allow for the increase in population to 9 billion and the development of countries which currently are desperately poor.
Where is the oil to come from? You've previously pointed at the Green River 'reserves' of 3 billion barrels of 'tight' oil. Recovering it will require extremely aggressive fracking, with first heating the rocks, and then leaving it for a few years before pumping it to the surface.
Expensive, difficult and slow. How much would it yield? I suspect not enough to provide a significant percentage of our current needs, let alone future requirements.
admiral: "Irrelevant: previous "pauses" existDelete
Irrelevant: +0.130 °C/decade within +/- 2 sigma re: 0.0 [sic]"
The admiral's attention span is pretty short. This thread is entitled "Actually, it's twenty two years." That is a reference to Goddard's false claim that there has been no warming in the last 22 years.
So, of course the temperature anomaly trend in the last 22 years is relevant to this thread. The lack of warming is a lie spread by Goddard and his ilk.
Meanwhile, the first commercial cargo ship sailed the Northwest Passage on the way from Vancouver to Finland.ReplyDelete