You're again putting up a strawman that I don't propose. Your original quote was "Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun."
Yes. That is the definition of summer. No matter how hot the winter, it will never become summer. To dispute this is ludicrous.
Seasons are specific magnitudes of change in climate, at certain latitudes, due to the combination (of factors)
You need to get a new dictionary. That is not even close.
This is the line of reasoning that led you to invoke the following hilarity: "it could very well be the motion of energy from the core of the earth towards the surface, and therefore the oceans, and therefore the air."
Why is that somehow hilarious? 075 watts/m^2 isn't a huge amount, but it is a real factor, and it could have dramatic variation from time to time. At the very least it is plausible,
No, it's laughable And it perfectly illustrates why your understanding of Occam's razor is fatally flawed. Go ahead, Explain how 2 w/m^2 from CO2 is vanishingly insignificant but 0.075 is a likely driver of climate. Explain how this fluctuates over time to create warming and cooling trends. See how many scientific laws you have to break to make this feasible.
Because you have no idea that anthropogenic CO2 causes the warming in the range that we observe
Oh, I see. 2 w/m^2 is not sufficient but 0.075 possibly is. Interesting.
The question is, why assume that the global climate system has a ridiculously large sensitivity to CO2
Good question. One that I would have thought you would have asked before concluding that it doesn't. Strange. We know that the sensitivity (to all forcings) is large (but not ridiculously so- that's all you) because we can observe small forcings causing large changes throughout history. That's right. We measure it.
CO2 does not magically change its behavior in the 20th century.
It's not magic or unicorns silly, it's us. The change is that now we are releasing hundreds of thousands of tons of fossilized CO2. Before we were not. Previously CO2 was a feedback, and now it is both a driver and a feedback. I'm shocked that you concluded that CO2 could not be a primary driver of the current warming without knowing this basic fact. Your certitude is matched only by your ignorance. What a strange contradiction you are.
So let me understand clearly - you're willing to concede that an upwards march of temperature over a period of anywhere from 30-100 years, does not necessarily mean that its origin must be anthropogenic CO2
What a muddled understanding of climate science you have. Of course rising temperatures do not implicate the cause. Now, with this explained, are you willing to admit that any idiot who looks at the temperature reconstructions side by side could correctly conclude: 1) Temperatures are generally going up. 2) The reconstructions corroborate each other. 3) Since some of the reconstructions were made by skeptics hoping to find no or negative trend I do not need to invoke a conspiracy theory to avoid admitting #1 and #2.
I suggest you reconsider your rather extreme and strange position.
You didn't read the dictionary did you? Seasons are that change in climate which is attributed to tilt relative to orbit. ENSO is that change in climate which is attributed to El Nino. El Nino is not partly or mostly responsible for ENSO, it is solely responsible. Showing that some summers are cold does not change the fact that summers are attributed to tilt. Showing some short periods of cooling while CO2 rises does not show that the general upward trend cannot be attributed to CO2. This should be obvious.
the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions about climate variation is the one that assumes that observed variations are natural.
This is the line of reasoning that led you to invoke the following hilarity: "it could very well be the motion of energy from the core of the earth towards the surface, and therefore the oceans, and therefore the air."
That is a pretty peculiar new assumption! Why not attribute the warming to something that we know causes warming in the range that we are observing instead of attributing it to something that could not possibly do so? You may as well have said "it could very well be unicorns!"
You have created a convoluted mess in your head in order to come to the conclusion that CO2 cannot affect temperature.
On the contrary, I believe it can affect temperature, but I believe that it is a vanishingly small effect overwhelmed by other natural forces. Your strawman here fails to illustrate my position.
Vanishingly small is not the same as zero, but the difference is vanishingly small. The point still stands. You have created a convoluted mess in your head in order to come to the conclusion that CO2 cannot have more than a vanishingly small effect on temperature. You would do better to let the conclusion follow from the facts rather than the other way around.
You seem to believe that simply identifying a warming trend, over any given point in time, automatically means that I must accept that humans are the primary cause
Duplicating a scientific result would mean that you take the same starting conditions, do the same process, gather your own data, and get the same result...
For global warming, it means taking two different planet Earths, adding CO2 to one and not the other, and then measuring the temperatures. Can you show me the referreed journal article that describes that experiment being done even once, much less in a reproducable manner as required by the scientific method?
Don't listen to your detractors. You are absolutely right. This is exactly why we can't be certain that the seasons are caused by a tilt in the Earth's axis relative to its orbit. Sure, there is a correlation, but we all know correlation does not prove causation. And sure, there is a physical basis for the correlation, but you can't prove anything with theory and models. And sure, lab experiments confirm the physics, but as you say, no lab can simulate an entire planet. And sure, there is a scientific consensus, but we all know that the scientists are just interested in grant money.
You are right on the money. Don't let anyone tell you that we can understand anything as complex as seasons.
Atmosphere and oceans are not necessary or even relevant. Without them, there would still be seasons. With them but without a tilt in the axis there would be no seasons. The tilt in the axis is not just the primary driver of the seasons, it is the only driver of the seasons. Here's a clue: Look up season in the dictionary.
You have so committed yourself to the idea that nothing can be understood by science that you are willing to argue against things that are true by definition. You need to take one giant step back and reassess. Occam's razor does not say that the easiest hypothesis is the right one or that 'we don't know' is a valid hypothesis. Instead it recommends the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. That is why invoking unknown forces to explain unobserved data is no good. It makes two new assumptions that are not required: 1) There are unknown forces 2) there is unobserved data that would be explained by those unobserved forces and that would require the unobserved forces to explain them.
You have created a convoluted mess in your head in order to come to the conclusion that CO2 cannot affect temperature. You would do better to let the conclusion follow from the facts. You are so committed to the conclusion that you cannot even accept that temperatures have risen over the last 30 years. Instead you believe that all six temperature reconstructions were cooked by zealots. Regardless of the fact that two (UAH and BEST) were done by skeptics who hoped to find a negative trend. Regardless of the fact that some were done using satellites and some were done with surface stations. Regardless of the fact that no matter who checks or which method they use they always find a warming trend. It is all a giant conspiracy. Nothing can be known.
I would suggest that you and reality have had a bit of a falling out. Don't divorce her completely. That way lies madness.
We have talked long enough to know the others position. My assertion is that there is no need to invoke unknown forces to explain unobserved phenomenon. You claim that Occam's razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right, and of course the easiest answer is "We don't know". Thank God scientists don't share your understanding of Occam's razor or we would know nothing at all.:For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons. I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
HSThompson69: I believe the tilt plays a part, but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor
I will leave your last post as a testament to your understanding of climate science and science in general.
HSThompson69: perhaps a good way of putting it is that an axial tilt is *necessary* for our four seasons outside of the equatorial zone, but not *sufficient*.
Is that an accurate summary?
HSThompson69: Sure, if you agree that an axial tilt is *necessary* for our four seasons outside of the equatorial zone, but not *sufficient*, then I think we're on the same page.
Oh god no. We don't agree on that. I don't think anyone would agree with that. I just wanted to make sure that you agreed with the summary.
We have talked long enough to know the others position. My assertion is that there is no need to invoke unknown forces to explain unobserved phenomenon. You claim that Occam's razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right, and of course the easiest answer is "We don't know". Thank God scientists don't share your understanding of Occam's razor or we would know nothing at all.:For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons. I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
I believe the tilt plays a part, but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor
I will leave your last post as a testament to your understanding of climate science and science in general.
perhaps a good way of putting it is that an axial tilt is *necessary* for our four seasons outside of the equatorial zone, but not *sufficient*.
The whole cherry picker's guide I referenced illustrated quite clearly that your trend can be nearly anything if you're careful with your end points.
Yes, the guide showed that if you pick a sufficiently short period (7 years) and choose a cool year for your end point (2004) then you can show a cooling trend. Bravo to the guide for demonstrating how to pick cherries, and bravo to your for eating them!
The tilt in the Earth's axis is not sufficient to cause the seasons? Ocean currents are also necessary? Wow, I wish I could toss you another shovel but you are so far down I can barely see you at this point. I guess it's a good thing we have the oceans otherwise we wouldn't have seasons.
I believe the tilt (of the Earth's axis) plays a part (in the seasons), but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor
Well, I will leave your last post as a testament to your understanding of climate science and science in general. This post will haunt you. You would do well to start back pedaling. In case you are willing to dig deeper, do you think that El Nino is solely, primarily, or not necessarily the dominant factor in ENSO? Hint: ENSO stands for El Nino Southern Oscillation. This is a gimmie, but you have never failed to surprise in the past, so...
That's a pretty bold assumption (that natural variability cycles zero out in 30 years). I'd point to recurring ice ages on the order of magnitude of tens of thousands of years as a trivial refutation of that idea.
Natural variability in this context refers to things like the 11 year solar cycle (actually 22 year), the El Nino/La Nina Cycles, and things like the PDO and AMO. The glaciation/deglaciation cycles of the ice age are natural variability due mostly to Milankovitch cycles which operate on scales of thousands of years and can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion.
Keep in mind that hsthompson69 does not believe that anything can be known about climate. He is not even willing to accept that seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth's axis relative to it's orbit - There are just too many variables according to him!
Here is the quote: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2174026&cid=36276682
This shows trend for all reconstructions since the satellite record began. Guess which direction they are all heading? Even Spencer's UAH is headed that way. Still don't believe that temperatures are rising? Then your monitor is upside down. I give up. As you have stated many times, you are unable to know anything for sure. I find myself finally agreeing with you.
You claim that Occam's razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right, and of course the easiest answer is "We don't know". Thank God scientists don't share your understanding of Occam's razor or we would know nothing at all.
:For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons.
I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
So by that token, would you explain the Year Without a Summer in 1816 as a change in the tilt of the earth's axis?
By your hypothesis, you would've predicted that 1816 would have had a normal summer. As it turned out, an unknown factor entered the equation, and modified the results. Attributing the unknown factor instead to your original hypothesis would have required a special pleading for a anomalous change in the tilt of the earth's axis.
Wow... I didn't see that coming. You really don't believe that the seasons are attributed to the tilt? This is firmly grounded in physics! We could even recreate this in a lab. Oh, right - the lab is not the same as the real world. What about the correlation? Of course as you say, correlation != causation.
The theory has great predictive value! Oh, right. 1816 wasn't predicted by this. There could be another - or even many other - forces that are needed to explain seasons. Even if all data is explained by known forcings there could be unknown data that is explained by unknown forcings, as you have claimed earlier
.
But wait! None of the scientific societies in the world dispute the theory. Surely that should be worth something... of course you have already pointed out that there is corruption and inertia that is preventing them from seeing the truth. Well, I don't know what I can do to convince you. On the flip side, there is very little that could shake my belief. There is too much evidence in my opinion. I suppose you are right that this make me a bit of a zealot and my belief more of a religion than science. I really do believe that I'm right on this one but other than physics, predictive value, correlation, and consensus I don't really have any good arguments for it.
You skepticism knows no bounds. I concede. You are very clever indeed.
Ok, we have talked long enough to know the others position. My assertion is that there is no need to invoke unknown forces to explain unobserved phenomenon. You claim that Occam's razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right, and of course the easiest answer is "We don't know". Thank God scientists don't share your understanding of Occam's razor or we would know nothing at all.
For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons. I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
This is science? It could be unicorns?
With respect to whether or not the temperature has been rising, you are alone in thinking that it has not. Every temperature reconstruction shows the same trend. Even the ones created by people who really hoped to find no trend. By failing to acknowledge this you are remaining willfully ignorant.
By the way, 1) The reason we over sample is so that errors in trends will cancel each other out. Watts has found that this strategy is working. 2) You are the only one who ever suggested that there should be a statistically significant trend over any timescale no matter how small. This idea is ludicrous. 3) I'll concede to your point on Schneider. 4) Spencer is referring to climate sensitivity, not to the known forcing of CO2. That is, given that the world will warm by about 1C for a doubling of CO2, how much more should we expect from feedbacks? Spencer does not dispute the known forcing of CO2.
There is no trend in tornadoes according to the various skeptic blogs I read. No one is asserting anything blindly. I have shown you a graph that shows the number of natural disasters accelerating, while the number of earthquakes is not. You stated that there are certain natural disasters that are not accelerating, but you have failed to identify the ones that are. As it turns out, the ones that are are exactly the ones we would expect.
True. There is not a strong link between global warming and tornadoes. You still need to address the disparity in the trend for natural disasters vs earthquakes.
I think you may have been confused by the blog post that you sited. You do not need to go through those convolutions to determine whether there has been polar amplification. We can just take direct measurements.
Not necessarily. We can get better at detecting floods, and also have less of them due to natural variation.
Then you have failed to account for why natural disasters are rising faster than earthquakes. You have said a lot, but failed to show anything.
I would assert that the uncertainty in a very large range, and a significant portion of that uncertainty is probably because we don't understand all of the forcings at work in our system.
Why do you keep invoking mysterious forces that are not necessary to explain any known phenomenon?
it could very well be the motion of energy from the core of the earth towards the surface, and therefore the oceans, and therefore the air.
It could just as easily be unicorns. There is no reason to believe that it is either, but I see that you are a very skeptical person who is not willing to dismiss any idea no matter how bizarre.
Known forcings being insufficient does not lead us to the conclusion that all of the rest of the warming must be driven by CO2.
Of course not! What a bizarre idea!
That's arguing that anything we don't know (which is legion), must be explained by a magical gas.
Magical gas? Really? CO2 is a magical gas?
When we derive the effect of CO2 by observation, and elimination of all other known effects, we are inconsiderately ignoring unknown effects.
I think I understand the source of your confusion. You think that we know the effects of CO2 by measuring CO2 and measuring temperature and attributing any correlation to CO2. You are wrong. We know the effects of CO2 because of physics, and because we can measure incoming radiation and outgoing radiation at the bandwidth absorbed by CO2, and because we can measure that differential over time. It is also nice that there is a correlation, but correlation does not provide proof of causation.
It is quite possible that we *need* (unknown forcings) in order to *properly* explain observations, and that currently, we are *improperly* explaining observations.
Ever heard of Occam's razor? You keep trying to invoke unknown forces that are not necessary to explain any known phenomenon.
if I was to infer from your argument thus far, you believe it is a major driver of climate.
No. There is a yearly cycle that dwarfs every other cycle (called "seasons";-) ). There are other cycles that dwarf CO2 such as ENSO but are dwarfed by these "seasons". But none of these cycles will drive a trend. The trend is driven by CO2.
Here's one example of a turnaround:
I feel like this Watts guy may be misleading you. Here is the APS policy on global warming: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm Nothing in this statement is inconsistent with the consensus view.
I believe the assertion was within a century
Nope. Schneider never said any such thing - and it is clear from his publications that he never believed any such thing.
there has been no statistically significant trend of warming since 1998.
No statistically significant warming trend does not mean that there has been no warming trend. There has. If this seems confusing or contradictory, then you will want to research what statistically significant means. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
You also provided a link detailing what may be inconsistencies in the US record. When I pr
The problem I have is that the "fingerprint" analogy isn't scientific. We often hear the phrase "is consistent with" when it comes to AGW, but that's a cop out.
No, that is science. A consequence of warming due to CO2 is polar amplification. This was stated well before any warming due to CO2 was observed. Once we started to see the warming we check for the fingerprints. If we saw amplification near the equator we would have concluded that increased solar radiation is suspect. This is not what was found. You have to follow the facts. Working the other way around will not lead you to the truth.
Sounds like our detection rate of floods and cyclones has improved faster than our detection rate of earthquakes. See: (a link to WUWT)
Your statement that flood detection is increasing and your link that states we are detecting less floods is contradictory.
The question is, by how much, and how does that compare to other drivers (such as the ocean).
The answer is not unknown! There is uncertainty regarding sensitivity to those forcings, but even that is within a limited range.
We have a concrete example here of water warming air. Why can't that also be true on a global scale?
When both water and air are warming, you need to look for a reason that is neither the water or the air. This is not a case of energy moving around, but of energy being added.
you can posit tidal forces, undersea volcanoes, and even incoming solar energy not blocked by clouds or other atmospheric molecules.
Except that none of these are sufficient.
However, the existence of unknown forcings (which is nearly guaranteed), means that any explanation for current observations without that knowledge is flawed.
Perhaps there are unknown forcings, but not certainly, and certainly not at a level where they make any kind of measurable contribution. Otherwise we would need them to explain observations.
My assertion is that temperature is not always increasing even though atmospheric CO2 is. When *not* every year and *not* every decade is warmer over the 20th century, even though CO2 *is* constantly increasing, it represents a falsification of the idea that CO2 drives temperature increases.
Surely you are aware that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. You have demonstrated that knowledge. Why are you playing dumb with this last sentence?
You're going in the wrong direction -> I'm looking for a CAGW believer, who upon examination of observational data, recognized that they were wrong
If the data showed something different, then every scientific society would change their tune. As it stands, the data shows warming due to GHG, and every scientific society concludes GHG. What data do you have they they are not privy to?
What you have here is an apocalyptic vision of global cooling replaced by an apocalyptic vision of global warming.
It is hardly apocalyptic to conclude that someday within the next few thousand years we will likely leave the current interglacial. You have predicted the same. I would not accuse you of being alarmist.
How does that graph assert 2010 was the warmest year ever? 1998 looks at least.1 greater.
Four points: 1) Satellite data exaggerates El Nino/La Nina. 1998 was a super El Nino. Even given that.. 2) Spencer has stated that 2010 is tied with 1998 and... 3) the trends are similar between Spencer's reconstruction and the others. Given all this... 4) Spencer believes that the other reconstructions are robust. Do you, or do you still cling to the conspiracy theories of manipulated data?
I believe the prevailing AGW hypothesis proposes greater warming at the poles than the equator, leading to decreased spatial differentials.
You seem keenly aware of the fingerprints of warming due to GHG. You also seem keenly aware that these fingerprints have been observed in the real world. How do you reconcile this with your idea that the temp rise is not caused by GHG? Wrt decreased spacial differentials, there is not a smooth gradient between the poles and the equator. Increased polar temperatures does not mean decreased spacial differentials in Ohio.
The fact is that severe weather events have not shown any increase or decrease trend over the past few hundred years, although with more development along costal areas we have had more humans affected by them.
Check out the graph in this report: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/article_climate_change_hazards.pdf ""Much of the increase in the number of hazardous events is probably due to significant improvements in information access and also to population growth, but the number of floods and cyclones being reported is still rising compared to earthquakes."
An increase in temperature of the atmosphere can be *caused* by increased temperatures of oceans.
You are neglecting the fact that we know from physics that adding CO2 does increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
We certainly observe this with warm currents moderating the climate around the UK...or are you suggesting that the warm air around London is what actually causes the current to be warm?
Seriously??? You think that because temperature can move around from one part of the world to another via currents - somehow this means that even though both the ocean and the atmosphere are heating up the cause of the warming is due to the ocean heating up? This makes no sense.
This isn't a matter a free heat, this is a matter of specific distribution.
Redistributing the heat will throughout the system cannot heat up the system. This really doesn't make any sense.
There are certainly cycles that are between those, even if we haven't identified them all.
Why do you need to invoke unknown forcings? they are not required to explain observations.
Specifically, 2010 was tied with 2005, which shows no statistically significant increase in temperature over the past 15 years.
This doesn't follow.
There is no doubt that throughout the 20th century, there was an increase in temperatures, which will make "the hottest decade ever" a fairly meaningless statistic.
So, in your opinion is the temperature increasing or not? When every decade is warmer than the last, it seems like it must be increasing.
The challenge to CAGW is this -> while temperatures have refused to budge, CO2 has continued to rise.
You are still all over the map with this. Is it rising or isn't it?
Can you give me an example of a single global warming believer who changed their theory when the data didn't match?
Yes. Stephen Schneider once believed that CO2 would not dwarf other forcings and that we were headed (in the very long term) for global cooling. Our understanding of the climate is constantly being refined, but those refinements are becoming smaller and smaller as we get a better understanding.
Three vehement skeptics who took the time to look at the data - and when the data didn't match their theory - they changed their theory.
Well, Hansen's global temps versus the US sited temps aside, isn't that what scientists are *supposed* to do?
Spencer and Mueller's reconstructions are global as well. They confirm NASA's findings. Yes, when faced with contradictory evidence a scientists should change is position. Will you?
while water vapor is necessary for thunderstorms, extreme weather events, including those without precipitation, such as tornadoes, are driven by pressure and temperature differentials.
Two points to consider: 1) We haven't eliminated the diurnal temperature differential but we have increased water vapour which does feed storms. 2) It is possible to eliminate the diurnal temperature differential and still have spacial differentials - and we have increased water vapour which does feed storms.
You are taking a curious position. When faced with facts that are in conflict with your theory, you chose to change the facts rather than your theory. The facts are that diurnal temperature differential is decreasing, but severe weather events are increasing. You seem to think that this system is too complex to understand, but you know for sure that these facts must be wrong because they don't align with your understanding. I'm not trying to be confrontational here but you may want to step back and think this one through. It doesn't seem like your method of inquiry will direct you towards the truth.
why would we assume that the atmosphere is driving ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around?
1) Because we are increasing the temperature of the atmosphere
2) Because equilibrium is required in the system
3) What do you propose is increasing the temperature of the ocean surface? The energy needs to come from somewhere. This is a very significant amount of energy - the equivalent of the energy released by about 56,000 nukes every hour. You are not proposing free energy are you?
As examples, see PDO, ENSO, ADO, etc.
This is an exchange of heat between atmosphere and ocean or northern and southern hemisphere. How do you propose that an exchange of heat between different parts of the system will add heat to the system?
Why would we assume that a trend of 30 years or more eliminates any trends caused by natural variables?
Well, it will eliminate ENSO and solar cycle, it will not eliminate Milankovitch cycles
The logarithmic rate will always limit any linear progression
No, you could have an accelerated input which dwarfs the logarithmic rate. You need to count all GHG, and you need to count feedbacks (including the release of methane (a GHG) from the arctic).
I believe your point is "the temperature is increasing *and* it's because of human produced CO2".
No, go back through the history. You stated that the temperature is not increasing. I stated that it must be because we just had the hottest year in the hottest decade. You stated that this only shows that the temperature is increasing. I stated that yes, that's what I said.
And on the scale that matters to me and my neighbors, we have been seeing dropping temperatures.
So which is it? Do you agree that the temperature has been rising (as you stated in the previous quote, or that temperature is not rising, as you stated in this quote?
They can adjust their global average temperature to whatever they want
Except it's not water vapor that causes extreme weather events, it's large temperature differentials (those "LOW" and "HIGH" pressure areas during the weather report).
Not entirely true. Water vapour feeds storms. Try a quick google search of that last sentence for more info.
if the ocean transferred a mere *fraction* of its energy into the atmosphere, we could raise the temperature of the atmosphere significantly above anything imaginable.
You have nailed it. We have significantly raised the ocean surface temperature. This extra energy is fueling storms. Do a quick google search on "Sea surface temperature storms"
The trend clearly hasn't accelerated over the past 15 years of increased CO2, and any trend you could possibly discern from CO2 is overwhelmed by all the other natural variables
You are absolutely right. The other natural variables create wibbles and wobbles that dwarf any trend of less than 30 years. In order to see the trend you would need to filter out the wibbles and wobbles by applying a 10 year mean. The good news is that this is easy to do. Check out woodfortrees.org. I have applied a 10 year mean to the temperature data. You can add solar output to the chart to see how the two compare. Woodfortrees is a great resource. You can add other reconstructions to see how they compare. You can even add the solar index and CO2 to see how they match up.
(not to mention, CO2 has an upper limit of effect, and has a log function of effect, diminishing as it gets higher).
We clearly haven't hit any upper limit, and accelerated output of GHG as well as feedbacks are clearly more than making up for the logarithmic rate.
The problem is that the "hottest year on record" metric is an artifact with no meaning. It's a single point that you'll see over and over again during any period of natural temperature increase.
It means just what you said that it means. That the temperature is increasing. I was making the exact same point.
and you'll note we've been exiting a particularly cold period in history
I would hardly consider an interglacial to be a cold period. As you have noted previously we should be expecting the temperatures to be dropping.
Hansen, et. al., regularly massage the data points to make these ludicrous claims, and if there was any sort of quality control,
Now you are getting into conspiracy theory territory. I won't follow you there. I will only note that skeptics Richard Mueller, Roy Spencer, and Anthony Watts have all performed independent validation of the temperature reconstructions and found them to be robust.
Natural changes in the climate and weather due to known and unknown external and internal factors that change in both chaotic and cyclical ways. For example, every wild temperature change, extreme weather event, record high, record low, that every existed for the past 4.5 billion years.
All of these had a cause. What is the cause of the current warming?
Would you even consider that the answer to "why not" is that your original hypothesis is incorrect, and that in fact, natural variability can cause dramatic changes, in either direction, without fully understood causes because of the massive complexity and interconnectedness of weather and climate phenomena?
Yes, of course I would accept that the original hypothesis is incorrect, and no, I wouldn't accept that the reason for the changes is unknowable. I would find out the reason for the change. The alternative is a defeatist attitude that goes against my natural curiosity.
The problem is that the hypothesis of CO2 driven global warming asserts that temperature differentials will shrink, and the hypothesis of shrinking temperature differentials asserts that weather events will become more mild. You get to have one, or the other, not both. If you *do* have both, something is either wrong with your observation *or* something is wrong with the hypothesis.
Ah, I see what you are saying. You should also consider the impact of greater water vapour in the atmosphere and greater heat content in the ocean.
Over the past 100 years, we've had decades of warming, and decades of cooling, all during rises of CO2.
Not to mention, contrarians don't have to predict falling temperatures, all they need to do is predict *not* rising temperatures (which we've seen for the past 15 years).
There are certainly factors other than CO2 that need to be considered. Volcanoes will cause a dip in temperatures, El Nino a spike, La Nina a dip, increased solar activity a spike, decreased a dip, etc. The trend is being driven by CO2 and that trend is accelerating. It is hard to reconcile the idea that temperatures haven't been rising over the last 15 years and the fact that last year was hottest on record and last decade was hottest on record. Here is a graph of the temperature over the last 100 years with a 10 year running mean: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1911/to:2011/mean:120
So this brings to mind two questions - 1) why isn't it possible that the "hottest decade on record" isn't due to natural variability, and 2) if the record for the hottest year isn't broken within the next three years, will you assume your hypothesis has been falsified, or is this a rhetorical prediction?
1) What is meant by natural variability? Solar output is down. We are not in a period of the Milenkovic cycle that should cause (additional) warming. We know the forcing for CO2 and we know that there are more greenhouse gasses now than last decade. What natural variability are you referring to?
2) If the record isn't broken within the next three years then I would want to understand why not.
What you have here is a situation where it is likely that only *one* of your observations is true. Either the relative difference between daily temperatures is shrinking, and despite sensational news items on individual disasters weather is actually becoming milder overall, OR, the relative difference between daily temperatures is an artifact of bias in our measuring methodology and network, and we're really getting more extreme weather events.
Why? Because it doesn't fit with your preconception otherwise? They are not my observations. This is what is being measured. Both are going up.
We are likely leaving that era of warmth.
There, FTFY - we're likely about to hit another glacial period soon,
Well, we should be (if by soon you mean another few thousand years) except that is not what is happening. Contrarians have been predicting for decades that the temperatures are about to fall. So far they haven't been right. This decade will be the hottest on record (just like the one before that and the one before that and the one before that), the record for hottest year will be broken within the next three years.
"Much of the increase in the number of hazardous events is probably due to significant improvements in information access and also to population growth, but the number of floods and cyclones being reported is still rising compared to earthquakes. How, we must ask, is global warming affecting the frequency of natural hazards?"
I emphatically disagree. You could change the average temperature of earth by having warmer lows, and actually have *less* atmospheric differential overall, resulting in a much more mild set of weathers (and in fact, this is actually observed, with milder weather events during higher average global temps, and extreme weather events precipitated by greater regional differentials).
Good point. A faster trend for minimum temperatures is a fingerprint of warming caused by CO2, and it is what is being observed. I am not certain that we are seeing milder weather events because of this. This last year was the hottest on record and also saw an unprecedented number and severity of extreme weather events. For a more empirical look, see the graph in the following article: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/article_climate_change_hazards.pdf
"Much of the increase in the number of hazardous events reported is probably due to significant improvements in information access and also to population growth, but the number of floods and cyclones being reported is still rising compared to earthquakes."
Temperature has been pretty stable during the interglacial of the last 10,000 years. Civilization arose during this period of relative stability. We are likely leaving that era of stability.
There is certainly more than one parameter to this equation. CO2 is one of them. Whoever told you that scientists were not aware of the other parameters was misleading you. You would do well to disregarded them going forward.
Slashdot Mirror
You're again putting up a strawman that I don't propose. Your original quote was "Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun."
Yes. That is the definition of summer. No matter how hot the winter, it will never become summer. To dispute this is ludicrous.
Seasons are specific magnitudes of change in climate, at certain latitudes, due to the combination (of factors)
You need to get a new dictionary. That is not even close.
This is the line of reasoning that led you to invoke the following hilarity: "it could very well be the motion of energy from the core of the earth towards the surface, and therefore the oceans, and therefore the air."
Why is that somehow hilarious? 075 watts/m^2 isn't a huge amount, but it is a real factor, and it could have dramatic variation from time to time. At the very least it is plausible,
No, it's laughable And it perfectly illustrates why your understanding of Occam's razor is fatally flawed. Go ahead, Explain how 2 w/m^2 from CO2 is vanishingly insignificant but 0.075 is a likely driver of climate. Explain how this fluctuates over time to create warming and cooling trends. See how many scientific laws you have to break to make this feasible.
Because you have no idea that anthropogenic CO2 causes the warming in the range that we observe
Oh, I see. 2 w/m^2 is not sufficient but 0.075 possibly is. Interesting.
The question is, why assume that the global climate system has a ridiculously large sensitivity to CO2
Good question. One that I would have thought you would have asked before concluding that it doesn't. Strange. We know that the sensitivity (to all forcings) is large (but not ridiculously so- that's all you) because we can observe small forcings causing large changes throughout history. That's right. We measure it.
CO2 does not magically change its behavior in the 20th century.
It's not magic or unicorns silly, it's us. The change is that now we are releasing hundreds of thousands of tons of fossilized CO2. Before we were not. Previously CO2 was a feedback, and now it is both a driver and a feedback. I'm shocked that you concluded that CO2 could not be a primary driver of the current warming without knowing this basic fact. Your certitude is matched only by your ignorance. What a strange contradiction you are.
So let me understand clearly - you're willing to concede that an upwards march of temperature over a period of anywhere from 30-100 years, does not necessarily mean that its origin must be anthropogenic CO2
What a muddled understanding of climate science you have. Of course rising temperatures do not implicate the cause. Now, with this explained, are you willing to admit that any idiot who looks at the temperature reconstructions side by side could correctly conclude: 1) Temperatures are generally going up. 2) The reconstructions corroborate each other. 3) Since some of the reconstructions were made by skeptics hoping to find no or negative trend I do not need to invoke a conspiracy theory to avoid admitting #1 and #2.
Well?
I suggest you reconsider your rather extreme and strange position.
You didn't read the dictionary did you? Seasons are that change in climate which is attributed to tilt relative to orbit. ENSO is that change in climate which is attributed to El Nino. El Nino is not partly or mostly responsible for ENSO, it is solely responsible. Showing that some summers are cold does not change the fact that summers are attributed to tilt. Showing some short periods of cooling while CO2 rises does not show that the general upward trend cannot be attributed to CO2. This should be obvious.
the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions about climate variation is the one that assumes that observed variations are natural.
This is the line of reasoning that led you to invoke the following hilarity: "it could very well be the motion of energy from the core of the earth towards the surface, and therefore the oceans, and therefore the air."
That is a pretty peculiar new assumption! Why not attribute the warming to something that we know causes warming in the range that we are observing instead of attributing it to something that could not possibly do so? You may as well have said "it could very well be unicorns!"
You have created a convoluted mess in your head in order to come to the conclusion that CO2 cannot affect temperature.
On the contrary, I believe it can affect temperature, but I believe that it is a vanishingly small effect overwhelmed by other natural forces. Your strawman here fails to illustrate my position.
Vanishingly small is not the same as zero, but the difference is vanishingly small. The point still stands. You have created a convoluted mess in your head in order to come to the conclusion that CO2 cannot have more than a vanishingly small effect on temperature. You would do better to let the conclusion follow from the facts rather than the other way around.
You seem to believe that simply identifying a warming trend, over any given point in time, automatically means that I must accept that humans are the primary cause
No, but I presume that you do. Otherwise you would not be so obstinate. Anyone who looks at the and can't admit the following is deluding themselves: 1) Temperatures are generally going up. 2) The reconstructions corroborate each other. 3) Since some of the reconstructions were made by skeptics hoping to find no or negative trend I do not need to invoke a conspiracy theory to avoid admitting #1 and #2.
You are clearly unable to do this. Why?
Duplicating a scientific result would mean that you take the same starting conditions, do the same process, gather your own data, and get the same result...
For global warming, it means taking two different planet Earths, adding CO2 to one and not the other, and then measuring the temperatures. Can you show me the referreed journal article that describes that experiment being done even once, much less in a reproducable manner as required by the scientific method?
Don't listen to your detractors. You are absolutely right. This is exactly why we can't be certain that the seasons are caused by a tilt in the Earth's axis relative to its orbit. Sure, there is a correlation, but we all know correlation does not prove causation. And sure, there is a physical basis for the correlation, but you can't prove anything with theory and models. And sure, lab experiments confirm the physics, but as you say, no lab can simulate an entire planet. And sure, there is a scientific consensus, but we all know that the scientists are just interested in grant money.
You are right on the money. Don't let anyone tell you that we can understand anything as complex as seasons.
Atmosphere and oceans are not necessary or even relevant. Without them, there would still be seasons. With them but without a tilt in the axis there would be no seasons. The tilt in the axis is not just the primary driver of the seasons, it is the only driver of the seasons. Here's a clue: Look up season in the dictionary.
You have so committed yourself to the idea that nothing can be understood by science that you are willing to argue against things that are true by definition. You need to take one giant step back and reassess. Occam's razor does not say that the easiest hypothesis is the right one or that 'we don't know' is a valid hypothesis. Instead it recommends the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. That is why invoking unknown forces to explain unobserved data is no good. It makes two new assumptions that are not required: 1) There are unknown forces 2) there is unobserved data that would be explained by those unobserved forces and that would require the unobserved forces to explain them.
You have created a convoluted mess in your head in order to come to the conclusion that CO2 cannot affect temperature. You would do better to let the conclusion follow from the facts. You are so committed to the conclusion that you cannot even accept that temperatures have risen over the last 30 years. Instead you believe that all six temperature reconstructions were cooked by zealots. Regardless of the fact that two (UAH and BEST) were done by skeptics who hoped to find a negative trend. Regardless of the fact that some were done using satellites and some were done with surface stations. Regardless of the fact that no matter who checks or which method they use they always find a warming trend. It is all a giant conspiracy. Nothing can be known.
I would suggest that you and reality have had a bit of a falling out. Don't divorce her completely. That way lies madness.
So, to sum up:
We have talked long enough to know the others position. My assertion is that there is no need to invoke unknown forces to explain unobserved phenomenon. You claim that Occam's razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right, and of course the easiest answer is "We don't know". Thank God scientists don't share your understanding of Occam's razor or we would know nothing at all. :For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons. I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
HSThompson69: I believe the tilt plays a part, but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor
I will leave your last post as a testament to your understanding of climate science and science in general.
HSThompson69: perhaps a good way of putting it is that an axial tilt is *necessary* for our four seasons outside of the equatorial zone, but not *sufficient*.
Is that an accurate summary?
HSThompson69: Sure, if you agree that an axial tilt is *necessary* for our four seasons outside of the equatorial zone, but not *sufficient*, then I think we're on the same page.
Oh god no. We don't agree on that. I don't think anyone would agree with that. I just wanted to make sure that you agreed with the summary.
We have talked long enough to know the others position. My assertion is that there is no need to invoke unknown forces to explain unobserved phenomenon. You claim that Occam's razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right, and of course the easiest answer is "We don't know". Thank God scientists don't share your understanding of Occam's razor or we would know nothing at all. :For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons. I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
I believe the tilt plays a part, but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor
I will leave your last post as a testament to your understanding of climate science and science in general.
perhaps a good way of putting it is that an axial tilt is *necessary* for our four seasons outside of the equatorial zone, but not *sufficient*.
The whole cherry picker's guide I referenced illustrated quite clearly that your trend can be nearly anything if you're careful with your end points.
Yes, the guide showed that if you pick a sufficiently short period (7 years) and choose a cool year for your end point (2004) then you can show a cooling trend. Bravo to the guide for demonstrating how to pick cherries, and bravo to your for eating them!
The tilt in the Earth's axis is not sufficient to cause the seasons? Ocean currents are also necessary? Wow, I wish I could toss you another shovel but you are so far down I can barely see you at this point. I guess it's a good thing we have the oceans otherwise we wouldn't have seasons.
I believe the tilt (of the Earth's axis) plays a part (in the seasons), but I don't believe that the tilt is the only factor, nor necessarily the dominant factor
Well, I will leave your last post as a testament to your understanding of climate science and science in general. This post will haunt you. You would do well to start back pedaling. In case you are willing to dig deeper, do you think that El Nino is solely, primarily, or not necessarily the dominant factor in ENSO? Hint: ENSO stands for El Nino Southern Oscillation. This is a gimmie, but you have never failed to surprise in the past, so...
That's a pretty bold assumption (that natural variability cycles zero out in 30 years). I'd point to recurring ice ages on the order of magnitude of tens of thousands of years as a trivial refutation of that idea.
Natural variability in this context refers to things like the 11 year solar cycle (actually 22 year), the El Nino/La Nina Cycles, and things like the PDO and AMO. The glaciation/deglaciation cycles of the ice age are natural variability due mostly to Milankovitch cycles which operate on scales of thousands of years and can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion.
Keep in mind that hsthompson69 does not believe that anything can be known about climate. He is not even willing to accept that seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth's axis relative to it's orbit - There are just too many variables according to him! Here is the quote: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2174026&cid=36276682
This shows trend for all reconstructions since the satellite record began. Guess which direction they are all heading? Even Spencer's UAH is headed that way. Still don't believe that temperatures are rising? Then your monitor is upside down. I give up. As you have stated many times, you are unable to know anything for sure. I find myself finally agreeing with you.
You claim that Occam's razor dictates that the easiest answer is always right, and of course the easiest answer is "We don't know". Thank God scientists don't share your understanding of Occam's razor or we would know nothing at all.
:For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons. I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
So by that token, would you explain the Year Without a Summer in 1816 as a change in the tilt of the earth's axis?
By your hypothesis, you would've predicted that 1816 would have had a normal summer. As it turned out, an unknown factor entered the equation, and modified the results. Attributing the unknown factor instead to your original hypothesis would have required a special pleading for a anomalous change in the tilt of the earth's axis.
Wow... I didn't see that coming. You really don't believe that the seasons are attributed to the tilt? This is firmly grounded in physics! We could even recreate this in a lab. Oh, right - the lab is not the same as the real world. What about the correlation? Of course as you say, correlation != causation.
The theory has great predictive value! Oh, right. 1816 wasn't predicted by this. There could be another - or even many other - forces that are needed to explain seasons. Even if all data is explained by known forcings there could be unknown data that is explained by unknown forcings, as you have claimed earlier
. But wait! None of the scientific societies in the world dispute the theory. Surely that should be worth something... of course you have already pointed out that there is corruption and inertia that is preventing them from seeing the truth. Well, I don't know what I can do to convince you. On the flip side, there is very little that could shake my belief. There is too much evidence in my opinion. I suppose you are right that this make me a bit of a zealot and my belief more of a religion than science. I really do believe that I'm right on this one but other than physics, predictive value, correlation, and consensus I don't really have any good arguments for it.
You skepticism knows no bounds. I concede. You are very clever indeed.
For instance, let's apply our understandings to the seasons. I believe that the seasons are caused because the earth's axis is tilted with respect to it's orbit. Summer happens in the hemisphere tilted towards the Sun.
You would of course argue that we cannot be certain that there is not some other force, and that force may be required to accurately understand the phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the known data is fully explained by the known forcings, it is possible that the data is wrong.
This is science? It could be unicorns?
With respect to whether or not the temperature has been rising, you are alone in thinking that it has not. Every temperature reconstruction shows the same trend. Even the ones created by people who really hoped to find no trend. By failing to acknowledge this you are remaining willfully ignorant.
By the way, 1) The reason we over sample is so that errors in trends will cancel each other out. Watts has found that this strategy is working. 2) You are the only one who ever suggested that there should be a statistically significant trend over any timescale no matter how small. This idea is ludicrous. 3) I'll concede to your point on Schneider. 4) Spencer is referring to climate sensitivity, not to the known forcing of CO2. That is, given that the world will warm by about 1C for a doubling of CO2, how much more should we expect from feedbacks? Spencer does not dispute the known forcing of CO2.
There is no trend in tornadoes according to the various skeptic blogs I read. No one is asserting anything blindly. I have shown you a graph that shows the number of natural disasters accelerating, while the number of earthquakes is not. You stated that there are certain natural disasters that are not accelerating, but you have failed to identify the ones that are. As it turns out, the ones that are are exactly the ones we would expect.
True. There is not a strong link between global warming and tornadoes. You still need to address the disparity in the trend for natural disasters vs earthquakes.
The fingerprint is off:
I think you may have been confused by the blog post that you sited. You do not need to go through those convolutions to determine whether there has been polar amplification. We can just take direct measurements.
Not necessarily. We can get better at detecting floods, and also have less of them due to natural variation.
Then you have failed to account for why natural disasters are rising faster than earthquakes. You have said a lot, but failed to show anything.
I would assert that the uncertainty in a very large range, and a significant portion of that uncertainty is probably because we don't understand all of the forcings at work in our system.
Why do you keep invoking mysterious forces that are not necessary to explain any known phenomenon?
it could very well be the motion of energy from the core of the earth towards the surface, and therefore the oceans, and therefore the air.
It could just as easily be unicorns. There is no reason to believe that it is either, but I see that you are a very skeptical person who is not willing to dismiss any idea no matter how bizarre.
Known forcings being insufficient does not lead us to the conclusion that all of the rest of the warming must be driven by CO2.
Of course not! What a bizarre idea!
That's arguing that anything we don't know (which is legion), must be explained by a magical gas.
Magical gas? Really? CO2 is a magical gas?
When we derive the effect of CO2 by observation, and elimination of all other known effects, we are inconsiderately ignoring unknown effects.
I think I understand the source of your confusion. You think that we know the effects of CO2 by measuring CO2 and measuring temperature and attributing any correlation to CO2. You are wrong. We know the effects of CO2 because of physics, and because we can measure incoming radiation and outgoing radiation at the bandwidth absorbed by CO2, and because we can measure that differential over time. It is also nice that there is a correlation, but correlation does not provide proof of causation.
It is quite possible that we *need* (unknown forcings) in order to *properly* explain observations, and that currently, we are *improperly* explaining observations.
Ever heard of Occam's razor? You keep trying to invoke unknown forces that are not necessary to explain any known phenomenon.
if I was to infer from your argument thus far, you believe it is a major driver of climate.
No. There is a yearly cycle that dwarfs every other cycle (called "seasons" ;-) ). There are other cycles that dwarf CO2 such as ENSO but are dwarfed by these "seasons". But none of these cycles will drive a trend. The trend is driven by CO2.
Here's one example of a turnaround:
I feel like this Watts guy may be misleading you. Here is the APS policy on global warming: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm Nothing in this statement is inconsistent with the consensus view.
I believe the assertion was within a century
Nope. Schneider never said any such thing - and it is clear from his publications that he never believed any such thing.
there has been no statistically significant trend of warming since 1998.
No statistically significant warming trend does not mean that there has been no warming trend. There has. If this seems confusing or contradictory, then you will want to research what statistically significant means. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
You also provided a link detailing what may be inconsistencies in the US record. When I pr
The problem I have is that the "fingerprint" analogy isn't scientific. We often hear the phrase "is consistent with" when it comes to AGW, but that's a cop out.
No, that is science. A consequence of warming due to CO2 is polar amplification. This was stated well before any warming due to CO2 was observed. Once we started to see the warming we check for the fingerprints. If we saw amplification near the equator we would have concluded that increased solar radiation is suspect. This is not what was found. You have to follow the facts. Working the other way around will not lead you to the truth.
Sounds like our detection rate of floods and cyclones has improved faster than our detection rate of earthquakes. See: (a link to WUWT)
Your statement that flood detection is increasing and your link that states we are detecting less floods is contradictory.
The question is, by how much, and how does that compare to other drivers (such as the ocean).
The answer is not unknown! There is uncertainty regarding sensitivity to those forcings, but even that is within a limited range.
We have a concrete example here of water warming air. Why can't that also be true on a global scale?
When both water and air are warming, you need to look for a reason that is neither the water or the air. This is not a case of energy moving around, but of energy being added.
you can posit tidal forces, undersea volcanoes, and even incoming solar energy not blocked by clouds or other atmospheric molecules.
Except that none of these are sufficient.
However, the existence of unknown forcings (which is nearly guaranteed), means that any explanation for current observations without that knowledge is flawed.
Perhaps there are unknown forcings, but not certainly, and certainly not at a level where they make any kind of measurable contribution. Otherwise we would need them to explain observations.
My assertion is that temperature is not always increasing even though atmospheric CO2 is. When *not* every year and *not* every decade is warmer over the 20th century, even though CO2 *is* constantly increasing, it represents a falsification of the idea that CO2 drives temperature increases.
Surely you are aware that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. You have demonstrated that knowledge. Why are you playing dumb with this last sentence?
You're going in the wrong direction -> I'm looking for a CAGW believer, who upon examination of observational data, recognized that they were wrong
If the data showed something different, then every scientific society would change their tune. As it stands, the data shows warming due to GHG, and every scientific society concludes GHG. What data do you have they they are not privy to?
What you have here is an apocalyptic vision of global cooling replaced by an apocalyptic vision of global warming.
It is hardly apocalyptic to conclude that someday within the next few thousand years we will likely leave the current interglacial. You have predicted the same. I would not accuse you of being alarmist.
Look again at Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
How does that graph assert 2010 was the warmest year ever? 1998 looks at least .1 greater.
Four points: 1) Satellite data exaggerates El Nino/La Nina. 1998 was a super El Nino. Even given that.. 2) Spencer has stated that 2010 is tied with 1998 and... 3) the trends are similar between Spencer's reconstruction and the others. Given all this... 4) Spencer believes that the other reconstructions are robust. Do you, or do you still cling to the conspiracy theories of manipulated data?
I believe the prevailing AGW hypothesis proposes greater warming at the poles than the equator, leading to decreased spatial differentials.
You seem keenly aware of the fingerprints of warming due to GHG. You also seem keenly aware that these fingerprints have been observed in the real world. How do you reconcile this with your idea that the temp rise is not caused by GHG? Wrt decreased spacial differentials, there is not a smooth gradient between the poles and the equator. Increased polar temperatures does not mean decreased spacial differentials in Ohio.
The fact is that severe weather events have not shown any increase or decrease trend over the past few hundred years, although with more development along costal areas we have had more humans affected by them.
Check out the graph in this report: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/article_climate_change_hazards.pdf ""Much of the increase in the number of hazardous events is probably due to significant improvements in information access and also to population growth, but the number of floods and cyclones being reported is still rising compared to earthquakes."
An increase in temperature of the atmosphere can be *caused* by increased temperatures of oceans.
You are neglecting the fact that we know from physics that adding CO2 does increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
We certainly observe this with warm currents moderating the climate around the UK...or are you suggesting that the warm air around London is what actually causes the current to be warm?
Seriously??? You think that because temperature can move around from one part of the world to another via currents - somehow this means that even though both the ocean and the atmosphere are heating up the cause of the warming is due to the ocean heating up? This makes no sense.
This isn't a matter a free heat, this is a matter of specific distribution.
Redistributing the heat will throughout the system cannot heat up the system. This really doesn't make any sense.
There are certainly cycles that are between those, even if we haven't identified them all.
Why do you need to invoke unknown forcings? they are not required to explain observations.
Specifically, 2010 was tied with 2005, which shows no statistically significant increase in temperature over the past 15 years.
This doesn't follow.
There is no doubt that throughout the 20th century, there was an increase in temperatures, which will make "the hottest decade ever" a fairly meaningless statistic.
So, in your opinion is the temperature increasing or not? When every decade is warmer than the last, it seems like it must be increasing.
The challenge to CAGW is this -> while temperatures have refused to budge, CO2 has continued to rise.
You are still all over the map with this. Is it rising or isn't it?
Can you give me an example of a single global warming believer who changed their theory when the data didn't match?
Yes. Stephen Schneider once believed that CO2 would not dwarf other forcings and that we were headed (in the very long term) for global cooling. Our understanding of the climate is constantly being refined, but those refinements are becoming smaller and smaller as we get a better understanding.
Three vehement skeptics who took the time to look at the data - and when the data didn't match their theory - they changed their theory.
Spencer and Mueller's reconstructions are global as well. They confirm NASA's findings. Yes, when faced with contradictory evidence a scientists should change is position. Will you?
while water vapor is necessary for thunderstorms, extreme weather events, including those without precipitation, such as tornadoes, are driven by pressure and temperature differentials.
Two points to consider: 1) We haven't eliminated the diurnal temperature differential but we have increased water vapour which does feed storms. 2) It is possible to eliminate the diurnal temperature differential and still have spacial differentials - and we have increased water vapour which does feed storms.
You are taking a curious position. When faced with facts that are in conflict with your theory, you chose to change the facts rather than your theory. The facts are that diurnal temperature differential is decreasing, but severe weather events are increasing. You seem to think that this system is too complex to understand, but you know for sure that these facts must be wrong because they don't align with your understanding. I'm not trying to be confrontational here but you may want to step back and think this one through. It doesn't seem like your method of inquiry will direct you towards the truth.
why would we assume that the atmosphere is driving ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around?
1) Because we are increasing the temperature of the atmosphere 2) Because equilibrium is required in the system 3) What do you propose is increasing the temperature of the ocean surface? The energy needs to come from somewhere. This is a very significant amount of energy - the equivalent of the energy released by about 56,000 nukes every hour. You are not proposing free energy are you?
As examples, see PDO, ENSO, ADO, etc.
This is an exchange of heat between atmosphere and ocean or northern and southern hemisphere. How do you propose that an exchange of heat between different parts of the system will add heat to the system?
Why would we assume that a trend of 30 years or more eliminates any trends caused by natural variables?
Well, it will eliminate ENSO and solar cycle, it will not eliminate Milankovitch cycles
The logarithmic rate will always limit any linear progression
No, you could have an accelerated input which dwarfs the logarithmic rate. You need to count all GHG, and you need to count feedbacks (including the release of methane (a GHG) from the arctic).
I believe your point is "the temperature is increasing *and* it's because of human produced CO2".
No, go back through the history. You stated that the temperature is not increasing. I stated that it must be because we just had the hottest year in the hottest decade. You stated that this only shows that the temperature is increasing. I stated that yes, that's what I said.
And on the scale that matters to me and my neighbors, we have been seeing dropping temperatures.
So which is it? Do you agree that the temperature has been rising (as you stated in the previous quote, or that temperature is not rising, as you stated in this quote?
They can adjust their global average temperature to whatever they want
Please, no more of this crazy conspiracy talk. Here is the temperature reconstructions from Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
here is the analysis by Richard Mueller and the BEST team (funded by oil interests no less!): http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011
Here is the analysis by Anthony Watts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/#more-39705
Three vehement skeptics wh
Except it's not water vapor that causes extreme weather events, it's large temperature differentials (those "LOW" and "HIGH" pressure areas during the weather report).
Not entirely true. Water vapour feeds storms. Try a quick google search of that last sentence for more info.
if the ocean transferred a mere *fraction* of its energy into the atmosphere, we could raise the temperature of the atmosphere significantly above anything imaginable.
You have nailed it. We have significantly raised the ocean surface temperature. This extra energy is fueling storms. Do a quick google search on "Sea surface temperature storms"
The trend clearly hasn't accelerated over the past 15 years of increased CO2, and any trend you could possibly discern from CO2 is overwhelmed by all the other natural variables
You are absolutely right. The other natural variables create wibbles and wobbles that dwarf any trend of less than 30 years. In order to see the trend you would need to filter out the wibbles and wobbles by applying a 10 year mean. The good news is that this is easy to do. Check out woodfortrees.org. I have applied a 10 year mean to the temperature data. You can add solar output to the chart to see how the two compare. Woodfortrees is a great resource. You can add other reconstructions to see how they compare. You can even add the solar index and CO2 to see how they match up.
(not to mention, CO2 has an upper limit of effect, and has a log function of effect, diminishing as it gets higher).
We clearly haven't hit any upper limit, and accelerated output of GHG as well as feedbacks are clearly more than making up for the logarithmic rate.
The problem is that the "hottest year on record" metric is an artifact with no meaning. It's a single point that you'll see over and over again during any period of natural temperature increase.
It means just what you said that it means. That the temperature is increasing. I was making the exact same point.
and you'll note we've been exiting a particularly cold period in history
I would hardly consider an interglacial to be a cold period. As you have noted previously we should be expecting the temperatures to be dropping.
Hansen, et. al., regularly massage the data points to make these ludicrous claims, and if there was any sort of quality control,
Now you are getting into conspiracy theory territory. I won't follow you there. I will only note that skeptics Richard Mueller, Roy Spencer, and Anthony Watts have all performed independent validation of the temperature reconstructions and found them to be robust.
Natural changes in the climate and weather due to known and unknown external and internal factors that change in both chaotic and cyclical ways. For example, every wild temperature change, extreme weather event, record high, record low, that every existed for the past 4.5 billion years.
All of these had a cause. What is the cause of the current warming?
Would you even consider that the answer to "why not" is that your original hypothesis is incorrect, and that in fact, natural variability can cause dramatic changes, in either direction, without fully understood causes because of the massive complexity and interconnectedness of weather and climate phenomena?
Yes, of course I would accept that the original hypothesis is incorrect, and no, I wouldn't accept that the reason for the changes is unknowable. I would find out the reason for the change. The alternative is a defeatist attitude that goes against my natural curiosity.
The problem is that the hypothesis of CO2 driven global warming asserts that temperature differentials will shrink, and the hypothesis of shrinking temperature differentials asserts that weather events will become more mild. You get to have one, or the other, not both. If you *do* have both, something is either wrong with your observation *or* something is wrong with the hypothesis.
Ah, I see what you are saying. You should also consider the impact of greater water vapour in the atmosphere and greater heat content in the ocean.
Over the past 100 years, we've had decades of warming, and decades of cooling, all during rises of CO2.
Not to mention, contrarians don't have to predict falling temperatures, all they need to do is predict *not* rising temperatures (which we've seen for the past 15 years).
There are certainly factors other than CO2 that need to be considered. Volcanoes will cause a dip in temperatures, El Nino a spike, La Nina a dip, increased solar activity a spike, decreased a dip, etc. The trend is being driven by CO2 and that trend is accelerating. It is hard to reconcile the idea that temperatures haven't been rising over the last 15 years and the fact that last year was hottest on record and last decade was hottest on record. Here is a graph of the temperature over the last 100 years with a 10 year running mean: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1911/to:2011/mean:120
So this brings to mind two questions - 1) why isn't it possible that the "hottest decade on record" isn't due to natural variability, and 2) if the record for the hottest year isn't broken within the next three years, will you assume your hypothesis has been falsified, or is this a rhetorical prediction?
1) What is meant by natural variability? Solar output is down. We are not in a period of the Milenkovic cycle that should cause (additional) warming. We know the forcing for CO2 and we know that there are more greenhouse gasses now than last decade. What natural variability are you referring to?
2) If the record isn't broken within the next three years then I would want to understand why not.
What you have here is a situation where it is likely that only *one* of your observations is true. Either the relative difference between daily temperatures is shrinking, and despite sensational news items on individual disasters weather is actually becoming milder overall, OR, the relative difference between daily temperatures is an artifact of bias in our measuring methodology and network, and we're really getting more extreme weather events.
Why? Because it doesn't fit with your preconception otherwise? They are not my observations. This is what is being measured. Both are going up.
There, FTFY - we're likely about to hit another glacial period soon,
Well, we should be (if by soon you mean another few thousand years) except that is not what is happening. Contrarians have been predicting for decades that the temperatures are about to fall. So far they haven't been right. This decade will be the hottest on record (just like the one before that and the one before that and the one before that), the record for hottest year will be broken within the next three years.
Good question. The graph shown at this link compares reported earthquakes to all disasters. It shows number, but not severity: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/article_climate_change_hazards.pdf
"Much of the increase in the number of hazardous events is probably due to significant improvements in information access and also to population growth, but the number of floods and cyclones being reported is still rising compared to earthquakes. How, we must ask, is global warming affecting the frequency of natural hazards?"
I emphatically disagree. You could change the average temperature of earth by having warmer lows, and actually have *less* atmospheric differential overall, resulting in a much more mild set of weathers (and in fact, this is actually observed, with milder weather events during higher average global temps, and extreme weather events precipitated by greater regional differentials).
Good point. A faster trend for minimum temperatures is a fingerprint of warming caused by CO2, and it is what is being observed. I am not certain that we are seeing milder weather events because of this. This last year was the hottest on record and also saw an unprecedented number and severity of extreme weather events. For a more empirical look, see the graph in the following article: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/article_climate_change_hazards.pdf
"Much of the increase in the number of hazardous events reported is probably due to significant improvements in information access and also to population growth, but the number of floods and cyclones being reported is still rising compared to earthquakes."
Temperature has been pretty stable during the interglacial of the last 10,000 years. Civilization arose during this period of relative stability. We are likely leaving that era of stability.
There is certainly more than one parameter to this equation. CO2 is one of them. Whoever told you that scientists were not aware of the other parameters was misleading you. You would do well to disregarded them going forward.