Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[wyly]

You know that changes humans are making are small how?

You know that the significant increase in ghg's into the atmosphere over a very short period of time is nothing compared to natural changes how?

which demonstrates how little they look into the subject...they get their info from politcl talking heads who know as little as they do...

the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 ejected between 15 and 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide gas, besides causing significant damage to the ozone it dropped global temps 0.4 to 0.5°C

against the mighty planetary forces of Mt Pinatubo we puny humans can only manage a paltry 7 billion tonnes each year. ...so in denier world 30million tons emitted by a volcano that can drop global temperatures is believable but 6 billion by humans is insignificant...

obviously volcanic sulfur aerosols in the short term are more powerful than the GHG's humans emit but to suggest our contributions are too insignificant to affect our atmosphere is clearly ludicrous...

all the details that I posted here can be verified easily enough but denierworld will ignore it completely and a month from now repeat the same idiotic claim that humans are too insignificant to effect the planet's climate...and so it goes...

Edited September 19, 2012 by wyly

[waldo]

If someone ever gets around to explaining some of these observational facts, then I could start to change my opinion.

1) Possibly the most intense CO2 build-up occurred after World War Two as industry skyrocketed with Oil and Coal use......yet temperatures actually cooled for a 30 year period until if memory serves correctly, the early 80's. Does this not demonstrate that natural variability can overwhelm the influence of CO2?

- is there a concise explanation for why temperatures went down during the 30 years following WWII - and why CO2 went up?

Simple, your continuing denier nonsense has been dealt with previously... repeatedly!

.....OK to clearly state that there

WAS

significant cooling from the 40's to the 70's - in spite of rising CO2.

so... significant mid-century cooling? Significant? Really? Only in fake skeptic world would an approximate 0.1°C temperature decrease... across the total 1940-1975 period... only would that level be deemed "significant". Of course, whether today or mid-century, total forcings account for observed temperature trends. Fake skeptics seem to have an aversion to 'big picture' long-term trends, particularly when in disinform mode. In actuality, anthropogenic sourced CO2 warming during that 1940-1975 period did occur... in the order of 0.4°C global warming. That "significant" 0.1°C cooling simply reflects upon the overall 0.5°C cooling during that overall trending period. (0.5°C global cooling - 0.4°C global warming => 0.1°C cooling trend - wow! Just wow... how "significant"!).

equally, ask a fake skeptic to qualify... to attribute cause(s) to that 0.1°C cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Can we say, pollution based global dimming due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosol emissions? Sure we can! Post war rapid industrialization relying principally upon unfettered coal burning and on a complete absence of industrial regulation... there you go.

so... along comes the 70's emphasis on cleaning up industrial pollution... clean air acts... sulphate emission regulation... cleaner refined fuels, etc. Lo and behold, post 1975 to present day we see an approximate 0.2°C global warming

per decade

, as attributed to anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions. Go figure!

Simple, just for a run down MLW memory lane, we should resurrect the series of your posts that had you, quite literally, "eyeballing" CO2-temperature correlation... from image maps. Please press the point so we can once again showcase your prowess... your eyeballing prowess, hey?

Given the complexity, the best testing is observational. CO2 shot upwards during the post-war industrial boom of 1940 to 1979 -

yet temperatures dropped

. CO2 is still rising, yet temperatures are staying flat. That alone should remove the hubristic attitude that humans have the largest influence on Climate Change, and not natural factors.

=> Simple, your CO2-to-temperature correlation nonsense:

Simple...

-

firstly

, we have you starting off presuming to offer a contradictory premise where you, with the grandest lack of specificity, labeled 1940s-1970s global cooling as... "significant"... particularly in relation to rising CO2 levels. Of course, as is the fake skeptic way, you neither qualified "significant", nor did you even attempt to attribute said "significant" cooling... or what brought us out of the "significant" cooling. Of course I was quite content to highlight your consistency with past MLW threads where you have shown no understanding of temperature trending, where the actual degree of "significant" cooling amounted to only 0.1°C cooling over the entire 1940-1975 period, where you avoided any correlation of temperature to total forcings, where you avoided any causal attribution for either the "significant" 0.1°C cooling over the entire 1940-1975 global cooling or the post-1975 0.2°C

per decade

warming. In contrast to you, I actually offered causal ties to both the 1940-1975 & post-1975 periods... you could actually take a stab at attempting to be a real skeptic by assigning your own inferred alternative attributions. You could that, right?

notwithstanding Simple's keen eyeball prowess in presuming to interpret a historical CO2-temperature correlation from a series of image map presentations on temperatures alone...

- historical trends in CO2 concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale (Vostok, Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores, SIO, CRUTEM3v) -

here

:

- CO2 concentration and temperature trend overlay ((Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (

NOAA

) and annual global temperature anomaly (

GISS

)) from 1964 to 2008) -

here

:

[waldo]

If someone ever gets around to explaining some of these observational facts, then I could start to change my opinion.

Nonetheless, one would have just as strong an argument that the Arctic "warming" is a regional anomole - there is no place on the planet that has been similarly affected. In spite of the bombast of the alarmists, the fact is that Global temperatures have barely moved up or down over the past 10 years - in spite of CO2 increasing steadily. One could make a strong argument that if you remove the Arctic anonole, Global temperatures have cooled.

And how about the flat temperatures of the past 10 or 12 years - in spite of the regional anomole of Arctic warming - a warming not seen anywhere else on the planet?

yes, Simple... we've seen you previously, over and over again, attempt to make your (failed) case for global cooling. As before:

It's quite interesting what's been happening the last 10 or 15 years. When you stand back and filter out the noise, it appears that we have a somewhat substantial warming anomole in the Northern latitudes - mostly the Arctic. When you look at almost the entire rest of the world - the US, Asia, Europe - as alluded to in the initial post of this thread - all you see is harsh winters and lots of snow.

the first thing you should do is acquaint yourself with the latitudes of the "U.S., Europe and the more prominent Asian countries"... just check the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer... always an easy reference, hey? Then have a look at this

temperature to latitude grouping image

presentation. You do realize where the U.S., Europe and most of Asia fit in that grouping, right?

yes, warming is more prominent in Northern latitudes; however, warming is most certainly occurring in mid/southern latitudes. What could the reasons be for differences in the degree of warming across the respective latitudinal groupings, hey Simple?

If you consider that the average global temperature has remained virtually unchanged over the past 15 years

no, it most certainly has not - you are incorrect and purposely choosing to misinform

Not ended... not slowed... and not natural

5 major global temperature data sets - annual averages with natural influences removed;

- and you subtract out the Arctic anomole, a very strong argument can be made that the Globe is actually cooling.

well... you've tried to make that cooling argument many times in the past, right Simple? How did that work out for you? Would you like me to reacquaint you with your failed attempts? But really, such is the fake skeptic way... "if we get rid of this warming over here, then we can argue it's actually cooling"!

As opposed to looking at the Globe as a whole, it would be nice to have a clearer explanation for the Arctic anomole. In fact, I'm sure most of the answers are there - but it's an inconvenient truth to put them in the context that I have laid out.

is there anything preventing you from speaking to explanations on greater norther latitudes & Arctic warming? To ferreting out what you call an, "inconvenient truth"? I mean, c'mon Simple... surely fake skeptics must have some supporting rationale to delineate the additional northern latitudes & Arctic warming? Surely!

ok, ok... let's see: how about the greater proportion of land to water surface in the northern hemisphere... with oceans responding much slower to temperature change. Or how about,

polar amplification

, where changes in cloud cover, increases in atmospheric water vapour, and declining sea ice have all been suggested as contributing factors:

e.g.

The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification - Nature: James A. Screen & Ian Simmonds

The rise in Arctic near-surface air temperatures has been almost twice as large as the global average in recent decades — a feature known as ‘Arctic amplification’. Increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have driven Arctic and global average warming; however, the underlying causes of Arctic amplification remain uncertain. The roles of reductions in snow and sea ice cover and changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation, cloud cover and water vapour are still matters of debate. A better understanding of the processes responsible for the recent amplified warming is essential for assessing the likelihood, and impacts, of future rapid Arctic warming and sea ice loss.

Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice-sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic.

[waldo]

If someone ever gets around to explaining some of these observational facts, then I could start to change my opinion.

The Mideival Warming period was as warm, if not warmer than today - in spite of less CO2. There is some argument that this was a regional anomole but recent findings seem to indicate it was more than that. Does it not hold water that once again, natural variability has overwhelmed any human influence?

Is there really an explanation for the Medeival Warming period - a huge uptick in temperature with little CO2 contribution.

Even if you could show the MWP was more than a regional phenomenon (which you can't), even if you could show the MWP temperatures were warmer than global temperature today (which you can't)...

there is scientifically accepted consensus on what caused the warming of the MWP; specifically, it was attributed to increased natural variations in the form of higher than average solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns that particularly influenced the North Atlantic affecting adjacent land areas

. Obviously MWP warming can't be attributed to man. Alternatively, no natural variations can account for the warming... the accelerated warming... of the relatively recent post 1850 period. Current warming can only be accounted for when CO2 radiative forcing is factored - current increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are most definitely, most absolutely, attributed to mankind's burning of fossil-fuels.

[waldo]

What is climate change? Change in the climate? When it was global warming we couldn't argue about climate as being an indicator of global warming, the trend over time had to be shown as the indicator of global warming. Now that it is called "climate change" climate can be argued as an indicator of climate change and the trend is not as important. I think that changing the name was a semantic tactic because the trends predicted by the models was not materializing.

Michael Hardner subsequently mentioned that there were good reasons to change the name. You are both wrong, because there has never been a name change. This is simply a meme that has developed and was pushed by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck after their darling Luntz (in the Bush administration) pressed for a change within the administration to only refer to climate change/global warming as climate change. This was because Luntz found, through studies, climate change to be the term more likely to pacify people from feeling that action must be taken. There is nothing controversial about that. Luntz has openly admitted his role, and the meme only developed after Luntz.

The meme is, like every meme spread by the deniers of climate science, completely wrong. The IPCC was founded in 1988 not as the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, but as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Furthermore going back to the initial journal articles in the 1970s the naming has been completely consistent: with climate change refering to all effects (including global warming) that result from changes in GHG concentration, and global warming refering specifically to surface temperature increases caused by increased GHG levels. So in the scientific literature global warming is a subdivision of the whole. The terminology has never changed. People have been taken for a ride by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk - a group of people who know almost nothing about climate science, and what they do know is wrong.

and this is Pliny... just being Pliny - he keeps resurrecting these little gems of his, while full knowing he's had them punted previously. It is the way of the denier!

I know that abandoning the term "global warming" and replacing it with "climate change" means that we can now talk about the weather. Like hurricanes and record heatwaves in Texas - it's an "It wasn't this hot yesterday...oh my god...the clmate changed" - type of scenario.

as for climate change versus global warming... abandonment? Each term is spoken of as appropriate, in context. When this reeediculous canard is dragged out by denier types, like you, I'm always keen to highlight a few choice tidbits, say like:

- what does the 'CC' in IPCC stand for, hey Pliny? You know, your oft target of derision, the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change

...

formed in 1988

!

- or like a more recent point of departure in relation to another time on MLW where this climate change versus global warming distinction was brought forward:

How about another reminder on

the confidential 2003 GOP strategy memo (re: Frank Luntz) to use 'climate change' over 'global warming'.

Really, c'mon... you mean Republicans would purposely, on a strategic basis, intend to downplay the actual impacts in favour of a massaged 'more controlled, less emotional' language - I'm shocked, I tells ya... shocked!

You mean politicians are guiding this and not scientists? I've been telling you that all along, waldo!

what? Nothing to comment on about the "CC" in IP

CC

, circa 1988? That's pretty dated, hey Pliny? Kind of puts a damper in your false abandonment premise, hey Pliny? As for my mentioning the more recent Bush admin strategist fronting use of the term climate change over global warming, I'll defer to you to describe the political motivations involved there. You could provide that, right?

[waldo]

Except of course when your dire predictions of more major hurricanes, more killer tornadoes, major sea level rise, major increases in temperatures, and so on haven't actually happened, it is some of you who look for excuses, well it must be because of a b or c, and i will admit that it could be. Why don't those of you on the bandwagon admit that maybe we don't know enough about any of this to be sure what is happening or why, it the isn't skeptics who believe in fantasy. We could be causing warming, but it does appear that our very best predictions aren't always accurate, maybe our understanding isn't as complete as some of you desperately want it to be.

just earlier in this thread... this thread... while providing no substantiation whatsoever, you beaked off about hurricanes and tornadoes. And here you are back at it again! Let me remind you, once again:

Remember all those extreme Hurricanes we are going to have?

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png

no - you are confusing (purposely?) frequency with intensity. Continued uncertainty exists as to whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency; however, there most certainly is increasing evidence that global warming is increasing hurricane intensity. In past MLW threads, I've detailed several studies that speak to the increased intensity of hurricanes relative to increased global warming... if you persist, I will dig them up and cite even more current like studies. Or, you can just stew over this IPCC AR4 summary position statement that says, "

Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s

"... of course, that evidence is given in detail, fully cited, within the respective/related IPCC reports.

How about all the severe Tornadoes we should be having? Even with better than ever detection...

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/ef3-ef5-t.png

no - there is no formal position that speaks to expected/predicted increases in the severity of tornadoes relative to increased global warming. Again, from the IPCC AR4, a summary position statement: "

Observational evidence for changes in small-scale severe weather phenomena (such as tornadoes, hail and thunderstorms) is mostly local and too scattered to draw general conclusions; increases in many areas arise because of increased public awareness and improved efforts to collect reports of these phenomena.

now... if you actually want to discuss legitimate/recognized projections on sea-level rise... or temperature increase, let's have you step-up and rise beyond your unsubstantiated "opinion". If you presume to speak broadly, widely, and most generally about uncertainty, let's actually have you put a reference substantiation mark down, hey? Let's have you qualify your unsubstantiated "predictions", where they originate, their full context, their basis... and their uncertainties... which you presume to ignore/negate. I mean, that's your emphasis, right? That projections are made without any regard to caveats/uncertainties/error ranges/etc., etc., etc.? C'mon gunrutz - step it up, hey?

[Keepitsimple]

Based on what? What evidence?

You don't have a clue, but just because you don't doesn't mean that everyone else is equally clueless. Climate scientists didn't just use a hunch, like you did, they started with an understanding of science, and used methods to determine forcing factors. You guessed. They didn't. You are wrong. They are not.

So then....you're saying these scientists do know how much CO2/humans are contributing to the current non-warming? As opposed to my opinion/hunch/guess where I say it's minimal because natural causes seem to overwhelm anything related to CO2......what do the scientists say? Is there a definitive percentage that scientists agree with? Is it 50%, 75%, 100%?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

As opposed to my opinion/hunch/guess where I say it's minimal because natural causes seem to overwhelm anything related to CO2

you have been advised on forcings... over and over again. Your principal confusion/mental-block stems from your inability to distinguish internal variability from natural radiative forcings. Again, internal variability does not cause climate change; external forcings are required to bring about appreciable changes in climate, those that reflect upon changes in the Earth's energy balance. As you're well aware, and continue to ignore, throughout several previous MLW threads, I have spoken of the composite nature of warming; i.e., that it reflects upon the composite makeup of natural and anthropogenic positive and negative forcing - I've linked this radiative forcing components graphic, or variations of it, several times.

now, if you'd care to argue the aforementioned values for natural forcing... or... if you'd like to offer your interpretation and substantiation for internal variability not being properly recognized/understood, if you'd actually care to step beyond your unsubstantiated "opinion".........

as for the rest of your denier sham game, you have also been presented with formal attribution statements in the past; critically conservative attribution statements. Now, if you're feeling particularly emboldened by some denier blog... if you'd really like to, once again, criticize the IPCC likelihood statement guidelines (in general), or the formal IPCC AR4 statement on attribution, in particular:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns

[wyly]

so now that waldo has dispatched the denierworlds(faux skeptics) rehashed claims do we return in six months to witness once again when simple/shady et al. dredge up the same poo hoping no one will remember how they were dismissed before?

[Michael Hardner]

so now that waldo has dispatched the denierworlds(faux skeptics) rehashed claims do we return in six months to witness once again when simple/shady et al. dredge up the same poo hoping no one will remember how they were dismissed before?

Maybe someone will bring up the 70s ice age prediction.

[wyly]

Maybe someone will bring up the 70s ice age prediction.

or the Oregon Petition it's been awhile since I've that one...

meanwhile back in the real world the arctic continues it's melt, early projects had all the sea ice gone in 100yrs/2100, then there were projections for mid-century, then I recall an even earlier 2025-30...now a British expert has made the bold projection for an ice free ocean of 3-4 years...

[jbg]

so now that waldo has dispatched the denierworlds(faux skeptics) rehashed claims do we return in six months to witness once again when simple/shady et al. dredge up the same poo hoping no one will remember how they were dismissed before?

Maybe some people have better things to do then wade through mufti-colored surround-quotes.

[waldo]

Maybe some people have better things to do then wade through mufti-colored surround-quotes.

still smarting, hey jgb?

[Shady]

Has anyone talked about the Antarctic sea ice setting a new record for most ice ever measured at this time of year?

[wyly]

Maybe some people have better things to do then wade through mufti-colored surround-quotes.

nice spin it's sometimes referred to as "getting your arse handed to ya"...

interesting, someone who claims to be lawyer dismissing a precisely written argument ...

[Shady]

Maybe someone will bring up the 70s ice age prediction.

3 words. Hide the decline. Or have we all forgotten about Climategate? Their dishonesty knows no bounds.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Shady

[CPCFTW]

nice spin it's sometimes referred to as

"getting your arse handed to ya"...

interesting, someone who claims to be lawyer dismissing a precisely written argument ...

Intermingling various/assorted/multitudinous synonyms into an argument does not make the precisely/accurately written argument worth reading... hey? Come on now MLW esteemed member wyly hey? Hey hey? This link proves me right.

Edited September 20, 2012 by CPCFTW

[wyly]

Intermingling various/assorted/multitudinous synonyms into an argument does not make the precisely/accurately written argument worth reading... hey? Come on now MLW esteemed member wyly hey? Hey hey? This link proves me right.

eeew a new challenger, step right up batter and take a swing, dazzle everyone with your stupendous knowledge of climate change...

or slink away away while you can ego intact...

Edited September 20, 2012 by wyly

[waldo]

Has anyone talked about the Antarctic sea ice setting a new record for most ice ever measured at this time of year?

ah, yes... Shady brings out another hit from Steven Goddard making the recent rounds - denier blogger extraordinaire... a guy so special, so expert, even the ridiculous TV weatherman Watts had to punt him from being his resident WTFIUWT "ice expert"!

I guess what you didn't know is that the Antarctic Sea Ice regularly melts, every year, almost completely (summer to winter). But yes, there is an increase in the winter-time Antarctic Sea Ice, a small rate increase, one with substantial natural year-to-year variability. More pointedly, per the NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center), "

the increase is attributed to a changing climate pattern, one associated with a gradual increase in the westerly circumpolar winds; a condition

associated with the loss of ozone and increases in greenhouse gases

."

but hey now, Shady... let's hear directly from NSIDC:

NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center)

- Is Antarctic sea ice important, too? Is it shrinking?

Scientists monitor both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but Arctic sea ice is more significant to understanding global climate because much more Arctic ice remains through the summer months, reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet.

Sea ice near the Antarctic Peninsula, south of the tip of South America, has recently experienced a significant decline. The rest of Antarctica has experienced a small increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Antarctica and the Arctic are reacting differently to climate change partly because of geographical differences. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water, while the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. Wind and ocean currents around Antarctica isolate the continent from global weather patterns, keeping it cold. In contrast, the Arctic Ocean is intimately linked with the climate systems around it, making it more sensitive to changes in climate.

keep trying Shady, keep on trying!

[Shady]

Intermingling various/assorted/multitudinous synonyms into an argument does not make the precisely/accurately written argument worth reading... hey? Come on now MLW esteemed member wyly hey? Hey hey? This link proves me right.

LOL! Nicely done!

It's funny cause it's so true!

[waldo]

LOL! Nicely done!

It's funny cause it's so true!

c'mon Shady - dazzle some more!

[Daniels]

[waldo]

3 words. Hide the decline. Or have we all forgotten about Climategate? Their dishonesty knows no bounds.

your trolling knows no bounds... but hey, when you can't argue anything, when you continually showcase your know nothingness, it's always best for you to go with your strengths, hey lil' buddy? Troll on, Shady - troll on!

[Michael Hardner]

3 words. Hide the decline. Or have we all forgotten about Climategate? Their dishonesty knows no bounds.

I forgot about 'hide the decline' ... luckily the science isn't as faddish and flavour-of-the-minute as the Fox News crawl...

[Moonbox]

nice spin it's sometimes referred to as "getting your arse handed to ya"...

interesting, someone who claims to be lawyer dismissing a precisely written argument ...

It was the furthest thing from a precisely written argument. It was a series of sloppy, lazy and poorly formatted walls of text that basically copied the last few pages of the thread. Nobody read it nor should anybody be expected to read it. Make your point succinctly and if you want to include a link then do so, but don't even bother posting garbage like that.