The Global Warming Plateau

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure its a factor. The handful of cod and salmon fishermen on smaller boats actually did pretty good this year...on the handful of days they were allowed to fish that is. It's actually the bigger corporate fleets that seemed to bomb more spectacularly this year - fishing closer to the bottom of the food chain on species more dependant on plankton.

Of course.....fish, lobster, and crab (and their environment) always prefer to meet their demise at the hands of "smaller boats" instead of "corporate fleets".

[Keepitsimple]

You don't have a response to Waldo undoing your statement about the ice recovery ?

Michael - I have Waldo on ignore so I don't normally read any of his bluster....so I had to go back and click. His claim is that the "recovery" is all first year ice - and it will all melt away next summer. Any recovery has to be first year ice - the question is whether enough of it can be sustained to become multi-year ice - and therefore continue a more permanent recovery. That will depend on whether the 2012 melt was just an anomole - or not. Will temperatures, currents and wind patterns continue in a favourable pattern to sustain growth? We'll just have to wait and see, won't we.....but seeing as many other IPCC predictions have failed to materialize, chances of the predicted ice-free Arctic in as little as 4 years are dubious at best. The point I was making was that adding almost two million square kilometers of new ice in 2013 should have been big news - in fact, it should have been welcome news.....but it garnered barely a mention in the press.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

Of course.....fish, lobster, and crab (and their environment) always prefer to meet their demise at the hands of "smaller boats" instead of "corporate fleets".

Not if Ottawa has anything to say about it. They'll just privatize what little remains to be privatized and hand it over. Even sporties will soon have to lease quota from Jimmy Pattison.

In either case climate change will have the final word - the point being change is definitely welling up from the deeps of our natural ecosystems and rocking the human economy riding on the surface. Halibut quota now costs something like 5 - 6$ just to to lease and at least $100 per lb to purchase outright.

[Michael Hardner]

Any recovery has to be first year ice - the question is whether enough of it can be sustained to become multi-year ice - and therefore continue a more permanent recovery. That will depend on whether the 2012 melt was just an anomole - or not.

Will temperatures, currents and wind patterns continue in a favourable pattern to sustain growth? We'll just have to wait and see, won't we.....but seeing as many other IPCC predictions have failed to materialize, chances of the predicted ice-free Arctic in as little as 4 years are dubious at best. The point I was making was that adding almost two million square kilometers of new ice in 2013 should have been big news - in fact, it should have been welcome news.....but it garnered barely a mention in the press.

I don't think it should have been big news. Did you see the graph ? The overall trend over decades is clearly downward, so celebrating a year-by-year gain seems completely foolish, beyond optimism. We're still generating the hottest years on record, so the future looks bleak. And warming is not stopping.

[TimG]

The overall trend over decades is clearly downward, so celebrating a year-by-year gain seems completely foolish, beyond optimism.

you missed my post here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22805-the-global-warming-plateau/?p=924337

The trend is only 'clearly downward' if you cherry pick your starting point.

That said, the data prior to 1979 is bad and there is tendency for scientists to only look at data that gives them the narrative they want to see (and peer reviewers to favor studies which confirm their biases). But this data is good enough to cast doubt on your 'clearly downward' claim. At worst we can say we don't know what the 100 year trend looks like. Saying we don't know is also a lot different than saying the trend is 'clearly downward'.

Edited October 18, 2013 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

I don't think it should have been big news. Did you see the graph ? The overall trend over decades is clearly downward, so celebrating a year-by-year gain seems completely foolish, beyond optimism. We're still generating the hottest years on record, so the future looks bleak. And warming is not stopping.

Michael - I'm somewhat surprised that after all this time, you're putting so much faith in a graph that represents a relatively small snapshot in time - and one that conveniently encapsulates a thirty year period of warming. When look at the bigger picture - the long-term warming represented by the midieval warming period - followed by the long term cooling period leading up to approximately 1850 - followed by the warming period that we've experienced since then - you can see that bigger picture. There is also vast evidence of another extensive warming period in Roman times as evidenced by retreating Alpine glaciers that have uncovered Roman-age village remains. These are all long-term warming/cooling cycles that themselves pale against the even greater "ice-age" advances and retreats. But in "cherry picking" the 1979-current cycle, it conveniently ignores the just as prevalent dust-bowl period of the 20's and 30's - which also ran for 30 years or so up until the 40's - and was followed by a cooling cycle of about 30 years leading up to the late 70's (all while CO2 was going up, up , up by the way). So now we've got another 30 years of warming (since1979) and if the pattern we've seen in the past is repeated, we should be entering a cooling cycle (or at least a non-warming cycle) for an extended period. Some scientists say we're in it already - and many have specualted we will see cooling or a lack of warming over the next 15 or so years. That's why the renewal of Arctic ice and the continued record growth of Antarctic ice should be relatively big news. It gives voice to those scientists who are talking about this. It doesn't mean that the world is NOT warming - clearly it is - on a much, much longer scale. Based on history and observation, I just do not see the evidence that humans are the driving force behind warming. You can't deny History. If your Pal Waldo has a reasonable chart (older, unadjusted) that shows temperature variance from 1850 to current with a scale that shows decades, I think you might find it interesting.

Edit: I've added a set of graphs that seem to illustrate some of my point. If you look at each graph - the last one is more prevalent, you'll see a spike from about 1915 to 1945. The spike is very similar, if not identical to one we've recently experienced. Point being - if you were living in 1915, you could make many of the arguments being made today.....but if you started counting in the 40's, it would lead you in the opposite diection - up to and including the famous Times article espousing Global Cooling. All of this while CO2 is continually climbing. Facts. Observations. Not theories. Not computers.

Link: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/what-global-temperature-measurement-is-best/

Edited October 18, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

When look at the bigger picture

You can't deny History.

oh my! Simple... is this you arguing that the earth's sensitivity to climate is high? Cause, like...uhhh... that doesn't fit the rest of your denier narrative!

and, of course..... it didn't take much to pull your ready-go-to "30-year cyclical" natural variability nonsense out... did it? Of course, you've had that narrative sounding trashed/debunked many times over on MLW... and yet, you persist! As you say, you can't deny (MLW) history!!!

[GostHacked]

oh my! Simple... is this you arguing that the earth's sensitivity to climate is high? Cause, like...uhhh... that doesn't fit the rest of your denier narrative!

I think he is saying that the earth is obviously sensitive to changes in climate. Much could be from the part of space our solar system is flying through. Who knows. He is also saying that climate may have a regular cycle of cold warming periods. But many of us are not buying that it is mainly caused my man.

Can't wait for your next condescending reply.

[waldo]

I think he is saying that the earth is obviously sensitive to changes in climate.

Can't wait for your next condescending reply.

you don't know what you're talking about. If you presume to speak for someone else, if you presume to speak about climate sensitivity, you need to first understand the subject. Once you understand/recognize the contradictions thrown around by deniers (re: low vs. high sensitivity), you'll possibly be in a better position to recognize your own hypocrisy. Condescending enough for you?

[GostHacked]

you don't know what you're talking about. If you presume to speak for someone else, if you presume to speak about climate sensitivity, you need to first understand the subject. Once you understand/recognize the contradictions thrown around by deniers (re: low vs. high sensitivity), you'll possibly be in a better position to recognize your own hypocrisy. Condescending enough for you?

I said I think that is how he was trying to word it. I did not say it was exactly how he was trying to word it. I don't speak for anyone else, but myself. but we do help each other clarify things at times when the right words cannot be found.

But maybe that is something we all agree on, that the earth is subject to climate change. Always has been always will. I don't think anyone is denying climate change. We have different views on the cause.

[waldo]

I don't think anyone is denying climate change. We have different views on the cause.

after you, Alphonse! Let's have you... for once... for the first time evah... express your view, one you can substantiate, "on the cause"... the principal cause... of the relatively recent warming.

[GostHacked]

after you, Alphonse! Let's have you... for once... for the first time evah... express your view, one you can substantiate, "on the cause"... the principal cause... of the relatively recent warming.

We agree to disagree. Nothing more can really be said on that.

[waldo]

We agree to disagree. Nothing more can really be said on that.

no - what can be said, what can be highlighted, is that through all your denial, through all your huffery&puffery... you won't, as you stated, "express your view on the cause", one that actually supports your denial! Huffery&Puffery, hickory, dickory, dock!

[GostHacked]

no - what can be said, what can be highlighted, is that through all your denial, through all your huffery&puffery... you won't, as you stated, "express your view on the cause", one that actually supports your denial!

My views on the cause have not been received that well, so there was no real reason to continue down that path. I'll state that the stance I took was deliberate manipulation of the weather. Through various means. And there would be nothing I could put in front of you that would change your mind. So why bother?

[Michael Hardner]

you missed my post here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22805-the-global-warming-plateau/?p=924337

The trend is only 'clearly downward' if you cherry pick your starting point.

That said, the data prior to 1979 is bad and there is tendency for scientists to only look at data that gives them the narrative they want to see (and peer reviewers to favor studies which confirm their biases). But this data is good enough to cast doubt on your 'clearly downward' claim. At worst we can say we don't know what the 100 year trend looks like. Saying we don't know is also a lot different than saying the trend is 'clearly downward'.

Isn't this the same 'narrative' as we've had on other threads ? At the end of the day is it something as simple as debating how warm the MedWarmingPeriod was ? If so, then it's not worth discussing.

[Michael Hardner]

Edit: I've added a set of graphs that seem to illustrate some of my point. If you look at each graph - the last one is more prevalent, you'll see a spike from about 1915 to 1945. The spike is very similar, if not identical to one we've recently experienced. Point being - if you were living in 1915, you could make many of the arguments being made today.....but if you started counting in the 40's, it would lead you in the opposite diection - up to and including the famous Times article espousing Global Cooling. All of this while CO2 is continually climbing. Facts. Observations. Not theories. Not computers.

Link: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/what-global-temperature-measurement-is-best/

I see no 'spike'. I see periods of relative stability followed by periods of warming. The overall trend is still upwards.

Edited to add:

Not theories and not computers reveals your lack of understanding of statistical regressional analysis, which you can do with pen, paper and tables.

[waldo]

My views on the cause have not been received that well, so there was no real reason to continue down that path. I'll state that the stance I took was deliberate manipulation of the weather. Through various means. And there would be nothing I could put in front of you that would change your mind. So why bother?

I will always take an opening to showcase your grand world-wide conspiracy themes...

"deliberate weather manipulation" => GostHacked principal cause of global warming

Edited October 18, 2013 by waldo

[Keepitsimple]

I see no 'spike'. I see periods of relative stability followed by periods of warming. The overall trend is still upwards.

Edited to add:

Not theories and not computers reveals your lack of understanding of statistical regressional analysis, which you can do with pen, paper and tables.

Michael - that's precisely correct. You've got tunnel vision when it comes to a skeptical view. I - ALONG WITH MOST SKEPTICS ARE NOT DENYING THAT THE WORLD IS WARMING - PLEASE GET THAT STRAIGHT. It's been warming since we got out of the last ice-age - thousands of years ago. As I explained - there are periods where the temperature goes up, others where it plateaus or even cools a bit - and then it goes up again - but overall, its always rising. So your comment is precisely accurate. But look at what I said - and look at the last chart. Look at the level of rise from about 1910/1915 to around 1940....and compare that rise to the 1980 to current rise. Don't you agree that they are similar? If we can agree on that....then perhaps we can take another step and reach a grudging agreement that it looks like there was little or no warming from the 40's through to the late 70's. If we get that far, I would ask that you start to consider with an open mind that the current plateau that we've experienced since 2000 might just be mirroring what has happened before.......and yes, if that's the case, we can expect the lull to continue for another 15 or 20 years and then temperatures will begin their upward climb again. Just clear your mind and try to see things a little different than the alarmist hype - which keeps people focused on one, brief 30 year window in time.

[waldo]

I see no 'spike'. I see periods of relative stability followed by periods of warming. The overall trend is still upwards.

Edited to add:

Not theories and not computers reveals your lack of understanding of statistical regressional analysis, which you can do with pen, paper and tables.

Michael, this is simply Simple regurgitating his long-tired 'CO² correlation meme'... which dovetails quite nicely with his oft repeated 'similar to 30's warming meme'. Of course, this is another 'look squirrel' offering in follow-up to TimG's own anecdotal squirrel from a few posts back! The 'look squirrel' distraction play is a standard denier tactical ploy pulled out whenever they're faced with the challenge to provide an attribution for today's relatively recent warming! "Look squirrel"!!!

TimG's pre-satellite Arctic ice observations squirrel offering is an "economies of scale" version of his grander criticisms of paleo-reconstructions. In either case, the data is all crap... until he wants to leverage it... then it's great data! This latest wrinkle has TimG claiming pre-satellite Arctic ice data (pre-1979 data) is bad, really bad... so bad, it's really good to showcase cherry-picking!

of course, the prior challenge to TimG gets hit with his, "Look squirrel"!!! Again:

Why not put an end to your claimed cherry-pick and put up a comprehensive reconstruction... and while you're doing that make sure to quantify the 30s temperature while providing an attribution for the presumed/claimed warming of the 30s that correlates with whatever melting and extent loss you presume upon?

as for Simple, he's played this out so many times... what is consistent is his inability to provide attribution to his so-called "similar to 1930's warming". A consistency that carries through to today's relatively recent warming! In both cases, Simple makes claims... unsubstantiated claims... claims founded on a lack of supported attribution causal ties/linkages. Simple, same-ole, same-ole!

Simple's received repeated rebuke to his 30s nonsense through an assortment of MLW threads... debunking that has included citation support. In any case, for what it's worth (other than Simple simply ignoring it, yet once again): the science shows that the relative warming of the 30s can principally be attributed to increased solar activity and a reduced cooling affect due to lower volcanic eruptions… GHG’s were increasing, but were not a principal factor relative to the periods solar and volcanic influences… neither of which, solar or volcanic, are considerations for the accelerated post 1979 warming.

[waldo]

I - ALONG WITH MOST SKEPTICS............

and yes, if that's the case, we can expect the lull to continue for another 15 or 20 years and then temperatures will begin their upward climb again. Just clear your mind and try to see things a little different than the alarmist hype - which keeps people focused on one, brief 30 year window in time.

c'mon Simple... warming/climate change doesn't happen in a denier vacuum/bubble!... there has to be an attribution behind each of your selectively chosen 30-year periods. What physical science based attributions are you applying to your selectively chosen 30-year periods? You can't simply state, global warming is the result of “a natural cycle... of internal/natural variability”... what cycle(s) are causing your selective 30-year time periods?

oh, and can you and your, "I - ALONG WITH MOST SKEPTICS............" speak to your other selectivity! That is to say, your most selective focus on surface temperature warming to the absolute exclusion of the earth's complete energy transfer... to the complete exclusion of ocean warming. Why so selective, Simple?

[TimG]

Isn't this the same 'narrative' as we've had on other threads ? At the end of the day is it something as simple as debating how warm the MedWarmingPeriod was ? If so, then it's not worth discussing.

You are doing exactly was most alarmists do: ignore data that does not conform to the narrative that you like.

As for this thread: you made an claim that is misleading at best (that the loss of ice from 1979 to 2013 is meaningful). When one looks at all the data from the 100 year record the picture is not so clear. You can, of course, dismiss the data that does not fit your narrative but that does not mean others are simply going to ignore your misleading comments.

[waldo]

...ignore data that does not conform to the narrative that you like.

When one looks at all the data from the 100 year record the picture is not so clear. You can, of course, dismiss the data that does not fit your narrative

I thought you said the data was crap... apparently, your "not so clear"... is quite clear, is very, very clear... clear enough to support your narrative! Oh look... there's that TimG squirrel again!

[Shady]

c'mon Simple... warming/climate change doesn't happen in a denier vacuum/bubble!... there has to be an attribution behind each of your selectively chosen 30-year periods. What physical science based attributions are you applying to your selectively chosen 30-year periods? You can't simply state, global warming is the result of “a natural cycle... of internal/natural variability”... what cycle(s) are causing your selective 30-year time periods?

oh, and can you and your, "I - ALONG WITH MOST SKEPTICS............" speak to your other selectivity! That is to say, your most selective focus on surface temperature warming to the absolute exclusion of the earth's complete energy transfer... to the complete exclusion of ocean warming. Why so selective, Simple?

So scientists have just discovered the existence of oceans? They couldn't have factored oceans into their models and predictions several years ago? Now all of a sudden, oceans are being used as the exuse as to why warming has plateaued? What tripe.

Anyways, did anyone discover the answer as to why 1979 is being used as a starting point? Was there a great disco song released that year or something? Or did somebody just throw a dart?

[waldo]

So scientists have just discovered the existence of oceans? They couldn't have factored oceans into their models and predictions several years ago? Now all of a sudden, oceans are being used as the exuse as to why warming has plateaued? What tripe.

the tripe I see is you recycling within this thread... you were responded to on this already, as below. Let me know if you'd like to also have the earliest IPCC report references to OHC linked to/quoted.

So is this heat transfer into ocean layers new? Wasn't the same thing happening 10 and 20 years ago?

this is your originated thread, right? Are you actually following it? One of the following links is even a reply to... YOU!

see this link - previously from this thread:

see this link - previously from this thread:

Anyways, did anyone discover the answer as to why 1979 is being used as a starting point? Was there a great disco song released that year or something? Or did somebody just throw a dart?

granted, most subjects will bring forward the heightened level of your cognitive dissonance; however, for your own piece of mind, I would suggest you take extra measures to stay out of these GW/CC related threads... they're just not good for ya, lil' buddy! In any case, it's clear your comprehension failure has once again got the better of you... see satellite monitoring, hey!

in any case, I threw up an example... one of many available... an example that doesn't even reach into the paleo basket - see here:

.

[Moonlight Graham]

Just want to clarify for myself what the science seems to saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So atmosphere temperatures (and surface temperatures?)...their warming has slowed or at least isn't very significant? But ocean warming continues to rise steadily. Also, ice caps and glaciers etc. continue to melt away?