Al Gore explains "snowmageddon"

[skierinvermont]

http://www.pbs.org/w.../solutions.html

"Sixteen hundred years ago, around the time of Venice's founding, the Adriatic's standard sea level was almost six feet below what it is today. For a millennium and a half, Venetians were able to cope with the problems associated with living in a water-dominated environment. As late as 1900, for example, water at extreme high tide covered St. Mark's Square only seven times a year."

For Amsterdam data since 1700...

I think it is:

.13mm/yr for 1700 to 1800.

.81mm/yr for 1800 to 1900

.14mm/yr for 1900 to 2000

http://members.casem.../denhelder.html

http://www.psmsl.org/data/longrecords/

http://www.psmsl.org.../ancill_rep.htm

http://www.psmsl.org...erdam.sea.level

I don't know why the 1800's seemed to be changing so quickly.

Earthquakes? It seems to go up in a stepwise fashion.

From the Wikipedia Holocene chart, the trend was 0.2mm/yr extrapolating from 4000 yrs BP to today.

Some of the current sea level rise is due to glacial melt (verified by GRACE).

Some is due to thermal expansion of deep water, likely very old expansion.

Some is due to thermal expansion of shallow water.

That is a poorly written article. What they are really referring to is the fact that Venice is sinking, not that the actual water has risen 6 feet over the last 1,600 years.

This is why you need to use scientific sources that have properly calibrated and interpreted global data. The results of such studies show little net sea level change over the last 2,000 years, with rising sea levels for the last 300, and rapidly rising for the last 100. The results of one such study is shown below.

[skierinvermont]

Maybe I should rethink my idea about heat/cold.

Convection might be about to account for some of the ocean heat distribution, with deep cold currents.

It still would take thousands of years to make a serious dent in deep water temps.

Depends what you mean by a serious dent. In terms of releasing deep sea deposits of methane? I don't really know what the threshold is. I did some digging and did find this:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html

Sounds like lots of these deposits are located at around 200m deep.. where things would warm much faster especially in the arctic.

But in terms of 1) steric sea level rise and 2) the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, a .03C/decade increase in temperature is quite large. That is a massive amount of energy, considering the enormous volume and heat capacity of the oceans. It significantly reduces the ability of the oceans to absorb the CO2 we emit, and it is responsible for most of the 20cm of sea level rise that occurred since 1900. And of course the rate has been accelerating through the 20th century.

Over the last 60 years the oceans have accumulated 10X more heat than the atmosphere has, which is quite remarkable given how much the atmosphere has warmed.

[nzucker]

That is a poorly written article. What they are really referring to is the fact that Venice is sinking, not that the actual water has risen 6 feet over the last 1,600 years.

This is why you need to use scientific sources that have properly calibrated and interpreted global data. The results of such studies show little net sea level change over the last 2,000 years, with rising sea levels for the last 300, and rapidly rising for the last 100. The results of one such study is shown below.

The sea level rise shown by the chart clearly corresponds well to solar cycles, not just AGW. You can see that the rise started at the end of the Maunder Minimum in the early 1600s, started to level off/decline slightly during the Dalton Minimum, and then accelerated rapidly in the mid 1800s. I agree that human emissions are partially responsible as well, but so far solar seems to be lining up nicely with the significant climate indicators I've seen. It'll be fascinating to watch if the solar minimum we're starting now follows these same rules, or if there's more of a departure due to the increasing influence of AGW. This is one reason why I've always said we'll have a much better idea about the climate's change by 2030-2040, including what actions need to be taken.

[skierinvermont]

The sea level rise shown by the chart clearly corresponds well to solar cycles, not just AGW. You can see that the rise started at the end of the Maunder Minimum in the early 1600s, started to level off/decline slightly during the Dalton Minimum, and then accelerated rapidly in the mid 1800s. I agree that human emissions are partially responsible as well, but so far solar seems to be lining up nicely with the significant climate indicators I've seen. It'll be fascinating to watch if the solar minimum we're starting now follows these same rules, or if there's more of a departure due to the increasing influence of AGW. This is one reason why I've always said we'll have a much better idea about the climate's change by 2030-2040, including what actions need to be taken.

Of course in the long term it's controlled by natural factors. Humans weren't influencing the climate to a significant degree 500-2000 years ago. The argument, if you've been following, is whether our current sea level rise is simply a continuation of early-holocene sea level rise, which it clearly is not as sea levels had leveled off for the last 2000 years, even falling during the Dalton.

Our current sea level rise is not a continuation of early holocene sea level rise as Clifford and Bethesda claimed.. it is an entirely "new" and much more rapid sea level rise after a 2,000 year plateau, that began as we emerged from the LIA and then accelerated as AGW took hold.

[nzucker]

Of course in the long term it's controlled by natural factors. Humans weren't influencing the climate to a significant degree 500-2000 years ago. The argument, if you've been following, is whether our current sea level rise is simply a continuation of early-holocene sea level rise, which it clearly is not as sea levels had leveled off for the last 2000 years, even falling during the Dalton.

Our current sea level rise is not a continuation of early holocene sea level rise as Clifford and Bethesda claimed.. it is an entirely "new" sea level rise after a 2,000 year plateau, that began as we emerged from the LIA and then accelerated as AGW took hold.

From the chart posted, however, the slope of the trendline doesn't seem to have changed that much since the rapid rise began at the end of the Little Ice Age. We've clearly risen a bit more this century, but is it all that different from the changes caused by the solar minimum's end? Also, did the long period of low solar from 1600-1800 create glaciers/ice sheets that have since been slowly melting with the gradual transition away from the LIA? And what will be the effect of the new minimum?

Can you come online for a sec to discuss VT?

[skierinvermont]

From the chart posted, however, the slope of the trendline doesn't seem to have changed that much since the rapid rise began at the end of the Little Ice Age. We've clearly risen a bit more this century, but is it all that different from the changes caused by the solar minimum's end? Also, did the long period of low solar from 1600-1800 create glaciers/ice sheets that have since been slowly melting with the gradual transition away from the LIA? And what will be the effect of the new minimum?

Can you come online for a sec to discuss VT?

You're not reading it correctly .. it's hard to read. Look closely at the X axis.. one tick mark is 50 years. The really rapid increase begins around 1920. It's also accelerated from about 1.5mm/yr to 3.0mm/yr in the last 20 years.. just can't see it on that graph. It's not precise enough to show the acceleration of the last 100 years. Here's a graph that is:

Obviously some of the early rise in the above graph (1900-1940) is partially solar, but then it accelerates further. Even this graph doesn't really show the acceleration of the last 20 years well because it only goes up to 2002ish

The new minimum will have little effect because the earth is in a large energy imbalance, is rapidly gaining in heat and rising in temperature. And the CO2 effect is growing ever more dominant.

[BethesdaWX]

I can see the problem you are referring to about the switch from proxies to instruments at the year 1900. The proxies are obviously not as precise as the instruments are. But it doesn't matter because there was clearly very little net change in sea level the last 2,000 years and then a sudden acceleration. If sea levels had been rising steadily the last 2,000 years there would have been a large net change.

Here is a reconstruction of sea level the last 2000 years combined with the instrumental record through 2000. Obviously there is more uncertainty with the reconstructed sea level, as denoted by the large error bars, however it doesn't matter. The general picture is clear - no net change in sea level the last 2000 years, but we are rising rapidly already near record levels in the last 2000 years.

This graph comes from a study by researchers at the Proudman Oceanography Laboratory, the University of Copenhagen and the University of Lapland.

http://planetearth.n...ory.aspx?id=293

I see.

I feel that your graph actually proves my point......to a certain extent, albeit not completely.

The Rate of Increase since 1900 matches solar pretty damn well actually, I'm surprised its not rising faster.

Quite the upward shot at the turn of the century. Problem is, even with flatlining solar after yr 1999, we had all the drivers (+PDO/+AMO and El Nino dominance) during the flatlining peak of the Solar Cycle 23 around Year 2000, so level rise was enhanced.

Some of the rise makes sense with Holocene SeaLevel rise at a slow, but constant....not quite flat. We have the Solar, and then the Mystery of The MF decrease of 15% since.....1850

I guess we'll see where this goes....but solar is a good proxy............for now at least, that may change.

[Clifford]

The sea level rise shown by the chart clearly corresponds well to solar cycles, not just AGW. You can see that the rise started at the end of the Maunder Minimum in the early 1600s, started to level off/decline slightly during the Dalton Minimum, and then accelerated rapidly in the mid 1800s. I agree that human emissions are partially responsible as well, but so far solar seems to be lining up nicely with the significant climate indicators I've seen. It'll be fascinating to watch if the solar minimum we're starting now follows these same rules, or if there's more of a departure due to the increasing influence of AGW. This is one reason why I've always said we'll have a much better idea about the climate's change by 2030-2040, including what actions need to be taken.

Absolutely.

I think this is part of the feeling of may people.

The Sun is a major forcing agent.

CO₂ may be a contributing agent.

Obviously we've also altered the environment with Urbanization, deforestation, over fishing, fertilizer runoff, pesticides, need to consider sustainable farming techniques, and etc.

We also have a problem of inaccuracy of records, and find ourselves heavily weighting short-term, or very course climate records. More data will help.

Over the next few decades it is prudent to concentrate on major issues such as population growth, resource depletion (including oil), basic energy related R&D, and etc. We will, afterall, either quit using petroleum, or eventually run out of the stuff.

Also concentrate on putting out coal fires... big ones, small ones... just get them snuffed.

However, it appears as if we are being given a unique opportunity to study solar minima, and the relationship of forcing agents.

We need to come up with a deadline of when we will have a good estimate on the amount of solar forcing... and, thus the potential relative concentrations of various forcing agents.

Earlier I had suggested that we will know a lot more about solar cycles by 2018 to 2020. And hopefully we will have a glimpse into Solar Cycle 25 about that time.

Anyway, by the end of this decade, if I see a trend towards worsening temperature increases, then one would tend to attribute more weight to CO₂ as a forcing agent (as well as other greenhouse gases including methane and troposphere ozone).

If there is no change in temperatures... that will be a bit more complicated because if the prediction is decreasing temperatures and if we encounter stability, then it would likely indicate combined influence.

If the temperature plummets, or returns to pre-90's levels... then CO₂ would certainly be weighted less.

I would encourage everyone to consider early... how they will interpret climate changes over the next few decades.

[BethesdaWX]

Absolutely.

I think this is part of the feeling of may people.

The Sun is a major forcing agent.

CO₂ may be a contributing agent.

Obviously we've also altered the environment with Urbanization, deforestation, over fishing, fertilizer runoff, pesticides, need to consider sustainable farming techniques, and etc.

We also have a problem of inaccuracy of records, and find ourselves heavily weighting short-term, or very course climate records. More data will help.

Over the next few decades it is prudent to concentrate on major issues such as population growth, resource depletion (including oil), basic energy related R&D, and etc. We will, afterall, either quit using petroleum, or eventually run out of the stuff.

Also concentrate on putting out coal fires... big ones, small ones... just get them snuffed.

However, it appears as if we are being given a unique opportunity to study solar minima, and the relationship of forcing agents.

We need to come up with a deadline of when we will have a good estimate on the amount of solar forcing... and, thus the potential relative concentrations of various forcing agents.

Earlier I had suggested that we will know a lot more about solar cycles by 2018 to 2020. And hopefully we will have a glimpse into Solar Cycle 25 about that time.

Anyway, by the end of this decade, if I see a trend towards worsening temperature increases, then one would tend to attribute more weight to CO₂ as a forcing agent (as well as other greenhouse gases including methane and troposphere ozone).

If there is no change in temperatures... that will be a bit more complicated because if the prediction is decreasing temperatures and if we encounter stability, then it would likely indicate combined influence.

If the temperature plummets, or returns to pre-90's levels... then CO₂ would certainly be weighted less.

I would encourage everyone to consider early... how they will interpret climate changes over the next few decades.

Agreed. I'm also studying the earths Magnetic Field decrease very heavily. Not only did the drop begin around 1850, but it has weakened a whopping 15% since then.....that is friggin huge for 150yrs!

At the rate of 10% decrease per century, that would have it gone completely in 850yrs. It probably won't happen that way, since it tends to reform elsewhere in timesof change, but the short term drop is eye popping.

There would certainly be effects from that...what they are is the question. The earth being exposed to more solar influence would thus lead to a hefty load of warming, to put it simply.

[Clifford]

Agreed. I'm also studying the earths Magnetic Field decrease very heavily. Not only did the drop begin around 1850, but it has weakened a whopping 15% since then.....that is friggin huge for 150yrs!

At the rate of 10% decrease per century, that would have it gone completely in 850yrs. It probably won't happen that way, since it tends to reform elsewhere in timesof change, but the short term drop is eye popping.

There would certainly be effects from that...what they are is the question. The earth being exposed to more solar influence would thus lead to a hefty load of warming, to put it simply.

As I mentioned elsewhere...

I think it is all interrelated.

"Magnetic Storms on the sun"

Holocene & Global Warming (as opposed to an ice age).

shift in earth's magnetic field.

The alternative is -8°C temperature drop.

Glaciers replacing the Great Lakes.

Feeling like I moved to Alaska... but rather having Alaska move to me.

[skierinvermont]

What a bunch of self-declared experts we have in this thread!

Who needs science when we can just pull correlations out of a hat?

You both claimed that sea levels rose "throughout the Holocene" which is quite simply wrong. Our current sea level rise is "new" and much more rapid than any in the past 2,000 years. So now instead of arguing that the sea level rise is just a continuation of early Holocene sea level rise, you have changed your argument to "oh OK I guess it has leveled off the last 2,000 years, but it correlates with solar." Well of course it correlates with solar, what did you expect? The existence of a MWP and LIA that were caused by solar changes is well accepted in the field of climatology and can be found in the IPCC report on AGW. But this has absolutely no bearing on the cause of our present warming.

I really don't care about the "feeling of 'may' people". The physical causative mechanism to explain our current warming naturally is simply not there, whereas there is a very clear and empirically and theoretically tested mechanism for CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

What a bunch of self-declared experts we have in this thread!

Who needs science when we can just pull correlations out of a hat?

You both claimed that sea levels rose "throughout the Holocene" which is quite simply wrong. Our current sea level rise is "new" and much more rapid than any in the past 2,000 years. So now instead of arguing that the sea level rise is just a continuation of early Holocene sea level rise, you have changed your argument to "oh OK I guess it has leveled off the last 2,000 years, but it correlates with solar." Well of course it correlates with solar, what did you expect? The existence of a MWP and LIA that were caused by solar changes is well accepted in the field of climatology and can be found in the IPCC report on AGW. But this has absolutely no bearing on the cause of our present warming.

I really don't care about the "feeling of 'may' people". The physical causative mechanism to explain our current warming naturally is simply not there, whereas there is a very clear and empirically and theoretically tested mechanism for CO2.

1) If Solar Created the MWP & LIA.......why is todays moderm max NOT responsible for todays warming?!? Todays max is HIGHER! hehehe.......again....todays max is higher.......and we have more Ice at the North Pole.......yeah........ Oh thats right, since there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today, our Computer Models MUST be correct! CO2 is the Base of earths atmosphere!

2) Sea levels never went steady during the holocene......try finding anyone who says they have.

3) Solar is the big correlation, as you demonstrated in your lovely graph.

[cpickett79]

It is time to give credit where credit is due.

The 1960's and 1970's global cooling (which was once heralded as the coming of the next Ice Age) was due to a week solar cycle. And, of course, that period is often used as a basis for the "Global Warming" calculations.

The current cooling (or lack of warming) is also due to a week solar cycle, now predicted to be the lowest in a century.

Now, it doesn't mean that one can't superimpose a solar cooling cycle upon a trace gas mediated warming cycle. However, this coming decade will test the CO₂ mediated warming hypothesis.

Sure, blame hurricanes, tornadoes, & floods on Global Warming... Not snowstorms (with a corresponding plunge in the Global Temperature indices).

Floods? Should we blame Noah's flood on Global Warming too? Actually, some believe that Noah's flood was actually caused by Global Warming... just not caused by driving SUVs.

One should never forget that we've always had weather variability (as well as climate variability). Chicago, for example, periodically gets hit by snowstorms. Nothing new there.

political movement are NEVER based on critical thinking. seems they focus on creating desired emotional responses .....they are EXPERTS at this and brainstorm on ways to do this....first they cast a wide net on weather phenomena (everything tries to get pinned to gw) so they can frame and capture your perception filters...next they perhaps look for a reason you will WANT to believe it. perhaps some people want to beleive they are part of a movement that will "save the earth" or perhaps people want to believe there "love for the enviornment's" only hope of getting attention is if GW is put on the front page....now run this on the boob tube non stop and then people will start ....well.....the conditiioning process

[cpickett79]

What a bunch of self-declared experts we have in this thread!

Who needs science when we can just pull correlations out of a hat?

You both claimed that sea levels rose "throughout the Holocene" which is quite simply wrong. Our current sea level rise is "new" and much more rapid than any in the past 2,000 years. So now instead of arguing that the sea level rise is just a continuation of early Holocene sea level rise, you have changed your argument to "oh OK I guess it has leveled off the last 2,000 years, but it correlates with solar." Well of course it correlates with solar, what did you expect? The existence of a MWP and LIA that were caused by solar changes is well accepted in the field of climatology and can be found in the IPCC report on AGW. But this has absolutely no bearing on the cause of our present warming.

I really don't care about the "feeling of 'may' people". The physical causative mechanism to explain our current warming naturally is simply not there, whereas there is a very clear and empirically and theoretically tested mechanism for CO2.

i believe in my heart that politicians genuinely care for the planet and this is why they spend billions on Funding GW. I don't think it is about $$$ Or power i mean those are not politial motives in this case. Besides when all is said and done they will take this perfectly good science that i agree is iron clad and focus efforts on "healing mother nature" because that is what politics is really about. Yup that is what i decided i'm willing to believe. yup. may not make perfectly good sense to me....but i won't question my answers....besides it's written in all these publications and 1000 scientists back it up....and yes none of that even if true would matter if politicans motives are corrupted but this is politics and there motives are pure.

[salbers]

3) Solar is the big correlation, as you demonstrated in your lovely graph.

Solar (including Milankovitch cycles and solar activity) correlated in the past since there wasn't human "competition" then. The story is different now.

[BethesdaWX]

Solar (including Milankovitch cycles and solar activity) correlated in the past since there wasn't human "competition" then. The story is different now.

The Modern Max and the MWP max are at the same level. The MWP temps and CWP temps are at the same level. Sea Levels are at the Same Level. Only this time, its CO2 caused?

The modern max had a quick "spike" from the Weak Solar of 1700s-1800's to 1900-2000...thus we see the "spike" in temps.

Its not that hard to seea correlation.

[WeatherRusty]

The political debate, which was brilliantly crafted and executed by the denial machine, has been won by the deniers of AGW. They will not stop there however, they will push on into the future even as the climate continues to warm. They will do this until common reason is overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary. Climate change is so damned slow and gradual in relation to a single human lifetime and memories are to short for people to be convinced of something they can barely perceive for themselves.

It doesn't matter how solid the science is if people don't believe it.

[tacoman25]

The political debate, which was brilliantly crafted and executed by the denial machine, has been won by the deniers of AGW. They will not stop there however, they will push on into the future even as the climate continues to warm. They will do this until common reason is overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary. Climate change is so damned slow and gradual in relation to a single human lifetime and memories are to short for people to be convinced of something they can barely perceive for themselves.

It doesn't matter how solid the science is if people don't believe it.

You should run for president.

[salbers]

The Modern Max and the MWP max are at the same level. The MWP temps and CWP temps are at the same level. Sea Levels are at the Same Level. Only this time, its CO2 caused?

The modern max had a quick "spike" from the Weak Solar of 1700s-1800's to 1900-2000...thus we see the "spike" in temps.

Its not that hard to seea correlation.

Well I think CWP temps have spiked higher than the MWP. Sea levels (if I can remind you) are about to exceed the MWP, once the CWP lasts long enough. CO2 and other GHGs is it this time - the radiative forcing has an effect as sure as the sun rises today. The equation has changed - one must learn to think instead of just laugh and consider new circumstances.

Temperature have risen in the past 50 years while solar activity is trailing off.

[WeatherRusty]

Well I think CWP temps have spiked higher than the MWP. Sea levels (if I can remind you) are about to exceed the MWP, once the CWP lasts long enough. CO2 and other GHGs is it this time - the radiative forcing has an effect as sure as the sun rises today. The equation has changed - one must learn to think instead of just laugh and consider new circumstances.

Isn't it obvious you are speaking to someone who can not be convinced by reason, logic and factual data? These deniers who prefer to be called skeptics because any good scientist is skeptical, have no intention, inclination or desire to learn from the actual science. Their goal is solely to confuse, obfuscate and deny the peer-reviewed science and claim they are shut out from participating in the peer-review process.

I am accused of being a BS artist (Presidential candidate) because I happen to recognize what is going on politically and can muster up a few words which accurately summarize the situation.

[Clifford]

The political debate, which was brilliantly crafted and executed by the denial machine, has been won by the deniers of AGW. They will not stop there however, they will push on into the future even as the climate continues to warm. They will do this until common reason is overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary. Climate change is so damned slow and gradual in relation to a single human lifetime and memories are to short for people to be convinced of something they can barely perceive for themselves.

It doesn't matter how solid the science is if people don't believe it.

I don't think the debate has been won by any camp.

It isn't that climate change is just slow, but it is confounded by the extraordinary variability of the weather, as well as the variability of the climate itself.

The Global Warming Group started this as a political discussion, and crafted it as an excellent "political debate". But, as a political debate, they presented things like the famous "Hockey Stick" representing a stable climate followed by a rapidly changing monotonously increasing temperature.

However, the true hockey stick never existed. We've had 4.5 billion years of climate change, and even in the most recent 10,000 year Holocene epoch, we've had much more climate variability than the AGW camp represented. There have been warming and cooling trends in the last 2000 years of modern civilization, and even extending up into this century. It is likely that we are not at the Holocene Maximum.

In fact, as the Global Warming debate started gaining momentum, we've likely entered into a cooling cycle.

The progression of the current cooling cycle will tell us a lot about the warming cycles that we've been in lately.

If the global warming camp had ignored the temptation of the "Hockey Stick", political ploy, but rather presented the true argument....

We've had warming and cooling cycles since the beginning of time.

We seem to be at a 20^th/21^st century maximum.

Near the maximum temperatures for the last 2000 years.

Perhaps at a Holocene maximum.

Certainly not at the Eocene maximum.

We will undoubtedly have temperature downturns so the trend is likely at a much lower slope than the maximum rise.

The concurrent rise in CO₂ with previous warming cycles has been largely because of shifts into and out of the oceans with the average ocean temperature largely determining the atmospheric CO₂ concentration.

There is likely a non-linear impact of CO₂ on the temperature feedback. In fact, while the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ is at 0.04%, we are well past any maximum response feedback, and future shifts will likely follow a logarithmic curve.

Once a true picture of the climate/environment is painted, then the argument that CO₂ as a pressing/feedback/amplifier agent can be presented.

True scientific arguments try to eliminate biases. Political arguments try to exploit biases for their own purposes. For example, as mentioned in another topic, NOAA presents a wonderful graph showing an increasing recent trend of tornadoes. However, the trend presented is entirely due to reporting biases.

Finally, no matter the temptation, one should not be foolish enough to claim that cooling cycles are caused by the warming trend, but rather are normal cycles superimposed on the overall trend.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think the debate has been won by any camp.

It isn't that climate change is just slow, but it is confounded by the extraordinary variability of the weather, as well as the variability of the climate itself.

The Global Warming Group started this as a political discussion, and crafted it as an excellent "political debate". But, as a political debate, they presented things like the famous "Hockey Stick" representing a stable climate followed by a rapidly changing monotonously increasing temperature.

First of all, the "hockey stick" is essentially an accurate representation of temperatures over the last 2,000 years. The National Academy of Science in a recent review of the original graph found it to be largely accurate. What people typically fail to understand is the significance of the large error bars on the proxy data of the graph prior to 1900. There has not been a single reconstruction that falls outside its error bars and even the most variable reconstructions only show slightly more variability than the MBH reconstruction.

Second of all, the large majority of scientists don't deal with the political issue at all. They are scientists whose primary focus is research and publication in scientific journals. There is of course a great need to communicate this important information to the public, which is what the IPCC was created for.

However, the true hockey stick never existed. We've had 4.5 billion years of climate change, and even in the most recent 10,000 year Holocene epoch, we've had much more climate variability than the AGW camp represented. There have been warming and cooling trends in the last 2000 years of modern civilization, and even extending up into this century. It is likely that we are not at the Holocene Maximum.

This has been well known and publicized for a long time. You are not introducing anything "new" or interesting to the debate. One can find this information in about 3 minutes in the IPCC report.

In fact, as the Global Warming debate started gaining momentum, we've likely entered into a cooling cycle.

The progression of the current cooling cycle will tell us a lot about the warming cycles that we've been in lately.

We have not enetered a cooling cycle. The earth continues to rapidly accumulate heat at .9W/m2. The global oceans continue to warm. The surface has continued to warm. Even UAH, which is not very accurate and is likely biased too cold shows warming of ~.07C/decade since 1998 after correcting for ENSO.

If the global warming camp had ignored the temptation of the "Hockey Stick", political ploy, but rather presented the true argument....

We've had warming and cooling cycles since the beginning of time.

We seem to be at a 20^th/21^st century maximum.

Near the maximum temperatures for the last 2000 years.

Perhaps at a Holocene maximum.

Certainly not at the Eocene maximum.

We will undoubtedly have temperature downturns so the trend is likely at a much lower slope than the maximum rise.

The concurrent rise in CO₂ with previous warming cycles has been largely because of shifts into and out of the oceans with the average ocean temperature largely determining the atmospheric CO₂ concentration.

There is likely a non-linear impact of CO₂ on the temperature feedback. In fact, while the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ is at 0.04%, we are well past any maximum response feedback, and future shifts will likely follow a logarithmic curve.

The fact that the response to CO2 is logarithmic is a well known fact which is easily found in the IPCC report. It is the basis for all climate models. Again, you are not introducing anything new or interesting to the debate.

The fact that the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the interglacials is due to the oceans warming and releasing their CO2, is also a well known fact easily found in the IPCC report. Al Gore seems to be the only one confused about this. It is important to note, however, that without the positive feedback from CO2, the interglacials would not been nearly as warm. Again, nothing new. You are just parroting back the IPCC report to us.

Once a true picture of the climate/environment is painted, then the argument that CO₂ as a pressing/feedback/amplifier agent can be presented.

True scientific arguments try to eliminate biases. Political arguments try to exploit biases for their own purposes. For example, as mentioned in another topic, NOAA presents a wonderful graph showing an increasing recent trend of tornadoes. However, the trend presented is entirely due to reporting biases.

Finally, no matter the temptation, one should not be foolish enough to claim that cooling cycles are caused by the warming trend, but rather are normal cycles superimposed on the overall trend.

The picture of the science that has been painted in the IPCC reports since the early 1990s has been an accurate representation of the science at that time. What is really silly is dismissing the consensus of 1000s of scientists and vast bodies of research because a few fringe scientists and a few fringe politicians (Al Gore) are extremists.

The graph you found of tornadoes by NOAA isn't intended for the purpose of studying climate change it is is simply a historical record. You can also find these graphs from NOAA in a 2 second google search which show "adjusted" figures for reporting bias, and F3-5 counts which show a declining trend. Your implication that NOAA is trying to paint a picture of increasing tornadoes is just wrong - you were the one that made the mistake and interpreted the graph wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't think the debate has been won by any camp.

It isn't that climate change is just slow, but it is confounded by the extraordinary variability of the weather, as well as the variability of the climate itself.

The Global Warming Group started this as a political discussion, and crafted it as an excellent "political debate". But, as a political debate, they presented things like the famous "Hockey Stick" representing a stable climate followed by a rapidly changing monotonously increasing temperature.

However, the true hockey stick never existed. We've had 4.5 billion years of climate change, and even in the most recent 10,000 year Holocene epoch, we've had much more climate variability than the AGW camp represented. There have been warming and cooling trends in the last 2000 years of modern civilization, and even extending up into this century. It is likely that we are not at the Holocene Maximum.

In fact, as the Global Warming debate started gaining momentum, we've likely entered into a cooling cycle.

The progression of the current cooling cycle will tell us a lot about the warming cycles that we've been in lately.

If the global warming camp had ignored the temptation of the "Hockey Stick", political ploy, but rather presented the true argument....

We've had warming and cooling cycles since the beginning of time.

We seem to be at a 20^th/21^st century maximum.

Near the maximum temperatures for the last 2000 years.

Perhaps at a Holocene maximum.

Certainly not at the Eocene maximum.

We will undoubtedly have temperature downturns so the trend is likely at a much lower slope than the maximum rise.

The concurrent rise in CO₂ with previous warming cycles has been largely because of shifts into and out of the oceans with the average ocean temperature largely determining the atmospheric CO₂ concentration.

There is likely a non-linear impact of CO₂ on the temperature feedback. In fact, while the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ is at 0.04%, we are well past any maximum response feedback, and future shifts will likely follow a logarithmic curve.

Once a true picture of the climate/environment is painted, then the argument that CO₂ as a pressing/feedback/amplifier agent can be presented.

True scientific arguments try to eliminate biases. Political arguments try to exploit biases for their own purposes. For example, as mentioned in another topic, NOAA presents a wonderful graph showing an increasing recent trend of tornadoes. However, the trend presented is entirely due to reporting biases.

Finally, no matter the temptation, one should not be foolish enough to claim that cooling cycles are caused by the warming trend, but rather are normal cycles superimposed on the overall trend.

The paleoclimate record is replete with vast excursions of global temperature both much warmer and colder than today. This has been known for many decades. Anyone back in 1988 who thought that Hansen's hockey stick graph was meant to imply the climate is stable was just ignorant. A certain level of education is expected, maybe that's a big mistake.

Ask any climate scientist and he or she will tell you it is the very volatility of climate as revealed by past climate change that is most disconcerting. We are perturbing a system which is fundamentally unstable and can rather easily be pushed into another state.

Milankovitch theory indicates the world should have been cooling over the past 2,000 years rather than warming as it has. It should continue to cool for thousands of years into the future due to orbital configurations.

We have not been in any cooling cycle the past decade, the past decade has been the warmest in the instrumental record. 2010 was one of the top 3 years in the record. Solar variably over the next several decades may be on the cooler side, but this is known to impart only a very weak forcing on the climate. Enough with feedbacks to result in at most a 1C change in global temps. The forcing from CO2 increasing at near it's current rate will likely exceed intrinsic solar forcing in as little as 7 years. CO2 forcing gives 3.7W/m^2 from each doubling of the stuff. The Sun's intrinsic output would have to increase 22W/m^2 to equal the same forcing at Earth's surface.

The build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is all anthropogenic as indicated by isotopic analysis. The oceans are currently absorbing about 1/2 of our emissions even as they warm. So, far they continue to be a net sink for our emissions. At some point that may no longer be the case.

There is likely a non-linear impact of CO₂ on the temperature feedback. In fact, while the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ is at 0.04%, we are well past any maximum response feedback, and future shifts will likely follow a logarithmic curve

The temperature response is logarithmic. That means for each doubling you get the same forcing of 3.7W. 280ppmv to 560ppmv equals 560pppv to 1120ppmv. You get 1.2C change in either case.

The response from water vapor is also logarithmic, but that doesn't prevent additional water vapor from adding to the greenhouse effect. There is no such thing as saturation. The wavelength bands fill up, but they spread out or broaden as additional greenhouse gas is added. The atmospheric optical density is increased and more time is required for IR radiation to escape to space..

[Kmlwx]

Al Gore - "No I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist or an atmospheric scientist."

Audience: "..."

Al Gore - "But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

[salbers]

Who should communicate such things to the public? When the scientists do it, some accuse them of bias.

[skierinvermont]

Who should communicate such things to the public? When the scientists do it, some accuse them of bias.

Yeah if scientists communicate the results of their work to the public and try to bring awareness to the importance of the issue - they are labeled biased advocates. If politicians do it, they just get it all wrong.

[tacoman25]

Error bars be damned, the original presentation of the Hockey Stick Graph was very misleading. It made it appear as if there was no MWP, and little fluctuation in temperature until the past 100 years.

[tacoman25]

If there was an increase in strong/violent tornados, you can bet the bank Gore, Hansen, etc would be pointing to AGW. After all, global warming leads to more extreme weather events. Except when it doesn't.

[tacoman25]

Yeah if scientists communicate the results of their work to the public and try to bring awareness to the importance of the issue - they are labeled biased advocates. If politicians do it, they just get it all wrong.

I guarantee if a prominent skeptic scientist like Spencer was a politically active as Hansen, Rusty would be all over it like white on rice.

[WeatherRusty]

I guarantee if a prominent skeptic scientist like Spencer was a politically active as Hansen, Rusty would be all over it like white on rice.

They are both profiting from book sales and laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile the climate continues to ..........