Why global temperatures held steady for 10 years

[LakeEffectKing]

Perhaps all that protein is going to your head? Carbs actually help balance out cognitive and physical functions....

Anyway, can you elaborate a bit....I don't understand your code.

Do tell: what is my bias?

cheers

My diet aside: (which BTW, would be characterized as a higher fat diet than a higher protein diet, so assumption fail)

Decoding.............................

A "hoax-ster" is quite different than someone questioning whether Man's input of CO2 has become (or is becoming) the main driver of all of climate.....and you lumping them into one and characterizing "them" as having a negative bias, is a blatent bias on your behalf....indeed!

[wesleyhtswx]

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulfur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulfur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

Query, if environmentalist advocates can attempt to attribute observed cooling, or at least a halt in warming, to increased particulate air pollution, e.g., sulfur from the newly quasi-capitalist China, and if some have more than jokingly hinted at adding sulphur to the atmosphere as a last doomsday resort to save the planet, why are so few willing to attribute any observed warming over the 1980-2000 period to the West's successful efforts over the same period to reduce sulphur and related particulates from the atmosphere, not to mention the fall of the European Communist block and their integration into EU regulatory regimes? If the empirics don't support it, fine, but no one has said that, and the logic certain does.

[skierinvermont]

Lies? You have downplayed and sometimes even dismissed short term trends in favor of longer term ones on many occasions. Usually when it fits your viewpoint/bias. Call it "games" all you want...I'm just calling you out.

I'm sorry you can't handle criticism. If you don't like myself and others pointing out your inconsistencies, maybe you should consider that when you are criticizing others. You use standards with others that you simply do not apply to yourself. You expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt when you fail to do that for others.

No I do not "dismiss" short-term trends in favor of long term trends. The use of a long-term or a short-term trend is entirely dependent on the context and the conclusions which you are being made.

I'm sorry you can only view things in black and white and can't possibly understand how sometimes a long-term trend might be better than a short-term and vice versa. In general, long-term trends in climate science are better because many of our measurements have a high degree of uncertainty and sampling error which are reduced by the use of a long-term trend. But it all depends on the type of conclusions that one is making. Properly interpreted given their statistical significance, short-term variability etc., short-term trends are acceptable. But they need to be properly interpreted. So for example when I see someone claiming OHC has decreased the last 3 years, I'm going to call them out for using too short a trend. There is far too much measurement uncertainty with ARGO to make any solid conclusions based on a 3 year trend.

And no, you have not consistently stated that the short-term slowing of OHC/temperature is of signficant interest. Most of the time you have repeatedly referenced longer term trends in obvious attempts to downplay recent slowing.

Yes I have... probably at least 3 dozen times at least. Would you like me to quote them for you? Though I doubt quoting them will do much good you are so determined to play your childish gotcha games.

I'd like to see you quote even just one instance where I criticized someone for using a short-term trend or for cherry-picking and the criticism was not deserved.

Put up or shut up.

[nzucker]

No I do not "dismiss" short-term trends in favor of long term trends. The use of a long-term or a short-term trend is entirely dependent on the context and the conclusions which you are being made.

I'm sorry you can only view things in black and white and can't possibly understand how sometimes a long-term trend might be better than a short-term and vice versa. In general, long-term trends in climate science are better because many of our measurements have a high degree of uncertainty and sampling error which are reduced by the use of a long-term trend. But it all depends on the type of conclusions that one is making. Properly interpreted given their statistical significance, short-term variability etc., short-term trends are acceptable. But they need to be properly interpreted. So for example when I see someone claiming OHC has decreased the last 3 years, I'm going to call them out for using too short a trend. There is far too much measurement uncertainty with ARGO to make any solid conclusions based on a 3 year trend.

There is widespread consensus in the data that OHC increases have leveled off in the last few years. You have often tried to brush this aside to prove the Earth is "still warming" even though the OHC data as well as the global temperature measurements show much less warming than expected (although it's not nothing, as some have claimed). We do have to consider seriously where this heat is ending up given that with a plateau in surface/LT temps, you'd expect OHC to rise even faster, not slower.

[skierinvermont]

There is widespread consensus in the data that OHC increases have leveled off in the last few years. You have often tried to brush this aside to prove the Earth is "still warming" even though the OHC data as well as the global temperature measurements show much less warming than expected (although it's not nothing, as some have claimed). We do have to consider seriously where this heat is ending up given that with a plateau in surface/LT temps, you'd expect OHC to rise even faster, not slower.

This is exactly the type of misinterpretation of short-term trends I am talking about. The ARGO float system doesn't have nearly the precision to measure OHC accurately over just "a few years."

The error bars are like 10 times larger than the trend itself. But deniers like zucker and taco are convinced that OHC has leveled off.. when in reality we haven't the faintest idea what it's doing over just a 3 year period. It could be rising far more rapidly than any climate model expected or actually decreasing.

[WeatherRusty]

When discussing global warming, the only trend of serious interest is the longest trend available. Short term trends are cherry-picking. All the data should be used as context. During the period approx. 1940-1970 the trend was flat during what in hindsight is recognized as a long term warming trend. Those 30 flat years didn't mean the globe was not in the midst of a warming trend.

[BethesdaWX]

When discussing global warming, the only trend of serious interest is the longest trend available. Short term trends are cherry-picking. All the data should be used as context. During the period approx. 1940-1970 the trend was flat during what in hindsight is recognized as a long term warming trend. Those 30 flat years didn't mean the globe was not in the midst of a warming trend.

Then why did you state that if the upcoming decade does not warm that you'd be a skeptic? You said it on Eastern...I can link it here if needs be.

By your suggestion, lets start at the LIA, we had a surge of warming coming out of the LIA, and is when we began our long term warming trend...Sea levels were rising a least as fast as today's right off the bat. The Supposed AGW has not, long term, increased sea level rise at all, it had been occuring since the end of the LIA...the trend overall has been fairly steady...when we started emitting CO2 around 1950, there was no change in the trend. No acceleration, no decceleration.

I am not going to post a technical 3 page response like I really want to...

[WeatherRusty]

Then why did you state that if the upcoming decade does not warm that you'd be a skeptic? You said it on Eastern...I can link it here if needs be.

By your suggestion, lets start at the LIA, we had a surge of warming coming out of the LIA, and is when we began our long term warming trend...Sea levels were rising a least as fast as today's right off the bat. The Supposed AGW has not, long term, increased sea level rise at all, it had been occuring since the end of the LIA...the trend overall has been fairly steady...when we started emitting CO2 around 1950, there was no change in the trend. No acceleration, no decceleration.

I am not going to post a technical 3 page response like I really want to...

I don't think I ever said I would become a "skeptic" in the sense used to describe doubters of AGW. I may become more skeptical than I currently am, because after another 10 years of little to no warming we would be 20 years into a short term trend of less than expected temperature response. The need for explanation would be even more demanding. However, I would never be in denial because the underlying physics is to strong in favor of warming.

BTW, we started our climb above 280ppm CO2 more than 200 years ago, not just since 1950. Early on, each incremental increase of CO2 carried stronger impact than today due to the logarithmic nature of the temperature response.

Everyone needs to realize that CO2 is not the only player driving climate in the short term, but over the long haul it is the one with the strongest long lasting impact.

[tacoman25]

No I do not "dismiss" short-term trends in favor of long term trends. The use of a long-term or a short-term trend is entirely dependent on the context and the conclusions which you are being made.

I'm sorry you can only view things in black and white and can't possibly understand how sometimes a long-term trend might be better than a short-term and vice versa. In general, long-term trends in climate science are better because many of our measurements have a high degree of uncertainty and sampling error which are reduced by the use of a long-term trend. But it all depends on the type of conclusions that one is making. Properly interpreted given their statistical significance, short-term variability etc., short-term trends are acceptable. But they need to be properly interpreted. So for example when I see someone claiming OHC has decreased the last 3 years, I'm going to call them out for using too short a trend. There is far too much measurement uncertainty with ARGO to make any solid conclusions based on a 3 year trend.

Yes I have... probably at least 3 dozen times at least. Would you like me to quote them for you? Though I doubt quoting them will do much good you are so determined to play your childish gotcha games.

I'd like to see you quote even just one instance where I criticized someone for using a short-term trend or for cherry-picking and the criticism was not deserved.

Put up or shut up.

No, I'm not going to go back and comb through threads from months ago looking for every time you insisted on a longer trendline. There were many times in the UAH/GISS/HadCRU thread and the global temps thread and other threads that the trends from the early 2000s to present were brought up, and you kept insisting on using 1995-present, or 1990-present, or 1979-present trends or whatever you felt was better. And you consistently defended warmer GISS trends over the past decade or so, despite the fact that they have easily run the warmest of any other source.

Whether is was talking about Arctic, Antarctic, global, or OHI temperature trends, you almost always argued for longer time periods (when the shorter term trends showed less warming) and in favor of the warmest temperature sources. You also used inconsistent logic when comparing satellite and surface temp sources.

If you want to deny all of this and insist that Will, myself, or anyone else who has noticed your biased and inconsistent standards shut up, well...it's too bad you can't handle the truth.

[tacoman25]

This is exactly the type of misinterpretation of short-term trends I am talking about. The ARGO float system doesn't have nearly the precision to measure OHC accurately over just "a few years."

The error bars are like 10 times larger than the trend itself. But deniers like zucker and taco are convinced that OHC has leveled off.. when in reality we haven't the faintest idea what it's doing over just a 3 year period. It could be rising far more rapidly than any climate model expected or actually decreasing.

And how am I "denier"? Do I deny that AGW exists? Do I deny that the world has been warming? Where have I even said that OHC has leveled off?

It's really too bad that when criticized, your response is to sink to name-calling and false accusations.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't think I ever said I would become a "skeptic" in the sense used to describe doubters of AGW. I may become more skeptical than I currently am, because after another 10 years of little to no warming we would be 20 years into a short term trend of less than expected temperature response. The need for explanation would be even more demanding. However, I would never be in denial because the underlying physics is to strong in favor of warming.

BTW, we started our climb above 280ppm CO2 more than 200 years ago, not just since 1950. Early on, each incremental increase of CO2 carried stronger impact than today due to the logarithmic nature of the temperature response.

Everyone needs to realize that CO2 is not the only player driving climate in the short term, but over the long haul it is the one with the strongest long lasting impact.

Well by "skeptic", I meant more towards the view that there may be more behind our long term warming trend than just the CO2 increase, (changes within the climate system itself) especially if we begin to cool later this decade, as most of the "reasonable" skeptics tend to think.

My main issue with the "Mass" AGW theory is simply the assumption that RF changes can only be achieved through changes in GHGes. But yet, obviously, neither Outgoing Longwave Radiation measurements, nor the profile of the warming in the troposphere, suggest that the GHE is the only cause...or dare I say relatively minor? And there are certainly other explanations/possibilities.

But as for our warming trend & the sea level rise, it all began around 1700, rather than the beginning of the industrial revolution.

[tacoman25]

When discussing global warming, the only trend of serious interest is the longest trend available. Short term trends are cherry-picking. All the data should be used as context. During the period approx. 1940-1970 the trend was flat during what in hindsight is recognized as a long term warming trend. Those 30 flat years didn't mean the globe was not in the midst of a warming trend.

Then this should apply to sea level rise as well.

[Isotherm]

With regards to Co2, I find this graph of temperature vs Co2 to be quite interesting. For the past three interglacial-glacial transitions, notice how quickly temperature drops off with Co2 concentations still relatively high for some time thereafter. Most studies have found that on average, the Co2 response lags the initial temperature rise or fall by 400-1000 years. The driver of the climate change, like variations in Earth's orbit, cause the temp spike and consequently the lagged release of Co2 from oceans into the atmosphere. Thereafter positive feedback promotes more and more Co2 in the atmosphere, until another major orbital (or solar) change occurs, sending temperatures downward. To me, throughout history, Co2 has been more reactive than proactive, and takes a backseat in terms of the primary drivers of climate. We see over the past couple decades, Co2 concentrations soaring to unprecedented levels, yet the temperature response has not been there. Global temperatures are no higher than they were during the last interglacial period. My belief is the amount of Co2 (and other GHG's) we're shooting into the air is so miniscule that it will have minor effects on temps. By looking at the past, the break down in Co2-temp correlation since 2000 is not surprising to me given the temp is more influential than co2.

[Isotherm]

[BethesdaWX]

The end of the previous interglacial saw global temps drop about 7 DegreesC while Co2 concentrations remained steady between 275-295ppm, until they finally began to drop more than 1000yrs later, as well as the basic fact that Temps have preceded Co2 by about 600-900yrs on avg.

However, the hypothesis by our current estimations of climate sensitivity is that somewhere in the upward trend before each interglacial, CO2 began to enhance the warming...but there is no evidence of this other than in the theory, (or hypothesis..whatever you wanna call it). Bigger problems, obviously, temperatures in each interglacial fluctated pretty heavily, the Holocene has seen 2-3C fluxes several times.

Now, as for prehistoric Ice-Houses/Hot-Houses, the temperature on the planet throughout history...correlates actually almost perfectly to GCR activity...the correlation there is much better than that of CO2. The Young Sun was Dimmer, obviously, but also MUCH more Furious at Propelling GCR's away from the planet. Isotope proxies relating GCR's to the Planet's temperature actually correlate in the 90th percentile.

[WeatherRusty]

Then this should apply to sea level rise as well.

Of course. It should apply to anything subject to trend analysis. Use the whole available record. Don't extract a relatively short segment and claim it to be representative of a longer term trend, especially when lacking a solid explanation for causative mechanisms . It may or may not be, only the passage of time will tell.

Has global warming come to a halt? Over the past decade or so it has definitely at least slowed. However the physics behind it all claims the Earth to be accumulating and storing energy at a rate not yet equaled by sensible surface temperature. So for good reason, we expect temperature to eventually come to equilibrium with the flow of energy through the system as required by the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics. The only way to prevent this is to reverse the net flow of energy currently accumulating on Earth. The Earth needs to emit more energy than it receives in order to cool.

Increased radiative forcing by long lived greenhouse gases such as CO2 could be negated by an increase in global cloud cover or an increase in short wave reflective aerosols and particulate matter. The quiet Sun will have a slight cooling effect. Coupled atmosphere/ocean oscillations obviously can reduce global temps and thus OLR, but the net flow of energy is still downward and the Earth's energy gain continues.

[BethesdaWX]

Of course. It should apply to anything subject to trend analysis. Use the whole available record. Don't extract a relatively short segment and claim it to be representative of a longer term trend, especially when lacking a solid explanation for causative mechanisms . It may or may not be, only the passage of time will tell.

Has global warming come to a halt? Over the past decade or so it has definitely at least slowed. However the physics behind it all claims the Earth to be accumulating and storing energy at a rate not yet equaled by sensible surface temperature. So for good reason, we expect temperature to eventually come to equilibrium with the flow of energy through the system as required by the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics. The only way to prevent this is to reverse the net flow of energy currently accumulating on Earth. The Earth needs to emit more energy than it receives in order to cool.

Increased radiative forcing by long lived greenhouse gases such as CO2 could be negated by an increase in global cloud cover or an increase in short wave reflective aerosols and particulate matter. The quiet Sun will have a slight cooling effect. Coupled atmosphere/ocean oscillations obviously can reduce global temps and thus OLR, but the net flow of energy is still downward and the Earth's energy gain continues.

1) Have you perhaps considered the increase in OLR over the past 30yrs? Not only do monthly/yearly fluctuations in OLR usually end up near 20W/m^2 at the very least, the the 2000's also featured, overall, featured 4-4.5W/m^2 more OLR than the 1990's...actually the increase in OLR correlates very well to the step change in the late 1990's. What does this tell you about climate sensitivity?

2) Have you also considered, (knowing that a fast/Rapid response-time to forcings represents a strong negative feedback), that perhaps we're looking in the wrong area to explain the temperature trends? CO2's forcing since 1850 of 1.6W/m^2 is fine and all, but that is assuming that RF change can only be achieved through changes in the GHE, and obviously, that is seeming more and more unlikely.

3) Argument for a negative feedback...temperature and OHC both leveled off simutaneously, would not be the case in a slow-response time in equilibrium base to energy fluctuations. If the feedbacks are positive...and the response time is extended & amplified...then the Argument that "the sun has been weakening since 1985" cannot be used...take your pick. And regardless, TSI is a irrelavent to what actually would cause heavy temperature increase in response.

4) The profile of the warming does not reflect that of an amplified GHE...but rather more SW/infrared energy...that leads to three possibilities.

[Hambone]

The only thing I'm convinced of is that it would be a fool's errand to change our way of life in the US, potentially destroying our economy's competitveness in the world, based on science that is far from settled. Yet that is what the current administration and the AGWers would have us do.

[WeatherRusty]

The only thing I'm convinced of is that it would be a fool's errand to change our way of life in the US, potentially destroying our economy's competitveness in the world, based on science that is far from settled. Yet that is what the current administration and the AGWers would have us do.

What do you mean by "change our way of life"? Just how would the development and investment in alternative energies and upgrading our infrastructure "destroy our economy's competitiveness"? You don't want to acknowledge the science supported by nearly all of mainstream science...you have decided by listening to a fringe fraction of society that the science is junk. The current administration and AGWers are informed by science, not politically motivated groups.

[BethesdaWX]

This is going to turn into a political debate...I do not get any responses to my scientific posts above, and instead we prefer to lunge head first into irrelavent political bias & reasoning?

I'm independant, and for this reason, I prefer to see politics and science seperated as much as reasonably possible...and certainly not getting involved anywhere but the PR.

[WeatherRusty]

This is going to turn into a political debate...I do not get any responses to my scientific posts above, and instead we prefer to lunge head first into irrelavent political bias & reasoning?

I'm independant, and for this reason, I prefer to see politics and science seperated as much as reasonably possible...and certainly not getting involved anywhere but the PR.

I sometimes do not have a cogent reply to your offerings so I am better off not attempting to respond to them. I will be the first to admit that I lack the substance with which to respond to ideas which are totally new to me. Since most of your stuff seems to come out of left field, I am at a loss for how to respond,,,sorry!

My understanding of climate science comes from the very sources your sources try so hard to refute by any plausible means. I do not agree with many of your premises. It is a waist of time arguing against a strawman premise which is designed to manifest doubt upon the science. I am not prepared to do that. Lack of resolution to one of your arguments leaves us all a bit frustrated. You don't have to win the argument or prove your point, you only need to present conflicting information in any plausible form to create doubt. That is the goal, is it not?

[WeatherRusty]

The only real answer to the question posed by this thread is that natural variability has partially negated the warming influence produced by human activities. Still the 2000's were the warmest decade on record by any measure. If we define climate as the averaged condition several years in duration, then global warming has not held steady. Only if we look at maximum anomaly can we claim lack of warming. However, which is the correct way to define climate?

[BethesdaWX]

I sometimes do not have a cogent reply to your offerings so I am better off not attempting to respond to them. I will be the first to admit that I lack the substance with which to respond to ideas which are totally new to me. Since most of your stuff seems to come out of left field, I am at a loss for how to respond,,,sorry!

My understanding of climate science comes from the very sources your sources try so hard to refute by any plausible means. I do not agree with many of your premises. It is a waist of time arguing against a strawman premise which is designed to manifest doubt upon the science. I am not prepared to do that. Lack of resolution to one of your arguments leaves us all a bit frustrated. You don't have to win the argument or prove your point, you only need to present conflicting information in any plausible form to create doubt. That is the goal, is it not?

Oh no I'm not upset at you, or even talking about you in particular, more-so the overall debate seems to be overly politicized from all sides and angles, from skeptics and believers alike, and I feel that it can hurt the science when politics is so heavily involved...and it'll make it bitter at times too. And I have never even attempted to refute the physics that you bring up, because they are indeed well known and accepted physics among the scientific community. I guess the problem is that there may be "more" physics to the equation that we have not applied yet..or so it seems, who knows...it is a complicated system, but the two I'm thinking of are Clouds and Stratospheric Ozone.

We understand and can model CO2, methane, & Water Vapor Increases/decreases/etc. Other than that, we look at TSI, and Volcanism...and those are both minimal factors that do not have the ability to cause significant climate change at all. The two aspects that have the ability to change everything in our understanding of the system are Clouds, and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion...those two combined are huge. Thats the reason I personally feel, that while reducing carbon emissions and switching to alternative energies is a must, that "settled science" and "consensus of mass destruction" are not appropriate for the public to hear.

Just my take, I could be wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

Oh no I'm not upset at you, or even talking about you in particular, more-so the overall debate seems to be overly politicized from all sides and angles, from skeptics and believers alike, and I feel that it can hurt the science when politics is so heavily involved...and it'll make it bitter at times too. And I have never even attempted to refute the physics that you bring up, because they are indeed well known and accepted physics among the scientific community. I guess the problem is that there may be "more" physics to the equation that we have not applied yet..or so it seems, who knows...it is a complicated system, but the two I'm thinking of are Clouds and Stratospheric Ozone.

We understand and can model CO2, methane, & Water Vapor Increases/decreases/etc. Other than that, we look at TSI, and Volcanism...and those are both minimal factors that do not have the ability to cause significant climate change at all. The two aspects that have the ability to change everything in our understanding of the system are Clouds, and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion...those two combined are huge. Thats the reason I personally feel, that while reducing carbon emissions and switching to alternative energies is a must, that "settled science" and "consensus of mass destruction" are not appropriate for the public to hear.

Just my take, I could be wrong.

Settled science does not mean consensus of mass destruction. There is no consensus of catastrophic AGW. There certainly exists the possibility of catastrophy given the range of uncertainty with regard to climate sensitivity, but if climate sensitivity turns out on the weaker side of what is thought possible then things could fall short of the worst case scenarios. We just don't know, yet that should give us little comfort as it is uncertainty which is the greatest source of our apprehension. What is settled is that mankind's activities are warming the planet. We are not sure to what degree or of the pace of that warming.

Who knows, maybe clouds and stratospheric ozone recovery will be our friends, maybe not.