New study published today - global warming has not slowed at all

[LocoAko]

I am mobile so I apologize for the brevity of this thread. A new study by Foster and Rahmstorf removes all natural variabilities from all of the main temperarure datasets to reveal the "true" global warming signal. The revealed global warming signal is remarkably linear with a constant rate and with remarkable agreement between the data sets. Worth a look. The below link is an overview but contains a link to the actual paper.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

[tacoman25]

I am mobile so I apologize for the brevity of this thread. A new study by Foster and Rahmstorf removes all natural variabilities from all of the main temperarure datasets to reveal the "true" global warming signal. The revealed global warming signal is remarkably linear with a constant rate and with remarkable agreement between the data sets. Worth a look. The below link is an overview but contains a link to the actual paper.

http://tamino.wordpr...warming-signal/

Why is there no evidence of acceleration over the last 30+ years? CO2 concentration has gone up considerably over that period. For modeled climate forecasts to verify, there needs to be significant acceleration over the coming decades and it really needs to commence soon...and to this point, we have seen no evidence that the world is warming any faster now than it was 30 years ago.

[skierinvermont]

I performed a similar experiment on here about a year ago. Also a few other studies out there doing similar things with slightly different techniques came up in the thread. Fairly powerful evidence that global warming has continued unabated in the slightest.

http://www.americanw...-and-volcanoes/

This is the graph I came up with:

[tacoman25]

I performed a similar experiment on here about a year ago. Also a few other studies out there doing similar things with slightly different techniques came up in the thread. Fairly powerful evidence that global warming has continued unabated in the slightest.

http://www.americanw...-and-volcanoes/

This is the graph I came up with:

Again...no evidence of acceleration.

I also find it interesting that these studies have come out after it became apparent natural factors were slowing down global temp rise. Where were the studies in the late 1990s/early 2000s showing how natural factors were causing a sharper apparent rise in the global temp trend? Instead, the popular theory right after the huge 1998 El Nino was that AGW was causing more/stronger El Ninos.

[skierinvermont]

Again...no evidence of acceleration.

The acceleration is supposed to be very slow. You would see very little acceleration detectable over 30 years.

Even if no acceleration occurred you would still see over 2C of warming from 1990 levels at the current rate of .2C/decade which would verify the low end of IPCC A1B projections (2-4.5C from 1990 levels).

[skierinvermont]

I also find it interesting that these studies have come out after it became apparent natural factors were slowing down global temp rise. Where were the studies in the late 1990s/early 2000s showing how natural factors were causing a sharper apparent rise in the global temp trend? Instead, the popular theory right after the huge 1998 El Nino was that AGW was causing more/stronger El Ninos.

As I have shown you elsewhere (and you have ignored) that theory existed before and after the 1998 El Nino with no apparent change in 'popularity' following the 1998 El Nino.

And I believe there are examples of ENSO and TSI and volcano correcting that existed prior to the apparent slow-down in temperature increase. Many of these studies have been posted on this forum and date back to the 1990s to mid 2000s.

[tacoman25]

As I have shown you elsewhere (and you have ignored) that theory existed before and after the 1998 El Nino with no apparent change in 'popularity' following the 1998 El Nino.

And I believe there are examples of ENSO and TSI and volcano correcting that existed prior to the apparent slow-down in temperature increase. Many of these studies have been posted on this forum and date back to the 1990s to mid 2000s.

1. I am older than you, and believe me, there was a significant surge in popularity of that theory after the 1998 El Nino. Or at least it was trumpeted a lot more at that point. Of course, now that theory has lost quite a bit of sway. AFTER we have begun to see an increase in La Ninas.

2. Again, there was very little mention of the possibility of natural variability altering the warming trend 10 years or so ago. That idea has gained much more traction now...naturally. Though old-school AGW proponents are still slow to recognize that the apparent rapid warming from the 1970s to 1990s/2000s was aided to an extent by natural factors.

[skierinvermont]

1. I am older than you, and believe me, there was a significant surge in popularity of that theory after the 1998 El Nino. Or at least it was trumpeted a lot more at that point. Of course, now that theory has lost quite a bit of sway. AFTER we have begun to see an increase in La Ninas.

2. Again, there was very little mention of the possibility of natural variability altering the warming trend 10 years or so ago. That idea has gained much more traction now...naturally. Though old-school AGW proponents are still slow to recognize that the apparent rapid warming from the 1970s to 1990s/2000s was aided to an extent by natural factors.

1. Oh so we're back to the I'm older than you argument? I have cited numerous papers debating both sides of the AGW-ENSO relationship before and after 1998.. if anything the popularity of the argument has DECLINED since 1998 as the complexity and detail of modelling has improved.

2. There are MANY MANY papers prior to 2000 showing how TSI, ENSO, and volcanoes effect global temperature and concluding that we are warmer during solar maxes like 1997-2004. All models accounted for these natural factors and simulated global temperature assuming that these natural variables would not always remain at max levels. The deliberate effort of this paper to show that the rate of warming has not slowed is a response to those claiming it has slowed. Ironically, it is the 'skeptics' who have been ignoring the influence of natural factors.

[tacoman25]

The acceleration is supposed to be very slow. You would see very little acceleration detectable over 30 years.

Even if no acceleration occurred you would still see over 2C of warming from 1990 levels at the current rate of .2C/decade which would verify the low end of IPCC A1B projections (2-4.5C from 1990 levels).

Actually, if you look at the average source graph in this study, it shows about .5C warming from 1980 to 2010...so that's about .16C/decade.

And there is definitely detectable acceleration expected over the coming 30 years. If the current trend continues unabated, there will be a lot of befuddlement.

[skierinvermont]

Actually, if you look at the average source graph in this study, it shows about .5C warming from 1980 to 2010...so that's about .16C/decade.

And there is definitely detectable acceleration expected over the coming 30 years. If the current trend continues unabated, there will be a lot of befuddlement.

looks more like .55-.58C which would be .18-.19C/decade.

[tacoman25]

1. Oh so we're back to the I'm older than you argument? I have cited numerous papers debating both sides of the AGW-ENSO relationship before and after 1998.. if anything the popularity of the argument has DECLINED since 1998 as the complexity and detail of modelling has improved.

2. There are MANY MANY papers prior to 2000 showing how TSI, ENSO, and volcanoes effect global temperature and concluding that we are warmer during solar maxes like 1997-2004. All models accounted for these natural factors and simulated global temperature assuming that these natural variables would not always remain at max levels. The deliberate effort of this paper to show that the rate of warming has not slowed is a response to those claiming it has slowed. Ironically, it is the 'skeptics' who have been ignoring the influence of natural factors.

1. When have I ever used the "I'm older than you" argument with you before? Fact is, you can go back and find all sorts of papers from whenever, but at certain times - as you are seeing currently - certain ideas gain more traction in the popular science world. And it's convenient that the popularity of that particular theory has declined as it became apparent +ENSO was in decline.

2. But look at the timing. This paper is coming out now, in an attempt to show we are still warming. I have been following this debate for a long time, and I sure don't remember seeing many papers attributing some of the warming from the 1970s to 1990s/2000s to natural factors - which is only fair if you want to use the argument that natural factors have slowed warming in recent years. As you fail to acknowledge, there are STILL many AGW proponents who ignore the fact that natural factors enhanced the warming trend evident from the 1970s to 2000s.

[tacoman25]

looks more like .55-.58C which would be .18-.19C/decade.

Only if you go from the coldest year among the first 4 years to the warmest year in the last 4 years. Using a 5 year running mean, I guarantee my number is closer.

[k***]

they should just blow this forum up...every thread is the same

[skierinvermont]

Only if you go from the coldest year among the first 4 years to the warmest year in the last 4 years. Using a 5 year running mean, I guarantee my number is closer.

If you use a 5 year running mean it is a 25 year trend from 1982.5 to 2007.5. That's .5/25 = .2C/decade. Althogh it looks more like .48C if you use a 5 year mean at each end. Which would be .45/25= .18C/decade.

I'm looking at it and estimating that the linear regression would give .18-.19C/decade.

[tacoman25]

If you use a 5 year running mean it is a 25 year trend from 1982.5 to 2007.5. That's .5/25 = .2C/decade. Althogh it looks more like .48C if you use a 5 year mean at each end. Which would be .48/25= .19C/decade.

I'm looking at it and estimating that the linear regression would give .18-.19C/decade.

Is this not fair? .5C from 1980 to 2010 based on that graph is perfectly reasonable, and may even be generous. You can't just look at the first year and the last year.

Also, you are going to be hard-pressed to find any peer-reviewed studies claiming more than .5C warming since 1980.

[skierinvermont]

Is this not fair? .5C from 1980 to 2010 based on that graph is perfectly reasonable, and may even be generous. You can't just look at the first year and the last year.

Also, you are going to be hard-pressed to find any peer-reviewed studies claiming more than .5C warming since 1980.

Your left line is too far to the right (1981) and too high. Your line is above every year from 1980-1995 except 2. I'd stick with .45C/30 = .18C/decade.

Of course there are not sources claiming we have warmed over .5C since 1980. Nobody is claiming that the unadjusted actual temperature has warmed that much. Only the adjusted temperature.

Also of course this is a combo of all sources despite the larger uncertainties in the satellite sources. Surface only (including arctic) the adjusted trend is probably .2-.22C/decade.

[tacoman25]

Your left line is too far to the right (1981) and too high. Your line is above every year from 1980-1995 except 2. I'd stick with .45C/30 = .18C/decade.

Making the adjustments you mentioned still yields right about .5C warming since 1980. It is a perfectly reasonable estimate and .16C/decade average since 1980 makes perfect sense. Regardless, no sign of acceleration, and we will need serious acceleration in the coming decades to have a chance for climate estimates by 2040, 2060, 2080, etc to verify.

[dabize]

they should just blow this forum up...every thread is the same

Not really.

The stuff from one side is the same, but there are in fact some folks trying to have a conversation here.

If you blow it up, you merely empower people who are obstructing valid discussions over the discussants in same.

Is this supposed to be a helpful comment?

[LakeEffectKing]

they should just blow this forum up...every thread is the same

LOL!!! Kinda like AP, right??

[dabize]

Why is there no evidence of acceleration over the last 30+ years? CO2 concentration has gone up considerably over that period. For modeled climate forecasts to verify, there needs to be significant acceleration over the coming decades and it really needs to commence soon...and to this point, we have seen no evidence that the world is warming any faster now than it was 30 years ago.

Goalpost moving a bit?

The reason is (of course) that the positive feedbacks that would account for acceleration are just starting to kick in (this qualifies as soon, I believe)

For example, this is why they sent a team to the Laptev to study methane release THIS YEAR instead of in 2000........it wasn't happening in 2000.

Next you'll want to know why we aren't all drowning in storm surge yet.........

[tacoman25]

Goalpost moving a bit?

The reason is (of course) that the positive feedbacks that would account for acceleration are just starting to kick in (this qualifies as soon, I believe)

For example, this is why they sent a team to the Laptev to study methane release THIS YEAR instead of in 2000........it wasn't happening in 2000.

Next you'll want to know why we aren't all drowning in storm surge yet.........

No.

This post demonstrates an inability to differentiate between AGW deniers and catastrophic AGW skeptics.

I have never said I thought we weren't warming. I am skeptical of catastrophic warming and the associated AGW hype/fear-mongering.

[WeatherRusty]

No.

This post demonstrates an inability to differentiate between AGW deniers and catastrophic AGW skeptics.

I have never said I thought we weren't warming. I am skeptical of catastrophic warming and the associated AGW hype/fear-mongering.

How can you be skeptical of catastrophic warming if we don't know for sure how much it will warm? All we know to a near certainty is that warming will continue for as long as human activities continue to push the radiative balance in that direction. Climate sensitivity likely falls in the range of 2C to 4.5C for a radiative forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. The way we are going we will easily exceed a doubling of CO2. Methane is on the increase as are certain other non condensible greenhouse gases which add to the forcing beyond that of CO2 alone.

About one half the CO2 we emit is taken up by the biosphere (primarily forests and the oceans) acting as sinks for the excess carbon. There is reason to believe those carbon sinks will not function as efficiently as we move along in time. There is the threat of increased methane emission from thawing permafrost as the arctic continues to warm. If the world succeeds in reducing particulate pollution and aerosols, we will lose some of the offsetting negative radiative forcing as those airborne pollutants scatter incoming sunlight back to space helping to cool the planet.

The uncertainty in all of that and more does little to induce confidence in the face of what we do know, that mankind's activities are forcing the global climate to warm and that a warming of X will disrupt climate by Y.

I am not a gambler and I don't like playing Russian Roulette with the future of our decedents.

[LakeEffectKing]

How can you be skeptical of catastrophic warming if we don't know for sure how much it will warm? All we know to a near certainty is that warming will continue for as long as human activities continue to push the radiative balance in that direction. Climate sensitivity likely falls in the range of 2C to 4.5C for a radiative forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. The way we are going we will easily exceed a doubling of CO2. Methane is on the increase as are certain other non condensible greenhouse gases which add to the forcing beyond that of CO2 alone.

About one half the CO2 we emit is taken up by the biosphere (primarily forests and the oceans) acting as sinks for the excess carbon. There is reason to believe those carbon sinks will not function as efficiently as we move along in time. There is the threat of increased methane emission from thawing permafrost as the arctic continues to warm. If the world succeeds in reducing particulate pollution and aerosols, we will lose some of the offsetting negative radiative forcing as those pollutants scatter incoming sunlight back to space helping to cool the planet.

The uncertainty in all of that and more does little to induce confidence in the face of what we do know, that mankind's activities are forcing the global climate to warm and that a warming of X will disrupt climate by Y.

I am not a gambler and I don't like playing Russian Roulette with the future of our decedents.

Ummmm.....that's why we are skeptical....duh! The warmers, though, seem to like to pigeon hole skeptics as deniers/anti-science. Much of the science of the climate is sound. Other aspects are highly interpretive and skeptics bring those points up and are essentially slammed. The emails come out, showing lots of the SAME debates and discussions behind the scenes about various data interpretations, and the warmers say "that's how science works".......double standard.

The marginalizing of every skeptical point via character assinations and ad hominem assertions (as I've stated before) has led to the polarization of the topic, and is only helping push any "middle" folk who have questions about AGW hypothesis, into a very skeptical position....it's how I got to this point in my views back a couple decades ago.

If you want the science to attempt to move, the goal should NOT be to defend the hypothesis because you WANT to be right, but because it SHOWS itself through the Sci. Method TO be plausible.

[dabize]

Uhhhh...... the methane is coming out.

NOW

It is coming out of Arctic seabeds and melting permafrost. This is NEW.

When the West Siberian peat bogs start producing it on a large scale as they melt, the warming will accelerate.

When sea levels rise enough to flood millions of acres of those bogs (only needs a meter or so), they will barf much more methane.

This isn't alarmism, it's what is happening

If you simply repeat that it isn't, you cease to be skeptics - you are indeed "deniers".

[WeatherRusty]

Ummmm.....that's why we are skeptical....duh! The warmers, though, seem to like to pigeon hole skeptics as deniers/anti-science. Much of the science of the climate is sound. Other aspects are highly interpretive and skeptics bring those points up and are essentially slammed. The emails come out, showing lots of the SAME debates and discussions behind the scenes about various data interpretations, and the warmers say "that's how science works".......double standard.

The marginalizing of every skeptical point via character assinations and ad hominem assertions (as I've stated before) has led to the polarization of the topic, and is only helping push any "middle" folk who have questions about AGW hypothesis, into a very skeptical position....it's how I got to this point in my views back a couple decades ago.

If you want the science to attempt to move, the goal should NOT be to defend the hypothesis because you WANT to be right, but because it SHOWS itself through the Sci. Method TO be plausible.

There has never been a hard and fast assertion of how much warming to expect in a certain time frame. Where there is uncertainty in the science it has been openly discussed. Margin for error is a part of science and every good study includes a confidence interval. No measurement can be said to be absolutely precise and accurate. Skeptics of global warming do not provide that information, they use it to spread doubt. Most skeptics are not the scientists doing the research work.

Skeptics and deniers have attacked each and every tad and bit of the science surrounding AGW no matter how well established. Go to the Skeptical Science website and read all the arguments the enemies of science have cooked up in the attempt to confuse the ignorant masses. Learn of the personal threats high profile climate scientists have had to endure along with relentless ridicule and scorn. You have the gall to claim the side of science has made this a polarizing political issue, when the interests of the fossil fuel industry and far right political extremest are the driving force behind your side's position. The folks who pull your strings abide by the motto...the ends justify the means. Go hack some more e-mails, interpret them to your liking and convince everyone of your honest intentions.. ya right.

[LakeEffectKing]

There has never been a hard and fast assertion of how much warming to expect in a certain time frame. Where there is uncertainty in the science it has been openly discussed. Margin for error is a part of science and every good study includes a confidence interval. No measurement can be said to be absolutely precise and accurate. Skeptics of global warming do not provide that information, they use it to spread doubt. Most skeptics are not the scientists doing the research work.

Skeptics and deniers have attacked each and every tad and bit of the science surrounding AGW no matter how well established. Go to the Skeptical Science website and read all the arguments the enemies of science have cooked up in the attempt to confuse the ignorant masses. Learn of the personal threats high profile climate scientists have had to endure along with relentless ridicule and scorn. You have the gall to claim the side of science has made this a polarizing political issue, when the interests of the fossil fuel industry and far right political extremest are the driving force behind your side's position. The folks who pull your strings abide by the motto...the ends justify the means. Go hack some more e-mails, interpret them to your liking and convince everyone of your honest intentions.. ya right.

Meh, characterize me as you see fit. It means nothing. And you certainly aren't going to change my view that AGW is a plausible hypothesis, yet untested and based on overly valued feedback certainty. Skip the sipping of the Kool Aid....pop in the IV.

[tacoman25]

How can you be skeptical of catastrophic warming if we don't know for sure how much it will warm? All we know to a near certainty is that warming will continue for as long as human activities continue to push the radiative balance in that direction. Climate sensitivity likely falls in the range of 2C to 4.5C for a radiative forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. The way we are going we will easily exceed a doubling of CO2. Methane is on the increase as are certain other non condensible greenhouse gases which add to the forcing beyond that of CO2 alone.

Because of history.

The extreme, sky-is-falling predictions are almost always wrong.

[tacoman25]

Uhhhh...... the methane is coming out.

NOW

It is coming out of Arctic seabeds and melting permafrost. This is NEW.

When the West Siberian peat bogs start producing it on a large scale as they melt, the warming will accelerate.

When sea levels rise enough to flood millions of acres of those bogs (only needs a meter or so), they will barf much more methane.

This isn't alarmism, it's what is happening

If you simply repeat that it isn't, you cease to be skeptics - you are indeed "deniers".

There is a ton of uncertainty about how much permafrost could melt and how much methane would be released. And if it is happening, where is the evidence? Skyrocketing methane levels in the atmosphere? Temperature sharply responding? Sea level rise accelerating? And you still can't address the complete lack of accelerated warming, while at the same time CO2 has been going up faster and faster.

But all that the alarmists see are snowball effects. It's so predictable.

[ORH_wxman]

Because of history.

The extreme, sky-is-falling predictions are almost always wrong.

Agreed. This planet has a history of showing it has limits and self-regulates enough that the catastrophic junk is pretty easy to ridicule. But OTOH people will point out that we have not seen this type of influence before....but my money is on the lower side of climate sensitivity...if we were on the high sensitivity then these silly things like "ocean cycles" and such wouldn't have to be brought up....they clearly are showing us that this planet has lower sensitivity than the IPCC...I think they are about 1C too high on their average. Their 4C upper bound is ludicrous to me and it was shown in a recent peer reviewed paper this year.

[dabize]

There is a ton of uncertainty about how much permafrost could melt and how much methane would be released. And if it is happening, where is the evidence? Skyrocketing methane levels in the atmosphere? Temperature sharply responding? Sea level rise accelerating? And you still can't address the complete lack of accelerated warming, while at the same time CO2 has been going up faster and faster.

But all that the alarmists see are snowball effects. It's so predictable.

I'm guessing that the real issue here is that folks such as you, LEK and ORHWx aren't looking at this from an "insurance" POV, whereas I and my fellow "warmists" are.

There is now a significant probability that at least some of these "catastrophes" are going to come about, and that they can still be palliated if we take some action to prevent them. For me and mine - that is enough to prompt a desire for action. For you, it is not.

It's a bit like cutting the corner and crossing the center line going around a blind mountainside hairpin turn: there probably is nobody coming, but reasonable people don't do it on the grounds that a catastrophe MAY happen.

Damn warmists........