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

[WeatherRusty]

This is a very condescending post that completely misses my point.

Of course there is balance in the universe. Of course, life could not exist - much less thrive - on earth if we weren't located just the right distance from a fairly stable sun. There are a lot of things in nature that require a balance.

However, that does not mean that everything in nature is in hanging in such a delicate balance that anything humans do will irreversibly upset it and cause everything to go to hell. Though many activists would have you believe that...ignoring the fact that there are ALWAYS competing forces in nature changing the balance of things. That has always been a part of the natural world.

Sorry for the condescending tone. I have a good rapport with you and would like to keep it that way.

The balance which applies to AGW is to be found at the boundary between Earth's atmosphere and outer space. It is there that the energy exiting the Earth system must equal the energy entering or the temperature will change. Humans are changing that balance at a rate of 3.7watt/meter squared for a doubling of CO2 or it's equivalent by other factors. 3.7/w/m^2 at the surface equates to 1.2C of warming. The balance is being upset by far more than what the Sun typically produces (on the order of 0.24w/^2). The balance we are talking about is not some nebulous, fuzzy, generalized concept, it is very basic to our understanding of how worlds have the temperature they do.

When one parameter is thrown out of balance, other dependencies will also be thrown out of balance as a consequence. One such dependency is the water cycle, a slightly warmer sea surface will evaporate greater moisture and the warmer, lower atmosphere will be able to retain it. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas which disrupts the temperature balance further. More available water vapor means that on average it will precipitate more in order to maintain another balance..etc etc.

[LocoAko]

I guess even me rolling my eyes wasn't enough for everyone to lose sight of my argument and get hung up on the polar bears.

I don't presently have enough time to go researching effects of global warming that are already occurring but there are plenty of very obvious examples...

[WeatherRusty]

Exactly. This is a result of the environmental activist movement adopting AGW as a cause as soon as they saw the potential for motivating people. That is a big reason it quickly became such a political issue - because it was adopted by political/social movements that were already in place.

Is there something wrong in being environmentally active? We know the conservative mindset hates the waco environmentalists because they actually cost industry money by enforcing environmental laws. The scientists reveal the dangers to the environment and the conservatives decide which of them they will 'believe" and which they will trample with their time tested diversionary tactics.

AGW is just the latest in a series of these fights.

[tacoman25]

I guess even me rolling my eyes wasn't enough for everyone to lose sight of my argument and get hung up on the polar bears.

I don't presently have enough time to go researching effects of global warming that are already occurring but there are plenty of very obvious examples...

That was due to dabize's statement, not yours.

I have still yet to see any compelling evidence of catastrophic AGW. Again, climate and conditions have always changed, and humans have always had to adapt (as well as other species). Showing examples of that is not proof of catastrophic global warming.

[WeatherRusty]

Google Tuvalu, Bangladesh, Orissa, Hooghly and maybe even New Orleans, Galveston Island and Chincoteague

Toss in Murray-Darling, Great Artesian Basin, Great Barrier Reef and karri

Try Larsen Ice Shelf and Petermann, and toss in a few Inuit villages on the MacKenzie and in west Alaska

It's not so much that they have already been upset, it is that they are all being upset in a CONSISTENT WAY.

The skeptic mindset is if it's not happening in the blink of an eye, or appears to them not to be happening fast enough or at all, then it will likely not happen to the degree we should worry about it.

Never mind the science. The science must be wrong if I am not convinced.

[tacoman25]

Is there something wrong in being environmentally active? We know the conservative mindset hates the waco environmentalists because they actually cost industry money by enforcing environmental laws. The scientists reveal the dangers to the environment and the conservatives decide which of them they will 'believe" and which they will trample with their time tested diversionary tactics.

AGW is just the latest in a series of these fights.

No. I personally believe human's should try to preserve and protect the natural environment as best they can.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the AGW cause was quickly adopted by the environmental activist movement a long time ago, and that has been a significant factor in it becoming such a political issue. It's a means to an end for some of these people, who were telling us that we were ruining Mother Earth and headed for imminent destruction long before they knew about AGW. The AGW argument just added fuel to their fire. They didn't adopt that viewpoint based on the scientific evidence.

In my opinion, this factor has diluted the scientific nature of the debate/discussion over how serious AGW really is. There is a significant faction of activists that will always push the extreme doomsday scenarios, because they want to scare people into caring for the environment. Convincing Congress to call the polar bear an endangered species even though it really isn't (by every traditional measure used with other species) is just one example of hype triumphing over true science.

[tacoman25]

The skeptic mindset is if it's not happening in the blink of an eye, or appears to them not to be happening fast enough or at all, then it will likely not happen to the degree we should worry about it.

Never mind the science. The science must be wrong if I am not convinced.

That's not true. Look at history. How many times have the extreme scenarios panned out?

[WeatherRusty]

That was due to dabize's statement, not yours.

I have still yet to see any compelling evidence of catastrophic AGW. Again, climate and conditions have always changed, and humans have always had to adapt (as well as other species). Showing examples of that is not proof of catastrophic global warming.

The globe has warmed 0.8C in a century. Skeptics of course have attempted to dispute that measurement so they don't have to deal with it, but historically speaking that is a very fast temperature rise and most of it can not be accounted for by natural factors. Because of the science we have every reason to expect the temp to keep on rising. It wouldn't be catastrophic unless and until global average temperature reaches 3,4,5,5C above pre-industrial temps. So don't look for catastrophe just yet and use the lack of same to promote doubt.

[tacoman25]

The globe has warmed 0.8C in a century. Skeptics of course have attempted to dispute that measurement so they don't have to deal with it, but historically speaking that is a very fast temperature rise and most of it can not be accounted for by natural factors. Because of the science we have every reason to expect the temp to keep on rising. It wouldn't be catastrophic unless and until global average temperature reaches 3,4,5,5C above pre-industrial temps. So don't look for catastrophe just yet and use the lack of same to promote doubt.

If you go back exactly a century you find yourself in a relatively cold period. Thus, the .8C number is somewhat of an exagerration, since you get a similar number if you go back 120 years.

Anyway...I don't have to just see the lack of catastrophe yet. I can already see, in a relatively short period, that the early AGW projections were too extreme. I fully expect future predictions to be toned down as well. But there will probably always be believers that we are headed towards global catastrophe, eventually.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Another thread derailed by conjecture about the ipcc and peoples opinions.

Why not write a well presented and fact based post on why you do not believe the Earth will warm to X or why Z event will or wont happen.

Is it that hard? Is it to much science. If all of these predictions are bunk.

Then I am sure the data and physics is out there to make a case.

Practicing science can't possibly be that hard for people who have college degrees in science. I would assume they taught you guys well.

As for the rest of you if I can try it and find some succes you can.

[WeatherRusty]

That's not true. Look at history. How many times have the extreme scenarios panned out?

Honestly, isn't it a logical fallacy to assume something likely will not happen because other unrelated things in the past have not happened....yet?

[LakeEffectKing]

Well yeah, but individual feedbacks are known to have - and + signs.. that is just the sum, even with the uncertainty of every factor (some much larger than others). So what is your point?

My point: That the climate system is difficult enough to understand AT ANY GIVEN ONE STATE....Now perturb that system (or any complex system for that matter) and try and quantify all the changes directly related to that ONE PERTURBATION and how the changes react to the feedbacks and how the feedbacks react to each other and to other dominate forcing mechanisms, etc.

Put it another way,

Take a traffic "system" in a city...with blocks and blocks of well timed traffic lights that make the traffic run "normal" (what ever that is)....now tweak the timing of just ONE light, and try and predict the differences from "normal" traffic RELATED TO THAT TWEAKING, all the while it happens to be a holiday, with a snowstorm, during the SuperBowl, with a parade scheduled, road construction is taking place within the block,etc. etc.

[tacoman25]

Honestly, isn't it a logical fallacy to assume something likely will not happen because other unrelated things in the past have not happened....yet?

I think it's perfectly logical to look at previous patterns involving projections made about things with high levels of uncertainty.

[dabize]

I think it's perfectly logical to look at previous patterns involving projections made about things with high levels of uncertainty.

OK, have a look at this trend

http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/

Adjusted for inflation........

[tacoman25]

OK, have a look at this trend

http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/

Adjusted for inflation........

I didn't see a trend, just a summary of the record number of 1 billion dollar disasters this year.

Of course, the money cost is due not only to number of severe weather events, but has a ton to do with where they strike. And with more people around the country than ever before, of course the tendency is going to be for costlier events.

[WeatherRusty]

I think it's perfectly logical to look at previous patterns involving projections made about things with high levels of uncertainty.

Global warming science does not carry a high level of uncertainty. You believe it does for reasons which are not scientific. Those who's job it is to access the science disagree with you, based on the science which you don't trust.

The scientific consensus is that the Earth will warm somewhere between 2C and 4.5C for any forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That is the science in a nutshell which you deny. You can't say climate sensitivity is more or less than those bounds and be making a scientific statement based on research.

I don't care if it takes 500 years for temps to rise until the surface temperature balances the radiative forcing. It will eventually, and along the way to that point the Earth will be experiencing global warmth it hasn't experienced in millions of years and for which much of the biosphere will not be able to adjust to. But I know, mother Earth will protect us with her special recuperative powers....right?

[LakeEffectKing]

Global warming science does not carry a high level of uncertainty. You believe it does for reasons which are not scientific. Those who's job it is to access the science disagree with you, based on the science which you don't trust.

The scientific consensus is that the Earth will warm somewhere between 2C and 4.5C for any forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That is the science in a nutshell which you deny. You can't say climate sensitivity is more or less than those bounds and be making a scientific statement based on research.

I don't care if it takes 500 years for temps to rise until the surface temperature balances the radiative forcing. It will eventually, and along the way to that point the Earth will be experiencing global warmth it hasn't experienced in millions of years and for which much of the biosphere will not be able to adjust to. But I know, mother Earth will protect us....right?

So when (when coupled with positive natural variations) should we expect our first +2.0 monthly anomoly? Couple years? Couple decades? If you are talking about a projection that is a yearly anomoly, I'd assume that we would "touch" such positive numbers much earlier than an overall yearly anomly.

[tacoman25]

Global warming science does not carry a high level of uncertainty. You believe it does for reasons which are not scientific. Those who's job it is to access the science disagree with you, based on the science which you don't trust.

The scientific consensus is that the Earth will warm somewhere between 2C and 4.5C for any forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That is the science in a nutshell which you deny. You can't say climate sensitivity is more or less than those bounds and be making a scientific statement based on research.

I don't care if it takes 500 years for temps to rise until the surface temperature balances the radiative forcing. It will eventually, and along the way to that point the Earth will be experiencing global warmth it hasn't experienced in millions of years and for which much of the biosphere will not be able to adjust to. But I know, mother Earth will protect us with her special recuperative powers....right?

2C to 4.5C isn't a high level of uncertainty? And even if I were to accept that range with 100% certainty (I don't), there are also levels of uncertainty about how long it would take to warm that much, how much/how fast sea levels would rise, etc.

To act like there is a high level of certainty in climate science is not realistic. It's not that I "deny" the science. I accept physical realities, but I do not think science can answer exactly how those physics will play out in our climate system. Sorry, the world is not as simple and clear cut as you often try to make it out to be.

[dabize]

To act like there is a high level of certainty in climate science is not realistic. It's not that I "deny" the science. I accept physical realities, but I do not think science can answer exactly how those physics will play out in our climate system. Sorry, the world is not as simple and clear cut as you often try to make it out to be.

But there is the matter of scale.

On a large scale, AGW and its consequences is highly predictable.

In microcosm it is totally uncertain, of course.

We deal with this all the time.

You are in the position of someone arguing that it is OK to take that 30MPH turn at 75MPH because nobody can prove that the guardrail is going to go right through your head when you crash - it might go through your chest instead.

[WeatherRusty]

So when (when coupled with positive natural variations) should we expect our first +2.0 monthly anomoly? Couple years? Couple decades? If you are talking about a projection that is a yearly anomoly, I'd assume that we would "touch" such positive numbers much earlier than an overall yearly anomly.

January 2068

[WeatherRusty]

2C to 4.5C isn't a high level of uncertainty? And even if I were to accept that range with 100% certainty (I don't), there are also levels of uncertainty about how long it would take to warm that much, how much/how fast sea levels would rise, etc.

To act like there is a high level of certainty in climate science is not realistic. It's not that I "deny" the science. I accept physical realities, but I do not think science can answer exactly how those physics will play out in our climate system. Sorry, the world is not as simple and clear cut as you often try to make it out to be.

There is uncertainty within the range of 2C to 4.5C. It is highly likely climate sensitivity will turn out somewhere within that range. That is not how much it will warm, it is how much warmth to expect from a forcing of 3.7w/m^2 or a doubling of CO2. This does not take into account the actual amount of CO2 or methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon, ice albedo changes, reduction in aerosols etc.. Those things are in addition to the forcing from CO2.

You're correct in that we don't know the rates at which it will play out with high certainty. The past decade demonstrates that quit well.

The world is not so unknowable as you insist it is. The reason we can do science is because the world is governed by the rule of natural law. We learn nature's rules and we can decipher the puzzle. Sometimes not in exquisite detail, but in general. That is where we are in climate science. The big picture is quite clear and simple even as the details remain to be worked out.

[WeatherRusty]

It may help some to investigate the science of complex systems, of which the weather and climate are one. Look into chaos theory and learn about natural 'attractors'. You will learn that even a highly chaotic system (which the atmosphere is not) develops predictable patterns. These patterns will appear because nothing in our Universe exists in total isolation, things are acted upon by internal and external forces or the laws of nature.

A chaotic, well mixed system will over time settle down into patterns defined by the rules. It is easy to predict the general circulation of Earth's atmosphere. It would return to it's current general state even if totally disrupted from the outside. This is how we know of the general state of a greenhouse warmed world.

Defining the smaller eddies becomes more problematic the smaller in scale you go. The specific details of climate change are where most of the uncertainty resides. Our changing climate is what in science is known as a boundary problem, where when you change a large, very influential condition or boundary you cause a shift in the whole system. That is what we are doing when we pour CO2 into the atmosphere. You don't need to know the starting conditions to get this type of problem correct. Weather forecasting is dependent on knowledge of starting conditions, boundary problems are not reliant on accurate knowledge of beginning conditions.

[tacoman25]

But there is the matter of scale.

On a large scale, AGW and its consequences is highly predictable.

In microcosm it is totally uncertain, of course.

We deal with this all the time.

You are in the position of someone arguing that it is OK to take that 30MPH turn at 75MPH because nobody can prove that the guardrail is going to go right through your head when you crash - it might go through your chest instead.

It's statements like this that make me laugh. If that's not fear-mongering, what is?

The AGW hype machine has trained many people to assume the worst, and look for worst case scenarios. Without even considering the fact that history has proven time and again that doomsday scenarios fail. When given possible choices between the extreme scenarios and the more mundane ones, the mundane wins out 9/10.

But that's just not as exciting and scary, is it?

[tacoman25]

There is uncertainty within the range of 2C to 4.5C. It is highly likely climate sensitivity will turn out somewhere within that range. That is not how much it will warm, it is how much warmth to expect from a forcing of 3.7w/m^2 or a doubling of CO2. This does not take into account the actual amount of CO2 or methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon, ice albedo changes, reduction in aerosols etc.. Those things are in addition to the forcing from CO2.

You're correct in that we don't know the rates at which it will play out with high certainty. The past decade demonstrates that quit well.

The world is not so unknowable as you insist it is. The reason we can do science is because the world is governed by the rule of natural law. We learn nature's rules and we can decipher the puzzle. Sometimes not in exquisite detail, but in general. That is where we are in climate science. The big picture is quite clear and simple even as the details remain to be worked out.

Science is a history of trial and error. It is far easier and more likely to be wrong than to be right. Even if you are partially right, the end result can be far different from your hypothesis.

Just because something reflects the scientific consensus does not mean it is right. It just means that scientists at a given time believe it reflects the best guess, the guess least likely to be wrong.

Before AGW theory, climate science was very much in its infancy. Since then, AGW has become the dominant focus in climate science. But to assume that this baby theory in a baby scientific field has "everything but the details" right would be naive, I believe.

[TerryM]

Science is a history of trial and error. It is far easier and more likely to be wrong than to be right. Even if you are partially right, the end result can be far different from your hypothesis.

Just because something reflects the scientific consensus does not mean it is right. It just means that scientists at a given time believe it reflects the best guess, the guess least likely to be wrong.

Before AGW theory, climate science was very much in its infancy. Since then, AGW has become the dominant focus in climate science. But to assume that this baby theory in a baby scientific field has "everything but the details" right would be naive, I believe.

What other articles of present scientific consensus do you guess are likely to be wrong?

[tacoman25]

What other articles of present scientific consensus do you guess are likely to be wrong?

I suspect that most unproven theories do not have it all right. I am not saying AGW theory is wrong, but to assume that just because it reflect the current scientific consensus it has "everything but the details" right is presumptious.

As I have said before, the physics behind AGW theory are sound. The modeled results for the globe however, could be, and probably are, wrong to some degree or another. It's not like we are plugging these physical equations into a simple system that scientists had already figured out exactly how it works. Not by a long shot.

[WeatherRusty]

I suspect that most unproven theories do not have it all right. I am not saying AGW theory is wrong, but to assume that just because it reflect the current scientific consensus it has "everything but the details" right is presumptious.

As I have said before, the physics behind AGW theory are sound. The modeled results for the globe however, could be, and probably are, wrong to some degree or another. It's not like we are plugging these physical equations into a simple system that scientists had already figured out exactly how it works. Not by a long shot.

When do you ever hear me speak of the science spit out by models? You don't!

I speak to the fundamental physical constraints which do get plugged into the models, but I don't need a complex model full of experimental what if parameters to arrive at numbers like 3.7w/m^2 = 1.2C or that many on the ground estimates of climate sensitivity consistently place sensitivity somewhere between 0.50C to 1.0C per watt (2.0C - 4.5C).

These are all derived from basic physics such as the Planck Law, Stephan-Boltzmann Law, the physics of radiative transfer, atomic physics, on the ground research into past climate change and so on.

The models are an attempt to assess the situation in greater detail, but the fundamental physical basis for AGW is as solid as anything in science gets.

[dabize]

It's statements like this that make me laugh. If that's not fear-mongering, what is?

The AGW hype machine has trained many people to assume the worst, and look for worst case scenarios. Without even considering the fact that history has proven time and again that doomsday scenarios fail. When given possible choices between the extreme scenarios and the more mundane ones, the mundane wins out 9/10.

But that's just not as exciting and scary, is it?

Great job of avoiding the issue and focusing on what was obviously meant to be hyperbolic. My point is that one can be certain enough about the larger picture to take prudent steps to avoid uncertain risks that may be unreasonably dire (partly because they are uncertain)

It's responses like this that make people think that you really have no interest in conversation beyond scoring rhetorical points.

[tacoman25]

Great job of avoiding the issue and focusing on what was obviously meant to be hyperbolic. My point is that one can be certain enough about the larger picture to take prudent steps to avoid uncertain risks that may be unreasonably dire (partly because they are uncertain)

It's responses like this that make people think that you really have no interest in conversation beyond scoring rhetorical points.

I'm not trying to score points in the debate. I'm trying to add balance to the discussion, and to provide broader perspective on these type of debates overall.

You will notice that not once have I advocated taking no action. I am in favor of taking reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions.

However, I am not caught up in the hype/fright machine that many are peddling. I know where a lot of that comes from, and it's not pure science. Not that science could ever be "pure" enough to be 100% right, anyway.

[TerryM]

I'm not trying to score points in the debate. I'm trying to add balance to the discussion, and to provide broader perspective on these type of debates overall.

You will notice that not once have I advocated taking no action. I am in favor of taking reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions.

However, I am not caught up in the hype/fright machine that many are peddling. I know where a lot of that comes from, and it's not pure science. Not that science could ever be "pure" enough to be 100% right, anyway.

Where might that be?