2010 Global Temps

[beneficii]

That extremely debatable and probably not true. They have been trying to say this about the medieval warm period too but more and more evidence is that it was a global phenomenon and not a regional one. There is a cloud cover and albedo feedback during all of these things. A lot of them are not well understood which is why its silly to just keep printing the company line about CO2...we do not understand the feedbacks very well, nevermind about the ocean heat sink properties.

The temperatures have continued to warm for the past century, and the increase in CO2 is a very good explanation for it. So indeed that is the company line I suppose, but for now it's a pretty good one. In science, one should not hold out for the deus ex machina of something coming from somewhere unseen, such as something coming up from out of the unknown and overwhelming the warming effect of CO2. In science, you don't dwell on the blind spots, where you have little evidence one way or the other; you focus on what you know. And what we know about CO2 and what that means for earth's climate has been discussed pretty extensively by Rusty and skier throughout this whole thread. And again right now there is little evidence that the increase in CO2 won't cause continued warming.

Yes, if evidence is found that shows that CO2 will be overwhelmed long term by other factors, that would falsify AGW. But as of right now, the evidence that would falsify AGW has not materialized, so AGW stands.

[ORH_wxman]

The temperatures have continued to warm for the past century, and the increase in CO2 is a very good explanation for it. So indeed that is the company line I suppose, but for now it's a pretty good one. In science, one should not hold out for the deus ex machina of something coming from somewhere unseen, such as something coming up from out of the unknown and overwhelming the warming effect of CO2. In science, you don't dwell on the blind spots, where you have little evidence one way or the other; you focus on what you know. And what we know about CO2 and what that means for earth's climate has been discussed pretty extensively by Rusty and skier throughout this whole thread. And again right now there is little evidence that the increase in CO2 won't cause continued warming.

Yes, if evidence is found that shows that CO2 will be overwhelmed long term by other factors, that would falsify AGW. But as of right now, the evidence that would falsify AGW has not materialized, so AGW stands.

Science usually rewards the act of thinking outside the box...everyone loves that its all CO2...yet the extremely (historically high) solar activity is generally ignored during that time frame. CO2 certainly has an effect...its the magnitude of that effect that is in question. If we were all lemmings to the company line, we all would have burned up by now and NYC would be flooding from ice caps melting (circa 1988 report by Hansen)...thankfully, we have enough people thinking alternative theories and ideas.

[beneficii]

Science usually rewards the act of thinking outside the box...everyone loves that its all CO2...yet the extremely (historically high) solar activity is generally ignored during that time frame. CO2 certainly has an effect...its the magnitude of that effect that is in question. If we were all lemmings to the company line, we all would have burned up by now and NYC would be flooding from ice caps melting (circa 1988 report by Hansen)...thankfully, we have enough people thinking alternative theories and ideas.

Yes, but science ultimately has to be based on evidence, not speculation. Now I don't know much about what James Hansen said, but at least his version of AGW has been falsified. The basic premises of AGW, however, have not been falsified, so it remains dominant.

Basically, skeptics have come up with a number of ways that AGW could conceivably be falsified, but have not shown any evidence that it is.

Now, any scientist would love to be the one that takes down AGW and can convince his peers--he would win the Nobel prize,--but there still has to be evidence of that falsification.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes, but science ultimately has to be based on evidence, not speculation. Now I don't know much about what James Hansen said, but at least his version of AGW has been falsified. The basic premises of AGW, however, have not been falsified, so it remains dominant.

Basically, skeptics have come up with a number of ways that AGW could conceivably be falsified, but have not shown any evidence that it is.

Now, any scientist would love to be the one that takes down AGW and can convince his peers--he would win the Nobel prize,--but there still has to be evidence of that falsification.

The concept of AGW is not what CO2 does in vacuum, its how the earth's complex climate system responds to it. What caused the MWP and what caused the LIA? AGW alarmists have tried to dampen those effects to prove their point, but they remain very viable.

[nzucker]

Yes, but science ultimately has to be based on evidence, not speculation. Now I don't know much about what James Hansen said, but at least his version of AGW has been falsified. The basic premises of AGW, however, have not been falsified, so it remains dominant.

Basically, skeptics have come up with a number of ways that AGW could conceivably be falsified, but have not shown any evidence that it is.

Now, any scientist would love to be the one that takes down AGW and can convince his peers--he would win the Nobel prize,--but there still has to be evidence of that falsification.

You have to stop looking at this as an either falsification or verification scenario...skeptics are saying there's some flaws in the theory, not that we have to chuck the whole thing. Even many mainstream AGW advocates would disagree with an extremist Hansen version of the theory. This is not so black and white as you make it.

[beneficii]

The concept of AGW is not what CO2 does in vacuum, its how the earth's complex climate system responds to it. What caused the MWP and what caused the LIA? AGW alarmists have tried to dampen those effects to prove their point, but they remain very viable.

Are you arguing against 'alarmists', by that I assume you mean the more extreme version of AGW, or are you arguing against AGW itself? I hope that this whole discussion has not been based on confusion regarding what the skeptics are arguing against.

[nzucker]

Are you arguing against 'alarmists', by that I assume you mean the more extreme version of AGW, or are you arguing against AGW itself? I hope that this whole discussion has not been based on confusion regarding what the skeptics are arguing against.

I am talking about alarmism and the denial of natural cycles...I think it's pretty clear that humans have made some contribution to the warming of the planet since 1850 so there's not much to argue there.

[ORH_wxman]

Are you arguing against 'alarmists', by that I assume you mean the more extreme version of AGW, or are you arguing against AGW itself? I hope that this whole discussion has not been based on confusion regarding what the skeptics are arguing against.

Most of the time the debate gets degenerated in "alarmist vs deniers"...which is not really what the debate is about. That's why it goes in circles.

I'm arguing that a straight physical approach to CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't satisfy a lot of questions about the earth's climate. There are other factors...mostly which are dismissed by IPCC as insignificant. I don't know the exact line in the 2007 report as I don't have the patience at this moment to go back and read all of it again, but they basically ignored ocean cycles...even for the next 20 years which is why they are going to bust on their projections. Mallow (a AGW proponent) and I discussed this on eastern and he was of the same thinking...the IPCC is using tunnel vision.

[tacoman25]

It's not an assumption. It's raw physics which you obviously are totally ignorant off. Sorry if that offends you but the reality, which you can not shake is what I have stated above. You may not accept basic physical realities as revealed by modern science, but that is not my problem..it is yours.

I couldn't give a rip about the politics of this. You guys obviously do. So have your pleasure at denying science if you will but the facts of physics don't give a rip about what you think. The world's environment will go to hell at the behest of a group of profiteers who don't give a damn or are just plain ignoramuses.

I lost my cool....a win for you!

No need for you to lose your cool, that certainly wasn't my intention.

You can repeat "basic physics" all you want (I'm well aware), but that still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC has essentially ignored other climate factors and as a result is busting high in their temperature projections so far. Those are facts you are dismissing as trivial...they may not be. If only it were as simple as you make it out to be.

[tacoman25]

Glad to know I am not the only one who loses his cool with some of the more irrational and uninformed posts that go for 'great posts' around here.

Many of these internet sites such as WUWT have a certain disconnect from reality. If you crowd a room with enough idiots they can convince themselves from anything. They will become impervious to facts and reality.

To some extent that is what happens here. Throw around acronyms like PDO and TSI and try and sound smart and you have yourself an argument. Basic physics and logic aside.

That's what great about your posts Rusty.. they are based in the science from the ground up. I wish we saw more of that around here.

It would be nice if we could discuss some of the more uncertain aspects of science like cloud feedbacks. But we can't discuss any of that if we can't even establish basic facts like the surface temperature record or the forcing response per doubling of CO2.

There has been nothing irrational or uninformed about my posts. Rusty needs to learn to differentiate between the different views represented here. He sees any that challenge the IPCC or general AGW assumptions as all the same. We definitely are not.

[beneficii]

Most of the time the debate gets degenerated in "alarmist vs deniers"...which is not really what the debate is about. That's why it goes in circles.

I'm arguing that a straight physical approach to CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't satisfy a lot of questions about the earth's climate. There are other factors...mostly which are dismissed by IPCC as insignificant. I don't know the exact line in the 2007 report as I don't have the patience at this moment to go back and read all of it again, but they basically ignored ocean cycles...even for the next 20 years which is why they are going to bust on their projections. Mallow (a AGW proponent) and I discussed this on eastern and he was of the same thinking...the IPCC is using tunnel vision.

You are starting to move outside my area of knowledge, so I would be interested in seeing Rusty's response. The only thing I can think of is that the reason why they dismiss it is because they haven't found any evidence that it would be a factor for long term warming.

Nevertheless, I do feel we are making progress in this conversation, and not going around and around in circles.

[tacoman25]

And then we can discuss the more uncertain feedback processes. But we can't take that step because most here DO NOT UNDERSTAND the weight of the basic science and DO DISPUTE IT WITH VIGOR. Sorry for yelling..not.

No, you are wrong. Most here do NOT dispute the basic physical science. I certainly haven't, and I've seen only a couple who have.

Many of us simply question the validity of assumptions that apply simple physics to a vast and complex system with positive and negative feedbacks...and think it actually may mean something that many of the most prominent projections by climate scientists have not verified well.

[ORH_wxman]

You are starting to move outside my area of knowledge, so I would be interested in seeing Rusty's response. The only thing I can think of is that the reason why they dismiss it is because they haven't found any evidence that it would be a factor for long term warming.

Nevertheless, I do feel we are making progress in this conversation, and not going around and around in circles.

Why wouldn't they account for this in their projections though? They clearly made a projection with 95% confidence intervals...I posted it back on eastern and I wish I had the link now. They are about to fall out of that 95% interval....no doubt they will this coming year and probably even further in the next few years....my question is if the IPCC is the world's authority on climate change, then why are we debating whether their bottom 5% projections might barely stay within the current global temperature observations in 2011? If those group of brilliant minds are not to be questioned then why are they looking pretty silly less than 4 years after they issued their report?

I understand the short term vs long term thing...but they should know this too very easily. But yet, they are almost certainly going to look like ignorant fools in the coming years this decade on those projections. Why didn't they account for this?

[tacoman25]

Strong solar minimums, ocean cycles, volcanic activity are relatively weak or don't impact long term climate change at all. If I don't understand what you say to the contrary then neither does the main stream scientific community. Don't just talk, do something about overturning the scientific conventions if they are so wrong.

Answer me this: why hasn't the IPCC allowed for possible slight cooling or flat temperatures over the time period of a couple decades in their projections? Because they believe that even on shorter time scales, CO2 forcing will overwhelm those other climate variables. You are arguing that all that matters is the long term...but if short/mid term projections are failing, do you think that means nothing?

[tacoman25]

Why wouldn't they account for this in their projections though? They clearly made a projection with 95% confidence intervals...I posted it back on eastern and I wish I had the link now. They are about to fall out of that 95% interval....no doubt they will this coming year and probably even further in the next few years....my question is if the IPCC is the world's authority on climate change, then why are we debating whether their bottom 5% projections might barely stay within the current global temperature observations in 2011? If those group of brilliant minds are not to be questioned then why are they looking pretty silly less than 4 years after they issued their report?

I understand the short term vs long term thing...but they should know this too very easily. But yet, they are almost certainly going to look like ignorant fools in the coming years this decade on those projections. Why didn't they account for this?

Exactly! How dare we think for ourselves and question the experts - when the evidence says there is very good reason to

question them.

[ORH_wxman]

Exactly! How dare we think for ourselves and question the experts - when the evidence says there is very good reason to

question them.

“The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

[tacoman25]

I will call it a night with this..

The nuanced climate you allude to is addressed by the range in equilibrium feedback to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2. That feedback will be positive to within a range of 2-4.5C. This is how past climates appear to have behaved relative to their forcings and of course those climates included Solar variability and coupled ocean/atmospheric cycles or oscillations too. It is expected that the future will behave something like the past has to a prolonged forcing.

Actually, there is evidence that previous climate fluctuations did not follow all of the forcing/feedback rules we have established today...

[ORH_wxman]

“The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

When we see these quotes from the lead author of the 2007 IPCC report, how can you not question what they are doing? Its just absolutely ludicrous that people would rip a group who are questioning statements like this. Its beyond me why people want the questioning to stop when that is how science progresses.

[ORH_wxman]

Here is the IPCC confidence interval on their projections.

You can see how they were already flirting with a bust in 2008 and it wont even get back to the mean for 2010 (compare to 1998, and 2010 will be a bit less)...unfortunately this graph isn't as up to date as the one I posted on eastern, and that one had more detail, but you get the idea. Notice how we haven't come near the top of the interval but we are flirting with the lower bound and when we get an updated version soon, it will fall below the 95% line.

[beneficii]

Here is the IPCC confidence interval on their projections.

[picture removed in quoting]

You can see how they were already flirting with a bust in 2008 and it wont even get back to the mean for 2010 (compare to 1998, and 2010 will be a bit less)...unfortunately this graph isn't as up to date as the one I posted on eastern, and that one had more detail, but you get the idea. Notice how we haven't come near the top of the interval but we are flirting with the lower bound and when we get an updated version soon, it will fall below the 95% line.

Who cares if they make a short-term bust? If 20 years from now, the running 10-year mean or 20-year mean pretty much matches what that same mean is in the projection, then it was not a bust.

[beneficii]

When we see these quotes from the lead author of the 2007 IPCC report, how can you not question what they are doing? Its just absolutely ludicrous that people would rip a group who are questioning statements like this. Its beyond me why people want the questioning to stop when that is how science progresses.

He's talking about internal energy transfer.

[beneficii]

Why wouldn't they account for this in their projections though? They clearly made a projection with 95% confidence intervals...I posted it back on eastern and I wish I had the link now. They are about to fall out of that 95% interval....no doubt they will this coming year and probably even further in the next few years....my question is if the IPCC is the world's authority on climate change, then why are we debating whether their bottom 5% projections might barely stay within the current global temperature observations in 2011? If those group of brilliant minds are not to be questioned then why are they looking pretty silly less than 4 years after they issued their report?

I understand the short term vs long term thing...but they should know this too very easily. But yet, they are almost certainly going to look like ignorant fools in the coming years this decade on those projections. Why didn't they account for this?

It seemed almost like you were acknowledging that indeed the view that other factors will end up being more important than CO2 has little to no evidence, but then slammed the study for not taking it more seriously and then said it was bound to be a bust!! The way this post turned was simply mind boggling, and I would appreciate if you don't keep doing that sort of thing.

[ORH_wxman]

It seemed almost like you were acknowledging that indeed the view that other factors will end up being more important than CO2 has little to no evidence, but then slammed the study for not taking it more seriously and then said it was bound to be a bust!! The way this post turned was simply mind boggling, and I would appreciate if you don't keep doing that sort of thing.

Why didn't you acknowledge the question of IPCC busting in the short term (decadal scale...not century)?

Instead you decide to make an attempt at a witty post about "long term"...I'm sorry, but you didn't answer the question I had. Why is IPCC busting int he next decade?

[ORH_wxman]

Who cares if they make a short-term bust? If 20 years from now, the running 10-year mean or 20-year mean pretty much matches what that same mean is in the projection, then it was not a bust.

Many of us do...because it means they do not understand the climate. Short term doesn't have to be 10 years either...it can be centuries. Its amazing that you keep knocking down any attempt to question what IPCC has to say. Why would a group of brilliant minds like them bust in the short term? They should obviously see what us "idiots" see but they didn't forecast it.

We will bow down to the IPCC once they actually start getting their predictions right.

[WeatherRusty]

When we see these quotes from the lead author of the 2007 IPCC report, how can you not question what they are doing? Its just absolutely ludicrous that people would rip a group who are questioning statements like this. Its beyond me why people want the questioning to stop when that is how science progresses.

Trenberth is a scientist who tracks the Earth's energy budget. He wants to know where the energy is going and laments the fact that our observational systems are inadequate for the job. Trenberth knows the Earth continues to warm because of the satellite measured top of atmosphere energy imbalance. Again, he knows the Earth is warming, he is not disputing that. He wants to know where all that energy is going if not showing up fully in the surface temperature.

This is taken by skeptics to imply he secretly is acknowledging a lack of global warming when that was not his intent at all.

[CoastalWx]

Many of us do...because it means they do not understand the climate. Short term doesn't have to be 10 years either...it can be centuries. Its amazing that you keep knocking down any attempt to question what IPCC has to say. Why would a group of brilliant minds like them bust in the short term? They should obviously see what us "idiots" see but they didn't forecast it.

We will bow down to the IPCC once they actually start getting their predictions right.

Because people are too literal and have been brain washed by liberal professors. It's akin to those who said La Nina = Indo convection= blowtorch for the Conus. That theory is getting blown out of the water this year. Meteorology is not x+y=z type thing...it is much more complicated than that, and requires people to think. The Earth's climate is exponentially more complicated.

[WeatherRusty]

Here is the IPCC confidence interval on their projections.

You can see how they were already flirting with a bust in 2008 and it wont even get back to the mean for 2010 (compare to 1998, and 2010 will be a bit less)...unfortunately this graph isn't as up to date as the one I posted on eastern, and that one had more detail, but you get the idea. Notice how we haven't come near the top of the interval but we are flirting with the lower bound and when we get an updated version soon, it will fall below the 95% line.

The emphasis placed on these IPCC scenarios like A1B is grossly misplaced when calling into question the validity of the science. These scenarios are heavily weighted to the consideration of factors such as economic growth, population growth, choices of energy production and utilization etc.

The A1 scenarios are of a more integrated world. The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:

• Rapid economic growth.
• A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
• The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
• A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide.

There are subsets to the A1 family based on their technological emphasis:

• A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels (Fossil Intensive).
• A1B - A balanced emphasis on all energy sources.
• A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.

This is why I emphasize the basic science, which these IPCC scenarios do not do. The scenarios are if this then that projections dependent on several factors unrelated to the physical science.

[WeatherRusty]

Because people are too literal and have been brain washed by liberal professors. It's akin to those who said La Nina = Indo convection= blowtorch for the Conus. That theory is getting blown out of the water this year. Meteorology is not x+y=z type thing...it is much more complicated than that, and requires people to think. The Earth's climate is exponentially more complicated.

But the determination of the direction of Earth's temperature trend is not complicated at all. It is a simple matter in this era of satellite reconnaissance to measure the rate of incoming radiation versus the rate of outgoing radiation. The actual technique of measurement may be complicated but the result is simple and elegant. The Earth is building up energy and in particular in just the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases. As long as this continues to be the case the Earth will be warming and any claims of cooling are bogus. Simple thermodynamics does not lie.

[WeatherRusty]

No need for you to lose your cool, that certainly wasn't my intention.

You can repeat "basic physics" all you want (I'm well aware), but that still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC has essentially ignored other climate factors and as a result is busting high in their temperature projections so far. Those are facts you are dismissing as trivial...they may not be. If only it were as simple as you make it out to be.

It is as simple as I make it out to be. The Earth has been warming and continues to warm as revealed by the energy imbalance measured at the top of atmosphere. Do I use reductionist reasoning? You be I do. The goal of science is to reduce complex phenomena to understandable components by using the laws of nature to break down the apparent complexity. The climate system is a complex one, but we understand the physics of how and why objects warm and cool very well.

The IPCC does not ignore other climate factors. You can claim they do and by extension the entire field of climatology does, but that does not make it so. By definition, the field of climatology embraces all the know factors that go into defining our climate and what makes it tick. The long term forcing by CO2 at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling simply outweighs any of the other current factors by orders of magnitude.

[tacoman25]

Trenberth is a scientist who tracks the Earth's energy budget. He wants to know where the energy is going and laments the fact that our observational systems are inadequate for the job. Trenberth knows the Earth continues to warm because of the satellite measured top of atmosphere energy imbalance. Again, he knows the Earth is warming, he is not disputing that. He wants to know where all that energy is going if not showing up fully in the surface temperature.

This is taken by skeptics to imply he secretly is acknowledging a lack of global warming when that was not his intent at all.

And this is a significant question, since the main issue with AGW people are concerned with is not the earth's energy accumulation, but surface warming and the effects from that.