AWG, Lawrocket, You may be ahead of your (our)Time

[rushmc 23]

With the hottest year being 1998 and no increase in global average temps, you, lawrocket, spoke of something not yet known or understood. Well, there is a researcher who thinks he may have found something. According to linked article he will present his findings soon. So, should his work hold up under review the article (from the BBC) will change the way we look at climate change. I am sure there will be MUCH more to follow. Now, I am only interested and will wait to see the outcome. How about the rest of you?

Edited to add, this man is not a skeptic. He still thinks AWG will happen. But going forward with this study shows a bit of honesty to me.

Way to go lawrocket!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Quote

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News


Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
The Sun (BBC)
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

Pacific ocean (BBC)
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Iceberg melting (BBC)
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a skeptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Skeptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Edited to add, this man is not a skeptic. He still thinks AWG will happen. But going forward with this study shows a bit of honesty to me.

American Wire Gauge
Association of Wholesale Grocers
Association of Women Geoscientists
Arkansas Western Gas
Association of Washington Gynecologists
Assymetric Warfare Group
?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Edited to add, this man is not a skeptic. He still thinks AWG will happen. But going forward with this study shows a bit of honesty to me.

American Wire Gauge
Association of Wholesale Grocers
Association of Women Geoscientists
Arkansas Western Gas
Association of Washington Gynecologists
Assymetric Warfare Group
?

"Assymetric Warfare Group"

Spellcheck malfunction?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

Recall how I had explained to you the left side of the global climate equation (heat in) - S/4 * (1-a). In the past it was thought that S (solar output) was constant. It is not.

There are discussions by the pro-AGW folks that call into question whether we are actually cooling. They take issue with raw data, and even point to their analysis of a certain portion of the ten year trend showing warming.

Yes, they point to a short-term trend to prove their point. .

I personally am skeptical of the predictions. However, my thoughts on the cause of the pause are entirely consistent with AGW theory. AGW theory subscribes that we are affecting the right side of the equation (teperature out). One of the factors is "E" - which measures heat dissipates the heat. CO2 affects this.

Models assume a fairly exponential increase in CO2. This hasn't been happening lately. As CO2 concentration increases it take more and more to affect "E" - google "Stephan-Boltzmann."

Thus, if you multiply an exponential increase by a logarithimic increase, you'll get a generally linear return.

To achieve the predicted increase in temperature then (of, on average - .2 to .8 degrees C per decade, depending on the model) then you MUST continue to increase CO2 exponentially.

It appears that it isn't happening. And thus I think some stabilization could be expected.

Then again, the sun has been at a low. This could mean that the pause is caused by the sun - which makes sense.

But I keep hearing about how accurate these things are 100 years down the road. The problem is that we won't know if they are accurate for another 70-80 years.

Right now, I'm leaning toward incorrect assumptions on the rate of increase of C02 emissions. Therefore overestimations of the forcings. Which, assuming the physics are correct, would explain why observed trends hug the bottom of the preedicted ranges.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>Right now, I'm leaning toward incorrect assumptions on the rate of
>increase of C02 emissions.

The rate is indeed increasing at a rate between linear and exponential. In other words, the rate of increase is increasing. See graph attached.

>Models assume a fairly exponential increase in CO2.

?? Some do, some don't. Indeed, the most conservative IPCC model assumes that we can start _reducing_ the rate of rise over the next 100 years - which is a slower increase than linear.

[rushmc 23]

I do love the lack ot content responces from those other than you (edited to add billvon as he has a lot to add. Thanks Bill) based on a couple of swaped letters

Thanks for your reply
More to come Im sure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Take a look at the CO2 increase prior to that. I'm on my blackberry to give a link or two.

Of course, I think the models can pretty easily be revised. Take CO2 data from the last 20 years and plug it in. See what happens.

As a note, I also believe the oceans to be nassively involved. Atmospheric forcing is decently understood but we are pretty in-the-dark about the oceans. Yes, we've got a good idea of surface temperatures but a lousy idea of temperatures at the assumed mixing depths (any diver knows about thermoclines - hell, I could feel them to some extent when skydiving).

We've got a fair idea of rhe physics involved. We don't know shit about the variables.
Seeing as how the ENSO has a massive effect (even the Atlantic has its own oscillation, to which Hadley attributes the recent pause) on global climate - almost like a volcano releasing stored energy - the forcings involved deserve attention.

Climatologists certainly give it some. But it is a great unknown.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I do love the lack ot content responces from those other than you (edited to add billvon as he has a lot to add. Thanks Bill) based on a couple of swaped letters

Thanks for your reply
More to come Im sure

ONCE is a typo. Twice is ignorance.

So, did you cash that stimulus check?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>Take a look at the CO2 increase prior to that.

The longer the timescale you look at the more exponential they look. See attached.

Your basic idea is correct; if the CO2 increase is linear, then we will warm at a slower than linear rate as our blackbody radiation increases. That's a good argument to implement protocols that slow down the rate of increase of CO2.

>Take CO2 data from the last 20 years and plug it in. See what happens.

That's the basic technique used to validate the climate models we use today.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I do love the lack ot content responces from those other than you (edited to add billvon as he has a lot to add. Thanks Bill) based on a couple of swaped letters

Thanks for your reply
More to come Im sure

ONCE is a typo. Twice is ignorance.

So, did you cash that stimulus check?

We will forgive you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Check your stimulus at the door please. Oh, and no tipping.

[rickjump1 0]

Will this prove once and for all that Al Gore did not invent the interstate?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Will this prove once and for all that Al Gore did not invent the interstate?

Why would he want to invent the interstate when he has big old jetliners at his disposal? He might be an investor in heavy jet ruway construction companies though.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Will this prove once and for all that Al Gore did not invent the interstate?

Why would he want to invent the interstate when he has big old jetliners at his disposal? He might be an investor in heavy jet ruway construction companies though.

Classic car collection used to drive all his friends to the heavy jet runway to get on his carbon neutral big old jetliner to save the world in one weekend?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[lawrocket 3]

How are emissions looking, bill?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>How are emissions looking, bill?

CO2 emissions? The biggest factors are:

China's demand for power (80% is coal)
Our demand for oil (good news there is that our rate of increase is slowing)

The EIA predicts a closer to linear rise in emissions, with emissions rising from 18bmt (billion metric tons) in 2010 to 26bmt by 2030. This is a significant improvement over the 2005 estimates of 35bmt by 2030. Primary causes of the slowdown are "increases in energy efficiency, greater use of renewable fuels and an expected rebound in oil prices" per the EIA, as well as an increase in alternative energy usage, including solar, wind and biofuels such as ethanol. A bit of good news in an area that's been pretty bleak for a few decades now.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

AWG

Lysdexic?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080721132548AAMeewn

[kallend 2,150]

www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html

An unlikely duo.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html

An unlikely duo.

Yes, and they point out the delicate balance that would be need IF AGW was a proven fact.

For this post I will conceed that point.

So, where in your mind lies that balance point?

Wind will not fulfill any large scale power requirements at least today. Coal has been demonized and that (at least for now) will not be an alternative. Solar? It has a part but at least today is not the answer.

I can see incentives to encourage the development of any and all renewables or what ever you want to call them. But governemt forcing these at this time will kill growth and will at least slow any chance of our economy at this time. And the tech is not here at this time

I feel something not yet known (to us) will be the alternative in our live times. Too many good minds out there working on it

Nuclear would seem to be the answer. But that ranks up there with coal it seems in the minds of the politions and the enviors.

So, what is the answer in your mind?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Nuclear is good.

Not wasting energy is good.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Edited to add, this man is not a skeptic. He still thinks AWG will happen. But going forward with this study shows a bit of honesty to me.

American Wire Gauge
Association of Wholesale Grocers
Association of Women Geoscientists
Arkansas Western Gas
Association of Washington Gynecologists
Assymetric Warfare Group
?

This is one of the few times in my life that I have read something on line and actually laughed out loud(LOL).

I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Edited to add, this man is not a skeptic. He still thinks AWG will happen. But going forward with this study shows a bit of honesty to me.

American Wire Gauge
Association of Wholesale Grocers
Association of Women Geoscientists
Arkansas Western Gas
Association of Washington Gynecologists
Assymetric Warfare Group
?

This is one of the few times in my life that I have read something on line and actually laughed out loud(LOL).

I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.

Always pleased to be of service.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tonyhays 86]

I like this idea better!

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”