Where Did Global Warming Go?

#30
#30
Volunteer_Kirby said:
What was global temperature change over the last 8 years? Do you know? :salute:
Click to expand...

Judging from what this article was saying, it may be near zero. I know that the temperature anomaly rose from 0.55 degrees C in 2000 to about 0.625 degrees in 2005 ... I think that 2006 fell to the average of the previous 5 years, I'm not sure what the actual number in 2007 is.

Do you know what the exact number is?

Along those same lines, I think that about 12 of the last 14 years were the warmest we have on record (since actual surface measurements were recorded reliably in about 1850). Does that mean we are seeing global warming - without a doubt. Does that mean that we are seeing man-made climate change? Not alone. When they combine the solar flux data and volcanic forcing data, the IPCC feels that temperatures should have fallen a bit or remained about constant. Their conclusion is that the warming is caused by increased solar flux trapped within the earth's atmosphere by the GHGs.

However, there is no precept within the study of Global Climate Change that would prevent periods of cooling. I think that has been expressed in detail above. If solar flux decreases sufficiently, if atmospheric aerosols or sulfurs increase sufficiently, etc. then you can expect downward trends - entirely within the framework of GCC science.

The dominant driver in climate change is natural solar cycles - always has been, and as far as I can see - it always will be. The issue at hand is that we will see more extreme highs during peaks of the solar cycle - and we must ask ourselves if we are willing to accept those consequences or mitigate against them. The largest stumbling block as I see it right now is that it is very hard to predict those consequences with the certainty required for most people to be comfortable with the important policy decisions.
 
#31
#31
TennTradition said:
The dominant driver in climate change is natural solar cycles - always has been, and as far as I can see - it always will be. The issue at hand is that we will see more extreme highs during peaks of the solar cycle - and we must ask ourselves if we are willing to accept those consequences or mitigate against them. The largest stumbling block as I see it right now is that it is very hard to predict those consequences with the certainty required for most people to be comfortable with the important policy decisions.
Click to expand...

This is a good summary of the situation. The other dimensions to add are a general lack of understanding of the impacts of potential policy decisions (both on GCC and on other areas such as economics, agriculture, etc.) and the use of GCC as a lever to drive policy change which has other motives besides GHG emission reduction.

Add it all up and we see why there are people on multiple sides of this issue. Some dispute the scientific accuracy, some dispute the implications of GCC, some dispute the appropriate response(s) and the corresponding consequences (especially negative externalities) and some dispute the real motivation for particular policy initiatives.

I see nothing wrong with efforts to reduce GHG emissions but get concerned when I see major policy initiatives that haven't been thoroughly vetted or presented in an upfront manner.
 
#32
#32
The TRUTH about Global Warming...

The Cause

farting-cow.jpg


The Effect


global-warming-swimwear.jpg
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
This is a good summary of the situation. The other dimensions to add are a general lack of understanding of the impacts of potential policy decisions (both on GCC and on other areas such as economics, agriculture, etc.) and the use of GCC as a lever to drive policy change which has other motives besides GHG emission reduction.

Add it all up and we see why there are people on multiple sides of this issue. Some dispute the scientific accuracy, some dispute the implications of GCC, some dispute the appropriate response(s) and the corresponding consequences (especially negative externalities) and some dispute the real motivation for particular policy initiatives.

I see nothing wrong with efforts to reduce GHG emissions but get concerned when I see major policy initiatives that haven't been thoroughly vetted or presented in an upfront manner.
Click to expand...

I get concerned when the United Nations say they believe in it. :blink:
 
#35
#35
iceman9 said:
I get concerned when the United Nations say they believe in it. :blink:
Click to expand...

I think that you are in a strong majority that has zero trust for the UN or any policy it endorses. I actually think that constructing global climate change policy within the Framework for the Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) as a UN entity (which then created meetings/decisions like the Kyoto Protocol) may have been a huge mistake from the standpoint of world-wide acceptance. I think that a multi-nation agreement outside the UN would have led to much more success in this country. Of course, we weren't ready for either during the Kyoto days.

I doubt we will ever really get on board with the UN route. I think that what Bush is doing now (trying to get multi-national talks going) will be a consistent trend whether a Rep. or a Dem. is in office.
 
#36
#36
TennTradition said:
Judging from what this article was saying, it may be near zero. I know that the temperature anomaly rose from 0.55 degrees C in 2000 to about 0.625 degrees in 2005 ... I think that 2006 fell to the average of the previous 5 years, I'm not sure what the actual number in 2007 is.

Do you know what the exact number is? From 1998-2005 the global average temperature did not increase. There was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero [source: official temp. records from Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia]. Global temperatures have been mostly decadal in nature, nothing unusual. I don't know what the number for 2007 is either. 2008 is expected to be cooler, though.

Along those same lines, I think that about 12 of the last 14 years were the warmest we have on record (since actual surface measurements were recorded reliably in about 1850). Does that mean we are seeing global warming - without a doubt. "without a doubt" :)... Citation needed!

Does that mean that we are seeing man-made climate change? Not alone. When they combine the solar flux data and volcanic forcing data, the IPCC feels that temperatures should have fallen a bit or remained about constant. Their conclusion is that the warming is caused by increased solar flux trapped within the earth's atmosphere by the GHGs. Those damn SUVs!

However, there is no precept within the study of Global Climate Change that would prevent periods of cooling. I think that has been expressed in detail above. If solar flux decreases sufficiently, if atmospheric aerosols or sulfurs increase sufficiently, etc. then you can expect downward trends - entirely within the framework of GCC science. When does "Global Cooling" become the threat IPCC/GCC focuses on? I bet by 2010 this Global Warming crap goes away and by 2015 there is a whole new "widely accepted" beast. Global Cooling.
The dominant driver in climate change is natural solar cycles - always has been, and as far as I can see - it always will be. The issue at hand is that we will see more extreme highs during peaks of the solar cycle - and we must ask ourselves if we are willing to accept those consequences or mitigate against them. The largest stumbling block as I see it right now is that it is very hard to predict those consequences with the certainty required for most people to be comfortable with the important policy decisions. I wish I understood how worldwide Warming would be bad for the world. The desert in my area would probably turn into a steppe. Can't complain with that. Hell, with enough Global Warming, it would turn into a forest! Global Warming would naturally lead to decreased food prices. So, I ask, which would be more devastating, Global Warming or Global Governance? :shhh: I see no positive outcome associated with a global tax. Do you? On top of all the horrible conditions third-world countries face, a global tax would be absolutely devastating to them.

Global Warming science is turning into junk science... But keep following that shepherd, he might lead to greener pastures!
Click to expand...

:whistling:
 
#37
#37
There is a great book out called the politically incorrect guide to global warming. It goes into how the left controls this fear based conspiracy to advance socialism and almost comunism. It is a very good read. Check it out on amazon and read a couple of pages it really did a real good job of explaining it. One thing that was kind of before my time that I didn't know is that until the mid eighties the media was reporting on "global Cooling" and were speculating that we were entering a new ice age.
 
#39
#39
From your quote of mine....

Along those same lines, I think that about 12 of the last 14 years were the warmest we have on record (since actual surface measurements were recorded reliably in about 1850). Does that mean we are seeing global warming - without a doubt. "without a doubt" ... Citation needed!
Click to expand...

I would cite the IPCC, found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Their exact quote:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C 1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe, and is greater at higher northern latitudes.
Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}
Click to expand...

I updated their numbers to include more recent years (2006 and 2007) and said I think because I wasn't certain about my update.

Edit: According to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that you cited above, 2007 was the 8th warmest year on record. So, I think that the correct statement would be 13 of the last 14 years are the warmest on record (post-1850 actual measurements).
 
#40
#40
Quoting from VK...

From 1998-2005 the global average temperature did not increase. There was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero [source: official temp. records from Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia]. Global temperatures have been mostly decadal in nature, nothing unusual. I don't know what the number for 2007 is either. 2008 is expected to be cooler, though.
Click to expand...

That is sly choice of years, VK. Has the earth warmed from 1997 to 2005? Why yes...it has. When you choose the warmest year on the official RECORD, then you would suspect that there must be cooling from that year forward. If you were to choose the years 1990-1998, then you would suddenly think that the earth was going to skyrocket in temperature. That is why climate scientists tend to compare a temperature to the average of the previous five (or ten) years' temperature to talk about changes. I think that this figure is much more instructive and less easily manipulated than the statement like you made (cooling from 1998 to 2005).

TemperatureRecord.jpg

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

The individual gray lines show you annual anomalies (relative to the 1961 to 1990 mean) ... and you can see that there was a huge spike in 1998....clearly an anomaly.

As you can see, there are 10-20 year cycles in temperature - temperature will rise for a while and then fall for a while. It appears that we are entering a period of declining temperature...and this in no way "blows the bottom out of" climate change theory. These changes are natural - but the question is, are the numbers trending up unnaturally (human responsibility). The IPCC says yes.

It is a complex problem. If the sun is getting ready to really go down in output and we are getting ready to cool significantly, then maybe increased GHGs like CO2 are a good thing. The sun is difficult to fully understand, and our climate is even more complex. However, it doesn't help the discussion at all to confuse matters like I feel the quote you gave above ends up doing (that is, gives an incomplete picture).
 
#41
#41
Volunteer_Kirby said:
What was global temperature change over the last 8 years? Do you know? :salute:
Click to expand...

So, after more investigation, I can say that the global average temperature has increased from 1999 to 2007 by approximately 0.13 degrees C. I know this probably sounds small, but it is a meaningful number.
 
#42
#42
TennTradition said:
So, after more investigation, I can say that the global average temperature has increased from 1999 to 2007 by approximately 0.13 degrees C. I know this probably sounds small, but it is a meaningful number.
Click to expand...
and if all the assumptions about the egregiousness of man are true, how much could be ascribed to man's wanton disregard for the environment?
 
#43
#43
BigPapaVol said:
and if all the assumptions about the egregiousness of man are true, how much could be ascribed to man's wanton disregard for the environment?
Click to expand...

Papa, this question is dripping/seething with an emotion somewhere between sarcasm and contempt...if I'm right, then you get points for getting your emotions across without emoticons :p

I don't think that I can dissect that out personally without more data. A problem is that this sort of data can be presented as human-attributed radiative forcing or in temperature...but in temperature, the uncertainty would probably go up - and I can't find the data reported in that manner.

I know that the fourth assessment report of the IPCC said the following in 2007

Very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this doesn't translate clearly into a temperature increase - just that the scientists contributing to the IPCC have concluded that there is human-induced warming. The non-human effects may be subtracted out of plots like the one I showed earlier - but there doesn't seem to be any indication that this has actually happened in these plots. So, my guess is that they (the human and non-human effects) are mixed together and hard to discern. Ultimately, this radiative forcing will translate into some temperature...and the predicted rate for the next few decades is about 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C / decade...I think.

I wish that I could extract it out or be more concrete in my answer, Papa...but I don't have the data..and can't seem to find it.
 
#44
#44
so, in other words, the economic destruction that would be the result of adoption of the Kyoto Accord would be for nothing.
 
#45
#45
MG1968 said:
so, in other words, the economic destruction that would be the result of adoption of the Kyoto Accord would be for nothing.
Click to expand...

I think that the 0.1 degree C per decade number I cite is with the current forcing coming to equilibrium - that means no new input. The actual 2050 business as usual (no emissions cuts besides normal efficiency gains) temperature increases are more...and significantly more by 2100 (this can all be found in the IPCC report).

Whether or not the temperature range we are talking about (I think it is 3-4 degrees or so by 2100) is worth the worldwide welfare cuts is another issue. This gets back to the importance of accurate estimation/prediction of the effects of these temperature increases, which is clearly a weak point in GCC forecasting. It is very hard to predict these impacts with accuracy in areas like regional impacts. It is fairly easy to predict that the arctic will increase by about 9 degrees, but it is hard to estimate how much, for example, cloud cover would increase there.

Obviously this is something that we must have a good degree of confidence in before we can move forward to any high degree - the cost can be quite large to welfare...so we want to do the right thing. The problem is that each year the problem gets worse (particularly with massive capital investment going on in China) ... so the sooner we can decide whether we agree there is a problem and what actions are necessary to mitigate against it the better off we are.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top