Fragony on 12/1/2010 at 13:38
Ah ok, complete utter garbage because because, well because the decision has been made, es muss sein. Can make climate laws but climate doesn't respect the law.
Namdrol on 12/1/2010 at 14:13
We've hit page 30, can we stop now?
Please.
SD on 12/1/2010 at 14:23
Quote Posted by Fragony
Ah ok, complete utter garbage because because, well because the decision has been made, es muss sein. Can make climate laws but climate doesn't respect the law.
It
is complete garbage. Australia last night endured its hottest night in more than a century. At midnight, the temperature in Melbourne was
34 Celsius.
Perhaps you would like to explain how that fits into the Daily Heil's claim of a "global trend towards cooler weather"?
jay pettitt on 12/1/2010 at 18:41
Dr Mojif Latif, who co-authored the study that the Mail refers to, has something to say about it. (
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif) He's not overly happy with the way his work and observations have been abused. Who'd have thunk.
I've got something to say about it too. It's bollocks, written for morons by morons and blatantly so. Ice free summers in the arctic by 2013 'a most cherished belief (wtf?) of the global warming orthodoxy' (wtf? - we'll have our own hymns next). What the fuck!?! AR4 suggests ice free summers plausible by 2050 or something (don't quote me, but it certainly ain't 2013). They're not even trying to rise above stupid.
--edit--
holy cow, I even ventured to read the next paragraph. It just gets worse...
Quote:
The scientists' predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
*giggles*
CCCToad on 12/1/2010 at 23:35
Apparently even Jesse Ventura is getting worked up, and has given one of the most over-dramatic presentations I've seen on any topic.
(
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/774.html)
Namdrol on 12/1/2010 at 23:56
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...meanwhile in America, Jesse Ventura and his tough talking team of crack investigators (is that UK kids TV presenter June Sarpong? - yes I rather think it is.) busts open the Global Warming Conspiracy on TruTV after a clandestine meeting in the warehouse district.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51xjrvr4bM) This one's for you Fragony.
(sorry)
CCCToad on 13/1/2010 at 03:49
My bad.
heywood on 13/1/2010 at 04:28
I think it's best to just bypass the tabloid media interpretation of the research and go straight to the source. Here's what the abstract of the Nature letter really said:
Quote Posted by N. S. Keenlyside, M. Latif et. al.
Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
You need to subscribe to Nature online to read the full text. I didn't do that, but I did look at their figures. Here is what appears to be the key figure:
(
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/fig_tab/nature06921_F4.html#figure-title) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/fig_tab/nature06921_F4.html#figure-title
It's important to note that these are decadal predictions, ie. the data point on the graph at 2005 is actually the average for 2000-2010, the data point at 2010 is the average for 2005-2015, etc. And most importantly, the "next decade" reference in the abstract refers to the data point at 2010, which covers from 2005 up to 2015. They're not referring to the next decade going forward from today to 2020. In fact, they're predicting that the decade from 2010 to 2020 will show a net warming.
This model may have predicted the flattening trend in the surface temperature record from 2000-2010. It also suggests the trend may continue for at most another 5 years. But then surface temperatures start rising again as they did between 1970 and 2000.
The best "skeptic" argument I could make from this is that it counters the IPCC model projections, which haven't predicted the last decade very well (one of the more reasonable complaints from the skeptic camp is that the IPCC models aren't adequately capturing the effects of ocean and solar cycles.) But it still predicts a long term warming that nearly coincides with the IPCC prediction by 2030.
------------------------------------------
Here is an unrelated but important point to reiterate once again: A flattening or even a decrease in land surface temperatures does NOT necessarily mean the biosphere is not absorbing heat.
Land surface temperatures are largely a function of sea surface temperatures near land. But you can't judge the temperature of the whole ocean volume by the surface temperatures near land. For example, we see lower average land surface temperatures during a La Nina, but that does NOT mean the biosphere cools during a La Nina. The ENSO cycle (El Nino, La Nina) just moves heat around the ocean.
The oceans are a gigantic heat sink, and if the biosphere is undergoing a net warming, then the vast majority of that heat is being trapped in the oceans. Since ocean currents transport heat around, and vary cyclically, we can't measure the average temperature of a whole ocean by its surface. Therefore, the best measure we have of average ocean temperature is mean sea level. The two things that affect sea level the most are ice melting and thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is slow trend with a long time constant, but melting is influenced by arctic surface temperatures which are more variable over the short term. Here is a long term record based primarily on tide gauges, with satellite altimetry overlayed at the end:
Inline Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.pngAnd here's a shorter term trend based on satellite altimetry that I posted before (BTW, I grabbed this from a skeptic site no less):
Inline Image:
http://www.redmc.net/useless/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpgThe fact the sea levels have continued to rise even while land surface temperatures have temporarily flattened indicates that the biosphere is still absorbing heat in the aggregate.
While I have found some skeptics that are making some reasonable arguments, I haven't found a good non-anthropogenic explanation for the consistent sea level rise over the last century.
heywood on 13/1/2010 at 05:23
Here's another plot of the same data, this one with CO2 and dust as well:
Inline Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.pngI'm not sure what you can conclude from this, other than that ice ages have been cyclical over the last 400k years.
Even if you assume the 100-120k year cycle will continue, which is a big "if" (look at the EPICA cores) we may not see a downturn for another 1000 or 10000 years or more. Do we do nothing to counter warming now because another ice age is coming in 10000 years?
