It’s me mad again, these articles get worse every day the earth cools.
Obama left with little time to curb global warming
Since Clinton’s inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton’s second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
Is global warming really accelerating?
Graph courtesy of Joe at digital diatribes (link on right).
Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding “tipping points.”
“We’re out of time,” Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. “Things are going extinct.”
Out of time, accellerating. I see a black line dropping sharply. Temps have not changed enough yet to cause extinction, the whole concept is stupid. That’s not to say temps wont chang in the futue but these are just lies. It is this kind of garbage reporting and politics that gives global warming a bad name.
Link HERE.
Out of time to get the socialist political policies in place before the pacific decadal oscillation takes over and dumps three feet of snow on the west coast maybe. I can’t predict the weather but my $5 is on a cold winter.
Scientists fear that what’s happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
Now we know the arctic ice melt is nearly compensated by antarctic increases.
I wonder what will happen next.
the Air Vent 
Sea ice has almost nothing to do with sea level because by definition, it’s floating. Only the melting of ice on land like the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps would raise the sea level.
A reasonable assumption is that if sea ice is melting that land ice will melt also.
Except that Antarctic isn’t melting 🙂
An ice cap kilometers thick takes rather a lot longer to melt than sea ice on the order of one meter thick. Sea ice can be melted from below by warm water incursions from ocean currents as well as by warm air and sunlight. Ice caps can only be melted by sunlight and warm air. The snow cover is a pretty good insulator as well. The scare mongers claim that sea level will go up by meters by the end of this century rather than centimeters. That can happen only if there is a substantial loss in Antarctic and Greenland ice. Current loss rates are orders of magnitude too small. The Antarctic ice cap started forming when it was a lot warmer than it is now. There was a sub-tropical climate complete with alligators in Northeast Tennessee only about 5 million years ago.
Why don’t you have anything that proves your case? Recent small perturbations in climate like La Nina and the PDO do not invalidate long term trends like AGW warming.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231
Stuff like “these are just lies” and “socialist policies” is damaging your credibility, BTW.
Recent small perturbations in climate like La Nina and the PDO do not invalidate long term trends like AGW warming.
Finally something we agree on. Congrats.
Unfortunately they are commonly used by AGW to state things like “ten warmest years”, I wonder what the next ten will be like?
“Stuff like “these are just lies” and “socialist policies” is damaging your credibility, BTW.”
Yeah, I know people don’t want my political views but you don’t want my AGW views so there you go. The article is full of deliberately false exaggerations designed to scare people into agreement. The intent to falsify means –lie. A frog is a frog after all.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Jeff, you probably wouold not have claimed “lies” had people not been lying. For example, had someone come out and said that the last ten years has been stagnant, but we believe there is still a long-term global warming trend in the works, then that is probably something that – agere or not with it – can be considered a somewhat reasonable position.
But the problem is with people using words like “accelerating” and “worse than ever” and “tipping point” when a simple cahrt says “Um, it’s actually cooled lately.” This is simply a lie, and you’ve got your head in the sand if you don’t think it’s a calculated lie for political reasons. Repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and you get enough people to believe it that it doesn’t matter that there are smart people out there who can think for themselves and look at a chart or two.
Like Jeff, I started looking at temperature analysis simply because I didn’t want a filter telling me what to think. All the charts on my site demonstrate long-term warming, and recent cooling. It’s just what it is. It’s not agenda-driven, nor is it rocket science. But nowadays, simply presenting data and facts gets you labeled a denier if you don’t unquestionably agree with 100% of the drivel that comes out of the mouths of the AGW crowd.
The more I learn, the more skeptical I become. Not of an overall long-term warming trend, but of its severity, the amount of it caused by anthropogenic causes (I can accept that there is some small effect), and even whether or not it’s even a big deal if there is warming. I think people aren’t recognizing a good thing when they see it.
#7
Thanks Joe, that pretty well sums it up. My investigation of the long term trend in sea ice was prompted by the graph on a post from IUIC (graph below). Why isn’t the ice melting if Temps are rising so much? Just look how much trouble you can get in trying to find answers.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/sea-ice-decreases-despite-the-air-vent/
@The Diatribe Guy
Global Warming surely has an anthropogenic (man-made) component, but I personally suspect it is likely to be quite small (anything from 1% up to say 50%). But as soon as you suggest anything less than say 90% of modern warming is man-made, you are labelled a Skeptic. Never mind that a good scientist is supposed to be sceptical by nature!
I think that I’d agree with most of what you say.
Jeff Id Says:
December 16, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Yeah, I know people don’t want my political views but you don’t want my AGW views so there you go. The article is full of deliberately false exaggerations designed to scare people into agreement.
– Really? Let’s see one.
The Diatribe Guy Says:
December 16, 2008 at 8:15 pm
But the problem is with people using words like “accelerating” and “worse than ever” and “tipping point” when a simple cahrt says “Um, it’s actually cooled lately.” This is simply a lie, and you’ve got your head in the sand if you don’t think it’s a calculated lie for political reasons.
– You do understand that based on Jeff’s comment, “Recent small perturbations in climate like La Nina and the PDO do not invalidate long term trends like AGW warming”, those are not incompatible states, right? Same challenge to you – let’s see a lie in the article.
Cmb, just a comment if I may. You are correct in saying that that La Nina and PDO influences are not incompatible with AGW. However, there is much debate about the influence of these ocean oscilations on trends in global temperature anomalies. If PDO, for example, has amplified the most rescent 30 year warming trend then has it been falsley attributed to CO2? The answers to these questions have obvious implications for scientific arguments about “tipping points”, etc..
Layman Lurker Says:
December 17, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Cmb, just a comment if I may. You are correct in saying that that La Nina and PDO influences are not incompatible with AGW. However, there is much debate about the influence of these ocean oscilations on trends in global temperature anomalies. If PDO, for example, has amplified the most rescent 30 year warming trend then has it been falsley attributed to CO2? The answers to these questions have obvious implications for scientific arguments about “tipping points”, etc..
– There’s not really much debate, the PDO has been monitored since the beginning of last century and is well understood. But you will certainly find many denialist articles on the subject, yes. Fortunately, evidence for AGW extends through several recorded PDO switches.
Cmb, respectfully, do you know of any literature which takes a crack at separating the CO2 global warming signal from PDO in the global temperature anomaly data? I am not aware of any and I would be interested in any references you have. I think it is a safe bet that the PDO influences climate.
Josh Willis, NASA JPL oceanographer and climate scientist on the PDO, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
CMB say: “let’s see a lie in the article”
The article states: “safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.”
Please provide the SCIENCE to support this statement.
Layman Lurker Says:
December 18, 2008 at 1:00 am
Cmb, respectfully, do you know of any literature which takes a crack at separating the CO2 global warming signal from PDO in the global temperature anomaly data? I am not aware of any and I would be interested in any references you have. I think it is a safe bet that the PDO influences climate.
– Sure! It’s not just a safe bet, it’s the reason the PDO is important when considering the temperature averages of the last two years – PDO and La Nina seem to be the variables denialist articles these days most love to leave out. The question I thought I was dealing with was that of a PDO or similar posing as the AGW signal attributed to CO2. Fortunately for the theory, its signal is much longer in duration than any PDO, which makes ‘separation of signals’ a non-issue when you have PDO indicators like salinity.
Searching with Google, links involving AGW and the PDO are swamped by denialist webpages. I did find a fairly good primer in the time I had.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_bond.html
These also may be of interest.
Decadal scale regime shifts in the large marine ecosystems of the North-east pacific: a case for historical science
http://www.iphc.washington.edu/Staff/hare/html/papers/francis-hare/franhare.html
Overland, J.E., S. Salo, and J.M. Adams (1999): Salinity signature of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(9), 1337-1340. (no link found)
Imaging the PDO: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20081209.html
Derived PDO index time series here: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
Richard M Says:
December 18, 2008 at 4:31 pm
CMB say: “let’s see a lie in the article”
The article states: “safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.”
– LOL It most certainly does not. The article makes no such claim whatsoever. Please don’t lie to us.
Please provide the SCIENCE to support this statement.
– I think you are misunderstanding the assignment. It’s not my job to go verifying every statement in any article you claim contains a lie somewhere. You need to point out this lie, and show it’s a lie using verifiable information. Failure to do so is, by definition, not my problem. 😉
Cmb, respectfully, I don’t need a primer on the PDO.
You state:
“the PDO has been monitored since the beginning of last century”
No it hasn’t:
http://www.artsci.washington.edu/news/Winter98/elnino.html
Your citation of Francis and Hare, 1994 predates the first true recognition of the PDO and sheds little (maybe none?) light on separating CO2 signal from the effect of ocean oscillations.
“and is well understood”
No it isn’t:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/PDO.html
There is serious debate going on in scientific circles about the effect of ocean oscillations on climate which has nothing to do with denialism blogs. The most recent warming trend since 1976 coincides with a switch of the PDO from cool to warm phase. How much of this warming is attributable to CO2 and how much to PDO? Do GCM’s properly account for PDO (or other oscillations) in natural forcings? You cite PDO as a contributing factor to explain cooling of the last 2 years yet that premise would pose a problem for the validity of GCM’s so important to the AGW position.
Speaking of problem for GCM’s, look at:
Click to access CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
This is an interesting paper (not denialism) that if true would cause re-examination of the magnitude and mechanisms of AGW.
Layman Lurker Says:
December 18, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Cmb, respectfully, I don’t need a primer on the PDO.
– I didn’t decide that you did. I listed it because I found it. I’m certainly no expert on this subject.
You state:
“the PDO has been monitored since the beginning of last century”
No it hasn’t:
http://www.artsci.washington.edu/news/Winter98/elnino.html
– Ah! I stand corrected, after checking again I find it has only been reconstructed through the beginning of last century.
Your citation of Francis and Hare, 1994 predates the first true recognition of the PDO and sheds little (maybe none?) light on separating CO2 signal from the effect of ocean oscillations.
– It simply highlights one method of observing (and reconstructing) the PDO – its effect on ecosystems, and particularly the world’s fisheries. Salinity is another.
“and is well understood”
No it isn’t:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/PDO.html
– Point taken, but that’s from four years ago. Now, we simply image it from satellite data.
There is serious debate going on in scientific circles about the effect of ocean oscillations on climate which has nothing to do with denialism blogs. The most recent warming trend since 1976 coincides with a switch of the PDO from cool to warm phase. How much of this warming is attributable to CO2 and how much to PDO? Do GCM’s properly account for PDO (or other oscillations) in natural forcings? You cite PDO as a contributing factor to explain cooling of the last 2 years yet that premise would pose a problem for the validity of GCM’s so important to the AGW position.
– I don’t see why. The PDO is an oscillation about a normal. Are you blaming a rise in temps extending back into the 1800’s on a PDO? Perhaps one of our stats package folks could plot the PDO index alongside the temperature anomalies for the past century, then a subtraction of same.
Speaking of problem for GCM’s, look at:
Click to access CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
This is an interesting paper (not denialism) that if true would cause re-examination of the magnitude and mechanisms of AGW.
– Hopefully that’s always happening anyway. Hmm, now we apparently have dueling GCM’s. If I read this correctly, it wants to place some blame for land warming on ocean warming – which is then partially blamed on AGW? So, I wonder, would ocean warming cool the stratosphere – one indicator of AGW? Personally I’m skeptical of simulations that ignore GHGs we know are there, so I’ll definitely look at this more when I get time.
Cmb, how’s the x-mas shopping going? If we keep yakking I won’t get mine done! Oh well, not the first time I have let fun get in the way of life.
As I understand it (Layman warning: somebody correct me if I am wrong as I proceed on this) ocean influences are built in to GCM’s as a natural forcing. The simplified GCM might look like this:
CO2 signal + Natural forcings + feedback (natural and CO2) = Projected global temp anomaly trend
The reconciliation of GCM projection with observed temps and trends might look like this:
CO2 signal + Natural Forcings + feedback = projected trend + noise
As with any equation, if you mess with the values of one variable (or assumptions about constants) then the other values must change otherwise it’s not an equation any more. “Noise” is being cited right now to account for recent temp anomaly observations because the GCM projections are above recent temperature (dare I say) trends.
If it is noise, then it cannot be a natural forcing ergo cannot be PDO.
Continuing with the simple math of above, when it comes to the debate on PDO and the question of attribution of warming trends, any change allowed for PDO would cause something else to be invalidated like CO2 signal or feebacks. Or it could cause the output of projected warming to be changed. This in turn would be compared with observed trends and be more difficult to explain with noise.
Again using the same simple math…. If the PDO is not being accounted for properly in the GCM’s, this will reduce the accuracy of GCM output and cause increased discrepancy with reality. The true PDO effect would then be improperly attributed to CO2 signal, feebacks, or, on the other side of the equation, noise.
Further, the paper I cited above does not rule out anthropogenic causes for the PDO influences. But if that is the case, then PDO is part forcing and part feedback, and it throws a big monkey wrench into current assumptions about feebacks, forcings, and CO2 signal.
I hope I have this right.
Cmb states:
“- I think you are misunderstanding the assignment. It’s not my job to go verifying every statement in any article you claim contains a lie somewhere. You need to point out this lie, and show it’s a lie using verifiable information. Failure to do so is, by definition, not my problem. ”
First of all I did not claim there were any lies. I simply asked you to back up YOUR statement, which stated there were no lies. You failed to do that in your first opportunity. I can only assume you have nothing to back up your assertion.
Enough said. Your opinion has been noted and will be treated based on your willingness to defend it.
I have a strong distaste for the use of the word lie. Lie is intent to deceive which is something separate from wrong. The uneducated tend to mix these together.
Please use this word only where appropriate.
Cmb when you say to diatribe guy, whom I have been reading his blog for some time that he is lying as below.
“Um, it’s actually cooled lately.” This is simply a lie.
I have an extraordinary distaste for this comment. Check the digital diatribes link at the right and you will see that this person, like me is a bit deeper than you realize. You are quite welcome to argue your points but please don’t call them liars unless it is applicable. Something I also have extreme distaste for.
I have only had to censor 1 comment of about 800 on this blog so far.
I believe in expressing your opinions. Unlike real climate and tamino you are free to make your points. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want to know the true answer to this question. Can you imagine how mind easing it would be to actually know the climate future, it would feel great. We would know exactly what to do.
Liar’s deserve to be called out but someone who disagrees is no liar.
Wow, how many times can I mispell feedback on one post?
I think you are all missing a point here. CO2 has well-known radiative transfer properties, and its concentration is monitored globally, as is total insolation. That’s plenty of data to produce a good calculation of total CO2 forcing, simply though understanding the physics concepts involved. Pretending there’s some confusion between that and PDO effects is simply that – pretense.
Layman Lurker Says:
“Noise” is being cited right now to account for recent temp anomaly observations because the GCM projections are above recent temperature (dare I say) trends.
If it is noise, then it cannot be a natural forcing ergo cannot be PDO.
– How do you figure? I have not yet seen the La Nina/PDO described as ‘noise’, where have you?
“- How do you figure? I have not yet seen the La Nina/PDO described as ‘noise’, where have you?”
My resident troll is back. Noise is often considered anything in the signal you are not looking for. If you can eliminate all other effects in temp signal i.e. solar forcing, volcanoes, la nina, pdo, you can get a good look at whatever is left which includes CO2 forcing.
This is another example of why you need to study more.
Cmb, I don’t think you understood completely what I was saying. Global warming is a process which is driven by a combinations of forcings (both natural and manmade), and feedbacks from the forcings. This process has been modeled in the form of the many GCM’s. These models are basically equations. Feedbacks and forcings are on the input side of the equation. Projected global temperature trends are on the output side of the equation. If any given model was “perfect” than the projections from the model would be 100% correct in matching global temperature trends as they unfold. Nothing is perfect therefore the deviations of observation from projection can be described as “noise”.
PDO cannot be “noise” as it (PDO) is on the input side of the equation.
BTW, I was not pretending that there was any confusion between CO2 forcing and PDO. It was you who suggested PDO was accounting for recent cooling. Your suggestion conradicts the pro AGW position (at least those who suggest “tipping points” are imminent). If PDO is responsible for recent cooling then it must also be responsible for more of the recent post 1976 warming as well – meaning that CO2 forcing and/or CO2 feedbacks are responsible for less. If the forcing effect of PDO is increased then only a reduction in the CO2 forcings and feedbacks would allow such a model to be valid.
Cmb, I am not a denialist. Nor am I an alarmist. I don’t think the science is “settled” however. The peer reviewed article I cited above is an example. I am trying to understand the truth of how all this all works because there is so much at stake. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by lining up on one side of the debate or the other and getting caught up in the politics and the name calling. You would do yourself a great service by backing off a bit and asking more questions instead. The truth will out.
#22 – Jeff, I appreciate the defense, but to be fair, I think cmb was simply quoting me referring to certain parts of the article being a lie. He then responded to my quote after that.
Layman Lurker Says:
December 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Cmb, I don’t think you understood completely what I was saying. Global warming is a process which is driven by a combinations of forcings (both natural and manmade), and feedbacks from the forcings. This process has been modeled in the form of the many GCM’s. These models are basically equations. Feedbacks and forcings are on the input side of the equation. Projected global temperature trends are on the output side of the equation. If any given model was “perfect” than the projections from the model would be 100% correct in matching global temperature trends as they unfold.
– That does not follow. Emergent conditions such as volcanism can affect climate, and do so.
Nothing is perfect therefore the deviations of observation from projection can be described as “noise”.
– I see what you mean.
PDO cannot be “noise” as it (PDO) is on the input side of the equation.
BTW, I was not pretending that there was any confusion between CO2 forcing and PDO. It was you who suggested PDO was accounting for recent cooling.
– Not just me, it’s common knowledge.
Your suggestion conradicts the pro AGW position (at least those who suggest “tipping points” are imminent).
– Not from what I’ve seen. I would expect the temporary influence to fade, warming to reassert itself and make up for lost time immediately, and all of a sudden we are back on the way to tipping points – but without a good ‘speedometer’ due to the interference with trend analysis caused by the cooling. One thing is certain – the climate will not simply begin warming again from the cooling’s endpoint as if no CO2 had accumulated in the meantime.
If PDO is responsible for recent cooling then it must also be responsible for more of the recent post 1976 warming as well
– That also doesn’t follow, same reason.
..meaning that CO2 forcing and/or CO2 feedbacks are responsible for less. If the forcing effect of PDO is increased then only a reduction in the CO2 forcings and feedbacks would allow such a model to be valid.
– I don’t see why, yet. Models make projections, and the middle-of-the-road scenarios are close to actual measurements now. I’d think it should take quite a bit of change to make most models invalid.
I don’t think there are any models that anticipated a cooling PDO and a La Nina on top of each other, which is the sort of episode we have had until a month or so ago. If there are, it would surprise me if they do not allow for cooling episodes like the one we’re in.
The Diatribe Guy Says:
December 23, 2008 at 6:01 am
#22 – Jeff, I appreciate the defense, but to be fair, I think cmb was simply quoting me referring to certain parts of the article being a lie. He then responded to my quote after that.
– Actually, I was referring to Jeff’s claims in this post:
“Temps have not changed enough yet to cause extinction, the whole concept is stupid. That’s not to say temps wont chang in the futue but these are just lies. It is this kind of garbage reporting and politics that gives global warming a bad name.
Link HERE.”
Note that despite being directly challenged to do so almost two weeks ago, Jeff has been unable to cite a single lie (not one) in the article to which he linked. He will continue to be unable to do so, but objects when others use the word in more understandable fashion.
CMB
How about the “global warming is accelerating” when none of the temperature metrics or ice data the scientists are familiar with can support it.
“Jeff has been unable to cite a single lie”
The scientists know that warming has slowed and even stopped in the last 10 years by the temperature data. This can be due to a lot of factors including CO2 may not be as strong a forcing as some believe. I feel like teasing you about the squiggly line at the top of the post but I know you’re smart enough to be aware of that.
Why not admit there is no sign of acceleration and take the point of most AGW and say the signal is being masked temporarily and it may be accelerating? Anything else is propaganda. Information known to be false and given as truth is a ‘lie’.
from Cmb #30:
“That does not follow. Emergent conditions such as volcanism can affect climate, and do so.”
Huh? Exactly what is it that does not follow? Volcanic forcings are built into GCM’s.
“Not from what I’ve seen. I would expect the temporary influence to fade, warming to reassert itself and make up for lost time immediately, and all of a sudden we are back on the way to tipping points”
All temp variations, temporary or not, are part of the observed temperature trend. Unanticipated cooling periods serve to flatten out the overall rate of warming. As I was trying to point out before, what you are implying by conceding that the PDO is currently causing temporary cooling is that part of the post 1976 warming was attributable to the warm phase of the PDO. You can’t have it both ways. CO2 forcings and/or feedbacks must then have contributed less than what GCM’s have modeled because models must ultimately reconcile with actual observed temperatures. This is precisely what is being argued by people like Spencer, Easterbrook, and many others. The current rate of warming projected by GCM’s will be too high and therefore tipping points are not imminent.
I am not arguing the case of Easterbrook and Spencer. What I am trying to do is point out the logical inconsistency in what you have suggested here.
Click to access dje_abstracts%207.pdf