Climate watch: 2012 figures confirm global warming still stalled
The two major US temperature databases have released their consolidated results for 2012, and as had been expected, global warming has failed to occur for approximately the fourteenth year running. One of the US agencies downgraded 2012 to tenth-hottest ever: it had been on track to rank as 9th hottest. The tenth-hottest result …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Trust the satellite data
You make the assumption that I have a position, and that position is that I am a "non-warmist" or anti-AGW or whatever name you want today.
You have no basis to conclude any such thing.
I linked to that graph because that is a convenient place to see the graphical representation of the data. Roy is one of the scientists that collate the data, not? You don't have to like the data, but I think that you attacking its reliability or accuracy is likely a fool's errand.
Assuming I have a specific agenda because I link to a published location of scientific data, says a lot about you, and absolutely nothing about me. For all you know I am Gavin Schmidt and my agenda is to show exactly what you believe the data shows. Any idiot can see a left-right upward trend, so what's your point? I will answer that, your point is that you are an idiot.
Feel free to provide a different link for future use so that morons like you won't be confused and impose their own flawed opinion on a neutral post.
Re: You don't appear to have read the linked research
I was born not far from Burnley bavk in 46 and use to go to football matches there in the late fifties. Travelling over the hills the complete valley was visible and this was heavy smog now it's clear of that kind of pollution. The Chinese need to do the same thing.
Stop the shit
I too. Only humans seem to have them. But I wonder why this global warming is such a "heated" subject.
I can understand some hot air when it comes to things like Windows or iOS or Linux or GNOME or KDE or Android, you name it. But the fact is that we, and not anybody else, have polluted the sea. Just look a the Baltic or anywhere actually. Is that nice, is it good for us and who would not like that pollution to stop.
In the same manner we are polluting the air, our atmosphere. Just have a look at this:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80152
That shit was not the result of a warming sun or an act of god. Nor was it in 1952 in London.
Now suppose you asked somebody in Peking if he is happy with the quality of the air and if he thinks something should be done about it. I bet he will tell you that something should be done about it.
Then imagine you ask him if he believes in global warning or not, and should the regime take steps to try to prevent it or not.
Right now the whole global warming discussion is at a level compared to some city where all the shit is left on the street because it is cheaper, that way, and the Town Hall is arguing and trying find out if it causes more broken bones each year or not, and how to we know with only ten years of data.
Re: Stop the shit
Unfortunately, AGW is being used as an excuse, nay demand to pump out more toxins and pollutants, in exchange for less CO2.
The most obvious example is replacing easily recyclable tungsten lamps with mercury-filled and PCB-containing CFLs. That's worsened as there's no separate ballast models so you could have a long-lasting ballast and replace the mercury-filled tube a few times - you must replace both together.
Almost all "low-carbon" technologies currently result in higher emissions of really damaging pollutants - just not here, as we mostly outsource the manufacture and disposal.
"I blame the bow and arrow"
In the sense that you wish it'd been more effective?
Re: Stop the shit
AFAIK it's a heated debate because I seriously question the money being spent on pie in the sky power generation projects that are unworkable/unviable. Worse still, I have a major issue with western countries encouraging the worlds poorest people to use the most expensive means of power generation available. I won't miss a perfectly good opportunity to use the word insidious.
Re: I blame the bow and arrow..
"The desert of North Africa and the middle east are the direct result of 10,000 years of organic farming".
I blame agriculutre..
Global cooling
I hope the global warming fanatics are right. I am terrified the world might get colder.
Re: Global cooling
It is, judging by the icicles on the window. Oh, wait, that's weather and it is winter ...
But seriously, there is a non-zero probability of another ice age no matter what we humans do, and should it come, it will be very, very nasty and not at all good for our survival.
Flame: Because we may need them ...
Re: Global cooling
absolutely. last time it happened thousands died. Winter 1315 to 1325 I think it was. But then, they were mostly peasants, just like the poor today who pay for useless windmills
Riding Up the Down Escalator
The logic of this article makes about as much sense as measuring the temperature at night, and using the results to claim that global warming has been stalled for the last 12 hours.
Look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Solar output has been declining for much of the past decade. That decline has counteracted increased forcing due to increased CO2, leading deniers to claim that "global warming is stalled" for the past decade. Unfortunately for all of us, global warming is almost certainly going to un-stall as solar output increases over the next decade --- since it's pretty clear that this solar output thing is cyclical. Expect a series of scorcher years.
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
Damn right. Just because there doesn't seem to be much of the predicted global warming doesn't mean we should stop being taxed for it. It may just being... stalled for... reasons.
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
It makes more sense to use graphs that actually cover the last decade if that's what you're going to talk about, rather than a graph from wikipedia that stops at 2006.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/noaa-swpc-updates-their-solar-cycle-graphs-3rd-straight-month-of-dropping-sunspot-numbers/
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
"global warming is almost certainly going to un-stall as solar output increases over the next decade"
Eh? Solar output increasing over the next decade? Are you really sure about that? [Bigger image]
Solar cycle 24 is not far off maximum - if not already peaked. So it's on the wane either now or shortly. Of course, in about 11 years time (assuming it's not late again) it should be building up towards the peak of cycle 25 but even that is expected to be somewhat weak.
Overall however it is suspected that solar activity over the longer term is on a decline. The exact opposite of what you state.
Can we have a link (from a reliable scientific source) to support your statement please - or are you just (1) poorly informed or (2) talking bollocks?
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
Oh, don't worry... I think you may have muddled up individual solar cycles and expected longer term trends. But I won't retract my post, just in case you haven't :)
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
Yes, we're nearing a maximum of sunspots. But that maximum is much lower than the maximum we had in the year 2000, really only moderate.
So... if sun spots have anything to do with T on earth (which they do), then it's quite reasonable to expect that we might not be getting yearly RECORD BREAKING temperatures this year, even as global warming continues. But if you could have today's CO2 with sunspots of year 2000, you'd see a different story. Just wait a few more years... as CO2 continues to build and we happen to get another solar peak, we will expect to see a lot of records broken.
Conclusion: if you want to be honest about measuring the direction of the T of our planet, you need to average over more than a couple of years. And if you ACTUALLY want to know the truth... why don't you look at all the available data, including ALL thermometer readings, as Mike Mann did? Oh yes, I know why.. because you don't like the conclusions that pop out so obviously. Nor do you like the fact that this procedure has been repeated many times, even by former climate deniers funded by Koch money, and the result has been the same each and every time.
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
Ok, wait. Insolation is only a changing input if it supports your argument? What sort of game is this? Calvinscience?
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
Bob,
I'm not too sure either how (or why) you are drawing your conclusions. You're just not making much sense.
Now, let's put CO2 to one side for now and stick solely to solar activity, as that was where my argument lay...
Basically you are saying that global warming will, to quote, "un-stall" when the Sun begins to approach the peak of Solar Cycle 25. Correct?
I'm sorry, but that just makes little or no sense whatsoever when you consider that, right now, we are almost at (or indeed just past) the peak of cycle 24 and using your very own logic, we should now - being at or near to solar maximum - be experiencing a measurable and clear additional rise in average warming due to solar activity. Not only that but there should, using your logic, also be a clear cyclical rise and fall in average temperature that coincides with, or lags behind, individual solar cycles.
I think I can maybe see why you are drawing your flawed conclusion(s), but flawed they are.
It's possible that we may indeed see warming "un-stall" in a decade or so. But, should that be the case, that will not be due to normal solar activity (especially if the next cycle is, as anticipated, weaker than the current cycle).
You continue (in your second post) to say, "...you don't like the conclusions that pop out so obviously. Nor do you like the fact that this procedure has been repeated many times, even by former climate deniers funded by Koch money, and the result has been the same each and every time."
Again, your logic is flawed.
You assume to think you know what I think and what I don't based on a single post. Not only is that logic a mistake, you do your own argument no favours with such utterly absurd extrapolation.
Re: Riding Up the Down Escalator
Bob is making perfect sense. Solar output plummets. Globe doesn't cool. Co2 rising. Do the math.
The first casualty of war is the truth
It is no longer about gathering facts, but it is about twisting the facts to fit your own belief. So we have one camp that BELIEVES we are causing global warming which will lead to doom and destruction, and the other camp that BELIEVES we are not causing global warming and trying to fix it will cause economic doom and destruction. Both sides are heavily funded by companies/interest groups who have a vested interest in seeing one side prevail.
Seems like we have the right ingredients to start a war:
* Suspicion.
* False information.
* A perceived threat.
* A real opponent, which if we kill em will take away the threat.
Ps. Would be kind of poetic justice if the dinosaurs reign got ended by sudden climate change and our reign gets ended by the fear of it leading to a war in which we wipe ourselves out. I wonder what Darwin would have said about that one.
Cherry Picking
Why 14 years exactly? Cherry picking the El Nino high. 20 years doesn't work, neither does 8.
"Perhaps the warming of the two decades prior to 1998 was just natural variation and we all got carried away."
Roughly two decades before 1998 I was taught at school that the Earth was entering a new ice age. This was based on the observation that temperatures had been falling continuously since at least the 1930ies.
What a moron
Someone please tell the idiot who wrote this article what "climate" is.
People like this leave me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, you hope they don't have any children. With a parent like that, not existing seems like the best option. On the other hand, you hope they have children, hoping that it might make them into better people and since it clearly couldn't make them any worse. On the third hand, if such a person already has a child, I suppose you have to count it as evidence of genetic insanity. After all, they say insanity is hereditary--you get it from your children.
However, I still feel sorry for the children who are going to inherit the mess of a world created by such morons as this author.
Re: What a moron
Please, enlighten we poor deluded fools. What is climate ? That thing that is always getting warmer every time some set of graphs show a line rising left to right or a set of averages over a time span ? Seems whenever a heatwave hits it is proof of global warming, and when people die in cold spells it is just weather. Every dry spell is a drought caused by global warming, every flood is caused by global warming. Some of us get tired of being threatened. Perhaps ElReg editors advice to commentards a year or two back may assist you to be more persuasive. In meantime, if you cant improve the silence, stay silent.
Re: What a moron
What is climate? If you look at Jim Hansen's articles, climate is the AVERAGE weather you get. It's a bell curve dstribution. And he has shown that the bell curve we're getting this decade is shifted significantly warmer from the bell curve we had for the 1950-1980 period. Make of it what you will. (Look up "climate dice" to see this topic in greater detail)
Even if global warming has "stalled," it's still stalled at a level that is significantly warmer than when I was a child. And it doesn't take a genius to see that glaciers and ice sheets are melting at an alarming rate --- rates that in most cases are increasing, certainly nothing like a "stall" there.
And think about it... we've spent decades pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as we can, and we've been able to measure increases in global temperature since 1980. And now the year 2012 is within the top 10 hottest years ever. We would most reasonably conclude that things are getting warmer, although there is some noise in the year-to-year signal. But instead, we use the fact that 2012 is not THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER to conclude that global warming has "stalled" and we have nothing to worry about, and we should keep burning as much coal as we can? Crazy... Only someone with a pre-determined agenda would make that conclusion.
Re: What a moron
First of all, climate is an average of what weather you HAD, not what weather you GET. There is a distinct difference. You can not claim the climate has changed until after the fact.
You seem not to understand the significance of the climate not continuing to grow warmer over the last 14 years. The popular theory says increasing atmospheric CO2 will, through a variety of somewhat arbitrary feedback mechanisms, result in a dramatic rise in global temperatures, and that is why the temps rose during the '80s and '90s. We have continued to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere every year for the last 14 years, without a corresponding increase in global temperatures. They are warmer than last decade, yes, but it has not been getting warmer even though the CO2 content is rising. If rising CO2 is not causing rising temps now, how can you have much faith in a theory that claimed CO2 was responsible for rising temps in previous decades? Read that last sentence again and see if you can come up with a solid reason to have continued faith in the global warming theory.
The primary importance of the lack of warming temps is that it is suggesting, more strongly each year the temps are flat, that the theories are WRONG. There is something more going on that we do not understand, and it would be foolish to take drastic action with such a lack of understanding.
Re: What a moron
It would be foolish to pump 35 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere each year with such a lack of understanding. Remember we are already doing the "action".
Interesting
I'm not one to cry the sky is falling, nor am I one to say that we humans have zero effect on climate. I think its possible that if the temperature has truly leveled off it could be due to the pollution cutting etc done over the last 20-30 years. Although if thats the case, we'll probably see a warming spike coming down the pike from all the stuff China has been pumping into the sky.
Re: Interesting
Nice hypothesis. But actually... cutting pollution, perversely, INCREASE warming in the short term. Because all that SO2 we pump into the atmosphere actually reflects sunlight. All the pollution over China actually keeps China a little cooler than it would otherwise be.
But I agree, China is doing its best to add CO2 to the atmosphere as fast as it can. Although it's still way behind the USA, in per capita CO2 output.
Check your insurance premiums
If you really want to know if climate change is occurring just check how much your insurance premiums have increased over the last few years.
Insurance companies are like bookies, they look to the odds and if their payouts are increasing because of more extreme weather events then they will be increasing premiums to cover the additional costs.
So, if the average premium is increasing inline with inflation then no climate change, if however they are increasing faster than inflation then there is something happening and odds on it is linked to climate change! In Australia in some places they have gone up by double, triple, 10 times... This does appear to be indicative of something...
Re: Check your insurance premiums
That's mostly due to two things:
1) They can get away with higher premiums.
2) The average claim has a higher payout.
Which one has the greater effect is debatable, but looking at their profit margins indicates that both are true.
much comment in climate-sceptic circles
Gee, people nowadays even doubt that climate exists!? What have we come to...
In 1998 they stopped heating the data
Once the eyes of the world were upon them, the "adjustments" could no longer outweigh the signal.
I do love me some JibJab though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk (Hide the decline...)
Re: In 1998 they stopped heating the data
They never heated the data. Didn't you hear of the berkeley study that took the ORIGINAL data and confirmed the warming reported by climate scientists was right all along?
THE ICE IN MY G&T HAS NEARLY GONE....
Surface temperature is only one factor in the heat capacity of the world. With the high levels of Arctic Ice melt, I'm not totally surprised that sea temperatures are stable. Now when all the ice goes... There's something nasty lurking in the temperature of deep sea too BTW
So, what happening to article rating?
Let me guess. Historical article ratings had been showing significant dumbing-down over the years. This clearly couldn't be happening, so the ratings were erased.
Ratingsgate?
Is it just me or...
Has everyone forgotten that the earth is not in a perfect orbit around the sun and in fact we are spiraling through space... So yes there maybe a small human influence but my moneys on the momentum of the solar system.
'But I agree, China is doing its best to add CO2 to the atmosphere as fast as it can. Although it's still way behind the USA, in per capita CO2 output.'
and there be our real problem....'per capita' i.e too many Human beings on the planet.. we have a 1900s birth rate and a 21st century death rate. Unless there is a global plan to control mass over population its either a global war or environmental destruction. Either way I/most here wont be around thankfully by then but our kids and grand kids are completely screwed.
After a great amount of research, and reading reams of technical studies, I am prepared to declare both sides of the argument right...and wrong. The short version is this:
Earth has been warming through natural causes since the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-1800s. There are too many theories as to why earth goes through warming and cooling cycles to list. By the 1940s, Man was impacting the climate. Pollutants and aerosols being pumped into the air blocked enough solar radiation to result in a distinct cooling of the earth's climate by the 1970s. That's when some popular stories were written about an impending ice age. But we cleaned up our act, and greatly reduced the amount of particulates being dumped in the atmosphere. The result was the earth's temperature to rapidly catch up to where it would have been without Man's interference. As with most systems, and with the help of an El Nino in 1997, it slightly overshot, and is now in abatement until it's back on its original track.
So, does Man impact the climate? Yes, primarily through particulate air pollution, and urban warming. Does CO2 impact the climate? Negligibly. Are we on a disastrous global warming course? Maybe, but the warming will be virtually all natural. Spending trillions of dollars to reduce carbon dioxide would be a complete waste of money. I also question whether global warming, produced by any mechanism, is a 'disaster' in and of itself. I see a lot of benefit to Man having a warmer environment.
You can have your theories, but that's mine, and it fits all the known events. It is disprovable, of course. If we start warming again at a FASTER rate than, say from 1850-1940, then there is likely more to the story.
Your insistance that co2 only negligibly affects climate is based on what? Certainly not the science.
Aren't both sides missing something?
Always fun to see the more committed members of the pro-and anti-AGW sides beating seven colours out of each other.......
But where does any of this actually leave us (and we'll leave aside the implications of yesterdays announcement about black carbon being a more significant contributor to temperature forcing that had otherwise been held to be the case)?
Well, there's no inconsistency between there having been an extended flat period in temperatures, and the current decade being the warmest in the instrumented record. If you think, unless temperatures were actually falling, you'd expect the latest decade to be the warmest, if there's even a slight underlying upward trend.
And yes, there have been other flat periods in the record, and periods of fast rising temperatures (the 1930s), and even of falling temperatures ((the late '40s and 50s). All of that within a rising trend.
So, we know there's been a rising trend since the 1880s or so.
But, it's not a fast one. It's about 0.7 - 1.0 C/Century.
What was supposed to be important about the 1980s/1990s warming was that it showed that that trend had accelerated significantly, and showed signs of accelerating further.
It's now much more questionable that that's the case. What's more is that the basic forcing models for CO2 alone would give a rate of rise similar to that long term trend that we've seen for the last 130 years.. What was supposed to have changed was feedbacks from water vapour and methane emissions would act to make the rise even faster.
However, neither of those - either water vapour content in the atmosphere or methane levels - actually seem to be rising at any significant rate. So what was always some fairly flaky modelling around those looks as though it was wrong.
To sum it up - things are warming - but it's looking as though there's no real evidence that we've really departed from that 0.7 - 1.0C/century. The more lurid claims of 4-6C by 2100 start to look really exaggerated.
Which puts us in an interesting place - is a degree or so of warming by 2100 really a rate of warming that we can't live with? After all, it's about what we adapted to over the last century or so, without serious problems - and it may even be beneficial in terms of agriculture.
That's what needs to be being discussed.
Doesn't Matter
Grand scheme of things: It doesn't matter. You're not going to give up your car, tv, computer, and cell phone so there are only two outcomes here. A: We are super warming the planet and will die or B: The temperature on the planet changes by itself and we might die. Either way there really isn't anything anybody can do about it unless we revert to rural farming communities and that isn't about to happen. So why argue?
It wasn't so long ago we believed the CRU/IPCC projections.
How are they working out for you now chaps?
I've got a modest proposal...
Instead of arguing about whether a specific point on a graph is going up or down, why doesn't each side of the argument specify what data would cause their own theory to be DISPROVEN (a la Popper)? And then examine the data in the light of that assertion?
It seems to me that, if you believe in a strong and accelerating climate change due to increased CO2 concentrations, and if CO2 concentrations increase while the temperature doesn't, you have only two conclusions:
1 - the theory is completely wrong
2 - the theory partly right, but the effect is so weak that it is easily swamped by natural variation.
Of course, you could also argue that the data is incorrectly collected or processed in some way. But it would be a more interesting discussion than this continual argument about differing slopes on a variable graph...
This topic is closed for new posts.
