Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[plunker]

Record warm, because Paris, lol.

The Met is being slightly coy - it's unlikely to not be a new record in the surface data now. Early indications are that October will be the warmest October ever and it may well get warmer still over the coming months due to El Nino peaking. There, I said something that isn't even official yet - it doesn't get much newer than that. You heard it here first etc

[LongQ]

plunker said:

Record warm, because Paris, lol.

The Met is being slightly coy - it's unlikely to not be a new record in the surface data now. Early indications are that October will be the warmest October ever and it may well get warmer still over the coming months due to El Nino peaking. There, I said something that isn't even official yet - it doesn't get much newer than that. You heard it here first etc

Disappointing plunker.

Such a statement, pre-observations, has been predicted for months. It's not even a new piece of guesswork let alone Science.

What else have you got?

What are your thoughts on the observations from 1946, a year when there was an extended and notable warm Autumn period subsequently followed by a longer and colder than usual winter?

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 11:04

[Variomatic]

plunker said:

His 'best hoped for mitigation policies' figure is 0.17 I think.


https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...

Which, seeing as the average temperature gradient from equator to pole is about 0.5 deg per 70 miles, means all that effort, expense and harm to the poor will mean the equivalent of moving just under 24 miles north. Or, roughly, from Croydon to Potters Bar. And taking 85 years to get there.


That's the best they hope to achieve - is it really worth the pain and harm to the vulnerable?

[Lotus 50]

LongQ said:

"Over recent years there has been a slowdown in warming at the Earth's surface. The rate of warming during the period from 1970-1998 was around 0.17°C per decade, while during 1998-2012, the rate slowed to around 0.04°C per decade3. This is due to a number of possible factors, including increased aerosols and an increase of heat taken up by the deep ocean and therefore not manifested as a warming at the surface.

This year, with a pronounced El Niño underway that acts to elevate global average surface temperature, it is looking probable that 2015 will be warmer than any other year in the observational record. Whilst year-to-year climate variability means that future years may not be as warm as 2015 and therefore below 1°C, the long-term warming trend is expected to continue."

Lotus 50 ....

Please, not a Met office Press release as evidence of NEW science.

That document is a scheduled précis of a statement that one would expect to appear just before the political Jamboree that will be Paris. (In fact before the Bonn Pre-Paris meeting I suspect from the timing).

In my view it has a stronger case for a presence in a post on the Politics thread than it does here. Perhaps that is why HK and Plunker have not mentioned it previously?

But I am speculating - just like the Met.

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 04:10

Although the timing of the release is, no doubt, interesting you can't avoid the point that the data presented raises a whole bunch of questions around "the pause" though doesn't it?

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Lotus 50 said:

LongQ said:

"Over recent years there has been a slowdown in warming at the Earth's surface. The rate of warming during the period from 1970-1998 was around 0.17°C per decade, while during 1998-2012, the rate slowed to around 0.04°C per decade3. This is due to a number of possible factors, including increased aerosols and an increase of heat taken up by the deep ocean and therefore not manifested as a warming at the surface.

This year, with a pronounced El Niño underway that acts to elevate global average surface temperature, it is looking probable that 2015 will be warmer than any other year in the observational record. Whilst year-to-year climate variability means that future years may not be as warm as 2015 and therefore below 1°C, the long-term warming trend is expected to continue."

Lotus 50 ....

Please, not a Met office Press release as evidence of NEW science.

That document is a scheduled précis of a statement that one would expect to appear just before the political Jamboree that will be Paris. (In fact before the Bonn Pre-Paris meeting I suspect from the timing).

In my view it has a stronger case for a presence in a post on the Politics thread than it does here. Perhaps that is why HK and Plunker have not mentioned it previously?

But I am speculating - just like the Met.

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 04:10

Although the timing of the release is, no doubt, interesting you can't avoid the point that the data presented raises a whole bunch of questions around "the pause" though doesn't it?

I thought the science was settled?

[Lotus 50]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

I thought the science was settled?

Well the latest global average temperature data do seem to show that, yes.

[LongQ]

Lotus 50 said:

LongQ said:

"Over recent years there has been a slowdown in warming at the Earth's surface. The rate of warming during the period from 1970-1998 was around 0.17°C per decade, while during 1998-2012, the rate slowed to around 0.04°C per decade3. This is due to a number of possible factors, including increased aerosols and an increase of heat taken up by the deep ocean and therefore not manifested as a warming at the surface.

This year, with a pronounced El Niño underway that acts to elevate global average surface temperature, it is looking probable that 2015 will be warmer than any other year in the observational record. Whilst year-to-year climate variability means that future years may not be as warm as 2015 and therefore below 1°C, the long-term warming trend is expected to continue."

Lotus 50 ....

Please, not a Met office Press release as evidence of NEW science.

That document is a scheduled précis of a statement that one would expect to appear just before the political Jamboree that will be Paris. (In fact before the Bonn Pre-Paris meeting I suspect from the timing).

In my view it has a stronger case for a presence in a post on the Politics thread than it does here. Perhaps that is why HK and Plunker have not mentioned it previously?

But I am speculating - just like the Met.

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 04:10

Although the timing of the release is, no doubt, interesting you can't avoid the point that the data presented raises a whole bunch of questions around "the pause" though doesn't it?

Why?

Make your case for that assumption and let us see where the discussion takes us.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Lotus 50 said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

I thought the science was settled?

Well the latest global average temperature data do seem to show that, yes.

How many years has the pause lasted now?

[CR6ZZ]

I'd be interested in your take on the following QT, especially given the likelihood that 2015 and 2016 are going to set new "highest" global temperature averages that exceed the benchmark 1997/98 levels.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D...

[QuantumTokoloshi]

CR6ZZ said:

I'd be interested in your take on the following QT, especially given the likelihood that 2015 and 2016 are going to set new "highest" global temperature averages that exceed the benchmark 1997/98 levels.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D...

So the science is not settled then? And that paper looks a lot like an attempt to explain why the pause actually is not a pause, but a natural occurring cyclical phenomena.

Could it be possible that the warming previously experienced is not connected to Anthropogenic CO2 output but is also a naturally occurring phenomenon?

I can thus assume the science is not settled, nor is there overwhelming evidence for the AGW hypothesis. Considering the current observational temperature data does support the AGW hypothesis but provides strong support for a known and expected phenomena called El Niño.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 15th November 08:14

[Lotus 50]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

How many years has the pause lasted now?

What pause? - oh the one generated by picking a start/measurement time step that neatly links in with the big El Nino in the late '90s. In which case it looks like it's ended now...

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Lotus 50 said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

How many years has the pause lasted now?

What pause? - oh the one generated by picking a start/measurement time step that neatly links in with the big El Nino in the late '90s. In which case it looks like it's ended now...

What pause? The one identified by the IPCC and Phil Jones from the east Anglican CRU.

Well, blow me down, glad you told me, best you tell them too.

[plunker]

LongQ said:

plunker said:

Record warm, because Paris, lol.

The Met is being slightly coy - it's unlikely to not be a new record in the surface data now. Early indications are that October will be the warmest October ever and it may well get warmer still over the coming months due to El Nino peaking. There, I said something that isn't even official yet - it doesn't get much newer than that. You heard it here first etc

Disappointing plunker.

Such a statement, pre-observations, has been predicted for months. It's not even a new piece of guesswork let alone Science.

What else have you got?

What are your thoughts on the observations from 1946, a year when there was an extended and notable warm Autumn period subsequently followed by a longer and colder than usual winter?

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 11:04

You need to word your questions better. Seeing as you refer to Autumn and Winter which occurs at different times of the year in each hemisphere I'm guessing we're not talking global anymore (UK perhaps?). Perhaps you thought I wasn't talking global either when I referred to a record warmest October, but I certainly was.

[Silver Smudger]

I have a question - Why do all the graphs of temperature published on either side of the debate track temperature anomaly or variation from a baseline? Why not just an average global temperature?
I am assuming there must be such a thing to generate a difference from the chosen norm.

[LongQ]

plunker said:

LongQ said:

plunker said:

Record warm, because Paris, lol.

The Met is being slightly coy - it's unlikely to not be a new record in the surface data now. Early indications are that October will be the warmest October ever and it may well get warmer still over the coming months due to El Nino peaking. There, I said something that isn't even official yet - it doesn't get much newer than that. You heard it here first etc

Disappointing plunker.

Such a statement, pre-observations, has been predicted for months. It's not even a new piece of guesswork let alone Science.

What else have you got?

What are your thoughts on the observations from 1946, a year when there was an extended and notable warm Autumn period subsequently followed by a longer and colder than usual winter?

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 11:04

You need to word your questions better. Seeing as you refer to Autumn and Winter which occurs at different times of the year in each hemisphere I'm guessing we're not talking global anymore (UK perhaps?). Perhaps you thought I wasn't talking global either when I referred to a record warmest October, but I certainly was.

Yes indeed I was thinking UK and the wider European area for that particular period since the absence of data for much of the globe in those days would have made it difficult to begin to estimate a "global" figure come what may. Satellites and computers have provided new way to "do" things.

On the other hand such events - warmer than usual in one period of the annual cycle and colder in another - are hardly likely to be experienced only in the UK and Europe or, indeed, only in the Northern Hemisphere. So it is surely safe to conclude that a period of relative warmth that might affect certain long terms records that are likely to be presented as a proxy for unknowable historic "global" temperatures is indicative of a general global warming. Conversely that a distinct period of colder than usual weather might be indicative of an approaching ice age.

However it does suggest that one cannot take a local trend, no matter how marked it might be at the time, and project it as "proof" of claimed "global" effects for the benefit of the local (UK) population. Most especially one should not take the supposed evidence and then project that presenting it in a way that suggest it will become fact. Not on this thread. Here it's supposed to be about Science.

It's a perfect example for the politics thread though.

[plunker]

LongQ said:

plunker said:

LongQ said:

plunker said:

Record warm, because Paris, lol.

The Met is being slightly coy - it's unlikely to not be a new record in the surface data now. Early indications are that October will be the warmest October ever and it may well get warmer still over the coming months due to El Nino peaking. There, I said something that isn't even official yet - it doesn't get much newer than that. You heard it here first etc

Disappointing plunker.

Such a statement, pre-observations, has been predicted for months. It's not even a new piece of guesswork let alone Science.

What else have you got?

What are your thoughts on the observations from 1946, a year when there was an extended and notable warm Autumn period subsequently followed by a longer and colder than usual winter?

Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 11:04

You need to word your questions better. Seeing as you refer to Autumn and Winter which occurs at different times of the year in each hemisphere I'm guessing we're not talking global anymore (UK perhaps?). Perhaps you thought I wasn't talking global either when I referred to a record warmest October, but I certainly was.

Yes indeed I was thinking UK and the wider European area for that particular period since the absence of data for much of the globe in those days would have made it difficult to begin to estimate a "global" figure come what may. Satellites and computers have provided new way to "do" things.

On the other hand such events - warmer than usual in one period of the annual cycle and colder in another - are hardly likely to be experienced only in the UK and Europe or, indeed, only in the Northern Hemisphere. So it is surely safe to conclude that a period of relative warmth that might affect certain long terms records that are likely to be presented as a proxy for unknowable historic "global" temperatures is indicative of a general global warming. Conversely that a distinct period of colder than usual weather might be indicative of an approaching ice age.

However it does suggest that one cannot take a local trend, no matter how marked it might be at the time, and project it as "proof" of claimed "global" effects for the benefit of the local (UK) population. Most especially one should not take the supposed evidence and then project that presenting it in a way that suggest it will become fact. Not on this thread. Here it's supposed to be about Science.

It's a perfect example for the politics thread though.

Can't grasp what you're getting at here. Is there a context to the recent global temps? It just seems to be random thoughts on what you can/can't tell from local temperature variations in a given year.

We've had a quite warm autumn this year in the UK, but I haven't been referring to that at all.

Early indications of a globally very warm October here:

http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/temperature-re...

[CR6ZZ]

Silver Smudger said:

I have a question - Why do all the graphs of temperature published on either side of the debate track temperature anomaly or variation from a baseline? Why not just an average global temperature?
I am assuming there must be such a thing to generate a difference from the chosen norm.

This explains it reasonably well.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013...

[plunker]

plunker said:

Record warm, because Paris, lol.

The Met is being slightly coy - it's unlikely to not be a new record in the surface data now. Early indications are that October will be the warmest October ever and it may well get warmer still over the coming months due to El Nino peaking. There, I said something that isn't even official yet - it doesn't get much newer than that. You heard it here first etc

Nasa have released their October figure: +1.03C. Not just the warmest October but the highest monthly anomaly in the record too.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB...

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Nasa have released their October figure: +1.03C. Not just the warmest October but the highest monthly anomaly in the record too.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB...

So the question remains - would it have been the warmest October anomaly ever if the Paris conference was not this year?

[Ali G]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

Nasa have released their October figure: +1.03C. Not just the warmest October but the highest monthly anomaly in the record too.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB...

So the question remains - would it have been the warmest October anomaly ever if the Paris conference was not this year?

Gistemp said:

using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment

Is that the garlic homegeneity adjustment, or just the usual piscine version?