Seek, and ye shall find

It's there! Just squint your eyes really hard!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Seek, and ye shall find

  1. Quoting Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (chairperson of the IPCC since 2002):

    Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.

    Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134 (paywalled I’m afraid)

    So, is The Git to believe Dr Pachauri and statements from the IPCC, or not? You will really have to make up your mind. Didn’t Ben Santer say something about needing 15 years to decide whether warming had stopped?

    Like

    • The confusion arises from imprecise use of words: it’s not “global warming pause”, it’s “global averaged surface temperatures pause”. As you can see from the figure (and the values are calculated on the basis of data published in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report), that means taking into account only ~2.3% of the heat radiated by the human-induced surplus of GHGs. Have a look at graph no. 2 at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ — can you see any “pause” there?

      The whole fixation on the relatively unimportant surface temperature record is just plain silly, though of course that’s what gets noticed first, as we all experience weather. But since we can actually measure things like incoming solar radiation at the top and bottom of the atmosphere, volcanic activity related dimming etc, we can simply decompose the noisy surface temperature record into its components, like in Lean and Rind, 2009 and adjust the temperature series accordingly (like in Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011). Look at Figure 1 in Lean and Rind 2009: can you see the fuchsia line at the bottom? That’s global warming. Does it look like it “paused”?

      And I don’t know what Ben Santer said and why, but I know that exactly because of the noisiness of the signals, the reference interval for drawing conclusions about climate trends has been 30 years since time immemorial. Even if we take surface records with all their noise, no temperature series of 30 years will fail to show a rising trend.

      Like

  2. @ ljon70

    It’s not The Git who’s focussed “on the relatively unimportant surface temperature record”. Don’t you read the IPCC Assessment Reports, or the mainstream media? See my recent post on enthalpy here:

    http://thepompousgit.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/on-being-a-denialist-part-4/

    But since Either way, 22 has already said that The Git doesn’t understand high school physics, (despite understanding undergraduate thermodynamics) how do you expect him to follow an argument above the level of Al Gore, George Monbiot or Paul Brown?

    Oh, and I misremembered Santer’s statement. He actually said:

    “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

    See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract

    And FWIW “the reference interval for drawing conclusions about climate trends has been 30 years” has not been “since time immemorial”. It’s been since The International Geophysical Year (IGY) July 1957–December 1958. Thirty years was chosen because that was the length of time that sufficient quality data had been gathered.

    http://www.nas.edu/history/igy/

    Like

  3. I’m not interested in politicians’ books, or “the mainstream media” (which publish what their owners tell them to publish, anyway). I do, however, read IPCC reports — can you point somewhat more precisely to the parts that allow you to imply their fixation on the surface temperature record? Because I can a) show you precisely where they prove you wrong, and b) quote exactly the part of your post in which, in a sweeping and totally unfounded generalization, you negated the influence of the atmospheric levels of CO2 on temperatures, based on 17 carefully chosen years of the surface (lower troposphere) temperature record — that is, ignoring ~93.4% of the heat responsible for global warming.

    You had a thermodynamics course, yet you wonder about the mechanism of the water vapour feedback? Curiouser and curiouser. Since you stress that you don’t negate the rise in air temperatures, what exactly is there to wonder about? Increasing evaporation? Higher dew point?

    Like

  4. The 17 years of record was chosen by Ben Santer as my link above demonstrates. He is an IPCC lead author! Again my apologies for misremembering that as 15.

    The IPCC made very much of Michael Mann’s Hockeystick graph. As did almost every man and his dog. The debate has been very much focussed on temperature and I agree with you that it’s a piss poor metric for Earth’s energy balance. Again, The Git did not choose the terms of the debate..

    The Git did not name the phenomenon referred to as Global Warming. He merely observes what its proponents claim and compares those claims to several decades of thinking about climate(s). For example the BEST reanalysis claims fully one third of stations have recorded cooling over the last century. Not very “global”.

    See my post today to see where I am coming from:

    http://thepompousgit.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/what-is-this-thing-called-climate/#more-225

    I really don’t want to get into a food fight.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s