The warming pause

September 25th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A slowdown in warming that has provided fuel for climate sceptics is one of the thorniest issues in a report to be issued by United Nations experts on Friday.

Over the past 15 years, the world’s average surface temperature rose far slower than many climate models have predicted.

According to projections, global warming should go in lockstep with the ever-rising curve of heat-trapping carbon emissions. But in recent years, warming has lagged. So, where has the missing heat gone?

For climate sceptics, the answer is clear. Either the computer models used to project temperature rise are flawed, or man-made global warming is just a green scam, they say.

I don’t buy into any nonsense that there is some global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists. But I think it is clear that the models to project future temperature increases are imperfect. This is no surprise. The global ecosystem is hugely complex and there are many factors which will take decades or even longer to fully comprehend. We may never fully understand how all the different aspects interact.

But that is not to say it is in the too hard basket. First of all there clearly is still warming over the medium term. The direct impact of increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is relatively simple to calculate, and there is no real scientific dispute over the direct impact.

Where we have uncertainty is how the rest of the climate ecosystem responds to the warming caused by greenhouse gases. The models in the past have projected a multiplying impact, where temperatures increase quite rapidly. It may turn out to be that in fact the rest of the ecosystem will actually mitigate the impact of greenhouse gases. Note mitigate does not mean reverse.

Over the past 50 years, the mean global temperature rise was 0.12C per decade, slowing to an average 0.05C per decade over the past 15 years.

Half of the slowdown could be attributed to volcanic eruptions, whose particles reflect sunlight, and a bigger-than-expected drop in heat from the sun’s changing activity cycle, said a summary of the report.

The other half is attributed to a “cooling contribution from internal variability”.

Laurent Terray with the French computer modelling agency Cerfacs said the term is used to explain a shift in the way heat is distributed between land, sea and air.

Still unclear is what causes the variation or determines its duration.

“We know that this kind of episode, of a decadal length or thereabouts, can occur once or twice a century,” said Terray. “If it continues for two more decades, we may start to think that the computer models are underestimating internal variability.”

New research by Britain’s Met Office suggests the “missing” heat, or some of it, is being transferred from the ocean surface to the deeps.

Temperatures at depths below 3000m have been rising since the 1990s, implying a source of heat-trapping today will contribute to warming tomorrow.

As one can see the ecosystem is very complex, and there are multiple ways different parts can interact.

I am looking forward to seeing the IPCC update when it is released.

Tags:

97 Responses to “The warming pause”

  1. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    “I am looking forward to seeing the IPCC update when it is released.”

    Well Mr Farrar, I think deep down inside what you would really like to do is admit you were wrong about this.

    [DPF: Far from being wrong on this, the latest update looks to be entirely consistent with what I have been saying – that there is warming, but the rate is exaggerated]

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (895 comments) says:

    I think if we impose a 10 cents carbon tax on petrol and a 5 cents a unit electricity carbon tax, the global warming can be immediately stopped.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (895 comments) says:

    DPF is now looking for excuses to save himself from the global warming predictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. beautox (422 comments) says:

    It’s the fact that climate scientists assume positive feedback so that an increase in CO2 will create an even bigger effect than you would think. I can’t understand how lots of scientists can believe this. Maybe they are not engineers.

    My view is that virtually nothing in nature (especially systems that have been going a long long time) are dominated by positive feedback. Negative feedback rules in natural processes. So earth gets warmer, clouds form, sunlight and heat reflected. That’s negative feedback in action.

    Positive feedback systems are explosions or collapses. Or a ball at the top of a hill. Negative feedback is a ball in a valley.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “….As one can see the ecosystem is very complex, and there are multiple ways different parts can interact….”

    Sounds more like an excuse that Key would use in the face of the fact that Tony Abbott is tossing out Australia’s carbon tax! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. James Stephenson (2,225 comments) says:

    I don’t buy into any nonsense that there is some global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.

    It doesn’t take a “conspiracy”, all it takes are clear political and funding incentives for the right type of research giving the right type of answers.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    NZers might not know this, but one of the media’s most favoured advocates for the cause of GW was shot down and destroyed in flames on Monday night in the Australian version of Q & A.

    David Suzuki, sole panelist, who has advocated for people who disagree with him to be jailed, (and confirmed this view on the show) was destroyed by questions from people in the audience and rambled and waffled and made it clear he didn’t have a damn clue on the subject. A demolition so complete even the far left host fervently prog AGW Tony Jones was embarrassed.

    You can download and watch the program from the ABC’s Q & A website.

    You can read some commentary on the show here and here.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “….Positive feedback systems are explosions or collapses. Or a ball at the top of a hill. Negative feedback is a ball in a valley….”

    or just a balls up in general like the whole CO2 thing is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tvb (4,512 comments) says:

    There are many forces in play that affect global warming including carbon emissions. But the policy response is to place all the fault on carbon emissions and use that to justify imposing socialist control over the economy. It is the use of global warming to be a Trojan horse for socialism that I am skeptical of.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    “The direct impact of increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is relatively simple to calculate”

    oh really? Go ahead then and do it. The you can explain why CO2 has been rising and the temp isn’t. Here’s a clue- it aint volcanoes (gosh – they grasp at straws now)
    How much of any Temp rise is natural variability and how much is man made?
    The answer is they just don’t know.

    “Temperatures at depths below 3000m have been rising since the 1990s”
    oh bullshit. There have been very few attempts to measure the temp in the deep ocean. The present Argo Buoy system goes from the surface to 700m. And only a few go to 2000m.
    Answer me this. How come no heat has been recorded “passing through” those depths to somehow mysteriously then be “deep” in the ocean.
    Its simple really. Climate sensitivity is far far less than we thought (1.3) and man is having fuck all difference on the temperature.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I don’t buy into any nonsense that there is some global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.

    It is not about thousands of scientists, it is about billions of dollars and a massive global industry fueled by concerns over AGW. The only conspiracy is from those who try to discredit independant scientists with claims they are paid off by big oil.

    But lets stick to the agreed facts.

    1. The climate models are proven wrong.

    2. The preditions have been proven wrong.

    3. There has been no warming for one and half decades.

    In no other area of science would this theory still be regarded as an accurate representation, so why all the exceptions for AGW ? I smell bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. freedom101 (510 comments) says:

    The warming has been going on since well before industrialisation. When Abel Tasman arrived in NZ the Franz Josef Glacier extended well beyond the current state highway 6 (by one or two kilometres) and a few thousand years ago it extended all the way to the sea.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. sbk (313 comments) says:

    warming paused…so has the public,mind you i stopped warming to National the day they ushered in the ETScam…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Yet we *still* have articles like this BS on Stuff saying that the “gold standard” has been met –
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/9206537/Climate-change-gold-standard-met

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    The warming pause

    There you have a great example of the dishonesty behind the whole scam: describing the complete absence of the promised warming as a ‘pause’.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. flipper (4,205 comments) says:

    Come , come DPF…

    Thousands of scientists?

    In fact, less than 100 “scientists” of dubious stranding, and not a single scientific luminary among those poor,m low grade, academic and government, funding troughers.

    Further, when your piece refers to a forthcoming IPCC report, do you mean:

    1. The real, scientific data that has been peer reviewed in accordance with accepted scientific standards ?
    or
    2. Do you mean “selected” contributions (to a report) that have been rewritten by diplo-speakers for the benefit of “policy makers”?
    or
    3. Do you mean the versions written by the self interested NGOs, and adopted by UN’s tax dodging employees?

    Of course it will all be meaningless because the DAGW scam having failed, and the CC scam having been exposed as “situation normal”, we will now be subjected to a new scam NDES/DAGW/CC – translation: New Dangerous Eco System/Dangerous Anthro (man made)c Global Warming/Climate Change. When the soon to be announced fad is exposed as garbage, it will need to morph into something else to sustain all the funding that at present goes to idiot Academics and Government employees.

    Tony Abbott has set the new benchmark among Western Governments. Others will follow as they seek to revive broken economies.
    Gina Reinhart is reigning in Fairfax’s disastrous journey into the face of would be advertisers.

    Others will follow. Sooner or later Kiwiblog will accept reality.

    Cheers David. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. MarkF (102 comments) says:

    beautox you are right as any “impartial” engineer / scientist would tell you that any positive feedback system is inherently unstable and the end results become asymptotic.

    The whole of this AWG debacle is politically driven as a means to generate taxes which will in the end do nothing at all to alter the changing climate.
    I think it is very arrogant of us to believe, as mere gnats on the face of this large planet, that we have the ability to alter the climate in either direction. A small point to consider this from Wikipedia;

    “The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.”

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    The big problem with the models is quite simple. It is very easy to explain.
    If you put insulation in your house, the first little bit of insulation makes a massive difference. All of a sudden the diurnal temperature variation inside the house is much, much less. Then you double the amount of insulation, but the temperature variation doesn’t change by the same amount as last time – you have to spend a shitload more on insulation to get the same effect that a spending a little bit did to start with. In fact, by the time you have about 250 mm of styrofoam on the outside of your house, there is about as much insulation that is useful, and adding more insulation does fuck all except drain your bank account. The more insulation there is to begin with, the less effect there is if you add a bit more.

    Exactly the same thing is happening with global warming. The amount of greenhouse gases in the system was already at the equivalent of 1 m thick polystyrene in the example above, and the temperature was effectively regulated by the amount of water vapour in the system. The temperature has been at a rough equilibrium for millennia (since the last ice age). Adding more insulation, in the form of greenhouse gases, to the system does next to nothing. The actual change is due to changes in solar activity and in the precession of the Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles).

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Let me just sum this up:

    More than 90% of climate scientists have predicted terrible global warming on the basis of computer models. That’s a very high percentage. However, precisely 0% of the scientists cited in the IPCC report predicted the current prolonged lull in global temperatures. Clearly something is wrong, and if it’s not a conspiracy (granted) then it’s “the science” – at the very least, I think everybody has to accept that the methods and models being applied are of less empirical value than was advertised.

    Sometimes the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Inadvertantly or not, the thumb has been on the scale.

    And yet – this has hardly been a cost-free exercise. How much money has been spent to combat a threat, predicted to eventuate but which has not, to the benefit of the very people making the prediction? Remember the Lab-Green histrionics about financier compensation in the wake of the credit crunch?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:04 PM, “Anthony Watts” wrote:
    My view is that AR5 is going to stillborn, mainly because it is already outdated by new science that won’t be included.
    There have been 19 separate peer reviewed papers published in climate sensitivity to CO2 by 42 scientists since January 1, 2012 all describing a lower climate sensitivity.
    There have been recent revelations in journals (Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature 2013 and de Freitas &McLean, 2013 International Journal of Geosciences) that demonstrate ENSO (El Niño) in the Pacific is responsible for the 15 plus years of global warming slowdown known as “the pause”. These two papers strongly suggest natural variability is still the dominant climate control.

    Then there is the lack of reality matching what the climate models tell us, such as this leaked graph from an AR5 draft:

    Original from AR5 draft: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png

    Annotated version: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

    All this while global CO2 emissions have been growing steadily. The lack of temperature match to models, “the pause”, combined with these new ENSO findings tell us that global warming has gone from a planetary crisis to a minor problem in a Banana Republic where only a few vocal science rebels are arguing for immediate intervention.

    The costs of mitigating the perceived problem are also staggering compared to the benefit, as the 50:1 project demonstrates:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

    best regards,

    Anthony Watts
    Editor, WUWT

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. freethinker (694 comments) says:

    Lets look at some simple aspects – fill a glass half full of water add ice cubes – they float because they are less dense than water – mark the water level and watch the ice melt and the water stays the same. Arctic ice is sea ice so same effect, Antarctic ice is in land so on melting will have some effect but how much? Sea levels will increase due to temp rise as water expands when heated but some predicitions are just scientifically wrong and provably so. Well before the arrival of Humans the cliamte changed as it is doing now so something other than human activity must have been the cause. Instead of fruitless arguments and taxes we should devote our efforts to adapting to the changes whilst we have time.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dave_c_ (223 comments) says:

    I’m absolutely flabbergasted that those who promote the idea that Global warming is a consequence of mans doing have been able to do so for son f__g long – they still have no f___g idea of the causes, and only poo poo those who indicate that what appears to be happening is a set of ‘normal cycles’ !
    It is criminal that they can assert something (without adequste subnbstantiated claims) which can be turned into the largest rort and money grab !

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    The most obvious cause of sea level rise is erosion. As more of the land mass is washed into the sea by water flow, then naturally the sea will rise. Its got fuck all to do with global warming. That is also why the sea level rises are so minute.

    That the sea levels are rising becasue of AGW is just more lies from people who make their living from lying, and would be unable to make a living if they stopped lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    JOHN KEY NEEDS TO BORROW ONE OF TONY ABBOT”S TESTICLES AND SACK KEY’S ADVISOR PETER GLUCKMAN.

    As Abbot sacked Tim Flannery and his bogus “Climate Commission”.

    After all, in opposition Key said it was a scam.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    The most obvious cause of sea level rise is erosion. As more of the land mass is washed into the sea by water flow, then naturally the sea will rise.

    Whaaaaaat? Wouldn’t it take a seriously massive amount of land mass going into the ocean to raise it noticeably?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I don’t buy into any nonsense that there is some global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.

    That is the the same type of strawman that you trotted out as for Chinese espionage, DPF.

    People don’t want to admit to being the victim of a high level conspiracy because it forces them to admit that the state is unable to protect them or is itself complicit to some degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Viking2 (11,568 comments) says:

    Ain’t it great.
    Some of us can now smugly say; We fucking told you so but you “knew” better”

    Right about other stuff as well.
    You should listen better.
    :lol: :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    “Whaaaaaat? Wouldn’t it take a seriously massive amount of land mass going into the ocean to raise it noticeably?”

    See, this is why you progs are always wrong. You were not educated and you just know so little. For fuck’s sake, just look up how much soil is dumped into the sea by huge rivers annually.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    @freethinker and Ryan Sproull
    There is so much fucking ice in the Antarctic that if it were to melt it would flood the worlds low lying areas. The seas would rise by 61 metres.
    It’s km’s thick over a huge land mass.
    It is 90% of worlds ice with 70% of that being fresh water (ice).

    Whether it will melt is another matter

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (529) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 11:21 am

    “The direct impact of increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is relatively simple to calculate”

    oh really? Go ahead then and do it.

    First find the direct change in forcing from CO2 given by the equation:

    dF = 5.35 ln(C/C_0)

    The above is a first order approximation, where C is the CO2 concentration and C_0 is your reference concentration, and gives for a doubling of CO2 => 5.35 x 0.69 = 3.7 W m^-2

    Then use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation where energy flux F = (sigma)T^4 where flux is in units of Joules per second per square meter or equivalently Watts per square meter.

    Take the derivative with respect to temperature gives dF/dT = 4(sigma)T^3 and substitute the radiative forcing for doubling CO2 (3.7 Wm^-2) and 255K for the Earth’s radiating temperature and you get:

    3.7/[4(sigma)255^3] = dT which gives roughly 1K for your change in temperature.

    The you can explain why CO2 has been rising and the temp isn’t.

    Because CO2 forcing isn’t the only forcing impacting the climate and the direct forcing calculation does not account for how the climate will respond to that forcing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Red – you might be lots of things, but a geologist you ain’t. Erosion does not cause sea level change, it changes the shape of the land mass.
    Things like plate tectonics and isostatic rebound are legitimate causes of localised sea level change. Erosion is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Fletch (6,494 comments) says:

    Abbott is set to dump Australia’s climate tax, and so should we.
    The whole thing was bullshit from the start.

    Perhaps there is warming of the climate, but there is nothing to suggest that the human contribution is that significant.
    Read the Summary For Policymakers from the NIPCC* –

    http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming
    effect as its concentration increases.

    • Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of
    other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of
    which must already have occurred.

    • A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate
    crisis.

    • Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could
    cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the
    twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.

    • Over recent geological time, Earth’s temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C
    and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it
    occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability.

    • Though a future warming of 2°C would cause geographically varied ecological responses, no
    evidence exists that those changes would be net harmful to the global environment or to human
    well-being.

    • At the current level of ~400 ppm we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels 15 times
    greater existed during the Cambrian Period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse
    effects.

    • The overall warming since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age
    modulated by natural multidecadal cycles driven by ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar
    variations at the de Vries (~208 year) and Gleissberg (~80 year) and shorter periodicities.

    • Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric
    CO2, which represents 34% of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the
    industrial revolution.

    • CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere
    “greens” the planet and helps feed the growing human population.

    • No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human
    related CO2 emissions. The parallelism of temperature and CO2 increase between about 1980
    and 2000 AD could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate causation.

    • The causes of historic global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between
    climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years.

    • Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global
    cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions.

    http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

    * The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as “an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.” Unlike the “United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution,” NIPCC “has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency” and is “wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. MarkF (102 comments) says:

    Ok Red let’s do the math.

    According to the University of Reading UK “Worldwide up to 75 billion tonnes of topsoil are eroded every year”. Specific gravity of soil is anything from 2.35 to 2.70 so lets use the smaller one as it will take up more volume. Therefore the volume of soil = 75b / (1/2.35) = 32b cubic meters.
    The volume of the sea is 1.3billion cubic kilometers (=1.3^18 or 13,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters).
    Therefore the volume of the sea is (1.3^18/32^9) or 41million times larger.
    How much of a difference will that make over 360m sq km (3.6^20 sq mm) of water surface let’s see that makes it (41m / 3.6^20) = 114^-15mm.
    The wave length of Red light is around 600^-10mm so even that’s 500000 time bigger.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Paulus (2,664 comments) says:

    As some of the data put into the computer programme was not correct – one for example, being New Zealand’s provided by Jim Salinger, when he was employed by NIWA, the data out must be compromised.
    If it is accepted a that a lot of data inputs were not correct, and the people providing the data were charlatans, working for their own interests, the results must be crap too.
    GIGO is the conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    My view, for what it’s worth.

    There is a gradual warming. It has been warming since the little ice age. The increase in CO2 has sped it up a bit. This background gradual warming is overlaid with a warming/cooling cycle (the pacific decadal oscillation being the biggest part of this, but also the sun cycle having an impact).

    When you overlay a gradual warming with an oscillation, you get periods of fast warming then periods of no warming.

    In the same way that the fast warming in the 80s and 90s wasn’t an indication of a crisis that you could project into the future, the current pause isn’t an indication that there’s no warming and it was all made up.

    So, last century people made models that projected 0.2 degrees warming per decade (which was in some earlier IPCC reports). Currently we have most of zero warming per decade, and if you average the two you get around 0.12 degrees per decade, which is in the new IPCC report. The trick is that if the 0.12 degrees per decade is right, and if the climate sensitivity is lower than expected, then the total warming by 2100 would be lower than previously expected – and probably lower than 2 degrees.

    Last point is whether we therefore need to do anything. The short answer I think is no. Studies seem to show that warming of less than 2 degrees has net benefit (cold kills lots of people), more than 2 degrees maybe net negative. CO2 emissions will control themselves eventually, there’s only so much stuff to burn. But if they control themselves, then it’ll be done without taxes, bureaucracy, and massive economic dislocation. It will be done as alternative technologies become cost effective, and as the greens stop opposing nuclear. In short, direct action would work well if this forecast was accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    @MarkF. That’s one of the best Red slapdowns I’ve seen in a while. Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. flipper (4,205 comments) says:

    Fletch says….
    ***
    * The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as “an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.” Unlike the “United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution,” NIPCC “has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency” and is “wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.” ***

    Good stuff, Fletch.

    Now what say you to that DPF?

    I think, David, that you need to remind JonKey, Timmy (the tack) Groser, Amy (very impressive lady) Adams, Nicky Smith and Simon Bridges et al that they need to read that report along side the idiotic IPCC and Gluckman commentaries. Silly Kenny Graham, Sage, Hughes and their Labour disciples , are false prophets. Poor Douglas Graham would never have followed his silly brother. We should go with the Monk.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RichardX (329 comments) says:

    Surely Redbaiter has not made a pronouncement with no basis in fact, science or reality

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    “Red – you might be lots of things, but a geologist you ain’t. Erosion does not cause sea level change, it changes the shape of the land mass.”

    So you are saying that soil and rock washed from the side of a mountain into a sea will not raise the level of that sea?

    I don’t care if I am not a geologist and you are a rocket scientist Gazza, that just cannot be so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Nobody has paid Redbaiter hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    “That’s one of the best Red slapdowns I’ve seen in a while. Well done.”

    Non-comprehending idiot. I am not arguing over the quantity of rise. In fact I have already described it as minimal.

    MarkF has proved me right, not wrong.

    (Furthermore he has only done calculations based on topsoil when all kinds of different materials are washed into the sea. Including sand and rock.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    Bugger. I was looking forward to cheap West Coast bananas and Southland pineapples and coconuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. James Stephenson (2,225 comments) says:

    According to the University of Reading UK “Worldwide up to 75 billion tonnes of topsoil are eroded every year”.

    Topsoil is pretty much irrelevant – how much topsoil was eroded by the Colorado river to create the Grand Canyon? Plus, how much topsoil erosion is due to water, and how much to wind…mostly the latter, I’d suggest.

    You need a new starting point.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    beautox (367) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 11:09 am

    It’s the fact that climate scientists assume positive feedback so that an increase in CO2 will create an even bigger effect than you would think. I can’t understand how lots of scientists can believe this. Maybe they are not engineers.

    My view is that virtually nothing in nature (especially systems that have been going a long long time) are dominated by positive feedback. Negative feedback rules in natural processes. So earth gets warmer, clouds form, sunlight and heat reflected. That’s negative feedback in action.

    Positive feedback systems are explosions or collapses. Or a ball at the top of a hill. Negative feedback is a ball in a valley.

    The climate includes both positive AND negative feedbacks. I’m not sure why you cannot understand the reason that increased CO2 is believed to produce a positive feedback. One reason is that a higher temperature produces more water vapour which in turn tends to increase the temperature. To say that “positive feedback systems are explosions or collapses” is simply untrue as a positive feedback may reduce over time. An obvious negative feedback is the Stefan-Boltzmann law which says that the heat radiated to space will increase to the fourth power of the temperature of the radiating body (Earth).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    Weihana,
    That’s the traditional view. But is it correct? We don’t live in a “closed” system.
    This is interesting.
    “our concept requires new definitions that may or may not have exact counterparts in the current Greenhouse theory. For example, it is crucial for us to introduce and use the term Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) because: (a) The term Greenhouse Effect (GE) is inherently misleading due to the fact that the free atmosphere, imposing no restriction on convective cooling, does not really work as a closed greenhouse; (b) ATE accurately coveys the physical essence of the phenomenon, which is the temperature boost at the surface due to the presence of atmosphere; (c) Reasoning in terms of ATE vs. GE helps broaden the discussion beyond radiative transfer; and (d) Unlike GE, the term Atmospheric Thermal Effect implies no underlying physical mechanism(s).

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/unified-theory-of-climate-reply-to-comments/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    I saw this morning that Greenpeace was touting for money at Britomart and had some people dressed at Polar Bears. Some old guy with grey hair was following them around shouting “theres 25,000 polar bears now” and “greenpeace is a greedy corporate”.
    “don’t be sucked in by Green lies”.
    They weren’t happy- he got a couple of thumbs up too. It was funny to watch- they didn’t expect it.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    Weihana
    “One reason is that a higher temperature produces more water vapour which in turn tends to increase the temperature.”

    That’s the Theory. But it has NEVER been proven by observation. It is supposed to have created “hotspots” and they have never actually measured or found where those hotspots are.And therein lies the problem. (for warmists)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    The climate includes both positive AND negative feedbacks. I’m not sure why you cannot understand the reason that increased CO2 is believed to produce a positive feedback.

    I think you answered your own question.

    The overall system has negative feedbacks.

    Were that not the case, we would not be here now.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    @All_on_Red: I want to be that guy. That’d be twice as much fun as what I’m doing all day at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    Paul – I was tempted to join him but had a train to catch. The guys from Greenpeace did seem taken aback at being heckled.
    Good for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ross12 (1,454 comments) says:

    ” The direct impact of increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is relatively simple to calculate, and there is no real scientific dispute over the direct impact.’

    If it is so simple why have they got it so wrong ?? ( because they have ignored everything else except CO2 while they have their hands out for more funding)

    A little graph to consider. Note it is based on data from Prof Jones from the UEA.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

    The real issue with all this, is the stupid energy policies (esp in the EU and UK) that have developed out of this false scare and the tremendous waste of money and resources. ( eg all the wasted corn in the USA going into ethanol production which could be feeding alot of needy people)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    “The direct impact of increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is relatively simple to calculate, and there is no real scientific dispute over the direct impact.”

    Actually No

    It is exceedingly difficult to calculate – all the simple calculations assume “a spherical kettle in a vacuum” to quote from the Big Bang series. The assumptions made to any simple calculation just do not survive in to real life. If the direct effect matched the simple calculation then the models would be more accurate and we really would be boiling in our own sweat. The CO2 ‘simple’ driving effect is according to this simplification enormous.

    They have never been even remotely accurate in predicting even when the heuristics (magic fudge numbers in the calculations to you and me) are trained (made to fit the real measurements in the past). This proves FUNDAMENTAL issues with the model applied.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (534) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Weihana,
    That’s the traditional view. But is it correct? We don’t live in a “closed” system.

    There are two approaches to estimate Tgb – a theoretical one based on known physical relationships between temperature and radiation, and an empirical one relying on observations of the Moon as the closest natural gray body to Earth

    According to the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) law…

    …present theory estimates the size of ATE to be 287.6K – 254.6K = 33K. However, as pointed out by other studies, this approach suffers from a serious logical error. Removing the atmosphere (or even just the water vapor in it) would result in a much lower planetary albedo, since clouds are responsible for most of Earth’s shortwave reflectance

    The albedo reflected by clouds would seem to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. One could imagine all sorts of hypotheticals about how the planet would be different in the absence of this or that, but the exercise is in attempting to seperate out what the hypothetical temperature would be in the absence of the GE (or ATE), not in a world with a different albedo.

    At the same time, Moon measurements also show that the current estimate of 255K for the lunar average surface temperature widely used in climate science is unrealistically high

    http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html


    Although beyond the first few centimeters of the regolith the temperature is a nearly constant -35 C (at a depth of 1 meter), the surface is influenced widely by the day-night cycle. The average temperature on the surface is about 40-45 C lower than it is just below the surface.

    Thought experiment from Roy Spencer:

    Thought Experiment #2 on the Pressure Effect
    Imagine we start with the atmosphere we have today, and then magically dump in an equal amount of atmospheric mass having the same heat content. Let’s assume the extra air was all nitrogen, which is not a greenhouse gas. What would happen to the surface temperature?

    Ned Nikolov would probably say that the surface temperature would increase greatly, due to a doubling of the surface pressure causing compressional heating. And he would be correct….initially.

    But what would happen next? The rate of solar energy absorption by the surface (the energy input) would still be the same, but now the rate of IR loss by the surface would be much greater, because of the much higher surface temperature brought about through compressional heating.

    The resulting energy imbalance would then cause the surface (and overlying atmosphere) to cool to outer space until the rate of IR energy loss once again equaled the rate of solar energy gained. The average temperature would finally end up being about the same as before the atmospheric pressure was doubled.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,985) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    I think you answered your own question.

    The overall system has negative feedbacks.

    Were that not the case, we would not be here now.

    The “overall system” has negative feedbacks… Which means what exactly?

    Venus has a “runaway” greenhouse effect, but the temperature there does not tend to infinity. There is certainly a negative feedback at play but I presume there are no people living there.

    That there exists negative feedbacks does not negate a climate sensitivity which might amplify “direct” warming by a factor of 3. Positive feedback does not imply an absence of stability.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    slijmbal (1,047) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    “The direct impact of increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is relatively simple to calculate, and there is no real scientific dispute over the direct impact.”

    Actually No

    It is exceedingly difficult to calculate – all the simple calculations assume “a spherical kettle in a vacuum” to quote from the Big Bang series. The assumptions made to any simple calculation just do not survive in to real life. If the direct effect matched the simple calculation then the models would be more accurate and we really would be boiling in our own sweat. The CO2 ‘simple’ driving effect is according to this simplification enormous.

    This is absurd. The direct forcing is calculated to effect about 1K increase for a doublig of CO2. Hardly “boiling in our own sweat”.

    I’m not sure people grasp what DPF means by “direct impact”.

    The point is quite simple: that the direct increase in radiative forcing from CO2 is easy… the actual observed effect in the climate is difficult due to internal variability. Climate models integrate over centuries to try and estimate the full effects. No one has ever suggested that temperature would rise via some smooth straight line that can be predicted accurately on decadal time scales. It hasn’t done so over the past 100 years, why would it into the future?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,753 comments) says:

    John Key is such a Tory Wet he won’t do anything about this, all the while Tony Abbott reverses the craziness across the Tasman. The main reason John Key won’t do anything is he’s afraid to upset the Blue-Greens that have gone across to the Greens. New Zealand really does deserve to collapse and sink without trace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    The IPCC has admitted what people like myself and others have been saying on this forum for a long time. That mans effect on climate have been grossly overstated by the AGW movement.

    The “wingnuts” are now being backed by the “scientific consensus” and it is proven that:

    1. Climate models are grossly inaccurate and are not able to give any useful indication of future events.
    2. Predictions of warming have been completely wrong.
    3. The warming has stopped altogether.
    4. The “climate sceptics” (people who tell the truth) were entirely right. The effects are overstated.

    In response the warmists are trying to sound all knowledgeable and sciencey by quoting drivel like this, using theory proven to be wrong.

    First find the direct change in forcing from CO2 given by the equation:

    dF = 5.35 ln(C/C_0)

    The above is a first order approximation, where C is the CO2 concentration and C_0 is your reference concentration, and gives for a doubling of CO2 => 5.35 x 0.69 = 3.7 W m^-2

    Then use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation where energy flux F = (sigma)T^4 where flux is in units of Joules per second per square meter or equivalently Watts per square meter.

    Take the derivative with respect to temperature gives dF/dT = 4(sigma)T^3 and substitute the radiative forcing for doubling CO2 (3.7 Wm^-2) and 255K for the Earth’s radiating temperature and you get:

    3.7/[4(sigma)255^3] = dT which gives roughly 1K for your change in temperature.

    What ever that is we now know it is NOT science !

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Weihana

    “It is exceedingly difficult to calculate – all the simple calculations assume “a spherical kettle in a vacuum” to quote from the Big Bang series. The assumptions made to any simple calculation just do not survive in to real life. If the direct effect matched the simple calculation then the models would be more accurate and we really would be boiling in our own sweat. The CO2 ‘simple’ driving effect is according to this simplification enormous.

    This is absurd. The direct forcing is calculated to effect about 1K increase for a doublig of CO2. Hardly “boiling in our own sweat”.

    I’m not sure people grasp what DPF means by “direct impact”.”

    I don’t think you understand what you are talking about – you appear to be confusing the direct radiative forcing effect with the terms direct impact. Furthermore, the early models of ‘global warming’ had a huge and linear sensitivity to CO2 based on simple models. This has been steadily watered down as reality got in the way as the models had us all underwater by about now based on melted arctic poles and temperature rises of 5 degrees or more most of this meant to have occurred by now.

    Radiative forcing is one of many temperature effects and focussing on that does not really help your case.

    My comment around boiling in our own sweat is obviously a statement for dramatic effect.

    My original point was and remains that it is obviously NOT simple to calculate any direct effect of CO2 as if it follows the simple model we would have a) large temperature increases and b) models that are accurate as the effects in the models have been historically so sensitive to CO2 concentrations that it swamps other simple effects.

    The original point stands – it is not simple to calculate anything that has any relevance to the real world in this as if it was simple the models would be accurate – so DPFs statement is wrong.

    The models are wrong, were wrong and remain wrong and until they predict anything with any accuracy should not be used as any basis for any real world decisions.

    We probably are warming up the planet and it may or may not be an issue but then again there are a lot of other things we are doing that are worse and known to be issues and we should really focus on them and not this waste of $.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Hay guys all that theory sounds like a barrel of fun, but if you want to know the temperature you just need to check a thermometer. :)

    [I know that is not very exciting for you as it has not moved in 15 years]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Kea, unless you have one of those special thermometers that is accurate to a hundredth of a degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Ross12 (1,454 comments) says:

    You guys can argue the so called science all you like but it is all about politics and money –corrupt politics at that. DPF and others should read this

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fRV1sXeS

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    New research by Britain’s Met Office suggests the “missing” heat, or some of it, is being transferred from the ocean surface to the deeps.

    Temperatures at depths below 3000m have been rising since the 1990s, implying a source of heat-trapping today will contribute to warming tomorrow.

    from stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. wiseowl (934 comments) says:

    Is there anyone in the National Party with the guts to front up and say what a sham global warming climate change or whatever you like to call it , is.?

    No they all hide behind their advisors and consultants and nod in unison.

    No independent thinking,no individuals, just a bunch of sheep.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. All_on_Red (1,645 comments) says:

    Hj
    Did Stuff give a source for those measurements being done at 3000 m?
    Of course not. Do you know why?
    There fucking aren’t any measurements being done at that depth because that’s really really deep and not much can get down there. But hey, maybe they have trained Giant Squid to take the temp.

    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu
    This is the link to the Argo Buoy system. Down to 2000m only

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    Weihana

    The “overall system” has negative feedbacks… Which means what exactly?

    It means what it says. Temperatures have been warmer in the past than they are now, yet there was clearly no runaway of positive feed-backs sustaining higher and higher temperatures. Instead, negative feedbacks predominated. These might be increased cloud cover to reflect back more sunlight, and increased rainfall to remove the additional water vapour from the atmosphere.

    hj,

    New research by Britain’s Met Office suggests the “missing” heat, or some of it, is being transferred from the ocean surface to the deeps.

    Even if this bullshit were true it is simply another way of saying that the climate models which underpin the hysteria are worthless.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Alarmist Daily News.

    A man was killed paused today when a freight train ran over him. In other news a office block was totally destroyed by fire paused.

    Weather:
    High 12 degrees.
    Pause -3

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. axeman (252 comments) says:

    “I don’t think many of my colleagues in the Fourth Estate have exactly covered themselves in glory in exposing what looks, increasingly, like the biggest pseudo-scientific scam in history”

    Delingpole sums up the IPCC’s reports

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100237633/95-per-cent-of-intelligent-people-know-the-new-ipcc-report-is-utter-drivel/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    This is fun:
    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Yoza (1,908 comments) says:

    wiseowl 7:52 pm

    Is there anyone in the National Party with the guts to front up and say what a sham global warming climate change or whatever you like to call it , is.?

    Of course not. Similarly, you will struggle to find anyone in the National party who has the guts to stand up and say what a sham the whole ‘Earth is a globe’ conspiracy is.

    Isn’t it funny the way so few public figures refuse to humiliate themselves in public like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Kea (7,820) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    In response the warmists are trying to sound all knowledgeable and sciencey by quoting drivel like this, using theory proven to be wrong.

    What ever that is we now know it is NOT science !

    Whatever that is? If you don’t know what it is, then you are hardly in a position to comment on its accuracy. It’s a fairly standard undergraduate calculation that to my knowledge has never been disputed by any credible source. You will find Richard Lindzen accepts it. Roy Spencer as well. Hardly “warmists”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    slijmbal (1,048) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    I don’t think you understand what you are talking about – you appear to be confusing the direct radiative forcing effect with the terms direct impact.

    The term “direct” clearly means “absent feedbacks”. It is the 1K warming for a doubling of CO2 using a hypothetical model for which I have provided the basic calculation.

    DPF clearly explained:


    “Where we have uncertainty is how the rest of the climate ecosystem responds to the warming caused by greenhouse gases. “

    He’s talking about feedbacks being the uncertain part (which is very much a SKEPTIC position, refer Lindzen, Spencer etc.)

    My original point was and remains that it is obviously NOT simple to calculate any direct effect of CO2 as if it follows the simple model we would have a) large temperature increases

    Which just goes to prove that you haven’t grasped what DPF is referring to. The “direct impact” is a hypothetical scenario which is unmeasurable and simply derived from known laws. Only the “net impact” can be measured which includes feedbacks.

    Furthermore, the early models of ‘global warming’ had a huge and linear sensitivity to CO2 based on simple models. This has been steadily watered down as reality got in the way as the models had us all underwater by about now based on melted arctic poles and temperature rises of 5 degrees or more most of this meant to have occurred by now.

    This is just not true. The first IPCC assessment estimated a climate sensitivity of between 1.5-4.5 C with 2.5 C being the most likely estimate. A 5 degree temperature rise was not predicted by now. Climate sensitivity estimates are for a *doubling of CO2*.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,986) Says:
    September 25th, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    It means what it says.

    It says nothing meaningful as the example of Venus shows.

    Temperatures have been warmer in the past than they are now, yet there was clearly no runaway of positive feed-backs sustaining higher and higher temperatures.

    The existence of positive feedbacks does not imply a runaway effect. You are attacking a straw man. The theory that positive feedback effects contribute to a climate sensitivity of about 3 C does not imply a runaway effect. As you can see the radiative forcing calculation I refered to earlier includes a natural logarithm which implies that the radiative forcing effect gets SMALLER as concentration increases which ultimately limits the effect. But when these negative feedbacks become significant could represent a difference of several degrees.

    The pointless generalization that “negative feedbacks predominated” is completely useless for answering the question of climate sensitivity. Of course negative feedbacks dominate in the end. They always do. That does not tell us what specific magnitude in effect we can expect from any particular pertubation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    The point I’m making is that the evidence – the fact that previous warmer temperatures did not trigger the alleged powerful net positive feedback claimed by the alarmists – disproves their claim.

    The evidence is that there is no such multiplier; that negative feedbacks will predominate, to limit rather than enhance the direct effect of CO2.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Weihana

    1. Where is the warming ?

    2. Why do you continue to have confidence in a theory that is unable to make accurate predictions ?

    3. Do you want AGW to be true ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,988) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Weihana,

    The point I’m making is that the evidence – the fact that previous warmer temperatures did not trigger the alleged powerful net positive feedback claimed by the alarmists – disproves their claim.

    This is not true.


    Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change), but a lack of consistent methodologies produces a wide range of estimates and hinders comparability of results. Here we present a stricter approach, to improve intercomparison of palaeoclimate sensitivity estimates in a manner compatible with equilibrium projections for future climate change. Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in K W−1 m2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html

    Although more to the point, you make such casual references that are virtually meaningless. Which “warmer temperatures” in particular? What “powerful feedbacks” in particular?

    Warmer temperatures do not always produce a positive feedback to rise the temperature even further. That is a straw man that you invented. The implication of such a scenario would be a temperature rising to infinity. But ultimately a negative feedback will always create a limit. Stefan’s law says that a blackbody emits radiation to the fourth power of its temperature. This means that as an object gets hotter the radiation emitted gets exponentially large so of course an object will not rise and rise and rise in temperature, eventually it will reach an equilibrium as it emits exponentially more and more radiation.

    To say CO2 may rise the temperature which may increase water vapour in the atmosphere which may further increase temperature does not equate to “warmer temperatures trigger powerful net positive feedbacks”. There is always a limit. CO2 may raise temperature which in turn may raise water vapour which in turn may raise temperature. But the effect gets limited as it goes on. For instance, radiative forcing from CO2 is logarithmic so as concentration goes up, the effect gets diminished. There is not necesarily an explosion or some runaway effect (although it’s theoretically possible). In all likelihood the climate will just reach a new equilibrium. But where is that equilibrium going to be? 1K hotter? 3K? More?

    1K, not a big worry… 3K? could be more problematic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Kea (7,824) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    Weihana

    1. Where is the warming ?

    It is there if you look at the whole record and do not pick an arbitrary date to count from. A 15 year trend is not a particularly useful indicator of climate trends. The longer it continues, however, the more it should be questioned as to the forces behind it.

    2. Why do you continue to have confidence in a theory that is unable to make accurate predictions ?

    Accuracy is a relative term. When I watch the weather forecast, for instance, more confidence is given to the predictions in the near term than further in the week. With climate you are trying to estimate a long term trend. This would give you more confidence in longer term predictions than questions such as “what will the average temperature be next year?”.

    However, I am not extremely confident on climate sensitivity. It could be more moderate than estimated. But the way people on this forum rubbish the scientific work that has been done to arrive at current estimates is ridiculous.

    3. Do you want AGW to be true ?

    What I want is irrelevant to what is. But I’m not concerned if that is what you are asking. I think we are well on our way to developing alternative energy sources.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “But the way people on this forum rubbish the scientific work that has been done to arrive at current estimates is ridiculous.”

    It’s the non-scientific work we rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    “It is there if you look at the whole record and do not pick an arbitrary date to count from.”

    A point made by people who tell the truth [sceptics]

    It could be is proven to be more moderate than estimated

    Fixed it :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,731) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    It’s the non-scientific work we rubbish.

    lol. The good folks at Kiwiblog being arbiters of what is and is not science? What a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Weihana, sadly there is nothing funny in the results of alarmist nonsense. People have died, especially from converting land usage from crops to biofuels. More will die as energy prices continue to rise as a result of the rush to renewables.

    There are some very well informed commenters on kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    And in my opinion it is science when models are adjusted to reflect observations, and it is rubbish when observations are adjusted to reflect models.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    RightNow,

    Prices for renewables are coming down. You raise a valid point regarding biofuels but the “people have died” narrative is rather over the top. People have long been dying from a lack of food, despite the world having sufficient resources to feed everyone. Ascribing such death to a competing use for land is fairly ridiculous. There are many competing uses for land and factors which influence the price of food. Taking any one of those factors and saying “people have died” is just silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Weihana, no it is not over the top, it is a fact. Land being used to grow bio fuel is pushing the price of food up. The very poorest are the ones suffering. It is costing lives. The fact that there are other reasons why the price of food may increase does nothing to change that fact. It is also resulting in increased CO2 emissions. All so white middle class pricks can feel good about themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/19/climatechange.biofuels

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,733) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    And in my opinion it is science when models are adjusted to reflect observations, and it is rubbish when observations are adjusted to reflect models.

    I liked this quote from Roy Spencer:


    While computer modeling has a bad connotation among many global warming skeptics, it is just putting actual numbers behind hand-waving concepts. If you can’t do that, then all you have left is hand waving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “While computer modeling has a bad connotation among many global warming skeptics, it is just putting actual numbers behind hand-waving concepts. If you can’t do that, then all you have left is hand waving.”

    Since the models do not match the actual numbers, we can conclude all they have left is hand waving.

    I love it, good quote.

    And a eulogy to climate models:
    http://www.artofeurope.com/smith/smi1.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    The implication of such a scenario would be a temperature rising to infinity

    Of course it isn’t.

    The implication is that positive feedbacks raise the temperature a certain amount and then prevent it from declining. That’s the important bit. Those supposed feedbacks – increased water vapour for example – become reinforced by warmer temperatures and can’t unwind, unless the laws of physics change (and assuming natural climate variation is negligible, which is another false claim central to the scam.)

    The fact that temperatures have previously been higher but subsequently cooled demonstrates that this alarmist theory is false and the claimed “enhanced” effect bogus.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    Kea (7,829) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    The fact that there are other reasons why the price of food may increase does nothing to change that fact.

    Which would apply to every other use of land that competes with food production. I haven’t disputed RightNow’s raising of the issue. I think it’s valid. I haven’t even advanced biofuels, RightNow raised biofuels. But to single out one factor and call it a killer is in my view emotive, selective and ignores any other cause that contributes to poverty and hunger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “But to single out one factor and call it a killer is in my view emotive, selective and ignores any other cause that contributes to ” climate change.

    Perhaps you’re able to think outside of CO2 being the major driver?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,735) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    Since the models do not match the actual numbers…

    Timescale RightNow. TIMESCALE. Climate models are simply not capable of reliably predicting climate on short-term time scales that are subject to unpredictable variability. They may not be able to predict long term trends either. But a 15 year trend is not proof of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    If only nature would accept the “science” a Weihana ? ;)

    It seems the climate is the biggest denier of all !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,989) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    ” The implication of such a scenario would be a temperature rising to infinity”

    Of course it isn’t.

    The implication is that positive feedbacks raise the temperature a certain amount and then prevent it from declining. That’s the important bit. Those supposed feedbacks – increased water vapour for example – become reinforced by warmer temperatures and can’t unwind, unless the laws of physics change (and assuming natural climate variation is negligible, which is another false claim central to the scam.)

    The fact that temperatures have previously been higher but subsequently cooled demonstrates that this alarmist theory is false and the claimed “enhanced” effect bogus.

    Nonsense. The forces impacting the Earth change so the climate changes and adopts new equilibriums. That may be changes in orbital motion… solar output… atmospheric changes etc. etc. This can cause the climate to seek new equilibriums up or down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Timescale Weihana. What timescale was the global warming scare predicated on? 1975-1998?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,737) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    Timescale Weihana. What timescale was the global warming scare predicated on? 1975-1998?

    No, it is predicated on a variety of different observations. The nature article I cited before, for instance. Which is not to say that such conclusions cannot be doubted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    You are actually making the sceptics’ case now: natural climate variation is real and powerful.

    As I said, the alarmists (most notable the debunked Hockeystick) white-washed natural variation from history.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    AGW is a bit like support for the conservative party. A tiny amount below the margin for error and currently “paused”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Weihana (4,592 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,990) Says:
    September 26th, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Weihana,

    You are actually making the sceptics’ case now: natural climate variation is real and powerful.

    Which has never been in dispute.

    As I said, the alarmists (most notable the debunked Hockeystick) white-washed natural variation from history.

    I don’t agree that MBH98 and MBH99 have been “debunked”. The broad results have been replicated in numerous other reconstructions. The problem is that many who promoted the study failed to highlight the uncertainties inherent in the reconstructions as you go further back in time. But as the National Academy of Science report states:


    “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html#.UkT68z-Psmg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote