What Do We Think About Climate Change

On July 23, 2009 the UK Met Office issued their winter forecast, ahead of the coldest winter in 50 years. It read:

"…Early indications are that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. For the UK, Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder *(and wetter) than last year."

Source:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/winter.html (released 23 July)

Something funny happened on December 30, 2009. The Met Office over wrote that link with a new article titled “Forecast for the rest of Winter 2009/10″ which has no mention of the original prediction. It now reads:

"…for the rest of winter, over northern Europe including the UK, the chance of colder conditions is now 45%; there is a 30% chance of average and a 25% chance of milder conditions."

Their original warm winter forecast seems to have been scrubbed from the web site, and there are no longer any press releases dated July 23.

 

THE ESTIMATION OF HISTORICAL CO2 TRAJECTORIES IS INDETERMINATE: COMMENT ON “A NEW LOOK AT ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE”
Craig Loehle, PhD, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Naperville, Illinois
Atmospheric Environment doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.02.029


Abstract

A paper by Hofmann et al. (2009, this journal) is critiqued. It is shown that their exponential model for characterizing CO2 trajectories for historical data is not estimated properly. An exponential model is properly estimated and is shown to fit over the entire 51 year period of available data. Further, the entire problem of estimating models for the CO2 historical data is shown to be ill-posed because alternate model forms fit the data equally well. To illustrate this point the past 51 years of CO2 data were analyzed using three different time-dependent models that capture the historical pattern of CO2 increase. All three fit with R2 > 0.98, are visually indistinguishable when overlaid, and match each other during the calibration period with R2 > 0.999. Projecting the models forward to 2100, the exponential model comes quite close to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) best estimate of 836 ppmv. The other two models project values far below the IPCC low estimates. The problem of characterizing historical CO2 levels is thus indeterminate, because multiple models fit the data equally well but forecast very different future trajectories.


Discussion

Three equally plausible models give very different expectations for future CO2 trajectories under business as usual assumptions. No inference is possible at this time as to which model is “right” because the three models are virtually identical in the CO2 data period (Fig. 2) and the understanding of the carbon cycle in this context is not precise enough. The factors governing CO2 in the atmosphere may or may not lend themselves to long-term predictability even if they were understood better. It is clear, however, that simply using an exponential model because it fits the data represents an incomplete analysis, as other models fit equally well. The IPCC “best estimate” of 836 ppmv in 2100, which is equivalent to extrapolation of the exponential model, is indeterminateand could just as easily be 569.8 or 672.5 ppmv (or even 747.7 ppmv by Hofmann et al., 2009), as found using equally likely models that fit the same data. These much lower “best estimate” values affect the IPCC “high” estimate, which is derived from the base estimate exponential model by adding a growth term (based on higher economic growth rates and other factors). Because projections of future climate depend on future CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) levels, a future value below the IPCC low estimate would preclude the more extreme climate change forecasts made by the IPCC.

PDF of the entire paper is available at: http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3282

 

"Rapid Global Climate Change"

When people who in fact understand nothing about climate issues talk here about "Rapid Global Climate Change", what they really want to mean is "Rapid increase of global mean lower troposphere temperature", because climate is much more complex than the simple mean tropospheric temperature, even if we accept such "mean global temperature" concept really means something. As a matter of fact such people only post here temperature graphs to highlight the issue, not "climate graphs", of course.

Well, let's see the data provided by Phil Jones (CRU) himself for the warming periods in the last 160 years (this was posted already, but it was conveniently ignored by some):

Hadley Global Temperatures 1850-2010 for the warming periods:

1860-1880 0.163ºC / decade (negligible human CO2 contribution)
1910-1940 0.150 ºC / decade (still very low human contribution but growing)
1975-1998 0.166ºC / decade (significant human contributon)

and for the last 34 years:
1975-2009 0.161ºC / decade (wow! if we include the last decade, presenting the highest human CO2 contribution, the index diminishes!!!)

Mmmmmmm.....0,166ºC/decade......."Rapid"?

Now, what happens if we look a little bit longer back in time? Let's see what happened between -9500 and -9800, per example. According to the Greenland's ice core records (NOAA GISP2 ice core), temperature increased there about 6.5ºC in the period, this is around 0.217ºC /decade

Wow! If 0.166ºC/decade is "rapid", how can we name 0.217ºC/decade? ...."abrupt"?

And what was atmospheric CO2 concentration then...? I leave this last question in the air for any of you to answer.

Cheers.

 

But the problem for you is that atmospheric methane concentration has not risen in the last decade....

 

Oh,oh, oh, in case anyone didn't notice............... Phil Jones said that there has been no statisticly significant warming since 1998 and the the debate on Climate Change is not over. There goes all your phoney "adjusted" graphs Boston. Like I told you, you can't force a lie to become the truth.

What was funny was the response in RealClimate. They replied to his interview with what he should have said in their view rather than tell the truth for once. Hmmmm, wonder if his pension is hanging in the balance so now he has to drop the personal agenda and stick to the facts.

 

hmmmmm
no last ten years lets try another



hmmmmm
might be said to not have the correct resolution



well might have been a three or four year blip but it looks like its on the rise again to me

lets try another
this one from the Vostoc data set



I wonder if you might like to clarify or maybe even edit your last statement concerning atmospheric methane concentrations G

seems that your idea the somehow methane has stabilized is not founded within the data

 

before reading any of the denialist material I always check into the academic credibility of the author presented

from sourcewatch

not exactly high points for credibility when a guy with a phd in range management ( cattle ranching ) presents a paper on climate change.

however it might be interesting to take a look at this paper and see if it lists funding and and competing interests

then as usual Ill check its publication information and then it content

what we know so far by looking into the bio of its author is that he is

not a climate scientist
is involved with the Heartland institute ( not actually an institute and funded by Exxon )
has a degree in cattle ranching from an agricultural based university close to where I live.
is recomended by a group called "Global Warming Skeptics"

not the best bio but give me a few hours to look over this paper and Ill get back to you with what I can see

thanks for the article
B

 

well that was interesting

G I might direct you to this review of the paper you have presented for consideration
I might also note that after this review was printed a retraction and correction was printed by the papers author

 

Everything in Gavin's response is his opinion, not fact, who gives a ****, that's like caring if Boston reads your posts, irrelevent.


By the way, would the unattributed Gavin be Gavin Schmitt, the #1 screw up at NASA besides Hansen?

 

Mr Boston...I asked how do you choose your material yet you did not answer. How do you choose between the vast variety of material, how do you pick your "truth" since you can not test it yourself?

 

sorry I missed your question

anything that starts out with a personal attack
I pretty much just stop reading right there
other than G of course who I think is pretty light hearted about it all and just, as I am, having a good time with it
cheers to you G for being a good nature'd fellow
B

its become typical of the deniers to accuse the realists in the crowd of all kinds of spurious tactics
but if you read through you will see that again and again it is the deniers who are left with no other form of debate but the kinds of things they accuse others of

and then there is this one

the simple truth that seems to so easily escape some few is that this type of argument is hardly worthy of response

instead what its really saying is that you have no valid science to back up what you would like to believe and instead are angry that what you prefer to believe can be so easily shown to be false within the science available.

if you did want to sneak an actual question into the conversation it might behoove you to do so in a slightly more adult fashion lest that question be overlooked

as your previous obviously was

cheers
B

 

I think someone mentioned methane before. The attached shows how once again the alarmists have it wrong............


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/

 

Boston, my question goes to the core of all your tirades.

You say "I" do not have "Science" behind my replies, and neither do the others.

I say you do not have any science behind your replies either.

You are repeating other people's science. And so does Guillermo and everyone else.

So how do you choose?
Why do you post Global Warming alarmist stuff in stead of conservative/realist stuff?

It is a fair question.
I can answer for myself and my answer is that I LIKE THE OTHERS BETTER.

It is rather simple.

 

oh thats an easy one

I chose my sources from accredited universities and scientific journals of good standing within the community

I reject sources like industry rags and op ed pieces printed by the PR leg of the disinformation campaign although I am willing to consider rebuttals presented in credible publications and scientific journals and authored by distinguished parsons with relevant credentials.

its really easy to see the difference

go look at G's last suggested article
its author is heavily involved in "pay for science" from the Heartland institute
the paper fails to reveal its funding or whether it has competing interests
its peer review is questionable
its place of publication is hardly a notable or legitimate source of information and most certainly not a credible science journal of good standing in the community
instead it is well known for pay outs of $10,000 a piece for published papers against the consensus view of climate change
they do not paricularly care where the papers are published or who reviews them nor to they seem particularly concerned with the accuracy of the work
remember this paper G presented was retracted and numerous corrections were necessary
the information concerning its retraction and what information was changed as well as how those changes alter the obvious premise of the work does not appear to be what is being shown by G

now lets look at one of my latest sources

I quoted an author who's specialty is climate modeling, has over 60 reviewed and published works to his credit and has achieved an impeccable standing within the community

his bio reads as follows

my source quotes multiple peer reviewed works also by authors in good standing within the community and who's works are published by accredited universities or in established scientific journals

the specific reference I made was from a respected avenue of predominantly climate scientists who regularly review one another work within an open forum setting
there is no competing interests as the forum is not a paid site

the difference between our two sources is night and day

thanks for asking
B

 

I chose my sources from accredited universities and scientific journals of good standing within the community

C'mon, Boston! That's pure ********!
You are just quoting Gavin, Real Climate, its wiki and similar ones all the time!