At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

[xouper]

What would the temperature record need to look like over the next however many years before scientists will say there is no more global warming?

How many years of future data will it take? And what would that temperature data have to look like?

At what point will it be safe to say there is no more global warming?

I am trying not to be too specific here because I do not wish to impose any unreasonable constraints on the answer.

[ozboy]

I guess when there is a 'long term' flattening or drop.
The graph from the met office doesn't show seem to show it http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012 ... uary-2012/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Neither does this
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... 6-2010.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pyrrho]

Possibly when the next ice age develops?

[OlegTheBatty]

Well, I can say it right now. "There is no more global warming". There. I have proven it. In fact, I can say it again, but you will have to take THAT bit on faith. Or pay me.

Now, as to belief, that is different. The current state of the evidence is not compelling either way.

[citizenschallenge]

What would the temperature record need to look like over the next however many years before scientists will say there is no more global warming?

How many years of future data will it take? And what would that temperature data have to look like?

At what point will it be safe to say there is no more global warming?

I am trying not to be too specific here because I do not wish to impose any unreasonable constraints on the answer.

For starters some actual scientific studies would be good
> as opposed to newspaper articles; or graphs that cover specific regions; or specific aspects - then inflate them to insinuate representing the entire globe while ignoring the full spectrum of graphs and data available.

The entire global situation would have to be taken into account including what’s occurring in our planet’s cryosphere and oceans:

No time for more just now, but I do want to point out that recent claims by denialists, er skeptics consistently ignore the ever so important topic of what’s occurring in our oceans.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... rming.html
Scientists Find 20 Years of Deep Water Warming Leading to Sea Level Rise
September 20, 2010

¶1 - Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, cause heating of the Earth. Over the past few decades, at least 80 percent of this heat energy has gone into the ocean, warming it in the process. . .

¶4 - This study shows that the deep ocean – below about 3,300 feet – is taking up about 16 percent of what the upper ocean is absorbing. . .

¶7 - Sea level has been rising at around 3 mm (1/8 of a inch) per year on average since 1993, with about half of that caused by ocean thermal expansion and the other half because of additional water added to the ocean, mostly from melting continental ice. . .

¶9 - The study, “Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets,” authored by Sarah G. Purkey and Gregory C. Johnson, will be published in an upcoming edition of the Journal of Climate. . .

[Austin Harper]

How far back are global average temperatures available? I'm thinking the early 1800s, but I could be mistaken. I would say that it would be fair to say that there is no more global warming when the average change in global temperatures less than or equal to zero over a significant fraction of that total time span. I don't think I'm qualified to say what counts as significant, but I would say maybe 20 years.

[Hex]

How far back are global average temperatures available? I'm thinking the early 1800s, but I could be mistaken.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It a list of important articles that where published during periods of different times. They don't cover each and everyone, but just the most important for each era. They supply plenty of links, but I haven't really looked at them, so it hard for me to see any kind of bias.

[citizenschallenge]

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

Well besides crazy-making head games that ignore scientific findings -
How about coming up with some real Earth data indicating that inevitable global cooling we keep hearing "independent skeptics" promising. . .

Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

ScienceDaily (Feb. 29, 2012) — A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean's floating ice cap.
{...}
Multi-year ice "extent" -- which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where multi-year ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface -- is diminishing at a rate of -15.1 percent per decade, the study found.
{...}
"The average thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover is declining because it is rapidly losing its thick component, the multi-year ice. At the same time, the surface temperature in the Arctic is going up, which results in a shorter ice-forming season,"

As for that sun causing warming, you betcha... and I betcha, it's warming that freshly uncovered ocean water a lot more than it warms an ice field.

[xouper]

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

Well besides crazy-making head games that ignore scientific findings -
How about coming up with some real Earth data indicating that inevitable global cooling we keep hearing "independent skeptics" promising. . .

That doesn't answer the question.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

When the atmosphere spontaneously ignites.

[JO 753]

There woud hav to be definite trendz in the oppozit direction. Expanding polar ice, longer colder winterz, etc.

My problem with this entire issue iz how stable duz anybody expect the climate to be? Plain & simple, its not going to stay at 1960 levelz forever.

And wuts worse - a winterless world with no ice caps or another ice age?

[Major Malfunction]

And wuts worse - a winterless world with no ice caps or another ice age?

Stifling heat and humidity with cyclones the likes no-one has ever seen in some regions, raging firestorms and desertification in others. Or glaciers, blizzards and nary a sight of the Sun in a freezing, bleak white landscape covering most of the Earth.

Hmmm. Can I phone a friend?

[OlegTheBatty]

The sun's luminosity is predicted to continue increasing for billions of years. Global warming will eventually win over any temporary cooling periods.

[Flash]

Oh, can I answer this please, please? There's no more global warming when Koch brothers and the chairmen of BP, Shell, Petro Canada, etc. say so.
OOps, I think they just have. So it's settled, there is no global warming, we are safe, lets get more coal, oil gas out of the ground and burn it. What a fantastic planet we live on. You can dump {!#%@} in the atmosphere, oceans, on land and it doesn't make a difference except...Well, it makes the 1% a bit richer. :doh:

[Austin Harper]

On behalf of Wichita, I appologize for their existence.

[Flash]

Very noble of you Austin. But I wonder if the top 1% of Wichita residents would even make it as 1% of the bottom ones in Manhattan. ;)

Another thing, I was wondering about the green house gases passed into the atmosphere by living things on our planet. Cows have been, I think unfairly, accused of farting and burping too much and thus polluting the atmosphere. How about humans? There are about 7 billion of us here and if everyone farted and belched only once a day there would be at least 7 billion farts of the green house gas emitted into the atmosphere per day. But we all know that the 7 billion farts per day is a very low estimate. Most people fart more often than this per day and in the burrito and curry countries this activity may go on for the whole 24 hours. So, it looks to me that the internal combustion engines and cows have perhaps been unfairly blamed for the warming of the planet. For the whole time since homo fartus left Africa it was us doing the damage. We truly can say therefore that we have looked in the face of the enemy and it 's us... :mrgreen:

[citizenschallenge]

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

When there's some evidence for it

Prediction: Posted on 13 March 2012 by dana1981

2005 and 2010 are statistically tied as the hottest years in the surface temperature record (according to NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC, and likely according to HadCRUT4, once the update is released).

2011 was a relatively cool year due to the cooling influence of a strong La Niña event. In fact, 2011 was impacted by the 5th-largest La Niña influence of any given year since 1950, and the largest since 1974. Nevertheless, it was the 10th-hottest year on record, and the hottest La Niña year on record (Figure 1).

What's bleak is that actual climatologists say what we are experiencing today is the result of the impacts of 30 years ago. In other words we ain't seen nothing yet...

[xouper]

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

When there's some evidence for it

Yes, of course. One needs evidence. I was assuming that went without saying. My question was more deep than that. What kinds of evidence would be sufficient? And please be as specific as you can. For example, how many years of non-rising temperatures would be required for a climate scientist to say that temps are no longer rising?

[citizenschallenge]

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

When there's some evidence for it

Yes, of course. One needs evidence. I was assuming that went without saying. My question was more deep than that. What kinds of evidence would be sufficient? And please be as specific as you can. For example, how many years of non-rising temperatures would be required for a climate scientist to say that temps are no longer rising?

Climatologist say we are experiencing what we did to our atmosphere thirty years ago, pretty spooky considering what we have been doing to it in the past thirty. They also say it takes thirty years for a solid statistical trend to be established. And considering that temperatures keep rising it seem a bit silly to constantly play this hypothetical game... who's only point seems to be in willfully ignoring what we do know.

From my perspective I'd be curious to see any actual indications of a cooling planet. What the usual suspects of "AGW skeptics" toss up is mostly two-thirds fabricated and ignores 95% of the available evidence. Looking at the cryosphere, ocean heat content, sealevel rise, atmospheric temps {such as the high altitude cooling}, plant growth hardiness zones creeping north, species creeping north, etc. etc. All point toward a continued trajectory towards warming that will be transitioning in direct relation to all we continue to inject into our atmosphere and also what we have been doing to our landmasses will also impact the warming. After all it is a dance between many components and interactions.

PS.

Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Posted on 16 March 2012 by Glenn Tamblyn
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breakin ... A_LOT.html

In a previous post we discussed how the argument that the Earth has stopped warming doesn't make much sense because the people claiming this don't know how to draw their 'system boundaries' correctly - how can you work out whether the Earth is warming if you don't take account of all the places where it may be warming? And most commentary seems to only focus on surface temperatures. Which is only 3% of the Total Heat Content change.

So in this follow-on we would like to try and convey this warming from all the parts of the climate system in terms that we can all grasp. Grasp at an imaginative and visceral level. Because numbers, no matter how accurate, can be rather dry and hard to digest. . .

I'd be curious what you think of this more inclusive and detailed explanation of what we are witnessing. If you believe Glenn is pulling our leg(s) be specific of what he presented you feel was false or worth disregarding.

[Blacksamwell]

For example, how many years of non-rising temperatures would be required for a climate scientist to say that temps are no longer rising?

Aren't there statistical analysis tools that could be applied that might give some measure of the significance of any new figure or trend? Could those tools be applied to answer Xouper's question?

[xouper]

At what point can we say there is no more global warming?

When there's some evidence for it

Yes, of course. One needs evidence. I was assuming that went without saying. My question was more deep than that. What kinds of evidence would be sufficient? And please be as specific as you can. For example, how many years of non-rising temperatures would be required for a climate scientist to say that temps are no longer rising?

Climatologist say . . . it takes thirty years for a solid statistical trend to be established.

So if atmospheric temperatures remain more or less stable for the next fifteen years -- thus establishing a 30-year trend of non-rising temperatures -- is that enough to say that the atmosphere is no longer warming?

And considering that temperatures keep rising it seem a bit silly to constantly play this hypothetical game...

Why is it silly? It is a legitimate scientific question. It is normal for scientists to ask hypothetical questions.

who's only point seems to be in willfully ignoring what we do know.

For the record, that criticism does not apply to me. Nor is that my motive for asking the question.

What the usual suspects of "AGW skeptics" toss up is mostly two-thirds fabricated and ignores 95% of the available evidence.

For the record, that criticism does not apply to me or to my question in the opening post.

PS.

Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Posted on 16 March 2012 by Glenn Tamblyn
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breakin ... A_LOT.html

In a previous post we discussed how the argument that the Earth has stopped warming doesn't make much sense because the people claiming this don't know how to draw their 'system boundaries' correctly - how can you work out whether the Earth is warming if you don't take account of all the places where it may be warming? And most commentary seems to only focus on surface temperatures. Which is only 3% of the Total Heat Content change.

I'd be curious what you think of this more inclusive and detailed explanation of what we are witnessing. If you believe Glenn is pulling our leg(s) be specific of what he presented you feel was false or worth disregarding.

What specifically is your question here?

I notice Tamblyn says atmospheric surface temperatures accounts for only three percent of global warming. If that is true, then such temperatures -- including Mann's hockey stick -- are largely irrelevant or insignificant. So why do you and others cite such temperatures as if that mattered? What is the point of making a big deal about 2010 as one of the warmest on record -- followed embarrassingly by 2011 which was much cooler than predicted -- if that temperature record is an insignificant part of global warming?

Tamblyn seems to be making the claim that ocean heat content is the only significant measurement, despite that scientists do not have a very good understanding of the ocean's heat content. Trenberth is at least honest enough to admit he does not know where the heat went (assuming it exists and went somewhere).

[citizenschallenge]

For example, how many years of non-rising temperatures would be required for a climate scientist to say that temps are no longer rising?

Aren't there statistical analysis tools that could be applied that might give some measure of the significance of any new figure or trend? Could those tools be applied to answer Xouper's question?

Yes there are. But, that's for folks smarter than me. Here's some information:

How significance tests are misused in climate science
Posted at SkepticalScience 12 November 2010 by Maarten Ambaum
Guest post by Dr Maarten H. P. Ambaum from the Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, U.K.

"Climate science relies heavily on statistics to test hypotheses. For example, we may want to ask whether the global mean temperature has really risen over the past ten years. . ."

also from a slightly different angle:
How reliable are climate models?

[citizenschallenge]

So if atmospheric temperatures remain more or less stable for the next fifteen years -- thus establishing a 30-year trend of non-rising temperatures -- is that enough to say that the atmosphere is no longer warming?

And considering that temperatures keep rising it seem a bit silly to constantly play this hypothetical game...

Why is it silly? It is a legitimate scientific question. It is normal for scientists to ask hypothetical questions.

Because your implication that the past fifteen years have been stable is false.
Also you are again ignoring known factors that influence short term fluctuations. No climatologist says it's all GHGs and they are observing and quantifying other influencing factors... BUT none of that negates their evidence for GHGs profound impact on current trends.

Other factors moderate and modulate that GHG effect - but none override it.

Beyond that I imagine it would say a lot if no warming were observed in the next fifteen years, fat chance though. It’s disconnected to seriously expect that. Once again I charge you with disregarding what’s outside of your peripheral vision. How would you argue away the significance of this data chart?

“Daily Mail Slammed for Ignoring Scientific Truth We’re Still Warming and Human Emissions Will Dwarf Any Solar Changes
By Joe Romm on Jan 30, 2012 at 12:32 pm

"Human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases have risen so rapidly that they now overwhelm any plausible decrease in solar activity. . . “
{...}
“Climate Progress has http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/2 ... mate-lies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; debunked the “we’re not warming” myth umpteen times, most recently yesterday when 16 know-nothings with scientific degrees pushed a particularly laughable version of it in Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal of Lies. . .”

Or this
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I notice Tamblyn says atmospheric surface temperatures accounts for only three percent of global warming. If that is true, then such temperatures -- including Mann's hockey stick -- are largely irrelevant or insignificant. So why do you and others cite such temperatures as if that mattered? What is the point of making a big deal about 2010 as one of the warmest on record -- followed embarrassingly by 2011 which was much cooler than predicted -- if that temperature record is an insignificant part of global warming?

I think what you overlook is that today we have microscopic, up to the minute resolution of current numbers and trends. When we look back into paleo history, we are looking at averages smeared over thousands of years, or in some cases resolutions on the scale of centuries, and only rarely of even decadal resolution.

Earth reaches equilibriums slowly and we have injected radical quantities of GHGs into our thin atmosphere - which can only react by insulating our planet yet better - current increases of GHG concentrations is at an astounding rate when taken in context of the historical record. It will take time, centuries in fact, for ocean and atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tamblyn seems to be making the claim that ocean heat content is the only significant measurement, despite that scientists do not have a very good understanding of the ocean's heat content. Trenberth is at least honest enough to admit he does not know where the heat went (assuming it exists and went somewhere).

I'm not sure Tamblyn would agree with your assessment. Guess I'll post the above paragraph over there and see if he comments on it. In the mean time I'll leave you with this:

HK at 02:24 AM on 18 March, 2012
Excellent piece, Glenn!
If reasonably open-minded people with some science background read this, it’s hard to understand why they should not be convinced the Earth is still warming, and that an increased greenhouse effect is the only possible explanation.

Here's a little something from Trenberth, it is complex and he is cautious.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/01 ... et-al.html

[xouper]

So if atmospheric temperatures remain more or less stable for the next fifteen years -- thus establishing a 30-year trend of non-rising temperatures -- is that enough to say that the atmosphere is no longer warming?

And considering that temperatures keep rising it seem a bit silly to constantly play this hypothetical game...

Why is it silly? It is a legitimate scientific question. It is normal for scientists to ask hypothetical questions.

Because your implication that the past fifteen years have been stable is false.

Wrong. It is not false. We have already discussed this point and I cited plenty of evidence to support the fact that temperatures have not risen over the past 15 years. However, Tamblyn's point seems to be that atmospheric temperatures are an insignificant part of global warming, in which case, it is not valid to equate air temps with global warming.

Also you are again ignoring known factors that influence short term fluctuations. . . .

Again you falsely accuse me of ignoring something. When we look at the data for the past 15 years, it is not necessary to consider the cause of the fluctuations to conclude that there is no rising trend in temperatures over those 15 years. That is a simple statistical fact.

No climatologist says it's all GHGs and they are observing and quantifying other influencing factors...

I never claimed otherwise.

BUT none of that negates their evidence for GHGs profound impact on current trends.

I never claimed otherwise.

Other factors moderate and modulate that GHG effect - but none override it.

Depends on what you mean by "override". The temperature record for the past hundred years clearly shows no close correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. For example, something is clearly overriding the effect of CO2 during the middle part of the 20th century. Another example, the past 15 years also show no correlation between rising CO2 levels and air temperatures, thus some other factor is clearly dominant.

Beyond that I imagine it would say a lot if no warming were observed in the next fifteen years, fat chance though. It’s disconnected to seriously expect that.

I was not stating an expectation. I asked the question as a hypothetical, which is an entirely appropriate scientific question.

Once again I charge you with disregarding what’s outside of your peripheral vision.

Once again you make false accusations about my character, which is a violation of the forum rules.

How would you argue away the significance of this data chart?

I have already answered that question in an earlier post. The short answer is that graph hides the non-rising trend of the past 15 years. This is how people lie with statistics.

The other two articles you cited are not relevant to the question in the opening post.

I notice Tamblyn says atmospheric surface temperatures accounts for only three percent of global warming. If that is true, then such temperatures -- including Mann's hockey stick -- are largely irrelevant or insignificant. So why do you and others cite such temperatures as if that mattered? What is the point of making a big deal about 2010 as one of the warmest on record -- followed embarrassingly by 2011 which was much cooler than predicted -- if that temperature record is an insignificant part of global warming?

I think what you overlook is that today we have microscopic, up to the minute resolution of current numbers and trends. When we look back into paleo history, we are looking at averages smeared over thousands of years, or in some cases resolutions on the scale of centuries, and only rarely of even decadal resolution.

Earth reaches equilibriums slowly and we have injected radical quantities of GHGs into our thin atmosphere - which can only react by insulating our planet yet better - current increases of GHG concentrations is at an astounding rate when taken in context of the historical record. It will take time, centuries in fact, for ocean and atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium.

That does not answer my question. Not even close. Do you even understand the question? Do I need to rephrase it for you?

Tamblyn seems to be making the claim that ocean heat content is the only significant measurement, despite that scientists do not have a very good understanding of the ocean's heat content. Trenberth is at least honest enough to admit he does not know where the heat went (assuming it exists and went somewhere).

I'm not sure Tamblyn would agree with your assessment. Guess I'll post the above paragraph over there and see if he comments on it.

Fair enough. I sincerely hope you do not repeat your past mistakes by misrepresenting what I said.

In the mean time I'll leave you with this:

HK at 02:24 AM on 18 March, 2012
Excellent piece, Glenn!
If reasonably open-minded people with some science background read this, it’s hard to understand why they should not be convinced the Earth is still warming, and that an increased greenhouse effect is the only possible explanation.

That's a nice example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Here's a little something from Trenberth, it is complex and he is cautious.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/01 ... et-al.html

Trenberth confirms my assertion that scientists still do not know enough about ocean heat content (OHC). I applaud Trenberth's caution.

[citizenschallenge]

Wrong. It is not false. We have already discussed this point and I cited plenty of evidence to support the fact that temperatures have not risen over the past 15 years. However, Tamblyn's point seems to be that atmospheric temperatures are an insignificant part of global warming, in which case, it is not valid to equate air temps with global warming.

Also you are again ignoring known factors that influence short term fluctuations. . . .

Again you falsely accuse me of ignoring something.

Thing is all this authoritative information disputes your claim.
What has global warming done since 1998?
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2539n1350
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ing-pause/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... new-normal
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm
================

Other factors moderate and modulate that GHG effect - but none override it.

Depends on what you mean by "override". The temperature record for the past hundred years clearly shows no close correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.

Yes many factors are involved, it is complex, but people can... do study it and understand. And they also present it in a way that an interested person can understand. I wonder if you'd read this and come up with specific points you object to or find misleading:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-tem ... lation.htm
===

Beyond that I imagine it would say a lot if no warming were observed in the next fifteen years, fat chance though. It’s disconnected to seriously expect that.

I was not stating an expectation. I asked the question as a hypothetical, which is an entirely appropriate scientific question.

It's a foolish distraction

How would you argue away the significance of this data chart?

I have already answered that question in an earlier post. The short answer is that graph hides the non-rising trend of the past 15 years. This is how people lie with statistics.

Ah the wicked deceitful scientist again? If you want statistics to lie, they will lie to you. Climatologists are not some evil-doers. They are trying to extract the information as well as possible, and there are many of them and they cross check each other. Your attitude demands that we believe half of what climatologists report is lies.

Here read this. Scientist know where the heat is going and that it continues warming, that they are arguing about the dangling 10% - 15% - whatever%, simply shows how seriously they are going about their task.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-tem ... lation.htm

To me it seems all you are interesting in is tearing that down
... rather than devoting some effort to understanding it

[citizenschallenge]

Here's a little something from Trenberth, it is complex and he is cautious.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/01 ... et-al.html

Trenberth confirms my assertion that scientists still do not know enough about ocean heat content (OHC). I applaud Trenberth's caution.

Yea, go figure, Trenberth is actually a first class cautious serious scientist. Perhaps you can reexamine some of your past misapprehension regarding what he’s said about the global warming storm/hurricane connection.

But, why not add some definition? “still do not know enough...” Enough what?
What is it scientists don’t know about OHC and what are the implications of their uncertainties?

To take it another step:
Does every joule have to get accounted for before we can take Anthropogenic Global Warming seriously?
==================================================

That does not answer my question. Not even close. Do you even understand the question? Do I need to rephrase it for you?

Rephrase the question if you want.
But the point I was trying to make is that given the radical injection of massive amounts of GHGs into our atmosphere, in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking, we can expect our climate system to be in a state of turbulence and not analogous to ancient times. {And that it will take life times before it settles itself out at a new plateau.}


For most of Earth’s history the thermo equilibrium between the ocean and atmosphere was established and except for very rare moments in Earth’s history they moved in close lock step.

Also I don’t believe that all paleo proxy data reflects only ancient air temps, for example ocean sediments studies focusing on plankton and such.

That's a nice example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I’ll take your word for it,
since I appreciate you are a bit of an authority on thee ol “argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[xouper]

Wrong. It is not false. We have already discussed this point and I cited plenty of evidence to support the fact that temperatures have not risen over the past 15 years. However, Tamblyn's point seems to be that atmospheric temperatures are an insignificant part of global warming, in which case, it is not valid to equate air temps with global warming.

Also you are again ignoring known factors that influence short term fluctuations. . . .

Again you falsely accuse me of ignoring something.

Thing is all this authoritative information disputes your claim.
What has global warming done since 1998?
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2539n1350
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ing-pause/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... new-normal
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

Sorry, but none of those citations refute the statistical fact that the past 15 years do not show a rising trend in atmospheric temperatures.

Other factors moderate and modulate that GHG effect - but none override it.

Depends on what you mean by "override". The temperature record for the past hundred years clearly shows no close correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.

Yes many factors are involved, it is complex, but people can... do study it and understand.

Shall we take that as a revision of your previous claim no factors override the effect of CO2?

Beyond that I imagine it would say a lot if no warming were observed in the next fifteen years, fat chance though. It’s disconnected to seriously expect that.

I was not stating an expectation. I asked the question as a hypothetical, which is an entirely appropriate scientific question.

It's a foolish distraction

For the record, I did not ask that question as a tactic to distract anyone from the topic of global warming.

Given the large number of threads you have started recently on the topic of global warming, your complaint is clearly specious that this one thread is a "foolish distraction" from your message.

How would you argue away the significance of this data chart?

I have already answered that question in an earlier post. The short answer is that graph hides the non-rising trend of the past 15 years. This is how people lie with statistics.

Ah the wicked deceitful scientist again? If you want statistics to lie, they will lie to you. Climatologists are not some evil-doers. They are trying to extract the information as well as possible, and there are many of them and they cross check each other. Your attitude demands that we believe half of what climatologists report is lies.

I am not accusing scientists of lying, nor am I claiming climatologists are evil. I am accusing YOU of lying with statistics. It is a statistical fact that the past 15 years do not show a rising trend in atmospheric temperatures. Nowhere on that graph does any climatologist say it refutes my claim. YOU are the one trying to refute that fact with inappropriate application of statistics. YOU are doing that, not climate scientists.

Here read this. Scientist know where the heat is going and that it continues warming, that they are arguing about the dangling 10% - 15% - whatever%, simply shows how seriously they are going about their task.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-tem ... lation.htm

That does not change the statistical fact that the past 15 years do not show a rising trend in atmospheric temperatures.

To me it seems all you are interesting in is tearing that down
... rather than devoting some effort to understanding it

For the record, that criticism does not apply to me. For the record, again you are attacking my character, which is a violation of the forum rules.

[xouper]

Here's a little something from Trenberth, it is complex and he is cautious.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/01 ... et-al.html

Trenberth confirms my assertion that scientists still do not know enough about ocean heat content (OHC). I applaud Trenberth's caution.

Yea, go figure, Trenberth is actually a first class cautious serious scientist.

So you agree with Trenberth's observation that not enough is known about OHC? Well knock me down and call me Susan.

Perhaps you can reexamine some of your past misapprehension regarding what he’s said about the global warming storm/hurricane connection.

That's an interesting contrast. Trenberth was not at all cautious in making an erroneous claim about a link between global warming and hurricanes.

But, why not add some definition? “still do not know enough...” Enough what?
What is it scientists don’t know about OHC and what are the implications of their uncertainties?

To take it another step:
Does every joule have to get accounted for before we can take Anthropogenic Global Warming seriously?

Not every joule, no. But is it valid to focus primarily on the top 700 meters of ocean as a proxy for global warming? I can see why that happens, considering there is far less data for OHC below 700 meters.

See for example:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/ ... -2011.html

Second, the rate at which Earth's surface temperature approaches a new equilibrium in response to a climate forcing depends on how efficiently heat perturbations are mixed into the deeper ocean. Ocean mixing is complex and not necessarily simulated well by climate models. Empirical data on ocean heat uptake are improving rapidly, but still suffer limitations.

See also:
Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts
D.H. Douglass ∗, R.S. Knox
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... igs1_2.pdf

Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?
– A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... -dipuccio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another question relevant to the observation about insufficient knowledge about OHC, how well understood are ENSO events?

That does not answer my question. Not even close. Do you even understand the question? Do I need to rephrase it for you?

Rephrase the question if you want.
But the point I was trying to make is that given the radical injection of massive amounts of GHGs into our atmosphere, in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking, we can expect our climate system to be in a state of turbulence and not analogous to ancient times. {And that it will take life times before it settles itself out at a new plateau.}

For most of Earth’s history the thermo equilibrium between the ocean and atmosphere was established and except for very rare moments in Earth’s history they moved in close lock step.

Also I don’t believe that all paleo proxy data reflects only ancient air temps, for example ocean sediments studies focusing on plankton and such.

Wow, you really don't have the slightest comprehension what my question asked.

That's a nice example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I’ll take your word for it,
since I appreciate you are a bit of an authority on thee ol “argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Did you intend that to be an insult? If so, then you have revealed you have no clue what that fallacy means.

[citizenschallenge]

So if atmospheric temperatures remain more or less stable for the next fifteen years -- thus establishing a 30-year trend of non-rising temperatures -- is that enough to say that the atmosphere is no longer warming?

And considering that temperatures keep rising it seem a bit silly to constantly play this hypothetical game...

Why is it silly? It is a legitimate scientific question. It is normal for scientists to ask hypothetical questions.

Because your implication that the past fifteen years have been stable is false.

Wrong. It is not false. We have already discussed this point and I cited plenty of evidence to support the fact that temperatures have not risen over the past 15 years. However, Tamblyn's point seems to be that atmospheric temperatures are an insignificant part of global warming, in which case, it is not valid to equate air temps with global warming.

Xouper, Time for a little update on this nonsense you keep trying to peddle.

In support of my contention that all these things you say are false because you willfully ignore what doesn't fit your preconception - that being, we should not worry about it. Here's the latest report that you'd have to ignore in order to continue clinging to that blithe attitude.

Well either that or take the Wattzer's approach: claim the scientists have gotta be doctoring the data and we should ignore it. Not that they feel any need to produce any evidence, just feeding people's paranoia against real "experts" is enough.

Check out this graph:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/a ... anheat.jpg

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... tml?ref=em

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A group of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists has revised and updated their decade-old compilation of temperature measurements from the upper 2000 meters of the world's ocean. Its store of heat (red line with error bars) steadily increased over the past 20 years. And the upper ocean has warmed so much in the past 50 years that its added heat would be enough to warm the lower atmosphere by about 36°C (thankfully a physically impossible feat).

[citizenschallenge]

Excuse me for rambling today, but hey I got a little free time with MissMac here, and there's so much going on.

For instance, just ran across this comment that does such a beautiful job of summing it up, i gotta share with X and like minded.

Mulga Mumblebrain says:
April 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm

I absolutely agree. And like other crimes against humanity that amount to genocide, there must be no statute of limitations.

The prospect of the decent, sane, moral fraction of humanity (in my opinion the majority, particularly of the informed) sitting by and wringing their hands in frustration as a determined, zealous, well-financed cabal of denialist miscreants, aided and abetted by a Rightwing MSM and at the head of a suicidal rabble of Dunning-Krugerites drive our species to destruction is rage-inducing. I find rage almost entirely negative and destructive, but occasionally, it is the only sane and rational reaction.
~ ~ ~

D M says:
April 7, 2012 at 9:47 pm

A relevant quote from Albert Einstein:

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... ?mobile=nc

[xouper]

So if atmospheric temperatures remain more or less stable for the next fifteen years -- thus establishing a 30-year trend of non-rising temperatures -- is that enough to say that the atmosphere is no longer warming?

And considering that temperatures keep rising it seem a bit silly to constantly play this hypothetical game...

Why is it silly? It is a legitimate scientific question. It is normal for scientists to ask hypothetical questions.

Because your implication that the past fifteen years have been stable is false.

Wrong. It is not false. We have already discussed this point and I cited plenty of evidence to support the fact that temperatures have not risen over the past 15 years. However, Tamblyn's point seems to be that atmospheric temperatures are an insignificant part of global warming, in which case, it is not valid to equate air temps with global warming.

Xouper, Time for a little update on this nonsense you keep trying to peddle.

In support of my contention that all these things you say are false . . .

The stuff you cited does not contradict what I said about the atmospheric temperature record.

[Face_Palm]

Determined, zealous, well-financed cabal of denialist miscreants... after informing Mulga Mumblebrain that her mumblebrained talents would be put to better use writing fiction, do consider making your free time with MissMac more stimulating. It's called porn, and it's free and accessible.

Thumbs up on cleansing the miscreant out of xouper and MB though.

[xouper]

Preserved for the record, a continuing pattern of character attacks from Face_Palm:

Determined, zealous, well-financed cabal of denialist miscreants... after informing Mulga Mumblebrain that her mumblebrained talents would be put to better use writing fiction, do consider making your free time with MissMac more stimulating. It's called porn, and it's free and accessible.

Thumbs up on cleansing the miscreant out of xouper and MB though.

. . . gratuitous insults say more about the projector than the target. ;)

[rickoshay85]

What would the temperature record need to look like over the next however many years before scientists will say there is no more global warming?

They could say it right now --- there is no conclusive evidence, no demonstration, and only charlatans believe they can predict the future.

[Face_Palm]

It's called humor, xouper. Letting it go over your head is bad for your health, you zealous, well-financed cabal member, denialist miscreant.

[Martin Brock]

If a ten year moving average, for the conventional global average temperature measurements (GISTEMP and UAH USSTC for example), is not at least a half degree higher than the 2010 value by 2050, global warming is a dead letter. This result does not falsify the least controversial AGW hypothesis (a slight warming from increased CO2 concentration without a many-fold amplification by feedbacks), but it effectively falsifies the most alarming feedback models and completely undermines the case for aggressive political action. Regardless of these temperature measurements, I expect a much higher proportion of energy generation from carbon neutral sources by mid-century. Global warming will not drive this change. Rising demand for energy will drive it.

[Flash]

All of xouper's arguments rest on the cherry picked evidence that he likes and the opinion among the majority of the climate scientists be damned. By the way, it's a nice tornado season we are having this year, over hundred tornadoes in one weekend for the second time already.
xouper wrote:

So you agree with Trenberth's observation that not enough is known about OHC? Well knock me down and call me Susan.

Susan...? Eh, nooooo. How about Gullible Pussy? :mrgreen:

[citizenschallenge]

The stuff you cited does not contradict what I said about the atmospheric temperature record.

But the discussion is about GLOBAL WARMING silly wabbit!

[Face_Palm]

Regardless of these temperature measurements, I expect a much higher proportion of energy generation from carbon neutral sources by mid-century. Global warming will not drive this change. Rising demand for energy will drive it.

I'll disregard the other errors in your post because xouper's all-important record contains our futile, cyclical exchanges on them, and as I don't have the sources at my fingertips and am too lazy and mildly annoyed to bother I just won't bother and will let you torture cc to his demise. This part, however, I found new. I don't know whether global warming will drive this change - well, I do, but let's just say it's moot - but I do know global warming has been perhaps the dominant driver of the already occurring changes. That's just a fact, the power of your free market of magical panaceas notwithstanding. Considering all the unequivocal statements regarding global warming/climate change of probably a pretty healthy majority of reputable scientific organizations to say the least and those of the biggest corporations as well as governments, if I were you I would hedge my bets on my assertion.

[citizenschallenge]

If a ten year moving average, for the conventional global average temperature measurements (GISTEMP and UAH USSTC for example), is not at least a half degree higher than the 2010 value by 2050, global warming is a dead letter. This result does not falsify the least controversial AGW hypothesis (a slight warming from increased CO2 concentration without a many-fold amplification by feedbacks), but it effectively falsifies the most alarming feedback models and completely undermines the case for aggressive political action. Regardless of these temperature, I expect a much higher proportion of energy generation from carbon neutral sources by mid-century. Global warming will not drive this change. Rising demand for energy will drive it.

Let's see you jump from "least controversial" to "most alarming"...

Seeming to totally ignore the 3ish degrees climatologists are zeroing in on.

Also it's interesting you never seem to offer citations to look at... instead grand suppositions with no supporting evidence... only a conviction that we should do nothing and wait another few decades.