Re: Global warming
 

>>It is about continuity of thermal averages across a 2000 year period in an attempt to discern patterns.<<

It's really about heat, not temperature, if you think about it.

Whether the total amount of heat in the whole planet is increasing. This obviously reads through into temperature, which is very much subject to transient changes.

Re: Global warming
 

Can I please have the references where the predictions about the Himalayan glaciers and Amazon rainforests have been debunked? Peer reviewed journal articles preferable.

Re: Global warming
 

No need to Iolande, the head of the IPCC has admitted it himself.

Go back and read the thread over the last couple of weeks.

Re: Global warming
 

Interesting stuff from the UK Met Office Hadely Centre dated 2008

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/453043a.html


Nature 453, 43-45 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/453043a; Published online 30 April 2008

Abstract

The effects of global warming over the coming decades will be modified by shorter-term climate variability. Finding ways to incorporate these variations will give us a better grip on what kind of climate change to expect.
Climate change is often viewed as a phenomenon that will develop in the coming century. But its effects are already being seen, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0.

1.Richard Wood is at the Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB, UK.

What does everyone make of that?

Re: Global warming
 

That the internet is full of mistakes?

Re: Global warming
 

More from Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture06921.html



Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007; Accepted 14 March 2008; Corrected 8 May 2008

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector
N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2

1.Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
2.Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrae 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Correspondence to: N. S. Keenlyside1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.S.K. (Email: [email protected].).


Top of page
Abstract
The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5, 6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

1.Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
2.Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrae 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Correspondence to: N. S. Keenlyside1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.S.K. (Email: [email protected].).

Re: Global warming
 

One mistake (the Himalayas Glacier error) does not mean a theory is wrong or prove that you are being deliberately conned. It was one mistake in a 3000-page document. I'm not getting the thrust of the argument against the IPCC on here at all.

Re: Global warming
 

Not sure what the point you are making here is - the results suggest in the short term that the surface temperature will not increase and therefore will "temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming", as they point out:

"To investigate the sensitivity of the predictions to greenhouse gas forcing only, the two forecasts were repeated assuming that greenhouse gases were stabilized at year 2000 values. The predictions for the MOC and surface temperature remain basically unchanged. Thus, in the near future, natural decadal variability in the Atlantic and Pacific may not only override the regional effects of global warming, but temporarily weaken it. Thus, a joint initial/boundary value problem has to be considered when forecasting North Atlantic sector and global climate variability for the coming decades."

Note the built in assumption that the gases are stabilized at year 2000 values. Also this article appears to be about improving the skill of predictions and follow up research needs to be performed in order to test their conclusions.

Re: Global warming
 

just wanted to correct:

Re: Global warming
 

I wasnt making any point, I simply found the article interesting from both sides of the argument.

Re: Global warming
 

One thing that does make me laugh is the constant revision by AGW proponents, in order to cover up the holes in the argument.

Two examples:

1. Troposphere Cooling
AGW Skeptics had long pointed to a strange phenomena in measurements as proof that global warming was not occurring. As the Earth's surface warms, we would expect the lower troposphere to also warm. But measurements from satellites and balloons showed otherwise. In fact, it was cooling, not heating.
Bit hard to argue global warming, when the measurements showed the bloody troposphere cooling down.
In 2005 the climate scientists suddenly admitted that the satellite data was all wrong due to satellite “drift”. And then they suddenly admitted that the balloon temperature sensors did not take account of the shielding for the sun. A series of adjustments, and they proved that the troposphere WAS warming. Nice!!!


2. Oceans cooling
The Argo project has over 3000 submersible robots measuring the temp. of the upper 2km of the world's oceans. These have consistently reported a cooling of the oceans over the last 5 years.

The whole argument is contained here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

“Early estimates of ocean heat from the Argo showed a cooling bias due to pressure sensor issues. Recent estimates of ocean heat that take this bias into account show continued warming of the upper ocean. This is confirmed by independent estimates of ocean heat as well as more comprehensive measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres deep.”

What we see in each example is research being manipulated to fit the theory, rather than the theory being derived from the research.

If the satellite and balloon data HAD matched the global warming theory no one would have bothered checking its accuracy.

If the 3000 submersible robots measuring the temperature of the upper 2km of the world's oceans had shown global warming then no one would have investigated the pressure sensor issues.

My point is this : It is poor science when you only investigate areas that don’t support your theory.

Re: Global warming
 

That abstract conflicts with what the author says in the article:

"the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0.2 °C per decade for a range of plausible greenhouse-gas emission levels"

(Wood is referencing: Solomon, S. D. et al. (eds) in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).)

Interestingly he also says "Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That emphasizes once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades"

Re: Global warming
 

oh - you got there before me! :)

Re: Global warming
 

Repeating an earlier post of mine:

I don’t think all of the IPCC data is incorrect or wrong.

The problem is the crucial “scary” bits – the headline grabbing, 30 second prime time news grab stuff – is pure emotive rubbish.

This stuff was included to grab the attention of politicians and frighten the public. It worked for a while.

People have known it was rubbish right from the beginning. Some of it defied science. The sea cannot rise at the rates they predicted. The glaciers cannot disappear at the rate they suggest. The world cannot warm at the rate they claim.

When respected scientists questioned these headline grabbing claims they were slammed down as fools. (Even late last year the head of the IPCC was saying that the Indian Glacier Research unit was using “Voodoo Science” when it challenged IPCC claims).

This unreasonable attitude has backfired. The doubters went back and did the real research. The courted the press, and they bided their time.

Now the whole IPCC credibility is shot to smithereens. The British government is investigating the Climate Research Unit. There is legal action being instigated over their refusal to follow FOI procedures. The head of CRU has been stood down.

The head of IPCC is facing demands for resignation.

They get no sympathy from me.

They aren’t scientists, they are snake oil salesmen



My issue is twofold:

1> If you include rubbish in your research then you can reasonably expect people to believe its all rubbish. IPCC has spouted endlessly about is rigorous and transparent review process. What RUBBISH. They publish anything that helps their argument.
2, The head of the IPCC had the absolute audacity to accuse doubters of “Voodoo Science”. It wasn’t. They were right. HE WAS PRACTICING VOODOO SCIENCE, NOT THEM!

Re: Global warming
 

But isn't that the point - that temporary fluctuations over time means that the ocean goes through cooler periods and warmer periods. And that these periods need to be taken into account when forecasting changes in ocean temperature. Indeed there seems to be an argument that the cooling will temporarily stem the increase in ocean temperature due to AGW.