I find it interesting that Climatologists were able to predict a cooler year for 2008 prior to it occurring.
I don't recall that prediction. Indeed I seem to recall that the UK Met Office predicted quite the opposite! I certainly remember a number of excuses being made for the unexpected drop in avg temp during 2007. Perhaps my recollection is incorrect, could you please point me to the reference.
The aforementioned link discusses the Met Office's predictions all the way back in January 2008 and was correct in its predictions now looking back in retrospect.
Quote:
Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C.
For 2008, the development of a strong La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean will limit the warming trend of the global climate. During La Niña, cold waters upwell to cool large areas of the ocean and land surface temperatures. The forecast includes for the first time a new decadal forecast using a climate model. This indicates that the current La Niña event will weaken only slowly through 2008, disappearing by the end of the year.
While ENSO is one factor in the annual variability, it is not the only one. There are both other sources of internal variability and external forcings. The other internal variations can be a little difficult to characterise (it isn't as simple as just a super-position of all the climate acronyms you ever heard of NAO+SAM+PDO+AMO+MJO etc.), but the external (natural) forcings are a little easier. The two main ones are volcanic variability and solar forcing. There have been no climatically significant volcanoes since 1991, and so that is not a factor. However, we are at a solar minimum. The impacts of the solar cycle on the surface temperature record are somewhat disputed, but it might be as large as 0.1ºC from solar min to solar max, with a lag of a year or two. Thus for 2008, one might expect a deviation below trend (the difference between mean solar and solar min, and expecting the impact to not yet be fully felt) of up to 0.05ºC. Not a very big signal, and not one that would shift the rankings significantly.
There were a number of rather overheated claims earlier this year that 'all the global warming had been erased' by the La Niña-related anomaly. This was always ridiculous, and now that most of that anomaly has passed, we aren't holding our breath waiting for the 'global warming is now back' headlines from the same sources.
Taking a longer perspective, the 30 year mean trends aren't greatly affected by a single year (GISTEMP: 1978-2007 0.17+/-0.04ºC/dec; 1979-2008 0.16+/-0.04 - OLS trends, annual data, 95% CI, no correction for auto-correlation; identical for HadCRU); they are still solidly upwards. The match of the Hansen et al 1988 scenario B projections are similarly little affected (GISTEMP 1984-2008 0.19+/-0.05 (LO-index) 0.22+/-0.07 (Met-station index); HansenB 1984-2008 0.25+/-0.05 ºC/dec) - the projections run slightly warmer as one would expect given the slightly greater (~10%) forcing in the projection then occurred in reality. This year's data then don't really change our expectations much.
For the whole article and for more data, discussion and so forth see: RealClimate
Keep in mind that cooling for a year or two is always anticipated by climatologists and meteorologists. It is the trend that matters, not the temporary and so slight cooling that occurs. The cooling is expected from a combination of natural climate events and some dimming from sulfates. La nina is a real event that has been known for years.
Last edited by jcbmack : 28th February 2009 at 08:33.
Thank you jbmack, for your thoughtful, well referenced reply. You have convinced me that climate change is real, that there is a warming trend.
Actually I'm lying, I knew that already. It's difficult to dispute, although it has been disputed because of course any 'global' measurement is not really that global at all and is open to distortion, depending on the source of the data. But leaving that aside. We can agree that we are in a warm phase, not so you'd notice on a daily basis.
But that was never the issue. The issue is the vehicle of change. This is where the dispute lies and where I among others are unconvinced. Again, another undisputed reality is that we humans have pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. You can measure that too and you can make models depicting the results.
The problem is the linking of the two. The chicken or egg situation. Did we cause global warming or is it happening anyway as part of a natural variation, short or long term. Are we adding to this warming or did we cause it entirely, or indeed are our greenhouse gases merely a drop in the ocean, (slight pun there), and have no effect other than in our own minds and models?
I remain unconvinced as to the validity of the link. If I was alone in this apostasy, that would be fine. But I'm not, many appropriately qualified scientists dispute the consensus too.
What I find interesting is the constant drip of information released to the media, reporting new and additional evidence of global warming and our part in it. The BBC are good at it. They are greatly concerned as to the fate fo the Polar Bear for some reason. Then there's scientists and others who feel the need to feed the press with quotes and soundbytes, predicting imminent and not so imminent disasters if we don't do something now. It's as if they really need to convince themselves as much as they feel the need to convince the public. The comparision to religion has been made before and is valid I think. For what is essentially a scientific theory. This is very bad news.
I'm ready to be convinced that we humans caused climate change. But the evidence is lacking to this day.
Scientific "Consensus". Claiming there is exposes the charlatans immediately. For forty-five days this Winter, NASA website pictorial showed very large "open ocean" areas at the "Arctic Pole". When inquiries were made, they took it down and "apologized". In saner times, that site would forever be banned as a rational source of Data. NASA for goodness' sake. Gore has made so many gaffes and blunders in his pursuit of money and notoriety in saner times he would be taken for a satirist. The Tube shows Polar Bears swimming in the Arctic Ocean and a dimbulb frames the vid as "Dire". It's what they do for a living!! Hansen is a cheat and recently has been scolded by the Chief for being too political.
jcb : "RealClimate" is a partisan player. No harm done, but if people don't know that, "A half-truth is a whole lie"..... The "credentials" game is open to interpretation, No ???
Read "ClimateAudit" for balance, although they too are in the Hunt.
The increase is approximately (SIC) .74 degrees Celsius, in the last century, EH? Giss didn't consider El Nino until prompted, or precip until prompted, etc. With an open mind, if possible, read the science on Antarctic Ice, Greenland Ice, Arctic Ice, etc. The sampling stations were rigged, the results massaged, and all that was forthcoming was: "Well, We've 'Corrected' that......" One of the CO2 proxy stations is Mauna Loa, a very active Volcano in Hawaii, next to another active subsurface Volcano to the Southeast; Straight Face, Anyone???
AF
I like warm, it's why I stay in my Home State of California.
Thanks for that, I was struggling to recall the reports. As I hinted in my question, my point was that it was 2007 that cooled unexpectedly and then the 'experts' retrospectivelyblamed Pacific Ocean currents. My interpretation is that there was actually no prediction, late 2007 took them all by surprise. The suggestion that 2008 was going to be cooler seems more like a risk management exercise, somewhat conjured through weasel words. On the one hand it will be in the top ten hottest years, but on the other hand less warm than usual.
As usual it is interesting to contrast and compare data sets. So much rests on 0.1C
Well, I do want to point out that 2007 was either the hottest or second hottest year on record period. Also one has to observe, measure, model, graph and extrapolate from real data. Since in late 2007 and the earliest of 2008 at the latest meteorologists and climatologists from several different regions and administrations were predicting a cooler 2008 or were strongly inclined and stated as such, that 2008n would be cooler, that is strong enough evidence to support that they were well aware that 2008 either would be or probably would be cooler. Also no climatologist I have ever read or spoken/chatted with has ever denied there will be cooler years. It is the trend that is more statistically significant here in regards to climate and temperature anomalies as well.
Last edited by Evileyes : 1st March 2009 at 08:12.
Reason: Attention Deficit Qouting
(sundry extracts) Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009.
...I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation withgases - one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals...
...Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but...
...Even elementary school teachers and writers of children's books are enlisted to terrify our children and to promote the idea of impending climate doom. Having observed the education of many children, including my own, I am not sure how effective the effort will be. Many children seem to do just the opposite of what they are taught. Nevertheless, children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science...
...I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind
I am not predicting global demise from warming anytime soon nor am I saying that CO2 is unhelpful to plant life to certain limits, but as someone with expertise in Biology, Chemistry and Biochemistry among other areas within science I know for a fact too much of anything is not good: vitamins, minerals, gases etc...
Location: Getting ready to go back to work at Zaventem
Age: 41
Posts: 455
Jezus H Christus, jcb, we all know too much of things like CO2 can be harmful but you do realise the concentrations necessary in the atmosphere to make it truly harmful!!
Stop bloody fantasising and scaremongering, you are starting to sound pathetic
Use your brain. Here is another one since the former was not clear enough in those points where CO2 is lowering the ph of the Earth's bodies of water.... a shame really all it takes is the ability to read.
Location: Getting ready to go back to work at Zaventem
Age: 41
Posts: 455
And where is that CO2 coming from, jcb? I suppose it's all from man and has nothing to do with the gawd-knows-how-many underwater volcanoes that fart continuously releasing all sorts of compounds?
And why do you people concentrate SOLELY on CO2 when there are so many other compounds which also occur naturally that MIGHT contribute to "climate change" (a misnomer if I ever heard one, as the damned climate is in a constant state of flux!!)?
I mean, I ain't a climatologist, I don't have the same fancy qualifications you claim you have. But at least I have the intelligence to look at ALL arguments and make my own opinion, especially as so much of the so called "evidence" supporting the "OMGTHESKYISFALLING" crowd's hysterics is actually flawed (have you actually seen where some of the weather stations used to claim the doomsayers' theories are correct are situated? Put one in a goddamned car park and of course you'll have elevated levels of CO2!!!) instead of blindly following the teachings of St. Gore like a little sheep.
CH4 which is methane is a potent additional green house gas more potent than CO2 in some respects. S02 which sulfur dioxide is transformed into S03 which is sulfur trioxide which does lead to some dimming effects through cloud formations that reflect some incoming radiation. NH4 ammonia is not a major greenhouse gas but those poor little bacteria produce so much in compost and on plants that they also contribute to warming. CO2 has a high level of absorbtivity of radiation before it remits which leads to more trapped in heat which melts more ice which the Earth then absorbs then to get back to equilibration the atmosphere does warm up absorbing heat flow through advection and convections, also keep in mind the coriolis effect and changing patterns in thermohaline circulation, El Nino, La Nina, higher force hurricanes, and other deviations of weather patterns, chaotic though weather most certainly is. In order for dynamic equilibrium to work and for approximate Local Thermal Equilibrium in particular there must be close to a net balance of energy and mixing of gases, look up Henry's and Fick's Laws as well as the atmospheric time of CO2. Natural variability is very important and ongoing research exists and there has been for many years. Climatologists are not ignorant to underwater volcanoes and carbon cycles in oceans, lakes and animal--plant life dynamics. No Al Gore follower or otherwise, it is the science I am discussing. Ask me a question any at all I can answer it about climate, weather or AGW.
Ask me a question any at all I can answer it about climate, weather or AGW.
jcbmack, this fellow wants to debate as well....
(Extract) An environmental veteran and global-warming skeptic finds himself frequently disinvited to debate the likes of Elizabeth May By Lawrence Solomon
I am the most disinvited speaker in Canada.
My most recent disinvite involves a conference at Queen’s University’s Business School next week. Several months ago, I was invited to speak at its Commerce Engineering Environmental Conference. As with all my disinvites, I’m never entirely sure why I’m disinvited. But I have my hunches.
In the case of the Queen’s conference, the organizer, a student named Amy (not her real name), offered me a choice of speaking spots that I could fill. When I saw my options, I couldn’t believe my good luck — a spot in a debate on global warming was available, and the debater was ... Elizabeth May, the head of the Green Party, as knowledgeable as they come on global warming and a fabulous debater. For close to a year, I had wanted to engage in a debate on global warming with someone of the calibre of Elizabeth May, or, with just about anyone. “What luck!” I thought, as I promptly e-mailed Amy to grab the opportunity to debate Elizabeth May.Two days later, Amy broke the bad news to me: “Elizabeth May has just changed her plans. She will not be able to participate, but will be delivering an address at the dinner following the debate.”
But not all was lost. A debate was still on, only I now learned it would be a three-way debate involving me, Bruce Pardy, a law professor at Queen’s and, Amy hoped, Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club. Still thrilled to be able to participate in a global warming debate — I know them both to be highly capable — I made my travel arrangements.
And then almost two weeks of silence, during which Amy failed to communicate. Was I being disinvited again? Finally, Amy replied: “Unfortunately we can no longer offer you a place at the debate. I realise this is extremely unprofessional, and I apologise for that. If you would like to speak on Saturday then we can offer you a spot, but Friday is no longer an option.”
My very first disinvite ever came just about a year ago. I had been invited to be the keynote speaker on day two of a two-day energy conference in April, on the subject of (yawn) electricity restructuring, the subject of an early book I wrote. Day one dealt with global warming, the subject of my new book, The Deniers, which by coincidence would be coming out the very week of the conference. “Would you like me to speak on day one instead,” I asked, explaining the timeliness of my book’s release. The organizer instantly agreed. It was in her interest as well as mine to have me speak on the strength of a book that would have just hit the stores.
Three weeks later, she called back: “What exactly is your book about?” she asked. I explained that I had profiled dozens of prominent scientists who disagreed with the view that global warming represented a harm for humanity. Long pause. “Could we go back to you talking about electricity restructuring?” she asked.
My disinvites span the spectrum — speeches, debates, media appearances — and I can’t always fault the disinviter, particularly since I’m never given a clear explanation for the disinvitation. On one occasion, a prominent organization — a household name in Canada — failed to find someone suitable who would agree to debate me. On another, a prestigious if less-well known organization was willing to fund a debate, as long as it wasn’t identified as its sponsor. On a third, a quasi-governmental European organization backed out of having me as a speaker, to the evident remorse of the organizer. In many others, I am not disinvited, because I am dropped before a formal invitation is even extended. I will be asked, “Are you available on such and such a date?” I will reply “Yes.” I will then hear back that my presence won’t be required, if I hear back at all.
I don’t take my disinvites personally. For one thing, I know that the problem isn’t with me or Energy Probe, my organization— they are the source of the invitation to start with. For another, it is hard to arrange global warming debates — in the few that I am aware of, the sceptics have won convincingly, leading most in the doomsayer camp to boycott any debates in the future .
But I do weep for Amy, the student organizing next week’s conference at Queen’s School of Business. What must she think of the integrity of the education she’s getting? Even more, I weep for the students who will be attending the conference. Amy, at least, knows that the debate over global warming that the conference is staging is a sham.
Ask me a question any at all I can answer it about climate, weather or AGW.
Are you familiar with the interesting work of Dr. Alan Sokol. I'm especially interested to see if you agree with his research indicating:
[T]he dialogical move towards redefining systems, of seeing the world not only as an ecological whole but as a set of competing systems -- a world held together by the tensions among various natural and human interests -- offers the possibility of redefining what science is and what it does, of restructuring deterministic schemes of scientific education in favor of ongoing dialogues about how we intervene in our environment.92
Linear Mode
