Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[IanC]

Image if all the time and effort the denialists spent pretending to be climate experts was spent on - ANYTHING - else? The pyramids of Egypt could have been rebuilt a dozen times over by now.

I can certainly imagine how climate science would look different if the focus was on solar influence rather than.the cul-de-sac of CO2. Ice had been melting since the 1800a, what is the neutral point of TSI where there is no warming or cooling? That is apretty important piece of info.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Define "just about"

You are capable of googlling the lists yourself. They also have been presented on this MB often enough that you have seen them.

One of my favourites is how increased CO2 has caused the obesity epidemic. Hahahaha

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are capable of googlling the lists yourself. They also have been presented on this MB often enough that you have seen them.

One of my favourites is how increased CO2 has caused the obesity epidemic. Hahahaha

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Depends on if the plant has enough light and nutrients to make use of the extra CO2. It works in reverse - as well - extra light won't do any good unless their is CO2 to match it.

This is well known in the hydroponics community.

 

[IanC]

Define "just about"

You are capable of googlling the lists yourself. They also have been presented on this MB often enough that you have seen them.

One of my favourites is how increased CO2 has caused the obesity epidemic. Hahahaha

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.

Hahahaha. Are you actually saying that better nourished wild animals are the cause of human obesity?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are capable of googlling the lists yourself. They also have been presented on this MB often enough that you have seen them.

One of my favourites is how increased CO2 has caused the obesity epidemic. Hahahaha

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.

Hahahaha. Are you actually saying that better nourished wild animals are the cause of human obesity?

Uhh, no. Are you a moron or something?

 

[flacaltenn]

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger. That is why with the exception of the unpredictable current hiatus, the IPCC's predictions to date have all erred on the side of conservatism. Politicans are not telling the IPCC to be alarmist. Quite the opposite. And this has been WIDELY reported.

That is a stupendous act of naivety and blatant avoidance of reality right there..

The political directors of this inquisition from the UN to Congress has been misinterpretating the science, and embellishing the most outrageous claims.. I can only ask that you educate me about all the SKEPTICISM AND RESTRAINT that ANY of the leading pols worldwide (western nations) have demanded of the process.

Do you agree with the Dear Leaders comments last week about "the warming has accelerated faster than predicted?" Did you miss the Senate panel blaming the death of 19 firefighters on Global Warming?

Please DO tell...

Very well. From Wikipedia's article on the Global Warming Controversy

Political pressure on scientists

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by ExxonMobil).[249] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[250]
U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[251] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[252][253][254] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[255] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[256] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[257]
On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[258][unreliable source?][259]
Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic", "chaotic" and "irreversible", had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric".[260]
According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,
Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report".[261]
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page state that the survey[262] was itself unscientific.[263]
In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken several forms. The US FBI told ABC News that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.[264]
In April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research.[265][266] The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation.[267] Cuccinelli issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[268][269]
Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[270]
This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has supported financially. The George C. Marshall Institute received $630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the god father of global warming skepticism," served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.[271]

249. ^ US climate scientists pressured on climate change, NewScientist, 31 January 2007
250. ^ Goddard, Jacqui (4 June 2008). "Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush". The Scotsman (Edinburgh). Retrieved 12 February 2010.
251. ^ Campbell, D. (20 June 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
252. ^ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Massachusetts: UCS Publications)[dead link]
253. ^ Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, 27 July. Obtained via FOIA request on 31 July 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, 29 September. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, 4 October. Retrieved 22 December 2006.
254. ^ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
255. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (29 January 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
256. ^ Eilperin, J. (6 April 2006) "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" Washington Post
257. ^ "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama. 1 June 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
258. ^ "HinesSight: Facts about George Taylor and the "state climatologist"". Hinessight.blogs.com. 8 February 2007. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
259. ^ Local News|kgw.com|News for Oregon and SW Washington[dead link]
260. ^ Hulme, Mike (4 November 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
261. ^ "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBC and Associated Press. 30 January 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
262. ^ Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)". Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved 14 April 2007.[dead link]
263. ^ Taranto, James (1 February 2007). "They Call This Science?". OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved 14 April 2007.
264. ^ "ABC World News Sunday". ABC News. 23 May 2010.
265. ^ "Statement of the AAAS Board Of Directors Concerning the Virginia Attorney General’s Investigation of Prof. Michael Mann’s Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia" (PDF). AAAS. 18 May 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2010.
266. ^ Gentile, Sal. "Climate scientist calls Va. attorney general’s fraud probe ‘harassment’". PBS.org (PBS). Retrieved 7 September 2010.
267. ^ Judge Dismisses Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's Misguided Investigation of Michael Mann | Union of Concerned Scientists
268. ^ Kumar, Anita (2 March 2012). "Va. Supreme Court tosses Cuccinelli’s case against former U-Va. climate change researcher - Virginia Politics". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
269. ^ Goldenberg, Suzanne (2 March 2012). "Virginia court rejects sceptic's bid for climate science emails : Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
270. ^ Reddy, Sudhakara (2009). "The Great Climate Debate.". Energy Policy 37 (8).
271. ^ de Granados, Oriana Zill. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS.

You never answered my question about your Dear Leader's mis-characterization of the science.. You also didn't address my observation about any RESTRAINT or SKEPTICISM shown on the parts of the UN or Congressional leadership.. (Short of the one example of the Bush years putting a lid on wild speculations and pronouncements coming from supposedly politically neutral govt scientists)

What you got here is a series of childish skirmishes between skeptics and warmers and few dead animals and Jew comments.

Reality is --- the ONLY credible brakes on this biased process has COME -- not from political leadership -- but from the skeptic community as IanC pointed out. In fact, a couple years ago -- when the IPCC faced severe criticism on its review process, the momentum came from WITHIN the science community --- not from Barb Boxer or Henry Waxman. The IPCC had to ADMIT that a lot of their process was driven by the predominance of EQUAL review and comment from the NON-SCIENCE contributors to each of previous reports. In fact, the Exec Summary and sections for the poly sci political hacks often didn't even resemble the scientific comments in the report itself..

Your comment that:::::

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger.

stands as an incredibly naive and breathtakingly stupid opinion on the objectiveness of the process.. Do you agree with Obama's statement? Do you understand what the CHARTER of the IPCC says? It is biased from the get-go... And it's OK to lie, cheat and frighten the kiddies..

 

[flacaltenn]

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.

Hahahaha. Are you actually saying that better nourished wild animals are the cause of human obesity?

Uhh, no. Are you a moron or something?

A moron would be a person who thinks that when food is plentiful -- animals get fatter instead of expanding their population.. Less die from lack of food. But the freedom to get fat and lazy isn't a part of Darwinian survival.. Is it?

 

[flacaltenn]

I posted that.
(
What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values. We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.

No --- you need to tell ME why the error bar only barely covers the ACTUAL reported evidence. And that the actual estimate is 4 or 5 times LOWER than the data actually shows.

 

[Abraham3]

Warmers have blamed just about everything on global warming for the last two decades, from acne through the full circle back to zits. Anyone could make a joke piece on the absurdity Of it, using only peer reviewed published papers.

Two examples from your list jumped out at me. First, Mann was investigated but key issues were left unanswered, Cuccinelli was correct in trying to get them addressed. Climate science would be better off if it was held accountable.

Second, Chris Mooney was mentioned. He is a political writer with no background in science yet he was put on the Board of Directors of the AGU!

$10K going to skeptics gets scrutinized and publicized. That doesn't cover the expenses of a single delegate for the annual junkets to exotic destinations for the IPCC. Perhaps the warmers should study the methods of skeptics to see how to get a bang for the buck because we are changing public opinion on a shoestring budget. Of course the massive and faulty exaggerations of the warmers is doing most of the work for us.

You don't seem to understand the topic under discussion. FlaCalTenn was contending that the IPCC is politically driven to be alarmist. I contended it was the other way around. He asked for evidence. I posted the material above.

I think anyone that sides with Ken Cuccinelli in his pathetic attempt to persecute Michael Mann has, I'm sorry to say, put their political longings above the well-being of our society. I am sure you've heard that several well-known AGW-deniers voiced strenuous opposition to what Cuccinelli was trying to do. He had to have known his effort would be squashed by the first court to get their hands on it. So why did he do it? To get votes from folks like you.

I couldn't care less about Chris Mooney and the AGU. But that $10K and many hundreds of thousands if not millions more gets scrutinized because it is dedicated to the task of to pushing a particular fiction to the American public. It is spent exactly as money was spent attempting to push the fiction of a scientific controversy concerning the link between cigarettes and lung cancer; exactly as money was spent attempting to push the fiction of a scientific controversy concerning evolution vs intelligent design.

 

[Abraham3]

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

 

[IanC]

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.

Hahahaha. Are you actually saying that better nourished wild animals are the cause of human obesity?

Uhh, no. Are you a moron or something?

Wow, I guess I could have made the same response to your comment but I preferred to point out the inconsistency of your logic. Obese people are not getting fatter because plants grow better with more CO2. Nor are they reacting to a minor increase in CO2 ehich is dwarfed by orders of magnitude in the lungs, or even in living spaces.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

More CO2 makes plants grow less?
Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food claims differently.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

You should point out their error.
Let me know what they say. Thanks!

 

[orogenicman]

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

More CO2 makes plants grow less?
Why?

Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME

 

[westwall]

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

Show us three of those reports please.

 

[westwall]

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

More CO2 makes plants grow less?
Why?

Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME

Yet more computer generated fiction. When, oh when will you actually present some real evidence and not something manufactured out of whole cloth? The world wonders....

"And this is only the latest in a long line of modeling studies and experiments that show how complicated the climate-vegetation connection can be."

Read more: Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME

 

[Abraham3]

Slow down pardner.. It's actually EASY to explain..

I think you may actually believe that.

Temperatures rising 0.9 C in 150 years is not turning on a dime. It is not turning at all. More of a wee nudge. And to characterize the position of 97% of the world's active climate scientists as "JUVENILE" tells a great deal more about you than it does about them.

"Turning on dime" refers to the TIME relationship between the forcing function and the temperature response. You warmers have been rejecting ANY evidence of forcing that does not produce IMMEDIATE and CORRELATED temperature response.

The latest studies of "GWarming HIDING in the Oceans --- changes all that" In that NOW the science is better at accounting for ENERGY storage and TIME lag in between the forcing variable and the temperature effects. It also begins to realize with this new Trenberth hiccup that the climate system SHOULD show a delay to a new temp. equilibrium. Did you miss this capitulation in the study?


No. You need to claim this position by forceful assertion (and naught else) in order to fabricate a correlation between temp and TSI out of wholecloth.

Bullshit. No one on the AGW side of the argument is suggesting that temperature rise lags changes in forcing by anything like that. They are suggesting - with real evidence - that the temperature changes and change rates in the atmosphere, the land and the ocean can and do alter as major processes (like ENSO) change in response to total system energy content and major independent factors (like vulcanism) put their two cents in. The correlation between temperature and GHG levels is NOT dependent on any delay or sequestration. And, just for fun, where is it that you believe the thousands of septillions of joules of energy was hiding for 30-50 years? U-Stor-It? Lock-n-Go? Where is the intermediary between the arrival of that energy and its appearance in the environment today? If you ain't got it, you ain't got it.

Of course they are junior.. I already cited the Trenberth Study.. HE'S the brilliant fucker who told you it wasn't U-Stor-It ---- it was Davey Jones lockers..

Maybe not thousands of septillions. I believe it was on the order of 10 or 15 to 22nd power of ten. Actually better science than his 1st "energy" accounting". The natural result of this thinking is to allow that all variables of forcing may have a DELAYED response on temperature.. And thus --- the juvenile assumption of looking for graphs with IMMEDIATE correlations is now pretty much dead.. Maybe not TODAY -- but when this "excuse for where the warming has gone" has sunk in and been digested --- that's what the result will be.


How about some links to mainstream climate science sources indicating that is the new understanding. Cause, I don't think I've seen that from anyone but you.

Just fixed your lack of ability to assimilate the frontiers of climate science. You can thank me later.

And while YOU'RE at it, explain why there's about a 50 year lag.

As we've been hearing from every denier, temperature paused 17 years ago. So your delay is down to 13 years. From 50. That's quite a range. Just about the size of the range of climate sensitivity values. Hmmm....

Temperature is the DEPENDENT variable (OMG -- i actually have to explain this to you). As such it MAY HAVE a delayed response to it's inputs as result of storage. It may also look NOTHING LIKE it's inputs in terms of shape or fit. So it has paused for at least 13 years. That has nothing to do with how far we MIGHT LOOK BACK to see where the forcing function also took a rest.. It's doubtful the two numbers should be the same. Right? So if thermal equilibrium from a change in forcing function takes 50 years, you would look 50 years BACKWARDS in the forcing variables to find one that also took a pause. Why is this so difficult? Because you only know what you've been previously told that CO2 tracks temp. immediately and must have a similiar curve?

In fact -- it's on my list of things to do to produce a lag plot like that and show the maximum correlation with surface temp.. Perhaps, we could even guess at the time it takes the climate system to respond to changes in forcings...

Perhaps you could guess? You've got a mighty flexible set of principles on these things. I think I'll stick with the folks with the training, the peer reviewed publications and the idea that ignoring the laws of physics is just not a good idea.

You've mangled my quotes AGAIN.. Next time I will mangle yours.. Because you're not playing nice.. And please --- before you ATTACK --- think... I may be obtuse because I expect you are following developments closer than you actually are.. I ASSUME you're up to speed on the implications of Septillion joules of energy "hiding" in the oceans. Maybe you're not.. Because the old AGW fairytale required little expenditure of knowledge to parrot.

Here is the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

And the accompanying graphic we've all seen before:

First, I would ask you to find anywhere in Balmaseda et al 2013 a statement indicating that they now believe their to be a 30-50 year lag between forcing factors and land/ocean temperatures - as you have been claiming they so state. The full text is available at Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Second, I would ask you to explain in the graphic above, at points where major volcanic eruptions are noted, the almost immediate response and the brief, 1-2 year recovery, if the system as a whole contains a 30-50 year lag as you contend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

More CO2 makes plants grow less?
Why?

Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME

That's awesome, but he claimed higher CO2 will reduce yield.
Try again?

 

[flacaltenn]

I think you may actually believe that.

Temperatures rising 0.9 C in 150 years is not turning on a dime. It is not turning at all. More of a wee nudge. And to characterize the position of 97% of the world's active climate scientists as "JUVENILE" tells a great deal more about you than it does about them.

"Turning on dime" refers to the TIME relationship between the forcing function and the temperature response. You warmers have been rejecting ANY evidence of forcing that does not produce IMMEDIATE and CORRELATED temperature response.

The latest studies of "GWarming HIDING in the Oceans --- changes all that" In that NOW the science is better at accounting for ENERGY storage and TIME lag in between the forcing variable and the temperature effects. It also begins to realize with this new Trenberth hiccup that the climate system SHOULD show a delay to a new temp. equilibrium. Did you miss this capitulation in the study?


No. You need to claim this position by forceful assertion (and naught else) in order to fabricate a correlation between temp and TSI out of wholecloth.

Bullshit. No one on the AGW side of the argument is suggesting that temperature rise lags changes in forcing by anything like that. They are suggesting - with real evidence - that the temperature changes and change rates in the atmosphere, the land and the ocean can and do alter as major processes (like ENSO) change in response to total system energy content and major independent factors (like vulcanism) put their two cents in. The correlation between temperature and GHG levels is NOT dependent on any delay or sequestration. And, just for fun, where is it that you believe the thousands of septillions of joules of energy was hiding for 30-50 years? U-Stor-It? Lock-n-Go? Where is the intermediary between the arrival of that energy and its appearance in the environment today? If you ain't got it, you ain't got it.

Of course they are junior.. I already cited the Trenberth Study.. HE'S the brilliant fucker who told you it wasn't U-Stor-It ---- it was Davey Jones lockers..

Maybe not thousands of septillions. I believe it was on the order of 10 or 15 to 22nd power of ten. Actually better science than his 1st "energy" accounting". The natural result of this thinking is to allow that all variables of forcing may have a DELAYED response on temperature.. And thus --- the juvenile assumption of looking for graphs with IMMEDIATE correlations is now pretty much dead.. Maybe not TODAY -- but when this "excuse for where the warming has gone" has sunk in and been digested --- that's what the result will be.


How about some links to mainstream climate science sources indicating that is the new understanding. Cause, I don't think I've seen that from anyone but you.

Just fixed your lack of ability to assimilate the frontiers of climate science. You can thank me later.

And while YOU'RE at it, explain why there's about a 50 year lag.

As we've been hearing from every denier, temperature paused 17 years ago. So your delay is down to 13 years. From 50. That's quite a range. Just about the size of the range of climate sensitivity values. Hmmm....

Temperature is the DEPENDENT variable (OMG -- i actually have to explain this to you). As such it MAY HAVE a delayed response to it's inputs as result of storage. It may also look NOTHING LIKE it's inputs in terms of shape or fit. So it has paused for at least 13 years. That has nothing to do with how far we MIGHT LOOK BACK to see where the forcing function also took a rest.. It's doubtful the two numbers should be the same. Right? So if thermal equilibrium from a change in forcing function takes 50 years, you would look 50 years BACKWARDS in the forcing variables to find one that also took a pause. Why is this so difficult? Because you only know what you've been previously told that CO2 tracks temp. immediately and must have a similiar curve?



Perhaps you could guess? You've got a mighty flexible set of principles on these things. I think I'll stick with the folks with the training, the peer reviewed publications and the idea that ignoring the laws of physics is just not a good idea.

You've mangled my quotes AGAIN.. Next time I will mangle yours.. Because you're not playing nice.. And please --- before you ATTACK --- think... I may be obtuse because I expect you are following developments closer than you actually are.. I ASSUME you're up to speed on the implications of Septillion joules of energy "hiding" in the oceans. Maybe you're not.. Because the old AGW fairytale required little expenditure of knowledge to parrot.

Here is the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

And the accompanying graphic we've all seen before:

First, I would ask you to find anywhere in Balmaseda et al 2013 a statement indicating that they now believe their to be a 30-50 year lag between forcing factors and land/ocean temperatures - as you have been claiming they so state. The full text is available at Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Second, I would ask you to explain in the graphic above, at points where major volcanic eruptions are noted, the almost immediate response and the brief, 1-2 year recovery, if the system as a whole contains a 30-50 year lag as you contend.

I'm surprised you didn't remember what thread we were in.. So I toyed with you a little, but at least now --- you understand my comments about the OP topic..

I'm sure the paper is not stating a lag factor for the "hidden warmth".. Trenberth has unwittingly tho opened a can of worms here. Because his personal revelation that the Earth climate has storage mechanisms was obviously new to both him and Climate community as a whole.. But this is the ultimate inference that they are making. That like charging a battery -- the warming is STILL THERE.. Unfortunately for the warmers, it's in a place right now that can't influence the weather or human conditions IMMEDIATELY. That is actually the unspoken capitualization of the paper (i have skimmed it).

But like a battery, I can measure INSTANTEOUSLY the amount of the charge that I put into it.. So seeing immediate changes due to external forcings (like volcanoes) is not surprising to me.

Surprises me that you are surprised at this surprise..

OBSERVING the act of storing is not the same as the "discharge rate" of the storage. And I imagine that eventually all this energy Trenberth originally misplaced will have to be recycled to the surface gradually where it CAN be part of the radiative and thermal exchange with the rest of the universe.. The time scales and energy flows are brand NEW to the discussion but IMPLIED by the entire premise of the work...

Let's just say this can of worms WILL get unraveled and better models might even show a trigger point where all this "hidden storage" gets suddenly swept up into dominant ocean currents and decides to melt the Arctic in one decade.. THERE WILL BE an analysis of the delayed release of this energy..

In the meantime --- studying the LAG between natural forcings (like the substantial TSI increase since 1700) and temperature just MIGHT REVEAL a good approximation of what the discharge rate for this stored energy might be.. Don't expect you to "get" any of this unscripted science speculation until you read about it on your favorite "warmer" blog in a few years..

BTW: I predict that the climateers will also realize that the ocean is NOT the only energy storage game in town.. All those massive stores of calthrates was created by ancient energy "excesses" that also got hidden.. Created at a time when WARMTH allowed for massive bioactivity in the Arctic.

It's all part of the science that was missing all along in accounting for energy "balance". The release of the calthrates would represent an "opportunistic" lag delay of release that is a delayed function of temperature wouldn't it?

 

[IanC]

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?