Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures: Current Conditions and Future Prospects

[Devonian]

Unnecesary last part of the final sentence  BFTV.!         You have already made the scientific point in your previous post.

 

Please don't start the  character assassination on here as well BFTV!

 

I only expect responses such as the one above from someone attempting to bully! 

 

MIA

Well, while you're at it, I think I'll your allegation directed at me on the previous page of 'chicanery' as much the same, though until now I've made nothing of it..

Now, care to debate or will I for one have to leave for while in case your personalisation of all this makes this thread unworkable?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Unnecesary last part of the final sentence  BFTV.!         You have already made the scientific point in your previous post.

 

Please don't start the  character assassination on here as well BFTV!

 

I only expect responses such as the one above from someone attempting to bully! 

 

MIA

 

I was simply countering these statements:

 

Cherry picking on behalf of the people who produced the original graph if you like!

The only reason for doing this is for political reasons not for a data comparison which is reasonable and realistic as most people without an aggenda would want to see.

 

If you'd rather not have people respond to your unscientific statements, then perhaps you shouldn't be making them?

[VillagePlank]

I think it is relatively easy to work out what should be the baseline.

 

If we want to compare climate from one time to another time, one of the first requirements on the list should be - at least I think it should be - that the reference period should be as benign as possible. That's to say the period in the instrumental record with the least variance.

 

This is pretty easy to do.

 

Here's HadCrut4,

 

 

Here's it detrended,

 

 

Here's the running 30 year variance of HadCrut4 detrended,

 

 

And the winner - that's the most benign period of climate in the instrumental record is .... 1954. I would say, then, that the most rational baseline is 1925-1954.

 

Right, that's sorted. Moving on ....

[Midlands Ice Age]

I suspect that by, say, 2075, most people alive will think of the normal weather as being that of the period they live in. Now, if it's a lot warmer then those alive will expect warmer weather than we do. But, to compare their weather should they do it for their time? To me that's to kind of say we shouldn't look back more than a few years. Why? I'm happy to compare the climate I experience with 'now' but I don't get this need by some not to (be allowed?) to compare it with other times. Why is it some kind of 'crime' to want to look at past data for insight and guidance?

 

Dev...

 

Thanks for this post.

 

i agree with what you say... you have a reasonable point in scientific terms.

 

But look at the thread title -. It is 'existing' global temperatures and what happens going forward.... not what happened in the 51 -80 periods.for comparison with today. What happens next is the point I think?

 

I am a total believer in making use of all actual historical corrected data (see my previous posts) and then trying to make use of that in formulating  views for what is likely to happen, but to just compare it with a single period is in my opinion simply point scoring .

 

We all know  that the climate has warmed, but as I think you agree to put perspective on that,  it is better to use the latest data period. Otherwise, surprise, surprise , one will never pick up the latest change in short-term trends.?

 

I think that if the recent trends do turn and we see  increased warming (yes, it could happen!), then  you guys will want to compare with the latest periods.

 

So I think my view is entirely logical and I will not go back and say 'are but look at the longer term trends, beause they will not show the degree of warming that the short-term ones do!'....

 

MIA   

[Midlands Ice Age]

Well, while you're at it, I think I'll your allegation directed at me on the previous page of 'chicanery' as much the same, though until now I've made nothing of it..

Now, care to debate or will I for one have to leave for while in case your personalisation of all this makes this thread unworkable?

 

OK Dev I agree I went over the top!! Sorry

 So back on topic .

 

See my response to yours above...

 

MIA

[Midlands Ice Age]

I was simply countering these statements:

 

Cherry picking on behalf of the people who produced the original graph if you like!

The only reason for doing this is for political reasons not for a data comparison which is reasonable and realistic as most people without an aggenda would want to see.

 

If you'd rather not have people respond to your unscientific statements, then perhaps you shouldn't be making them?

 

BFTV

 

Why add the last sentence (again)........ Unnecessary!

It seems as though it is every  post you produce you have to have an aside. Why do you think it is necessary?

 

I am beginning to think you do not realise what you do.. (being charitable)

Lets finish on this now as DEV suggests.

 

MIA

[Midlands Ice Age]

I think it is relatively easy to work out what should be the baseline.

 

If we want to compare climate from one time to another time, one of the first requirements on the list should be - at least I think it should be - that the reference period should be as benign as possible. That's to say the period in the instrumental record with the least variance.

 

This is pretty easy to do.

 

Here's HadCrut4,

 

hadcrut4.png

 

Here's it detrended,

 

hadcrut4-detrended.png

 

Here's the running 30 year variance of HadCrut4 detrended,

 

hadcrut4-variance.png

 

And the winner - that's the most benign period of climate in the instrumental record is .... 1954. I would say, then, that the most rational baseline is 1925-1954.

 

Right, that's sorted. Moving on ....

 

Thanks Sparks...

 

OK a valid period then, but please let use that in future if warming takes off!!!!

 

MIA.

[BornFromTheVoid]

BFTV

 

Why add the last sentence (again)........ Unnecessary!

It seems as though it is every  post you produce you have to have an aside. Why do you think it is necessary?

 

I am beginning to think you do not realise what you do.. (being charitable)

Lets finish on this now as DEV suggests.

 

MIA

 

If you're going to make accusations of bias and political agendas, it's only reasonable that they get countered, seeing as the mods here don't remove them. Perhaps you could do with holding a mirror up, you don't seem to be aware of what you're doing, MIA?

 

I'm all for not making those kinds of points in the first place. So hopefully the discussion can continue on without them

[Midlands Ice Age]

I was simply countering these statements:

 

Cherry picking on behalf of the people who produced the original graph if you like!

The only reason for doing this is for political reasons not for a data comparison which is reasonable and realistic as most people without an aggenda would want to see.

 

If you'd rather not have people respond to your unscientific statements, then perhaps you shouldn't be making them?

 

OK BFTV

 

Again another last liner!!!!                           Are you wanting me to carry on posting?

 

But I still cannot see a reason for your attempted bullying. My thoughts are not mainstream thoughts I know, but something is showing in the data, that doen't fit the anthroCO2 agenda. I have an enquiring mind (Much like GW's), but unbiased.   

 

My reponse was after all my thoughts. I do not present them as anything else.

 

Sparks has put forward a very valid scientific argument for using the 1940 to 1969 period. Should we agree to use that?

 

MIA

Edited March 15, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Midlands Ice Age]

If you're going to make accusations of bias and political agendas, it's only reasonable that they get countered, seeing as the mods here don't remove them. Perhaps you could do with holding a mirror up, you don't seem to be aware of what you're doing, MIA?

 

I'm all for not making those kinds of points in the first place. So hopefully the discussion can continue on without them

 

Well done BFTV....

 

I totally agree with  your last liner on this occaion. (see my post above also!)

 

MIA

[VillagePlank]

(Reproduced, in part, from 'The Pause' thread)

 

Let's assume that this cycle, which has reasonable physical roots in the AMO were true.

 

Here's the sinsuoid added to running 30 year trend,

 

 

Here it is with the trend readded,

 

 

Here is added back to the HadCrut4 data proper (rather than the running trend)

 

 

Here it is extrapolated to 2100

 

 

So, if all things remained equal, which they won't, we would still see a +1.8degC anomaly by the end of the century.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Arrhenius got there even earlier

 

Very true and purely out of interest a small extract from Ray Pierrehumbert's book, Principles of Planetary climate.

 

After Fourier, the tale resumes with Tyndall, whose work on the infrared absorption of CO₂ and water vapor was mentioned near the beginning of this chapter. Tyndall was interested in these gases because of the questions raised by Fourier regarding the factors governing planetary temperature. He was also interested in the recently discovered phenomenon of the ice ages, and with several contemporaries thought perhaps ice ages could arise from a reduction in CO₂. In that, he was partly right; the Pleistocene ice ages are cold partly because of the glacial-interglacial C02 cycle, even though the ultimate pacemaker of the ice ages is the rhythm of Earth's orbital parameters. Tyndall died, however, before he ever had the chance to translate his measurements into a computation of the Earth's temperature. That task was left to the Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius, who in 1896 performed the first self-consistent calculation of the Earth's temperature incorporating the greenhouse effect of water vapor and C02 . Interestingly, Tyndall's measurements were not sufficient to provide the information about weak absorption over long path lengths, so for the absorption data he needed he turned to Langley's observations of infrared emitted by the Moon. It was a felicitous re-use of data intended originally for determination of the Moon's temperature, and indeed was a more correct use of the data than Langley was able to accomplish. This shows the benefit of curiosity-driven science: measurements taken to satisfy curiosity about lunar temperature wound up being instrumental in permitting an evaluation of the effect of the Earth's atmosphere on the Earth's temperature. Astronomers initiated the study of infrared as an observational technique, but the radiative transfer work stimulated by their needs soon provided the crucial tool needed to understand planetary climate. Arrhenius not only estimated the Earth's then-current temperature, but also estimated how much it would warm if the amount of C02 in the atmosphere were to double.Using clever scaling analyses from Langley's data, he was able to do this without a firm knowledge of just what the atmosphere's C02 content actually was. Not long afterwards, he realized that industrial burning of coal was dumping C02 into the atmosphere, and could eventually bring about a doubling; he described this process as "evaporating our coal mines into the atmosphere." At then-current rates of consumption, it appeared that a doubling would take up to a millennium, and Arrhenius would no doubt have been surprised to know that his own great-grandchildren could well live to witness the doubling. This takes our story to about 1 900. What happened then?

 

An enquiring mind.

 

Edited March 15, 2015 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Here's the Arrhenius paper,

 

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

 

The guy turned out to be a right "(T)he (W)ar (A)gainst (T)error" being instrumental in Eugenics, and is a very good example of why one should judge the work, not the man.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Of course after Arrhenius there was a long hiatus in the research which held back the study of global warming for decades. Their were two reasons for this. The first was a paper by Knut Angstrom which purported to show that the radiative effects of CO₂ are "saturated" . The second barrier was the belief that the huge carbon content of the ocean would buffer the atmosphere, overwhelming anything human industry could throw at it. Both wrong and the true implications of the carbonate buffer for CO₂ increase due to fossil fuel burning was finally brought out clearly in 1959 by Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson.

 

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/warming_papers/Bolin58.pdf

 

And then enter stage left Charles Keeling.

Edited March 15, 2015 by knocker

[Devonian]

Of course after Arrhenius there was a long hiatus in the research which held back the study of global warming for decades. Their were two reasons for this. The first was a paper by Knut Angstrom which purported to show that the radiative effects of CO₂ are "saturated" . The second barrier was the belief that the huge carbon content of the ocean would buffer the atmosphere, overwhelming anything human industry could throw at it. Both wrong and the true implications of the carbonate buffer for CO₂ increase due to fossil fuel burning was finally brought out clearly in 1959 by Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson.

 

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/warming_papers/Bolin58.pdf

 

And then enter stage left Charles Keeling.

Thanks for posting that.

Ok, the maths goes way over my head but the overall impression is it's a great bit of work (which thankfully I have at least heard of...) with some remarkably prescient comments and predictions. If it had been published in 1998 they would now have faced more than a decade of vile abuse...

Edited March 15, 2015 by Devonian

[knocker]

I don't know about 1998 but even today when scientists say the science behind global warming is well established it is met with scorn and frothing at the mouth in certain circles. This is because they choose to ignore that what is meant by this is that all aspects of the essential chemistry, radiative physics and thermodynamics underlying the prediction of human-caused global warming have been verified in numerous laboratory experiments or observations of the Earth and other planets.

 

It is other aspects of the effect of increasing greenhouse gases that rely on complex collective behavior of the interacting parts of the climate system; this includes behavior of clouds and water vapor, sea ice and snow, and redistribution of heat by atmospheric winds and ocean currents that is not completely understood and is the subject of ongoing research. This is why it's impossible to be definitive regarding the future and so one has to stick to the likely scenario given the position of the scientific evidence at the moment.

[VillagePlank]

I don't know about 1998 but even today when scientists say the science behind global warming is well established it is met with scorn and frothing at the mouth in certain circles. This is because they choose to ignore that what is meant by this is that all aspects of the essential chemistry, radiative physics and thermodynamics underlying the prediction of human-caused global warming have been verified in numerous laboratory experiments or observations of the Earth and other planets.

It is other aspects of the effect of increasing greenhouse gases that rely on complex collective behavior of the interacting parts of the climate system; this includes behavior of clouds and water vapor, sea ice and snow, and redistribution of heat by atmospheric winds and ocean currents that is not completely understood and is the subject of ongoing research. This is why it's impossible to be definitive regarding the future and so one has to stick to the likely scenario given the position of the scientific evidence at the moment.

Of course, it follows that whilst every sane person on the planet agrees that CO2 and temperatures have a relationship we are very unsure about the magnitude of that relationship, with, I think, reasonable estimates for doubling between 1.5degC to 4.5degC which is, in effect, tantamount to saying "we're really not very sure about this"

Which is fine. All science is, is a rational method of sharing ideas on the proviso that this is temporary until something that better fits comes along later. In climatology, as you say, it's the model parameterisations within the limits of uncertainty nonlinearity provides for along with more and more data.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Even taking the lower estimate of 1.5degC I find concerning when one considers that during the LIA ( using 1500-1800 ) the mean temperature dropped by around 0.5degC.

[VillagePlank]

As we have all been told, many many times, the Little Ice Age was a local event to North West Europe and not a global event. Just as non-comparable is the c.10degC difference between average English CET temperatures in summer versus winter.

[knocker]

Actually it was a N. Hemisphere event but I was only using it to demonstrate that one shouldn't take too casually what appears to be rather small mean temperature changes. Many do.

Edited March 15, 2015 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Actually, *at worst* it was a Northern Hemisphere event.

 

From the IPCC (bolding, mine)

 

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries..

 

Agree re small differences can propagate to large and unexpected changes

Edited March 15, 2015 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

3rd warmest February on record according to the JMA

 

 

1st. 1998 (+0.43°C)

2nd. 2002 (+0.28°C)

3rd. 2015 (+0.25°C)

4th. 2004 (+0.21°C)

5th. 2007, 1999 (+0.18°C)

 

 

The 2nd warmest winter on record too

 

 

1st. 1998 (+0.31°C)

2nd. 2015 (+0.29°C)

3rd. 2007 (+0.25°C)

4th. 2002 (+0.23°C)

5th. 2004 (+0.20°C)

[Nouska]

The JMA data should be useful for the discussions further back as it is based on most recent thirty year base. It does highlight why some have the impression of the 1950 - 1980 period being a cool one in relation to current trend.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Nouska

[BornFromTheVoid]

The JMA data should be useful for the discussions further back as it is based on most recent thirty year base. It does highlight why some have the impression of the 1950 - 1980 period being a cool one in relation to current trend.

 

Well, yes. Colder in relation to the most recent average, warmer in relation to most 30 year averages. Every 30 year average is cool in relation to current temps!

 

All the other data sets have their info freely available, so anybody can convert them to any baseline they like.

[Midlands Ice Age]

I don't know about 1998 but even today when scientists say the science behind global warming is well established it is met with scorn and frothing at the mouth in certain circles. This is because they choose to ignore that what is meant by this is that all aspects of the essential chemistry, radiative physics and thermodynamics underlying the prediction of human-caused global warming have been verified in numerous laboratory experiments or observations of the Earth and other planets.

 

It is other aspects of the effect of increasing greenhouse gases that rely on complex collective behavior of the interacting parts of the climate system; this includes behavior of clouds and water vapor, sea ice and snow, and redistribution of heat by atmospheric winds and ocean currents that is not completely understood and is the subject of ongoing research. This is why it's impossible to be definitive regarding the future and so one has to stick to the likely scenario given the position of the scientific evidence at the moment.

 

Knocker,

I  agree totally with you on this!  What an iteresting period to study!

 

MIA