Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought

[YogSothoth]

This is terrible news. With the globe warming up already to the degree that it has been, finding out its even warmer than previously thought is terrible in light of our politicians’ continual denial and refusal to do something about it. The future generations of earth will curse at us from their flooded, underwater dwellings

[Jonathan_Chance]

@GIGObuster

Indeed, cite from anyone at GISS that claims that solar irradiance is driving the current warming or shut up.

Rein that it. No sense being rude, get it?

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

I wish people would quit repeating that myth.

Only the internet experts say that sort of thing.

Data.GISS: Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Fight ignorance, don’t spread it.

“Myth”? Good God, man, look at the tiny magnitude of the variations, and consider also the moving average through them. There has been virtually no change in average TSI in the past 60 years of rapid warming. The word “essentially” as I used it means that “for all practical purposes” TSI can be considered constant in the timeframes we are discussing. There’s a reason that we have the term “solar constant”!

The solar constant is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) at solar minimum and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar maximum.

[wolfpup]

@sleestak

The interesting thing is watching the climate scientists and their quest for missing heat. Their vaunted models are rapidly diverging from reality. Instead of questioning why the models don’t match reality they assume the models are correct and hunt for “missing” heat.

The “missing heat” has nothing to do with models. It has to do with the basic physics governing the balance of the earth’s energy budget. Depending on one’s point of view, one can pursue one of the following two approaches:

1. From a science standpoint, the anomaly is interesting because the total incoming energy remains the same, yet for the last decade the rate of measured temperature increase of land and atmosphere has slowed. It would be useful to understand this dynamic so it could be used to improve models. The fact that oceans are responsible for more than 95% of all heat uptake is kind of an important clue.

2. From a denialist standpoint, this is proof that climate change is caused entirely by magic and we should stop worrying about it.

Take your pick. I’m going with #1 myself.

[GIGObuster]

@Jonathan_Chance

Rein that it. No sense being rude, get it?

Got it, sorry about that.

Still the challenge for a cite remains, FX is not looking at what the scientists from GISS conclude and even statisticians report that just concentrating on recent trends is not a thing to do.

Statisticians reject cooling claims by global warming skeptics

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It has been a while since the superhot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

That goes for looking at short trends, still GISS reports this regarding irradiation and its relation to the current warming:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

The role of the Sun. The measured positive imbalance in 2005-2010 is particularly important because it occurred during the deepest solar minimum in the period of accurate solar monitoring (Fig. 2). If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima.
Plot of solar irradiance from 1975 to 2010

Figure 2. Solar irradiance in the era of accurate satellite data. Left scale is the energy passing through an area perpendicular to Sun-Earth line. Averaged over Earth’s surface the absorbed solar energy is ~240 W/m2, so the amplitude of solar variability is a forcing of ~0.25 W/m2. (Credit: NASA/GISS)
The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing.

So, not a myth as FX claimed, so where is the cite from GISS that supports what you claimed FX? We already established what looking at short trends can lead one:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/

However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility… Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it’s easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.

Yes, that was from the source FX also used on his post.

[Farin]

@GIGObuster

Got it, sorry about that.

Still the challenge for a cite remains, FX is not looking at what the scientists from GISS conclude and even statisticians report that just concentrating on recent trends is not a thing to do.

Slow down, Gigo. Look at the axes on that chart (wolfpup mentioned it). It’s a difference of four watts per cubic meter for the entire chart.

You could power an extra mini MagLite every square meter. If that made the earth jump up in temperature, we would have frozen and burned at least 25 times last century.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

Of course our resident warmists can’t answer the Nature article.
We sceptics have been talking about PDO and AMO and finally we get vindicated.
Arctic rebound from a record low into above-average territory.
Antartic keeps adding ice.

But, most importqntly, more and more climatists are acceptin the lull as a real thing and not a product of simple noise. They can’t say it doesn’t exist.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Of course our resident warmists can’t answer the Nature article.

I already did, but you do not like that in the end that is the point of the article, scientists have history on its side on this one, remember the 70’s “cooling” after more than 20 years of that “pause” many on the mainstream press got it wrong while most of the scientists predicted that warming was coming anyhow.

@Aji_de_Gallina

We sceptics have been talking about PDO and AMO and finally we get vindicated.
Arctic rebound from a record low into above-average territory.
Antartic keeps adding ice.

Not really, scientists like Latif and many others before him reported on the cycles and that it was not likely that we should see an incremental increase year after year.

@Aji_de_Gallina

But, most importqntly, more and more climatists are acceptin the lull as a real thing and not a product of simple noise. They can’t say it doesn’t exist.

The report linked in the OP begs to differ, in reality lulls were expected, the false skeptics out there are not the ones that are getting the recognition because they mostly insist a cooling is happening or coming. They already gave us many examples of being wrong.

Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update

Climate contrarian bloggers and blog readers (Watts, Goddard, Bastardi, and WUWT readers) averaged a 23% miss with their hubristic sea ice extent predictions, while climate realist bloggers and blog contributors (tamino, Cawley, and Grumbine) averaged just a 9% miss with their statistically-based predictions. The take-home lesson here is that statistical predictions based on the long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral are clearly more realistic than denial-based optimistic predictions that sea ice will somehow magically recover to previous levels.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

So, it’s a resounding yes on the lull, lull which you had several times called nonexistent
Now it’s phase two “Of course there’s a lull, the heat is in the ocean, just wait”.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

The guys who went to look for proff in the antarctic getting stuck on the ice in summer and getting rescued by chopper: Priceless.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

So, it’s a resounding yes on the lull, lull which you had several times called nonexistent

Not accurate, as I pointed many times before on the research of Latif, you are wrong, as others reported:

Birth of a Crock

The observation that natural climate variability exists is not a new one.

Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world’s most respected and experienced climate modelers, Mojib Latif, made some observations on climate, media and human nature.

The message seemed clear-

Natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted
by the media. out of ignorance, or malice.

BTW, that still goes mostly for the surface temperatures, as I even pointed before, but you usually miss, it is in the oceans where the warming is going, and it is more likely that it is because of natural cycles making the variability that was seen also in the 60s-70s

@Aji_de_Gallina

Now it’s phase two “Of course there’s a lull, the heat is in the ocean, just wait”.

Sounds a lot like the old “scientists changed “global warming” to “climate change”” it is just as silly.

Frank Luntz

The most notorious of Luntz’s memos focused on global warming denial in which he urged Republicans to use only the term “climate change” as it was less threatening than “global warming.” Luntz further explains how to bullshit:
“”The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.[11]

He has since distanced himself from the memo and claims to accept the science behind global warming.[12]

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

The guys who went to look for proff in the antarctic getting stuck on the ice in summer and getting rescued by chopper: Priceless.

Like if that behavior, of getting glee from misfortune, and mostly originated by Anthony Watts should be a thing to praise.

The really ugly side of Anthony Watts and his science deniers at WUWT

I’ve only been watching the antics at WUWT for a few months. I occasionally went there before last year when someone at HotCopper copied and pasted some nonsense, but didn’t hang around because it was so eminently dull and wrong. Since I’ve been attempting to show up the stupid, I’ve come to know Anthony Watts and his regulars a bit better.

One thing I’ve observed and been dismayed with is their really nasty side. Anthony is not satisfied with smearing individual scientists, he takes delight in any misfortunes. He takes special delight in any misfortunes of people who take dangerous journeys to inhospitable parts of the world in an effort to find out more about the world we live in - or for the sake of adventure.

This past few days he has, with great glee, been writing about the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, with the ship stuck in ice. (Anthony may have been gearing up to get in the mood of this article with a frenzy of tweets, insulting all and sundry and making little sense.

Given his lack of research skills, it’s understandable that Anthony wouldn’t attempt to find out anything about the expedition, the scientists, the passengers or who is supporting the expedition. However, as an avowed “free marketer”, you’d have thought Anthony would favour a venture that is supported by business and private sponsorship as well as by government grants. But no. It’s scientific research - therefore it must be bad, regardless of its funding, its mission or the value of the work. Or I should say it’s bad in Anthony’s eyes because it’s science. Science means new knowledge and new knowledge is to be scoffed at in the weird world of the scientific illiterati.

(Anyone who, after reading an article like that one of Anthony’s, thinks that he is anything but a brutish thug who despises knowledge, adventure and exploration needs their head read.)

[wolfpup]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Of course our resident warmists can’t answer the Nature article.

There’s nothing to “answer”.

@Aji_de_Gallina

We sceptics have been talking about PDO and AMO and finally we get vindicated.

Perhaps you skeptics need to understand that the PDO and AMO and all other circulation systems are internal variabilities that have precisely zero effect on the earth’s net energy budget. The most they can do is exert short-term influences on average global temperature and most of their effects tend to be regional. Moreover, those effects reverse when the cycle is in the opposite phase. The ENSO (El Nino - La Nina cycle) is the best-known example. You may as well try cooling your house on a hot day by opening your refrigerator. If “skeptics” want any credibility, they’re going to have to find themselves an external forcing consistent with their claims. Unfortunately for the skeptics, there are none to be found.

@Aji_de_Gallina

Arctic rebound from a record low into above-average territory.

The only thing “above-average” in the Arctic is temperature. In case you think “above average” might apply to ice, think again. A couple of summers ago Arctic summer ice hit an all-time record low. It’s statistically expected that natural variability would have led to higher levels of ice the following year, as indeed it did. Denialists have trumpeted this as some kind of miracle, ignoring the fact that the trend is incontrovertibly and precipitously downward.

@Aji_de_Gallina

Antartic keeps adding ice.

That’s simply incorrect. The Antarctic has lost more than 1350 GT of mass from the continental ice shelf between 1992 and 2011, and continues to lose it at net rates that sometimes exceed 100-200 GT per year or more, even as it gains ice in some parts due to circulation dynamics. Sea ice has increased slightly but, unlike the Arctic, sea ice is not a significant metric because it’s almost entirely seasonal and melts or floats away by the end of summer, unlike the Arctic where it’s the dominant locked-in ice form. And sea ice has likely only increased because of the fresh water produced by the melting land ice.

@Aji_de_Gallina

But, most importqntly, more and more climatists are acceptin the lull as a real thing and not a product of simple noise. They can’t say it doesn’t exist.

Noise need not be the only explanation. In this case, the kind of internal variability that denialists falsely and unscientifically try to use to explain long-term global warming is actually a very good explanation for the short-term temperature hiatus. When the oceans absorb more than 95% of the earth’s incoming heat energy and circulation changes can increase the heat uptake in deep ocean layers, these are realistic and plausible options, and in fact have been verified in climate models.

[Koxinga]

“Verified in models” is not verified. That’s “further hypothesized.”

[GIGObuster]

@Koxinga

“Verified in models” is not verified. That’s “further hypothesized.”

Of course the harder this point is made the harder it should be to consider the happy scenarios of more cropland up north and then also it means that whatever geoengineering is proposed it could never be used as models made to check the effectiveness of it would be “unreliable”.

Also, the warming on Mars (used in part to claim that all planets and the earth are warming due to the sun) was determined by climate simulation.

Then we have the ones claiming that it’s too late, but that idea depends on relying on simulations.

Contradictions like that comes when one side is not really relying on science.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Growing forests can offset our CO2 emissions Vs. Models are unreliable
Reliable modeling on available land, water, nutrient, supporting biomass, and other environmental factors is required to calculate how much forest we need to grow to offset our co2 emissions, or even whether we can.

Better to adapt than mitigate vs. Models are unreliable
One needs reliable civil, construction, engineering, production, financial, risk as well a climate and biomass models in order to best adapt. If we think that models are so unreliable, then it’s safer to mitigate

We’re heading into an ice age Vs. Models are unreliable
Comment: argument 1 is a prediction which can only be made with a model. 2 models are moot.

IIRC it was also thanks to basic failures with the models used by contrarians that made them fall in their faces recently in the case of Spencer and Watts. One wonders why they tried when it would had shown that to claim that there are alternative forcings that can explain what is seen now, one would had to accept that models are a valuable tool… but only to contrarians.

[wolfpup]

@Koxinga

“Verified in models” is not verified. That’s “further hypothesized.”

“Verified in models” means exactly what it says, no more and no less. And it means quite a lot, actually, because it means that something that was merely hypothesized has now been shown to be consistent with the physical processes simulated in the models. And when you add to that the fact that recent research has shown observational evidence of accelerated deep-ocean warming in parts of the south Pacific and Indian Ocean, it starts to build a pretty good case.

[RaftPeople]

@wolfpup

“Verified in models” means exactly what it says, no more and no less. And it means quite a lot, actually, because it means that something that was merely hypothesized has now been shown to be consistent with the physical processes simulated in the models. And when you add to that the fact that recent research has shown observational evidence of accelerated deep-ocean warming in parts of the south Pacific and Indian Ocean, it starts to build a pretty good case.

The problem with climate models is that it’s very difficult to know when they are accurately modeling the system.

Creating a model that matches past history doesn’t really confirm that the model is good, it may be overfitted to the past data and not really be much help predicting the future (a common problem with models in general).

Unfortunately, we only have 1 past history, limited data, we can’t really perform experiments on the climate and the timelines are pretty long (to test future predictions), which means validating a climate model during our lifetime is a very very difficult task.

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

The problem with climate models is that it’s very difficult to know when they are accurately modeling the system.

Creating a model that matches past history doesn’t really confirm that the model is good, it may be overfitted to the past data and not really be much help predicting the future (a common problem with models in general).

Unfortunately, we only have 1 past history, limited data, we can’t really perform experiments on the climate and the timelines are pretty long (to test future predictions), which means validating a climate model during our lifetime is a very very difficult task.

Difficult, but not very very:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141

Now, you may have noticed, however, that this model simulation didn’t capture the observed multi-year cooling in 1992. Is that a fault of the simulation?

No! – there is no way that James Hansen (or anyone for that matter) could have predicted the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. And rather than proving a fault with the model, the Pinatubo eruption actually provided Hansen with another key test of the climate models. It takes about 6 months for the volcanic aerosol to spread out around the globe and begin to have a global cooling impact. This gave Hansen about six months to run his model and make a prediction, at the instant Pinatubo erupted. As you can see, he was able to predict quite accurately the short-term cooling of the globe by a bit less than 1C that would result from this eruption. His model simulation (the black curve below) actually predicted a bit too much cooling (observations shown by the blue curve below). But that, too, wasn’t his fault. El Nino events occur randomly in time, and there was no way to know that an extended El Nino event would occur in 1991-1993, offsetting some of the volcanic cooling: As you found in your first problem set, El Nino events warm the globe by about 0.1-0.2C.

These examples may be the most striking examples of how the models have been validated, but they have been validated in many other more mundane ways. In fact, the various reports of the IPCC include hundreds of pages of ‘model validation’ (see e.g., chapter 8 on model evaluation in the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) showing the models do a good job capturing the main fluxes of energy and radiative balances, the general circulation of the atmosphere and the major ocean current systems, the amplitude and pattern of the seasonal response to changing patterns of solar insolation, etc.

What is very very: someone told you that recurring FUD point that experiments and tests are not done, who?

[RaftPeople]

@GIGObuster

Difficult, but not very very:

Validating Climate Models | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming

That doesn’t really address the issues I listed.

Here are a couple in a little more detail:
1 - Only 1 set of data
Our past history provides data we can compare our model against, but it’s only 1 set of data. We can create models that accurately duplicate the past but it could be that the model is not really modeling the important interactions of the system despite matching the numbers.

This is a very real issue that is difficult to get around. Do you understand the nature of this problem?

2 - Long term trends make prediction checking slow
Because the cycles are long compared to a human’s life, the process of making predictions and checking results is slowed down considerably. A 20/30 year cycle to test/tweak model is a long time making faster progress difficult.

Does this make sense to you?

What is very very: someone told you that recurring FUD point that experiments and tests are not done, who?

Uh, no.

I use my brain when analyzing something (that’s the fun part) and those points came from me initially.

But I did read some detailed article by a climate modeler and all of those points were supported (as well as many others).

You should re-read that part of the post: the climate modelers agree with those exact points - they are difficulties that are very challenging for them to get around.
Final note:
You seem to have a black and white view of this issue in general, that a person is either on one side or the other. There is no middle ground and there is nothing to debate.

If a poster accurately describes some of the difficulties the modelers face (that the modelers themselves agree with) you respond as if the poster had just tossed out all of the data/science/knowledge that has been accumulated to date.

That is an extreme oversimplification and your inability to even analyze and discuss obvious challenges detracts from the value of your posts.

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

That doesn’t really address the issues I listed.

Here are a couple in a little more detail:
1 - Only 1 set of data
Our past history provides data we can compare our model against, but it’s only 1 set of data. We can create models that accurately duplicate the past but it could be that the model is not really modeling the important interactions of the system despite matching the numbers.

This is a very real issue that is difficult to get around. Do you understand the nature of this problem?

Not sure that you do, did you follow the link to how the IPCC reviews the models?

@RaftPeople

2 - Long term trends make prediction checking slow
Because the cycles are long compared to a human’s life, the process of making predictions and checking results is slowed down considerably. A 20/30 year cycle to test/tweak model is a long time making faster progress difficult.

Does this make sense to you?

It does, and it was done already, particularly when one takes into account the 60s-80s period.

@RaftPeople

Uh, no.

I use my brain when analyzing something (that’s the fun part) and those points came from me initially.

But I did read some detailed article by a climate modeler and all of those points were supported (as well as many others).

That is nice, but your refusal to point at who that modeler is makes me and many others think that even you realize that he is not really much a force in this issue.

@RaftPeople

You should re-read that part of the post: the climate modelers agree with those exact points - they are difficulties that are very challenging for them to get around.
Final note:
You seem to have a black and white view of this issue in general, that a person is either on one side or the other. There is no middle ground and there is nothing to debate.

If a poster accurately describes some of the difficulties the modelers face (that the modelers themselves agree with) you respond as if the poster had just tossed out all of the data/science/knowledge that has been accumulated to date.

Not really, I take the context into account and it is clear that ignoring what was done in the past is a part of the FUD, BTW pointing that out does not mean that the problems are ignored, far from it, the point here is that even how and the efforts the scientists already did to correct those issues are being ignored as implied in a declaration like:

“we can’t really perform experiments on the climate and the timelines are pretty long”

@RaftPeople

That is an extreme oversimplification and your inability to even analyze and discuss obvious challenges detracts from the value of your posts.

No, once again, I posted that to reply to a very absolutist say so, just like a sun eclipse in the past served as an experiment to confirm relativity, volcano eruptions allowed for experiments to be performed to verify the models.