Temperatures peaked (in every record of monthly temperature anomalies) in the big El Nino of 1998. A wider significance of this is addressed in the Tsonis et al and Swanson and Tsonis papers referenced - a sudden climate shift in 1998/2001. Climate seen as a nonlinear oscillator - a complex system in chaos theory. It seems possible that the current cool mode will persist for another decade or two - until the next multidecadal climate shift. New and startling science I know - but as implacably logical as the Special Theory of Relativity.
The current temperature trend is flat but any trend is masked by large interannual variation mostly due to ENSO - making it impossible to be definitive especially over shorter periods. Over longer periods of 50 or more years - the trend is about 0.1 degrees centigrade/decade. Using the period of recent warming - 1976 to 1998 - includes two periods of large climate fluctuation - the 1976/1977 'Great Pacific Climate Shift' and the 1998/2001 climate shift - and distorts the true rising trend. The other reference I cited was Thompson et al - who filtered ENSO, volcanos and 'dynamically induced variability' from the record. Reasonable estimates of the recent trend are about 0.1 degrees/decade. My post is a little disjointed - I started writing about scientific uncertainty. But I think that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced ASAP. The policy question is what the most effective way of doing that is. My belief is that continued economic growth and the technological path is the way to go. There are numbers of options for power and transport. Cheap solar photovoltaic would be fantastic for the developing world. Solar accumulators, high temperature nuclear reactors, energy efficiency - literally dozens of emerging technologies. Peak oil is a nonsense - there are many alternative sources of carbon. Including coal gasification and liquefaction, tar sands and shale oil - literally a thousand years of fuel supplies. More exotic means of fuel production include high temperature hydrolosis to create hydrogen which can then be combined with carbon dioxide to produce liquid fuels. It is interesting that Lomberg is wrong and a skeptic because - pretty much as I do - he accepts that greenhouse gas emission reductions are necessary. It shows that the issue is not scientific - science is a threadbare justification for ever wilder claims of imminent doom. It is economics and politics. 'Limits to growth' ideas are dangerous bullshit that put many lives and legitimate human aspirations at risk. It matters a lot because we have already seen food riots as a result of the misallocation of global resources. But ecosocialism is not going to happen. Most of the world want cheaper and more abundant fuels - and cars, washing machines and air conditioners. On Dec 28, 1:40 am, "Nolin, Kenneth M." <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought we had global cooling for the last 10 - 11 years. So how can you > say there is an increase? I don't understand. Also what is the concentration > of CO2 in the air?? My understanding is that it is around 350 - 380 ppm? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Robbo > Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 7:09 PM > To: globalchange > Subject: [Global Change: 3332] Re: AGW Scientifc Certainty > > I used the CRU dataset for calculating trend over the specified > periods. The critical point - whatever source is used - is that start > and end points influence trend estimation because of large interannual > variation that is mostly due to ENSO. I believe that the trend > estimated by Kyle Swanson this year at realclimate and by Thompson et > al 2009 - about 0.08 to 0.12 degrees C/decade is about right. This > seems to make the IPCC prediction of a continuing increase over the > next few decades of 0.2 degrees C unlikely along with the higher model > projections(up to 6 degrees) this century. > > I do not understand what your point is? That the rate of recent > warming is 0.13 degrees C/decade? > > All of the various methodologies have evolved over the years as > methods improve - what I see is that the results from all of the > methodologies are converging as they should with a better > understanding. > > To my mind - the problem is no longer scientific but what policy > response can best and most quickly achieve reductions in emissions. I > agree with the Lomberg approach. I will happily write to Inhoffe to > say this - got an email? > > On Dec 27, 9:04 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Notice that the quote from Christy is dated May 14, 2003. > > >http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11540 > > > John Christy has been proven wrong repeatedly. That particular quote > > came out before I showed that there was a problem with the UAH TLT > > over the Antarctic. One of the other groups which now produce a data > > set from the MSU (Remote Sensing Systems, RSS) excludes all data over > > the Antarctic (that is, poleward of 70S) the reason being the high > > elevations there. RSS also excludes data from other locations with > > high elevations. > > > Curisty's latest results show a global trend of 0.13 C/decade, but > > 0.19C/decade for the Northern Hemisphere and only 0.06C/decade for the > > Southern Hemisphere. Could it be Christy's results are wrong for the > > SH because of the problems over the Antarctic? Is the South Pole > > really cooling as his data shows, -0.06 C/decade? Is there a problem > > with the ozone layer down there? > > >http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt > > > Oh, BTW, Christy fudges the data over the poles, interpolating to fill > > in the missing data poleward of 82 degrees. Really now, isn't the > > same complaint as has been directed at the CRU, only we know for a > > fact he's doing it? > > > I'll believe you are serious when you write Inhoffe and alert him to > > the problem... > > > E. S. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > On Dec 25, 6:14 pm, Robbo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Some major uncertainties in climate science > > [cut] > > > > There is a satellite based temperature record of the lower > > > atmosphere. This has global coverage and a trend that is less than > > > the surface station methodologies. > > > > "Using NOAA satellite readings of temperatures in the lower > > > atmosphere, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville > > > (UAH) produceda dataset that shows global atmospheric warming at the > > > rate of about 0.07 degrees C(about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) per > > > decade since November 1978," said Dr.John Christy, who compiled the > > > comparison data. "That works out to a global warming trend of about > > > 0.7 degrees centigrade over 100 years. That's a definite warming > > > trend, which is probably due in part to human influences. But it's > > > substantially less than the warming forecast by most climate models, > > > and it isn't entirely out of the range of climate change we might > > > expect from natural causes." > > > > The rate of recent warming is of critical importance in evaluating the > > > social and environmental risk of global warming - and it is probably > > > the easiest aspect of climate science to spin in the required > > > direction. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, > moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy > dimensions of global environmental change. > > Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the > submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not > gratuitously rude. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
