Bloomberg: What's really warming the world?

[lynnvinc]

Assuming that the models have enough fidelity to replicate the physical system, and that the system may be treated as a linear equation in one (or more) unknown(s), you might have a point. Neither is true, so the claim falls flat. If you must clutter up the thread with diagrams, please be good enough to provide the source and context of the chart.

That chart was based on observations to date (up to 2014) and not computer models. They just made it into 3 charts – one with only el nino years, one with only la nina years, and one with all years (which you can look up and see that they entered the correct findings – see below). There is nothing wrong with “controlling for” a factor which has an impact (el nino/la nina) to help reveal the impact of another factor (such as GHGs). It’s done all the time in science.

Here is the observational data graph to 2014 (without the ENSO subset graphs) at csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/global-temperature-in-2014-and-2015/, created by NASA climate scientists:

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/files/2015/01/Global-surface-temperatures-relative-to-1951-1980.png

Here is the graph with subset graphs I posted earlier – based on the above data, but starting at 1965 instead of 1880:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ENSO_Temps_500.gif

Hope that helps solve the mystery…

 

[sps49]

Hope that helps solve the mystery…

You may not simply cut out data and make a claim about what the system would do in its absence, you must prove it by collecting data in an identical physical system where the only variable that is changed is aerosols, or ENSO or insolation, etc and then see if there is an effect. And that is impossible, which is why they rely upon models to make inferences about it, except the models don’t get natural variation correct. There was never a mystery, except in the sense of continued pro-AGW fanaticism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Considering we are experiencing an El Nino (natural warm cycle), I’m not surprised it’s not colder this year than the last 5+

Depends on where you are. In my part of the country, it’s significantly cooler this summer than normal, and that’s because of El Nino. It always happense that way. When it happens, it’s hotter in the far west and in the western Pacific. When there is La Nina, the effect is the exact opposite.

Ranchers in the central U.S. and Australia make their forage plans according to that cycle. If it’s El Nino, Aussies experience dry weather and poor forage, while we in S.W.Mo experience cool, wet weather and abundant forage. With La Nina, it’s the other way around. Wet and cooler there, dry and hotter here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is no need to be very certain about 2014 being the hottest year on record, considering that the first and second runners up are 2010 and 2005. If you add up the probabilities for these three years you get 78% (for NASA estimate) or 79% (for NOAA estimate). The whole purpose for this calculation is to refute the claim that there has not been any warming since 1998. With at least 78% probability, there has.

Why not just add up all the warmer years together since, oh, say, 1920, and come up with 1000% or so?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why not just add up all the warmer years together since, oh, say, 1920, and come up with 1000% or so?

I’m not sure what you are refuting here. Is it the validity of the 78% probability? (i.e. the validity of adding together probabilities of mutually exclusive events to get the probability at least one of those events happening?)

There are obviously many ways to analyze the time series of yearly temperatures, and citing the hottest year in that series is arguably one of the worst ways of determining a trend, and citing the three warmest years is not much better. But since people are playing these games, I might as well play too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You may not simply cut out data and make a claim about what the system would do in its absence…

Lynn’s claim is doing no such thing. In fact, to understand the context of her posting you have to trace all the way back to Theo’s post #56, where he was discounting the importance of the “warmest year on record” record based on El Nino considerations. To that Lynn rightly pointed out that to be fair, AGW deniers should also stop ignoring the fact that 1998 was an especially strong El Nino year when they claim that AGW has stopped, beginning in that year. And to illustrate what the trend looks like when years are grouped according to this factor, the graph was presented. What you can see from that graph is that the trend is approximately the same in each grouping. Furthermore, you can notice that the spread around the best-fit line is less in each group that it is in the groups combined. That means these El Nino / La Nina events tend to perturb the temperatures a little, making it harder to extract the trend. But when the years are considered according to their sub groupings, the trend is clearer.

The fact that best-fit lines are drawn on that graph is not a claim that any relationships are linear. It is just a visual aid to “see” the trend. So your criticism that the system is not linear is not applicable to this particular claim, which is really quite weak (meaning it is not claiming much). So I am surprised that you found anything in it that you think needs refuting.

 

[Theo520]

Why not just add up all the warmer years together since, oh, say, 1920, and come up with 1000% or so?

When you just started tracking recently, and in a know warming trend, you have a positive slope line and should expect a new record every couple years when you measure by hundredths of a degree.

The discussion with CAGW is all about the degree of slope for the line, not that there is a positive slope. Since actual measurements don’t meet the model forecast, it’s a red herring to claim minuscule records are of significance.

Add in an El Nino year and Vegas won’t take your bet.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I assume this is directed towards me.

Well, some people cannot think 100 or 200 years into the future - who cares it’s not going to be a huge problem in my lifetime.

Not only are you an alarmist, Hans, you have no faith in the creativity of mankind.

100 years ago 9 women out of 1000 died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants, out of 1000 died before age 1 year. Today the rate is 7.7 deaths per 100,000 live births and 0.1 reported death per 1000 mothers.

In 1915 the world-wide life expectancy rate was 31 years. Today it is 67 years.

Alarmists have told us that the world would be overpopulated and food would be scarce.
Today we produce more food on less agricultural land than we did 100 years ago.

Alarmists have predicted that the supply of crude oil would dry up for over 100 years. Today, estimates of the world’s oil reserves have risen faster than production.

100 years ago only writers like Jules Vern proposed space travel and more recently in 1957…“Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, (Two weeks before the Russians launched “Sputnik”)

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, (of all people) 1932

We (mankind) have come a long way in the last 100 years. Young people today have no concept of a camera that takes film.

Do you really think that mankind is not capable of adapting to global temperature variations?

I do think 100 years ahead. I see a bright future. Unless, of course, we are regulated back into the Dark Ages…as some would have us do.

 

[Theo520]

Not only are you an alarmist, Hans, you have no faith in the creativity of mankind.

Candidly, we can solve the problem in 50 yrs, if the climate science starts showing high climate sensitivity.

One example - Do the research and design ultra safe molten salt reactors. You can then build the equivalent of modular homes that are shipped world wide to replace coal for base load generation. When built in volume in this fashion, it’s also affordable. Maybe build an extra 500 to sequester carbon and create clean water.

 

[sps49]

Lynn’s claim is doing no such thing. In fact, to understand the context of her posting you have to trace all the way back to Theo’s post #56, where he was discounting the importance of the “warmest year on record” record based on El Nino considerations. To that Lynn rightly pointed out that to be fair, AGW deniers should also stop ignoring the fact that 1998 was an especially strong El Nino year when they claim that AGW has stopped, beginning in that year. And to illustrate what the trend looks like when years are grouped according to this factor, the graph was presented. What you can see from that graph is that the trend is approximately the same in each grouping. Furthermore, you can notice that the spread around the best-fit line is less in each group that it is in the groups combined. That means these El Nino / La Nina events tend to perturb the temperatures a little, making it harder to extract the trend. But when the years are considered according to their sub groupings, the trend is clearer.

The fact that best-fit lines are drawn on that graph is not a claim that any relationships are linear. It is just a visual aid to “see” the trend. So your criticism that the system is not linear is not applicable to this particular claim, which is really quite weak (meaning it is not claiming much). So I am surprised that you found anything in it that you think needs refuting.

One may not, by simple elimination of a single observed phenomenon, make a claim what the physical system is doing based on the “temperature trend.” That implies linear behavior, and sytem knowledge greater than what exists. The little volcanos and ENSO markers on the timeline tell us nothing except the temporal relationship, since we already know that our understanding of these effects on climate is primitive at best. The data groupings are meaningless (trend groupings even more so), unless you understand how the internal/natural variations are coupled. So, it turns out that making assumptions about systems dynamics, such as linear vs non-linear vs feedbacks vs open has a great deal to do with the discussion. This is the problem with the whole “dualing charts” mentality; no one really knows where the data originated, how it is processed, and the underlying system dynamics which govern the behavior. Your surprise does not surprise me in the least.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Candidly, we can solve the problem in 50 yrs, if the climate science starts showing high climate sensitivity.

One example - Do the research and design ultra safe molten salt reactors. You can then build the equivalent of modular homes that are shipped world wide to replace coal for base load generation. When built in volume in this fashion, it’s also affordable. Maybe build an extra 500 to sequester carbon and create clean water.

If these things are economically feasible and offer a potential profit…investors and industry will jump all over them.

New things replace old things all the time as long as man is free to create. Candles and whale oil provided light until they were replaced by kerosene. Kerosene gave way to gas and electricity replaced gas as a light source.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One may not, by simple elimination of a single observed phenomenon, make a claim what the physical system is doing based on the “temperature trend.” That implies linear behavior, and sytem knowledge greater than what exists.

Please explain why the graphs Lynn posted and points she was making from those graphs imply linear behavior. I just don’t see it.

The data groupings are meaningless (trend groupings even more so), unless you understand how the internal/natural variations are coupled.

I gave an explanation of the meaning of grouping La Nina years together. That meaning had nothing to do with and did not try to explain how internal/natural variations are coupled. Its sole purpose was to show that whatever trend is present in the aggregate years is also present in the El Nino years as a group and in the La Nina years as a group. Lynn did not introduce the discussion off these types of years. Theo did in post 56. So if you have a problem with taking these events into consideration, take it up with him.

So, it turns out that making assumptions about systems dynamics, such as linear vs non-linear vs feedbacks vs open has a great deal to do with the discussion. This is the problem with the whole “dualing charts” mentality; no one really knows where the data originated, how it is processed, and the underlying system dynamics which govern the behavior.

A chart is simply a way of visualizing data. So if you have a problem with “dualing charts”, you should have the same problem with “dualing data”. You are not suggesting, are you, that these debates should be devoid of data? Or is your problem with the origin of the data? Well, the straightforward response to data you think is incorrect is to challenge that data. It is like when you are playing Scrabble. If you think someone is using a word that is not a real word, you challenge that person. But for most words used in Scrabble, the challenge is not necessary because the players are agreed that it is a word. You don’t require a player to prove the origin of every word he plays. Same thing here. If you think some data is wrong, challenge it. Don’t just bemoan the fact the people use data in their arguments.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Candidly, we can solve the problem in 50 yrs, if the climate science starts showing high climate sensitivity. One example - Do the research and design ultra safe molten salt reactors. You can then build the equivalent of modular homes that are shipped world wide to replace coal for base load generation. When built in volume in this fashion, it’s also affordable. Maybe build an extra 500 to sequester carbon and create clean water.

Although it is somewhat speculative, many believe that a threshold could be reached beyond which internal feedback will continue to warm the planet even if we stopped all CO2 emissions. But then, your assessment of the economic viability of the MSR is also speculative, considering the much of the world’s population can barely afford to buy bread. Unless these MSRs are so cheap we can give them away. Again, highly speculative.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not only are you an alarmist, Hans, you have no faith in the creativity of mankind.

100 years ago 9 women out of 1000 died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants, out of 1000 died before age 1 year. Today the rate is 7.7 deaths per 100,000 live births and 0.1 reported death per 1000 mothers.

In 1915 the world-wide life expectancy rate was 31 years. Today it is 67 years

Are you arguing that since these medical problems have been solved, we must be able to solve other, totally unrelated problems having to do with climate?

Alarmists have told us that the world would be overpopulated and food would be scarce.

This prediction had nothing to do with climate, and was being made by different people.

Alarmists have predicted that the supply of crude oil would dry up for over 100 years. Today, estimates of the world’s oil reserves have risen faster than production.

Only if you count as “reserves” the more difficult to extract oil that was not counted before.

100 years ago only writers like Jules Vern proposed space travel…

And only 40 years ago Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick predicted we would have bases on the moon in 2001. How’s that prediction working out?

We (mankind) have come a long way in the last 100 years. Young people today have no concept of a camera that takes film.

Do you really think that mankind is not capable of adapting to global temperature variations?.

Scientific and technical achievement does not always progress at a steady rate. It moves in fits and starts according to luck and opportunity. Just because all these wonderful things have happened does not mean a very specific wonderful thing you predict will ever happen.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When you just started tracking recently, and in a know warming trend, you have a positive slope line and should expect a new record every couple years when you measure by hundredths of a degree.

The discussion with CAGW is all about the degree of slope for the line, not that there is a positive slope…

Since many here have claimed that there has been **zero **warming for 18 years, there is at least some argumentative value for establishing the positive slope.

 

[sps49]

Please explain why the graphs Lynn posted and points she was making from those graphs imply linear behavior. I just don’t see it.

Of course you don’t.

I gave an explanation of the meaning of grouping La Nina years together. That meaning had nothing to do with and did not try to explain how internal/natural variations are coupled. Its sole purpose was to show that whatever trend is present in the aggregate years is also present in the El Nino years as a group and in the La Nina years as a group. Lynn did not introduce the discussion off these types of years. Theo did in post 56. So if you have a problem with taking these events into consideration, take it up with him.

I heard you the first time, and it makes no better sense the second. Rationalize away.

A chart is simply a way of visualizing data. So if you have a problem with “dualing charts”, you should have the same problem with “dualing data”. You are not suggesting, are you, that these debates should be devoid of data? Or is your problem with the origin of the data? Well, the straightforward response to data you think is incorrect is to challenge that data. It is like when you are playing Scrabble. If you think someone is using a word that is not a real word, you challenge that person. But for most words used in Scrabble, the challenge is not necessary because the players are agreed that it is a word. You don’t require a player to prove the origin of every word he plays. Same thing here. If you think some data is wrong, challenge it. Don’t just bemoan the fact the people use data in their arguments.

The charts are useless without knowing how the physical system operates, other than it was “X.XX deg on this date.” The rest of your rationalizations are noted, as they have been dozens of times before.

 

[Hans_W]

Not only are you an alarmist, Hans, you have no faith in the creativity of mankind.
…

The examples you list show that you don’t seem to understand the problem.

If we carry on with business as usual, then we’ll have 850 ppm CO2 in the air by the year 2100 (a conservative estimate). That’s up from the pre-industrial 280 ppm. You need to go back tens of millions of years to get to a similar level. Even if we suddenly stop making CO2, it would take tens of thousands of years to get it naturally down to 300 ppm.

Carbon sequestration would be a solution, but you can’t beat the laws of chemistry. The C-O bond is very strong and your only solution is to either capture the CO2 and bury it or turn it into carbonate. Expensive business. And we haven’t even looked at the detrimental effect on the oceans.

Of course, if you deny that atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect the temperature, then we can stop the discussion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course you don’t.

So you’re just spouting techno-buzz words? I challenged you to support your contention that something or other implies linear relationships. Your refusal to rise to the challenge might lead something to think you don’t really know how to support that claim.

The charts are useless without knowing how the physical system operates, other than it was “X.XX deg on this date.” .

Even without knowing how the physical system operates, one can still see from those graphs (and the data they represent) if there is a trend. I wouldn’t exactly call that useless.

 

[Theo520]

Since many here have claimed that there has been **zero **warming for 18 years, there is at least some argumentative value for establishing the positive slope.

I believe the argument is that the temp trend has been statistically flat.

An increase of a few hundredths or thousands of a degree doesn’t change it, it’s just a PR gimic to brag about such small increases when the models show an exponentially increasing rate of temp increase.

 

[Theo520]

Hans, here’s a question and a comment (for viewers)

Why is 300 ppm the magic number? I’ve seen no science that it’s the ideal level.

Your reference of 850 ppm by 2100 is the worst case alarmist projection, ROFL

The examples you list show that you don’t seem to understand the problem.

If we carry on with business as usual, then we’ll have 850 ppm CO2 in the air by the year 2100 (a conservative estimate). That’s up from the pre-industrial 280 ppm. You need to go back tens of millions of years to get to a similar level. Even if we suddenly stop making CO2, it would take tens of thousands of years to get it naturally down to 300 ppm.

Carbon sequestration would be a solution, but you can’t beat the laws of chemistry. The C-O bond is very strong and your only solution is to either capture the CO2 and bury it or turn it into carbonate. Expensive business. And we haven’t even looked at the detrimental effect on the oceans.

Of course, if you deny that atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect the temperature, then we can stop the discussion.