angech2014 | March 5, 2015 at 1:05 am
When forced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases
Did you mean, “when forced by anthropogenic or natural greenhouse gases?”
Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by PMHinSC
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by kim
I’ve quit asking Fan this, but did you read your link, Willard?
===============
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by tonyb
Rgates
Interesting link. Thank you. The modern era seems to be closely reflecting the events of the early 1920’s when an arctic ice patrol was set up to warn vessels of icebergs brought down from Greenland due to the great warming there. I linked to a news reel film of it yesterday. However the warming in the Antarctic can be traced further back. This from my extended article ‘Historic variations in arctic sea ice Number two’ which contained hundreds of scientific and observational reports on the rapidly receding glaciers which have been melting in part since 1750 and generally from 1850.
“In a (1947) speech…the Danish Prime Minister said:
“In the last generation changes that have had a decisive influence on all social life have occurred in Greenland. …These changes are primarily due to two circumstances. Firstly, the Greenland climate has changed, and with it Greenland’s natural and economic prospects…”
“…herring catches off the north coast of Iceland have greatly diminished in the last seven years, possibly because of changes in the sea currents connected with the present climatic fluctuation. Herring has become an open sea fishery; its 1952 season was extended to November instead of ending as usual in August.”
“…the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea adopt(ed) the following resolution at its meeting in Denmark in 1948: “Having considered a number of lectures on climatic fluctuations, the Council recommends that these important and far reaching problems ought to be more closely investigated, and that these investigations might be adequately supported by the Governments in the different countries”
Also this;
“This 1932 article demonstrates that, unlike the modern era, the warming affected both poles whilst highlighting the continued retreat of the glaciers generally and in Greenland and Alaska specifically;
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667?searchTerm=greenland%20%20melting&searchLimits=
“Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed. Sir James Ross…on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who followed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries. It might imply, unless it is offset by some increase of ice in another less explored part of the Antarctic, that the climate of the South Pole is changing and becoming warmer. The shrinkage of the Alpine glaciers of Europe is a well-known and carefully measured fact. Professor Buchanan, of Edinburgh, drew attention to it twenty years ago, and showed from old and accurate drawings of (many) that they were retreating rapidly. This led to the continuous measurement of the Swiss glaciers (and) examination of other glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere, Greenland, Alaska, and elsewhere. Prom these measurements many geologists concluded that the northern part of the globe was still recovering from the last of its Ice Ages, of which the more southerly of its glaciers in Europe were a relic. If all the glaciers of the Southern Hemisphere as well as those of the Northern are shrinking, the geologists would have a new problem to examine. It would be whether, instead of areas of cold and ice having shifted on the earth, the whole globe is growing warmer. Even if that could be shown the change might prove to be temporary.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/
We must stop thinking this is all a new phenomenon. It has been going on for many decades or centuries. The planet appears to have been gradually warming since 1690 after reaching a previous peak sometime in the early sixteenth century. Why?
tonyb
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by tonyb
For those who thought the pause didn’t exist and must be wondering why these two papers are therefore addressing a fantasy, it is worth remembering that in 2013 the Met Office brought out three papers on the reasons for the pause. (the one that doesn’t exist)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
tonyb
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Paul Matthews
The spin of claims that we are about to experience a warming burst reminds me of the Lean & Rind (2009) paper which said that there would be a warming of 0.15C +-0.03 between 2009 and 2014. Climate scientists have, predictably, not discussed the failure of this prediction - it's interesting that neither of the new papers mentioned here cite it.
The Lean & Rind paper led to one of my favourite <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study" rel="nofollow">Guardian headlines</a>:
"World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns.
New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics"
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Barry Woods
LOL
From 2009:
27th July 2009 – Guardian – World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns
“New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics ..”
“… The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.
The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument……”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Barry Woods
oops – just noticed Paul’s comment:
Can we all come back in 5 years, and see if the pause has continued, and there are any new papers saying, exactly the same…
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Kasuha
‘Gaining energy’ and ‘warming’ are not exactly the same thing. Thanks to thermal capacity of oceanic waters, we may continue ‘gaining energy’ for hundreds of years before we get any perceivable warming.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by jeez
Common Core math you racist.
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Barry Woods
Not the first, Julia Slingo – Chief scientist at the Met Office, comments at the Royal Society 2 day climate event in 2013:
“…it’s a great presentation about 15 years being irrelevant, but I think, some of us might say if you look at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and it’s timescale that it appears to work, it could be 30 years, and therefore I think, you know, we are still not out of the woods yet on this one. …
and playing devils advocates (not necessarily believing it, she asked)
“…. If you do think it’s internal variability, and you say we do think the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a key component of this, and it’s now in it’s particular phase, but was previously in the opposite phase, could you not therefore explain the accelerated warming of the 80s and 90s as being driven by the other phase of natural variability?”
audio here: (Q/A at the end – about 44 mins – 45 secs – Gavin asks a question as well, not enough aerosols)
reported here: (Trenberth saying something similar) :
Royal Society event here:
https://royalsociety.org/events/2013/climatescience-next-steps/
Mann will no doubt claim he predicted everything correctly, all the way up until his retirement (what ever happens to global temps)
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Kasuha
Such generalizations are inaccurate. There’s no consensus among skeptics.
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by IPCC AR6 |…and Then There's Physics
[…] I gather that the IPCC plans to continue in a manner similar to how it’s operated in the past. It seems that Stoat thinks they should be considering shorter, more focused, reports. Judith Curry illustrates her subjectivity by suggesting it needs to regain it’s scientific objectivity. […]
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Latest Attempts To Explain Global Warming Pause Fall Flat | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
[…] Full post […]
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jonathan Abbott
A few years ago anyone who suggested warming had paused, however briefly, was a flat-out denier. Now they’re all writing papers about it. It’s a fine illustration of how quickly the pendulum can swing.
And it’s still swinging.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by beththeserf
The one that dare not say its name.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Nick Milner
Joshua replies: check
Reply is just a dig at Judith: check
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by JamesG
“Why does that trend line start at 1970?”
Because it is the only way to make it look linear. Of course if 1970 is supposed to be artificially cooled by aerosols as climate scientists previously tried to sell to us then you have to correct for that. Otherwise if we are now supposed to be affected by pdo cycling then 1970 was at the bottom of a cycle and you need to include the entire century. But then that has already been done by Swanson and Tsonis in 2007 and the real overall trend becomes 0.6K/century.
↧
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by bobski2014
IMHO if this is a “pause” or an “hiatus” then likely every other point on what appears on a longer timescale to be a cyclical, almost sine-wave graph, would also have to be called a “pause”.
Acceding to the recent approximately 20year period of no warming being called an hiatus, plays into the hands of the warmists. For all we know, this “pause” is the precursor to a temperature descent, isn’t it?
Bobski
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Barry Woods
Judy?
Bottom line: The pause in global warming is NOT finally explained.
How explanations for/about
the previous, warming 1900-1930’s –
the previous pause/cooling 1940’s-1970’s,
the previous warming, late 1970’s -1990’s…..
he current pause (half way through.?)
and maybe future warming –
oceans seem to fit rather well.
second question how much (same as seen previously? )
or does this internal variability, only work in the future.. LOL
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by JamesG
And nobody is apparently worried that these ‘explanations’ contradict each other nor that we already had a similar failed prediction from Smith et al 2005 that the pause/plateau would end in 2009 and then shoot up? So is every science editor on the planet a complete sucker for BS or what?
Every 5 years they’ll extend the pause 5 years and say it was entirely expected because then they have 5 years more funding and you can always rely on the faulty memory of journalists & politicians. Only cooling will turn around this massive confirmation bias – maybe.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
