Global Cooling

[mvanwink5]

I can see that my view here is something of a minority opinion. Which will not of itself sway me. I've never gone for science by popularity contest.

Tom,
That is the point, CO2 dominated climate is touted as not opinion, but as rock hard science and the contrary science position is being tarred and feathered by those that believe in the atmospheric CO2 god. So, not only do we have the Republicrat Taliban, we also have the Green Taliban.

If the issue was just one of science, then folks would not be sore about it, but the Green Taliban have made it oppressive politics, not science.

From what I have read, another "little ice age" is the optimistic scenario as compared to a full on 100k year glaciation age. Fitting end for the age of the Blue, Green, and Red Taliban.

[MSimon]

From what I have read, another "little ice age" is the optimistic scenario as compared to a full on 100k year glaciation age. Fitting end for the age of the Blue, Green, and Red Taliban.

That is my current take as well. If we are lucky (as if luck had anything to do with it, but I can invoke luck due to the paucity of knowledge) the "global" temp will drop .5 to 1 deg C over the next 50 to 80 years. If we are unlucky it will keep dropping until we resume ice age conditions.

Currently humans produce 1/10,000th solar of energy. To counter the dropping solar input we may have to produce 5/1,000th solar. That is an increase of 50X. Not likely.

[mvanwink5]

I sometimes wonder if the urban heat island effect is not what has prevented us from the great popsicle.

[tomclarke]

Well I can see why you have that opinion. You should distinguish the science (well summarised by the IPCC report bodies - though everyone can cavil at little bits - including me) and the way this is presented politically.

I'm really not interested in politics myself, but I can understand the dilemma.

The science says that the amount of warming from CO2 is uncertain over range +50%/ -50%. That is a lot of uncertainty. And with so much uncertainty you can't take precise figures as definite. Also, with this uncertainty, there is a decent chance, maybe 30%, that we need not worry about disturbing climate too much. We would be wise to worry a bit because the enhanced N Pole warming has already many effects including on average lousier weather in UK due to weaker and therefore stickable jet stream. There is also a decent chance that the effect will be much larger.

Of course, if we are very lucky and the 10kyear interglacial just happens to be suddenly switching off around now the enhanced CO2 GHG has already prevented that, and further enhancement could be balanced by some (?) forcing switching off. But that is an outside chance.

Given all of that what on earth can you say to people? people are not good at dealing with risk-weighted PDFs. In this case it seems the issue is highly political. Right-wing folks are highly unwilling to take global action on the basis of a risk-weighted PDF that implies hardship 50 years down the line. Left-wing folks are willing to do this and some of them over-willing. these are both emotional reactions, nothing to do with the science.

So I have sympathy with the political spin which is true but tends to minimise the real uncertainty. Personally I think the uncertainty at both low and high ends should be made clear - but as I say people do not understand PDFs and the high end of the PDF is currently not agreed by scientists (I can tell you why, I believe, and who is right, but that is another issue).

I have no sympathy for people who react to possible spin by treating a crucial issue of real science as though it is a political debating point. That is what nearly all the anti-AGW blogs do. Why? Because a non-political scientists thinking ECS is low (say 1.5C/doubling) will publish papers advocating this without pretending certainty or slagging off the other evidence. And such papers are taken into the mix and inform best guess opinion.

So it is only those anti-AGW scientists whose political feelings are stronger than their respect for the scientific truth, or who have way-out ideas they follow and no judgement, who feel it important to go political on this stuff and break from the (very variable) mainstream science.

I can see that my view here is something of a minority opinion. Which will not of itself sway me. I've never gone for science by popularity contest.

Tom,
That is the point, CO2 dominated climate is touted as not opinion, but as rock hard science and the contrary science position is being tarred and feathered by those that believe in the atmospheric CO2 god. So, not only do we have the Republicrat Taliban, we also have the Green Taliban.

If the issue was just one of science, then folks would not be sore about it, but the Green Taliban have made it oppressive politics, not science.

From what I have read, another "little ice age" is the optimistic scenario as compared to a full on 100k year glaciation age. Fitting end for the age of the Blue, Green, and Red Taliban.

[mvanwink5]

Tom,

You should distinguish the science (well summarised by the IPCC report bodies

I find it amazing you actually said that without putting "sarc" afterwards. That got me rolling on the floor, thanks a million.

Best regards,

[tomclarke]

contrary science position is being tarred and feathered by those that believe in the atmospheric CO2 god.

I must disagree. The "tarring and feathering" is done on internet sites, even here where various people are seriously accusing the majority of climate scientists of being either idiots or duplicitous.

People here read interpretations of selective quotes from years of personal e-mails without the full context and think they can detect conspiracies to lie. That is judging people on partial evidence and bias with no ability to reply. (Actually the replies are made - they have to be - but not reported on the internet sites that make such accusations - certainly not remembered by people who have a personal bias one way on this issue).

I've found that once it gets political you need to read both sides carefully without prejudice. Who here can say they have done that wrt the EA e-mails?

Those who advocate alternate science views, even if highly implausible, are generally treated civilly. You will find many contrary views (e.g. abnormally low ECS) published in the literature.

The problem is when people add speculation to conclusions - and make claims for their work beyond what is reasonable. Since nearly all climate science work is conditional and uncertain, and understanding the limits of individual studies is crucial, that is a no-no.

Or when people try to get publishyed stuff that is scientifically risible (there are many such essays on the internet) typically shown by a lack of critical appraisal of the related work, so that they try to reinvent thewheel making a few mistakes along the way.

Best wishes, Tom

[tomclarke]

Just view my atypical position (for this site) on these issues as a chance for you to show me the error of my ways without politics, personalisation, or undue heat.

Being sarcastic would be a sign of somone who had let the debate "get to" them and was no longer replying rationally but instead being political. Understanding, when tempers get frayed, but unhelpful.

Tom,

You should distinguish the science (well summarised by the IPCC report bodies

I find it amazing you actually said that without putting "sarc" afterwards. That got me rolling on the floor, thanks a million.

Best regards,

[djolds1]

I'll get back to the rest later. BTW some solar folks are predicting a little ice age. And yet CO2 is rising. That will be even harder to explain with CO2. Habibullo Abdussamatov:



http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/04/ ... -30-years/

Note the arrow. The arrow is at 2014. By 2020 even you will begin to notice. We are headed for Maunder minimum territory. I believe you will find that none of the "CO2 did it" models have predicted that. Or suggested it. Or what ever spin you want to put on it. CO2 has zero effect on "global" temperatures. The sun is it. Hail Ra.

Not sure about a Maunder, but a Dalton Minimum looks to be dead-certain.

You have to understand that the politics drives the science.

Premise: It is CO2.
Offer: We will pay for proof.
Result: Proof provided.

Germany did the same for Jewish Science and got the proof it asked for. This sort of behavior is not unknown.

Lysenkoism.

Been (sadly) obvious for a decade+ now, undeniable since the Climategate 1 leak.

[tomclarke]

I'm aware that several of my posts here have not been addressing the science. I think the most helpful thing in this debate is to leave out all the who is good / who is bad politics and check science. So here is a good place to start.

MSimon is claiming that CO2 is not a potent GHG and gives his evidence as below.

Before I answer please note that "potent" is not a useful adjective. The issue is how much direct forcing (ignoring feedbacks) does CO2 produce averaged over the globe, all times of day, and the annual cycle.

I'm claiming with great confidence that the standard science answer to this is correct +/- 10% or so. That is because it is built on simple atmospheric radiation balance calculations that I could easily redo myself. It is not one of the big unknowns.

Even so, H2O is a more important GHG than CO2 in the atmosphere. However H2O vapour content is a dependent variable, changed by temperature, but not by H2O emissions, because of the 2 weeks lifetime equilibrium with ocean surface water. Therefore the effect of H2O counts as a (positive) feedback not a forcing.

tom,

The science is bad and the politics is worse. Positive PDO and AMO effects have been imputed to CO2. Since those have gone negative the models will be broken worse than they are now. To say nothing about the declining solar output expected for the next 40 years.

You have to understand that the politics drives the science.

Premise: It is CO2.
Offer: We will pay for proof.
Result: Proof provided.

Germany did the same for Jewish Science and got the proof it asked for. This sort of behavior is not unknown.

Climate has not been co-operating of late. Despite temperature record adjustments that cool the past and warm the present. "Global" temperatures have flatlined for 14 years. And no statistically significant warming for near 18 years. All the while CO2 has been rising. And we have seen the barest (not statistically significant) cooling for the last 6 or 8 years. That cooling trend is expected by some solar scientists to accelerate.

Eventually your theories will be falsified enough that even you may be able to see the fail.

But one little question for you: if CO2 is such a potent warming gas please explain why arid deserts cool so rapidly at night compared to areas with cloud cover?

OK - clouds block both radiation coming in (predominately shortwave T ~ 5K) and radiation going out (with large longer wave T ~ 300K component).

So we'd expect clouds to imply lower temps in day - reflecting back to space much of the incoming radiation - and higher temps at night - reflecting back much of the outgoing radiation. Which effect is larger overall is not clear - and in fact when you work it out it depends on type of cloud.

So there are two issues your question leaves out:
(1) Blocking radiation both heats (at night) and cools (in day). Clouds are an example of this, so which effect predominates is not clear.
(2) CO2 however is different because it acts more on the LW BB radiation out than it does on the SW radiation in.

That is atmospheric physics 101 and if you want a much more complete answer start here:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/clima ... model.html

It goes on getting more complex but none of it beyond standard applied maths any engineer would be happy with and can check.

[tomclarke]

I did not give a proper answer to some of these comments.

CO2 dominated climate is not what any scientist says. The most that is said is that the geologically unprecedented fast increase in CO2 over the last two centuries has a significant warming effect on climate over that period - how significant is up for grabs.

If you let your political feelings dominate your objectivity you are not going to know what is teh best guess for how significant that effect. But the science is separate from the politics and though many people conflate the two you do not have to do so.

I can see that my view here is something of a minority opinion. Which will not of itself sway me. I've never gone for science by popularity contest.

Tom,
That is the point, CO2 dominated climate is touted as not opinion, but as rock hard science and the contrary science position is being tarred and feathered by those that believe in the atmospheric CO2 god. So, not only do we have the Republicrat Taliban, we also have the Green Taliban.

If the issue was just one of science, then folks would not be sore about it, but the Green Taliban have made it oppressive politics, not science.

From what I have read, another "little ice age" is the optimistic scenario as compared to a full on 100k year glaciation age. Fitting end for the age of the Blue, Green, and Red Taliban.

[MSimon]

Tom,

Solar heating/cooling goes in ~200 year cycles. It is a well known solar cycle. We are just coming off one of the heating cycles and going into a cooling cycle. In addition the PDO and AMO have turned down. And CO2 is still rising. We are in for unprecedented cooling. All the above have been attributed to CO2. The fail will be massive.

And BTW the "science" is not separate from the politics. Lysenkoism. In 10 years or so sociologists of science will be discussing "how could it happen?"

djolds1,

Lysenkoism. Thanks for that. It occurred to me after I posted.

[TDPerk]

@tomclarke
"even here where various people are seriously accusing the majority of climate scientists of being either idiots or duplicitous."

If they are supporting the notion human released CO2 will disastrously raise the average global temperature the IPCC documents, they are idiots, duplicitous, or both. The current pause in cooling, with a duration over 15 years, demonstrates the IPCC reports were incorrect.


From MSimon
" In 10 years or so sociologists of science will be discussing "how could it happen?""

I know technically aware, competent people who still haven't heard of the Milliken oil drop fiasco.

Unwinding the influence of those now emotionally committed to taking the fraud seriously will take multiple decades.

The AGW fraudsters tried to get us to enact policies which would directly have killed 100's of millions of people-and I mean on the order of within 10 years time--and on the order of a 100 years or so reduced the human population to at most 1 billion. I say at most because poor societies can't afford to develop fusion power, nanotechnology, and GMO made abundant secure foods, and a world where the AGW fraudsters achieved power is one where fission would not have been allowed to compensate for the eventual exhaustion of fossil fuels.

The kindest thing I can wish for tomclarke is that he is a very old man, and won't live to see irrefutable proof of the nature of what he put his faith into.

[tomclarke]

Tom,

Solar heating/cooling goes in ~200 year cycles. It is a well known solar cycle. We are just coming off one of the heating cycles and going into a cooling cycle.

It is not well known what is the effect of this cycle on TSI or global temps, except that it cannot be too large or there would be strong evidence. As far as I can see it is pure speculation, at best you can "maybe" and I suspect that looking at the evidence properly there is a fair limit on 200 year cyclicity.

In addition the PDO and AMO have turned down.

I agree, and that is one reason why temps are rising less fast than models indicate on average now, whereas they were rising faster than models indicated in 1990s.

And CO2 is still rising. We are in for unprecedented cooling. All the above have been attributed to CO2. The fail will be massive.

Please give evidence for that? As I've indicated, and no-one has taken me up on it, the effect of CO2 comes from many lines of evidence not just GCMs. And the "high ECS" values are a minority opinion that most do not support. So please you support your "all the above has been attributed to CO2".

And BTW the "science" is not separate from the politics. Lysenkoism. In 10 years or so sociologists of science will be discussing "how could it happen?"

Of course scientists are human, the scientific process is not perfect. That applies to both sides of this debate, except the wuwt posters you seem to think likley correct do not have teh discipline of exposure to scrutiny and correction from 1000s of other scientists with different ideas that the mainstream guys do.

There is no aspect of this debate where you do not find variability in the published science, with a range of views. Over time the ones that fit facts better predominate.

That does not look like Lysenkoism to me.

So - yes scientists are imperfect, published science is imperfect.

But, no, it is not state controlled like Lysenkoism, there is variation and room for maveriks, as well as trong debate about key issues with different people pulling in different directions.

Finally - the quality of the published science is far superior to the typical WUWT offering which is under-researched, over-speculative, and often just egregiously wrong. (I'm not saying every single post on WUWT is that, but many are, and where a decent paper is referenced the WUWT poster typically egrgiously misunderstands its meaning).

[tomclarke]

@tomclarke
"even here where various people are seriously accusing the majority of climate scientists of being either idiots or duplicitous."

If they are supporting the notion human released CO2 will disastrously raise the average global temperature the IPCC documents, they are idiots, duplicitous, or both. The current pause in cooling, with a duration over 15 years, demonstrates the IPCC reports were incorrect.

You are conflating warming, with effects - another big and uncertain bit of science I stay clear of.

The IPCC reviews are careful to document likely warming. The "what will happen when it warms" bit is much more speculative, and teh IPCC reviews make this clear.

I think it would be proper for you to either justify your "if" or stop from making unpleasant smears on the integrity of climate scientists.

Oh - and the current pause does not demonstrate IPCC reports incorrect. That is my assertion, opposite of your assertion.

I may be wrong. But I'm happy to argue the science with you here in detail, and whenever I do this I find the climate science side usually has the best arguments. I'm not convinced from your posts so far that you have looked independently into this matter as much as me. (By that I mean reading argument, counter-argument, checking refs and other work, and working out who has the most complete error-free argument that stands up).

[TDPerk]

"You are conflating warming, with effects"

Warming is the only effect used to justify the worst of the warmist's economic policies.

Now there has been no warming for over 15 years, they have for several years been harping on droughts and storms, but there have always been droughts and storms...

...although there haven't been the storms they were predicting were the inevitable result of human released CO2.

They keep on getting everything wrong, tomclarke.

Not some, everything, and outside the margins of error they published, at that.