Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

[Extremeweatherguy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... .evtnk6DPo
^^Bloomberg.com article^^

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
^^BBC article^^

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/254046
^^Digitaljournal.com article^^

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... ate130.xml
^^Telegraph.co.uk article^^

Pretty interesting..

[liveweatherman]

That's interesting Global warming will take a rest for a while.. great time for some preparation till 2014 which predicts global warming will rise.hmmm .What's with Al Gore Global Warming...now...lol

[Extremeweatherguy]

NASA also seems to be on board for a period of cooling/temperature stabilization...

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_C ... 92541.html

[x-y-no]

There has never been any dispute about the existence of these natural cycles superimposed on the longer-term trend due to AGW.

[HURAKAN]

Still, even if this is correct, the problem of global warming won't be solved, and the effects of the "cooling" should be locally, not globally.

[RL3AO]

A 10 year break would be great. Sooner or later we will have to develop new energy sources (hydrogen cars, solar power, wind power, and hopefully someday nuclear fusion). That would be what cuts CO2 emissions.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Still, even if this is correct, the problem of global warming won't be solved, and the effects of the "cooling" should be locally, not globally.

Well, it is good to know that even if the "AGW Deniers" are actually correct, and the Earth stops warming or even cools, people who want to hinder or even cripple the economies of the US and the Western world, while the People's Republic of China does nothing, will continue their efforts undeterred..


The polar bear ESA thing will be an especially good move in that regards, if they succeed in forcing its listing as endangered by AGW, placing the EPA in full control of every conceivable aspect of the American economy, regulating and permitting every conceivable source of CO2 emissions. Including CAFE standards that will punish families with children. The government having full control of all aspects of the economy, just like the good old days in the Soviet Union.



BTW, I have no scientifically based opinion on whether AGW is correct or not, (I'm not a climate scientist), but I do know the unilaterally imposition of severe economic limits on certain, but not all nations, has some serious implications for our lifestyles. I also know whether AGW is real or not, America has an interest in developing non-imported and renewable energy sources like wind and nuclear (and solar, although solar will never be a major source) power, to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. The weak dollar has at least some cause in the trade deficit caused by oil imports. I'm not sure ethanol is a real solution, especially when cheaper ethanol made from cane is kept out of the country by high tarriffs.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Fascinating. Maybe in the next 10 years Saint Petersburg, Fl will
actually drop below 32 F, which has not happened in 5 years, and then
5 years before that .

But really, cooler weather is nice.

[x-y-no]

Still, even if this is correct, the problem of global warming won't be solved, and the effects of the "cooling" should be locally, not globally.

Well, it is good to know that even if the "AGW Deniers" are actually correct, and the Earth stops warming or even cools, people who want to hinder or even cripple the economies of the US and the Western world, while the People's Republic of China does nothing, will continue their efforts undeterred..

I don't know what this is supposed to make the deniers "right" about. There has never been any dispute about the existence of natural cycles and all this research suggests is that we may see a natural cooling cycle imposed on the ongoing AGW trend resulting in a slow-down or even halting of warming for a short period. This in no way supports the essential claim that AGW isn't real or isn't anything to be concerned about.

And please, can we stop with the nonsense that anyone concerned about AGW has some secret agenda "to hinder or even cripple the economies of the US and the Western world?" It's incredibly insulting.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I never said 'anyone' has an agenda, implying all who promote AGW as fact are motivated by a Marxist desire to destroy capitalism.


Never said all, don't know why you insist on saying I am calling all AGW believers anti-capitalist. I'm sure many scientist believe it is true, and quite a few more dare not buck the trend when people like Heidi Cullen insist all who don't blindly accept be stripped of their AMS certification, and others apparently call for criminal charges of 'crimes against humanity' for global warming doubters. (I read that somewhere, if you insist I'll do an interweb search for it).


Every article you post or comment in in the off-season seems to be about AGW, it appears to be your main topic of concern. I don't put all that much of my time to it, and don't claim expert status. But there are at least a minority of PhDs in met and climatology who aren't convinced, apparently (D'Aleo and Gray come immediately to mind) and I'd hope if I don't paint every AGW supporter as anti-capitalist, then not every AGW doubter be painted as a crank or in the pocket of Exxon.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I don't know why I bother commenting on the AGW threads, its the same four or five posters, the same general comments, and it just asking for a suspension, or even a banning, with hurricane season less than a month away to even suggest at possible non-scientific motives of some, not all, not even most, but some people who want to unilaterally cripple our economy to prevent something that may or may not be primarily caused by human activity.

[x-y-no]

What amazes me (well not really) is that the "some people" who are allegedly motivated by their desire to cripple western economies constantly get trotted out - if it's not to promulgate the idea that this is the driving force behind concern over AGW then frankly I don't get whatever other point it is you're trying to make. I'm sure there are some full-blown Nazis who believe the Earth orbits the Sun - that doesn't make orbital mechanics a fascist conspiracy. Nor does it make it any less true that the Earth really does orbit the Sun.

I'm sorry if it offends you that I post about climate change. Some people here post mostly about winter weather, or severe weather, or stuff in off-topic. I post about climate change because it's something that I've spent a lot of time learning about in great depth for over 30 years now. And last time I checked, I'm still free to post about topics that interest me just like everybody else.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I'm sorry if it offends you that I post about climate change. Some people here post mostly about winter weather, or severe weather, or stuff in off-topic. I post about climate change because it's something that I've spent a lot of time learning about in great depth for over 30 years now. And last time I checked, I'm still free to post about topics that interest me just like everybody else.

Fair enough.


Are you on the modelling end of things?


Petroleum engineers use rather complaex computer models, where all the data isn't known, of heterogeneous and anisotropic reservoirs, with multiple fluid phases. Thankfully, I haven't actually done that in years.

Anyway, to test the reliability of the models, 'hindcasts' or 'history matching' is usually done, where the model is started twenty or more years in the past, and results to actual reservoir performance is compared.



Anyway, do climatologists 'history match', and how far back do you run models to test whether they are likely valid? I ask, because I hear a lot of the AGW is driven by modelling, and I suspect in climate, as in reservoir engineering, initial and boundary conditions are everything.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Obviously, "Korea Vet" has a set point of view, but he has put together quotes and links from both AGW supporters and skeptics about computer modelling and recent slight cooling from 1998 peak.


Two quotes of many...

7) Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, wrote on May 2: “Several teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None - not one - of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998 then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened. Now, one team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them?”




8) Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote on May 1: “…a useful quote from Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research: ‘Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way.’ This is an amazing error. Global warming does require a more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (in the absence of a major volcanic eruption) as illustrated in all available multi-decadal global model runs. This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)! Climate Science published a proposed test of the multi-decadal global model predictions (see A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement). Clearly, so far, the models are failing to skillfully predict the rate (and even the sign for the most recent years) of global warming. Andy Revkin should follow up his article to document what the models predict in terms of global warming (in Joules) over different time periods, and what do the observations actually show. This would be excellent investigative (much needed) journalism.”

[x-y-no]

Fair enough.


Are you on the modelling end of things?

I should clarify that I'm not a climate scientist by profession. Rather I'm an informed layman. By "informed" I mean that I regularly read all the major journals in the field to keep abreast of the research. I also have spent innumerable hours over the years in conversation with many of the major researchers in the field.

..

Anyway, do climatologists 'history match', and how far back do you run models to test whether they are likely valid? I ask, because I hear a lot of the AGW is driven by modelling, and I suspect in climate, as in reservoir engineering, initial and boundary conditions are everything.

Absolutely they do. There is a decent plain-language description of how climate models are developed an evaluated in chapter 8 (pdf document) of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1. Certainly uncertainties in boundary conditions are a critical issue and you will find that discussed there.

Here is the main link to the working group 1 report.

...

7) Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, wrote on May 2: “Several teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None - not one - of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998 then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened. Now, one team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them?”

So far as I know, Richard Courtney has no doctorate. I'm not aware of him claiming one himself, so that embellishment apparently occurred somewhere out there in the web and now has become part of the background. I have seen direct quotes from Courtney claiming to be a "UN IPCC expert reviewer." But note that all this means in reality is that when the draft version of the report was released for comments Mr. Courtney sent in quite a few of them. He was not an author nor was he a review editor. You and I too could be "UN IPCC expert reviewers" by merely being adept at the use of email. This doesn't automatically dismiss what he has to say, of course, but my skeptical antennae tend to perk up when presented with such puffery of self-assigned titles.

As to the issue of global warming allegedly peaking in 1998 and models allegedly being "amended" to account for that - as I said above, there has never been any dispute about the existence of natural cycles imposed on the AGW trend. One such cycle, much discussed on this site, is ENSO. We had an extraordinarily powerful El Nino in 1998 and that entirely accounts for the powerful spike in global temperature that year. Looking at the smoothed average on a reasonable timescale like 5 years there has been no interruption in the warming trend whatsoever.

The fact is that up to now, few climate models have made an attempt to model those finer natural cycles. That some researchers are now beginning to attempt this is not in any way contradictory of the earlier work.

A similar issue has come up regarding the sea level estimates in the new IPCC report. The claim is made that IPCC has "backed off" from the upper range of estimates. But that's not what happened at all. What did happen is that we have developed a better appreciation for how little we understand glacial melt, so that portion of the estimate was simply removed. Thus comparing past reports with the current one with regard to sea level predictions is comparing apples to oranges. Now this doesn't mean that scientists no longer believe that glaciers will melt or that this isn't an important issue. It's just that in an effort to be accurate about what we really know, they removed those predictions. Similarly, we have always known that natural cycles are imposed on top of the AGW trend, but not being able to model them with any reliability they were omitted. Note that being cycles they do not affect the long-term trend.

8) Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote on May 1: “…a useful quote from Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research: ‘Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way.’ This is an amazing error. Global warming does require a more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (in the absence of a major volcanic eruption) as illustrated in all available multi-decadal global model runs. This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)! Climate Science published a proposed test of the multi-decadal global model predictions (see A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement). Clearly, so far, the models are failing to skillfully predict the rate (and even the sign for the most recent years) of global warming. Andy Revkin should follow up his article to document what the models predict in terms of global warming (in Joules) over different time periods, and what do the observations actually show. This would be excellent investigative (much needed) journalism.”

I'm more than a little baffled by this coming from Pielke, who has generally been pretty sensible. But it seems to me he's making a completely unreasonable demand here. He gives a good example himself - volcanoes. We have absolutely no skill at predicting major volcanic eruptions. Yet such eruptions can and do have enormous short-term impact on climate. So does our inability to predict volcano eruptions really make the exercise of predicting the climate effect of man-made greenhouse gasses meaningless? I don't think so. We could throw in some eruptions at random times in our model runs, but what would be the point really?

Similarly, we have little skill at predicting ENSO or the PDO or various other more or less known natural cycles. Again, we could toss these events in as external forcing at random times based on past statistics, but what's the point really? And how is it that our inability to predict short-term perturbations invalidates modeling of the long term trend? I really don't get it.


EDIT: Some analogies ...

Does the fact that we have no skill at predicting individual wave height and timing make the calculation of tide tables a meaningless exercise? Would the occurrence of a large rogue wave striking at low tide make the prediction of low tide wrong or meaningless?

Given that hurricanes regularly go through changes in intensity that we have little to no skill at predicting, is the effort to make intensity forecasts meaningless? Should communities ignore a Hurricane Center forecast of intensity at landfall because an eyewall replacement cycle might occur, resulting in lower intensity?

How are these things different from Pielke's argument regarding modeling AGW?

[Ed Mahmoud]

Given that hurricanes regularly go through changes in intensity that we have little to no skill at predicting, is the effort to make intensity forecasts meaningless? Should communities ignore a Hurricane Center forecast of intensity at landfall because an eyewall replacement cycle might occur, resulting in lower intensity?

How are these things different from Pielke's argument regarding modeling AGW?

Not completely valid analogy as hurricanes are fact, while AGW is a widely held, but still disputed theory.



If hurricane intensity models were routinely off by 2 or 3 Saffir-Simpson categories at 24 hours, then it would be reasonable to at least question their validity. The fact that they occasionally are doesn't make the intensity models useless.



But it is hard to be argumentative when the lawn is getting a nice semi-slow soaking, with radar estimates of over two inches since midnight confirmed by area airports after weeks of dry weather.

[x-y-no]

Given that hurricanes regularly go through changes in intensity that we have little to no skill at predicting, is the effort to make intensity forecasts meaningless? Should communities ignore a Hurricane Center forecast of intensity at landfall because an eyewall replacement cycle might occur, resulting in lower intensity?

How are these things different from Pielke's argument regarding modeling AGW?

Not completely valid analogy as hurricanes are fact, while AGW is a widely held, but still disputed theory.

Come on now. Climate variability in response to forcings is a fact too. I was discussing the validity of making and making use of forecasts in the face of substantial natural variability which we have little to no skill at predicting.

Pielke's argument appears to be that there's no point in attempting to forecast the long-term temperature trend because we have little to no skill at predicting short-term perturbations of similar magnitude. I just don't get the sense of that and I think my analogies illustrate that.

If hurricane intensity models were routinely off by 2 or 3 Saffir-Simpson categories at 24 hours, then it would be reasonable to at least question their validity. The fact that they occasionally are doesn't make the intensity models useless.

Each S-S category is an order of magnitude change in energy, so I'm not sure why you think it valid to insist on 2 or more categories in error before finding that significant. But, without spending time digging for data, I seem to recall many sudden surprises ... how well was the rapid deepening of Wilma forecast? What about Katrina's landfall as a solid Cat 1? My recollection is that intensity models called for a moderate TS at landfall. How about Charley? Again I recall that 24 hours out the prediction was for a strong cat 2 when in fact he was a strong cat 4 at landfall.

Also, if we're concerned about the magnitude of difference, how do you answer the issue of a rogue wave striking at low tide? That could be a matter of several orders of magnitude error. Does that make tide tables meaningless? In fact, ocean waves are routinely larger than the total tidal variability. No need to even evoke the rogue wave scenario.

[x-y-no]

Well, this analysis (including direct communications with the authors for clarification) suggests this research doesn't say what it is claimed to say:

But what they mean by that statement is not what a simple reading of that sentence would suggest: They do not mean that "the global surface temperature may not increase over the next ten years starting now." What they mean is what the lead author, Dr. Noel Keenlyside, wrote me last night when I asked for a clarification:

Thus, based on our results we don't expect an increase in the mean temperature of the next decade (2005-2015).

They are predicting no increase in average temperature of the "next decade" (2005 to 2015) over the previous decade, which, for them, is 2000 to 2010! And that is, in fact, precisely what the figure shows -- that the 10-year mean global temperature centered around 2010 is the roughly the same as the mean global temperature centered around 2005.

...

# First, as you can clearly see in the figure, the actual observed running average temperatures from the Hadley Center since 1995 have been between the IPCC scenario projection and Dr. Keenlyside's forecast, which does suggest that his model may be underestimating warming. Indeed, the lack of agreement between the model's "hindcast" and actual temperatures since 1995 should remind us again to view this only as an extremely preliminary analysis with predictive ability that is much more qualitative than quantitative/

# Second, since carbon emissions since 2000 have been racing past all projections and have been accompanied by soaring CO2 concentrations, we would again naturally expect actual temperatures to be slightly higher than Dr. Keenlyside's forecast (just as frozen concentrations yield results below his forecast).

# Third, this general prediction -- internal variability leading to slower than expected warming in recent years through 2010, followed by accelerated warming -- is almost exactly the same prediction that the Hadley Center made last summer in Science.

[wbug1]

I found this interesting article on the Toronto Star website. Toronto is in Ontario, Canada, pop. about 5.1 million. The Star is a major Canadian newspaper.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/428471

A snippet from the article:

"Toronto is already experiencing extreme weather effects, including this winter's heavy snowfall, a heat wave just before the blackout in 2003, and the August 2005 storm that caused flash flooding and washed out part of Finch Ave.

The 2005 storm cost almost $500 million in damage, including $44 million to city infrastructure."

I also found this article, where an Airbus slid off the runway after an attempted landing during a different storm. All passengers survived, but the plane was destroyed or badly damaged. This was August 2nd, 2005, also in Toronto, Canada. The main reason for the crash was standing water on the runway due to a severe thunderstorm and a plane that landed too far down the runway.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/03/news/crash.php

Wiki article on the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

A summary of the 2005 August 18th, 2005 severe weather outbreak in Ontario, Canada.

"19 August 2005, Southern Ontario: A line of severe thunderstorms runs eastward across southern Ontario from Kitchener to Oshawa, including the northern half of Toronto. The storm leaves in its wake severe damage that, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, is the highest insured loss in the province's history, exceeding $500 million; more than two and a half times Ontario's losses during the infamous ice storm of 1998 and the second largest loss event in Canadian history.

19 August 2005, Fergus, Ontario: Severe thunderstorms spawn at least two F-2 tornadoes north of the town of Fergus and surrounding areas. Cars are overturned, homes and farm buildings damaged and trees downed, but no injuries are reported.

19 August 2005, Toronto, Ontario: An intense thunderstorm strikes the Toronto region bringing torrential rains, quarter- to golf-ball sized hail, and flash flooding. At Environment Canada's Downsview offices, 130 mm (5.1 inches) of rain fell; 100 mm (4 inches) in less than an hour. The tempest also dumps 103 mm (4.06 inches) of rain in one hour across a swath of North York and surrounding area, causing flash flooding."

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/a ... aryaug.htm

[Sanibel]

This week:

Seattle smashes record high by 5 degrees with 90*

Phoenix breaks record with 110*.

Palm Beach sets 4 May highs in upper 90's* (Never has May had such a cluster)


If GW predictions come true that economy is going to be seriously interrupted anyway...