2011 was the ninth warmest year on record

[monovillage]

IGBT, let the adults handle this

The Berkley project pretty much confirmed all of the temperature trends - that the evil Gore-bot used in his movie, that the evil scientists in Climategate tricked out...and that was funded by people hoping to prove those trends wrong.

We are past the 'is it getting warmer?' part.

You do know that the Berkeley temperature project (BEST) still hasn't made it through peer review don't you? It probably will before too long, but not yet.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh, it seemed you wanted precise info, not generalities. My apologies.

Here are the basics of it:

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

You will note that the general concensus is that we still do not fully know what causes the naturally existing cycle. We have a lot of good guesses that seem to usually work, but since they have flaws we know they are not correct.

One thing you have to watch for it that a lot of charts stop in 2000 (missing the most recent data), another is that a lot start at the coldest point of the Little Ice Age (starting with an abnormally cold time to show just how much hotter it is now). Also of note is that we have a lot more data points for the modern era than throughout history, so the lines are smoother now.

Here is an interesting chart about the temperature changes of Earth over time:

It really it not that relevant, I just foudn it interesting.

Do you happen to know what the current theories, or guesses, as to what is the driving force behind the shifts?

From what I understand it deals with positive and negative feedback loops and most of them involve the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but the science is still out as to whether atmospheric CO2 levels lead or follow warming/cooling in previous "natural" climate changes. Again, that is my understanding and nothing else, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Darwin333]

It confirmed nothing. There isn't enough data stop being an idiot. Seriously you cannot tell me climate science is anything more than guessing. It is the aggregate of weather science which is nothing more than guessing, so how can it be complete? It can't and that means you're an idiot who doesn't understand logic. Human pollution is bad and we should minimize it, but we aren't drastically changing the world into some crazy shit storm. The world has always been a crazy shit storm, we're just far far far more aware of it and the small localized impacts we have.

Now I am not sure of the trend he stated was confirmed but it should be fairly easy to confirm if the confirmation he claims is true or not.

 

[NeoV]

mono - are you expecting something you haven't already heard from the BEST project? Didn't think so.

 

[monovillage]

mono - are you expecting something you haven't already heard from the BEST project? Didn't think so.

Actually i'm really looking forward to it. They've fixed some glitches and other errors, it's completely available to any researcher and it's all open sourced.
Here you go, an article by Dr. Curry (co-author of BEST) with Dr. Muller.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/

*edit* I thought i'd get a quote out of the article:

First, Muller’s title for the WSJ op-ed was “Cooling the Warming Debate,” he intended it to be a conciliatory article regarding how this data set could be used to settle some of the debates surrounding the land temperature record. The “End of Skepticism” title was provided by the WSJ editors. Muller was not happy about this change of title.

Second, the reason for the publicity blitz seems to be to get the attention of the IPCC. To be considered in the AR5, papers need to be submitted by Nov, which explains the timing. The publicity is so that the IPCC can’t ignore BEST. Muller shares my concerns about the IPCC process, and gatekeeping in the peer review process.

 

[cybrsage]

Do you happen to know what the current theories, or guesses, as to what is the driving force behind the shifts?

From what I understand it deals with positive and negative feedback loops and most of them involve the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but the science is still out as to whether atmospheric CO2 levels lead or follow warming/cooling in previous "natural" climate changes. Again, that is my understanding and nothing else, please correct me if I am wrong.

It is in that article. It goes into both the supports and the detractions of the natural cycle.

 

[Darwin333]

It is in that article. It goes into both the supports and the detractions of the natural cycle.

I thought you had posted the "gist" of the article and failed to click the link.

Thank you for that link, it is a very interesting read on a subject that I wasn't even aware existed. I might not fully understand it (make that definitely lol) but as I said I enjoy science in general and this is something I had not yet been exposed to so again, I thank you.

If you don't mind my asking, and this is not a loaded question at all, why do you "believe" (and I wish we would all cut the "faith" bullshit out of science conversations. Just because one theory makes more sense to me and I tend to side with that theory or "believe" in it more does not make it a quasi-religious faith) in this theory so much while, at least from what posts of yours I have read, dismissing others?

Full disclosure: In case you missed it, my answer to "does man have an impact on global warming" is and has always been "hell if I know". I tend to think that we could be but that is a far cry from a definite statement that we are. If you read just a few of my posts in this thread you would likely get the impression that I lean one way or the other but depending on the actual posts you read would determine which way you think I lean.

 

[monovillage]

Well, maybe you misunderstood.

He confused you because of your similar facial features and the color of your eyes.


Geez man! Do I have to 'splain everythin' to yas?

Now I understand after reading one of the sticky threads. I am not an alt, this is my one and only account here at Anandtech and i've never had any others.

 

[cybrsage]

I thought you had posted the "gist" of the article and failed to click the link.

I figured that might have been the case.

If you don't mind my asking, and this is not a loaded question at all, why do you "believe" (and I wish we would all cut the "faith" bullshit out of science conversations. Just because one theory makes more sense to me and I tend to side with that theory or "believe" in it more does not make it a quasi-religious faith) in this theory so much while, at least from what posts of yours I have read, dismissing others?

Mostly due to the extreme measures groups like the ones who wrote the IPCC report have gone to pushing their agenda. The IPCC is full of non-peer reviewed studies and even includes articles from a layman's climbing magazine as an authoritative source. All the while those who wrote the report were claiming it had NO non-peer reviewed studies in it.

When those who are pushing this view have to lie and use bad science to support their view, I have to think their view is not the truth and not good science.

I also know we simply do not understand the way the systems work yet. We do know the Earth is usually FAR FAR colder than it is now, and that is something we really do not want to rush back into. Having all the good growing lands covered in glacier is not my idea of a good point to rush towards.

We need to wait another decade or two and see if the world starts cooling down all by itself before we destroy economies over something we very well may have no control over at all.

Full disclosure: In case you missed it, my answer to "does man have an impact on global warming" is and has always been "hell if I know". I tend to think that we could be but that is a far cry from a definite statement that we are. If you read just a few of my posts in this thread you would likely get the impression that I lean one way or the other but depending on the actual posts you read would determine which way you think I lean.

Agreed. My view is that we are contributing, but our effect is the same as me peeing in the ocean. Yeah, I definately raised the ocean level some by doing that, but did I actually do anything when I did?

We simply need more time to learn before doing something stupid to ourselves again.

 

[Darwin333]

Mostly due to the extreme measures groups like the ones who wrote the IPCC report have gone to pushing their agenda. The IPCC is full of non-peer reviewed studies and even includes articles from a layman's climbing magazine as an authoritative source. All the while those who wrote the report were claiming it had NO non-peer reviewed studies in it.

When those who are pushing this view have to lie and use bad science to support their view, I have to think their view is not the truth and not good science.

I am going to have to take your word on the bad science part because I am unfamiliar with what you are talking about. I do agree with you on the proposed measures (at least that I have heard) so far and frankly I think my disagreement to those measures is quite logical. If we assume every last thing they say is true than we would require a truly global solution. "Leading by example" won't work especially when what we are doing actually gives economic incentive for other places to increase their emissions. Then you have the entire issue of the literal billions of poor people that wish to increase their standards of living and couldn't get half a fuck about global warming because they live in a mud hut or some crap. Lastly, I have yet to see anything that definitely states if we do X then Y happens and I don't know many people willing to significantly reduce their standard of living over "we think this will happen".

I also know we simply do not understand the way the systems work yet. We do know the Earth is usually FAR FAR colder than it is now, and that is something we really do not want to rush back into. Having all the good growing lands covered in glacier is not my idea of a good point to rush towards.

We need to wait another decade or two and see if the world starts cooling down all by itself before we destroy economies over something we very well may have no control over at all.

How read up are you on this subject? I have a few questions, lol, actually a lot but a few that don't require doctorate thesis level answers.

As a side note, it is a shame that Newton didn't continue his research and discover Perturbation. He invented calculus on basically a dare over the course of 2 or 3 months in his very early 20's, yes the same calculus that most of us slave at for two years in college and still don't really have a good grasp of it. Perturbation is really just an extension of calculus and Newton, being unequivocally the most brilliant man in recorded history (besides calculus which he invented to figure out the motion of the planets and why they have elliptical orbits he figured out "Newtonian gravity", tons of stuff on optics including chromatic aberration and inventing the first reflecting telescope, three universal laws of motion that wouldn't be improved upon for 200 years, and so much more), could have advanced our knowledge of this subject so much farther had he not stopped where he did (bonus points if you know why he stopped).

Agreed. My view is that we are contributing, but our effect is the same as me peeing in the ocean. Yeah, I definately raised the ocean level some by doing that, but did I actually do anything when I did?

We simply need more time to learn before doing something stupid to ourselves again.

I slightly disagree with your statement on how much impact we are having. I think we don't really know so saying its like you peeing in the ocean, while quite possible, is just a guess. I do agree that we need more time but I wouldn't go so far as to say how much more time.

 

[NeoV]

"Agreed. My view is that we are contributing, but our effect is the same as me peeing in the ocean. Yeah, I definately raised the ocean level some by doing that, but did I actually do anything when I did"

Ok - now imagine 7 billion people peeing in the ocean, multiple times, every day - that would be a much more compelling comparison to your "did I actually do anything when I did"

 

[shira]

Oh, it seemed you wanted precise info, not generalities. My apologies.

Here are the basics of it:

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

You will note that the general concensus is that we still do not fully know what causes the naturally existing cycle. We have a lot of good guesses that seem to usually work, but since they have flaws we know they are not correct.

One thing you have to watch for it that a lot of charts stop in 2000 (missing the most recent data), another is that a lot start at the coldest point of the Little Ice Age (starting with an abnormally cold time to show just how much hotter it is now). Also of note is that we have a lot more data points for the modern era than throughout history, so the lines are smoother now.

Here is an interesting chart about the temperature changes of Earth over time:

It really it not that relevant, I just foudn it interesting.

Why do you continually make the same, fallacious argument? You keep asserting that there are large, naturally-occurring temperature cycles. And then you jump to the wild conclusion that, therefore, significant anthropogenic climate change isn't occurring.

An analogy to your absurd argument is that if someone has lymphoma (which causes fevers), and his temperature has been rising and falling over a wide range for the past three month, and we observe that his body temperature has steadily risen the past two days from 101 to 103 degrees, then it cannot be the case that this person has influenza.

You continually miss the obvious point that if both A and B can cause C, then the existence of A and C does not disprove the existence of B.

 

[Darwin333]

Why do you continually make the same, fallacious argument? You keep asserting that there are large, naturally-occurring temperature cycles. And then you jump to the wild conclusion that, therefore, significant anthropogenic climate change isn't occurring.

An analogy to your absurd argument is that if someone has lymphoma (which causes fevers), and his temperature has been rising and falling over a wide range for the past three month, and we observe that his body temperature has steadily risen the past two days from 101 to 103 degrees, then it cannot be the case that this person has influenza.

You continually miss the obvious point that if both A and B can cause C, then the existence of A and C does not disprove the existence of B.

Absolute worst case scenario: He has introduced me to something that I had no previous knowledge of yet I find extremely interesting. Basically, I learned something.

That is the only reason that I engage in these debates and for that I thank him. I am not arguing for or against your point, simply pointing out that his post did serve some purpose.

 

[Munky]

Why do you continually make the same, fallacious argument? You keep asserting that there are large, naturally-occurring temperature cycles. And then you jump to the wild conclusion that, therefore, significant anthropogenic climate change isn't occurring.

An analogy to your absurd argument is that if someone has lymphoma (which causes fevers), and his temperature has been rising and falling over a wide range for the past three month, and we observe that his body temperature has steadily risen the past two days from 101 to 103 degrees, then it cannot be the case that this person has influenza.

You continually miss the obvious point that if both A and B can cause C, then the existence of A and C does not disprove the existence of B.

LMAO, you fail at logic just like you fail at analogies. We know for a fact that there are naturally-occurring climate changes. It is not an established fact that humans are responsible for the observed changes. So, you tell me, who's the one jumping to wild conclusions here?

And to fix your ridiculous analogy, you can not determine that the Earth (person) has a sickness, and it's clearly functioning and feeling just fine, unlike someone with a 103F fever, but because you saw the temperature rise from 98.6 to 98.7, you predict that he will eventually spontaneously combust unless you take drastic and ridiculous measures like depriving him of hot meals and keeping him away from sunlight.

 

[shira]

LMAO, you fail at logic just like you fail at analogies. We know for a fact that there are naturally-occurring climate changes. It is not an established fact that humans are responsible for the observed changes. So, you tell me, who's the one jumping to wild conclusions here?

And to fix your ridiculous analogy, you can not determine that the Earth (person) has a sickness, and it's clearly functioning and feeling just fine, unlike someone with a 103F fever, but because you saw the temperature rise from 98.6 to 98.7, you predict that he will eventually spontaneously combust unless you take drastic and ridiculous measures like depriving him of hot meals and keeping him away from sunlight.

Sorry, but you've missed it too: Cybyrsage (and you too, apparently) believe that the fact that it's known that there are large, natural variations in temperature PROVES that humans aren't responsible for a significant portion of the observed recent warming. Yet there's abundant evidence that there's ongoing, significant anthropogenic warming.

Let me put this another way: I show you a thousand papers by trained climatologists that provide evidence of significant anthropogenic warming. You look at a chart showing natural temperature variations going back millions of years (or whatever). And then you say, "This anthropogenic warming stuff, sorry, not buying it."

This is EXACTLY your logic. And it's totally irrational.

 

[GaiaHunter]

http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/07/trends-change-points-hypotheses/#more-7002

Three competing hypotheses

Consider the following three hypotheses that explain 20th century climate variability and change, with implied future projections:

I. IPCC AGW hypothesis: 20th century climate variability/change is explained by external forcing, with natural internal variability providing high frequency ‘noise’. In the latter half of the 20th century, this external forcing has been dominated by anthropogenic gases and aerosols. The implications for temperature change in the 21st century is 0.2C per decade until 2050. Challenges: convincing explanations of the warming 1910-1940, explaining the flat trend between mid 1940′s and mid 1970′s, explaining the flat trend for the past 15 years.

II. Multi-decadal oscillations plus trend hypothesis: 20th century climate variability/change is explained by the large multidecadal oscillations (e.g NAO, PDO, AMO) with a superimposed trend of external forcing (AGW warming). The implications for temperature change in the 21st century is relatively constant temperatures for the next several decades, or possible cooling associated with solar. Challenges: separating forced from unforced changes in the observed time series, lack of predictability of the multidecadal oscillations.

III: Climate shifts hypothesis: 20th century climate variability/change is explained by synchronized chaos arising from nonlinear oscillations of the coupled ocean/atmosphere system plus external forcing (e.g. Tsonis, Douglass). The most recent shift occurred 2001/2002, characterized by flattening temperatures and more frequent LaNina’s. The implications for the next several decades are that the current trend will continue until the next climate shift, at some unknown point in the future. External forcing (AGW, solar) will have more or less impact on trends depending on the regime, but how external forcing materializes in terms of surface temperature in the context of spatiotemporal chaos is not known. Note: hypothesis III is consistent with Sneyers’ arguments re change-point analysis. Challenges: figuring out the timing (and characteristics) of the next climate shift.

There are other hypotheses, but these three seem to cover most of the territory. The three hypotheses are not independent, but emphasize to varying degrees natural internal variability vs external forcing, and an interpretation of natural variability that is oscillatory versus phase locked shifts. Hypothesis I derives from the 1D energy balance, thermodynamic view of the climate system, whereas Hypothesis III derives from a nonlinear dynamical system characterized by spatiotemporal chaos. Hypothesis II derives from climate diagnostics and data analysis.

Each of these three hypotheses provides a different interpretation of the 20th century attribution and has different implications for 21st century climate. Hypothesis III is the hypothesis that I find most convincing, from a theoretical perspective and in terms of explaining historical observations, although this kind of perspective of the climate system is in its infancy.

Bold is mine.

And one could add (if we consider bigger periods of time):

-> How could earth cool when the levels of CO2 were rising (to levels similar or even higher than now)? What factors were able to dominate the CO2 increase.

-> How could earth warm to temperatures higher than today even without human presence and with low CO2 on the atmosphere? What factors were involved? How do we know if those factors aren't at work now?

If own can understand and explain those it is much easier to claim that while it in the past, near and far, those events happened in this case they aren't happening.

But that isn't what it seems to happen.
I might be wrong but the impression I get is that there is an interest to ignore/dismiss or worse trying to hide these even if it involves "creative number presentation".

And this is just about the fundamentals, not touching political/economical response, that seems to be focused on one approach only, dismissing other approaches that are more conservative in terms of resource allocation.

 

[Paul98]

LMAO, you fail at logic just like you fail at analogies. We know for a fact that there are naturally-occurring climate changes. It is not an established fact that humans are responsible for the observed changes. So, you tell me, who's the one jumping to wild conclusions here?

And to fix your ridiculous analogy, you can not determine that the Earth (person) has a sickness, and it's clearly functioning and feeling just fine, unlike someone with a 103F fever, but because you saw the temperature rise from 98.6 to 98.7, you predict that he will eventually spontaneously combust unless you take drastic and ridiculous measures like depriving him of hot meals and keeping him away from sunlight.

If you look at the simple fact that climate changes naturally, and you notice climate is changing then yes the logical conclusion is that it's just a continuation. After that you may want to figure out why it is that the climate is changing. To say that the climate changes naturally means that humans can have no impact is stupid. But to figure out what the causes really are you have to do science and study what causes the climate to change.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Are humans forcing a natural trip switch to be triggered BEFORE it would occur "naturally"?

Also, just sit back for a second and take a look at things from a different perspective. What was the climatological layout of the world 4 million years ago? 20 million? What were the sea levels? Simply saying "well, it was MUCH warmer than this X years ago, why worry now! It's 'natural'" is not a valid statement given our IMMOBILE SOCIETY.

Rising sea levels would be bad, m'kay?
Shifts in climate rendering our rain forests arid and our temperate zones tropical would be bad, m'kay?
Melting of permafrost to trigger a ECOLOGICALLY RAPID shift in climate would be REALLY bad, m'kay?

If all we are doing now is simply the straw that will break the camels back, lets get the damn straw off the poor beast and stop arguing about what country or what industry is at fault.

 

[cybrsage]

Why do you continually make the same, fallacious argument?

The burden of proof is on those who claim the natural cycle is no longer controlling the temperature of the planet. When we still do not understand the natural cycle, it is simply not possible to say it is no longer controlling the temperature of the planet.

In your little mind, things like understanding how something works might not be important, but that is where it stays. In the real world, it is very important.

 

[Munky]

Sorry, but you've missed it too: Cybyrsage (and you too, apparently) believe that the fact that it's known that there are large, natural variations in temperature PROVES that humans aren't responsible for a significant portion of the observed recent warming. Yet there's abundant evidence that there's ongoing, significant anthropogenic warming.

Let me put this another way: I show you a thousand papers by trained climatologists that provide evidence of significant anthropogenic warming. You look at a chart showing natural temperature variations going back millions of years (or whatever). And then you say, "This anthropogenic warming stuff, sorry, not buying it."

This is EXACTLY your logic. And it's totally irrational.

That's simply false. What you would be showing me are theories which aren't backed by empirical evidence. Moreover, the warming predictions made by the warmers a decade ago simply did not happen. That's not "evidence" in my book.

 

[Munky]

If you look at the simple fact that climate changes naturally, and you notice climate is changing then yes the logical conclusion is that it's just a continuation. After that you may want to figure out why it is that the climate is changing. To say that the climate changes naturally means that humans can have no impact is stupid. But to figure out what the causes really are you have to do science and study what causes the climate to change.

I have nothing against studying climate changes. What I have a problem with is doing so with a predetermined bias that humans are responsible for it, and then looking for ways to manipulate data to support that bias.

 

[jhbball]

I'm a Republican. Therefore, Global Warming is false.

 

[monovillage]

I'm a Republican. Therefore, Global Warming is false.

What you should have said.

I believe anything someone in authority tells me without checking the facts, i'm ignorant and gullible and i'm a lefty/liberal.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Mono, that sarcasm makes no sense.

 

[cybrsage]

Ok - now imagine 7 billion people peeing in the ocean, multiple times, every day - that would be a much more compelling comparison to your "did I actually do anything when I did"

It would still be insignificant.