Global warming standstill/pause increases to ‘a new record length': 18 years 6 months

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
The safest course of action is to use as little fossil fuel as possible. I think with car electrification and solar prices coming down on the cost curve they are coming down on, it's going to be the cheapest course of action too in not too long.

It's no great secret that much of the money behind the deniers is coming from the fossil fuel industry. I think they are terrified that folks will actually switch to solar and electric vehicles as they know it's pretty near the point when solar is among the cheapest sources and over time will likely become the cheapest.

What really frightens the fossil fuel industry is that homeowners could cover the roof of there home and pretty much zero out there need for fossil fuel for there home. And, as solar cells get more efficient a typical home could generate enough surplus to power there electric/hybrid car to/from work.

The fact that most homeowners could generate most all of there energy needs without requiring any additional land should not be ignored.


Brian
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It's no great secret that much of the money behind the deniers is coming from the fossil fuel industry. I think they are terrified that folks will actually switch to solar and electric vehicles as they know it's pretty near the point when solar is among the cheapest sources and over time will likely become the cheapest.

What really frightens the fossil fuel industry is that homeowners could cover the roof of there home and pretty much zero out there need for fossil fuel for there home. And, as solar cells get more efficient a typical home could generate enough surplus to power there electric/hybrid car to/from work.

The fact that most homeowners could generate most all of there energy needs without requiring any additional land should not be ignored.


Brian
Solar cells are actually efficient enough now for the vast majority of single family homes to be net zero energy use. They just aren't economically feasible, without someone subsidizing them. But they are definitely getting cheaper. We'd still need generation for industrial, commercial, and high occupancy residential, and of course for nights and non-sunny days, but much of the nation has sufficient sun and sufficient available area to be far more than half solar if the cost can be reduced. Radically increase building insulation requirements and we're three-quarters or more solar - at current efficiencies. Plus solar is generating locally, reducing grid requirements and transmission losses, and typically is highest around the peak consumption hours, which determine the grid ampacity.

Personally I consider affordable (as in less than 15 year payback without subsidies) solar panels to be one of the three current Holy Grail technologies capable of radically transforming our world for the better.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
They should be terrified. The trend is not their friend, to say the least. You don't want to have a competitor with an exponentially decreasing cost curve like that.
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
They should be terrified. The trend is not their friend, to say the least. You don't want to have a competitor with an exponentially decreasing cost curve like that.

The efforts by the energy industry to delay solar has been pretty successful to this point and combined with the predatory efforts by China to kill the US solar industry they've managed to maintain there stranglehold on energy. But, soon enough the cost will be cheap enough to take over a huge portion of the energy needs.

Sadly, the combination of foreign predatory actions with industry lapdogs in the Republican party may mean the solar industry will be owned by China and we'll continue to send our money to someone else.


Brian
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
So your back to the climate is not changing I see.

Let's see:

Didn't cherry pick the timeframe by cherry picking the timeframe to exclude warming. o_O
That seems legit.

When the actually researchers of the UAH and RSS show:



satellite2.gif


Falsely/ignorantly claiming that the surface temperature/lower troposphere temperature is equivalent of the entire Earth instead of one small part of the energy balance.

Down playing the absolutely huge increase in ocean energy. That 0.02C increase would have been an equivalent increase in atmospheric temperature of about 21C by the way. I'm glad we have the oceans....

When you show me an energy balance that shows the W/m^2 that the earth receives is equal to the W/m^2 leaving I'll believe warming has stopped.

Or

When you show me that the thermal energy stored in the land, ocean, and total atmosphere had plateaued year to year I'll believe warming has stopped.

So you're telling me the climate scientists didn't expect the ocean and the atmosphere to exchange energy on the same planet or what.

Also why would "warming has stopped" be a good situation? The climate scientists need to turn temperature data into meaningful and correct predictions in detail. The climate scientists are kind of like a magician who tries to guess the card you saw but he is wrong everytime. The climate is an extremely complex system with feedback loops yet undiscovered I'm sure. I doubt you could predict the suns output with any high degree of certainty over the next 50 years because we don't have enough data on solar cycles that may last longer than we've been able to measure the suns output. That goes for just about every dataset the climate scientists have at their disposal. I'm sure there are several cyclical systems and feedback loops in play that operate on 100,000 year time scales and you guys think some buoys from the 1950's, some understanding of greenhouse gases, and CO2 measurements from ice cores have cracked the ultimate understanding of the climate.

Every system you guys are trying to track (sun output, greenhouse gases, composition of the atmosphere, volcanic activity, geothermal energy, strength of the earths magnetic field and its effects on the upper atmosphere, ocean currents and their effects on glaciers, the rate of CO2 sequestering by plants, rainfall and biomass) each variable has ENORMOUS error bars on them. They have feedback both positive and negative amongst each other. As the relationship between two variables changes it can change the relationship to a third variable. Some of these variables are likely to have yet undiscovered cycles and feedback loops.

Good luck I guess is where I was going with that.

What point, precisely, will we be in danger of having produced too much CO2 and what is the EXACT cascade of events that would lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect, so that if we do not see these feedback events in the magnitude and direction as expected we know that the current theory is incorrect and needs to be reworked.

Cause I'm pretty sure they were expecting NYC to be underwater by now, or something.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
The efforts by the energy industry to delay solar has been pretty successful to this point and combined with the predatory efforts by China to kill the US solar industry they've managed to maintain there stranglehold on energy. But, soon enough the cost will be cheap enough to take over a huge portion of the energy needs.

Sadly, the combination of foreign predatory actions with industry lapdogs in the Republican party may mean the solar industry will be owned by China and we'll continue to send our money to someone else.


Brian
As long as the cost of solar is dropping on the curve it's dropping, it's like trying to fight the rain. When solar becomes cheaper than gas turbine electricity, having solar will become a competitive advantage.
As far as China, I am fine with their predatory dumping. The assumption behind it is that if they dump below cost panels long enough, they'll bankrupt US competition and then can raise prices. I think it's a false assumption. There aren't enough barriers to entry in the solar business to stop new companies from springing up once they try to raise prices.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Yeah, I know, it's crazy, who would believe unaltered source data instead of believing the data that has been altered to support certain conclusions? Sheer craziness.

"Unaltered source data" is inherently biased. The data corrections made in the new Science study that found that there hasn't been any "pause" in global warming were explained by one poster as follows:

its not calibration like you are thinking (I am a calibration technician), ie, metrology (NOT meteorology!).

the buoys weren't "wrong".

its not that the buoys were miscalibrated as to the accuracy of the instruments (metrology).

its that the dataset as a whole was "miscalibrated" as relates to the inherent differences in results from different methodologies of measurement. it's a statistical error, not a metrological one.

you can measure the same location in one of 3 typical ways:
-buoys
-engine intake
-bucket (ie, drop a bucket, haul it up, and measure the water inside)

Each has its own inherent (built in) factors that cause the same readings from the same place at the same time, but taken with different methods, to measure slightly differently. The corrections to the dataset seek to remove and cancel out these differences.

and when the measurement is taken they don't JUST write down the reading taken, but the local conditions at the time (sunny? cloudy? windy?), the type of measurement taken and method used, the instrument used, the location of the instrument (on a hill? in the shade?), etc. and all of that additional information is recorded PRECISELY BECAUSE of the desire to eliminate inherent differences so that every measurement conforms to the same baseline.

Do you get it? If you take three simultaneous samples from the exact location in the ocean, one from a buoy, one from a ship's intake, and one with a bucket, you get three different temperatures. If you do this thousands of times across many years and ocean locations, you find that the different methods have a consistent offset from one another. Only a totally incompetent scientist, understanding that - say - buoy measurements register .1 degree cooler than ship-intake measurements - would combine the various measurements without adjustment.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
And then there is the satellite data that shows even with an emerging El Nino, the so called global warming temperature pause continues. Warming since 1900 is .8C/century while warming since 1950 when according to the IPCC man began to have a measurable effect on global temperature is 1.2C/century.

El Niño strengthens: the Pause lengthens
Global temperature update: no warming for 18 years 6 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Niño, which will eventually cause temporary warming – passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months.
What is more, the IPCC’s centrally-predicted warming rate since its First Assessment Report in 1990 is now more than two and a half times the measured rate. On any view, the predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations.
However, it is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño may come through after a lag of four or five months. The Pause may yet shorten somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption of the Pause.
clip_image002_thumb3.jpg

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 6 months since December 1996.
The hiatus period of 18 years 6 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. Note that the start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.
The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. For the time being, these two graphs will be based on RSS alone, since the text file for the new UAH v.6 dataset is not yet being updated monthly. However, the effect of the recent UAH adjustments – exceptional in that they are the only such adjustments I can recall that reduce the previous trend rather than steepening it – is to bring the UAH dataset very close to that of RSS, so that there is now a clear distinction between the satellite and terrestrial datasets, particularly since the latter were subjected to adjustments over the past year or two that steepened the apparent rate of warming.
clip_image004_thumb3.jpg

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 305 months January 1990 to May 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.1 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
clip_image006_thumb2.jpg

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to May 2015, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century.

Key facts about global temperature
  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 222 months from December 1996 to May 2015 – more than half the 437-month satellite record.
  • The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 Cº per century.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
  • The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report is equivalent to 1.1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted two and a half times as much.
  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
  • The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century.
  • Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.
Technical note
Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06...ses-to-a-new-record-length-18-years-6-months/

Yes the planet's oceans are doing a fine job of being a heat sink, but your graphs do not show the rise in ocean temperature. Of course when the cooling from the melting ice in the poles and glaciers becomes exhausted atmosphere temperatures will sky rocket.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Yes the planet's oceans are doing a fine job of being a heat sink, but your graphs do not show the rise in ocean temperature. Of course when the cooling from the melting ice in the poles and glaciers becomes exhausted atmosphere temperatures will sky rocket.

Ocean temps have risen about .1C in last 50 years. Melting ice at the poles and glaciers is not cooling the atmosphere in any measurable way.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,069
14,338
146
Ocean temps have risen about .1C in last 50 years. Melting ice at the poles and glaciers is not cooling the atmosphere in any measurable way.

Do you consider that a lot or a little?
Do you consider that an indication of global warming or not?
 
Last edited:

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Do you consider that a lot or a little?
Do you consider that an indication of global warming or not?

You guys are supposed to be the ones telling us ;)

How much energy can the planet absorb before it meaningfully changes our climate?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,069
14,338
146
I have repeatedly said the Earth has warmed. You and others seem to want to ignore that.

dphantom said:

Global warming standstill/pause increased to'a new record length': 18 years 6 months

Ok, the topic title made me think you had changed your mind.

I also asked for your opinion about the rise in ocean temperature. Do you consider that a minor issue or a major issue?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,069
14,338
146
To be honest it seems like they don't fully grasp how water affects the atmosphere. They only have one example to go by.

Which "they" are we talking about?

Edit: if it's the ACS link I'm guessing you didn't read it. The page I linked to was the first of about forty. It takes an hour to read. You didn't think MMGW could be explained in 2 minutes did you? ;)
 
Last edited:

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Ok, the topic title made me think you had changed your mind.

I also asked for your opinion about the rise in ocean temperature. Do you consider that a minor issue or a major issue?
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I cant answer your 2nd. What would be considered minor or major according to what criteria.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,069
14,338
146
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I cant answer your 2nd. What would be considered minor or major according to what criteria.

I guess I'm not being clear. How about this.

Do you consider the rise in ocean temperature as supporting your thread title or not supporting your thread title?
 

stockwiz

Senior member
Sep 8, 2013
403
15
81
There is clearly an effect from rising CO2 levels I just don't see it as any big deal. This planet is too cold and it will take much higher CO2 levels before one would have to worry about any runaway greenhouse effect.

In the meantime I say enjoy the warmer temperatures. Cold weather sucks.

I'd worry more about China and their pollution than I would about CO2 emissions from the average modern american vehicle. At worst I'd say regulate the older vehicles and have emission testing in all states and add more pollution controls to outboard motors, yard equipment, etc.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Ocean temps have risen about .1C in last 50 years. Melting ice at the poles and glaciers is not cooling the atmosphere in any measurable way.

.1C is enormous. It is cooling the ocean, excess atmospheric heat is absorbed by the cooler ocean/heat-sink waters, miss the point much? How much heat does a liquid need to raise its temp 1degree and how much does a gas?
/ It is more then 10 to 1.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Which "they" are we talking about?

Edit: if it's the ACS link I'm guessing you didn't read it. The page I linked to was the first of about forty. It takes an hour to read. You didn't think MMGW could be explained in 2 minutes did you? ;)
Don't you see the selection bias? "It's all a hoax. They're altering the data to fit their beliefs.? <--- takes about 1 minute to explain.

Explaining how and why the data is adjusted to be more accurate takes too much time. <--- Much more than 1 minute to explain.

So, which do you think someone academically lazy or dishonest is going to latch onto?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,040
30,323
136
.1C is enormous. It is cooling the ocean, excess atmospheric heat is absorbed by the cooler ocean/heat-sink waters, miss the point much? How much heat does a liquid need to raise its temp 1degree and how much does a gas?
/ It is more then 10 to 1.
In post 8 he already mentioned that the amount of heat required to raise the ocean 0.02C is enough to raise atmosphere temp 21C. I assume 0.1C would be in the neighborhood of 105C.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,069
14,338
146
In post 8 he already mentioned that the amount of heat required to raise the ocean 0.02C is enough to raise atmosphere temp 21C. I assume 0.1C would be in the neighborhood of 105C.

I assumed dry air. It would be less with humidity but close enough for govt work.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
In post 8 he already mentioned that the amount of heat required to raise the ocean 0.02C is enough to raise atmosphere temp 21C. I assume 0.1C would be in the neighborhood of 105C.

Which is a totally useless exercise. Of course water has a higher heat capacity than air. We have all this H2O on the planet otherwise known as "the ocean."

All the focus on surface temperatures is likely a climate faux pas. Of course its more complicated than that.

Which underscores what I'm saying... the climate scientists can't actually predict anything. They know nothing.

Are you guys going to start worrying about "what if the core of the earth vented off its heat to the atmosphere and the temperature would be 10,000F oh noes" like that would ever happen.

We have no other temperate H2O containing planets to study, just this one. I'm of the mind that Mars likely had water, but its core died and when it stopped generating a magnetic field thats when the water evaporated.