The Atlantic Is Entering A Cool Phase That Will Change The World’s Weather

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KingJames

Yes. I think the global average temperature is rising.
And I think it will continue to do so.

Forever? Or do you think that it will still follow along with the predictable cycles that are scientifically shown to occur over hundreds-of-thousands of years, and like with other cycles, the peaks and valleys will differ in intensity?

When do you predict the increase to level out, on average, and then start falling?

Unlike many people who comment in these types of threads, I'm willing to admit and cite the reality that we still have a TON of unknown catalysts that affect the larger and smaller cycles of climatic change on earth, and until we have a much better understanding, I think that it's dangerous to try and play climate adjustors under the guise of alarmist global warming predictions. I haven't seen you advocate for that, but many do on ATS.

Personally--and you can and probably will take this with a grain of salt--I think that we are approaching the peak of the cycle that we're in within a decade or two, and will start a leveling out and declining in the subsequent decades. But, it's all relatively unpredictable at the decadal scale, so honestly, predictions are pointless, especially ones that are shown to be wrong rather often. Historically, there have been exceptionally quick inclines and declines in temperature that have slopes even steeper than the rise that we're currently in.

Let me ask you something--do you believe that temperature data pre-satellite recording is trustworthy and accurate? Do you think that ground-based is more accurate?

originally posted by: ParasuvO
The planet warming or cooling has nothing to do with everyday air pollution, in fact we know next to nothing about this planet's internals..or just about anything else relevant to Life anywhere.

The most intellectually honest comment in this thread because it doesn't presume to know as a fact that anything is known enough to allow us to predict anything. And that is the reality at where we're at in the field of climate science. It's getting better, but has a long way to go.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

depending on who you talk to of course.
#WLYB?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nothing lasts forever, but for the next hundreds of years at least, as long as we keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we are. We have a good understanding of those cycles you speak of. They are driven by orbital and axial variations. Those cycles do not account for the warming trend we are experiencing. Eventually though, they will take over and cooling will start. There are estimates that will occur in 5,000 to 10,000 years, with some delay due to the CO2 we've already added to the atmosphere.

I don't think geoengineering is a good idea, SRM anyway, if that's what you're talking about. I think that reducing CO2 emissions would be a much more rational approach. But I also think that all reasonable options should be given consideration and investigated in order to mitigate the rate of warming.

I think that historical temperature proxies have their problems but can be useful in analysing past climates and the influences upon them. I think that ground based temperature observations are more accurate than satellite observations in recording temperatures at ground level since they are direct temperature measurements and are at ground level. I think satellite observations are problematic (since they are, in effect, proxy measurements) but useful. I think that both methods show a warming trend.

Here are plots of two satellite derived datasets and one surface dataset.

a reply to: Phage

It'll be interesting to watch, regardless. I wonder if, in a million years, our current age of GW alarmism will be laughed at, validated, forgotten about, or not even known to exist (I assume that our planet will have had a naturally occuring global reset by then).

I harbor zero beliefs, though, that our planet will become inhospitable within generations (if ever at all, due to global warming), like is often pushed in certain circles.

Yeah, I'm talking about the geo-engineering proposals that I've heard pushed, in an attempt to cool things down artificially. I think such a concerted effort would make the planet much worse off. Plus, I've never subscribed to the belief that there is necessarily a "best temperature" for human beings to coexist with nature--our hubris as a species just tends to see where we are now as "ideal" and want to keep it that way. We used to adapt as a species to what nature handed us, now we expect ourselves to be able to alter and manipulate nature to our own will, which is a bastardization of the natural order of things.

Thanks for that graph--if I'm looking at it properly (it's so illegible on my screen), the ground-based data seems to always run warmer by a non-negligible amount, but it seems to deviate more as time goes on, although again, it's hard to tell by how condensed this graph is.

I tend to disregard ground-based measurements these days, because satellite measurements can do a much better job at measuring the earth temperature with more consistent standards. Do you agree with that thought?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do you agree with that thought?

I said that I don't. Satellites don't lower thermometers into the atmosphere. They don't actually measure temperatures. They use models that derive temperatures from the raw data. Those models "manipulate" the raw data (microwave emissions) just as much, if not more, as the models that produce ground based averages.
www.realclimate.org...

originally posted by: toysforadults
Fricken A.

Fake News

The Atlantic Ocean’s surface temperature swings between warm and cold phases every few decades. Like its higher-frequency Pacific relative El Nino, this so-called “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” can alter weather patterns throughout the world. The warmer spell we’ve seen since the late 1990s has generally meant warmer conditions in Ireland and Britain , more North Atlantic hurricanes, and worse droughts in the US Midwest.

Excuse me but what?

I was born in July 1977, apart from this summer, all the warmest summers I've seen in Scotland have been pre-1990 when the summers were long and hot and the winters were cold and you were guaranteed snow every winter, even on the coast.

The summers in the 1990's were mediocre and have got worse since...

a reply to: Phage

Yes, you did make that direct statement--my apologies.

This is a good summary of many reason why I do not like to trust ground-based surface-temp stations: Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record. I know that it's a few years old, but still relevant as far as I've seen.

Thanks for the discussion.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes. Adjustments are made to account for a number of factors, and they go in both directions. Perhaps you should read the link you posted. But what's the net effect of the adjustments? Not much.



It seems that you aren't well versed on why and how the adjustments are made, or what's involved with them. Even though it's in your link. Here's a more detailed look.
skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes. Adjustments are made to account for a number of factors. I wonder why that blogger didn't show cases where station data was adjusted downward.

Well, to be fair, this is from that blog:

3. The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend. These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained. In fact, they have not really be explained at all, ... History has been cooled and modern temperatures have been warmed from where they were being shown previously by the NOAA. This does not mean the current version is wrong, but since the entire US warming signal was effectively created by these changes, it is not unreasonable to act for a detailed reconciliation ...

• The technology the station uses for measurement changes (e.g. thermometers to electronic devices, one type of electronic device to another, etc.) These measurement technologies sometimes have known biases. Correcting for such biases is perfectly reasonable (though a frustrated skeptic could argue that the government is diligent in correcting for new cooling biases but seldom corrects for warming biases, such as in the switch from bucket to water intake measurement of sea surface temperatures).

Now, I'm sure that those aren't the references that you're wanting, but he did reference times that the numbers have been cooled down--unfortunately for those who just accept those adjustments which actually help increase the rate of warming since 1880-ish, it has been argued that it's questionable as to the accuracy of such manipulation.

It seems that you aren't well versed on why and how the adjustments are made, or what's involved with them. Here's a summary.
skepticalscience.com...

Oh no, I get most of that--and like you noted, the link that I provided discusses at least one of them (TOBs) and notes on more than one occasion that some, if not most, of the adjustments are logically necessary. What that link notes, and I subscribe to, is that in the big adjustments that completely alter the "big picture" (actually small picture of 138 years or so), often times there is not adequate explanation as to why they are done, and sometimes the agencies don't provide the raw data before adjustments are made--in some cases.

Regardless, we can agree to disagree about which is better and just agree to agree (hopefully) that neither is a perfect method, and both suffer from manipulation that often is based on assumptions (as is noted in the link that you provided).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah. That's why I edited my post a bit.

a reply to: toysforadults


Ah, now oceans are cooling? LOL I don't doubt global warming at all, but I do disagree it is all man made. The earth has cycles and you can thank global warming for the human species thriving.

a reply to: norhoc

now oceans are cooling?

No. Just the North Atlantic. And it probably won't cool as much as it did in the 90s.