It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
W(h)ither or not
Is the past 10 to 15 years — which have seen little net change in the average surface temperature of the Earth despite ever-larger carbon dioxide emissions — an indication that climate change will not be as bad as previously projected? That the atmosphere is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than many scientists have concluded based on their understanding of the scientific evidence? That the warnings from those in-the-know are overblown and the world can keep burning fossil fuels?
Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing of the system.
This pattern (statisticians call it a "right-skewed distribution") suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.
The hunt for this missing energy, and the search for the mechanisms, both natural and artificial, that caused the temperature hiatus are, in many ways, a window into climate science itself. Beneath the sheen of consensus stating that human emissions are forcing warmer temperatures -- a notion no scientist interviewed for this story doubts -- there are deep uncertainties of how quickly this rise will occur, and how much air pollution has so far prevented this warming. Many question whether energy is missing at all.
“Why would anyone seriously question greenhouse gases? They absolutely have a radiative effect, and no serious scientist thinks climate sensitivity could be much lower than 2 degrees Celsius based on the balance of the evidence.”
But meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado in Boulder says he would like to understand why more heat is going into the deep ocean. “Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred,” says Pielke, “and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.”
“there are multiple, not mutually exclusive interpretations of modeled versus observed differences, and claiming that there is only one explanation is not scientifically accurate.”
Stacked Up Data?
Of course, proponents of carbon dioxide-driven global warming point to the increase in ocean heat content as proof of mankind’s contribution, but the data shows little to no anthropogenic component when the data are broken down into logical subsets. This will once again be presented—but this time at the end of the post. There are lots of other topics to discuss before then.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.
Sun & Climate
We discuss the heliospheric drivers of Sun-climate interaction and find that the low-latitude magnetic regions contribute most to tropospheric temperatures but that also the influences of the - so far always neglected - polar activity is significant. (...) The tops and lows last for periods of the order of the Gleissberg cycle. One of these is the recet period of global warming, which, from this point of view is not an exceptional period.
Therefore,studies based on a supposed unique global variation of temperature or pressure variations, to be characterized by one uniqueT(time)-curve, valid for the whole Earth’s surface, are likely to fail. Reliable material, observational as well as theoretical, is now available for allowing one to search for the solar signal in the observed terrestrial temperature distribution in latitude, longitude and height.
Never during the past ten or eleven millennia has the Sun been as active in ejecting magnetised plasma as during the second half of the twentieth century.
Solar variability shows six well determined quasiperiodicities. Their lengths and amplitudes vary with time. Other periods mentioned in literature may appear to be harmonics of these main periods or they may originate in the terrestrial ocean-climate system. Predicting solar activity is intrinsically not possible but there are some weak indications that solar activity may slightly decrease in coming decades.
It always bothers me when things are said in a absolute way when it comes to science.
When putting out a fire a co2 extinguisher can be used. Earth is warm so co is up (get it), I mean think about the larger picture.
NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called “the tropical multi-decadal signal,” typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons.
NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.
Settled Science & the Climate of Doubt
Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by talklikeapirat
Very well put together thread, thanks for sharing it.
It has always struck me as odd that all these global warming or climate change models use such a short history of climate data.
Yes our technology can give us a general idea of what the climate was for a given period i.e. Jurassic, Anthropocene...
But detailed data has only been around for a few hundred years. Given the inherently fluid nature of the Earths climate, it seems irresponsible to cherry pick such a small sample to represent billions of years of information.