So when it is cooling it is noise, but when it is warming it is co2?

Question

Yesterday I asked a question about a shift in the PDO causing many people to predict cooling for at least the next ten years.

Catastrophists are spinning that the PDO cool cycles just delay or suppress man-made warming signals. OK. But if you argue this, don't you also have to argue for the converse -- that the PDO exaggerate what might be man-made warming signals during its warm cycles. Catastrophists and in particular the IPCC, however, said that all of the post 1977 warming was due to man - I don't remember anyone mentioning "PDO" in these discussions (In fact, they argue that some additional warming was being masked). Catastrophists love to point to natural cycles only when they can be claimed to mask man-made warming.

Remember your hypothesis is not warming, but catastrophic warming. If there was noise during the PDO warm phase, does that not change the parameters of the climate models? Do we still get catastrophic warming?

Answer 1

I think your debating with the religious here and there is rarely any point in doing that.

Mind you, if the Earth cools for another 20 years and the IPCC changes it's name and terms of reference, the believers may lose a sense of pride in their beliefs and be less inclined to admit that they believe in AGW.

Answer 2

No.   This is REALLY simple.

Weather can cause either cooling or warming.  Global warming only causes warming.

So weather can oppose global warming or make temperatures even higher.

1998 is a great example of the latter.  Weather combined with global warming made for a very hot year.

2007, the former.  Weather opposed global warming, so 2007 was cool compared to recent years, but still warm compared to the last 100.

So weather introduces "noise" into the global warming data.  How can the noise be removed?

By taking a longer average, averaging out the weather "noise".  This graph shows how it works.  The black line is the year to year (noisy) data.  The red line, the 5 year average, mostly averages out that noise, leaving you with an excellent picture of the global warming data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

A longer average would be even better, but 5 years is enough to show the trend.  If the red line does go down for 10 years there would be some rethinking going on.

But it ain't gonna happen, in the opinion of most all scientists.  Got a reference for the prediction of 10 years of cooling?  I've never heard that, and assume it's just a few guys with a far out idea.  The graph shows that two relatively cool years in a row, have happened recently.  1991-2 and 1999-2000.  Three wouldn't be outlandish.  Ten would be front page news.

EDIT - OK, some guy has a model which spits that out.  But, firstly it's just a guy with a model (as opposed to the IPCC, which is many guys with many models), and secondly, note the title of his article.

"GLOBAL WARMING: Mother Nature Cools the Greenhouse, but Hotter Times Still Lie Ahead"

I'll grant you that, if he's right about a temporary cooling due to ocean currents, it will put a sizable dent in the public pressure for action.  I'd bet against him, though.

If you're getting your science from the aptly named junkscience column, it's no wonder you're a "skeptic".  Do you honestly think that's a good source?

Answer 3

Yes, there is a clipped description about Pacific Decadal Oscillation in Alaska or Columbia River may cool down the temperature.Since 1996, scientists have been extending their understanding of a phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, an El Nino-like condition that affects water temperatures. The PDO seems to flip-flop every 20 to 30 years. In the current cool phase, it produces lots of food for salmon off the West Coast, and starvation conditions off Alaska. When it flips to the warm phase, conditions shift.

Last year's jump in returns of salmon to the Columbia River were attributed in part to the beginning of a new cool cycle.

Peter Dygert, chief of sustainable fisheries for the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, said fisheries managers are aware of global climate cycles such as El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as factors in salmon abundance.

However, it is not reliable or not so sure about the climate changes. It is proven that the earth temperature has risen about one degree "F" in the past decades. The scientists have provided the clear indication that the climate changes rapidly in the recent years has to do with the Human Activities. The following website describes the human activity in different countries caused different degree of climate changes.http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

Hong Kong is currently known as the most polluted city in this world. Hong Kong government has deliberately to set their own standards in air pollution matters say, SO2 standard measure in 1Cu m of air for 24 consecutive hours is 350 about 19 years ago, it was so far away from the World Health Organization (WHO) standard of 20. This is published in the Apple Daily News (Chinese edition, April 2008) which was certified by the Li Ka Sing Medical Centre, University of Hong Kong. You can find out how bad Hong Kong it is by peeping into the following articles.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/in... What's more? Hong Kong has the daily Air Pollution Index of average more than 100 in the city core areas. It is far away from the WHO's standard of 30 API. I think you can find out your answers in the above-noted articles from different websites.

Answer 4

Neither the measured warm year of 1998 nor the measured cool temperatures from December 2007 - February 2008 are evidence for or against global warming.  Both are expected short-term noise.  It's the cumulative data of many years that is clear evidence of global warming.  When you look at a 30-year trend line (which is the standard period of climate analysis long used in the field of meteorology) there is no doubt that we are warming.

All the PDO may (or may not, as it's too early to jump to any conclusions based on one study and one model) do is shift heat around between parts of the ocean and the atmosphere.  It has no effect on the amount of new energy trapped in the planet (or total planetary heat) by the increased greenhouse gas level in the atmosphere.

Edit:

LOL, I love how the doubters pretend they are holding the "high road" now.  Until NASA (with more climate scientists than any other organization in the world) or any single respectable scientific research organization comes out and says global warming isn't real or won't cause significant problems, you are the guys in the minority without any scientific support of your position.  Global warming is a marathon event, and you guys like to claim victory whenever you think your runner has accelerated for 10 meters of distance (even though he's already 18 miles behind in the 26 miles race).

Answer 5

Stop butting your head against the wall. These guy's have been fence hopping since this started. They like chaotic system models,  based on best guesses(postulation).  Standardizing is more difficult, nature doesn't play by a spreadsheet. Yes they have missed a few anomalies, the last one caught everybody by surprise. They knew it was going to happen but not (when), or the extremity of the negative STD. Yes they do use PDO's as decadle  predictability factors, because they aren't consider short term. Lasting more then 20yrs, or longer.( NOAA) offers a good site for this, or log on to a real climate blog site with real scientist. The (ones?) on YA have a way of over emphasizing and misrepresenting the numbers...but does that really surprise you?

Answer 6

No.  You're well aware that scientists acknowledge hot sides of weather trends too, such as 1998:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

“Global warming stopped in 1998” has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Nino of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

So why pretend otherwise?

Making false claims only erodes your credibility.

Edit -

Case in point:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_o...

What researchers have concluded was happening, was that in the North, global warming and natural variability of climate were reinforcing one another, sending the Arctic into a new state with much less sea ice than in the past.

Heretic -

Why negatively characterize others?  No substantive points to make about the question or the topic?  You almost sound intelligent sometimes when you don't resort to such lowbrow tactics...

Answer 7

Bob said:

"OK, some guy has a model which spits that out. But, firstly it's just a guy with a model (as opposed to the IPCC, which is many guys with many models)...."

First: here is why multiple model agreement doesn't really mean much: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/08/why-...

Note that Gavin joins in and takes issue with a few minor points that are unrelated to the overall conclusion.

Second, the reason the IPCC does not predict the this cooling is because they are not attempting to predict short term ocean circulation influences on global climate. They don't give such changes much influence.

And this paper said that the IPCC recently predicted no warming for 20 years (I never heard that): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v45...

Eric C.

Although somewhat abrasive, your second paragraph is spot on.