New NOAA Research Puts Global Warming 'Hiatus' in Doubt

[Boston Bread]

The correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not direct. The majority of warming that is predicted in the long run is through feedback cycles. The climate sensitivity to CO2 alone is about 1 degree Celsius for every doubling of CO2 concentration. That's well in line with the minute amount of warming observed so far, and the rate is small enough that decade long trends in ocean currents and solar output can halt or even reverse warming for moderate periods of time. What is unsettled is the climate sensitivity including the feedback factors I mentioned earlier. 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 is the most commonly cited figure. These factors won't become significant until 1) the warming is significant enough (2 degrees is a commonly referenced tipping point for some) and 2) after enough time for the environment to reach a new equilibrium under the new temperatures.

The point of reducing emissions now is to prevent significant warming to happen in the future, and by that I'm talking closer to the end of the century when these feedback cycles will increase the rate of warming significantly. Snowguy's representations of what climate scientists believe are not at all accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You imply as if the temperature immediately after is somehow evidence against climate models. But the majority of warming expected comes well after the release of emissions. So it doesn't mean anything.

[Boston Bread]

All of those urban heat islands in the Pacific are really something, eh?



Next you'll be telling me the data is falsified.

And the average is compared to 1981-2010 so this also compares against some of the warmest years like 1998 (but also cooler years, which is what an average should be!)

[Boston Bread]

If someone actually did debunk climate change, they should be getting tons of awards.

[Boston Bread]

By "debunking climate change" I'm referring to those like Snowguy who don't accept current scientists' findings on climate change. What they have are the best model we have now of how the climate will respond to emissions and if someone discovered that a model that does not predict significant warming is superior by all means they should be recognized by the scientific community.

Skeptics aren't unified though. You can find some who deny any warming caused by human emissions.

When did I talk about central planning? Who are these central planners?

[Boston Bread]

I fully realize there is smoothing, that's why the graph is made of chunks instead of having a continuous temperature gradient. But do notice how little correlation there is between being close to a city and temperature deviation. Including places well over a thousand km from a major city, like in the middle of the ocean. And the regions with the most warming are the poles, so if they were included the map would be even more strikingly red. No big cities in any sort of proximity there either.

You don't have the full story on feedback cycles. Negative feedback such as ocean absorption of CO2 are more dominant under a small change in CO2 and temperature. In the case of the ocean as CO2 increases there will be a limit to how much CO2 the ocean can hold so this negative feedback decreases as CO2 emissions rise. Couple that with the fact that the most severe positive feedback (permafrost, albedo, forest loss - which if fully activated would produce a stronger effect than the CO2 contributed by humans) do not become significant until the warming is significant (2 degrees C ish) means that it is reasonable to expect the current insignificant feedback to become largely positive if global temperatures are not kept under that.

Here's a source on climate sensitivity being 1 degree for CO2 only and 1.5-4.5 degrees including feedback. So even under the lowest sensitivity bound it only takes ~700ppm to reach 2 degrees of warming (a good chunk of the emissions at that point wouldn't be from human sources but melting permafrost and the like so it's under that in reality).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23950-leaked-ipcc-report-doesnt-let-us-off-the-hook.html#.VXaDSmRViko

I have never heard of the solar constant. But the effects of solar cycles on climate is well documented by the same climate science that is being disputed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html#.VXaEUGRViko

If you want to counter climate science findings, at least try to counter the actual research instead of caricatures of climate science which do not exist outside your thought bubble.

And enough with this belittling talk of "dogma" or "politicizing", it makes you sound like a tinfoil-wearing crackpot. Is presenting research or data politicizing?

[Boston Bread]

It's also wrong to say climate models are overestimating recent warming (or lack of) significantly.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-models-predict-warming-20150128-story.html
Predicting warming over a decade as of now isn't problematic, especially since not a lot of warming is in store in the near future. The uncertainty is much higher over a period of a century due to feedback cycles.