History of Climate Science

[IsaacNewton]

Introduction - Summary


Global Warming Timeline Timeline - Of note 1989, 2000, 2001 and forward. But well worth reading the whole thing.


Global Warming is not something anyone wants to be real. But it is. And the clock is ticking on our ability to avert the worst affects.

Even if ALL of the human produced greenhouse gases stopped being put into the atmosphere tomorrow, the effects of what is already in the atmosphere would continue for hundreds or thousands of years.

Get educated people. This isn't a political matter AT ALL.

 

[Muhammed]

^^

Spoken like a true brainwashed forumer.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lions and Tigers and Bears -- Oh MY!

2006In longstanding "hockey stick" controversy, scientists conclude post-1980 global warming was unprecedented for centuries or more. =>Modern temp's The rise could not be attributed to changes in solar energy. =>Solar variationPublic opinionInternationalSea rise & iceCO2

By 2010, it became obvious that the "flat portions" of the hockey sticks (there were MANY of them) never had the time resolution in their final state to ever show a 100 year temperature event like our current observed short warming. One of the lead HS authors said that even 200 or 400 yr events would barely be a blip.. That HStick SHAPE was a shady construct of merging modern instrumentation to analysis of ancient data that could not even SEE a blip like YOU are panicking about today. NONETHELESS -- the lies spread that our current warming was UNPRECENDENTED in the past (pick your study) 2000 yrs, 10,000 years etc. OR the lie that RATE of warming was UNPRECENDENTED.. The Proxy data used (tree rings, ice cores, mudbug shells) when averaged together in an attempt to cover the surface of the ancient earth with VERY SPARSE DATA, ------ was uncanningly BAD at measuring RATES of warming..

And what science actually says that the complex and massive climate system responds IMMEDIATELY to heat forcings like that from the sun?? Lots of storage and cycling going on. So the rather large runup in solar intensity since the Maunder Min (Little Ice Age) could VERY well have delayed effects on the steady state temp. of the surface..


2009Many experts warn that global warming is arriving at a faster and more dangerous pace than anticipated just a few years earlier. =>International

Cool.. In 2015, it's not. Hasn't been substantially increased in at least 15 years. Now, as I said before -- maybe the delays and transients in the climate system response are at work here. Along with the MAJORLY underestimated natural cycles that the IPCC has dismissed thru tortured re-definitions. But it has DASHED the confidence of MANY in the climate community. We have Dr. Muller who led the BEST study at Berkeley preaching about how natural cycles were underestimated largely by the MAJORITY of models predicting doom. He is joined by at least 2 past lead authors of IPCC who concur on that..

It's OK as a timeline.. But WAAAY too dramatic and superficial to learn anything important. We'd be FAR more informed by a series of debates which --- if you've noticed -- haven't really happened in public.

So -- What is the Global Temp. Anomaly in 2050 gonna be there Newton? What does the AGW Ouiji board say lately?

 

[Crick]

No, it was spoken like someone with an objective and informed understanding. You Mr Muhammad, make nothing but an ad hominem attack. How should we characterize that?

You seem to avoid most of the technical discussion. Do you have an opinion on carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect? To address one of Isaac Newton's points, what do you think to be the effective lifetime of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? That is, were we to instantly reduce our emissions to the levels of 1750, how long do you believe it would take to get the atmospheric levels back down to 280 ppm?

 

[flacaltenn]

Not in your timeline..

2012 -- The vast majority of model predictions for accelerated warming have failed to due a virtual pause in the warming. Scientists invent the "Oceans ate My Warming" excuse. Which to this day still does not have a plausible mechanism to match the measured ocean data. The entire massive ocean heat storage function had largely been ignored. Even by Dr. TrenBerth who lept to fame with his precariously balanced "Energy Diagram"..

Better explanations here where there IS NO assumption that man is the overwhelming culprit..

Research Research news 2013 Climate change it s only intermission
MaxPlanck revised predictions and delays...

And Here where it's NOT assumed that the climate system reacts INSTANTANEOUSLY to thermal forcings..

Stadium waves could explain lull in global warming e Science News

Building upon Wyatt's Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal's tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of 'braking,' in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes -- multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling -- evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular -- the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt's thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

"The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Previous work done by Wyatt on the 'wave' shows the models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models' inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.

"Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system," Curry said.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Ignore the people here and elsewhere that post up false information.

The science is settled. Everyone claiming 'hoax' has already been proven wrong by evidence.

The fact that they keep posting that same debunked evidence over and over points out how limited their argument is.

Ignore them. This isn't a political issue. It is a survival issue.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ignore the people here and elsewhere that post up false information.

The science is settled. Everyone claiming 'hoax' has already been proven wrong by evidence.

The fact that they keep posting that same debunked evidence over and over points out how limited their argument is.

Ignore them. This isn't a political issue. It is a survival issue.

The science is not settled... And only a left wit hack fool thinks it is. The models fail with 100% certainty and every prediction they have made has come and gone without even one coming true.

Consensus is a political term and not one legitimate scientists will use. No scientist who has any moral or ethical fiber will use the "science is settled" meme as science is the continual learning and reassessing of all things.. Only a fool with a political agenda will use this kind of deception.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Flacaltenn, just where do you find anyone of credibility stating that the climate reacts instantaneously to thermal forcings?

Mr. Billy Bob, the science is very well settled. The absorption spectra of the GHGs establishes that the more of them you put into the atmosphere, the more outgoing energy will be intercepted and retained.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ignore the people here and elsewhere that post up false information.

The science is settled. Everyone claiming 'hoax' has already been proven wrong by evidence.

The fact that they keep posting that same debunked evidence over and over points out how limited their argument is.

Ignore them. This isn't a political issue. It is a survival issue.

Are you for real? What are you propaganda minister?

Links I posted "were debunked" Newton?? Didya read them? Have you seen the bio for Dr.. Curry? For the MaxPlanck Institute? Do you know who is Dr. Muller is ?

Sorry man -- not that easy.. It's getting a tad warmer. See --- I'm not a denier now..

 

[flacaltenn]

Mr. Flacaltenn, just where do you find anyone of credibility stating that the climate reacts instantaneously to thermal forcings?

Mr. Billy Bob, the science is very well settled. The absorption spectra of the GHGs establishes that the more of them you put into the atmosphere, the more outgoing energy will be intercepted and retained.

Happens all the time GoldiRocks. Prime example is the "Forcings since 1850" from the IPCC that CrickHam so adores. In it they justified their dismissal of the rather large solar forcing since 1850, by saying that since it was in a low part of the 12 year cycle TODAY -- It couldn't be contributing a forcing to their report.

The other example is in the fiction of single Climate Sensitivity numbers that purportedly described the Entire Globe and account for FAST feedbacks and SLOW feedbacks in just one handy (useless) number..

Better Climate Science is happening. But the hype and lying is just drowning it out...

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, Mr. Flacaltenn? And just what is preventing you from posting all these new findings? You know, articles like these;

Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions


Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions


MARTIN I. HOFFERT* & CURT COVEY†



* Earth Systems Group, Department of Applied Science, New York University, New York 10003, USA
† Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94551, USA

To assess the future impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global climate, we need a reliable estimate of the sensitivity of the Earth's climate to changes in radiative forcing. Climate sensitivity is conventionally defined as the equilibrium surface temperature increase for carbon dioxide doubling, ΔT 2x. Uncertainties in cloud processes spread general circulation model (GCM) estimates of this parameter over the range 1.5< ΔT 2x <4.5°C (refs 1, 2). An alternative to model-based estimates is in principle available from the reconstruction of past climates3–6, which implicitly includes cloud feedback. Here we retrieve the sensitivity of two palaeoclimates, one colder and one warmer than present, by independently reconstructing both the equilibrium surface tem-perature change and the radiative forcing. Our results yield ΔT 2x = 2.3 ±0.9 °C. This range is comparable with estimates from GCMs and inferences from recent temperature observations and ocean models7,8. Future application of the method to additional climates in the geological record might constrain climate sensitivity enough to narrow the model uncertainties of global warming predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nature 433, 403-406 (27 January 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature03301; Received 4 November 2004; Accepted 20 December 2004



Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases
D. A. Stainforth1, T. Aina1, C. Christensen2, M. Collins3, N. Faull1, D. J. Frame1, J. A. Kettleborough4, S. Knight1, A. Martin2, J. M. Murphy3, C. Piani1, D. Sexton3, L. A. Smith5, R. A. Spicer6, A. J. Thorpe7 & M. R. Allen1

1. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
2. Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QD, UK
3. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
4. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, UK
5. London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, UK
6. Department of Earth Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
7. Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK

Correspondence to: D. A. Stainforth1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.A.S. (Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
The range of possibilities for future climate evolution1, 2, 3 needs to be taken into account when planning climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. This requires ensembles of multi-decadal simulations to assess both chaotic climate variability and model response uncertainty4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Statistical estimates of model response uncertainty, based on observations of recent climate change10,11, 12, 13, admit climate sensitivities—defined as the equilibrium response of global mean temperature to doubling levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide—substantially greater than 5 K. But such strong responses are not used in ranges for future climate change14 because they have not been seen in general circulation models. Here we present results from the 'climateprediction.net' experiment, the first multi-thousand-member grand ensemble of simulations using a general circulation model and thereby explicitly resolving regional details15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21. We find model versions as realistic as other state-of-the-art climate models but with climate sensitivities ranging from less than 2 K to more than 11 K. Models with such extreme sensitivities are critical for the study of the full range of possible responses of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas levels, and for assessing the risks associated with specific targets for stabilizing these levels.

Given what we are seeing right now, this is not a reassuring article.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Rocks this is their intent. To make it 'appear' there is debate. They will never stop no matter what evidence there is because their purpose is to delay action in perpetuity.

That's why its best to say ignore the deniers and go talk to someone at your nearby University. Educating the public is the answer.

The denial cult only has one agenda, stopping any real action on curtailing the use of fossil fuels.

I agree post up factual information as you are doing. The real evidence needs to be out there. But they will argue with any amount of evidence there is. They don't want to win or lose the argument, they simply want it to appear there IS an argument.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nature 433, 403-406 (27 January 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature03301; Received 4 November 2004; Accepted 20 December 2004



Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases
D. A. Stainforth1, T. Aina1, C. Christensen2, M. Collins3, N. Faull1, D. J. Frame1, J. A. Kettleborough4, S. Knight1, A. Martin2, J. M. Murphy3, C. Piani1, D. Sexton3, L. A. Smith5, R. A. Spicer6, A. J. Thorpe7 & M. R. Allen1

1. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
2. Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QD, UK
3. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
4. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, UK
5. London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, UK
6. Department of Earth Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
7. Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK

Correspondence to: D. A. Stainforth1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.A.S. (Email: [email protected]).



Topof page
The range of possibilities for future climate evolution1, 2, 3 needs to be taken into account when planning climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. This requires ensembles of multi-decadal simulations to assess both chaotic climate variability and model response uncertainty4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Statistical estimates of model response uncertainty, based on observations of recent climate change10,11, 12, 13, admit climate sensitivities—defined as the equilibrium response of global mean temperature to doubling levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide—substantially greater than 5 K. But such strong responses are not used in ranges for future climate change14 because they have not been seen in general circulation models. Here we present results from the 'climateprediction.net' experiment, the first multi-thousand-member grand ensemble of simulations using a general circulation model and thereby explicitly resolving regional details15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21. We find model versions as realistic as other state-of-the-art climate models but with climate sensitivities ranging from less than 2 K to more than 11 K. Models with such extreme sensitivities are critical for the study of the full range of possible responses of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas levels, and for assessing the risks associated with specific targets for stabilizing these levels.

Given what we are seeing right now, this is not a reassuring article.

Given what were seeing now, Which is COOLING and has been for 10 years, your full of shit and they are shown incorrect.

No wonder why your side is so giddy about making absurd and illogical adjustments to all data sets.

 

[Crick]

The Earth has NOT been cooling.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The 'cooling' misinformation has already been debunked by science.

Again, deniers aren't interested in solution. They are only interested in obfuscation.

 

[flacaltenn]

Really, Mr. Flacaltenn? And just what is preventing you from posting all these new findings? You know, articles like these;

Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions


Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions


MARTIN I. HOFFERT* & CURT COVEY†



* Earth Systems Group, Department of Applied Science, New York University, New York 10003, USA
† Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94551, USA

To assess the future impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global climate, we need a reliable estimate of the sensitivity of the Earth's climate to changes in radiative forcing. Climate sensitivity is conventionally defined as the equilibrium surface temperature increase for carbon dioxide doubling, ΔT 2x. Uncertainties in cloud processes spread general circulation model (GCM) estimates of this parameter over the range 1.5< ΔT 2x <4.5°C (refs 1, 2). An alternative to model-based estimates is in principle available from the reconstruction of past climates3–6, which implicitly includes cloud feedback. Here we retrieve the sensitivity of two palaeoclimates, one colder and one warmer than present, by independently reconstructing both the equilibrium surface tem-perature change and the radiative forcing. Our results yield ΔT 2x = 2.3 ±0.9 °C. This range is comparable with estimates from GCMs and inferences from recent temperature observations and ocean models7,8. Future application of the method to additional climates in the geological record might constrain climate sensitivity enough to narrow the model uncertainties of global warming predictions.

someone better be narrowing the range of climate sensitivities. Otherwise we will never know if we are gonna warm up or broil by 2050. But I doubt that you are gonna resolve a SINGLE MINDLESS NUMBER that purports to represent the entire globe and the dozens of ultra complex feedbacks that make ip climate sensitivity..

Lets discuss. You think a single number describes the entire short term and long term effects of feedbacks and storage and delays for every climate zone on the planet? Think those descriptions are LIKELY to come from paleo studies or actual thermo analysis of observed heat flows?

 

[Old Rocks]

Rocks this is their intent. To make it 'appear' there is debate. They will never stop no matter what evidence there is because their purpose is to delay action in perpetuity.

That's why its best to say ignore the deniers and go talk to someone at your nearby University. Educating the public is the answer.

The denial cult only has one agenda, stopping any real action on curtailing the use of fossil fuels.

I agree post up factual information as you are doing. The real evidence needs to be out there. But they will argue with any amount of evidence there is. They don't want to win or lose the argument, they simply want it to appear there IS an argument.

Very true, however, we will never convince them, no matter what evidence is presented. It is the lurkers, the people that have not yet seen the evidence that we must post the scientists findings for. It is as Professor Cook states.

 

[IanC]

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, Mr. Flacaltenn? And just what is preventing you from posting all these new findings? You know, articles like these;

Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions


Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions


MARTIN I. HOFFERT* & CURT COVEY†



* Earth Systems Group, Department of Applied Science, New York University, New York 10003, USA
† Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94551, USA

To assess the future impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global climate, we need a reliable estimate of the sensitivity of the Earth's climate to changes in radiative forcing. Climate sensitivity is conventionally defined as the equilibrium surface temperature increase for carbon dioxide doubling, ΔT 2x. Uncertainties in cloud processes spread general circulation model (GCM) estimates of this parameter over the range 1.5< ΔT 2x <4.5°C (refs 1, 2). An alternative to model-based estimates is in principle available from the reconstruction of past climates3–6, which implicitly includes cloud feedback. Here we retrieve the sensitivity of two palaeoclimates, one colder and one warmer than present, by independently reconstructing both the equilibrium surface tem-perature change and the radiative forcing. Our results yield ΔT 2x = 2.3 ±0.9 °C. This range is comparable with estimates from GCMs and inferences from recent temperature observations and ocean models7,8. Future application of the method to additional climates in the geological record might constrain climate sensitivity enough to narrow the model uncertainties of global warming predictions.

someone better be narrowing the range of climate sensitivities. Otherwise we will never know if we are gonna warm up or broil by 2050. But I doubt that you are gonna resolve a SINGLE MINDLESS NUMBER that purports to represent the entire globe and the dozens of ultra complex feedbacks that make ip climate sensitivity..

Lets discuss. You think a single number describes the entire short term and long term effects of feedbacks and storage and delays for every climate zone on the planet? Think those descriptions are LIKELY to come from paleo studies or actual thermo analysis of observed heat flows?

No, of course a single number does not describe the effects of that number. However, we do have an idea of the magnitude of the changes represented by that number. And the larger the number, the larger the magnitude of the changes.

That we have a wide range of numbers for the sensitivities simply shows that we are do not yet have a good grasp on the feedback mechanisms. The first time I heard a lecture on global warming was in a geology class in the mid '60's. It was presented by a post grad student, and when he finished, the instructor stated that while the young man's evidence was well presented, it was still a very debatable area, and that it was unfortunate that none of us would live long enough to see any of the preditions come true. Virtually all of the predictions he made, including the opening of the Northwest Passage have come true already. And that is the part of the warming that is most worrisome. Many of the effects of the warming have come at a much earlier time than the serious scientists predicted.

The Greenland Ice Cap is melting at a rate that was not even considered possible two decades ago. We now find that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is in irreversable breakup according to the scientists studying it. 2014 was one of the four warmest years on record, in spite of being mostly ENSO neutral. This year looks to beat 2014 by a good deal. Just how much depends on how warm the ongoing El Nino is. At present, that El Nino looks like it will continue into 2016. I think that before this year is out, a great many people will have seen the changes that the warming is creating up close and personal.