Next decade may see rapid warming, not cooling 8

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 4:26 am
   04 May 2008

   Noticed this only applied to N. Hemisphere......did the study exclude the southern hemisphere?

   Permalink

2. 

   EarthlingAngst Posted 11:52 am
   04 May 2008

   Confusion about climate 'cooling'Thanks for clearing this up. Whatever the temperature does over the next few years, carbon dioxide will continue to pour into the atmosphere, and 10 years from now will likely be at least 410 parts per million. We're at 385 now and last year the increase was 2.4 ppm. Assuming that rate (and it may well accelerate), we'll add close to 25 ppm in the next 10 years. That's dangerously close to the level assumed to be catastrophic. In fact some, like James Hansen of NASA, say we should get back down to 350.
   
   EarthlingAngst

   Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 1:18 pm
   04 May 2008

   They Blinded you With Science
   
   Here's what they are saying:
   (1) They cannot believe that the AGW religion has been proven false.   CO2 is at super highs -- out of reach of Al Gore's EZ-Lift...yet temperatures are not rising.  
   a. The IPCC is wrong.
   
   b. Al Gore is wrong.
   
   c. Joseph Romm is wrong.
   (2) They expect cooling -- but then, they say that they expect tons of warming to help the data catch up to the fallacious IPCC scenario.
   (3) This gives them 5 years of backpedaling while they stand around with egg on their face.
   (4) In five years, they will claim that overuse of Orbit gum is responsible for continuing to keep temperatures down.    
   
   Texeme.Construct(Participant)

   Permalink

4. 

   sindark Posted 12:09 am
   05 May 2008

   Keenlyside et al.While such studies are clearly important for increasing our understanding of the climate system, there is a big danger of misunderstanding them - whether wilfully or not. Plenty of people would interpret a decade of flat or falling temperatures as strong evidence that the climate change consensus is wrong. It provides new fodder for those intentionally seeking to confuse the issue, as well as new grounds for confusion among those who are genuinely trying to understand the situation. Of course, we cannot ask for science to always emerge in ways that help people deal with it appropriately. It would be pretty tragic if a brief but poorly timed deviation from the warming trend helped to undermine the case for action at the very time when we must begin the long and difficult task of building a low-carbon world.
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

5. 

   Bob Tisdale Posted 4:33 am
   05 May 2008

   Confusion?Joseph Romm:  Your comments about "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" mention that CO2 levels have "wildly outpaced" the CO2 growth of the referenced model scenarios.  You failed to mention the Keenlyside statement on page 4 ("Nature" page 87) that notes that if greenhouse gases grew or were frozen at 2000 levels, it had little impact on their forecasts:  "To investigate the sensitivity of the predictions to greenhouse gas forcing only, the two forecasts were repeated assuming that greenhouse gases were stabilized at year 2000 values. The predictions for the MOC and surface temperature remain basically unchanged. Thus, in the near future, natural decadal variability in the Atlantic and Pacific may not only override the regional effects of global warming, but temporarily weaken it."  To reinforce the above, the following are the "Nature" links to Figures 3 and 4 of Keenlyside et al.  Most of the projected trends are flat or declining from 2005 through 2010, their "decadal scale" forecast, including the models that included greenhouse gases.
   
   Figure 3:
   
   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/fig_tab/n ...
   Figure 4:
   
   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/fig_tab/n ...
   Your comments here also seem to miss the overall intent of the paper.  In terms that most non-technical readers would feel comfortable with, temperature, the Keenlyside et al letter to "Nature" clearly deals with the model-predicted stabilization and reduction, over a future ten year period:
   
   1.In the temperature difference in the Atlantic Ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) between Northern and Southern Hemispheres (what Keenlyside et al refer to as "Atlantic SST dipole");
   
   2.In European surface air temperature (SAT);
   
   3.In North American SAT;
   
   4.In Eastern Tropical Pacific SST; and
   
   5.In global temperature;
   
   all resulting from the anticipated return of the natural oscillation in Atlantic Ocean temperature and flow, called Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC), to its 1950 to 2005 mean.  Recall the title of Keenlyside et al: "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector".  These are predictions or forecasts for the next decade.
   I downloaded Figures 3(cells b through d) & 4 from the paper, and highlighted the projected decreases in temperature where the Keenlyside et al froze greenhouse gas levels.  Refer to:
   
   Figure 3: http://i26.tinypic.com/e9j4tv.jpg
   
   Figure 4: http://i31.tinypic.com/263k2sz.jpg
   Eyeballing them, over 10 years, with greenhouse gas levels frozen, Keenlyside et al are predicting the following changes in temperature due to the natural reduction in Atlantic MOC:
   
   Atlantic SST Dipole = -0.25 deg C
   
   European SAT = -0.32 deg C
   
   North American SAT = -0.3 deg C
   
   Eastern Tropical Pacific SST = -0.03 deg C
   
   Global Temperature = -0.04 deg C
   The European and North American surface air temperature drops are significant.
   Why are the forecasts with frozen greenhouse gas levels important? They identify the contribution of a natural component of climate change and could be used to imply the significant percentage that one single component, the Atlantic MOC, had on climate in the past--the last 10 years, 30 years.
   That is, did the Keenlyside et al models indentify one-third of the contributions of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as it rose from its trough 30 years ago?  A global temperature variation of 0.12 deg C (0.04*3) is in line with the values identified in a Knight et al paper (Reference 14 in Keenlyside et al), and in line with the implied contribution identified by RealClimate in their glossary on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, "This pattern is believed to describe some of the observed early 20th century (1920s-1930s) high-latitude Northern Hemisphere warming and some, but not all, of the high-latitude warming observed in the late 20th century."
   
   Knight et al paper:
   
   http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/KnightetalG ...
   Real climate glossary page on AMO:
   
   http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=38
   There might be other natural year-to-year and decadal variations that could override those reductions, from El Nino/La Nina episodes, from changes in solar irradiance, from stratospheric volcanic aerosols, from natural variations in Pacific SST known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (North Pacific) and the Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation (basin-wide), but those are the impacts the authors forecast from the natural variable of Atlantic MOC.
   
   

   Permalink

6. 

   Black Wallaby Posted 4:34 pm
   06 May 2008

   Confusion? How about the evidence?Nice work Bob T!
   
   Twas a bit scientific though for the clientelle here!
   I'll throw-in my tuppeth though......wasted though it may be:
   
   Hands up anyone who has studied the 2003 paper of:  L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin!  (K & L)
   No?  Well what they did was show very logically, back in 2003 that there is an ~60-year low signal in climate fluctuation, with another peak commencing at about that time.  (prior to publishing in 2003)  Guess what?   In 2008, the evidence for that is looking much stronger.  It is good news if it continues to be true for the next 60 years!;
   
   
   People worried about New York swamped by tidal waves will have a reprieve
   
   Scientists worried about the potential return of a "Little Ice Age", eg...... Re: solar cycle 24 has gone all funny, and the PDO etc,  may perhaps gain comfort from (K & L)
   
   
   Anyway, see my updated mark-up of Fig 5 in (K & L)'s paper.
   
   Let's hope they are right, because it appears to be very good news!
   
   We can survive a bit of cold over the next 30 years or so!
   http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2473007422_0f83ed191d ...
   Source is identified thereon
   Regards, BobFJ  (Black Wallaby)

   Permalink

7. 

   Black Wallaby Posted 4:56 pm
   06 May 2008

   HemisphericalsTasermons Partner wrote in Comment #1
   "Noticed this only applied to N. Hemisphere...
   
   ...did the study exclude the southern hemisphere?"
   Why worry? We all know that the SH is already colder than the NH....you know, with record sea-ice coverage currently, annat.
   BTW, I don't know why, but I associate you with an antipodean marsupial, popular name Tassie Devil, or Tasmanian Devil.  It makes blood-curdling screams and growls, and is considered to have the most powerful bone crushing jaws of any mammal.  Paradoxically though, they are said to have a docile temperament with human carers whom think they are lovely and cuddly.
   I would like to see you change your nickname to "Tassie Devil"
   Regards, a fellow marsupial, sometimes known as BobFJ  

   Permalink

8. 

   Black Wallaby Posted 6:11 pm
   21 May 2008

   Some answersTasermons Partner asked a question above at click here:
   http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/115552/7430#com ...
   And a response and other interesting stuff followed.
   Wherfore fart thou TP
   
   

   Permalink