CO2 up, temperatures down, explain please.?

There's a lovely analogy here: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/science-made-e... about a man walking a dog on a long leash.

The short answer is, climate is complicated, CO2 is far from the only influence on climate, and the CO2 "signal" is much smaller than the "noise" from things like ENSO, PDO, and so on. But those things are, at least for the most part, not directional, they are either cyclical (going up, then down, then up again) or random. The one major climate influence I can think of other than greenhouse gasses that currently is directional, solar input, is going the wrong direction for warming.

I think the problem is that you want the science to be simple, when it's not.

Adding CO2 to our atmosphere will cause the planet to warm according to the laws of physics. You can deny that all you want, you can hope it's not true, you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't get around the laws of physics. This additional warming of our planet is the reason NASA has declared the period from January 2000 to December 2009 as the warmest decade on record.

Now, scientists have taken data and used that to determine a rate of warming and hence what temperatures will be like in, say, 2100. As new evidence and data becomes available, those predictions are revised. At the moment, the last decade's rate of warming, which is lower than was expected, would bring those predictions down.

So there are four possibilities:

1. The reduced warming rate is a temporary blip as a result of a mechanism we don't yet fully understand, but the planet will continue to warm.

2. The reduced warming rate will continue, but the planet will continue to warm.

3. The reduced warming rate will get lower and lower, eventually flat-lining.

4. The reduced warming rate will get lower and lower, eventually reversing.

At the moment, the theories we have about the nature of greenhouse gases suggest the first two are the most probable. If the third and forth occur, then there is something we seriously don't understand about our climate. But, the only way of knowing that is to continue taking data!

We can only operate on the basis of what we currently know. Everything we've observed over the past century tells us it is likely our planet will continue to warm. Therefore *that* is the possibility we have to plan for. So what would you have us do?

a) Ignore the data so far and the laws of physics in the hope that temperatures reverse and therefore do nothing to mitigate against the possibility of temperatures rising further?

b) Or plan for the more probable future in which temperatures continue to rise (albeit maybe not as fast as was predicted 20 years ago)?

That's the crux of the climate debate when you strip out the BS.

Perhaps the period from 1979 to 1998 should be attributed to natural variation?

Or maybe the rate of warming from CO2 is not as drastic as previously thought?

The claims of finding equally long period of hiatus in the temperature record is flawed. Yes, if you include the 30-40 year standstill from 1940-1980. But the climate models themselves show less than one percent of the periods of hiatus that are this long. Now after the fact, they are claiming the models are still correct because of some other factor, like ocean warming, which the models did not predict. And it is not just 1998. 2002-2013 is flat in GISTEMP. From 2001 the trend is zero. Perhaps it is not just 1998 as unusually warm, but 2000 and 2001 are unusually cold. So perhaps the planet has settled at a new plateau for a few decades, and will jump up later, for some reason other than CO2?

Clearly the model that says that temperatures will rise as CO2 is added to the atmosphere would seem to be not working.

There is a get out clause though. CO2 is causing an increase but something else is cancelling the effect. Whatever is causing the cancellation is, however, not known. Calling it "natural variation" does not constitute an explanation. What is the process of natural variation? What are its drivers? Some of the science is less settled than others.

What is interesting is how the IPCC is considering this problem. The temperatres have been flat since 1998 and the IPCC has just woken up to the fact. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:... It is now desparately trying to apply some spin to its AR5 before it is published. They have had since 1998 to spot this flattening but they seemed to have been travelling hopefully expecting no-one else would notice.

As usual, the experts Gringo and Gary F run away from the real answer. I'd say that graphicconception pretty much tells the whole story, but I would disagree that CO2 is as much of a temperature forcing than is being portrayed by the alarmists. There are nuclear physicists that have shown how CO2 has limits of warming our atmosphere and they show it mathematically.

Global average temperatures (GAT) are the result of measurements taken at a specific point in time. Measuring temperature can be very tricky. Timing is essential. I've seen (felt is a better term) temperatures drop 10F in a matter of minutes yet warming is something that takes more time to establish.

Our current global average temperature is 0.62C (Aug 2013) above the 'established' normal temperature and is significantly lower than last years GAT of 0.90C above the established normal temperature. The obvious one year trend is downward, but I know it can be very difficult to pinpoint an exact GAT.

Then again, who is the expert that says that GAT are suppose to be 13C, 14C, or even 15C at this point in time in our history? It's certainly not the people that think humans have a stronghold on average temperature increases and decreases. Those people have said time and again that they don't know why temperatures aren't continuing to increase.

Flossie, if you start at say 1999 or 2000, you dont see a level temperature, you will see a rather large rise. I am not sure who started using 1998 as the end all be all date, but its highly dubious.

@Kano, if thats true, then you will be able to explain those points in the Earths past when the temperature was much hotter (40% hotter) while CO2 was about 1/3 of its current level. Until you and the other folks like you can come up with a satisfactory answer that explains those warm periods.............

Maybe while you are at it you can explain why the planet didnt burn up when atmospheric CO2 was at 10000 ppm?

please explain how you read a lower rate of RISE as a temperatures going down.Temperatures are NOT going down.

BTW, make sure you conveniently forget to mention any lng term trend and ocean temperatures.

Read the IPCC report at the end of the month, all of it. It will have a section of this so called slow down. Then you can work on a conspiracy theory that "They" are all making up the data and fudging models for worldwide socialism.

>>BTW, you haven't, as usual, answered the question, please do so<<

BTW, you haven't, as usual, asked an informed questtion, please do so.

======

edit --

>>I would have thought that "CO2 up, temperatures down, explain please." was a fairly simple question.<<

And children think that Santa is a fairly simple explanation for Christmas presents.

In both cases, childish understandings are not reality.

=====

Zippi62 --

>>As usual, the experts Gringo and Gary F run away from the real answer.<<

What can I say - we're allergic to pathological stupidity and lying, not to mention nonsense framed as a question.

But, if you insist here is an snswer: Nonlinear, Analysis of Variance, State Space, Complex Multivariate Dynamic System, Numerical Analysis...

oddly , no , temps are up .

just for full disclosure , how much does the coal and oil industry pay you ?

There's nothing to explain Flossie other than that you lack a basic understanding of what I presume is your own language.

A 'downturn in the rate' does not mean what you think it means.

But thanks for underlining once again that many deniers suffer from functional illiteracy coupled with a large dose of 'wishful thinking'.

Edit @ Flossie:

There's nothing to explain when the premise of the question is entirely wrong. "CO2 up, temperatures down" is like saying "an apple detaches from its tree, it moves skywards, explain please?"

FYI. "lower temperature rises" is not the same as "temperatures down" as your title states.