Doubleplusgood doublespeak

I just read a summary of a report from NOAA that climate change has tipped and, even if we abruptly stopped producing CO2, we are in for 1,000 years of climate change. 

I can top this report, written by a straight-faced chemist whose entire career is publishing about meteorology.  I say we are in for 200,000 years of climate, maybe even longer. You can take that to the bank.

But what of NASA's notion that the cooling trend shows (a correlation, you see) greenhouse gases rate (CO2 being a deadly green house gas) is down. 

NASA GISS explains below, do read it as I took the time to point out the use of propaganda's false logic, the variables that tricked them into incorrect prognostications. The sun, it seems, has a little input - now. But, don't worry, they predict, the terror will return. You can't hold a good religion down:

However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO₂ increase at current growth rates. So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case

My, the negative forcing. What a concept.

Please peruse the following. It is interesting and probably contains some numbers not created by politicians. Can't say I understand the pontificating as being very scientific. It is fun to see people doing back flips.

Please note, also, that the

Annual growth rate of climate forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) slowed from a peak close to 0.05 W/m² per year around 1980-85 to about 0.035 W/m² in recent years due to slowdown of CH₄ and CFC growth rates [ref. 6].

Lest you be concerned that green house gases are declining, which is the guess of all guesses, NASA predicts a growth in methane will get us back on track. You wonder if they listen to themselves. I have to go out an fart some more.

Oh, W/m² per year is watts per square meter squared per year. So, it must be NASA did not actually measure the "gases", but uses warming, represented by watts, as the clear indicator of the gases, as there is no question CO2, for example, causes warming. Thus, if it is warmer, then the gases caused it. I got it. A direct relationship is obvious as are all causations.

Also, if the rate slowed, the climate should not get cool, should it, just stop doing whatever they say it is, so fast? 

My last comment is there no consideration given to undersea volcanoes. Must also have negligible impact, like the sun and volcanic debris in the sky. 

....Finally, in response to popular demand, we comment on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record. Specifically, the question has been asked whether the relatively cool 2008 alters the expectation we expressed in last year's summary that a new global record [new global record!  Think about that] was likely within the next 2-3 years (now the next 1-2 years). Response to that query requires consideration of several factors: [here it comes, but we will be out of Iraq in 18 or 16 months from someday.] 

Natural dynamical variability: The largest contribution is the Southern Oscillation, the El Niño-La Niña cycle. [doesn't the sun govern here?] The Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (the bottom line in the top panel of Fig. 2), suggests that the La Niña may be almost over, but the anomaly fell back (cooled) to -0.7°C last month (December). It is conceivable that this tropical cycle could dip back into a strong La Niña, as happened, e.g., in 1975. [Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my] However, for the tropical Pacific to stay in that mode for both 2009 and 2010 would require a longer La Niña phase than has existed in the past half century, so it is unlikely. [Tut, tut] Indeed, subsurface and surface tropical ocean temperatures suggest that the system is "recharged", i.e., poised, for the next El Niño, so there is a good chance that one may occur in 2009. Global temperature anomalies tend to lag tropical anomalies by 3-6 months. [Global warming got derailed by some odd, natural variability they overlooked.]

Solar irradiance: The solar output remains low (Fig. 4), at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s, [proof of solar cooling] and the time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer than the prior two cycles. This has led some people to speculate that we may be entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades. Most solar physicists [ah, most of them] expect the irradiance to begin to pick up in the next several months — there are indications, from the polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning. [Whew]

Figure 4, at right. Solar irradiance through November 2008 from Frohlich and Lean [ref. 8]. (Click for large GIF or PDF.)

However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. [which assumes it is ill]  In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO₂ increase at current growth rates. [Any help here?]  So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case. [Double whew] Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, [like they expected the decrease this year] there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due (sic) to the unusually prolonged [sez me] solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, [Thus!] relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years. [So, what nature does is an anomaly.]

Volcanic aerosols: Colorful sunsets the past several months suggest a non-negligible stratospheric aerosol amount at northern latitudes. [Huh?] Unfortunately, as noted in the 2008 Bjerknes Lecture [ref. 9], the instrument capable of precise measurements of aerosol optical depth depth (SAGE, the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) is sitting on a shelf at Langley Research Center. [So, we will just guess] Stratospheric aerosol amounts are estimated from crude measurements to be moderate. [Huh?] The aerosols from an Aleutian volcano, which is thought to be the primary source, [of?] are at relatively low altitude and high latitudes, where they should be mostly flushed out this winter. Their effect in the next two years should be negligible. [being low and high and flushed and thought to be important should do something.]

Greenhouse gases: Annual growth rate of climate forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) slowed from a peak close to 0.05 W/m² per year around 1980-85 to about 0.035 W/m² in recent years due to slowdown of CH₄ and CFC growth rates [ref. 6]. Resumed methane growth, if it continued in 2008 as in 2007, adds about 0.005 W/m². [if it continues] From climate models and empirical analyses, this GHG forcing trend translates into a mean warming rate of ~0.15°C per decade.

Summary:The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance. 

So, the lesson is avoid psuedo-scientists who adopt such words as: should, suggest, as expected, it is conceivable, it seems likely, good chance, if it continues, thought to be, empirically estimates, and most scientists.

Also, I think the report means: don't blame us if our predictions are not coming true. It's the darned variables, stupid. If we only knew!

My two cents: The concept of an earth  temperature is unknowable.  How do you measure the wind of a cyclone? You can't. We guess and average. 

The earth and it climate is a massive, dynamic system and we are just sticking a thermometer out the window to see what's up.  Of course, the thermometer is no longer the same as 25 years ago, the measuring is different,  the window has been changed, and we didn't have any people around a few million years ago to create a baseline.

By the way, Columbia U, et seq.,  found solar flares to be, by far, the largest contributor to temperature and that threw off the Mann curve. That is why Mars was getting warmer in the late 90's, early 2000's. If prior blogs still exists, and I didn't see them published just now, you can find this. Think about it - space, the earth, the sun, light waves....