Just Temperature

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:19 PM GMT en Marzo 25, 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Just Temperature:

The U.S. has just experienced an intense heat event with many records falling in the eastern half of the U.S. Here is Chris Burt’s post on the historic event. There is an excellent discussion of this event and its relation to a warming climate by Andrew Freedman at Climate Central. (Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Odds) I have a talk to give next week, and I am sure that the heat will contribute to questions. A question that has been put to me frequently in the past weeks is that should we expect such high temperatures in the future?

Usually when I talk about evidence of a warming, I talk about coherent and convergent evidence. That is, one can’t just look at the global surface temperature data and state that the planet has warmed. But if you look at the surface temperature data along with many other sources of data, then one finds that the evidence of warming is overwhelming. If you add the impacts of this warming to ecosystems, for example, the observations that spring is coming earlier over most of the land area in the Northern Hemisphere, then the evidence becomes smothering. For me and many others this evidence of warming is convincing, but it relies on pulling together information from many sources, explaining their relationships, and presentation of the information. So as people have asked me about the heat in Michigan and Maine this past week, I have thought of what I could do with just temperature. Here is the thread that I put together.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. Here is a picture of the difference from the 100 year average of temperature data from each February. It has been 324 months since there was a month below the global average temperature. (Not 324 Februarys, 324 consecutive months.) Looking at the graph, the Southern Hemisphere, which is dominated by the ocean, goes back into the 1970s. There have been Februarys in the Northern Hemisphere with little blips below average.



Figure 1: February monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Februarys. From the National Climatic Data Center.

The average in this figure is based on the entire 20th century. Therefore, if you look at the record during the 20th century, there is a balance between the warm and the cold months. This fact comes directly from the definition of calculating the differences from an average. There is a famous 1930s warm period. This warm period is present in the February time series, but compared with a later span centered around 1960, this period in not as intense. A prominent characteristic of the graph is that on the left, in the first part of the 20th century, it is cooler than the average and on the right, the here and now, it is warmer.

To go along with the February graph, I have placed the graph from August 2011. The main part of the story, that in 1900 it was cooler than in 2000 remains the same. Here, in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the 1930s warm period is more prominent and more global than in February. In is easy to conclude from this figure that the spatial extent and the temporal persistent of the current warming are both far larger than in the spurt of warmth of the 1930s.



Figure 2: August monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Augusts. From the National Climatic Data Center.


I started this article with the question is the current heat event in the U.S. what we can expect in the future? Taking this simple argument, looking at the average for the past, almost 30 years, it seems reasonable to expect it be warm. And given, the relentless increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should expect it to be warmer in the future. To expect otherwise would be betting against the average.

Betting against the average – the next plot, Figure 3, is adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) What this figure shows, for the U.S., is the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1. Comparing this with Figures 1 and 2, this evolution of new record highs outpacing new record lows occurs during the time when there has not been a month below the global 20th century average.



Figure 3: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.

The next figure I show is another version of the global difference figure. This one is calculated as differences from 1950 onwards in order to overlap with the data from the Climate Prediction Center that identify El Nino and La Nina Cycles. El Nino and La Nina are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Nino then the globe is warmer and when there is a La Nina the globe is cooler.



Figure 4: Global temperature differences with El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cool) years marked. From National Climatic Data Center.

Looking first at the La Nina years, 1985, the last year when the Earth was cooler that the 20th century average was a La Nina year. One could say that this was the last year when the variation associated with La Nina was strong enough to counter the warming trend enough for the Earth to appear “cool.” What is striking is that the La Nina years in the past three decades are systematically warming. This suggests that in the La Nina cool period, we are seeing a warmer and warmer background, average, temperature evolving.

The warm phase of this variation does not paint as easy a picture. The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino famously raised the Earth’s temperature to a point that many argue was the warmest year observed. The subsequent El Nino events are not as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino, and each one has temperature maximum that flirts with the 1998 maximum. It is important to note that in 1998 the entire positive anomaly of temperature was not due to the presence of El Nino. The El Nino events take place on a background of increasing temperature, and each event is a burst towards new historic highs in temperature. It is useful to look back earlier in the graph, say 1970 and earlier, to get an idea of the size of variation that can be associated with El Nino and La Nina.

Returning again to the question posed in the beginning, can we expect to regularly see such warm temperatures going forward? Yes, it makes sense that we will see more and more record high temperatures. To not expect that is to bet against the emerging observed trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that is a metric of the warming climate.

I will finish this just temperature story with a map of the Plant Hardiness Zones. Here is the official version from the US Department of Agriculture with an service that lets you pick out your zip code. I show a map of Michigan. In 1990 the green zones, 6, were down around the Ohio River in southern Ohio. This is a measure of not only warming, but also of the definitive changes in the onset of spring. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012.



Figure 5: Plant hardiness zones in Michigan for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.

We have just experienced in the U.S. a record extreme heat event. This raises the natural questions of climate, weather, and climate change. I have linked a couple of excellent discussions of these issues in the opening paragraph. What I have done in my article is to focus simply on temperature. I have laid out a thread that starts from the globe and the remarkable observation that we have not seen a month below the 20th century global average in more than 25 years. This I followed with the observation that we are in a time when we are setting more than twice as many record highs as record lows. After that I discussed the role of one of the most prominent forms of planetary temperature variations, El Nino and La Nina. The compelling point from this graph was that in the past 30 years during the cool phase, La Nina, the planet shows a warming trend. Finally, I introduce the plant hardiness zones, which show warmer winters, and can be translated to earlier springs. So the question that has been posed to me last week, can we expect such high temperatures in the future? Yes. If we use our experience and observations for the basis of decision making, then the rational answer is yes. We will see more records. We will see an earlier spring. We will see warmer times.


r


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 282 - 232

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting Snowlover123:


So you're saying skeptics should not question anything having to do with Global Warming?

That's censorship.





I believe that what greentortuloni is trying to say is that if you do not have strong evidence that would invalidate the AGWT, then conversations that only raise doubt will prove counter productive. The suggestion is for you to wait until you have the evidence to make a strong claim that the AGWT is invalid. No one, and I mean no one, would want someone with the evidence that would invalidate the AGWT to be restrained from making it public.

I fully understand your desire to know more about what is yet unknown. I fully understand your desire to discuss the evidence that you do come across. What I do not understand is the method you choose to present the evidence you find. You more seem to wish to make a presentation that you already have the evidence that invalidates the AGWT as opposed to having an intellectual discussion of the evidence that you do find. Questioning the theory itself is very much needed in science. The way you present the questions is key to knowing your motivations. Do you truly wish to explore the evidence or do you just wish to throw out any piece of evidence that would create a controversy? ... Did you wish a discussion of the science or do you wish to make premature claims about the science? I believe that this all that is really being asked of you to clarify for us.

Why do you think that I have made statements to you that you have failed to:

1. Rewrite the Laws of Physics

2. Turn basic Chemistry upside down

3. Invalidate the AGWT

4. Shown that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

5. Prove that man's activities have not emitted tons/day of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

What you have failed to do is to present yourself as someone that is only interested in the science and what science can tell us. ... Too controversial?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From RSOE EDIS

"04.04.2012 12:37:58 | www.wwno.org
Tulane researchers say sea levels are rising faster than expected. Gulf Coast communities from the Florida Panhandle to East Texas are most at risk. One of the authors of the Tulane study says the Earth crust underneath the Mississippi Delta is sinking, but not as fast as previously believed. But Torbjorn Tornqvist (tohr-bâ-yorn torn-kwist) says the Gulf of Mexico is rising faster than feared, and washing away more shoreline.
“Sea level in the past century has been rising about five times faster than it did in, say, the 1,000-year period that preceded it.” Tornqvist says researchers performed extensive testing in southwest Louisiana, coring and collecting samples, conducting surveys and gathering accurate elevation numbers. “Unfortunately if we look at the amount of sea level rise along the Gulf Coast in the last century it’s been somewhere a little bit over eight inches. It’s very, very likely that in the next century it’s going to be quite a bit more. And the more pessimistic predictions think of rates of magnitudes that could be as much as three to five feet.” Tornqvist says climate change that’s melting ice caps must now be considered a major local and international concern because sea levels will certainly keep rising. “States like Louisiana that are arguably going to be the first victims within the United States of climate change – and in fact you could say that we already are – we really need to step forward and take the lead in this.” The study is published in the journal “Earth and Planetary Science Letters.”"

This fellow is saying you Louisiana folks need to keep for flood insurance current. But then you already knew that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From RSOE EDIS

"04.04.2012 12:48:59 | TG Daily
Scientists studying coral off the coast of Tahiti have linked a collapse of the world's ice sheets 14,600 years ago to a sudden 14-meter rise in global sea-levels. Until now, the date of the sea-level rise was unknown. But the new evidence dates it to 14,650 to 14,310 years ago, just when the Earth was experiencing a period of rapid climate change known as the Bolling warming.
During this period, high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere warmed as much as 15 degrees Celsius in less than 350 years - possibly much more quickly. "It is vital that we look into Earth's geological past to understand rare but high impact events, such as the collapse of giant ice sheets that occurred 14,600 years ago,' says Dr Alex Thomas of Oxford University. "Our work gives a window onto an extreme event in which deglaciation coincided with a dramatic and rapid rise in global sea levels - an ancient 'mega flood'. Sea level rose more than ten times more quickly than it is rising now!" The Tahitian coral is helpful because samples thousands of years old can be dated to within plus or minus 30 years. And because Tahiti is an ocean island, far away from major ice sheets, it's close to the average of sea levels across the globe. While it's gradually subsiding into the ocean, this is happening at a steady pace that can easily be adjusted for. What exactly caused the Bolling warming is unclear; right now, the leading theory is that the ocean's circulation changed so that more heat was transported into Northern latitudes. The new sea-level evidence suggests that a lot of the water causing the sea-level rise must have come from melting of the ice sheets in Antarctica, which sent a 'pulse' of freshwater around the globe. "This is an excellent test bed for climate models: if they can reproduce this extraordinary event, it will improve confidence that they can also predict future change accurately," says Thomas."

If I'm reading this right they're saying the Earth experienced 14 meters of sea level rise in approximately 340 years. Now that will mess up your millennium.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


If it were a meteor possibly hiting Earth, the most amount of data would be needed.

That's not to say that skepticism isn't allowed for a situation like that. Alarmism would probably be even worse if scientists got the public in a panic and it turned out there was no reason for alarm.

To put it this way, I don't know what I would advise them.



Ok, fair enough.

I just get the feeling that a lot of denialists are in this argument for sport, that life long frustration at not understanding science or technical issues is being revenged with cut and paste comments and Fox News type responses.

The point wasn't that I know what to do either. I am in exactly the same boat as you: I don't want censorship, but on the other hand this isn't a game. This is literally life and death.

I guess the only answer that i have is that the debate shouldn't be done without serious thought and serious consideration.

(Specifically I am excluding most of the juvi stuff on here that usually gets posted on the denialist side, i.e. little rebel kids getting their kicks liberal bashing, but without researching your links [or believing them : ) ] , I will trust that you are serious and so don't post just to score a few feeble emo points.)
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting greentortuloni:
For the third time now, etc. etc ending with: "What would you suggest to someone in your shoes but with a different subject (i.e. a meteor that may or may not be headed to earth)?"


If it were a meteor possibly hiting Earth, the most amount of data would be needed.

That's not to say that skepticism isn't allowed for a situation like that. Alarmism would probably be even worse if scientists got the public in a panic and it turned out there was no reason for alarm.

To put it this way, I don't know what I would advise them.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
A new paper that was published quite recently (another one of those "dicey" papers since it's new.) It found a statistically significant decrease in Cloud Cover from 1954-2005 (which could further support the ACRIM composite, since Solar activity is directly and is significantly correlated to cloud cover changes. The author of this paper ruled out the cause of this decrease being due to anthropogenic aerosoles.

And the abstract is available here.

Quoting Paper:

An updated analysis of cloud cover during 1954-2005 in China was performed using homogeneous cloud cover data from 314 stations. Long-term changes in frequencies of different cloud cover categories and their contributions to long-term changes in cloud cover were assessed. Furthermore, aerosol effects on cloud cover trends were discussed based on comparison of cloud cover trends in polluted and mildly polluted regions. Frequencies of clear sky (cloud cover 80%) were observed to increase by ~2.2 days and decrease by ~3.3 days per decade, respectively, which accounts for ~80% of cloud cover reduction. Larger decreasing trends in cloud cover due to larger increase in clear sky frequency and larger decreases in overcast frequency were observed at stations with lower aerosol optical depth. There is no significant difference in trends regarding cloud cover, clear sky frequency, and overcast frequency between mountain and plain stations. These results are inconsistent with our expectation that larger decreasing trends in cloud cover should have been observed in regions with higher aerosol loading where more aerosols could lead to stronger obscuring effect on ground observation of cloud cover and stronger radiative effect as compared with the mildly polluted regions. Aerosol effect on decreasing cloud cover in China appear not to be supported by this analysis and therefore, further study on this issue is required.





(From the summary)

Significant decline in cloud cover with trend of 1.6% per decade during 1954-2005 was derived.
Occurrences of clear sky (cloud cover 80 %) were observed to increase and decline by 2.2 days per decade and 3.3 days per decade, respectively. Approximately 80% of overall trend of cloud cover is attributable to an increase in clear-sky days and a decline in overcast days.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


So you're saying skeptics should not question anything having to do with Global Warming?

That's censorship.





Huh? If you go back and read my posts, I said I was specifically against censorship. I merely asked what you thought. How is asking an opinion related to censorship?

For the third time now, etc. etc ending with: "What would you suggest to someone in your shoes but with a different subject (i.e. a meteor that may or may not be headed to earth)?"
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting greentortuloni:
However, being a sceptic in this environment does damage. There is no way around that point either. It is the equivilent of say "No Fire" in a theatre that may or may not be burning. Unless you are sure there is no fire, why say anything?

What would you suggest to someone in your shoes but with a different subject (i.e. a meteor that may or may not be headed to earth)?"


So you're saying skeptics should not question anything having to do with Global Warming?

That's censorship.



Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


There are skeptics like me who want clean energy. Not very many, but there are other skeptics like me out there.



I think most Americans (or people of other countries) who are not feeding at the oil trough want clean energy.

That wasn't the question I asked though. To repeat:

"However, being a sceptic in this environment does damage. There is no way around that point either. It is the equivilent of say "No Fire" in a theatre that may or may not be burning. Unless you are sure there is no fire, why say anything?

What would you suggest to someone in your shoes but with a different subject (i.e. a meteor that may or may not be headed to earth)?"
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
And BTW Birthmark, I was working on my long response to you, and then I just lost it because my computer closed that tab for no apparent reason!

I'll probably get to you on that long message either today or tomorrow.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
The next El Nino year--perhaps 2013--will prove to be warmer than 1998, and I'm sure that will start over; in 2015, we'll again hear, "Well, it hasn't warmed for the past 2 years." ;-)


Again, just a matter of wait and see... I'll definitely have to start questioning my stance if that's the case.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting greentortuloni:


If this was an academic question only, I wouldn't even be on this blog. I think a lot of other people feel the same way.

The problem I have is that this argument seems to be a bit out of control. I don't see this being debated well, in all honesty. It seems to be a war of attrition voer who has the most resources to quote sources and blah blah blah. It seems like something Lord Dorwin wuold have loved - on both sides, mind you, I am not singling you out for attack.

That characterization I just gave is unjust fro a variety of reasons. However, on a pop culture level it is true: denialists, who are not scientifically literate for the msot part, will jump on your debates, quote them out of context, etc.. In short, you are causing more damage. Your statements like "Well warming has always been better for us as a species than cooling has been in past history" doesn't do much to sway my opinion either.

So what is the option? Do I wish censorship? No, of course not. However, being a sceptic in this environment does damage. There is no way around that point either. It is the equivilent of say "No Fire" in a theatre that may or may not be burning. Unless you are sure there is no fire, why say anything?

What would you suggest to someone in your shoes but with a different subject (i.e. a meteor that may or may not be headed to earth)?




There are skeptics like me who want clean energy. Not very many, but there are other skeptics like me out there.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good evening, Snowlover123.

Your first graphic is by Dr. Roy Spencer. This is the same Spencer I have warned you about.


Good Morning, Rookie. :)

Dr. Roy Spencer is a qualified expert in his field, and he is not refering to anything controversial about the MJO causing large temperature changes.

Lord Monckton is an idiot, I don't think I would ever reference him.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Um, no. We're not. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, for one thing


The problem is that we were actually warming in HadCruT4 in the 1990s, wheras in the 2000s we have flatlined, so an accurate comparison cannot be made.



Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:
Patrap, that's the kind of stuff that gives me nightmares. The last thing I want is the internet following me around, aware of every move. Besides, how can I sneak up on my victims if the internet is telling them, "Birthmark and his attack gerbils are now 350 feet away. Suggest you run!"

Won't someone please think of the attack gerbils?!


Ah, so that was you with the gerbils! Bastard, those were my only pair of clean shoes.
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Rev. Elvis briefly brought this up in an earlier comment, but I thought it worth a second mention: according to an article in the journal Nature, CO2 did lead the warming after a jump start from Milankovich cycles. Abstract:

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost

Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification and an increase in global temperature of about 5 C within a few thousand years. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphere–ocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earth’s orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals

The article's lead author, Rob DeConto, clarified the article in a press release:

"'The standard hypothesis has been that the source of carbon was in the ocean, in the form of frozen methane gas in ocean-floor sediments,' DeConto says. 'We are instead ascribing the carbon source to the continents, in polar latitudes where permafrost can store massive amounts of carbon that can be released as CO2 when the permafrost thaws.'

The new view is supported by calculations estimating interactions of variables such as greenhouse gas levels, changes in the Earth’s tilt and orbit, ancient distributions of vegetation, and carbon stored in rocks and in frozen soil.

While the amounts of carbon involved in the ancient soil-thaw scenarios was likely much greater than today, implications of the study appear dire for the long-term future as polar permafrost carbon deposits have begun to thaw due to burning fossil-fuels, DeConto adds. 'Similar dynamics are at play today. Global warming is degrading permafrost in the north polar regions, thawing frozen organic matter, which will decay to release CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. This will only exacerbate future warming in a positive feedback loop.'"
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting Snowlover123:
We're into out 15th year where temperatures have not risen, according to HadCruT4, and we should probably not warm for another 30 or so years, just based off of the PDO/AMO alone.
As others have already noted, that is absolutely not true by any stretch of the imagination. Again, it's the epitome of cherry-picking to begin any temperature on the anomalously warm year of 1998, which "skeptics" have been doing now since, well, about 1999. "It hasn't warmed for the past 2 years," they said. Then "It hasn't warmed for the past 5 years." Then "It hasn't warmed for the past 7 years." Then "It hasn't warmed for the past 10 years." Then "It hasn't warmed for the past 15 years."

The next El Nino year--perhaps 2013--will prove to be warmer than 1998, and I'm sure that will start over; in 2015, we'll again hear, "Well, it hasn't warmed for the past 2 years." ;-)
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting Snowlover123:


My reason for posting here is to debate Climate Science.

My reason is not to prevent green energy from passing the legislation.

My reason is because I looked at the science and the evidence, and I found that there were tremendous uncertainties that need to be resolved before anyone can confidently say that "most of the warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases."

Is that a bad thing to look at the evidence for one's self and make independent conclusions and hypotheses off of the evidence?

A lot of people try and somehow link the future of Energy in America to Global Warming. People will use this as an excuse that pollution is not a problem and doesn't need to be adressed. I get it.

It's unfortunate that it's hard to look at the evidence from an objective viewpoint because the future of America's Energy in part has to do with if it is bad for us. It most certainly is.

The amount of pollution that we put into the air is incredible, and it needs to be stopped. It's unfortunate that big energy companies use that Global Warming is not a problem/it's not man-made to try and convince Congress that no action is required on our pollution.

It's disgusting, like pollution.


If this was an academic question only, I wouldn't even be on this blog. I think a lot of other people feel the same way.

The problem I have is that this argument seems to be a bit out of control. I don't see this being debated well, in all honesty. It seems to be a war of attrition voer who has the most resources to quote sources and blah blah blah. It seems like something Lord Dorwin wuold have loved - on both sides, mind you, I am not singling you out for attack.

That characterization I just gave is unjust fro a variety of reasons. However, on a pop culture level it is true: denialists, who are not scientifically literate for the msot part, will jump on your debates, quote them out of context, etc.. In short, you are causing more damage. Your statements like "Well warming has always been better for us as a species than cooling has been in past history" doesn't do much to sway my opinion either.

So what is the option? Do I wish censorship? No, of course not. However, being a sceptic in this environment does damage. There is no way around that point either. It is the equivilent of say "No Fire" in a theatre that may or may not be burning. Unless you are sure there is no fire, why say anything?

What would you suggest to someone in your shoes but with a different subject (i.e. a meteor that may or may not be headed to earth)?


Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Snowlover123:


Some of the heat from the oceans has already been transferred to the atmosphere via convective overturning with the MJO wave in Octant 7, so I wouldn't count on it. I wouldn't count on it with a -PDO creating more Cloud Cover globally, and making the El Nino weaker.



Probably about the same change in temperature as from February to March. The MJO is primarily responsible for these large fluctuations in temperature from month to month.





I wouldn't be too sure about that. We're into out 15th year where temperatures have not risen, according to HadCruT4, and we should probably not warm for another 30 or so years, just based off of the PDO/AMO alone.



Good evening, Snowlover123.

Your first graphic is by Dr. Roy Spencer. This is the same Spencer I have warned you about. Dr. Roy Spencer has some excellent credentials and has done some extensive work with John Christy.

The second graphic is by Jennifer Marohasy. She is a biologist. ... Sorry, but I cannot even read the graphic.

You say that you looking for all the scientific evidence that you can find concerning AGW. I suggest that you have been looking for love, in all the wrong places. Please, do some serious research on Dr. Roy Spencer, John Christy and Jennifer Marohsay before you use them to try to gain the scientific evidence you seek. Let me know what you find.

You may also come across a Christopher Monckton while trying to seek "evidence".

Christopher Monckton Revealed
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming

Guardian.co.uk Link

I don't brake for trolls !
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
We're into out 15th year where temperatures have not risen, according to HadCruT4, and we should probably not warm for another 30 or so years, just based off of the PDO/AMO alone.


Um, no. We're not. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, for one thing.

But even Hadcrut 3 shows warming over the last 15 years (1997-2011):


So, there is warming over the last 15 years, though it probably isn't statistically significant --nor should it be for such a short time frame.

Hadcrut3's well known cold bias is the reason Hadcrut4 exists. So, it's likely that the warming is at least as large in Hadcrut 4.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Patrap, that's the kind of stuff that gives me nightmares. The last thing I want is the internet following me around, aware of every move. Besides, how can I sneak up on my victims if the internet is telling them, "Birthmark and his attack gerbils are now 350 feet away. Suggest you run!"

Won't someone please think of the attack gerbils?!
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Project Glass: Google Shows Off, Teases Augmented Reality Spectacles (VIDEO)

Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127636
I just ran across this on YouTube.

Dr. Scafetta's Italian accent is awesome, lol

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
The deeper and more prolonged the La Nina, the more energy is stored in the Earth's heat sink--that is, the oceans. And this past La Nina was a doozy, so a lot of heat was stuffed into the bank, so to speak. As the earth transitions to an El Nino--even a moderate one--some of that heat will be withdrawn from the bank and released into the atmosphere, so surface temperatures will rise. And rise. And rise


Some of the heat from the oceans has already been transferred to the atmosphere via convective overturning with the MJO wave in Octant 7, so I wouldn't count on it. I wouldn't count on it with a -PDO creating more Cloud Cover globally, and making the El Nino weaker.

Quoting Neapolitan:

When you say "Global Temperatures will come crashing back down" should MJO move into the correct octant, just how deep a crash do you envision? -0.1? -0.2? Deeper? The coolest temp the world has seen in the past 11 years or so was that -0.3 in January of 2008--and it's only reached that low three months in total since 1993 (making it all the more puzzling that Bastardi and D'Aleo would have predicted it for this month).


Probably about the same change in temperature as from February to March. The MJO is primarily responsible for these large fluctuations in temperature from month to month.



Quoting Neapolitan:

I will bet you a lot of money--and that friend of yours even more--that you're both dreadfully wrong. The '10s will be warmer than the '00s, as the '00s were warmer than the 90s, and as the 90s were warmer than the 80s, and the 80s were warmer than the 70s. And the 20s will be warmer than the 10s, while the 30s will be warmer than the 20s. And 20 years from now I imagine part of you will remember this and other discussions like it and wonder, "What was I thinking?"


I wouldn't be too sure about that. We're into out 15th year where temperatures have not risen, according to HadCruT4, and we should probably not warm for another 30 or so years, just based off of the PDO/AMO alone.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting greentortuloni:


Denialists counter this argument with (as you stated) absurd arguments about the cost of changing to a renewable infrastructure.

Since you agree that we should change to renewable infrastructure as soon as possible, this leaves only the academic reason for your arguments. While your argument may be technically sweet to you, the result is counter to the progress that you want to occur.

So I don't understand your motivation. The best I can come up with is some Ralph Naderish/Tea Partish idea of principle regardless of effects... but you seem too smart for that.

So what is your motivation for posting?



My reason for posting here is to debate Climate Science.

My reason is not to prevent green energy from passing the legislation.

My reason is because I looked at the science and the evidence, and I found that there were tremendous uncertainties that need to be resolved before anyone can confidently say that "most of the warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases."

Is that a bad thing to look at the evidence for one's self and make independent conclusions and hypotheses off of the evidence?

A lot of people try and somehow link the future of Energy in America to Global Warming. People will use this as an excuse that pollution is not a problem and doesn't need to be adressed. I get it.

It's unfortunate that it's hard to look at the evidence from an objective viewpoint because the future of America's Energy in part has to do with if it is bad for us. It most certainly is.

The amount of pollution that we put into the air is incredible, and it needs to be stopped. It's unfortunate that big energy companies use that Global Warming is not a problem/it's not man-made to try and convince Congress that no action is required on our pollution.

It's disgusting, like pollution.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting percylives:


It feels better to have done it though.

Or are you writing to avoid learning about your own area? Still haven't asked around to see if your town is getting warmer too. Living in ignorance doesn't appear to be your style. You might be right though. It is very unsettling. Once you find out that warming is occurring in the neighborhood and you project forward all kinds of peaceful assumptions get smashed. You start to wonder if your grandchildren's health and well-being will be compromised by that trip to London to see the Olympics. Drat! ;>)


Well warming has always been better for us as a species than cooling has been in past history. That may change if we warm significantly in the future, and the negative effects of warming become evident.

I am obsessed with Climate Change, and I just want to debate Climate Science and want all of the uncertainties about the science to be known by everyone.

I am all for Solar Energy as I have stated before.

That's all.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Yes, it is easy to get caught up in a blog mode. CO2 was around 355 ppm in 1990. Today's CO2 level is over 393 ppm. This is nearly a 40 point increase over 21 years. This is why I suggest that the next strong, extended period of solar activity, in conjunction with a strong, extended El Nino, will probably bring about a warming of the climate beyond what we have previously observed and beyond what would be expected of such an event. Yes, we will have to wait to see if this comes to be, but I think the odds will not be in our favor.


That's certainly a possibility, if I am underestimating CO2 as a radiative forcing. Just remember, the sensitivity of the climate is very low, so you may be breathing a sigh of relief when the next El Nino does not warm the planet as much as you would have expected. The El Nino would not be that strong if one were to form, because of a -PDO, so not as much energy in the oceans would be transferred to the atmosphere to warm the surface and LT up. Of course, a -PDO will also raise Cloud Cover slightly. That in conjunction with the AMO should keep Global temperatures from rising, although the radiative forcing from CO2 is not going away, so if there are no other natural factors pointing the other way, there could possibly be very large amounts of warming for 30 or so years after this hiatus.

The latest MJO wave removed a lot of heat from the oceans as well through convective overturning, so the next Nino has less heat to exchange with the atmosphere than it did before.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

I would suggest that my reasoning is no so flawed. We know that there was rain for as long as there has been a recorded history. My making an assumption that we had clouds before 1983 is therefore not a flawed assumption. No clouds, no rain. There have been historical floods, even Biblical floods, before 1983.


Yes, there have been clouds in the past because evaporation and condensation have always occured in the past. There could have been significantly MORE clouds in the past, and they could have decreased significantly, contributing to a large portion of the warming observed over the last 100 years.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with you on this, but now, cloud cover in the tropics, prior to 1983, may very well come into play. The equatorial regions of the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans covers a large area of the tropics. While there were ships traversing these areas and they did note the weather conditions, most shipping lanes are well north or south of the Equator. WWII warships observations could probably provide us more data the the then tropical clouds than most commercial shipping lanes could, but this is just my guess. Even the vast majority of commercial air traffic lanes are well north of the tropics. Still, we are not completely void of any information from the tropics prior to 1983.


We're not completely void, but we're almost completely void. ;)

If you were to walk on a wooden bridge that had one or two wooden planks on it, it's 100 feet across, and it's 200 feet off the ground, would you walk on it?

That's how bad the data is in the past.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

I am afraid that I am not versed on this and therefore I could not even give you an educated guess on this. Once I have studied this some, I may feel comfortable enough to make a comment on this.


Look at the peer reviewed paper I posted. There seems to be a solid link between cloud cover and direct variations in solar activity. Therefore, decreasing Cloud Cover could signify that the ACRIM dataset is correct.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Not even close. When you look for the reasons that drive our climate, you would be foolish to ignore the Laws of Physics, the greenhouse effect and basic Chemistry. I did not decide what these are either. ... I am old, but not that old.


I do take the GHE into account, it may be the driver of the climate in the future for all I know. It depends on how high solar activity can go.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

I would have to go back and check, but I believe that I said that CO2 is the initiator of the climate change. I have seen no other evidence to the contrary that a rising CO2 level also saw the warming the warming of the climate. Other players, certainly, have had their influence, but you cannot just dismiss the rising CO2 levels either.


I can't dismiss CO2 as a factor, but you can't dismiss the papers I posted about the TSI in the ACRIM composite being able to explain most of the warming over the last 30 years. ;)

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

That is a rather strong claim to make based solely on past climate changes. When there have been past climate changes it has usually been the result of solar variations, orbital changes, a change in the tilt of Earth's axis, massive volcanic eruptions, a speed up in tectonic plate movement, increased and more dispersed land area causing a decreased open waters, meteor/asteroid strikes and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


So the sensitivity of the Climate has somehow changed now than it was in the past?

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Seven years is too short of a time frame to show any long term trends. We need 23 years more data to see a long term trend. Yes, on this, it is wait and see. BTW, should you choose to excel at your future career, then I suggest to not use Spencer as a source. Spencer has long been known to jump the gun on many of his studies. Just saying.


In the Climate models, the long term feedbacks diagnosed by Forster and Taylor had the same slope as the linear striations.

Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

I read somewhere that the doors of the trailers being open might be responsible. Sounds plausible enough to me.

That is an assertion that I've seen only on blogs. Again I ask, if you have a link to a peer-reviewed rebuttal I'll be most grateful. Until then I have to view such an assertion as unsubstantiated. No other way to work it.

That's the very year that I predicted that we'd see an ice-free Arctic. Barring asteroid impact, volcanoes, nuclear war, etc., I'm pretty sure that I'll be much, much closer to correct than your friend.

Okay. Say the PDO/AMO behave exactly as you expect. What will keep the global temperature from plummeting as your friend suggests?
But the fact is that they are not correct. If they were correct, then the climate of Earth is impossible to explain through a vast majority of its history.
New is dicey when it contradicts the body of knowledge. Such a paper needs to be taken with a large of amount of salt until it can be verified. (Yes, medical science, I'm lookin' at you!
The wording may (or may not) be problematic, given the fact that they were questioning scientists in their area of expertise. It's unlikely that many were confused by the questions, so I stand by my "vast majority" statement until it can be refuted in the peer-reviewed reputable journals. Speaking of which, the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed science agrees rather well with the results of the study.
A better question is what's so wrong with it that Scarfetta won't submit it for peer-review? If he's really got the goods then he should publish. He hasn't to my knowledge.
The actual label for Figure 7 is "Sensitivity of the solution for (^Tsun)(t) to different values for the parameters listed in Table 6 and for different ways of combining PMOD and Lean et al. [1995] and Lean [2000] S."

So I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying. Link to Benestad and Schmidt.
Bah! I'll bet you're a Virgo, aren't you? :^D
Why should anyone care that a useless widget appears to show something? SkS pretty convincingly demonstrated that the widget fails very quickly when tested against historical values. So the chances are extremely high that Scafetta was just playing games with statistics to get the answer he wanted.
Um, that's what he did...or rather he stopped just short of it and allowed you to make the final jump. Plausible deniability.
Because they were specially chosen to do so...providing that they really do display such a trend.
Again, it's a blog post. If he thinks he's got something then he should publish.
Didn't forget. It's just not that important. I can get cooling anywhere the Sun isn't shining. However, getting warming without the Sun is pretty difficult, don't you agree?

Doesn't need to be homogenous since local effects are also important. It just needs to be a net warming...which it is.
Goodness gracious me! Do you think that uncertainty is limited to climate science?! If so, then please take this opportunity to disabuse yourself of that notion. All sciences are rife with uncertainty. It's one of science's strengths, and charms, imo.
As for the uncertainty in this case: Well, the one thing we can be certain of is that the Sun cannot be responsible for the winter warming in Antarctica and the Arctic. That was rather my point.
Of course. But in order for that to happen, the tropics first have to warm. The tropics are not warming nearly fast enough to indicate that the Sun is involved.
Now you're rationalizing. The albedo of the high latitudes in winter doesn't matter. Yet they are displaying some of their most dramatic warming in months when the Sun isn't visible.
There have been many studies of clouds' effects on climate. They certainly play a part, but not a crucial one. And if you're shuffling towards Lindzen's iris hypothesis...well, I just hope that you're not since it's an abject failure.
CO2 concentration has increased by around 40% in the last 150 years or so. It is extremely likely that CO2 is the major cause of the warming.
The situation at the poles demonstrates that the current warming is unrelated to the Sun in any major way. That can change, one way or the other, but at the current time the Sun simply can't be responsible for very much of the warming.
Not even if we really, really want it to be.


"+" 1.37823 X 10^23, +/- 1.5%.

I removed some of your brakes (breaks) and achieved a shorter stopping point. No place else, but on the HTML highway, will you achieve these same results! ;-)

How about this? Spaces removed to conserve space. ;-)

I hope that everyone has a sense of humor, 'cause I am tired today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
I've never seen a twister do that before. It probably had an unbelievably strong updraft to get the tractor trailers to lift off of the ground.

I read somewhere that the doors of the trailers being open might be responsible. Sounds plausible enough to me.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Yep, Xandra and you both posted Krivova et. al 2009's conclusions. The model is simply flawed, because it's callibrated to a controversial composite to get the result they desired.

That is an assertion that I've seen only on blogs. Again I ask, if you have a link to a peer-reviewed rebuttal I'll be most grateful. Until then I have to view such an assertion as unsubstantiated. No other way to work it.

Quoting Snowlover123:
A friend of mine who's a B.S. Student in Atmospheric Chemistry thinks that we will see temperatures plummet in 2017.

That's the very year that I predicted that we'd see an ice-free Arctic. Barring asteroid impact, volcanoes, nuclear war, etc., I'm pretty sure that I'll be much, much closer to correct than your friend.


Quoting Snowlover123:
I think that's a bit extreme, but there will be no warming for the next 30 years, just because of the PDO/AMO alone. Other factors will determine what the climate does from there.

Okay. Say the PDO/AMO behave exactly as you expect. What will keep the global temperature from plummeting as your friend suggests?


Quoting Snowlover123:
If the Fall et. al team are correct in their premise, then there is no way CO2 caused the temperature changes over the last 30 years, as evidenced by no diurnal trend in the CRN 1 and 2 stations while temperatures went up, indicating a possible solar influence, and a possible ACRIM verification.

But the fact is that they are not correct. If they were correct, then the climate of Earth is impossible to explain through a vast majority of its history.

Quoting Snowlover123:
New doesn't mean dicey. I agree with your last two sentences though.

New is dicey when it contradicts the body of knowledge. Such a paper needs to be taken with a large of amount of salt until it can be verified. (Yes, medical science, I'm lookin' at you!

Quoting Snowlover123:
It's not a vast majority... the study you linked to that supposedly shows a consensus... the Doran and Zimmerman study is flawed. This is because of the wording, as I said with the most fundamental question.

The wording may (or may not) be problematic, given the fact that they were questioning scientists in their area of expertise. It's unlikely that many were confused by the questions, so I stand by my "vast majority" statement until it can be refuted in the peer-reviewed reputable journals. Speaking of which, the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed science agrees rather well with the results of the study.

Quoting Snowlover123:
It actually wasn't Dr. Pielke. It was Dr. Scafetta that created the image on a guest web post on Pielke's blog.

So what's wrong with Scafetta's analysis? There must be something wrong if you are going to dismiss it so easily.

A better question is what's so wrong with it that Scarfetta won't submit it for peer-review? If he's really got the goods then he should publish. He hasn't to my knowledge.

Quoting Snowlover123:
But the fact that the Solar constant on the Benestad and Schmidt paper goes down at the same time TSI goes up, is troubling for one who would want to use it as evidence.

The actual label for Figure 7 is "Sensitivity of the solution for (^Tsun)(t) to different values for the parameters listed in Table 6 and for different ways of combining PMOD and Lean et al. [1995] and Lean [2000] S."

So I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying. Link to Benestad and Schmidt.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I'm not supporting Scafetta's harmonic oscilaltion climate model.

Bah! I'll bet you're a Virgo, aren't you? :^D

Quoting Snowlover123:
What I am supporting is the fact that his widget shows the temperature falling out of the confidence range of the IPCC.

Why should anyone care that a useless widget appears to show something? SkS pretty convincingly demonstrated that the widget fails very quickly when tested against historical values. So the chances are extremely high that Scafetta was just playing games with statistics to get the answer he wanted.

Quoting Snowlover123:
That's not cherry picking... if he were cherry picking he would have knowingly selected a tiny portion of the data and compared it to the whole portion of the data.

Um, that's what he did...or rather he stopped just short of it and allowed you to make the final jump. Plausible deniability.

Quoting Snowlover123:So what's the reason for the more urbanized stations displaying a significantly steeper temperature trend than the non-urbanized stations?

Because they were specially chosen to do so...providing that they really do display such a trend.

Again, it's a blog post. If he thinks he's got something then he should publish.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Here's the other portion you forgot to bold:

but we also find significant winter cooling over half of East Antarctica.

Didn't forget. It's just not that important. I can get cooling anywhere the Sun isn't shining. However, getting warming without the Sun is pretty difficult, don't you agree?

Quoting Snowlover123:Quoting Snowlover123: We find the largest winter tropospheric warming of about 0.6 K/decade for 1979–2005 between 120°W and 180°W. Homogeneous winter tropospheric warming over Antarctica from the ERA-40 reanalysis is not supported by the MSU observations.

Doesn't need to be homogenous since local effects are also important. It just needs to be a net warming...which it is.

Quoting Snowlover123:They also say this in the actual paper, not abstract:

While much of the tropospheric cooling in the
summer and fall seasons can be accounted for by the
strengthening of the SAM, it is still unclear how much of
the winter and spring warming is related to increases in
greenhouse gases and/or changes in local circulations.

Additionally, the large stratosphere warming occurring
between June and November warrants future observational
and modeling study
.


So it seems like you can't make conclusions off of this, since it is uncertain. Why does this word keep constantly coming up when talking about Climate Science?

Goodness gracious me! Do you think that uncertainty is limited to climate science?! If so, then please take this opportunity to disabuse yourself of that notion. All sciences are rife with uncertainty. It's one of science's strengths, and charms, imo.

As for the uncertainty in this case: Well, the one thing we can be certain of is that the Sun cannot be responsible for the winter warming in Antarctica and the Arctic. That was rather my point.

Quoting Snowlover123:
A lot of heat is transferred from the Tropics to across the globe through oceanic currents and advecting air masses.

Of course. But in order for that to happen, the tropics first have to warm. The tropics are not warming nearly fast enough to indicate that the Sun is involved.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The Tropics also don't have large amounts of albedo decreasing with warming across the globe, which is another reason why they aren't warming as fast.

Now you're rationalizing. The albedo of the high latitudes in winter doesn't matter. Yet they are displaying some of their most dramatic warming in months when the Sun isn't visible.

Quoting Snowlover123:
That's why Tropical Cloud Cover is so crucial, and the recent large decrease in Tropical Low Cloud Cover has significant implications for Climate Change. These decreases are probably from the sun, as the sun directly can cause changes in Cloud Cover.

There have been many studies of clouds' effects on climate. They certainly play a part, but not a crucial one. And if you're shuffling towards Lindzen's iris hypothesis...well, I just hope that you're not since it's an abject failure.

Quoting Snowlover123:
That's impacted by a lot of things other than CO2, since Water Vapour and Cloud Cover are both significantly stronger Greenhouse Gases than CO2. If anything, it proves the GHE skeptics wrong about there not being a Greenhouse Effect

CO2 concentration has increased by around 40% in the last 150 years or so. It is extremely likely that CO2 is the major cause of the warming.

The situation at the poles demonstrates that the current warming is unrelated to the Sun in any major way. That can change, one way or the other, but at the current time the Sun simply can't be responsible for very much of the warming.

Not even if we really, really want it to be.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Board went wonky. Pay no attention.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Hey Neapolitan, I predicted Global Temps would go up... they did go up. If the MJO goes into Octant 8, the Global Temperatures will come crashing back down.

A lot of Heat Content from the ocean got transferred to the atmosphere through convection, and was radiated out to space.


Not as much heat was radiated back into space that should have been since the GHG blanket has become thicker thus trapping more heat..........

This can regulate the GHG blanket and allow Gods good Earth to cool again and will allow us to regulate it's temperature to what we see fit .....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Global Warming May Bring More Lyme Disease, Ticks
Posted: 04/ 4/2012 8:06 am Updated: 04/ 4/2012 10:42 am


Part of a series investigating the complex links between human, animal and environmental health: The Infection Loop.

Darren Collins doesn't know life without Lyme disease. He was just 11 months old when he came home from Wisconsin's Mauthe Lake Campground pasty white, lethargic and running a fever of 105. Darren's flu-like illness eventually subsided, but a host of other troubling Lyme-related symptoms -- stomachaches, irritability and concentration problems -- have since plagued the boy, now 10.

"He's like Jekyll and Hyde," says his mom, Kristin. One moment Darren could be "happy and smiling," and the next in a "complete rage."

"He scores perfect on a spelling test one week, then gets every word wrong the next week," adds Kristin, a nurse in Waukesha, Wisc. "He wants to know why he can't be like other kids.
Member Since: Julio 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127636
Quoting Snowlover123:Hey Neapolitan, I predicted Global Temps would go up... they did go up. If the MJO goes into Octant 8, the Global Temperatures will come crashing back down.

A lot of Heat Content from the ocean got transferred to the atmosphere through convection, and was radiated out to space.
The deeper and more prolonged the La Nina, the more energy is stored in the Earth's heat sink--that is, the oceans. And this past La Nina was a doozy, so a lot of heat was stuffed into the bank, so to speak. As the earth transitions to an El Nino--even a moderate one--some of that heat will be withdrawn from the bank and released into the atmosphere, so surface temperatures will rise. And rise. And rise...

When you say "Global Temperatures will come crashing back down" should MJO move into the correct octant, just how deep a crash do you envision? -0.1? -0.2? Deeper? The coolest temp the world has seen in the past 11 years or so was that -0.3 in January of 2008--and it's only reached that low three months in total since 1993 (making it all the more puzzling that Bastardi and D'Aleo would have predicted it for this month).

The peaks get higher, and the valleys get higher, to the point that even this decade's valleys are above 1980's--and some of 1990's--peaks. I just don't envision that upward trend stopping anytime in the foreseeable future.
Quoting Snowlover123:A friend of mine who's a B.S. Student in Atmospheric Chemistry thinks that we will see temperatures plummet in 2017.

I think that's a bit extreme, but there will be no warming for the next 30 years, just because of the PDO/AMO alone. Other factors will determine what the climate does from there.
I will bet you a lot of money--and that friend of yours even more--that you're both dreadfully wrong. The '10s will be warmer than the '00s, as the '00s were warmer than the 90s, and as the 90s were warmer than the 80s, and the 80s were warmer than the 70s. And the 20s will be warmer than the 10s, while the 30s will be warmer than the 20s. And 20 years from now I imagine part of you will remember this and other discussions like it and wonder, "What was I thinking?"

I hope you'll believe me when I say this: I will derive zero pleasure from saying, "I told you so".
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting swampdooogggg:

Oh like usual, Neapolitan will be here bright and early first thing tomorrow morning blaming the utility company again that caused the damage. Hell, I'd bet there's a chance he peak in here tonight. Although it sure is interesting whenever you post you thoughts, he goes into hiding, or announces conveniently on Doc M's blog that he'll be posting sparingly the next couple days. Gee, I really wonder why that is?

It's very simple. He can't keep up with you, and he knows it. It explains to resorting to the ad hominem attacks, doesn't it? You seem to be one person he refuses to debate out of fear of getting his butt handed to him just like the first time. So it's no wonder why he doesn't want to put his gloves on and jump into the ring. I bet it's times like this when he kicking himself in the head saying to himself over and over "Dammit, why didn't I copy and paste MichaelSTL's blogs into my Excel workbook when I had the chance before he was banned?"

What a travesty I tell you.
Talking about me in the third person, are you? Tsk, tsk. That's a might cowardly, don't you think?

I'm not sure where you arrived at the conclusion that I'm somehow afraid of debating Snowlover--or anyone else here. Perhaps you're misinterpreting my lack of patience and tolerance as fear? See, certain people and groups have been throwing the same cards face-up on the table over and over and over and over and over for years, certain that this time they hold the winning hand. But I've been seated at this table for a long time, and there isn't a single argument for or against AGWT that I haven't heard or read, researched in depth, discussed ad nauseum, consulted on, independently verified or debunked, and responded to in various online and print fora. So I've dealt with every single item Snowlover has brought up too many times to count. Thus, my reluctance to wade into yet another lengthy, shot-for-shot, item-by-item battle has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with weariness.

P.S. -- I've never "announced conveniently on Doc M's blog that I'll be posting sparingly the next couple days". Never; I always come and go without publicizing it. So either a) you've gotten me confused with someone else, or b) you've attempted a lame ad hominem of your own that fell truly flat on its face. Either way, perhaps you should try another tack next time?
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting Snowlover123:
We just had a large MJO wave move through Octant 7, removing Oceanic Heat Content through convection and transferring it into the atmosphere. Therefore, the March 2012 Global Temp anomaly on UAH/RSS should probably be positive


Hey Neapolitan, I predicted Global Temps would go up... they did go up. If the MJO goes into Octant 8, the Global Temperatures will come crashing back down.

A lot of Heat Content from the ocean got transferred to the atmosphere through convection, and was radiated out to space.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Bad, of course, but it could have been much, much worse. That's what I've been watching all day.

I see a good deal was posted since last night. Some of the issues we were discussing have been discussed since in depth with other posters. So I'll note them but I won't ask you to re-state your case.


Yeah, what do you think about the tornado picking up those tractor trailers and twirling them in the air of excess of 100 feet? I've never seen a twister do that before. It probably had an unbelievably strong updraft to get the tractor trailers to lift off of the ground.

Quoting Birthmark:

I believe Xandra addressed this adequately. I understand that that didn't satisfy you, but you hold a very much minority and speculative position. However, you are correct that the issue hasn't been settled adequately yet.


Yep, Xandra and you both posted Krivova et. al 2009's conclusions. The model is simply flawed, because it's callibrated to a controversial composite to get the result they desired.

Because they couldn't refute the analysis of Scafetta and Willson, they changed models and callibrated the model to the PMOD dataset beforehand to somehow "refute" ACRIM, and the two Ph.Ds.

I understand that I hold a minority position in the climate change community, (and on this blog ;)) but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're right and I'm wrong.

Because the uncertainty still remains, there still is a chance for me to be right. I seriously hope to resolve this discrepency, along with some other future scientists.

Quoting Birthmark:

I have copied this to my hard drive and will hold you to it...okay, I didn't and I won't. I do hope you'll hold yourself to it...and I don't think you'll have to wait 30 years.


A friend of mine who's a B.S. Student in Atmospheric Chemistry thinks that we will see temperatures plummet in 2017.

I think that's a bit extreme, but there will be no warming for the next 30 years, just because of the PDO/AMO alone. Other factors will determine what the climate does from there.

Quoting Birthmark:

If...the biggest word in the English language.


Yes, and the strongest. If the Fall et. al team are correct in their premise, then there is no way CO2 caused the temperature changes over the last 30 years, as evidenced by no diurnal trend in the CRN 1 and 2 stations while temperatures went up, indicating a possible solar influence, and a possible ACRIM verification.

Quoting Birthmark:

Peer-reviewed doesn't mean correct. You have used at least one such paper that is just a couple of weeks old and that goes against the science as it is understood. That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. However, it can only be taken as speculative until such time that other scientists can read and review it.


New doesn't mean dicey. I agree with your last two sentences though.

Quoting Birthmark:

Then perform one for your claim --that is that there is an increase in solar activity over the last thirty years. You, sir, are the one who is disagreeing with the vast majority of climatologists.


It's not a vast majority... the study you linked to that supposedly shows a consensus... the Doran and Zimmerman study is flawed. This is because of the wording, as I said with the most fundamental question.

Mordinov and Willson 2003

Quoting Paper:

The 0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend
appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications
for both solar physics and climatology.


Quoting Birthmark:

If you can't, then I will just assume it is another of Pielke's blog rants with no basis in reality. (Pielke, btw, is one of those "dicey" sources I was referring to {or to which I was referring, if you insist on grammatical correctness}).


It actually wasn't Dr. Pielke. It was Dr. Scafetta that created the image on a guest web post on Pielke's blog.

So what's wrong with Scafetta's analysis? There must be something wrong if you are going to dismiss it so easily.

But the fact that the Solar constant on the Benestad and Schmidt paper goes down at the same time TSI goes up, is troubling for one who would want to use it as evidence.

Quoting Birthmark:

I understand that you didn't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. In point of fact, it was an adequate rebuttal. When Scafetta's model is run into the past it fails epically. Therefore, it can be discarded.


I'm not supporting Scafetta's harmonic oscilaltion climate model.

What I am supporting is the fact that his widget shows the temperature falling out of the confidence range of the IPCC. Skeptical Science didn't like it so they attempted to form a rebuttal for this widget, but they made a pretty poor rebuttal on the temperature falling out of the IPCC confidence range, as I have already discussed.

Quoting Birthmark:

"By requiring all three population classes to be present for grids to be used in the analysis, we get the best ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison between stations of different population densities. The downside is that there is less geographic coverage than that provided in the Jones dataset, since relatively few grids meet such a requirement."


That's not cherry picking... if he were cherry picking he would have knowingly selected a tiny portion of the data and compared it to the whole portion of the data. This comparison in this 5X5 range allows for the average temperature to roughly be the same, so trend comparisons can be made.

So what's the reason for the more urbanized stations displaying a significantly steeper temperature trend than the non-urbanized stations?

Quoting Birthmark:

If you can, please explain the portions I bolded in the above abstract. How can Antarctica be cooling in the winter if the Sun is the cause while simultaneously warming in the winter when the Sun is completely absent? I doubt it's UHI. :)


Here's the other portion you forgot to bold:

but we also find significant winter cooling over half of East Antarctica. We find the largest winter tropospheric warming of about 0.6 K/decade for 1979–2005 between 120°W and 180°W. Homogeneous winter tropospheric warming over Antarctica from the ERA-40 reanalysis is not supported by the MSU observations.

They also say this in the actual paper, not abstract:

While much of the tropospheric cooling in the
summer and fall seasons can be accounted for by the
strengthening of the SAM, it is still unclear how much of
the winter and spring warming is related to increases in
greenhouse gases and/or changes in local circulations.

Additionally, the large stratosphere warming occurring
between June and November warrants future observational
and modeling study
.


So it seems like you can't make conclusions off of this, since it is uncertain. Why does this word keep constantly coming up when talking about Climate Science? :)

Quoting Birthmark:

if the Sun is the primary cause of the current reason, are the poles warming more than the tropics? The tropics have the sun beating down on them all year, and at a much higher angle, too!


Not necessarily. A lot of heat is transferred from the Tropics to across the globe through oceanic currents and advecting air masses.

The Tropics also don't have large amounts of albedo decreasing with warming across the globe, which is another reason why they aren't warming as fast.

That's why Tropical Cloud Cover is so crucial, and the recent large decrease in Tropical Low Cloud Cover has significant implications for Climate Change. These decreases are probably from the sun, as the sun directly can cause changes in Cloud Cover.

Quoting Birthmark:

If CO2 has such a small effect, then why does the Earth not freeze? What's keeping it warm? The physics that explain the temperature historically and currently on Earth tell us that the warming is primarily due to human activity (and most of that CO2). If our theories about the current warming are wrong, then our theories about the atmosphere have always been wrong and there is another reason why the Earth isn't an 8,000 miles in diameter snowball. What gives?


That's impacted by a lot of things other than CO2, since Water Vapour and Cloud Cover are both significantly stronger Greenhouse Gases than CO2. If anything, it proves the GHE skeptics wrong about there not being a Greenhouse Effect.



Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Dr. Roy Spencer updated his website this morning with the latest warming graph reporting an increase of 0.22C over the last month. The global lower tropospheric temperature went from 0.11C below the 1981-2010 mean in February to 0.11C above that mean in March.

I imagine Joe Bastardi is feeling let down yet again; he'd been forecasting all fall and winter that the March temp would be down to between -0.15 and -0.3, making 2012 "liable to be the coolest year since the late 1990s". Of course, WUWT trumpeted that prediction, as did many other denialist sites.

When will they ever learn?

Anyway, here's a version of the graph on Spencer's site, only with a standard--and very telling--linear trendline instead of that ridiculous, cherry-picked 3rd order polynomial "for entertainment purposes only" trendline he included to fool the masses:

Spencer

Don't worry, Joe: the Great Hoped For Fantasy Global Cooldown of 20XX will get underway any day now. If only that gosh-darned warming would just get out of the way, that is...
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting Snowlover123:


Thank you very much, Rookie. :)

And to be clear, I don't dismiss the data that we already know. I just want to resolve uncertainties, regardless of what we do know about the Climate (which is a considerable foundation) but we still need to figure out where the windows go, and where the kitchen will go in the house of climate science uncertainty.


There will be many times in your life that you will need to make decisions based solely on what you know at the time. You can usually correct later, if new information dictates that an adjustment is needed. When you are dealing with the lives of the people of the world and time is short for making a decision then you need to act on what you know now. Should your decision be based on the most benign possibilities of endangering other lives, then this is a decision you will always be able to live with. This is true even if future information shows that there was a better and less harmful approach. When you act in a way that has potential to place billions of people at risk, then your decision will always come back to haunt you should you have only slightly miscalculated. Just food for thought.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


In order to average out like 2010 and 1998 did on the UAH dataset, we would have to warm VERY considerably from where we are now in negative territory to average out like those warm years averaged out.



The warming in the Antarctic Penninsula is cancelled out by most of the cooling trends in eastern Antarctica to get a statistically insignificant cooling trend.





I don't argue that you haven't seen local climate changes by your area. I respect your claim of local climate change. I argue that you cannot extend this to a Global Scale, as I have shown with Antarctica, even though the planet is warming.


So you admit that my neighborhood and the planet is warming (that's good enough for me) though you are not ready to take any of the blame or go ask a knowledgeable person about your own neighborhood.

What exactly is your point in this tome you are writing on the blog? Dodging the blame? Accepting responsibility for your share of CO2 is painful. I've changed my life considerably since doing that and it has meant some reduction in travel and luxury. It feels better to have done it though.

Or are you writing to avoid learning about your own area? Still haven't asked around to see if your town is getting warmer too. Living in ignorance doesn't appear to be your style. You might be right though. It is very unsettling. Once you find out that warming is occurring in the neighborhood and you project forward all kinds of peaceful assumptions get smashed. You start to wonder if your grandchildren's health and well-being will be compromised by that trip to London to see the Olympics. Drat! ;>)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I have a feeling that you will do well with your PhD. This also explains why you look at all of the scientific evidence concerning the climate change. I am still confused as to why you seem to easily dismiss what we do know in your quest to learn what we do not yet know. I suspect that as you gain further knowledge that you will see that the AGWT cannot be so easily dismissed. The one climate theory that persists, even with all of the attempts to disprove it. There has to be a reason for this that is beyond anyone's desires for it to persist. Would you not agree?


Thank you very much, Rookie. :)

And to be clear, I don't dismiss the data that we already know. I just want to resolve uncertainties, regardless of what we do know about the Climate (which is a considerable foundation) but we still need to figure out where the windows go, and where the kitchen will go in the house of climate science uncertainty.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Good grief, I think my post was too long to fit into one actual post.

Here's the rest of it.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Correct! I am jumping for joy! Do you also know that when methane breaks down that CO2 is one of the components produced? Are you aware that CO2 has decades of staying power in the atmosphere? Time for a little more reading, perhaps?
Your graphic shows methane levels for two regional zones. Do you suggest that this is true globally? Are you also aware that the graphic ends mid 2009? Would you like to extend this beyond mid 2009?


Yes, one near Iceland and one near the equator, just to give a general sense of the Methane releases going on.

Your link is only half a year after this graph was last updated, so there is really nothing impressive going on with your link that is somehow radically different than the graph that I posted.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Sea ice extent? The sea ice extent is variable from year to year and is largely due to winds and currents moving the ice around and temperature. Why not take a look at the sea ice volume? You know, surface area and thickness combined. We have seen an increase in the loss of volume and there is no other theory that explains this better than the AGWT. There are other forces at play, but these forces are more easily exercised once the ice has thinned. Winds, currents and warmer waters have a much greater impact on thin, broken ice than it does on thick, packed ice. Mass and friction being what it is.


No, we have modeled the decrease in volume. We have not been actually able to measurre it. The preliminary results from Cryosat-2 indicate that the PIOMAS model is running a bit on the low side of things.

How can you possibly say that a warmer current leading to the Arctic due to a positive AMO is not the driving factor of the ice decline, when I have shown to you already, that there is a multidecadal relationship with the AMO and Arctic temperatures?

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

I could cheat and simply ask for your evidence that the variability in sea ice extent is not caused by AGW. But, that it tit for tat, isn't it? First, I never said that sea ice extent was effected by factors other than AGW.


I am asking you about the DRIVER, not if something contributes or not. (The driver, by the way, is the factor that contributes the most to temperature changes in case you didn't know.)


Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Here is what you fail to to do:


Saying that AGW is not the main driver doesn't mean that I have to somehow rewrite basic chemistry and physics.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Until you have done these things, you have only engaged in circular thinking. "Yes, but...", "What if?" and "Well there are other considerations."


What we do know about the climate has absolutely zero implications for what we don't know about the climate. However, what we don't know about the climate could possibly impact what we do know about the climate, which is why these uncertainties need to be resolved.

You put it perfectly:

"You are still keeping the dog entertained. At least, for now."
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting percylives:


Let's not get too smug about 2012 yet. You may have to eat those words.


In order to average out like 2010 and 1998 did on the UAH dataset, we would have to warm VERY considerably from where we are now in negative territory to average out like those warm years averaged out.

Quoting percylives:

You can also fall victim to using too wide a brush. The Antarctic Peninsula has been warming according to most studies so let's just say some parts of Antarctica may have cooled.


The warming in the Antarctic Penninsula is cancelled out by most of the cooling trends in eastern Antarctica to get a statistically insignificant cooling trend.



Quoting percylives:

Remembering back to my own youth, I figured you hadn't lived 30 years. I'm guessing you're in the 15-19 range. No matter. But I knew everything back in those years. That's why I asked you to try to learn something from those farmers, foresters, and boatmen I mentioned. Maybe even an avid gardener who has tilled the same backyard for 30+ years can help you. See what they say. One little hint; if they tell you something you disagree with, remember they've seen it, and you haven't, so don't argue with them. Just thank them for their time.


I don't argue that you haven't seen local climate changes by your area. I respect your claim of local climate change. I argue that you cannot extend this to a Global Scale, as I have shown with Antarctica, even though the planet is warming.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting percylives:


Proofs are for mathematics, I just showed a very possible "smoking gun". The one that almost every scientist on the planet agrees on, BTW. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot what any of us say.


So have I, expect I provided evidence from peer reviewed papers to support my claims wheras you have yet to do so.

Quoting percylives:

You are the one who babbles on and on belaboring a very weak argument. Personally, I hope you are right and my grandchildren won't experience the hell I see coming for them.


It's not a "weak argument." The TSI increase on ACRIM can explain no diurnal temperature change over the last 30 years, it can explain the increasing TSI at the surface, and it can also explain the decrease in Cloud Cover, which I have posted can be directly explained by solar activity, thus strengthening the case for the ACRIM dataset even further.

Quoting percylives:

I do believe I've read that CO2 isn't the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor is.


Good, because CO2 is not the strongest Greenhouse Gas. Water Vapour ranks as number 1 as you've said, and the OLR reduction from Cloud Cover ranks as number 2. That's why it's so crucial to get Cloud Feedbacks less certain, because they play a HUGE role on the Climate.

Quoting percylives:

But again, I hope all the scientists on the planet except the one or two you quote are wrong. Good luck.


I've quoted many more than just one or two...
Member Since: Abril 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 282 - 232

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.